Page 4 - Australian Pork Newspaper

The author in a vegetarian restaurant in Lisbon Portugal three years ago. The t-shirt is an ironic contrast with the lovely vegetarian meal. “I wore it deliberately and my vego partner Maree agreed to take the picture after I conceived it.”
It is in response to a Senate inquiry into the definitions of meat and other animal products.
Margo Andrae said this was not a new issue for the industry and that APL had regularly been involved in government discussions to build clear definitions to ensure people knew what they’re buying.
As of August 30, I had still received no clarifica- tion, despite repeating my question on August 19.
APL at odds with other protein promoters
Cant Comment by BRENDON CANT
DISQUIET is mounting over Australian Pork Limited’s refusal to put its name to a united media statement by bodies representing Aus- tralia’s sheep-meat, beef, chicken and seafood in- dustries.
APL issued its own media statement, highlighting outcomes from a survey it had commissioned that showed 50 percent of Australians, upon initially viewing packaging of a ‘plant-based roast pork’, considered the product was made of pork.
“This is why APL has been proactively working with industries and gov- ernment for some time to build clear definitions of meat category branding in Australia.
Issued last month, it called for truth in labelling for plant-based protein products that misleadingly use meat and seafood terms and imagery in their labelling and advertising.
The APL media state- ment went on to say A PL had been working with industry and government for some time on this issue and, while APL supported consumer choice and market innovation, it was simply asking for clear identification of the source and processes involved in developing these products, and that this vision was shared with other meat and livestock industries.
“As a research and de- velopment organisation, APL continues to advo- cate on behalf of industry by commissioning addi- tional consumer studies that support the work of other industries, including Pollinate.”
The August 6 state- ment was issued by the Australian Meat Industry Council, which represents pork and red meat pro- cessing and smallgoods manufacturing, wholesale and independent retail.
Clearly the above re- sponse did not directly ad- dress or answer my query as to why A PL would not be part of a united industry statement.
Delivering Specialist Agribusiness Public Relations Skills that will build your business, enhance your brand, promote your products and sell your services, all backed by unsurpassed professionalism, experience and track record.
Contact Brendon Cant
M 0417 930 536 E brendon@iinet.net.au
Signatories were Aus- tralian Chicken Meat Federation, Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council, Australian Lot Feeder’s Association, Australian Meat Industry Council, Cattle Council of Australia, Goat Industry Council of Australia, Red Meat Advisory Council, Seafood Industry Aus- tralia and Sheep Producers Australia.
the number of consumers who mistook plant-based products to contain meat (61 percent) and the strong community support for clearer labelling (73 per- cent agreed that plant- based products should not be allowed to use the term ‘meat’).
It seems to me that APL thinks it’s big enough and smart enough to run its own race on the important and evolving issue of truth in labelling.
I do know the drivers of the statement were par- ticularly keen to get APL on board, in an effort to create a narrative that it would be the first time all industries have united on a single issue.
“We also continue to work with our industry colleagues on the issue to support accurate and con- sistent messaging across livestock industries.”
Further, it’s worth noting that the very competitive and expanding plant-based protein manufacturing sector has its own ‘united’ body – Alternative Pro- teins Council.
And we all know that all governments open their ears widest to united in- dustry calls.
In an August 17 email I asked, “I am interested, however, to know why APL wasn’t a party to the recent August 6 joint media statement put out by Australia’s chicken, beef, sheep-meat and seafood industries.”
Its website stated, “The APC provides a collective voice for the sector and a platform to discuss shared issues and opportunities.”
The initiative followed the red meat industry com- missioning of a nationally representative survey on manufactured plant-based protein labelling.
“This seems at odds with what APL says... ” (ref- erencing the above state- ment).
“The council works to ensure the voice of the sector remains unified and impactful on key issues.
The results were pow- erful, especially regarding
“The APC engages at a national level on policy is- sues, enabling the sector’s shared vision and contin- uing to serve Australians who enjoy alternative pro- tein products.”
APL declined to put its name and logo on the media statement, ex- plaining its marketing team had done its own con- sumer survey to measure understanding of labelling, which it promised to share.
“In September, we sup- ported the plant-based la- belling roundtable hosted by Minister for Agricul- ture David Littleproud,” Ms Andrae said.
Representative bodies for other protein sources clearly think otherwise, hence why they moved to come together and make their collective position known in a united strong manner.
When APL was further pushed on the matter, in- cluding being reminded of conversations between APL chief executive of- ficer Margot Andrae and a senior red meat official, with the latter expressing surprise that APL had chosen at the eleventh hour not to be a signatory, APL sheltered behind its status as a research and develop- ment corporation governed by a statutory funding agreement and hence pro- hibited from lobbying.
I subsequently lodged a query with APL’s public relations outfit about the latter part of the above statement by Ms Andrae.
Founded in March this year, the APC is the rep- resentative group for Aus- tralia’s alternative proteins sector.
I understand questions were then raised within red meat circles about how APL then pays its mem- bership fees to federal lob- bying group, the National Farmers’ Federation.
I received the following August 19 response, emailed as a statement attributable to an APL spokesperson, “APL sup- ports consumer choice as long as it is based on clear, simple and truthful infor- mation.”
Clearly, they think there is still strength in num- bers.
Interesting question. Come August 17 and
I do too.
Elected director vacancy
NOMINATIONS are being called for the up- coming Australian Pork Limited elected director vacancy.
eligible candidate to the vacant position.
The APL skills-based Board
• Government rela- tions/public policy/ad- ministration
As required by the Australian Pork Limited constitution, one elected director of APL will re- tire at the annual general meeting being held on November 11, 2021 and one elected director posi- tion will become vacant at that time.
The APL constitution and the funding agree- ment between APL and the Commonwealth Gov- ernment both require a ‘skills-based Board’.
• Production
• Processing
• Food industry
• Promotion and mar-
To be eligible for elec- tion, candidates must:
• R&D commerciali- sation and technology transfer
• Be nominated by ei- ther a producer member of APL or a current APL director by 12.00pm Australia eastern daylight savings time on Thursday October 7, 2021, and
To inform this process, nominated candidates are required to provide a curriculum vitae and a written statement, spe- cifically addressing their potential contribution to the following collective Board core skill and ex- perience competencies:
• Conservation and natural resource man-
• Provide a con- sent to the nomination by 5.00pm AEDST on Thursday October 7, 2021.
• Governance
For further informa- tion, or to obtain a nomi- nation or consent form, contact Mr Damien Howse, A PL company secretary on 02 6285 2200 or companysec retary@australianpork. com.au
Delegates will then vote at the AGM to elect an
• Financial manage- ment
The APL people and culture committee will review all nominations received to determine the impact of each candi- date’s skills on the main- tenance of a skills-based Board.
and international mar- keting
keting
• Market development
• R&D/R&D adminis- tration
agement
• Business and
man-
agement acumen.
Forms and information
Page 4 – Australian Pork Newspaper, September 2021
www.porknews.com.au