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

Program. 204 The label, under which distribution is
expected to commence in July 2007, covers
beef, lamb, pork, chicken and eggs. It guarantees
to consumers that the animals from which their
food is sourced have been:
a. Treated with ‘respect and care, from birth
through to death’; 205 and
b. Allowed to ‘satisfy their behavioural
needs, to forage and move untethered and
uncaged, with free access to outside areas,
shade, shelter and a humane death’. 206
2. The standards give effect to the notion of
a humane death by imposing a prohibition on
the consciousness of an animal during
slaughter and stipulate that stunning with
exposure to gas is the preferred method of
inducing the animal into unconsciousness. 207
3. Procedures such as mulesing, nose ringing,
beak trimming, or any form of mutilation are
not allowed on farms that wish to utilise the
Humane Choice Label. 208 Weaning of piglets
is permitted to occur at 6 weeks of age 209
which is less than half the time that piglets
would ordinarily spend weaning while in a
natural state. 210
4. While the Humane Choice label is based
on the Australian Standard for organic
produce, 211 it attempts to integrate stricter
levels of animal welfare and does not require
participating farms to be certified organic. 212
LABELLING OF ANIMAL DERIVED
FOOD PRODUCTS IN AUSTRALIA
– KEY POINTS
• Although current laws require certain
information about animal-derived food
products to be disclosed on product
labels, the Australian Capital Territory and
Tasmania are the only jurisdictions that
expressly require production systems to
be identified. Their production system
labelling requirements are limited to eggs.
• In the absence of mandatory labelling
legislation, consumer protection laws have
an important role to play in encouraging
responsible labelling of animal-derived
food products.
• Food labelling laws also facilitate truth in
labelling; however these laws are no
substitute for a mandatory labelling regime
linked to animal production systems.
• In the absence of a mandatory labelling
scheme, a number of voluntary third
party certification and animal industry
quality assurance schemes have emerged
to profit from consumer concern for
animals in the marketplace.
• These schemes apply a variety of
standards and consumers may, in some
cases, overstate the significance of their
animal welfare claims.
204 Humane Society International received a $20,000 grant from Voiceless Limited in 2004, to fund the development of the Humane Choice label. See:
.
205 Humane Society International, New ‘Humane Choice’ Label Aimed at Improving the Lives of Farm Animals and Building Consumer Confidence, 9 August 2006
.
206 [paraphrased], Ibid.
207 Humane Society International, ‘Humane Choice’ Standards – General
. Substantively, the requirements are the same as
the Primary Industries Standing Committee, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments, 2002, however
the Code’s suggested method of inducing unconsciousness is captive-bolt stunning and electrified water baths for cattle and poultry respectively.
Refer to clauses 2.6.2.3 and 3.5 of the Code.
208 ‘Humane Choice’ Standards, above n 207, 1.6.
209 Piglets are granted a weaning time of at least 6 weeks after birth: Humane Society International, ‘Humane Choice’ Standards – Pigs, 1.5
.
210 CIWF Trust, above n 201.
211 Humane Society International, above n 205.
212 Compare the prohibition on mutilation in the ‘Humane Choice’ Standards, above n 207, with the allowance, under certain circumstances, of certain
mutilations under the RSPCA Standards, above n 197, 8.
From Label to Liable Lifting the veil on animal-derived food product labelling in Australia 23