Page 19 - Australian Pork Newspaper

Industry backlash to ACCC labelling submission
WORD definition is the fundamental issue be- hind labelling product as meat-based when the protein is non-animal derived.
use animal product re- lated descriptors – ‘meat’; ‘burger’; ‘milk’ – or pic- tures of animals on their labelling.
Food Standards Code are legislative instruments under the Legislation Act 2003.
sausage’, ‘vegetarian sau- sage’ or ‘soy sausage’.
with Code requirements for beer, as ‘ginger’ pro- vides the context of the beverage.
worked hard to establish our reputation as a trusted provider of nutritious and ethically produced pro- tein.
nutritious and ethically produced protein.
Whether a consumer is confused or mislead by the label comes back to the wording used to de- scribe the product.
Interestingly, in Aus- tralia the Code is enforced by state and territory de- partments and local coun- cils and the DAWE, cur- rently regulating to these definitions.
Nor is it being sold or in- tended to be sold as a sau- sage of meat from animal sources.
“Truth in labelling sup- ports fair competition and market innovation.
“APL continues to sup- port the wider success of Australian agriculture, but it is important that consumers have access to labelling that ensures consumers are not inad- vertently misled by label- ling and all proteins on our shelves meet the same compliance standards that the meat and dairy sectors currently adhere to.
A pulled pork burger made from plants and labelled using the word ‘pork’ indicates pork is used in the product, so many submissions pro- vided to the Senate in- quiry into the definition of meat suggest.
These reports were more in the nature of enquiries as to whether the prod- ucts were allowed to use animal product related descriptors or animal pic- tures on their labelling.
Therefore, composi- tional requirements in the Code that apply to food sold as a sausage of meat from animal sources do not apply.
“Australian pork’s reputation is built on marketing and commu- nication investments, underpinned by science- based industry integrity systems, which provide clarity and certainty to Australian consumers.
However, a submission from the Australian Com- petition and Consumer Commission indicated plant-based ‘meats’ were not likely to mislead an ordinary consumer.
According to FSANZ, the Code requires certain foods for sale to bear a label.
Section 1.1.1—13 of the Code does not apply to meat or meat products other than those listed above – minced beef and ribeye steak for example.
Australian Pork Limited submitted that Australian pork producers, similar to those involved in red meat, poultry, eggs and dairy production, pay levies towards research and innovation, marketing and strategic policy devel- opment to ensure the pork that Australians enjoy every day is safe, nutri- tious and affordable.
The ACCC’s role in- cludes enforcing the Aus- tralian Consumer Law.
The ACCC has reviewed the reports received about labelling of plant-based substitute products using animal related descriptors or animal images.
The name of the food stated on the label must be sufficient to indicate the true nature of the food unless the Code requires a prescribed name to be used instead (subsection 1.2.2—2(1) of the Code).
As for all foods, con- sumer protection legisla- tion also applies.
APL stated, “The invest- ment of these levies as- sists our producers to care for their animals and the environment in line with community and market expectations.”
“A recent survey con- ducted by APL shows that 50 percent of Aus- tralians upon initial view of package labelling of a ‘plant-based roast pork’ believed the product was made of pork.
“APL firmly believes that truth in labelling supports an even playing ground for Australian pork producers and the ability of Australian con- sumers to make informed purchasing decisions.”
The ACL is an econ- omy-wide law of general application that focusses on fair trading and con- sumer protection.
In each case it consid- ered that a court would view the overall impres- sion conveyed by the la- belling of these products as unlikely to mislead an ordinary consumer.
There are no prescribed names in the Code for meat analogues.
Section 1.1.1—13 is not just applicable to meat and plant-based foods, it applies across the food supply – a beverage named as ‘ginger beer’ does not need to comply
“This confusion poses an unacceptable risk to the reputation of our in- dustry and its products, as a trusted provider of
It is intended to provide a baseline standard for all businesses across all products and services.
The Code provides that certain foods sold with a specified name or rep- resentation must satisfy compositional require- ments.
“Our industry has
However, in general the information provided demonstrated that these contacts had not been misled by the labelling of the products, as they were fully aware of what the relevant product was made of when viewing it for sale.
They have been devel- oped by FSA NZ to lower the incidence of food- borne illness, thereby assuring consumers that food is safe to eat.
It is clear that such a product is not a sausage containing meat from an- imal sources.
The National Farmers’ Federation remains con- cerned that the current use of animal protein lan- guage and animal images on plant-based products has the impact of con- veying the nutritional equivalence of animal- based products when often these products are not nutritionally equiva- lent.
“APL supports con- sumer choice, so long as it is based on clear, simple and truthful information.
“The survey also found that about 50 percent of respondents believed that plant-based products shouldn’t be allowed to use terms such as ‘pork’ or ‘bacon’.
Over the period January 2020 to June 2021, the ACCC received only 11 such reports out of around 564,000 total contacts over the same period.
For these foods the label must include the name of the food (para- graph 1.2.1—8(1)(a) of the Code).
For those foods, the re- quirement for the name of the food to indicate its true nature applies (sub- section 1.2.2—2(1) of the Code).
“This clarity and cer- tainty supports Austral- ians in making informed purchasing decisions.
“It is crucial that regu- lations under the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) and Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act) deliver this outcome.
Among other things, the ACL prohibits businesses from engaging in conduct that is misleading or de- ceptive or likely to mis- lead or deceive, or from making a representation that is false or misleading about the quality, quan- tity, composition or origin of products, including food products.
Nationals senator Susan McDonald, who is facili- tating the inquiry with the rural and regional affairs and transport committee, said she had heard a dif- ferent story to the ACCC.
For meat and meat products these foods (as defined in subsection 1.1.2—3(2) of the Code) are:
It is important to high- light the fact that only a court, not the ACCC, can determine whether the ACL has been con- travened.
dried meat flesh in whole cuts
The test applied by the court as to whether the labelling of a plant-based substitute product would be misleading under the ACL is to assess the overall impression con- veyed to a reasonable consumer by the labelling and packaging.
Senator McDonald said she was going to ask the ACCC for more informa- tion about the complaints it had received when the inquiry has its hearings.
section 1.1.1—13 of the Code requires that these compositional require- ments must be satisfied in any sale in which a purchaser is likely to as- sume that the food being sold was one of the foods listed above – a sausage as an example – unless the context makes clear this is not the intention.
When undertaking this assessment, the court takes the full context and circumstances into ac- count.
The Australian Gov- ernment, through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 4.2.3 – Pro- duction and Processing Standard for Meat (Aus- tralia only), as adminis- tered by the Department of Health through Food Standards Australia and New Zealand has clearly defined the following terms:
For instance, the Code requires that a food that is sold as sausage must be sausage and:
This includes matters such as specific state- ments made and images used and their relative prominence, placement and size.
• Contain no less than 500g/kg of fat free meat flesh, and
Former butcher and Nationals Senator Susan McDonald leads the inquiry into the labelling of non-animal protein.
The courts’ considera- tion does not hinge on the use of any particular word, such as ‘meat’, or any particular image.
• Division 2: – ‘meat’ means any part of a slaughtered animal for human consumption, and – ‘meat producer’ means a business, enterprise or activity that involves the growing, supply or trans- portation of animals for human consumption.
For this purpose, the term ‘sausage’ is defined by the Code to mean ‘a food that:
The ACCC had not re- ceived information to demonstrate that the la- belling of plant-based substitute products was an issue causing consumer detriment.
• Consists of meat that has been minced, meat that has been comminuted or a mixture of both, whether or not mixed with other foods, and which has been encased or formed into discrete units, and
The ACCC received very few reports about consumers being misled by the labelling used for plant-based substitute products.
These definitions pro- vide clear explanation of what the terms mean – and therefore what they do not mean – and objec- tive measures by which to assess compliance with these definitions.
• Does not include meat formed or joined into the semblance of cuts of meat.’
The few received were reports from consumers and industry stakeholders in sectors that produce meat or dairy products raising concern that plant- based substitute products
They have been devel- oped using a rigorous, sci- entific methodology and remove any ambiguity as to what ‘meat’ is.
In this regard, the Code defines ‘meat’ to mean meat from animal sources.
www.porknews.com.au
The standards in the Australia New Zealand
As such, the above com- positional requirements do not apply to meat ana- logue products labelled and sold as ‘meat-free
Australian Pork Newspaper, October 2021 – Page 19
“I have been flooded with people who have contacted me to say they have bought a product that they didn't intend to,” Ms McDonald said.
• Sausage
• Meat pie
• Dried meat
• Cured and/or
“Primarily these are people who are elderly, English is not their first language, disabled people and people who are just busy in the shops.”
or pieces
• Manufactured meat
• Processed meat.
In these circumstances,
Funding to help SunPork improve future animal welfare practices across the industry.
Grant to grow industry welfare standard
SUNPORK has re- ceived a $2.89 million grant to help improve animal welfare prac- tices across the in- dustry.
“On this proposal Sun- Pork will join with its research partners at pig farms across Australia’s eastern states, including Farrer producers PIC Australasia in Grong Grong and Rivalea just outside Corowa,” Ms Ley said.
their tail docked soon after birth to prevent tail biting later in life.
improved market op- portunities and returns for producers,” Dr van Barneveld said.
Federal Member for Farrer Sussan Ley said the federal grant would help SunPork, Australia’s largest pork producer, work towards eliminating the practice of tail removal from pigs.
He said this was a sub- stantial reputational risk that could threaten the sustainability of Aus- tralia’s $5.3 billion pork industry.
Project participants also include the Austral- asian Pig Research In- stitute, Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit at the University of New England, University of Melbourne, University of Queensland, Aus- tralian Pork Ltd and the RSPCA.
SunPork chief execu- tive officer and man- aging director Robert van Barneveld said pigs traditionally had part of
“Eliminating docking will provide significant welfare benefits, en- hancing people’s confi- dence in our industry, which then leads to
Broader contextual mat- ters such as where the products are sold and their placement within su- permarkets will also be relevant.
• Division 1 (1) – ‘meat product’ means a food containing no less than 300g/kg of meat.
• Have a proportion of fat that is no more than 500g/kg of the fat free meat flesh content.
These compositional requirements include the requirement that the product contains meat.