Submission to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation
Ministerial Council: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review
(May 2010)
In this submission we will limit ourselves to providing our answers to the most relevant
and important questions in the 'Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling law and
Policy Review' of 5 March 2010 related to animal welfare.
This submission is additional to our previous submission 'Food Labelling Review - AA
Submission Ministerial Council Nov 2009' which is attached for your convenience.
Q2. What is adequate information and to what extent does such information need to be
physically present on the label or be provided through other means (eg education or
website)?
Food labelling information is adequate if it satisfies the consumer's need to make an informed
choice when purchasing a product.
Relevant to this submission, the labelling on animal-derived products such as chicken, pork and
eggs is an area of consumer choice that is in urgent need of more transparency in labelling. In
particular, consumers are becoming increasingly aware of many production practices and
methods which they disapprove of due to animal welfare concerns. Therefore, consumers want
to know about the production methods used to produce animal-derived products so they can
make informed purchasing choices. For example, the market share of free range eggs has
increased from just 5.5% in 20001 to an estimated 26.8% of eggs being free range and 5.5%
barn laid of all eggs sold in the grocery/retail sector in 2009.2 Increasingly, consumers demand
to be informed about these production practices and the proof is in the growth in demand for
ethically produced animal products. Further evidence is included in our previous submission
(attached) with references to surveys.
The European Union (EU) experience provides an example of how a simple and effective
labelling information system can provide consumers with clear and unambiguous information
about the production methods behind certain products. In the EU, packaging for eggs, for
example, must be clearly and visibly marked with one of three terms: “eggs from caged hens”,
“barn eggs” and “free range eggs”.3 Further, the eggs must be stamped individually with the
following codes to identify the manner in which they have been produced4: O = organic; 1 = free
range; 2 = barn; and 3 = cage. The terms used on EU labels are defined in legislation and
include detailed minimum standards.5
1
SCARM Working Group, Synopsis Report on the Review of Layer Hen Housing and Labelling of Eggs
in Australia, June 2000.
2 Australian Egg Corporation Ltd, Annual Report 2009, page 3. Available at:
http://www.aecl.org/system/attachments/231/original/2310_AECL_AnnualReport_final.pdf?1256278766.
3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, Article 10.
4 See Commission Directive 2002/4/EC, Annex.
5 See Commission Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006 and Council Regulation (EC) No 557/2007.
Taking egg labelling as a continuing example, there is a labelling regime currently in place by
the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (“AECL”) called the Egg Labelling Guide. The Guide
stipulates that labels should contain the terms “cage eggs”, “barn laid eggs” or “free range
eggs”.6
It is recommended that it should be a mandatory requirement to have these terms printed on all
egg cartons in Australia and New Zealand. The terms must be printed in a prescribed font type
and size on the front of all egg cartons. Further, a legally defined description of the production
system associated with that term should be included on the side of the packaging, again, in a
prescribed font type and size. The description on the label should include the type of animal
housing system used.
Further information about these defined labelling terms should be made available on the
websites of such organisations as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(“ACCC”) and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (“FSANZ”).
Similar trends in which consumers are increasingly wanting to buy more ethically produced
free-range or organic meat products warrant the implementation of analogous labelling systems
and legally defined terms.
In the same vein, certain misleading information and images should not be present on the
labelling of animal products. For example, terminology such as “Farm Fresh”, “Happy Hens”,
and “Natural Grain” and images of green fields and hens perching in the sun are misleading
and confusing to consumers. Such terminology and imagery implies that the animal was not
raised using intensive (factory) farming practices and results in the consumer being confused
and misled.
Q3. How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured?
A national legally-defined and legally enforceable labelling regime would ensure accurate and
consistent labelling.
The labelling regime currently in place by the AECL – the Egg Labelling Guide – represents
90% of all Australian egg producers7, however this labelling scheme does not have a legislative
backing. To add further ambiguity and a lack of centralised definitions, other organisations such
as the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia (FREPAA) and the RSPCA have
also developed their own set of labelling standards when it comes to the labelling of animal
products. The result here is that the “free range” production system represents a wide
continuum of terms, references, and animal welfare standards, and consequently much
confusion amongst consumers.
A national legislated labelling system should provide a set of legally defined terms and
minimum standards that must be used on the labels of animal products. The legislative terms
must specifically define the different production methods that are represented by the labelling
terms and must contain minimum standards in relation to how the animals are housed, the
farming methods used and other matters such as the transport and, where appropriate, the
slaughter of the animals.
6
AECL, Egg Labelling Guide: Guide to Australian Laws, Regulations and Standards for Egg Producers,
March 2009.
7 AECL, Quality Assurance (2009). Available at: http://www.aecl.org/egg-corp-assured> at 26 April 2010.
The advantage of national, legal definitions of animal production systems is that these
definitions can then be used by an auditing body independent from industry to audit compliance
and as enforcement standards against producers who falsely label their products. Also,
consumers can take comfort in the knowledge that the labelling representations they are
provided with are accurate and legally defined which will empower them to make solidly
informed choices.
The ACCC alone does not have the resources to police and monitor compliance with a national
food labelling standard. A collaborative model between the ACCC and FSANZ, however, could
provide an effective enforcement process.
This collaborative model would draw on an existing infrastructure between the ACCC and
FSANZ; namely, the memorandum of understanding to facilitate cooperation and coordination
between the ACCC and FSANZ, which was signed on 21 September 2009.8 This MOU
provides a framework for cooperation when issues of responsibility overlap and, more
importantly, will allow both agencies to take advantage of opportunities to assist each other with
food regulatory and trade practices compliance activities.9
Similar national legally-defined and legally enforceable labelling regimes are appropriate for
other animal-derived products.
Q4. What principles should guide decisions about government intervention on food
labelling?
First and foremost, the right to make an informed choice as a consumer should be a
fundamental principle when it comes to government intervention on food labelling. Further,
stamping out misleading and deceptive conduct by producers should also be a driving principle
to both ensure that consumers can rely on the information provided and to ensure that
producers don't face unfair competition from producers that mislabel their products.
The current abundance of confusing labelling has opened the door to many labelling scandals.
For example, a recent study found that “from January 2006 to January 2007 the free-range
flock would have had to grow by more than 37 per cent to match the increased sale of freerange eggs in the grocery sector… [t]he total free-range flock would have had to grow from
891,000 hens to 1.22 million to meet the free-range sales figures.”10
This means that as many as one in every six eggs labelled as “free range” are most likely false,
or at least misleading based on common consumer understanding regarding the term “free
range”.
8
Memorandum of Understanding between Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (2009) http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId
=525074&nodeId=90200c061feea6087d7643626e7fc677&fn=ACCC%20FSANZ%20MoU%20signed%
2029%20April%202004.pdf, 29 April 2010.
9 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Regulators Cooperate to Improve Food
Regulation (Press Release, 29 April 2004).
10 Kelly Burke, ‘Egg Group Figures Run Foul of Free-Range Claims’, WA Today (WA), 5 September
2009; <http://www.watoday.com.au/national/egg-group-figures-run-foul-of-freerange-claims-20090906fcla.html>; Kelly Burke, ‘Free-Range Egg Claims Don’t Add Up’, The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW), 6
September 2009 <http://www.smh.com.au/national/freerange-egg-claims-dont-add-up-20090905fc4b.html>.
In 2007 the Federal Court of Australia found one egg supplier guilty of substituting non-organic
eggs for supposedly certified organic ones.11
The animal food industry labelling scams are giving rise to much misleading and deceptive
conduct by producers clearly proving a failure of industry to self-regulate. Government
intervention is critical if the rights of consumers to make informed choices are to be protected
and loss of trust in food labelling in general is to be prevented.
Another principle that should guide decisions about government intervention when it comes to
food labelling is the regulation of market competition and fair trade.
Such deceptive behaviour by some producers is also compromising a fair competitive playing
field for Australian businesses. Producers of products that conform to higher welfare standards
are being pressured financially and may be pushed out of the market due to the fraudulent
activity of larger producers who subscribe to intensive farming practices and are therefore able
to offer lower pricing due to economies of scale, and yet fraudulently pass their products off as
“free range”.
Q13.To what extent should the labelling requirements of the Food Standards Code address
additional consumer-related concerns, with no immediate public health and safety impact?
AND
Q14.What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types of
information?
As an extension to our submission in Question 4 above, we make the following point: the
criteria used to determine what kind of information should be included in labelling should be
fundamentally driven by consumer demand. Consumers are calling out for labelling that clearly
informs them about the production methods used to produce animal-derived products.
Animal welfare is an important issue for Australians, demonstrated through community polls
and politically recently through the establishment of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and
its ongoing funding by the federal government. That Australians care about animal welfare is
reflected in the results of a survey conducted for the pig and egg industry by Professor
Grahame Coleman of Monash University. 60% of respondents agreed with the statement that
“welfare of animals is a major concern”, while 71% agreed that “farm animal welfare is an
important consideration”12.
In relation to food, interest in animal welfare is evidenced by the increasing number of people
that are becoming concerned about cruel practices inflicted on the large numbers of animals
which are 'factory-farmed'. This concern is expressed through the growing demand for more
ethically produced products such as free range eggs and free range and organic meat products.
For example, the market share of free range eggs has increased from just 5.5% in 200013 to an
estimated 26.8% of eggs being free range and 5.5% barn laid of all eggs sold in the
grocery/retail sector in 200914. A specific example of growth was published in the 2009
11
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v GO Drew Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1246; Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission, G O Drew Pty Ltd (2009) <http://www.accc.gov.au/content/
index.phtml/itemId/798723> at 25 April 2010.
12 See G Coleman, Public perceptions of animal pain and animal welfare in Australian Animal Welfare
Strategy Science Summit on Pain and Pain Management, May 2007 – Proceedings. Available at:
http://www.daff.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/299103/grahame-coleman.pdf.
13 SCARM Working Group, Synopsis Report on the Review of Layer Hen Housing and Labelling of Eggs
in Australia, June 2000.
14 Australian Egg Corporation Ltd, Annual Report 2009, page 3. Available at:
Woolworths Corporate Responsibility Report showing sales figures for the previous 12 months;
free range chicken has increased 33.6%, and free range egg sales up 32%.
As indicated by the growth in free range eggs sales, free range chicken and pork sales (advice
to Animals Australia from Woolworths and Coles supermarkets), increasing numbers of
consumers are willing to pay extra for more ethically produced food. Despite the current
economical downturn, 95% of consumers in a recent survey stated they are prepared to do
so15. Further evidence was documented in a 2007 report to show that the Australian consumer
is willing to pay
more for “cruelty-free” meat products16.
Another indicator of consumer “willingness to pay” is the fact that some producers and retailers
of animal food products are prepared to mislabel their products as “free range” or “organic” (and
thereby break the law), in order to be able to charge the higher prices commanded by those
products17.
Q15.What criteria should determine which, if any, foods are required to have country of
origin labelling?
The leading criteria driver should be ensuring consumers are able to make informed choices
when buying products that are made overseas. It has already been submitted that consumers
perceive animal welfare as an important issue when purchasing animal-derived products.
As such, CoOL should be present on all animal-derived products to indicate whether these
products conform to those welfare standards that are legally defined and enforced domestically
under the labelling systems proposed in this submission.
Under the EU regime, eggs imported from non-EU countries must be packaged in cartons that
are labelled with the eggs’ country of origin, as well as the phrase “non-EC Standards”. 18 A
similar labelling standard could be implemented in Australia and NZ for those egg products that
are imported from abroad as well as other imported animal-derived products. Already ACT law
requires egg cartons to be labelled indicating the housing method used, ensuring both ACT
produced eggs and interstate eggs are labelled.
Q17.Is there a need to establish agreed definitions of terms such as 'natural', 'lite', 'organic', 'free
range', 'virgin' (as regards olive oil), 'kosher' or 'halal'? If so, should these definitions be included or
referenced in the Food Standards Code?
From a consumer perspective, there is a great need to establish agreed definitions of terms for
animal-derived products such as meat and eggs. Recently it has been shown that consumers are at
times misled to believe they are buying 'free-range' products while the product in reality wasn't
produced according to what generally is believed to be 'free-range'. An example of this is the current
widespread use of the words 'Free to Roam' on chicken meat from factory farmed chickens. These
chickens are permitted to be housed wholly in sheds at up to 20 chickens per square metres and can
rarely move more than a few metres to feed and water in the crowded sheds.
http://www.aecl.org/system/attachments/231/original/2310_AECL_AnnualReport_final.pdf?1256278766.
15 Humane Society International Australia, 2009 National Consumer Survey, November 2009.
16 See Voiceless, summary of survey results in From Label to Liable: Scams, Scandals and Secrecy,
2007.
17 See for example ACCC v GO Drew Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1246.
18 Council Regulation 2001/05/EC of 19 December 2000 amending Article 7 of Regulation 1907/90/EEC.
Lack of legally defined terms however makes it very difficult to prevent this misleading conduct.
Agreed, legally defined definitions therefore are essential for consumers to be able to make informed
choices to their preferences and to be able to rely on the information provided.
Legally defined definitions are also important for producers to have clear guidance on what criteria
they have to adhere to if they want to market their product as an added value product.
Furthermore, established definitions are essential for proper auditing and for enforcing compliance.
Recent complaints have shown that the lack of established legal definitions makes it virtually
impossible to force producers to withdraw their misleading claims.
These definitions should be referenced in the Food Standards Code.
Q18. What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such information claims
for the food label?
See response to Q3 above. In addition, livestock farming 'commercial' quality assurance audit
systems should require adherence to legally defined label terminology, and current and future
Government-backed monitoring of (particularly) factory farming systems must incorporate
assessment of compliance with labelling descriptions of all animal-derived products.
Q29.In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the interpretation
and administration of food labelling standards be improved?
AND
Q30.In what ways can consistency, especially within Australia, in the enforcement of
food labelling standards be improved?
The only way to ensure consistency in food labelling and its enforcement is by introducing
legally defined terms with clear descriptions of the related minimum standards and by having
independent auditing by a central body (backed by consistent commercial and government
audit systems).
The adoption of the submission made in Question 3 above should ensure a consistent
approach to the interpretation and administration of food labelling standards.
Submission ends.
Animals Australia
13 May 2010.