From Label to Liable: Scams, Scandals and Secrecy - Voiceless

ii)
for animal-derived food products.
Detection is largely based on the referral
of complaints by business and
consumers, 157 which means that many acts
of non-compliance may remain uncovered.
Significant time might elapse prior to
action being taken which can have a
negative impact on consumer confidence.
Food laws
1. Australia’s Federal, State and Territory food
laws contain a range of requirements which seek
to ensure a safe food supply. 158 Similarly to the
consumer protection laws discussed above, the
laws promote truth in labelling of animal-derived
food products by prohibiting misleading conduct
relating to the sale of foods including false
descriptions of food and misleading labelling. 159
2. The food regulatory system is
supplemented by the work of Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (‘FSANZ’), which is a
bi-national statutory authority responsible for
developing food standards to promote public
health and informed consumer choice. 160
Standards developed by FSANZ are
incorporated in the Australia New Zealand
Food Standards Code (‘the Food Code’).
While the Food Code technically permits the
development of standards for productionsystem
labelling, to date, no attempts to
develop such standards have been made. There
is also some question as to whether the Food
Code is an appropriate instrument to develop
such standards given that its primary focus is
food safety and not animal welfare.
3. In August 2002, FSANZ was tasked with
developing Primary Production and Processing
Standards (PPPs) for inclusion in the Code. 161
While a number of PPPs have subsequently been
developed, none have addressed productionsystem
labelling. It appears unlikely that future
PPPs will do so, since the FSANZ Protocol for
development of the standards states that they
should not be used for that purpose. 162
II.Voluntary labelling of
animal–derived food products
by production system
a) In the absence of a regulatory scheme for the
labelling of animal-derived food by production
system, a number of third party certification and
animal industry quality assurance schemes have
emerged. These schemes claim to address consumer
concern for animals in the marketplace; however a
brief survey suggests that:
i) The schemes apply a variety of animal
welfare standards; 163
ii) Some schemes have adopted a narrow
approach to ‘animal welfare’ by focusing on limited
needs (such as the need to range freely); 164
iii) Certain schemes appear to be more
prescriptive than others; 165
157 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Referral Guide .
158 See Food Standards Code incorporated into State law by Food Act 2003 (NSW) s 21; Food Act 1984 (Vic) s 16; Food Act 2006 (Qld) s 39; Health (ANZ Food
Standards Code Adoption) Regulations 2001 (WA); Food Act 2001 (SA) s 21; Food Act 2003 (Tas) s 21; Food Act 2001 (ACT) s 27; Food Act 2004 (NT) s 20.
See also Food Bill 2005 (WA) s 22.
159 Food Act 2001 (ACT) s 15, 18 ,24; Food Act 2004 (NT) s 14, 17, 21; Food Act 2003 (NSW) s 15, 18, 21 42; Food Act 2006 (Qld) ss 34, 37, 40; Food Act 2001
(SA) ss 15, 18, 22; Food Act 2003 (Tas); ss 15, 18, 22; Food Act 1984 (Vic) ss 10, 10A, 13, 17A; Food Bill 2005 (WA) ss 16, 19, 23.
160 FSANZ, About Us Webpage ; Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth) ss 3A, 9, 10.
161 Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Primary Production and Processing Fact Sheet (2002)
.
162 Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, Protocol for the development of PPP Standards by FSANZ, 3
. For examples of the Standards, see: Primary
Production and Processing Standard for Seafood – Standard 4.2.1, gazetted on 26 May 2005; Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat –
P282; Primary Production and Processing Standard for Dairy – P296; Primary Production and Processing Standard for Egg – Standard is currently being
developed. A PPP Standard for meat products is expected to be developed in October 2006.
163 For example, ‘beak trimming’ or ‘de-beaking’ is not recommended but is permitted under RSPCA standards, below n 193. It is permitted under Egg
Corp Assured standards, below n 179, but prohibited under the Humane Choice Label, below n 208.
164 The Egg Corp Assured standards permit the carrying out of painful procedures, such as beak trimming, even on certified ‘free-range’ poultry. See below
n 179. In contrast, the Humane Choice Label takes a broad approach to animal welfare by prohibiting all mutilation procedures, below n 208, while
these procedures are allowable in certain circumstances under RSPCA standards, below n 193.
165 For example, the Humane Choice Standards – Poultry, 1.1.5 set down minimum standards for ‘on ground’ density while the equivalent Australian
Certified Organic Standards are only intended to be used ‘as a guide’. Cf Humane Choice Standards – Poultry, 1.1.5.
and
Australian Certified Organic Standards, 5.2.5 and 5.2.6
. The specific discrepancy noted here is not intended
to suggest that either of these schemes is more prescriptive as a whole.
From Label to Liable Lifting the veil on animal-derived food product labelling in Australia 19