JUST being modest could allow food manufacturers to get their products on the market 12 months faster.

The greater the claimed health benefit of a product, the greater the scrutiny under NSW government food labelling proposals to be released today.

The two-tiered system would be divided into high-level and low- level claims about such things as cholesterol control. High-level claims would be subject to an 18-month approval process, while less ambitious claims would only take six months.

The proposals are designed to ensure low-level claims would go through a simpler regulatory process to minimise red-tape and assist the food industry.

“The stronger the claim, the higher the level of scrutiny,” said NSW Primary Industries Ian Macdonald.

“With the streamlined process, we’re still looking at a six- month process.”

The NSW Government’s proposal for regulating the claims about so- called “bio-markers” such as cholesterol, bone density or blood pressure is the latest move in a protracted process of negotiation over national food labelling standards.

The proposals will be submitted today to the Food Regulation Ministerial Council, made up of all state and territory governments, and New Zealand.

Mr Macdonald said all claims currently go through an 18-month examination.

“High-level biomarker claims which state a product can prevent serious disease — such as `this food is high in calcium and may help reduce the risk of osteoporosis’ — would undergo an extensive pre-market assessment and approval, as previously agreed by all governments.

“Under the NSW initiative, there would be a more streamlined process for lower-risk maintenance claims — such as `this food is high in calcium and may help maintain bone density’.”

Australian Consumers Association food policy officer Clare Hughes said there were concerns the process would not be transparent.

“Basically the minister is proposing that the food regulator will substantiate the process, but not everything is open to public consultation, which is the present situation,” she said.

“Consumer and public health groups may not be able to see the evidence that supports the industry’s claims. This would be a major change in the development of food standards.”