The Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection tightens the specification for the acid value of refined lard; the Food and Drug Administration says it will not follow suit
After the tainted oil scandal broke last year, the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection (BSMI) under the Ministry of Economic Affairs revised the national standard for "edible pork fat" at the end of March. Besides defining the permitted raw material range for "lard" - which cannot use brain, spinal cord, internal organs or coarse blood vessels - it also stipulated that the acid value must be below 2.0, and that of "refined pork fat" below 1.0. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Ministry of Health and Welfare said it will not follow the BSMI, because the BSMI standard is a "quality standard" that is followed voluntarily; the actually mandatory "sanitary standard" will still be based mainly on the FDA's official announcements.
BSMI distinguishes "pork fat" and "refined pork fat," defines sources and tightens the acid value for refined pork fat
The BSMI, referring to quality regulations for edible pork fat in various countries around the world, revised the national standard for "edible pork fat." The main change in this revision is to divide edible pork fat into two categories: "pork fat" and "refined pork fat." "Pork fat" refers to products rendered from fresh, clean fatty tissue of healthy, disease-free pig carcasses that have passed slaughter hygiene inspection (excluding parts such as brain, spinal cord, internal organs and coarse blood vessels).
In addition, the raw material source of "refined pork fat" is defined the same as pork fat, but the product is obtained through refining procedures (deacidification, decolorization or deodorization, etc.).
The BSMI also set clear requirements for 12 quality items including acid value and fatty acids, and tightened the acid value regulations, revising "pork fat" to below 2.0 mg KOH/g fat and "refined pork fat" to below 1.0 mg KOH/g fat. However, the FDA did not adopt the BSMI specifications, but instead adopted the United Nations standard, regulating the "refined pork fat" part at below 1.3 mg KOH/g fat.
Although the BSMI set the acid value for "refined pork fat" at 1.0, stricter than the 1.3 set in the FDA's draft notice, Chen Chun-cheng, an adjunct lecturer at the Extension Education Division of Chinese Culture University, said that the BSMI quality standard is a voluntary regulation and the FDA may not necessarily refer to it. Moreover, even after the revision the acid value is still too loose; for example, China requires it to be below 0.2, and Japan below 0.1, "Taiwan, China setting 1.0 makes it very easy to pass."
Regarding the BSMI's acid value regulation for "refined pork fat" being stricter than the FDA's, Pan Chih-kuan, head of the Food Division of the FDA under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, said that the acid value is only a quality standard; its level is like how watermelons are graded by sweetness. As long as the raw materials meet the regulations, it is fine, and an acid value that is too high usually produces off-odors, so businesses are unlikely to sell it.
Expert: raw materials should simply be limited to "fatty tissue" to prevent businesses from exploiting loopholes
In addition, Chen Chun-cheng also criticized that the BSMI should use a positive list to limit edible lard to the use of "fatty tissue" only, minimizing the raw material range as much as possible, and should not specially add a bracket after the regulation saying "excluding parts such as brain, spinal cord, internal organs and blood vessels"; the bracket is tantamount to opening a window for businesses.
"If a manufacturer uses other parts not listed above to render oil, such as pig bones, pig skin or unidentified parts, all of those rendered out should count as 'miscellaneous pork oil,'" Chen Chun-cheng worried. Under the current definition, manufacturers can clearly exploit loopholes, he said, pointing out that the BSMI again has no specific regulation on items "not included," "and afterward the source of the oil will still cause problems just the same."
FDA: will not refer to the BSMI; sanitary standards still based on FDA announcements
In response, Pan Chih-kuan said that the standard set by the BSMI is a quality standard and a voluntary regulation; the truly mandatory sanitary standard will still be based mainly on FDA announcements.
As for whether the raw material definition for edible lard not being a positive list opens the door for businesses, Pan Chih-kuan refuted this: "The FDA focuses on safety and hygiene. As long as the raw materials meet the regulations and come from healthy pigs at legal slaughterhouses, there is no need to specifically distinguish whether they are rendered from bones or other parts; these all count as fatty tissue."
In addition, on February 16 this year the FDA gave notice of the formulation of the "Draft Sanitary Standard for Edible Lard", originally scheduled to take effect in mid-April, but as of today (the 17th) the FDA has still not taken action. Pan Chih-kuan explained that although the 60-day notice period has passed, there are still some procedures to handle, and he will further confirm the progress with the agency.