Home / Guides / Food labelling regulations in South Africa
South African food law · Labelling
Key facts
- Law in force R146, Gazette 32975, 1 March 2010
- Enabling Act Act 54 of 1972, section 15(1)
- Regulator National Department of Health
- Only promulgated amendment R1091, 19 November 2010
- Mandatory particulars Regulation 9(a) to 9(f)
- Allergen categories Eight, under regulation 43
- Sulphites as an allergen Not listed in South Africa
- 2023 document R3337 Draft, not law
Your label is a legal document before it is a marketing asset
If you sign off artwork, write claims copy or answer the retailer’s technical questionnaire, this is the four hour course that tells you what you are actually allowed to print.
Enrol in Essentials of Food Labelling Claims, R1,250
See all labelling training
SAATCA registered training centre TC No. 065, listed on SAATCA’s public register of online registered providers. No VAT is charged, so the price shown is the price paid.
What does R146 of 2010 actually require on a food label?
R146 of 2010, the Regulations Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs, was published as Government Notice R.146 in Government Gazette 32975 on 1 March 2010 under section 15(1) of Act 54 of 1972. It obliges a prepackaged foodstuff to carry a truthful name, a list of ingredients, allergen declarations, a responsible address, storage instructions, net contents, a batch code and a date mark.
The National Department of Health administers it. The only verified promulgated amendment is R1091 of 19 November 2010. Sixteen years on, R146 is still the law an inspector enforces and the document a retailer’s technical team holds your artwork against.
Where most manufacturers get into trouble is that R146 does two very different jobs and only the first one is obvious. The first job is positive: these particulars must appear, in these places, in these units. Almost everybody manages that. The second job is prohibitive: these words may not appear, these comparisons may not be drawn, these endorsements may not be shown, and this claim may only be made if you hold this evidence. That second half is where recalls, retailer delistings and section 2 problems come from, because a marketing team writing a front panel is usually not reading regulation 13.
What must appear on a South African food label?
Regulation 9 lists six particulars that must appear on the label of a prepackaged foodstuff: the name on the main panel, the manufacturer or importer or seller details, instructions for use where needed, the list of ingredients, special storage conditions, and the net contents in SI units. Regulations 10, 11 and 12 add country of origin, batch identification and date marking.
| Particular | Regulation | What it means when you check the artwork |
|---|---|---|
| Name of the foodstuff | 9(a) | On the main panel. Where the name is not a proper description of the food, it must be accompanied by an appropriate description. A brand name is not a product name. |
| Name and address | 9(b) | Manufacturer, importer or seller. For imported foodstuffs the manufacturer’s name and address must be on the label as well. |
| Instructions for use | 9(c) | Required where it would be difficult to use the foodstuff properly without them. Reconstitution, cooking and dilution instructions live here. |
| List of ingredients | 9(d) | Compiled as required by regulations 16 to 29. Descending order of mass, compound ingredients broken out, additives named by function and identity. |
| Storage conditions | 9(e) | Special storage conditions where applicable. If your shelf life was established at 4 degrees Celsius, the label has to say so. |
| Net contents | 9(f) | Net contents of the container in SI units. Grams, kilograms, millilitres, litres. |
| Country of origin | 10 | A separate obligation from the address in 9(b). Packed in and product of are not interchangeable. |
| Batch identification | 11 | The link between the pack on the shelf and your production records. Without it a recall becomes a withdrawal of everything. |
| Date marking | 12 | Best before, use by or sell by, chosen according to the food and supported by a shelf life study you can produce. |
Date marking is the particular that quietly requires the most work behind it. Regulation 12 gives you the form of words. It does not establish your shelf life, and an auditor asking how you arrived at a twelve month best before date is asking a technical question, not a labelling one. If that question makes you uncomfortable, the Overview of Conducting a Shelf-Life Study course, R799, and the related guide on how to run a shelf life study are the shortest route to an answer you can defend.
How allergens must be declared on a South African label
Regulation 43 of R146 of 2010 requires the presence of a common allergen to be indicated in parenthesis after the ingredient in the list of ingredients where it is not self evident from the name, and in a block near the ingredient list headed with the word Contains, or by both routes. The South African list is eight categories, and it does not include sulphites.
Where a product or its packaging material contains any common allergen, its presence shall be indicated, as the case may be: (1)(a) in parenthesis after the name of such ingredient in the list of ingredients, if it is not self evident from the name of the ingredient; and/or (b) in close proximity to the ingredient list in a list or block with the words “Contains: (allergen(s))”.Regulation 43(1), R146 of 2010
The definition matters as much as the list. R146 defines a common allergen as egg, cow’s milk, crustaceans and molluscs, fish, peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts and any significant cereals, as well as ingredients derived from these foodstuffs that has retained its allergenicity in the final product. That last clause is the one people miss. A hydrolysed wheat protein, a whey derivative or a soy lecithin is caught by regulation 43 if allergenicity survives into the finished product, whatever the ingredient is called on the supplier’s specification.
| Common allergen category under regulation 43 | What that means when you write the label |
|---|---|
| Egg | Egg and egg derived ingredients that keep their allergenicity in the finished product. |
| Cow’s milk | Goat’s milk is treated equivalently under regulation 44(2), so a goat’s milk cheese does not escape the milk declaration. |
| Crustaceans and molluscs | One grouped category in South Africa, not two separate items. |
| Fish | Catches anchovy in a sauce or paste as surely as it catches a fillet. |
| Peanuts | Includes peanut protein, peanut flour and groundnut under any trade name. |
| Soybeans | Soy protein, soy flour and soy derivatives where allergenicity survives into the final product. |
| Tree nuts | Declared as a single category. Naming the species is voluntary, permitted and increasingly what retailer technical teams ask for. |
| Significant cereals containing gluten | The species must be named in the ingredient list with (gluten) in parenthesis, under regulation 43(2). |
Those eight are not the Codex list and they are not the European list, so an artwork template pulled from either source will be wrong for a South African pack in both directions. Cross contact control, the assessment that has to sit behind a may contain line, and the way the South African, Codex and European lists diverge are covered properly in the ASC allergen management guide. If you are building the allergen control policy rather than checking the artwork, read that guide first and use this page for the label wording.
On a site I audited, the Contains block said milk and soya, and the ingredient list carried a flavouring whose supplier specification named a wheat starch carrier three annexes in. Nobody on the artwork chain had opened the annexe, because the front sheet of the specification said allergen free. The finding was written against the specification review step rather than the label, and the corrective action was a specification by specification re-read of every compound ingredient in the recipe, which took the technologist the better part of two weeks and changed no artwork at all.
Regulation 43(2) does not allow you to write cereals containing gluten and stop there. The wording is that in the case of significant cereals, the name of the specific significant cereal species shall be specified in the name of the ingredient in the list of ingredients with the word gluten indicated in parenthesis. Wheat flour (gluten) is compliant. Cereal (gluten) is not, because the species is not named.
Allergen declarations fail at the ingredient specification, not at the printer
If you are the person who decides whether a supplier’s derivative ingredient triggers a Contains statement, you need the allergen control side and the labelling side in the same head.
Enrol in Allergen Management in Food Supply Chain, R1,450
Read the allergen management guide
Four hours, self paced, written by a registered Lead Auditor who audits allergen controls for a living.
What regulation 45 says about “may contain” precautionary labelling
R146 does not prescribe a may contain wording, and it does not treat precautionary labelling as a substitute for control. Regulation 45 requires due diligence to prevent cross contamination, an implemented allergen control policy, and documented evidence of the risk, the way the risk was assessed and the steps taken to avoid it. Precautionary labelling used to paper over weak good manufacturing practice is expressly not permitted.
If there is a risk for cross-contamination of a common allergen in a food processing facility: (a) due diligence shall be exercised to prevent the occurrence of such contamination and an allergen control policy (ACP) shall be implemented in accordance with the guidelines; and (b) in the case where precautionary labelling is utilised, this shall not be utilised to circumvent the implementation of GMPs and an effective allergen control policy (ACP); and (c) in the case where precautionary labelling is utilised, the risk, the manner of assessing the risk, and the steps taken to avoid the risk of allergen cross-contamination, shall be documented.Regulation 45, R146 of 2010
In practical terms, that means an inspector or an auditor is entitled to ask for the assessment behind your may contain traces of peanuts statement. If the honest answer is that somebody added the line because the factory also runs a peanut product and nobody wanted to think about it further, you have a regulation 45 problem, not a labelling problem. The fix is upstream: segregation, sequencing, validated cleaning and verification, which is the territory covered by Implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices, R1,950.
What you may and may not claim on a South African food label
Regulation 13 of R146 of 2010 prohibits the words health, healthy, wholesome and nutritious on a food label, together with claims of complete or balanced nutrition, medicinal or therapeutic claims, and endorsements suggesting support from health practitioners or organisations. Regulation 14 restricts negative claims. Regulation 52(3) limits nutrient content descriptors to low, free or virtually free, source, high and very high.
| Wording on the pack | Regulation | Position under R146 |
|---|---|---|
| Health, healthy, wholesome, nutritious | 13 | Prohibited, with the single exception of the fortification logo for food vehicles determined under the Act. |
| Complete or balanced nutrition | 13 | Prohibited as a claim. |
| Medicinal or therapeutic claims | 13 | Prohibited. Those claims belong to the Medicines Act regime, not to a foodstuff label. |
| Endorsement by a doctor, dietitian or association | 13 | Prohibited unless approved by the Director-General on the terms the regulation sets. |
| Manufacturer’s own health or safety logo | 13 | Not permitted without valid substantiation. |
| Free from a substance every comparable product lacks | 14 | Restricted. Where the whole category is naturally free of it, the claim must be worded generically, without a brand name. |
| Additive free, for example preservative free | 14 | Permitted. Where the additive is permitted for that category, the claim is worded "(name of additive) free". Where it is not permitted for that category, the claim must be generic and carry no brand name. |
| Fresh, natural, pure, traditional | 47 | Restricted. Conditions apply, and for regulated products the DALRRD or NRCS protocol governs. |
| Low, free or virtually free, source, high, very high | 52(3) | These are the only permitted nutrient content descriptors, and each has conditions attached. |
The one that catches good manufacturers is regulation 14. A brand that prints Our yoghurt contains no preservatives, when no yoghurt in the category contains preservatives, is claiming a distinction that does not exist, and that is exactly what regulation 14 is aimed at. The regulation does allow the generic construction, which is why you see wording along the lines of a naturally preservative free food rather than a brand specific boast. The test to apply in the artwork meeting is simple: does this sentence imply that our product is different from the competitor’s product in a way that is not actually true? If yes, regulation 14 is engaged.
Claims are where labelling stops being clerical
If your job includes signing off nutrition claims, health related copy or the retailer’s claims substantiation pack, the eight hour course goes past the wording rules and into the evidence you have to hold.
Enrol in Labelling Claims and Regulatory Framework, R1,750
Start with the R1,250 Essentials course
Written and taught by a registered Lead Auditor with Exemplar Global and IRCA. More than 3,600 course enrolments to date.
When is a nutrition table compulsory on a South African label?
A nutrition table is not compulsory on all prepackaged food under R146 of 2010. The obligation is triggered principally when a claim is made. Where the table is given it follows Annexure 2 point 1, is headed Typical nutritional information, and is expressed per single serving and per 100 g for solid foodstuffs or 100 ml for liquid foodstuffs under regulation 50.
This surprises people who have worked to European or United States rules, where the table is close to universal. In South Africa, say nothing about nutrition and you generally owe no table, say something and you owe both the table and the evidence behind it.
Regulation 50(12) is the part that costs money and is routinely ignored. Where a claim is made, the analysis has to be done by an accredited laboratory, and it has to be re-verified every three years. If your recipe has drifted, your supplier has changed, or your last certificate of analysis is from 2021, your claim is no longer supported even though the artwork has not changed.
The version of this I see most often is a claims file with a certificate of analysis four or five years old, a recipe that has changed sweetener supplier twice since, and a front panel that still says source of fibre. When I ask for the current report there is nothing to hand over, and the answer I get, that the number was true when the artwork was signed, is not an answer under regulation 50(12). The label did not become wrong on the day the analysis lapsed. It became unsupported, which is a worse problem in front of a retailer technical manager.
What “gluten free”, “natural”, “fresh” and “no preservatives” are allowed to mean
Regulation 46(1)(a) of R146 of 2010 permits gluten free only where the foodstuff contains no significant cereals or their derivatives, unless those have been processed to remove gluten, and gluten is not more than 20 mg/kg. Fresh, natural, pure and traditional are restricted by regulation 47. No preservatives is a negative claim governed by regulation 14.
Gluten free
Twenty milligrams per kilogram is a laboratory number, not an opinion. A gluten free claim therefore has three legs: a formulation that excludes significant cereals or uses gluten removed derivatives, an allergen control policy under regulation 45 that keeps gluten out during processing, and analytical evidence that the finished product sits at or below 20 mg/kg. Missing any one of the three and the claim is unsupported, however sincerely it was meant.
Fresh
Regulation 47 sets conditions on fresh and the most concrete of them is about freezing. A product that has been frozen and then thawed may not be labelled as fresh, and it must instead carry PREVIOUSLY FROZEN prominently. This is the rule that catches thaw and sell fish counters, thawed poultry and defrosted bakery product more often than any other. On a site I audited, the freezer records and the delivery notes settled it in ten minutes, while the display ticket still said fresh in the largest font on the counter.
Natural, pure and traditional
For foodstuffs that are not otherwise regulated, regulation 47(2) allows these descriptors only where the food complies with the criteria in the associated guideline. For regulated products, the claim has to comply with a protocol registered under the Agricultural Product Standards Act 119 of 1990 or under the NRCS Act 5 of 2008. Natural is not a free adjective in South Africa, and treating it as one is a common and avoidable finding.
No preservatives
Regulation 14 allows an additive free claim, and the form of words depends on the category. Where preservatives are permitted for that class of food, preservative free is defensible on a product that contains none, and the claim may be made in the brand voice. The same words on a product class where preservatives were never permitted are still available, but only in the generic form regulation 14(2)(b) prescribes.
Who else regulates food labelling in South Africa?
R146 of 2010 is not the whole of South African labelling law. DALRRD administers the Agricultural Product Standards Act 119 of 1990, which governs the classification, packing and marking of specified products, including processed meat products under R1283 of 4 October 2019 in Government Gazette 42740. Abattoirs sit under the Meat Safety Act 40 of 2000. The NRCS administers compulsory specifications for certain canned products under the NRCS Act 5 of 2008.
A processed meat manufacturer who gets regulation 9 exactly right and ignores R1283 is still non-compliant, and DALRRD does not care that the Department of Health was satisfied. A canner of fish who has never looked at the applicable compulsory specification is exposed to a regulator that operates on a different Act, with different inspectors and a different enforcement route from the municipal environmental health service.
Before you brief artwork, establish which regulator owns your product category.
What the 2023 draft regulations would change, and why you must not label to a draft
R3337, published in Government Gazette 48460 on 21 April 2023, is a draft replacement for R146 of 2010 that was published for public comment. It remains a draft as at September 2026. Front of pack warning labels, an expanded allergen list and a wider mandatory nutrition table all belong to that draft. None of them is a legal requirement today.
| Topic | The law today, R146 of 2010 | Proposed in draft R3337 of 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Legal status | Promulgated 1 March 2010, Gazette 32975, in force | Draft published 21 April 2023, Gazette 48460, for comment. Not law. |
| Allergen list | Eight categories under regulation 43 | An expanded list is proposed |
| Front of pack warning labels | No such requirement | Proposed |
| Nutrition table | Triggered principally by a claim, under regulation 50 | A wider mandatory table is proposed |
| What you print today | Comply with R146 | Monitor, plan, cost, but do not print to it |
I want to be blunt about this, because misinformation on it is widespread. There is an earlier precedent: R429 of 2014 was also a draft replacement for R146, it was widely discussed as though it were imminent, and it was never promulgated. Some manufacturers changed artwork for it. That artwork was wrong twice over, once against R146 and once against a rule that never came into existence.
Labelling to a draft carries two costs at the same time. Your artwork may not match the final promulgated text, because comment periods exist precisely so that text changes. And it does not excuse a shortfall against R146, which is the instrument being enforced on your pack right now. The correct posture with R3337 is to track it, model what a front of pack warning label would do to your front panel real estate and your reformulation programme, and keep printing to R146 until the Government Gazette says otherwise. Where you see a document or a supplier citing a 2023 number that is not R3337, treat it as a signal that whoever wrote it has not read the gazette.
Do not rebuild your artwork on a draft
If your board is asking what front of pack warning labels will cost you, the answer starts with knowing exactly which of today’s rules you already meet and which you do not.
Labelling Claims and Regulatory Framework, R1,750
Browse specialist short courses
Eight hours, self paced online, lifetime access so you can return to it when the draft moves.
What an environmental health practitioner does about a non-compliant label
Labelling is enforced under the same Act as your premises. Section 2 of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972 prohibits selling a foodstuff that is falsely described. Section 10 provides for the appointment of inspectors, including local authority employees. Section 11 lets an inspector enter, examine, open packages, take samples, demand information, copy documents, and mark, seal or detain foodstuffs.
Detention is the power that hurts commercially. An inspector who forms the view that a batch is falsely described can mark, seal or detain it. That is stock on a pallet earning nothing while the point is argued, and it happens at the depot or at the retailer, not at a convenient moment. Section 11 also allows the inspector to demand information and copy documents, which is how a claim substantiation file or an allergen risk assessment ends up being reviewed on the day.
I have been in the room for one of those conversations at a depot. Nobody argued about the microbiology or the process. They argued about four words on a front panel, and the stock stood still while they argued. The person who wrote those words worked in marketing and was not on the site, the person holding the file was the quality manager, and the file had no substantiation in it because nobody internally had ever asked her for any. A claim that no named person owns is a claim nobody can defend at short notice.
The official doing this is usually the same environmental health practitioner who deals with your premises under R638 of 2018 and your Certificate of Acceptability, and practice varies by municipality in the way described in the municipality by municipality CoA guide. Treating the labelling conversation as separate from the premises conversation is a mistake. In the room, it is one visit and one set of records.
There is also a food fraud dimension. A deliberate misdescription of origin, species or composition is an economically motivated adulteration issue as much as a labelling one, which is the territory of Food Fraud (VACCP) and Food Defence (TACCP), R1,450, and the accompanying VACCP and TACCP guide.
How to check your own label before it goes to print
Run this against your artwork before the print order goes out, using R146 of 2010 as the reference and a colleague who did not write the copy as the second pair of eyes. Every line below maps to a numbered regulation, so a finding can be recorded against the regulation rather than against a matter of taste.
The R146 pre-print label check
- Name of the food is on the main panel, and where the name is not a proper description, an appropriate description sits with it. Regulation 9(a).
- Manufacturer, importer or seller name and address is present, and for imported product the manufacturer’s own name and address is on the label. Regulation 9(b).
- Instructions for use appear wherever the food cannot be used properly without them. Regulation 9(c).
- Ingredient list is in descending order of mass, compound ingredients are broken out, and additives are named by function and identity. Regulations 9(d) and 16 to 29.
- Storage conditions on the label match the conditions your shelf life study was run under. Regulation 9(e).
- Net contents are in SI units. Regulation 9(f).
- Country of origin, batch identification and a date mark are all present and readable after the pack has been through the line. Regulations 10, 11 and 12.
- Every one of the eight common allergen categories present has been declared in parenthesis after the ingredient or in the Contains block, or both. Regulation 43(1).
- Significant cereals are named by species with (gluten) in parenthesis, not as a generic cereal. Regulation 43(2).
- Sulphites appear in the ingredient list as an additive under regulation 9(d). Note that R146 does not put them in the Contains block, and a Contains entry for sulphites usually signals a European template.
- Any may contain statement is backed by a documented risk assessment and an implemented allergen control policy. Regulation 45.
- No use of health, healthy, wholesome or nutritious, no complete or balanced nutrition claim, no medicinal claim, no practitioner or organisation endorsement. Regulation 13.
- Any negative or free from claim survives the regulation 14 test on whether the whole category is naturally free of the substance.
- Fresh is not used on anything that was frozen and thawed, and PREVIOUSLY FROZEN appears prominently where it applies. Regulation 47.
- Nutrient content descriptors are limited to low, free or virtually free, source, high and very high. Regulation 52(3).
- Where a claim is made, the nutrition table is headed Typical nutritional information and gives values per single serving and per 100 g or 100 ml. Regulation 50 and Annexure 2 point 1.
- The accredited laboratory analysis behind any claim is current, and the three year re-verification date is diarised. Regulation 50(12).
- Any DALRRD or NRCS product specific marking requirement for this category has been checked separately from R146.
- Nothing on the artwork has been changed to anticipate draft R3337 of 2023.
Sign the completed check, with a name and a date, so there is a record that a competent person reviewed the artwork against a regulation rather than against a matter of taste. Re-run it whenever the recipe, the supplier, the pack size or the claim changes, because those are the events that break a compliant label without anyone touching the artwork file.
Essentials of Food Labelling Claims for Food Manufacturing, R1,250 · Labelling Claims and Regulatory Framework, R1,750 · Allergen Management in Food Supply Chain, R1,450
Category pages: Food labelling training and all ASC courses. Related guides: allergen management guide, HACCP training in South Africa and food handler training in South Africa.
Take the labelling knowledge out of one person’s head
If your label check currently depends on the one technologist who happens to know R146, put the whole artwork, NPD and marketing group through the same four hours and stop relying on a single point of failure.
Essentials of Food Labelling Claims, R1,250
Date marking? Overview of Conducting a Shelf-Life Study, R799
FoodBev SETA accredited provider No. 587/00337/1900 · B-BBEE Level 1 · implementation support available at ascfoodsafety.com.
Frequently asked questions
Is R146 of 2010 still the law on food labelling in South Africa?
Yes. R146 of 2010, the Regulations Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs, was published in Government Gazette 32975 on 1 March 2010 under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972 and remains the operative labelling law in 2026. The only verified promulgated amendment is R1091 of 19 November 2010. Later documents circulating as new rules are drafts that were published for comment.
What is the difference between best before, use by and sell by on a South African label?
Regulation 12 of R146 of 2010 provides for three forms of date mark: best before, use by and sell by. The form follows the food rather than the marketing preference, and whichever one you print has to be supported by a shelf life study you can produce on the day. R146 gives you the words. It does not establish your date, so an auditor asking how you arrived at twelve months is asking a technical question, not a labelling one.
Does an imported food label need a South African address?
Regulation 9(b) of R146 of 2010 requires the name and address of the manufacturer, importer or seller, and for an imported foodstuff the manufacturer’s own name and address must appear on the label as well. That address rule was amended by R1091 of 19 November 2010, the only promulgated amendment to R146, so check your artwork against R146 as amended. Country of origin under regulation 10 is a separate particular that an importer address does not discharge.
Is a nutrition table compulsory on every South African food label?
No. R146 of 2010 does not impose a nutrition table on all prepackaged food. The obligation is triggered principally when a nutrition or nutrient content claim is made. Where the table is given it follows Annexure 2 point 1, is headed Typical nutritional information, and is expressed per single serving and per 100 g for solids or 100 ml for liquids under regulation 50. A wider mandatory table is proposed in the 2023 draft only.
Can I put the word healthy or nutritious on a South African food label?
No. Regulation 13 of R146 of 2010 prohibits the words health, healthy, wholesome and nutritious on a food label, along with claims of complete or balanced nutrition, medicinal or therapeutic claims, and endorsements that suggest the product is supported or recommended by health practitioners or organisations. Permitted nutrient content descriptors are limited to low, free or virtually free, source, high and very high under regulation 52(3).
What does gluten free legally mean in South Africa?
Under regulation 46(1)(a) of R146 of 2010 a foodstuff may be described as gluten free only if it contains no significant cereals or their derivatives, unless those have been processed to remove gluten, and the gluten level is not more than 20 mg/kg. The 20 mg/kg figure is a laboratory result, not a judgement call, so the claim needs analysis and an allergen control policy behind it.
Are front of pack warning labels a legal requirement in South Africa yet?
No. Front of pack warning labels appear in R3337, Government Gazette 48460, published on 21 April 2023 for public comment. R3337 is a draft and it is not law as at September 2026. Labelling to a draft creates two risks at once: your artwork may not match the final text when it is promulgated, and it does not excuse a shortfall against R146 of 2010, which is the law being enforced today.
What can an environmental health practitioner do about a non-compliant label?
Section 10 of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972 provides for the appointment of inspectors, including local authority employees. Section 11 lets an inspector enter premises, examine and open packages, take samples, demand information, copy documents, and mark, seal or detain foodstuffs. Section 2 prohibits selling a foodstuff that is falsely described, which is the section a wrong claim or a missing allergen usually falls under.
Who regulates the labelling of processed meat and canned fish in South Africa?
Not only the Department of Health. DALRRD administers the Agricultural Product Standards Act 119 of 1990, which governs the classification, packing and marking of specified products, and R1283 of 4 October 2019 in Government Gazette 42740 covers processed meat products. Abattoirs fall under the Meat Safety Act 40 of 2000. The NRCS administers compulsory specifications for certain canned products under the NRCS Act 5 of 2008.
ASC Food Safety Training · Leading with Science. Ensuring Food Safety. · Fully online, serving all of South Africa and beyond · info@ascfoodsafety.com · WhatsApp +27 61 483 0381 · SAATCA registered training centre (TC No. 065) · FoodBev SETA accredited provider No. 587/00337/1900 · B-BBEE Level 1 · Registered Lead Auditor (Exemplar Global and IRCA) · Consulting and document toolkits at ascfoodsafety.com