Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Schedule 14 – Technological purposes performed by substances used as food additives

The central concept in Schedule 14 is the “technological purpose” performed by a substance when used as a food additive or processing aid. The schedule does not define “technological purpose” separately; instead, it provides an exhaustive list of recognised purposes, each with a specific definition. There are 22 purposes, each appearing in the table to S14,2. Some purposes are broad (e.g. “Colouring”, defined as “adds or restores colour to foods”), while others are narrowly circumscribed (e.g. “Bulking agent”, defined as “contributes to the volume of a food without contributing significantly to its available energy”). The table also includes sub-classes for many purposes. These sub-classes are not alternative definitions but are terms that fall within the scope of the main purpose. For example, under “Emulsifier”, the sub-classes are “emulsifier, emulsifying salt, plasticiser, dispersing agent, surface active agent, surfactant, wetting agent”. The presence of these sub-classes can be significant for labelling and enforcement: a substance described as a “wetting agent” on an ingredient list must correspond to the purpose “Emulsifier” as defined in Schedule 14, not some separate category. The schedule also makes several exclusions. Notably, “Flavouring” expressly excludes “herbs and spices and substances which have an exclusively sweet, sour or salt taste”. This means that table sugar, salt, and vinegar are not classified as flavourings under this schedule, even though they impart taste. Similarly, “Intense sweetener” is a separate purpose that replaces sweetness “without contributing significantly to their available energy”, distinguishing it from sugars and other caloric sweeteners. The schedule does not define “processing aid” or “food additive” itself; it only lists the technological purposes relevant to those definitions, which are set out in Standard 1.1.2 (paragraphs 1.1.2,11(1)(b) and 1.1.2,13(1)(c) and subparagraph 1.1.2,13(2)(a)(iii)). The interaction between these provisions is critical: a substance is used as a food additive only if it serves a technological purpose in the schedule during the manufacture of a food. If the substance serves a technological purpose only during processing and is not present in the final food at a functional level, it may be a processing aid. Schedule 14 therefore acts as a bridge between the general definitions of “used as a food additive” and “used as a processing aid” and the specific chemical substances listed elsewhere. The schedule also uses precise language. The definitions use “alters”, “controls”, “reduces”, “retards”, “prevents”, “contributes”, “facilitates”, “enhances”, “imparts”, “forms”, “maintains”, “increases”, “liberates”, “expels”. These verbs matter for legal interpretation: a function that does not match the exact verb (e.g. “diminishes” rather than “reduces”) may be argued as outside the purpose. The schedule also uses purpose-specific exclusions, such as in “Flavouring” which excludes substances with an exclusively sweet, sour, or salt taste, meaning that intense sweeteners are not considered flavourings even though they impart sweetness.

Schedule 14 affects every participant in the Australian and New Zealand food supply chain that uses food additives or processing aids. This includes manufacturers of processed foods, importers of foods and ingredients, suppliers of food additive preparations, food testing laboratories, and enforcement agencies such as state and territory food authorities in Australia and the Ministry for Primary Industries in New Zealand. The schedule indirectly affects consumers, but its primary impact is on the formulation choices of food businesses. For a food manufacturer, the schedule determines which technological purposes are legally available when selecting an additive. If a manufacturer wants to use a substance to perform a function not listed (e.g. to improve freeze-thaw stability in a way that does not fit “Stabiliser” or “Thickener”), that substance cannot be added as a food additive unless the schedule is amended. This imposes a constraint on product innovation and reformulation. Businesses that supply food additives must ensure that the products they sell are intended for a listed purpose. If they market an additive for an unlisted purpose, the buyer may inadvertently breach the Code. Importers face a similar risk: a food imported into Australia or New Zealand must comply with the Code, and if an additive in the imported food serves a function not recognised by Schedule 14, the food may be non-compliant even if the additive is permitted in the country of origin. Food testing and certification bodies need to interpret the definitions when verifying compliance. For example, testing whether a substance functions as a “Humectant” requires showing that it “retards moisture loss from food or promotes the dissolution of a solid in an aqueous medium”. Enforcement agencies use the schedule when deciding whether to prosecute or issue warnings. If a product contains an additive that serves a purpose not listed, the additive is not considered a food additive under the Code, which may mean it is an unapproved substance. The schedule also affects consultants and legal advisers who guide clients on additive use. Small manufacturers, in particular, face a disproportionate compliance burden because they rarely have in-house regulatory expertise and may rely on additive suppliers’ claims. The schedule applies equally in both countries, but enforcement and interpretation can vary. New Zealand’s Food Act 2014 adopts the Code, so the same definitions apply. However, the schedule does not distinguish between different types of food businesses; it applies to all regardless of size. This uniformity can be a burden for small producers who use traditional or artisan methods that may employ substances for functions not anticipated by the drafters of the schedule. Finally, the schedule affects the research and development priorities of ingredient suppliers: they will invest in additives that fit neatly into a listed purpose, because marketing an additive for a novel function requires a costly amendment to the Code through the FSANZ application process. This gatekeeping function therefore has a direct impact on the rate of innovation in the food additive market.

Schedule 14 does not itself impose duties or confer rights; it is a definitional instrument within the Code. The duties arise from other standards and from state or territory legislation that adopts the Code as law. The key duty for anyone who uses a substance in food is to ensure that if the substance is used as a food additive or processing aid, its technological purpose is one of those listed in the schedule. This duty is enforced indirectly: the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth) and corresponding state and territory Food Acts make it an offence to sell food that does not comply with the Code. Therefore, a business that uses a substance for a purpose not listed is selling non-compliant food. There is no duty in Schedule 14 to list the technological purpose on the label; labelling requirements are in Standard 1.2.4. However, the purpose must be capable of being demonstrated if challenged. The right that the schedule confers is the right to use a substance as a food additive or processing aid provided the purpose is listed and the substance is permitted in the relevant food under Standard 1.3.1 or 1.3.3. In other words, if a manufacturer can show that the additive serves a purpose in the schedule, and the additive is permitted for that food (with any maximum levels), then it may be used. The schedule therefore creates a safe harbour: use within the listed purposes is lawful; use outside them is not. There is also a right to apply to FSANZ to amend the schedule to add a new technological purpose. This is a significant right for industry, but it comes with costs: the application requires scientific evidence, a risk assessment, and a public consultation process. The schedule itself does not create any private rights of action (e.g. a right for a competitor to sue for non-compliance), but enforcement can be initiated by regulatory authorities, and private parties can report suspected non-compliance. Another subtle right is the ability to choose between overlapping purposes. Some substances may serve multiple purposes (e.g. a substance can be both an antioxidant and a preservative). The schedule does not require that a substance be used for only one purpose; it simply requires that the intended purpose be one of those listed. This gives businesses flexibility, but it also imposes a record-keeping duty: they must be able to demonstrate which purpose they are relying on, especially if the substance is used at a level that might be appropriate for one purpose but excessive for another. For enforcement, if a regulator suspects a substance is being used for an unlisted function, the burden of proof typically falls on the enforcement agency to show the food is non-compliant, but the business bears the practical burden of providing evidence about the intended purpose. Finally, rights of review exist under the FSANZ Act for decisions related to amendments to the schedule, but these are not directly relevant to day-to-day compliance.

Penalties for non-compliance with the food additive rules are not found in Schedule 14 itself; they are provided in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth) and in state and territory food legislation. However, because Schedule 14 defines what counts as a food additive or processing aid, it directly determines whether a breach has occurred. If a manufacturer uses a substance for a technological purpose not listed in the schedule, and that substance is not otherwise exempt, then any food containing it is non-compliant. The penalties for selling non-compliant food vary by jurisdiction but can include fines, court orders, and in serious cases, imprisonment. Under the FSANZ Act, maximum penalties for selling food that does not comply with a standard can be up to 2,000 penalty units for an individual and 10,000 penalty units for a body corporate. At current values, a penalty unit is $313 (as at 2025), so this means fines up to $626,000 for an individual and $3.13 million for a corporation. State and territory Food Acts impose similar penalties. In addition to financial penalties, enforcement agencies can issue improvement notices, seize and destroy non-compliant food, and publish details of prosecutions. The schedule also plays a role in enforcement because its definitions may be tested by expert evidence. For example, if a regulator alleges that a substance is used as a “bulking agent” but the manufacturer claims it is only a “processing aid” that does not remain in the food, expert testimony may be required to determine the function and whether it falls within the schedule’s definition. The schedule’s definitions are not accompanied by maximum levels or specifications, so an additive that serves a listed purpose may still be non-compliant if it exceeds a maximum permitted level set elsewhere in the Code. However, the schedule provides a clear starting point: if the purpose is not listed, enforcement is straightforward. The amendment history shows only two typographical corrections, so the definitions have been stable and rarely litigated. This does not mean that enforcement is rare; rather, the schedule’s clarity likely reduces the scope for dispute. For businesses, the main enforcement risk is inadvertent use of a substance for an unlisted purpose, especially when using imported ingredients or novel formulations. Importers face particular risk because the foreign manufacturer may not be aware of the schedule’s requirements. There is no specific penalty for failing to document the technological purpose, but if an inspector cannot determine the purpose, the food may be deemed non-compliant. In practice, enforcement tends to be risk-based, with agencies targeting products where the use of an additive appears to have no technological justification or where the additive is not permitted in that food. The schedule therefore provides a framework that guides both compliance and enforcement.

Schedule 14 does not operate in isolation; it is one piece of a larger regulatory framework. It is a standard under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and sits within the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Its primary interaction is with Standard 1.1.2, which contains the definitions of “used as a food additive” and “used as a processing aid”. Specifically, paragraph 1.1.2,11(1)(b) defines “used as a food additive” by reference to a substance performing a technological purpose listed in Schedule 14. Similarly, paragraph 1.1.2,13(1)(c) and subparagraph 1.1.2,13(2)(a)(iii) do the same for processing aids. Without Schedule 14, those definitions would be incomplete. The schedule also interacts with Standard 1.3.1 (Food Additives) and Standard 1.3.3 (Processing Aids). Standard 1.3.1 contains the lists of permitted food additives and the foods in which they may be used. A substance that is not permitted under Standard 1.3.1 cannot be used as a food additive even if its purpose is listed in Schedule 14. Conversely, a substance that is permitted under Standard 1.3.1 can only be used for a purpose that is listed in Schedule 14. If a permitted additive is used for a purpose not listed, that use is non-compliant. Therefore, Schedule 14 and Standard 1.3.1 must be read together. The same interaction applies to Standard 1.3.3 for processing aids. Schedule 14 also interacts with labelling standards, particularly Standard 1.2.4 (Labelling of Ingredients), which requires food additives to be declared by their class names (e.g. “emulsifier”) and specific names. The class names used on labels correspond to the purposes in Schedule 14. For example, if an additive is used as a thickener, it must be labelled as “thickener (name)” or similar. The definitions in Schedule 14 therefore affect the accuracy of ingredient statements. In New Zealand, the schedule is adopted under the Food Act 2014 (NZ). This means that New Zealand food businesses must comply with the same definitions, and New Zealand courts will interpret them consistently with Australian jurisprudence where possible. The schedule also interacts with the Australian Consumer Law (contained in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) to the extent that misleading claims about additives or their functions may constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. For example, claiming an additive is a “preservative” when it does not fit the schedule’s definition of “retards or prevents the deterioration of a food by micro organisms” could be an issue. Additionally, the schedule may interact with international trade obligations under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. If Australia and New Zealand define technological purposes differently from Codex Alimentarius, there could be trade barriers. However, the schedule generally aligns with Codex definitions for similar categories. There is no direct interaction with intellectual property law, but the schedule can affect patent claims and trade secret protection because a manufacturer must disclose the purpose of the additive in compliance documentation. Finally, the schedule is static; it does not incorporate other instruments by reference, but it is referred to in multiple other standards, creating a network of cross-references.

Schedule 14 was first published on 10 April 2015 in the Food Standards Gazette No. FSC96 as part of Amendment 154 (F2015L00436) and commenced on 1 March 2016. Since then, it has been amended twice, both times solely to correct typographical errors. Amendment 157 (registered 1 September 2015, commenced 1 March 2016) corrected typographical errors in the table under the definitions for “firming agent” and “raising agent”. Amendment 220 (registered 11 July 2023, commenced 19 July 2023) omitted and substituted a typographical error in the table to S14,2. The nature of the errors is not specified in the amendment history, but they were likely minor spelling or formatting issues. The compilation note indicates that the version as of 19 July 2023 is compilation No. 2 (up to Amendment No. 220). There are no uncommenced amendments shown. This amendment history reveals that the substantive content of the schedule has not been changed since its commencement. The 22 purposes, their definitions, and sub-classes are the same as in 2016. This stability is unusual for a regulatory instrument; other schedules in the Code are amended more frequently to add new additives or revise permissions. The lack of substantive amendments may indicate that FSANZ considers the taxonomy comprehensive enough to cover existing and foreseeable additive uses, or that the process for adding a new purpose is costly and rarely used by industry. It also means that any technological function that does not fit into these 22 purposes effectively cannot be performed by a food additive under the current Code. This creates a barrier to innovation: if a new functional ingredient is developed that, for example, modifies the texture of food in a way not covered by “Thickener”, “Gelling agent”, or “Stabiliser”, it cannot be used as a food additive unless the schedule is amended. The amendment process requires an application to FSANZ, which must include scientific evidence, a safety assessment, and a public consultation. This is a significant deterrent for small businesses, who may lack the resources to pursue an amendment. The two typographical corrections show that FSANZ does monitor the schedule for errors, but they also highlight that the schedule’s content is seen as settled. For practitioners, the stable amendment history means that any changes in the future will be notable and likely the subject of industry consultation. The compilation notes also mention that uncommenced amendments or provisions ceasing to have effect may be reflected in shaded boxed text. As of compilation No. 2, there are none. This suggests that no such amendments are pending.

The source provided does not record any litigation directly involving Schedule 14. The amendment history lists only typographical corrections, and no cases are cited in the instrument. This does not mean that the schedule has never been judicially considered; it means that the compilation does not include any references to court or tribunal decisions. In practice, because the schedule is definitional, it is more likely to be referenced in enforcement actions or appeals than to be the primary subject of a challenge. A defendant prosecuted for selling non-compliant food might argue that an additive serves a purpose not captured by the schedule, but that would be a factual argument about the additive’s function, not a challenge to the validity of the schedule itself. There have been few, if any, reported cases that turn solely on the interpretation of a specific purpose in Schedule 14. The stability of the definitions suggests that they are not controversial. The absence of litigation could be due to the clarity of the definitions, the fact that most additive uses are well established, or the cost of challenging a Food Standard. It could also reflect that enforcement agencies use the schedule conservatively, targeting clear violations rather than testing boundaries. However, for a deep dive, it is important to note that the schedule could be tested in court if, for example, a manufacturer used a substance for a claimed purpose that a regulator argued was not within the definition. A court would then apply ordinary principles of statutory interpretation to the definition text. The definitions are functional and use ordinary English words, so a court would give them their ordinary meaning unless a technical meaning is established. The sub-classes might be used as aids to interpretation. For instance, if a substance is marketed as a “firming agent” but the definition for “Firming agent” says “contributes to firmness of food or interacts with gelling agents to produce or strengthen a gel”, a regulator might argue that the substance does not contribute to firmness. The court would consider the evidentiary burden. The lack of litigation history also means that there are no precedents to guide interpretation of ambiguous phrases. For example, “contributes to the volume of a food without contributing significantly to its available energy” for bulking agents could be debated: what is “significantly”? In the absence of case law, FSANZ guidance and industry practice set the baseline. The schedule is part of a harmonised trans-Tasman scheme, so any litigation in New Zealand could influence Australian interpretation and vice versa. No such cases are known. For compliance professionals, the absence of litigation is a double-edged sword: it means less risk of unexpected judicial interpretation, but also less certainty about how a court would resolve a borderline case. Businesses should therefore obtain legal advice if they are considering using an additive for a novel or marginal purpose that does not clearly fit a definition.

Several less obvious features of Schedule 14 can catch out compliance professionals. First, the definition of “Flavouring” excludes herbs, spices, and substances with an exclusively sweet, sour, or salt taste. This means that a sweetener like sugar is not a “flavouring” under the schedule even though it imparts taste. But “Intense sweetener” is a separate purpose, so an intense sweetener cannot be labelled as a “flavouring”. Similarly, a substance that has a sour taste cannot be a flavouring; it would be an “Acidity regulator” if it alters pH, or it may not be an additive at all if it is a traditional food. Second, the sub-classes can create confusion. For example, “firming agent” appears as both a purpose (“Firming agent”) and as a sub-class under “Stabiliser” (where the sub-class is “binder, firming agent, water binding agent, foam stabiliser”). This means that a “firming agent” could be considered either a separate purpose or a sub-class of stabiliser. In practice, a substance used to firm a food should be classified under the “Firming agent” purpose, but a regulator might argue it falls under “Stabiliser” if it also maintains homogeneous dispersion. The overlap creates ambiguity. The schedule does not prioritise one classification over another. Third, the definition of “Humectant” includes “promotes the dissolution of a solid in an aqueous medium”. This is a dual function: it covers both moisture retention and dissolution, but not all humectants serve both. A substance that only promotes dissolution (like a solubiliser) may be a humectant, even though it does not retain moisture. This could catch manufacturers who think humectants only control moisture. Fourth, the schedule does not include a purpose for “nutrient addition” or “fortification”; those are regulated under Standard 1.3.2 (Vitamins and Minerals) and are not considered food additives. Adding vitamins for a nutritional purpose does not require a technological purpose; but if the same vitamin also serves a technological purpose (e.g. ascorbic acid as an antioxidant), then it must also comply with additive rules. Fifth, the schedule uses “means” in the definitions, which is typically exhaustive. So a purpose like “Antioxidant” is only “retards or prevents the oxidative deterioration of a food”. If a substance retards deterioration by other mechanisms (e.g. by chelating metals that catalyse oxidation), that substance may still be an antioxidant; the definition does not limit the mechanism. But if a substance retards oxidative deterioration by a non-oxidative mechanism, it may still be within the definition. Sixth, the schedule does not address the situation where a substance serves multiple purposes simultaneously. A manufacturer must pick one primary purpose for classification, but the Code does not specify which. This can lead to disputes about the appropriate category for labelling. Seventh, the schedule is only one part of the puzzle: even if a substance serves a listed purpose, it must also be permitted in the specific food under Standard 1.3.1. It is an error to assume that because a purpose is listed, any substance can be used. Eighth, the definitions are brief and lack technical precision. For instance, “contributes to the volume of a food without contributing significantly to its available energy” for bulking agents is vague. What constitutes “significantly”? This leaves room for regulatory discretion. Ninth, the schedule does not define “intense sweetener” beyond stating it “replaces the sweetness normally provided by sugars in foods without contributing significantly to their available energy”. This means that the substance must be intense (i.e., much sweeter than sugar per gram) and not contribute significant energy. The phrase “normally provided by sugars” might be interpreted differently for different foods. Finally, the schedule applies to both food additives and processing aids, but the distinction between the two is often difficult in practice. A substance that remains in the food at a functional level is a food additive; one that is removed or inert is a processing aid. Schedule 14 applies the same purposes to both categories, so a substance used as a processing aid must also serve a listed purpose. This means that even a processing aid (e.g., a filter aid) must have a purpose like “anti-caking agent” or “clarifying agent” - but “clarifying agent” is not listed. The only possible purpose for a filter aid might be “anti-caking agent” if it reduces particle adhesion, but that is a stretch. This gap could create non-compliance for many processing aids that do not neatly fit the listed purposes.

Compliance with Schedule 14 begins with identifying whether a substance added to a food is a food additive or a processing aid under the general definitions in Standard 1.1.2. If it is, the next step is to confirm that the substance’s technological purpose matches one of the 22 purposes in the table. This requires a factual assessment of what the substance does in the food. It is not enough that the substance is permitted in that food under Standard 1.3.1; the specific use must correspond to a listed purpose. Documentation should be maintained to show the intended purpose, such as technical data sheets, manufacturer specifications, or internal process records. For example, if a manufacturer adds lecithin to a chocolate product to reduce viscosity, they need to confirm that this function falls under “Emulsifier” (which includes “dispersing agent”) rather than under an unlisted purpose like “viscosity reduction”. The sub-classes can be helpful: “dispersing agent” is a sub-class of “Emulsifier”, so viscosity reduction through dispersion likely counts. But a manufacturer should be prepared to explain the mechanism. The next step is to ensure the substance is permitted for that food category under Standard 1.3.1 or 1.3.3. This also includes checking maximum permitted levels. The schedule does not specify levels, so compliance with levels is separate. For importers, the compliance burden is higher: they must verify that any additive in the imported food serves a listed purpose, even if the additive is permitted in the country of origin. This may require obtaining information from foreign suppliers. For small businesses, it is advisable to use only additives that are widely accepted and for which the purpose is well known (e.g., citric acid as an acidity regulator). If using a less common additive, a written opinion from a food technologist or regulatory consultant may be prudent. The schedule also affects labelling. When declaring additives on an ingredient list, the class name (e.g., “thickener”) must correspond to the purpose for which the additive is used. If an additive serves multiple purposes, the manufacturer should use the class name that best describes its primary function in that food. Standard 1.2.4 requires class names to be used, and the class names are exactly those listed in the schedule (e.g., “antioxidant”, “colour”). Using a term that is not a schedule purpose (e.g., “texturiser” if it is not used as a “thickener” or “firming agent”) could lead to mislabeling. Record keeping is essential. While the schedule does not impose explicit record-keeping duties, the general obligation to sell only compliant food means that businesses should be able to demonstrate, upon request, that each additive serves a listed purpose. This can be done through formulation records, purchase specifications, and batch documentation. For processing aids, the same logic applies, but the records should show that the substance is only used during processing and is removed or present at non-functional levels. The definitions in Schedule 14 are also relevant for determining whether a substance is a processing aid at all: if it serves a purpose that is not listed, it cannot be a processing aid and would instead be an unapproved additive. Therefore, compliance for processing aids also requires fitting within the schedule. Finally, if a business identifies a need for a new technological purpose not currently listed, the only compliant path is to apply to FSANZ to amend the schedule. This is a significant undertaking, requiring scientific evidence, safety assessment, and likely two to three years for approval. In the meantime, the substance cannot be used as a food additive or processing aid. The stable amendment history suggests that such applications are rare. Therefore, businesses should exhaust all possibilities of fitting a function within an existing purpose before seeking an amendment. For example, a function that improves mouthfeel might be classified as “Thickener” or “Stabiliser” rather than as a new “mouthfeel modifier”. A careful reading of the sub-classes may reveal an existing fit.