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

LABELLING SCAMS AND SCANDALS
– KEY POINTS
• The absence of a mandatory labelling
regime for animal-derived food products
has prompted concerns about the
presence of specious standards and the
widespread deception of consumers both
in Australia and overseas.
• Recent allegations concerning the
mislabelling of free-range eggs in Australia
highlight the limitations of current
reactionary laws.
• Imprecise definitions of production
methods facilitated the avoidance of penalty
by a New Zealand producer in relation to
its use of the term ‘barn raised’.
• An American organisation, Compassion
Over Killing, was successful in its
proceedings to remove use of the label
‘Animal Care Certified’ on eggs produced
in battery cages.
• People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals was denied its claim for
misleading advertising of dairy products as
the respondent in the matter was not a
legal person for the purpose of the
relevant legislation.
II. What consumers want
a) Words
i) In order to effectively inform consumers
about the production system in which an animal
was raised, animal-derived food product labels
should be limited to a few commonly
understood words to prevent confusion. 266 This
approach to labelling has been employed by
many producers who label their products with
words such as ‘caged’,‘bred free-range’ or ‘freerange’.
Unfortunately, as explained in Chapter 3,
these terms are currently of limited value since
they are neither defined in legislation nor linked
to uniform animal protection standards.
b) Symbols
i) Some producers use both words and
symbols to inform consumers when animal
welfare has been taken into consideration during
the preparation of their products. For example,
products sold by RSPCA accredited producers
generally depict the RSPCA logo and are also
marked with the words ‘to RSPCA Standards’.
This communicates a message to the consumer
that the product adheres to a certain standard
of animal welfare, although most consumers will
only have a basic understanding of those
standards and therefore need to place their trust
in the reputation of the accreditation body.
ii) The ‘traffic light labelling system,’ which was
developed by the UK’s Food Standards Agency, 267
represents a further labelling approach that has
been used to help consumers differentiate between
food products. If traffic light labelling was applied to
animal-derived food products, red, green and amber
labels could be used to connote low, high and
medium levels of animal welfare.
iii) Although traffic light labelling appears
applicable to animal-derived food products, in
order for it to be truly effective:
1. It must be linked to strictly defined, uniform
animal welfare standards; and
2. The meaning of each colour must be clearly
understood by consumers to ensure that the
system is not abused by savvy marketers and to
ensure effective enforcement is possible.
iv) As previously discussed in this Chapter, where
strict standards are not in place, manufacturers can
be quick to exploit consumer uncertainty in the
name of good animal welfare. 268
c) Pictures
i) A further method of labelling which does not
appear to have been widely used on animal-derived
food products, is the application of ‘negative’ images
or photos to communicate standards of animal
welfare afforded by different animal production
systems. While it is common to see images of freerange
chickens in fields on products marked ‘free-
266 For a discussion of the proliferation of animal welfare labels in the United States see: Andrew Martin, ‘Meat Labels Hope to Lure the Sensitive
Carnivore’, New York Times (United States), 24 October 2006
.
267 ‘Traffic Light Labelling’, Food Standards Agency .
268 The Humane Society of the United States, above n 251.
From Label to Liable Lifting the veil on animal-derived food product labelling in Australia 29