Proposals for changes to food 
safety regulations  
 
 
MPI Discussion  Paper  No: 2016/24 
 
 
 
Prepared for Ministry for Primary Industries   
 
 
ISBN No: 978-1-77665 -357-7 (online)  
ISSN No: 2253 -3907 (online)  
 
 
 
 
October  2016  
 
 
 
Disclaimer  
 
While every effort has b een made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate, the 
Ministry for Primary Industries does not accept any responsibility or liability for error of fact, 
omission, interpretation or opinion that may be present, nor for the consequences of any decisions 
based on this information.  
 
Requests for further copies should be directed to:  
 
Publications Logistics Officer  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
WELLINGTON  6140  
 
Email: brand@mpi.govt.nz  
Telephone: 0800 00 83 33  
Facsimile: 04 -894 0300  
 
This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries  website at  
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news -and-resources/publication s/  
 
 
© Crown Copyright - Ministry for Primary Industries   
i Contents  Page 
 
1 Submissions  1 
1.1 How to have your say  1 
1.2 Official Information Act requirements  2 
1.3 What happens next  2 
2 How this d ocument is organised  2 
3 Summary of proposals  3 
4 Context  4 
4.1 Implementing the Food Act 2014  4 
4.2 Risk-based regulation  4 
4.3 Why regulations are needed  5 
4.4 Food Regulations 2015 and Notices  6 
4.5 Continuous improvement  6 
4.6 Removing outdated require ments  6 
4.7 Cost recovery not in scope  6 
5 Background  7 
5.1 A risk-based approach  7 
5.2 Food control plans  7 
5.3 National programmes  7 
5.4 Reflecting the graduated approach to managing risks  7 
6 What we propose: reflecting the graduated approach (cleaning)  8 
7 What we propose: reflecting the graduated approach (record keeping and 
procedures)  8 
8 Introduction  12 
9 Proposals for chan ge 12 
9.1 Increasing flexibility in initial verification timeframes  12 
9.2 Requiring verification reports to include details abo ut technical experts  14 
10 Background  15 
11 Summary of proposals  15 
12 Regulation 6 (Misuse of food containers)  16 
12.1  Description of the regulation  16 
12.2  Proposal  16 
12.3  Rationale  17 
12.3.1  Food Act 2014  17 
12.3.2  Food Regulations 2015  17 
13 Regulation 7 (Safety of articles)  18 
13.1  Description of the regulation  18 
13.2  Proposal  18 
13.3  Rationale  18  
 ii 13.3.1  Food Act 2014  18 
13.3.2 Food Regulations 2015  18 
13.3.3  Product safety laws  19 
14 Regulation 8 (Identification of articles)  19 
14.1  Description of the regulation  19 
14.2  Proposal  19 
14.3  Rationale  19 
15 Regulation 9 (Labels on bottles containing food)  20 
15.1  Description of the regulation  20 
15.2  Proposal  20 
15.3  Rationale  20 
16 Regulations 10, 11 and  12 (Infected persons and food)  21 
16.1  Description of regulations  21 
16.2  Proposal  21 
16.3  Rationale  21 
16.3.1  Food Act and Regulations  21 
16.3.2  Personal responsibility and the Food Act  22 
16.3.3  Ministry of Health administered legislation  22 
17 Regulations 13 -15 (Low -acid canned food)  22 
17.1  Descriptio n of regulations  22 
17.2  Proposal  22 
17.3  Rationale  22 
18 Regula tions 16 and 17 (Sale of muttonbird and brands for packages of 
muttonbirds)  23 
18.1  Description of the regulations  23 
18.2  Propo sal 23 
18.3  Rationale  23 
18.3.1  Sustainability  23 
18.3.2  Consume r protection  24 
18.3.3  Food law  24 
19 Regulation 20 (Wine)  24 
19.1 Description of the regulation  24 
19.2  Proposal  24 
19.3  Rationale  25 
19.3.1  The 75% varietal composition rule  25 
19.3.2  Sales from off -licences  25 
20 Fluoridated water  26 
20.1  Description of the regulation  26 
20.2  Proposal  26 
20.3  Rationale  26 
21 Sale of hemp seed oil as food  27 
21.1  Description of the regulation  27 
21.2  Proposal  27 
21.3  Rationale  27  
iii 22 Analyst’s certificate and fees  28 
22.1  Description of the regulation  28 
22.2  Proposal  28 
22.3  Rationale  28 
23 Enforcement  28 
24 Additional questions  29 
25 Proposals (Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 20 00) 30 
26 Proposals: maximum residue levels  31 
Appendix 1: List of consultation questions  32 
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   1 Part 1 : introduction  
 
1 Submissions  
 
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is seeking submissions on  regulatory proposals  
under the Food Act 2014 and the Animal Products Act 1999.   
 
This document sets out proposals in a number of areas. Your submiss ions will help us assess 
whether we need to amend these proposals in any way to better meet your needs, while still 
meeting the purpose s of the Act s.  
 
1.1 How to have your say   
 
The d eadline for receipt of all submissions is 5pm on Monday 5 December  2016 .   
 
We have included ques tions throughout this document.  You may wish to use these questions 
to structure your submission.   
 
MPI will consider all relevant material made in submissions, so you are welcome to provide 
additional information. You may also prefe r to provide a submission in your own format.   
Please make sure you include the following information in your submission:  
 
 the title of this discussion document  (Proposals for changes to food safety 
regulations );  
 your name and title;  
 your organisation’ s name (if you are submitting on behalf of an organisation); and  
 your contact details (e.g. phone number, address and email).  
 
Also:  
 
 make sure that your comments can be clearly read as a number of copies will be made 
to help with analysis;  
 state the n umber of the question you are answering or, if you are making a general 
comment, state the number of the section your comments are referring to.  
 
You can return your submission in any of these ways:  
 
Email :   foodregulations@mpi.govt.nz   
 
Mail:    Consultation: Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6104  
 
Or hand delivery:  Consultation: Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  
Mini stry for Primary Industries  
Pastoral House  
25 The Terrace  
Wellington   
2 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  1.2 Official Information Act requirements  
 
Under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), information held by MPI is to be made 
available to requestors unless there are grounds for with holding it. The grounds for 
withholding information are outlined in the OIA.  
 
If you are making a submission, you may wish to indicate any grounds for withholding 
information contained in your submission. Reasons for withholding information could include 
that information is commercially sensitive or that you wish personal information, such as 
names or contact details, to be withheld. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer from your IT 
system will not be considered as grounds for withholding information.  
 
We will take your indications into account when determining whether or not to release 
information. Any decision to withhold information requested under the OIA may be reviewed 
by the Ombudsman.  
 
1.3 What happens next  
 
After the consultation period has close d, we will analyse submissions and make 
recommendations to the Minister for Food Safety, and Cabinet. A summary of submissions 
will be sent to all submitters and posted on the MPI website.  
 
Cabinet must approve any proposals for new regulations  or Orders in Council .  Parliamentary 
Counsel Office (the Government’s legal drafters) will then prepare the regulations and order.   
 
Proposals for new notices are drafted and published by MPI.   
 
 
Key dates  
  
Action  
To 5 December  2016  Public consultation on the proposed regulations and 
notices  
Early 2017  Regulations and notices drafted  
Mid to late 2017  Regulations and notices come into force  
 
2 How this document is organised   
 
Part one introduces and summarises our proposals .  It puts them in the context of  the Food 
Act, and previous consultations.   
 
Part t wo of this paper will be of particular interest to national programme businesses.  It 
proposes refining  the regulatory regime for national programme 1 -3 businesses to better 
reflect the graduated approach  to national programme requirements.  There will be fewer 
requirements for lower -risk businesses, especially surrounding record keeping and 
procedures.   
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   3 Part three  focuses on verification.  MPI proposes increasing flexibility for initial maximum 
timefram es for verification, and including information relating to technical experts in 
verification reports.   
 
Part four  reviews the outdated Food (Safety) Regulations 2002, which were made under the 
old Food Act 1981.   Although some of these regulations apply a cross all food businesses, this 
section of the paper will be of particular interest to:  
 
 low-acid canners;  
 muttonbird sellers and packers;  
 the wine industry; and  
 the hemp seed oil industry.  
 
If we take no action, all the Food (Safety) Regulations will exp ire by the end of the Food 
Act’s introductory period in 2019.  MPI proposes an early revocation of rules that are no 
longer needed (mainly because they are already provided for in the new Food Act regime).  
We propose moving the rules that we think are sti ll required across to the Food Regulations 
2015, or updating them and re -issuing them as notices.  Any proposals for new notices are 
being consulted on separately: see MPI’s websi te for details.   
 
Part five  proposes amendments to the Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 
2000.  These are technical amendments to ensure that the Animal Products Act 1999 and the 
Food Act  2014  are well aligned and working together.   
 
The proposals relate to fish on retail premises, and the processing of some food products.  
They ensure that a risk -based measure under the Food Act applies.   
 
Part s ix relates to Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in wine production.   
 
Appendix one  is a compila tion of all consultation questions asked throughout the document.  
 
3 Summary of proposals  
 
The proposals in this document provide for:  
 
 reduced  regulatory requirements  for some n ational programme businesses to  reflect the 
graduated approach to risk managemen t in the Food Act 2014 ; 
 greater flexibility surrounding initial verification requirements and a change to verification 
reports;  
 a review of the Food (Safety) Regulations 2002;  
 an amendment of the Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000 to en sure 
that the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Food Act 2014 are working together 
effectively;  and 
 a change to the Food Regulations 2015 relating to maximum residue levels .   
 
The proposals seek to amend the Food Regulations 2015,  or change the Animal Prod ucts 
(Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000 .   
 
MPI is running a separate consultation process on additional requirements in notices under the 
Food Act.  This includes proposed new rules detailing how national programme businesses  
4 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  can meet the outcomes des cribed in the Food Regulations 2015.  Details about this 
consultation can be found on MPI’s website.    
4 Context  
4.1 Implementing the Food Act 2014  
 
MPI is responsible for the Food Act  2014.  This Act sets the legal framework for ensuring that 
food produced in New Zealand is safe and suitable .   
 
The Food Act became operational on 1 March 2016.  It covers all businesses and activities 
involving trade in food, including food that is impo rted.  Businesses that were trading prior to 
1 March 2016 will move to the new Act during a three year introductory period.  
 
Food that is not sold or traded commercially is not covered by the Food Act.  
4.2 Risk -based regulation  
 
The Food Act works by creating  a risk management framework underpinned by the following 
principles:  
 
 achieving safe and suitable food;  
 requiring all people or businesses who trade in food to take responsibility for its safety and 
suitability;  
 promoting standards and control mechanis ms that are, as far as possible, risk and science -
based;  
 being efficient and minimising compliance costs;  
 applying regulatory requirements consistently and fairly across sectors and groups; and  
 providing services in a co -ordinated and coherent manner.  
 
The regime does not take a one -size-fits-all approach.  Instead, MPI regulate s according to the 
level of risk  presented by a business’s operation .   
 
The Food Act brought in new food safet y risk -based measures: food control plans  for higher -
risk activitie s, and national progra mmes for lower -risk activities (see figure 1).   
 
Within national programmes, food sectors are grouped into three different risk groups.  
Moving from lowest risk to higher risk, the categories are:  
 
 national programme 1;  
 national programme 2 ; and  
 national programme 3.    
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   5 
Figure 1: the graduated, risk -based regulatory approach  
 
4.3 Why regulations are needed   
 
Regulations are also referred to as secondary legislation, and notices as tertiary legislation.  
Both secondary and tertiary legis lation impose legally binding obligations.   
 
The Food Act provides the broad framework for ensuring that food produced in New Zealand 
is safe and suitable to eat.  Regulations and notices made under the Act allow for more 
detailed requirements to set out how things will work on a practical level.  
 
For example, the Food Act requires food businesses operating under national programmes to 
register, but leaves the detail of who businesses must register with to be set in regulation. This 
provides an opportunit y to develop registration obligations  based on careful consideration of 
operational requirements. Developing regulations also allows time for Government to 
establish systems and processes and to consult on proposals to ensure they are workable.  
 
In additio n to regulations and notices , MPI may continue to issue best practice guidance and 
other non-legal information on how to achieve safe and suitable food.   
 
MPI must consult with people who are likely to be affected  before putting regulatory 
proposals in pl ace.    
6 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  4.4 Food Regulations 2015 and Notices  
 
In early 2015, MPI consulted on the first set of regulations needed to implement the new Food 
Act.  Subsequently, the Food Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 March 2016.  The 
regulations are available on the Ne w Zealand legislation website  
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ . 
 
In addition, the Chief Executive of MPI has issued notices to support implementation of the 
Food Act.  These notices were issued following consu ltation in September 2015.  All notices 
in force are available from MPI’s website .   
4.5 Continuous improvement  
 
MPI will monitor and evaluate the new Food Act regime as it develops and  matures.  This 
second set of regulatory proposals is part of our process of continual improvement and 
responsiveness.  MPI is likely to run further consultation processes if gaps or opportunities to 
improve requirements appear.   
4.6 Removing outdated require ments  
 
The Food (Safety) Regulations 2002 were made under the old Food Act 1981.  The new Food 
Act provided that these regulations would continue in force until the end of the new Act’s 
introductory period, unless revoked earlier.   
 
This document reviews the Food (Safety) Regulations, and proposes to revoke  parts that are 
no longer necessary, and retain regulations that are still needed within the Food Regulations 
2015.   
4.7 Cost recovery not in scope  
 
The Food (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2015 set out fees  and charges payable for named 
services provided by MPI.  MPI consulted on the proposals for new regulations in 2015.  
Documents relating to this consultation are available on MPI’s website .   
 
There are no cost recovery proposals in this document.   
 
However, the Food Act requires that cost recovery be reviewed every three years.  This means 
the next revie w must take place no later than 2018.  This broadly coincides with the end of the 
transition to the new Act.  It will also provide an opportunity to review charges against the 
MPI cost recovery framework.  The framework is being worked on as part of a first principles 
review of cost recovery.   Again, more information on the first principles review is available on 
MPI’s website .   
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   7  
Part two: refining the rules for national programme businesses  
 
5 Background  
5.1 A risk -based approach  
 
The Food Act takes a risk -based approach to food safety management.  Food sectors are 
categorised according to risk and subject to di fferent risk -based measures.  
 
A number of regulations and notices are in place to implement fully the Food Act regime.  
This first group of rules focused on transitioning the higher -risk sectors to the new Food Act.  
MPI is now focusing on the lower -risk b usinesses.  We want to ensure that the rules that are 
in place reflect the risk -based approach, and will help businesses meet safety and suitability 
requirements.   
5.2 Food control plans  
 
High risk business are required to have a food control plan.  Food cont rol plans must specify 
what the food risks for that business are and how they will be managed.  Businesses can 
develop their own custom food control plan.  Businesses in the food retail and food service 
sectors can use a template issued by the MPI Chief Ex ecutive.   
 
Regulations about food control plans focus on the outcomes the businesses need to achieve.  
They are intended to allow for businesses to apply a more flexible approach to achieving the 
outcome, providing they can prove their approach will resul t in safe and suitable food.   
5.3 National programmes  
 
Low to medium  risk businesses operate by using a national programme level 1, 2 or 3 (with 
level 1 being the lowest risk, and level 3 being the higher risk).  Lower risk businesses are 
subject to fewer reg ulatory requirements.  Furthermore, national programmes are intended to 
offer greater certainty for businesses by providing clear rules for how to achieve safe and 
suitable food.  Businesses can choose to either work within these rules, or decide to opt -up to 
a food control plan if they wanted to do something different.   
5.4 Reflecting the graduated approach to managing risks  
 
MPI thinks that the regulations could be improved to better reflect the intent in the Food Act 
that there should be fewer regulatory re quirements on lower risk businesses.  In addition, we 
would like to improve clarity on how national programme businesses can meet the high -level 
outcomes of the Food Regulations 2015.   
 
We think that this will increase certainty for lower -risk businesses,  and decrease their 
compliance costs.   
  
8 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  6 What we propose: reflecting the graduated approach 
(cleaning)  
 
Keeping things clean is essential in order to achieve safe and suitable food.  However, the 
same degree of cleaning is not required for every level of n ational programme food business.  
At national programme 1 level, we would expect a business to be kept generally clean and 
tidy, with anything that is in direct contact with food getting special attention.  At national 
programme 2 and 3 level, there are gr eater possible risks to food.  Cleaning and sanitation of 
anything that comes into contact with food is likely to be needed for these higher -risk 
businesses.   
 
As written, the Food Regulations do not reflect the different cleaning requirements across 
national programme businesses.  MPI proposes changing the regulations to clarify that 
sanitising is not always required.  We will supplement any regulatory change with guidance 
for all national programme businesses on cleaning.   
 
This will mainly affect the l owest -risk businesses operating at national programme 1.   
 
What do you think?  
1. Do you agree that the Food Regulations 2015 should be amended to allow for 
differential cleaning requirements across national programme levels ?   
 
7 What we propose: reflecting the graduated approach (record 
keeping and procedures)  
 
Keeping records about what a business does, and how it keeps food safe, is important.  
However, lower -risk businesses should have fewer record keeping and procedural 
requirements than higher -risk oper ations.  Based on our assessment of the risks posed, we 
propose removing some record keeping and procedural requirements to reflect the graduated, 
risk-based approach of the Food Act.   
 
Even though we propose removing some regulatory requirements, everyon e must still meet 
the primary duty in section 14 of the Food Act: food traded must be safe and suitable.   
 
If you are operating a national programme business, you will still need to  meet a number of 
legal requirements, including : 
 
 keeping some records abo ut the key activities and processes that are important for keeping 
food safe;  
 registering business details with your local council; and  
 having one or more visits from a verifier recognised by MPI.   
 
The table below summarises our proposals.   
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   9 Table 1: s ummary of proposals relating to reduced records keeping and procedural requirements.   
 
General requirement to be 
amended  Who is affected  What we propose  
 
Maintenance (regulation 48)   
All national programme 1 
businesses.  
National programme 2 retailers.  
National programme 2 (ECE).    
National programme 1 businesses, national programme 2 retailers and ECE 
providers will no longer have to record maintenance.  They will still have to do 
maintenance and record occasions when a lack of maintenance requires them 
to take corrective action.   
 
 
Maintenance compounds (regulation 
49).    
All national programme 1 
businesses.  
All national programme 2 
businesses.    
National programme 1 and 2 businesses won’t have to record daily actions 
relating to maintenance compound s.  They will still have to make sure they use 
maintenance compounds carefully and in accordance with any manufacturer’s 
instructions and record incidents when they need to take corrective action.   
 
 
Waste management procedures 
(regulation 50).    
All na tional programme 1 
businesses.   
National programme 2 retailers.  
National programme 2 (ECE).    
National programme 1 businesses, national programme 2 retailers and ECE 
providers will no longer have to have special procedures for waste 
management.  They wil l still have to ensure their waste is collected, stored and 
disposed of safely.   
 
 
Pest control (regulation 51)   
All national programme 1 
businesses.   
National programme 2 retailers.  
National programme 2 (ECE).    
National programme 1 businesses, nation al programme 2 retailers and ECE 
providers will no longer have to keep daily records about routine pest checks.  
They will still have to look out for pests, take action if any are found and record 
incidents when they need to take corrective action.   
 
 
Protection against contamination etc 
by people (regulation 74).    
All national programme 1 
businesses.   
National programme 2 retailers.  
National programme 2 (ECE).   
  
National programme 1 businesses, national programme 2 retailers and ECE 
providers will n eed to keep fewer records about personal hygiene, sickness 
and protective clothing.  They will still have to ensure that food isn’t 
contaminated by sick people and record incidents when they need to take 
corrective action.    
10 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  General requirement to be 
amen ded Who is affected  What we propose  
 
Protection during transportation 
(regulation 75).    
All national programme 1 businesses 
except  transporters or distributors of 
food products.   
National programme 2 retailers.  
National programme 2 (ECE).    
National p rogramme 1 businesses (except transporters or distributors of food 
products), national programme 2 retailers and ECE providers will no longer 
need to keep records relating to protection of food while it is transported.  They 
will still need to make sure th at food stays safe and suitable when it’s being 
transported and record incidents when they need to take corrective action.  
 
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   11  
What do you think?  
 
2. Do you agree that lower -risk businesses should have fewer records keeping and procedural 
requirements than  higher -risk businesses?  
3. Do you see any issues with reducing the records keeping and procedural requirements as 
proposed?   
4. Are there any additional requirements that you think should be removed?  If so, why?  Which 
sectors should no longer be subject to t hose requirements?  
 
  
12 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  Part three: adjustmen ts to verification requirements    
8 Introduction  
 
The Food Act 2014 and Food Regulations 2015 introduced a new verification regime.  
 
Verification is a way that a food business can show compliance with the Food Act , and the 
ongoing effectiveness of their risk -based measure.  It involves a person and/or agency 
formally recognised by the MPI Chief Executive carefully checking that risk management 
processes are in place, and whether processes are being followed.  Subse quent verifications 
test whether systems and processes remain fit -for-purpose, and how well a business is 
managing its risks.   
 
The Food Act requires food businesses to ensure their operations are verified.  The Food 
Regulations 2015 set out detailed rule s for how verification will be done including specifying 
the process that should be followed, and how often verifications will take place.   
 
Frequency of verification relates to the business’s risk profile and performance.  Businesses 
that manage risks we ll will be subject to less frequent verification visits, and will therefore 
face lower costs.   
9 Proposals for change  
 
As the new verification regime beds in, MPI has two proposals to fine -tune its 
implementation.   
 
MPI proposes allowing the registration a uthority to increase the timeframe for when an initial 
verification must take place.  This would be restricted to exceptional circumstances where the 
original timeframe would cause unnecessary hardship or unnecessary compliance costs, and 
where the registr ation authority is satisfied that the safety and suitability of food would not be 
compromised.   
 
Regulation 105(5) sets out what must be included in verification reports.  MPI proposes that a 
verification report must also  include details about  any technic al experts who provided 
information used by the verifier.   
 
The reasons for these proposals are outlined below.   
9.1 Increasing flexibility in initial verification timeframes  
 
Initial verification is critical for checking risks and risk management processes.   The existing 
timeframes in the Food Regulations 2015 seek to strike a balance between how long a 
business can be allowed to operate without a check that they are producing safe and suitable 
food, and what is practical.   A verifier needs to have enough i nformation about how the 
business is operating to measure whether they meet the Act’s requirements.   
 
The Food Regulations 2015 set the following timeframes for verification.  These timeframes 
are maximums: there is nothing prohibiting earlier verificatio ns.  Timeframes are from the 
date the risk based measure is registered by  the registration authority.    
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   13  
Table 3: maximum timeframes for initial verifications under the Food Regulations 2015  
 
Risk based measure  Existing businesses  New businesses  Registrat ion 
authority  
Custom Food Control 
Plan (regulation 87(1))  6 months  3 months  MPI  
Template Food Control 
Plan (regulation 88(1))  1 year  1 month  Territorial authority 
(unless multi -site) 
National Programme 3 
(regulation 91(1))  6 months  1 month  Territorial authority 
(unless multi -site) 
National Programme 2 
(regulation 92(1))  1 year  1 month  Territorial authority 
(unless multi -site) 
National Programme 1 
(regulation 93(1))  1 year  1 month  Territorial authority 
(unless multi -site) 
 
MPI has become aware of some  practical difficulties with these timeframes.  An example is 
where a new business registers early, but only starts trading a short time before the maximum 
date that the verifier can visit.  This might mean that the business has not had time to bed their 
processes in and may not have all the evidence a verifier is seeking.  The verifier needs this 
evidence to be assured that the business is consistently producing safe and suitable food.  This 
may result in the verifier having to make a further visit, which increases costs for the 
business.   
 
In order to allow more flexibility with the timing of the initial verification, MPI proposes that:  
 
 the maximum initial verification timeframes may be extended by the relevant registration 
authority in exceptional circu mstances;  
 the maximum extension would be 1 month;  
 only one extension may be granted; and  
 the registration authority must be satisfied that extending the maximum timeframe would 
not compromise achieving safe and suitable food.   
 
In exercising this decision , the registration authority would have to have regard to the 
principles outlined in section 16 of the Food Act 2014.  The principles include:  
 
 achieving safe and suitable food;  
 minimising compliance costs for food businesses; and  
 consistent and fair app lication of regulatory requirements.   
 
Section 16(2) states that achieving the safety of food has greater weight than any other 
principle (if the principles are in conflict).   
  
14 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries   
What do you think?  
5. Do you agree that there should be greater flexibility w ith initial verification 
timeframes?   
 
6. What do you think of the proposed maximum extension timeframes?  Do they 
strike the right balance between ensuring safe and suitable food, and what is 
practical?  
 
7. Do you agree that the decision to extend maximum time frames should lie with the 
relevant registration authority?  
 
8. Are there additional or alternative criteria that registration authorities should use 
to make decisions on extending initial verification timeframes?   
 
 
9.2 Requiring verification reports to includ e details about technical 
experts  
 
Regulation 105(5) lists what must be contained in a verification report.   
 
MPI proposes requiring verification reports to include the names of any technical experts who 
provided information used by the verifier in the ve rification  process , copies of any reports 
produced by those technical experts , and information about the compet ency of those technical 
experts.  This would ensure that, where technical experts are used by the verifier, the 
verification reports are comprehe nsive.  This would include recording the competencies of 
any party who had input into the verification.   
 
What do you think?  
9. Do you agree that verification reports should have to include the names of 
technical experts who provided information, their repo rts and information about 
their competency (where a technical expert is consulted)?   
 
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   15 Part four: review of the F ood (Safety) Regulations 2002  
10 Background  
 
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code came into full effect in December 2002.  It 
superse ded any equivalent New Zealand food standards.  New Zealand’s Food Regulations 
1984 were revoked and replaced with provisions in the Food Standards Code, and the Food 
(Safety) Regulations 2002.   
 
The Food (Safety) Regulations 2002 provided for aspects of the Food Regulations 1984 that 
were not covered by the Food Standards Code.  These regulations were intended as a 
transitional arrangement until these matters were provided for under the Food Standards 
Code, or by another regulatory arrangement.   
 
When th e Food Act came into force on 1 March 2016, it provided that  most of the Food 
(Safety) Regulations would  continue in force until the end of the Act’s introductory period 
(unless earlier revoked).  Two of the regulations (relating to fluoridated water and the hemp 
seed oil  industry ) will expire earlier on 30 October 2017.  
 
This means that if we do nothing, all of the Food (Safety) Regulations will expire by 28 
February 2019.   
 
MPI has reviewed  these regulations to assess which parts (if any) need to be pres erved in the 
new Food Act regime.   
 
This part of the discussion document sets out MPI’s proposals for each regulation, and seeks 
comment.   
 
11 Summary of proposals  
 
Table 4 below summarises MPI’s proposals , which are then explained further in the following 
sections .  Please note that some of these regulations have already been revoked through 
earlier amendments, and these proposals therefore deal with only these regulations that 
remain in force.  The Food (Safety) Regulations 2002 are different from the Food Regulations 2015.  Unless 
otherwise indicated, all regulations referred to in this part of the discussion paper are Food 
(Safety) Regulati ons.    
16 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  Table 4: summary of proposals for each Food (Safety) Regulatio n 
 
Food (Safety) Regulation  Proposal  
 
Regulation 6 – misuse of containers  Revoke  regulation 6.  
 
Regulation 7 – safety of articles  Revoke  regulation 7.  
 
Regulation 8 – identification of articles  Revoke  regulation 8.  
 
Regulation 9 – labels on bottles con taining food  Revoke regulation 9.  
 
Regulations 10 -12 – infected persons and food  Revoke  regulations 10, 11 and 12.   
 
Regulations 13 -15 – low-acid canned food  Revoke  regulations 13 -15 and replace with a 
notice under the Food Act 2014 (no policy 
change).    
 
Regulations 16 -17 - muttonbird  Revoke  regulations 16 and 17.  
 
Regulation 20 - wine Revoke  regulation 20(1) but retain the policy of a 
75% varietal rule for imported wine via a new 
regulation within the Food Regulations 2015.  
Revoke  regulation 20(2).    
 
Regulation 24 – fluoridated water  Retain and update  regulation 24 for water 
added to food from reticulated supplies  within the 
Food Regulations 2015.   
 
Regulation 26 – sale of hemp seed oil as food  Retain  and update  regulation 26 within the Food 
Regulations 2015.   
 
Regulation 27 – analyst’s certificate and fees  Revoke  regulation 27  
 
 
12 Regulation 6 (Misuse of food containers)  
 
12.1 Description of the regulation  
 
Regulation 6 makes it an offence to put something that could poison someone in a container 
that looks like it is used for food.  The offence relates to people, rather than food businesses.   
12.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revok ing regulation 6 of the Food (Safety) Regulations.   
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   17 12.3 Rationale  
 
Regulation 6 is no longer necessary.  The Food Act 2014 and Food Re gulations 2015 
manages risks relating to food containers as detailed below.   
12.3.1  Food Act 2014  
 
Sections 227 -8 of the Food Act 2014 provide for offences for misrepresenting food or food -
related accessories.  The possible penalties are substantial.  For intent ional misrepresentation 
the maximum for an individual is $100,000, and for unintentional misrepresentation by an 
individual, $50,000.   
 
The maximum fine under regulation 6 of the Food (Safety) Regulations is $500.   
12.3.2  Food Regulations 2015  
 
Regulation 16  (food c ontrol plans ) and regulation 49 ( national p rogrammes) of the Food 
Regulations 2015 provide for the safe use of maintenance compounds.   
 
Maintenance compounds are defined in regulation 3(1) as:  
any substance used for — 
(a) maintaining, repairing, servi cing, cleaning, or sanitising equipment or surfaces that 
may be a source of contamination of food or food -related accessories; or  
(b) treating water; or  
(c) controlling pests  
 
Regulation 16 (e) of the Food Regulations 2015 (with a parallel provision in reg ulation 
49(1)(e)) notes that maintenance compounds must be stored in a container that:  
(i) is clearly and appropriately labelled; and  
(ii) is not likely to be mistaken for a container of food; and  
(iii) is not used for storing food.  
 
The definition of main tenance compounds is narrower than the substances covered by 
regulation 6 of the Food (Safety) Regulations.  For example, regulation 6 would include 
alcohol hand gels and other sanitisers for use on people.  However, these other substances will 
be covered under hazard management rules ( for example, Food Regulations  2015 regulations 
6, 25, 30, 70 and  76).   
 
What do you think?  
10. Do you agree that regulation 6 (misuse of food containers) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
  
18 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  13 Regulation 7 (Safety of articles)  
13.1 Desc ription of the regulation  
 
Food articles for sale that are intended to be used with food should not be capable of leaching 
toxic substances.  It  is okay to sell this sort of thing if it is rendered unusable for food use or 
has a permanent label attached to  it stating that it is not food -safe.   
 
Schedule one (Tests for enamelware and ceramic ware articles) which is referred to in 
regulation 7(2) was revoked in October 2007.  The reason for this was that a review of the 
risks associated with imported tablewa re showed that they were not high risk and that 
monitoring was no longer required.   
13.2 Proposal  
 
We propose revoking  regulation 7 of the Food (Safety) Regulations.   
13.3 Rationale  
 
Regulation 7 is no longer necessary.  The Food Act 2014, Food Regulations 2015 an d 
consumer law manages risks relating to toxic leaching as detailed below.   
13.3.1  Food Act 2014  
 
The new terminology under the Food Act 2014 for food articles is “food -related accessory” 
(which is defined in section 8(1) of that Act).   
 
Part 4 s ubpart 6 of th e Food Act empowers MPI’s Chief Executive to give various directions 
relating to food safety.  Some of these powers extend to food -related accessories.  For 
example, section 284 could be used by the Chief Executive to initiate a recall of a food -related 
accessory.  This includes situations where there is doubt about the safety and suitability of the 
accessory, or where there is doubt about whether it may contaminate food.   
Some food businesses operate a food control plan based on a template issued by MPI.  The 
template includes a procedure to prevent food becoming contaminated from, among other 
things, utensils, packaging and tableware.  The template has the status of a notice under the 
Food Act.   
13.3.2  Food Regulations 2015  
 
The toxins listed and contamination process envisaged in regulation 7 are not specifically 
considered in the Food Act or the Food Regulations 2015.  However, a number of the Food 
Regulations 2015 make rules about food -related accessories.  Specifically:  
 
 regulations 19 and 65 (c) place oblig ations on operators to ensure that equipment won’t 
contaminate food;  
 regulations 25 and 70 provide that food -related accessories must not create or contribute to 
hazards; and  
 regulations 27 and 72 provide for procedures for recall of food -related accessor ies.    
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   19  
The Food Regulations 2015 do not apply to businesses selling food -related accessories that 
are not food businesses (as defined by section 10 of the Food Act 2014).  However, these 
businesses may still be subject to directions given by the Chief Exe cutive under the Food Act.  
This would mean  (for example) that the Chief Executive could recall food -related accessories 
sold by a non -food business.   
13.3.3  Product safety laws  
 
Food -related accessories are subject to New Zealand’s product safety laws: the Cons umer 
Guarantees Act 1983 and the Fair Trading Act 1986.   
 
The Consumer Guarantees Act states that consumers have guarantees in law including that 
the goods are reasonably safe and fit for purpose.   
 
Items sold as “food -related accessories” must therefore  be suitable for use with food.   
There are various tools available to ensure that products are safe.  The Min ister of Commerce 
and Consumer Affairs may recommend the making of product safety standards under the Fair 
Trading Act.  The Minister can also declare goods unsafe (a product ban) or order a 
compulsory recall (under the Fair Trading Act).   
 
What do you think?  
11. Do you agree that regulation 7 (safety of articles) should be revoked? Why/why 
not?  
 
14 Regulation 8 (Identification of articles)  
14.1 Description of the regulation  
 
You can not sell things that will be used to prepare and store food unless the articles have 
some kind of identification on them (such as a registered trade mark, or label with details of 
the manufacturer or seller).  This regulation does  not apply to disposable items.   
14.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revoking  regulation 8  of the Food (Safety) Regulations .   
14.3 Rationale  
 
Regulation 8 could be used during  a recall of food -related accessories.  Clear identifying 
marks or labels could facilitate any reca ll.   
 
However, the regulation as written is extremely broad.  It covers second -hand items and 
articles such as chopping boards, glasses, measuring cups or cutlery that probably pose a low 
risk.  The argument for such a broad coverage based on the risks po sed is weak.   
  
20 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  The Food Regulations 2015 require operators to have procedures to be able to recall food -
related accessories ( regulation 27(1) (b) for food control plans, and regulation 72(1)(b) for 
national p rogrammes ).  The regulations take an outcomes -based approach.  Rather than 
prescribing labelling standards, they require appropriate protocols for recalls if they are 
required.   
 
MPI considers that these regulations enable the purpose of the Food Act to be met.   
 
What do you think?  
12. Do you agree that regulation 8 (identification of articles) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
 
15 Regulation 9 (Labels on bottles containing food)  
15.1 Description of the regulation  
 
This regulation says that labels on reusable bottles must not hinder the cleaning and 
inspection of the bottle.   
15.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revoking  regulation 9 of the Food (Safety) Regulations.   
15.3 Rationale  
 
Ensuring reusable bottles are clean is important.  However, as this regulation is not outcomes -
focused, it could prohibit the use of opaque reusable bot tles or other practices that are low 
risk, or where the risks can be managed effectively.   
 
Making sure that bottles (and other food containers) are clean is covered via various 
obligations within the Food Regulations 2015 (such as regulations 14(1), 47, 54, 65, and 70 ).  
Matters provided for in these regulations include:  
 
 mandating procedures for cleaning and sanitising equipment;  
 ensuring that equipment allows for effective cleaning; and  
 ensuring that packaging does not create or contribute to hazards.   
 
What do you think?  
13. Do you agree that regulation 9 (labels on bottles containing food) should be 
revoked? Why/why not?  
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   21 16 Regulations 10, 11 and 12 (Infected persons and food).   
16.1 Description of regulations  
 
People who are suffering from certain health co nditions are excluded from working with food 
or food -related accessories.  Medical Officers of Health and designated officers are given 
powers to prohibit persons in contact with people suffering from those illnesses from working 
with food.  In addition, M edical Officers of Health and designated officers have powers 
relating to suspected infected food.   
16.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revoking  regulations 10, 11 and 12  of the Food (Safety) Regulations .   
16.3 Rationale  
 
There are clear public health benefit s from excludin g sick people from working with food, 
and being able to prohibit the sale of potentially dangerous food.   
 
Regulation 10 is potentially broader than required as it could capture very low risk situations.  
For example, someone technically captured by the d efinition may be able to work stacking 
shelves or as a delivery driver with negligible risks to food.   
16.3.1  Food Act and Regulations  
 
The Food Act and Food Regulations 2015 contain the necessary powers relating to infected 
food and persons to meet the purposes  of the Food Act.   
 
Under section 308(3) of the Food Act, food safety officers may exclude someone from a 
particular location.  Food safety officers have broad powers to seize, condemn and require 
disposal of foods that may constitute a risk to public hea lth (section 306 Food Act).  In 
addition, food safety officers can restrict the use of or close a place (section 307 Food Act).   
 
Sections 62 (food control plan) and 90 (n ational programmes) of the Food Act enable 
operations to be suspended if a food may pose a risk to public health.  The decision rests with 
the relevant registration authority.  The maximum suspension period of operations is 3 
months, with a possible 3 month extension.   
 
There are various enforcement measures available under the Food Act (for example, section 
232 relates to selling non -complying food, which  has a maximum penalty for individuals of 
$100 ,000 fine or up to 2 years in prison).   
 
Some food businesses operate a food control plan based on a template issued by MPI.  The 
template includes guidance on the exclusion of infected persons, and rules relating to 
sickness, hand hygiene and personal hygiene.  The template has been issued as a  notice under 
the Food Act.   
 
Ensuring infected persons cannot contaminate food is largely covered  under the Food 
Regulations 2015 (regulations 28 -29 for food control plans , and regulation 74 for national  
22 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  programmes).  Under the se regulations,  responsibilities relating to protecting food from 
contamination by sick people rest with the operator.  The responsibilities  pertain only to staff 
members and visitors to the place of business.   
16.3.2  Personal responsibility and the Food Act  
 
While regulation 10 of the Food (Safety) Regulations focuses on people who might be sick, 
the Food Regulations 2015 focus on  operators of food businesses.  However, taking personal 
responsibility for ensuring that food is safe and suitable is still an importan t part of the Food 
Act regime.  Section 14 of the Act places a duty on people who trade in food to ensure  that it 
is safe a nd suitable.  “Trade” is broadly defined - the duty applies to staff involved in the 
production, pr ocessing and handling of food.  Food business operators must have procedures 
to ensure that staff and visitors who may b e sick don’t contaminate food.  In ad dition, MPI 
produces guidance and information for food safety workers to remind t hem of their 
responsibilities.   
16.3.3  Ministry of Health administered legislation  
 
Medical Officers of Health have broad powers relating to preventing the outbreak or spread of 
infectious disease, including work restrictions and the ability to isolate a person.   
 
In practice, public health services  and territorial authorities work closely together to meet 
public health and food safety outcomes .   
 
What do you think?  
14. Do you agree t hat regulations 10 -12 (infected persons and food) should be 
revoked? Why/why not?  
 
17 Regulations 13 -15 (Low -acid canned food)  
17.1 Description of regulations  
 
Regulations 13 -15 make rules about low -acid canning under the Food Act.  The regulations 
state that low -acid canning must be supervised by a qualified person, and the various 
standards that the canning operations must comply with, along with enforcement provisions.   
17.2 Proposal  
 
We propose revoking  regulations 13, 14 and 15 of the Food (Safety) Regulations and 
replac ing them  with a n otice under the Food Act 2014.   
17.3 Rationale  
 
The risks posed by low -acid canning are potentially significant.  The bacterium Clostridium 
botulinum  can multiple rapidly in moist, low -acid foods.  The bacterium can cause serious, 
and sometimes fatal illness.  Internationally -recognised risk management systems exist to 
manage these risks effectively.    
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   23  
There is no case for changing  policy on low -acid canning.  However, MPI’s view is that a 
notice is a more appropriate instrument than a  regulation for managing the risks  it poses.  T his 
is because low -acid canning  requirements are highly technical in nature.  A notice will enable 
the most current codes relevant to low -acid canning to be accurately referenced.  It will  
promote certainty by  enabling qualifications that must be held by supervisors to be listed in 
greater detail, and pose less of a barrier to new educational providers who wish to provide 
low-acid canning qualifications.   
 
A notice would provide the opportunity for greater ali gnment of Food Act requirements with 
the Animal Products Act low -acid canning regulatory system  (which is regulated via a  
notice ).   
 
MPI is consulting separately on a new low -acid canned food notice.  Details are available 
from MPI’s website .   
18 Regulations 16 and 17 (Sale of muttonbird and brands for 
packages of muttonbirds)  
18.1 Description of the regulations  
 
There are three separate issues contemplated in the two muttonbird regulat ions.  
 
Regulation 16(1)  provides for truth -in-labelling –you must prepare your muttonbirds the way 
you said you have on the label.   
 
Regulation 16(2)  provides that muttonbirds for sale must have a dressed weight of not less 
than 250g (unless it’s tītī pu ku, which is not dressed).  
 
Regulation 17  provides for compliance with the Food Standards Code via a register of people 
engaged in the preparation and packing of muttonbirds.    
18.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revok ing regulations 16 and 17  of the Food (Safety) Regula tions .   
18.3 Rationale  
18.3.1  Sustainability  
 
Muttonbirds (tītī) are a traditional iconic product and a taonga species.  While permissions to 
hunt/kill muttonbirds generally are controlled under the Wildlife Act 1953, the main 
muttonbird harvest (on the Tītī/Muttonbi rd Islands near Stewart Island/Rakiura) is governed 
via the Tītī (Muttonbirds) Islands Regulations 1978.  Any sustainability concerns are best 
dealt with via the kaitiaki of the resource, and/or via the  Conservation and Wildlife Acts, 
rather than in food l egislation.    
24 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  18.3.2  Consumer protection  
 
MPI considers that the consumer protection and truth -in-labelling matters are already 
provided for.  Consumer protection is covered in the Fair Trading and Consumer Guarantees 
Acts, along with the Weights and Measures Re gulations 1999.   In addition, t here are general 
offences in sections 227 and 228 of the Food Act that relate to misrepresentations of food.   
18.3.3  Food law  
 
Under section 11E of the Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000, no risk 
management prog ramme is required for primary processing (including harvesting and 
preparation) of muttonbirds.   (Secondary processors are still required to operate under a risk -
based measure).   
 
Muttonbirders are not required to operate under a risk -based measure in the  Food Act.  
However, t he general duty that people who trade in food must ensure that it is safe and 
suitable  remains .   
 
All the labelling standards under the Australia New Zealan d Food Standards Code apply to 
muttonbirders.  The register enabled by the re gulation offers an alternative method to comply 
with aspects of the Code.  However, the register is no longer active .  MPI has no evidence 
there is a  demand or need for a register.   
 
What do you think?  
15. Do you agree that regulations 16 and 17 (muttonbirds ) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
 
19 Regulation 20 (Wine)  
19.1 Description of the regulation  
 
Regulation 20(1) states that w ine labels must be accurate in terms of grape variety mentioned 
with a 75% rule for descriptions relating to grape variety.  Regulation 20 (2) provides that 
wine and mead sold in an off -licence must not contain more than 15% alcohol by volume.   
19.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revok ing regulation 20(1) of the Food (Safety) Regulations but retain ing the 
policy of a 75% wine varietal rule for imported win e via a new regulation within the Food 
Regulations 2015.   
 
We propose  revoking  regulation 20(2)  of the Food (Safety) Regulations .    
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   25 19.3 Rationale  
 
There is a public interest in ensuring accurate labelling of wines.  There is also a clear public 
interest in e nsuring the responsible sale of alcohol products.  However, this interest does not 
relate directly to food safety.   
19.3.1  The 75% varietal composition rule  
 
New Zealand relies on the 75% varietal composition rule in the Food (Safety) Regulations to 
set standard s for varietal composition of imported wine.  This means that, for example, if a 
wine is described as “merlot” at least 75% of the juice must be derived from merlot grapes.   
 
This rule implements our international commitment with respect to the wine varie ty labelling 
requirements for imported wine as agreed under the 2013 Protocol to the 2007 World Wine 
Trade Group Agreement on the Requirement for Wine Labelling , and needs to be retained.   
 
This proposal does not affect the rules for wines produced in New  Zealand under the Wine 
(Specifications) Notice 2006.   
19.3.2  Sales from off -licences  
 
Alcohol policy and legislation has been updated since the Food (Safety) Regulations were 
made  in 2002 .  Harm minimisation from the excessive consumption of alcohol, and the 
responsible sale of alcohol products is managed via the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.   
 
Section 58 of that Act restricts the kinds of alcohol sold in supermarkets and grocery shops, 
restricting them to beverages containing no more than 15% alcohol by  volume.   
 
Regulation 20(2) of the Food Safety Regulations has a broader scope as it applies to all off -
licences.   
 
The policy objectives behind regulation 20(2) do not appear to be related to food safety.  
Rather, they focus on public health and social policies that are now provided for in the Sale 
and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.   
 
What do you think?  
16. Do you agree that regulation 20(1) (wine) should be revoked, and the 75 percent 
varietal rule for imported wine continue to be provided for via a new regu lation 
within the Food Regulations 2015?  Why/why not?  
 
17. Do you agree that regulation 20(2) (sales from off -licences) should be revoked?  
Why/why not?  
 
  
26 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  20 Fluoridated water  
20.1 Description of the regulation  
 
Regulation 24(1)(a) states that i f water is added to food, it must be of potable quality.  
Fluoridated water from local authority water supplies may be added to food  (regulation 
24(1)(b) and 24(2)) .   
 
Regulation 24 (along with regulation 26 – sale of hemp seed oil as food) expires on 30 
October 2017 before the rest of the Food (Safety) Regulations.   
20.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  retain ing the policy intent of regulation 24  for water added to food from 
reticulated supplies  (with no expiry date) , by rolling this forward into the Food Regulations 
2015.  Some drafting u pdates will be required  to reflect current terminology and legislation.   
20.3 Rationale  
 
There is a clear public interest in ensuring that food is safe for people to eat, and that anything 
added to food does not adversely affect its safety and suitability.   
 
The Food Regulations 2015 provide that water must be suitable for the purpose for which it is 
used, and does not adversely affect food safety or suitability (regulation 21 for food c ontrol 
plans, and regulation 55 for national p rogrammes).  These regulatio ns are outcomes based . 
This means  that innovative practices are encouraged so long as the primary duty to ensure that 
food is safe and suitable is met.   
 
The use of fluoridated water in food was previously provided for u nder the Food Regulations 
1984.   
 
For operators who use reticulated water , the Ministry of Health administers laws ensuring 
the quality of this water.  This includes setting drinking water standards  to ensure potability, 
and setting acceptable levels of fluoride .   
 
For operators who use self-supply water to process and handle food, the Food Notice: Food 
Control Plans and National Programmes Notice (which came into force on 1 March 2016) sets 
out the requirements.  Clean water must be used for processing and handling food, including 
where w ater is added to food.  Clean water is de fined in section 2.2(1) of the n otice.   
 
Retaining regulation 24 for reticulated supplies ensures there is a continued focus on food 
safety , while recognising that different requirements may apply where food busine ss operators 
use water from sources other than a registered drinking water supplier.  It will clarif y that 
fluoridated water can be used as an ingredient in food .   
 
 
 
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   27 What do you think?  
 
18. Do you agree that the policy intent of regulation  24 (fluoridated water ) should be 
retained for water added to food from reticulated supplies ? Why/why not?  
 
 
21 Sale of hemp seed oil as food  
21.1 Description of the regulation  
 
Regulation 26 allows for the sale of hemp seed oil as food in New Zealand.   
 
Regulation 26 (along wit h regulation 24) expires on 30 October 2017 before the rest of the 
Food (Safety) Regulations.   
21.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  retaining  the permission in  regulation 26 (with no expiry date)  in the Food 
Regulations 2015.   Regulation 26 will need to be updated to ref lect current terminology and 
legislation.   
21.3 Rationale  
 
Prior to the Food (Safety) Regulations 2002, hemp seed oil could be legally sold in New 
Zealand under the Food Regulations 1984.  
When the Food Standards Code was enacted in 2002, it prohibited the sa le of parts of the 
cannabis plant under Standard 1.4.4 – Prohibited Botanicals.  
The intent was that regulation 26 (and regulation 24) w ould be a transitional arrangement 
until the policy matters they addressed were provided for under the Food Standards Co de.   
New Zealand has an established hemp seed oil industry.  There is no evidence of a policy 
problem with the status quo of permitting the sale of hemp seed oil as food.   
 
The sale of foods from non -viable hemp seeds has been an active issue with Food S tandards 
Australia New Zealand for several years.  Food Standards Australia New Zealand  have 
develop ed a draft proposal on how low -THC hemp could be legally designated as a food.  
Submissions closed on 25 August 2016.  If this proposal  is eventually accept ed by the 
Ministerial Forum, regulation 26 may no longer be required because hemp seed oil as food 
would be provided for under the Code.   
 
In the meantime, the permission in regulation 26 is relied on by the New Zealand hemp seed 
oil food industry and sho uld be retained  (in an amended form that reflects the most recent 
updates to the Food Standards Code, and technical adjustments to the testing regime) .    
28 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries   
 
What do you think?  
19. Do you agree that the permission contained in regulation 26 (hemp seed oil  
indu stry) should be retained? Why/why not?  
22 Analyst’s certificate and fees  
22.1 Description of the regulation  
 
The regulation provides for a standard form for analyst’s certificates under section 22 of the 
Food Act 1981.  Fees charged for a copy of the certificate and for requiring an officer to 
procure a sample for analysis are set.   
22.2 Proposal  
 
We propose  revok ing regulation 27 of the Food (Safety) Regulations .   
22.3 Rationale  
 
The matters outlined in regulation 27 have been superseded by the new Food Act 2014 
regime.   
 
What do you think?  
20. Do you agree that regulation 27 (analyst’s certificate and fees) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
 
23 Enforcement  
 
The Food (Safety) Regulations include two regulations relating to appeals, offences, and 
penalties (regulations 22 and 23 ). 
 
We propose that regulations 22 and 23 be revoked .  This is because any Food (Safety) 
Regulations being retained in the new Food Act 2014 regime  will come under that Act’s 
offences, penalties, and enforcement system.    
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   29  
24 Additional questions  
 
We invite feedback more generally on our proposals for revoking most of the Food (Safety) 
Regulations 2002.   
 
What do you think?  
21. Do you agree that the new Food Act will achieve the same or better safety and 
compliances outcomes as the Food (Safety) Regulations tha t we propose to 
revoke?  Why/Why not?  
22. What (if any) disadvantages or risks do you see with the new Food Act taking the 
place of these different Food (Safety) Regulations?   
 
 
  
30 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries  Part five : amendment to the Animal Products (Exemptions 
and Inclusions) Order 2000  
 
25 Proposals (Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) 
Order 2000)  
 
There is a significant overlap of the food types regulated by the Food Act, and the Animal 
Products Act 1999 (APA).   
 
The Food Act has a much wider scope, generally applying to anyt hing that is food for sale.  
The APA applies principally to animal material and products that are intended for human or 
animal consumption.   
 
The Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000 (the Order) exempts people 
and businesses from some AP A requirements.  One reason for such an exemption is that it is 
more appropriate for the person or process to be regulated under the Food Act.   
 
MPI proposes making minor changes to the Order to ensure that the APA and Food Act 
regimes work together seamle ssly. The aim is to clarify  that, where a person or business is 
exempt from operating under a risk based measure under the APA, an appropriate risk -based 
measure under the Food Act (for example a national programme or food control plan) would 
apply  instead . 
 
Proposed changes would apply to the following clauses:  
 fishmongers selling fish by way of retail sale (clause 10(1));  
 processing of certain dairy products consumed on premises (clause 7A(1)); and  
 processing of certain products that are food (clause 7B(1 )) – including, biscuits, cakes, 
bread, soups, sauces, snack goods, pastries, confectionary, prepared meals that do not 
consist principally of dairy products, and formulated caffeinated and alcoholic beverages.  
 
What do you think?  
23. Do you agree that the An imal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000 
should be amended to clarify  that the following persons or types of processing are 
covered by a risk -based measure under the Food Act 2014:  
 fishmongers selling fish by way of retail sale (clause 10(1));  
 processing of certain dairy products consumed on premises (clause 7A(1)); 
and 
 processing of certain products that are food (clause 7B(1))?  
 
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   31  
Part s ix: maximum  residue levels  
26 Proposals: maximum residue levels  
 
Clause 142(1)(c) of the Food Regulations 201 5 deals with maximum residue levels in 
processed food. Clause 142(1) currently reads:  
(1) The maximum residue level of an agricultural compound that may be present in a food 
applies to that food regardless of any processing, except for - 
(a) drying: or  
(b) dehydration;  or 
(c) concentration  (including in the production of wine).  
MPI has received advice that the words “(including in the production of wine)” creates an 
ambiguity in the interpretation of this provision.  We propose that the words be deleted.    
 
Clause 142(1)(c)  would then read:  
(2) The maximum residue level of an agricultural compound that may be present in a food 
applies to that food regardless of any processing, except for - 
(a) drying: or  
(b) dehydration; or  
(c) concentration . 
Residues in the wine need to be compliant with th e maximum residue limit for the raw food 
commodity being grapes.   
 
MPI may run further consultation processes if there appear to be gaps or opportunities to 
improve requirements in relation to maximum residue limits in processed food such as wine.  
 
What d o you think?  
24. Do you agree that the words “including in the production of wine” should be 
removed from clause 142(1)(c) of the Food Regulations 2015?  
 
  
32 Proposals for changes to food safety regulations  Ministry for Primary Industries   
Appendix 1: List of consultation questions  
 
Part two: refining the rules for national programme busin esses  
 
1. Do you agree that the Food Regulations 2015 should be amended to allow for differential 
cleaning requirements across national programme levels?   
2. Do you agree that lower -risk businesses should have fewer records keeping and 
procedural requirements t han higher -risk businesses?  
3. Do you see any issues with reducing the records keeping and procedural requirements as 
proposed?   
4. Are there any additional requirements that you think should be removed?  If so, why?  
Which sectors should no longer be subject t o those requirements?  
 
Part three: adjustments to verification requirements.   
 
5. Do you agree that there should be greater flexibility with initial verification timeframes?   
6. What do you think of the proposed maximum extension timeframes?  Do they strike th e 
right balance between ensuring safe and suitable food, and what is practical?  
7. Do you agree that the decision to extend maximum timeframes should lie with the 
relevant registration authority?  
8. Are there additional or alternative criteria that registration authorities should use to make 
decisions on extending initial verification timeframes?   
9. Do you agree that verification reports should have to include the names of technical 
experts who provided information, their reports and information about their compet ency 
(where a technical expert is consulted)?   
 
Part four: review of the Food (Safety) Regulations 2002  
 
10. Do you agree that regulation 6 (misuse of food containers) should be revoked? Why/why 
not? 
11. Do you agree that regulation 7 (safety of articles) should be revoked? Why/why not  
12. Do you agree that regulation 8 (identification of articles) should be revoked? Why/why 
not? 
13. Do you agree that regulation 9 (labels on bottles containing food) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
14. Do you agree that regulations 10 -12 (infe cted persons and food) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
15. Do you agree that regulations 16 and 17 (muttonbird) should be revoked?  Why/Why not?  
16. Do you agree that regulation 20(1) (wine) should be revoked, and the 75 percent varietal 
rule for imported wine con tinue to be provided for via a new regulation within the Food 
Regulations 2015?  Why/why not?  
17.  Do you agree that regulation 20(2) (sales from off -licences) should be revoked?  
Why/why not   
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposals fo r changes to food safety regulations   33 18. Do you agree that the policy intent of regulation 24 (fluoridated wa ter) should be retained 
and updated for water added to food from reticulated supplies? Why/why not?  
19. Do you agree that the permission contained in regulation 26 (hemp seed oil  industry ) 
should be retained? Why/why not?  
20. Do you agree that regulation 27 (analy st’s certificate and fees) should be revoked? 
Why/why not?  
21. Do you agree that the new Food Act will achieve the same or better safety and 
compliances outcomes as the Food (Safety) Regulations that we propose to revoke?  
Why/Why not?  
22. What (if any) disadvanta ges or risks do you see with the new Food Act taking the place of 
these different Food (Safety) Regulations?   
 
Part five: amendment to the Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000  
 
24. Do you agree that the Animal P roducts (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000 should 
be amended to ensure that the following persons or types of processing  are covered by a 
risk-based measure under the Food Act 2014:  
 fishmongers selling fish by way of retail sale (clause 10(1));  
 process ing of certain dairy products consumed on premises (clause 7A(1)); and  
 processing of certain products that are food (clause 7B(1))?  
 
Part six: maximum residue levels  
 
25. Do you agree that the words “including in the production of wine” should be removed 
from clause 142(1)(c) of the Food Regulations 2015?