Cape Town-based snack food manufacturer Snack Chip has been instructed to change the wording on its crisp packets — either to remove claims that they don’t contain artificial colourants, or to remove the artificial colourant references from the back of the packet if these are not contained in the product.
The instruction, laid down by the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), comes after a consumer complaint objecting to the fact that the front-of-package label on Snack Chip’s cheese-flavoured Master potato crisps declares “no artificial colours guaranteed”.
However, the complainant points out, the ingredients listed on the back of the packet include three colourants: E110, E104 and E106c.
The complainant notes that two of the colourants are synthetic products that are not derived from natural sources and are therefore, by definition, artificial colourants.
The complainant submitted that the source of E110, known as Sunset Yellow, is a petroleum-derived orange azo dye and is widely used in the food industry. The other colourant — E104 — is also known as Quinoline Yellow, a synthetic dye that does not occur naturally.
Snack Chip, responding to the complaint, said it confirmed that it does not use tartrazine (E102) or any other artificial colourants in “the manufacturing processes of our seasoning flavour products”.
It said that any reference to colourant codes such as E110, E104 and E160c on their documentation or product packaging was intended solely for identification purposes “and does not indicate the inclusion or usage of these substances in our formulations”.
Snack Chip said the codes were used for classification and traceability, and did not represent any artificial additives within their product content.
“We remain committed to providing high-quality, safe and compliant food ingredients to our customers, ensuring transparency and adherence to all relevant food safety and regulatory standards.”
The ARB considered the complaint in terms of the Code of Advertising Practice dealing with misleading claims as it states that advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation which, directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy, exaggerated claim or otherwise, is likely to mislead the consumer.
In South Africa, the inclusion of an ingredients list on food products is legislated by the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, which states the ingredients of a foodstuff containing more than one ingredient ... must be listed on any label in descending order of mass present in the end product under the heading ‘Ingredients’.
The packaging is confusing, as the consumer is rendered unsure whether the E numbers are in the ingredients. This confusion is around a material issue to the consumer, and the packaging is therefore misleading
— Advertising Regulatory Board
Enforcement of this law lies with the national department of health and not with the ARB. The ARB noted that ingredient listings are especially relevant to those with allergies or intolerances in determining whether a product is safe for their consumption and that consumers expect that the ingredient list accurately reflects the contents of the product.
The ARB directorate also determined that there are no other definitions of the listed E numbers in ingredients than those supplied by the complainant — and that both were categorised as synthetic food dyes — leading to the reasonable expectation that chemicals listed on the ingredients list are contained in the product.
However, Snack Chip supplied an affidavit from its flavour supplier stating that any reference to colourant codes was solely for identification purposes, and did not indicate the use of the substance in Snack Chips’ product formulations. The supplier further guaranteed that the product doesn’t contain any artificial colours.
The ARB noted that it was unable to comprehend why unused ingredients that contradict the ‘no artificial colours’ statement, were listed on the back of the packet — pointing out that the product cannot be both free of artificial colourants and then list these colours on the packaging.
“The packaging is therefore confusing, as the consumer is rendered unsure whether the E numbers are in the ingredients. This confusion is around a material issue to the consumer, and the packaging is therefore misleading,” the ARB found.
Based in this, Snack Chip was instructed to amend its packaging to either remove the claim that there are no artificial colours in the product, or to ensure that the ingredient list on the back of the packets are an actual representation of what is contained in the product.
Snack Chip has been given three months to comply with the order.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.