Truth in Labelling
The treatment of animals in Australian factory farms is often hidden from public view. Truth in labelling legislation is one simple way to ensure consumers are not misled by packaging and instead allow them to make informed choices.
What's in a label?
Consumers are often unaware that many of the animal products for sale in Australia are sourced from factory farms.1
Within these farms, millions of animals are raised in intensive production systems, regularly subjected to cruel treatment and conditions.2 As this treatment is largely hidden from public view, most consumers do not have a true understanding of how their grocery items are produced.3
In Australia, consumers may be misled by the fact that labelling legislation does not require producers to disclose information about farm production methods, such as the use of sow stalls.4
Further, there are a number of terms currently used to differentiate the source of animal products. Taking eggs, for example, just some of the advertising terms often used include caged, battery, barn-laid, free-range, open-range, range, grain-fed, free-to-roam, bred free-range, organic and biodynamic. Most of these commonly accepted terms are not defined in nationally consistent legislation, which means there is broad scope for consumer uncertainty as to their true meaning.
Traditionally, packaging uses positive imagery and ambiguous terms like ‘farm fresh’ or ‘grown nature’s way’ to describe animal-derived food products. In this way, producers shield consumers from the realities of intensive farming practices.5 Low welfare producers may even profit from the willingness of consumers to pay more for products which appear to adhere to higher welfare standards but are, in fact, untruthfully labelled.6
If an Australian animal-derived product does not clearly state its production method there is a strong likelihood that it has been sourced from factory farmed animals who have been confined indoors and subjected to painful farming practices for the majority of their life.
Changing consumer attitudes
Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the realities of factory farming in the production of meat, dairy and egg products in Australia.8
Increasing numbers of consumers are willing to pay more for higher welfare products at the checkout,9 or are cutting out animal-derived food products altogether.10
This consumer sentiment coincides with a rise in legal proceedings against producers for using ambiguously worded food labels to mislead and deceive consumers about the origin of their food and the production methods used.
The federal consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), has responded strongly to incidents of industry misconduct in recent years. The ACCC has prosecuted several Australian producers under consumer protection legislation for misleading consumers about the animal welfare claims used on their marketing material, including the use of terms like ‘free range’, ‘free to roam’ and ‘grown nature’s way’.11
Consumers are increasingly calling for reforms to enable them to more easily make informed food choices.13 Inherent in this call is the demand for truth in food labelling legislation.
Introducing consistent labelling legislation
To date, Australian producers have responded to changing consumer sentiment by eagerly embracing third party certification programs promising ‘free range’ and ‘organic’ standards, as well as a number of industry accreditation schemes. In the absence of a legislative regime for labelling animal–derived food products, however, these programs provide limited assurance to consumers who may be misled by feel-good marketing imagery, inconsistent and vague welfare standards, and labels that imply high animal welfare standards.
Voiceless believes a nationally consistent approach to labelling legislation is the best approach for honest welfare labelling and consumer choice, including:
Effective, enforceable and nationally consistent truth in labelling legislation is the only way that consumers can make truly informed choices.
Learn more
Last updated October 2018
However, mandatory egg labelling legislation has been implemented in the ACT with the Eggs (Labelling and Sale) Act 2001, which clearly differentiates between “cage”, “barn”, “aviary” and “free range” eggs and makes it unlawful for producers to sell eggs without labelling their products in accordance with these defined terms. The legislation also makes it an offence for producers to incorrectly label their products. These identifying terms must be “conspicuously displayed” on the packaging (Section 5(c)). Also, cage, barn and free range eggs that are sold in a retail context must all be separated out into different sections of shelf space, and have signage naming the production method and describing the method using a prescribed definition (Section 7-7B).
South Australia is currently considering submissions on a voluntary accreditation scheme for free range egg producers. Under the scheme, accredited producers would label their eggs with a free range trade mark registered by the South Australian government. Producers adhering to the scheme must meet proscribed standards, however, the draft rules and standards released by the South Australian government included very few welfare standards and no stocking density for the chickens’ housing. See Voiceless’ 2015 and 2013 submissions to the South Australian government at <https://www.voiceless.org.au/animal-law/past-submissions>.
In 2011, the NSW Greens introduced the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. The Bill passed the Upper House but was defeated in the House of Representatives due to opposition from the National Party. <https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20111014014>.
According to Roy Morgan Research data, as of December 2006, 1,538,000 people in Australia aged 14 and over agree that "the food I eat is all, or almost all, vegetarian". That equates to 9.1% of the population aged 14 and over: Vegetarian Victoria, ‘Statistics on Vegetarianism’, <http://www.vegetarianvictoria.org.au/going-vegetarian/statistics-on-vegetarianism.html>.
A similar study in 2005 found that 30% of adults in Australia ‘usually or sometimes’ maintain a vegetarian diet: Health Focus International, HealthFocus International Trend Study: Australia, (2005).
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pepe's Ducks Ltd [2013] FCA 570, the Federal Court found Pepe’s Ducks Ltd, a leading supplier of duck meat products in Australia (approximately a 40% market share), contravened the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) for the use of the phrases ‘open range’ from 2004 to 2012 and the phrase ‘grown nature’s way’ from 2007 to 2012 on its product packaging, website, delivery vehicles and signage. In addition to a number of other orders, the Federal Court ordered by consent that Pepe’s Ducks Ltd pay $375,000 in civil pecuniary penalties and $25,000 in costs arising from misleading statements about its ducks.
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 665, the Federal Court found against two of Australia’s largest poultry producers, Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd and Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited, as well as the Australian Chicken and Meat Federation Inc., for the use of the phrase ‘free to roam’ in marketing and promotional material. The Federal Court found in favour of the ACCC, claiming that the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in accordance with the consumer protection legislation.
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pirovic Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1028, the Federal Court found against egg producer Pirovic Enterprises Pty Ltd for the use of the phrase “Pirovic Free Range Eggs” on egg cartons and the company website. The use of this phrase contravened the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and, in addition to other orders, the Court ordered the respondent to pay $300,000 in pecuniary penalties and the sum of $25,000 to recompense the ACCC for its legal costs.
The ACCC is currently bringing proceedings in the Federal Court against egg producers Derodi Pty Ltd (Derodi) and Holland Farms Pty Ltd (Holland). The consumer watchdog is alleging that their use of ‘free range’ in relation to their Ecoeggs, Field Fresh and Port Stephens egg brands was false and misleading in contravention of the Consumer Competition Act 2010 (Cth). See ACCC, ‘ACCC takes action against Ecoeggs supplier for free range claims’ (9 December 2014) <https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-ecoeggs-supplier-for-free-range-claims>.
In response to a direction from the ACCC, Australian Pork Limited, the peak industry body, was forced to correct claims that most pork production facilities already were sow stall free or would be by 2017. See Voiceless, ‘APL comes clean on ‘sow stall free’ claims’ (6 November 2013) <https://www.voiceless.org.au/content/apl-comes-clean-%E2%80%98sow-stall-free%E2%80%99-claims>.