May In summary, HSI s submission makes the following recommendations to the Ministerial Council:

Transcription

1 Humane Society International Submission to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy: Issues Consultation Paper May 2010 Executive Summary Humane Society International (HSI) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Australia & New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Review s Food Labelling Law and Policy Issues Consultation Paper. HSI has identified labelling issues, which not only hinder the ability of consumers to make informed decisions but also enable misleading and deceptive product marketing, as a major problem in Australia. This Ministerial Council review provides a timely opportunity for the resolution of these issues. HSI s key policy is that the absence of mandatory and legislated labelling terms for the method of production of meat products has led to a suite of voluntary terms, standards and third party certification schemes of varying regulation that have resulted in the big producers redefining the terms to suit themselves. Consequently, consumers are left with a spectrum of products produced under a range of conditions with ambiguous labelling. In this submission to the Review, HSI will be commenting on issues within the context of our truth in labelling framework. HSI will not comment on all questions, for reasons that some fall out of our working policy frameworks and will leave it up to other stakeholders to comment. HSI are submitting a response to the following questions as asked by the Food Labelling Law and Policy Issues Consultation Paper. Questions that are briefly addressed are commented on within HSI s policies and framework in relation to truth in labelling. In summary, HSI s submission makes the following recommendations to the Ministerial Council: To consider consumer concerns for environmental and ethical labelling. Specifically, that method of production is developed as a key labelling standard as it provides opportunity to address environmental and ethical consumer concerns. To consider consumer demand trends and market based tools in determining the inclusion of labelling for the method of production of meat products. The development of a set of nationally standardised, legally enforceable, definitions for method of production of meat products. Specifically, for the term free range. Without a standardised set of definitions for method of

2 production, producers and retailers can continue to mislabel without answering to regulations protecting consumers rights. HSI recommends that a standardised, mandatory set of terms for the method of production of meat products, specifically for the term free range, be developed. Nationally standardised labelling for method of production of animal products. Driven by consumer concerns and demand for more sustainable products, and increasing environmental and health risks associated with method of production systems, labelling needs to provide consumers with more information and capacity to choose. The development of a nationally standardised mandatory labelling scheme for the method of production of all meats, eggs and dairy products that allows the use of only a limited number of nationally consistent and legally defined terms. These would enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions on the basis of health, environmental, and ethical considerations; and prevent confusion of various labelling schemes used to promote products rather than true method of production. The avoidance of relying on voluntary codes for the labelling of animal product method of production systems. Voluntary codes will create a competitive labelling discourse, which risks decreasing the standards of the product and has potential to misguide consumers and retailers alike. Improve mandatory regulation for labelling so that is focuses on pre-emptive strategy and policy, for meeting consumer demands, rather than post-emptive actions in response to consumer, producer and retailer concerns. Particularly for the case with method of production labelling, a lack of national standards has led to multiple cases of consumer misguidance and retailer and producer mislabelling. With mandatory method of production labelling in place, consumers freedom of choice will not be compromised. The formation of a whole governing entity, such as a Ministry of Food. There is a need for the development of a body which can represent consumer demands, market behaviours, and regulate policy in regards to food in general. Especially in regards to the social, environmental and economic frameworks which food concerns fall into. Furthermore, given the current concerns over food issues, and the need for long term strategic management of the country s food supply, such a body could provide for strengthened management and national food policy planning. 2

3 Tables and Graphs Table 1 Results from HSI s 2009 national consumer survey p.6 Responses to statements on product labelling Graph 1 Results from HSI s 2009 national consumer survey p.14 Responses to the statement Animals raised in bred free range conditions have: Attachments: 1) Summary and results of HSI s Consumer Survey Humane Society International Australia, ) Background Briefing: Food Fears ABC Radio National, April 18, ) Code of Practice for the labelling of pork and pork products BPEX/UK Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, ) Special Eurobarometer survey results Preferred sources of identification: Labelling (pp ) European Commission, Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare, Special Eurobarometer 270, March, 2007 Addendum Humane Society International Submission to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy: Issues Consultation Paper Labelling of Seafood HSI is providing this submission in addition to our more detailed submission to the Food Labelling review consultation, which should be referred to separately. The intent of this submission is to focus solely on the labelling of seafood. 3

4 Part 2: Food Labelling - Overview Q1. To what extent should the food regulatory system be used to meet broader public health objectives? Q2. What is adequate information and to what extent does such information need to be physically present on the label or be provided through other means (eg. education or website)? Q3. How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured? Q4. What principles should guide decisions about government intervention on food labelling? Q5. What criteria should determine the appropriate tools for intervention? Provided is HSI s submission in response to the questions presented in Part 2 of the Review s Consultation Paper. As the responses are further expanded upon through in subsequent parts, please refer to those sections of HSI s submission for further consideration. In looking at the extent of public health objectives being assessed by the Review, HSI encourages that the Review take into consideration broader objectives which are evident from consumer demand and public concern. Evidence proves that there is increasing concern for broader issues and that these are resulting in new consumer demands. In particular is the rise in popularity for more sustainable products such as free range products and the method of production systems of meat products, which both have indirect but significant health impacts for consumers. The decision to develop labelling standards for the method of production of meat products should be guided by evidence of consumer demand, risks to human health and the environment, and a more strategic policy against sustainable development. Current labelling of method of production of meat products consists of a series of voluntary terms, standards, and third party certification schemes of varying regulation. Such a system has led to constant cases of mislabelling and misrepresentation at the expense of legitimate producers and retailers and consumers freedom of choice. HSI Recommends: The development of a nationally standardised mandatory labelling scheme for the method of production of all meats, eggs and dairy products that allows the use of only a limited number of nationally consistent and legally defined terms. These would enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions on the basis of health, environmental, and ethical considerations; and prevent confusion of various labelling schemes used to promote products rather than true method of production. 4

5 Part 3: Key Roles of Food Labelling Q13. To what extent should the labelling requirements of the Food Standards Code address additional consumer-related concerns, with no immediate public health and safety impact? FSANZ objectives state that for food standards to support the provision of adequate information for consumers to make informed choices, FSANZ must consider addressing consumer concerns extending beyond public health 1. Labelling which addresses consumer concerns with no immediate public health and safety impact is debatable. However, with evidence of strong consumer demand, and direct environmental and ethical impacts, to include such information for consumers in undoubtedly within FSANZ s working framework and their obligation to provide consumers with freedom of choice. Furthermore, FSANZ has already set precedence for labelling reflecting consumerrelated concerns with no immediate public health and safety impact. Such labelling is a real and developing discourse which is broadening the scope of labelling information. FSANZ s Country of Origin Labelling (CoOL) standard has created precedence within the Code to strengthen the higher order principle to Ensure that consumers have access to accurate information regarding the contents and production of food products. 2 In addition to CoOL labelling, increasing attention on sustainable development 3 is guiding the discourse towards more informed and sustainably minded consumer choices which are evident from the large array of voluntary eco-labelling on products. Specifically, HSI recommends that consumer concerns for environmental and ethical labelling are considered. The general purpose of which is to inform consumers of the affability of the products and to develop a level of environmental and ethical standards 4. Specifically, HSI proposes method of production as a key labelling standard which provides opportunity to address environmental and ethical consumer concerns. FSANZ needs to address consumer-related concerns (with no immediate public health and safety impact) through labelling based on the following evidence: Consumer Demand HSI recently conducted a national consumer survey from which just over 3000 responses were analysed and demonstrated that there is a clear demand for labelling reform. Specifically, that 98% of respondents agree that full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right. 5

6 Responses to statements on product labelling 120% 100% 98% 93% 95% 80% Percentage 60% Agree Disagree No Response 40% 20% 0% 1% I believe full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right: 6% 3% 1% 2% 1% I feel that current labels give me enough I would be prepared to pay a little more for information to make informed purchasing ethically produced food: decisions: Statement Table 1 Results from HSI s 2009 national consumer survey Responses to statements on product labelling (Attachment 1) Consumer demand for labelling with no immediate public health and safety impact, and labelling of method of production specifically, can be further confirmed by the following consumer opinions: Consumer spending on RSPCA s Freedom Food (UK) chicken increased by 55 million pounds over the past year, whereas consumer spending for standard chicken decreased by more than 26 million pounds. Correspondingly, RSPCA Freedom Food chick production increased by more than 15 million kilograms and standard chicken production dropped by 11 million kilograms. 5 A global survey conducted across the UK, US, Germany, Argentina and China revealed that At least half of all consumers surveyed want a direct say in the use of ingredients, treatment of animals, nutritional content and who should be responsible for food safety and quality. 6 A consumer opinion poll commissioned by the (WSPA) in late 2007 found that 68% of adult Americans said the humane treatment of farm animals raised for food is important to them. The survey also found that 55% indicated that is important for them to be able to buy humanely labelled meat and eggs in their local supermarkets. 7 Reporting was supported by supplementary survey results which showed that 50% of respondents of a national survey conducted by Oklahoma State University considered the well-being of farm animals when purchasing meat and a majority felt that personal food choices have a large impact on the well-being of farm animals; and that survey respondents ranked the treatment of animals first after food safety and nutrition 8. The 2010 Deloitte Consumer Food Safety Survey found that 76% of respondents were more concerned about the food they eat than they were five years ago, a 10% increase in concern since the 2008 survey. 9 6

7 Recent reporting from OnFood online showed survey findings from the independent business analyst which found that over half of consumers globally reported that protecting the environment is significantly more important to them now than two years ago and that 57% of consumers felt it was important to buy ethical or socially responsible products. 10 A 2008 Newspoll survey found that one in five Australian are eating free range chicken meat more often that they did two years ago, and two thirds choosing free range are concerned about the conditions under which regular chickens are being raised and believe that free range meat is better quality. 11 In 2006, the European Commission produced results from a Special Eurobarometer survey carried out by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General. Results showed that 55% of respondents felt that current labels of food products did not enable them to identify welfare-friendly products 12 ; a majority of six out of every ten (58%) of EU citizens said they would like the receive more information about farming conditions in their country 13 ; and almost 75% of respondents said that they believed buying animal friendly products could have a positive impact on the protection of farmed animals 14. To add, when asked choose the three main reasons why consumers may buy products, 48% of respondents included the high quality of welfare-friendly products 15 ; and 62% felt that future animal welfare standards were likely to be demand driven and influenced by consumer s willingness to change their shopping patterns due to welfare conditions. A report from the Commission of the European Communities, to the European Parliament, on the options for animal welfare labelling stated that Both the analysis of the outcome of two Eurobarometer surveys and the feasibility study on animal welfare labelling suggest that animal welfare labelling, based on sound scientific knowledge and assessed on the basis of harmonised requirements, could enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and make it possible for producers to benefit from market opportunities Both the marketing strategies for the labels and the studies are highlighting that a significant proportion of citizens wish to be informed not just about the "physical qualities, such as the contents of desired and undesired ingredients, but also about other qualities of the food they buy, which include the ethical factors related to production and the way animals are treated. 16 A study conducted across the US in 2009, Beyond Organic How evolving consumer concerns influence food purchases, revealed that 70% of those surveyed believes that a company or brand s ethical standards have a bearing on their decision to buy their products 17. The report also claims that ethical issues are frequently linked to safety concerns and ethical behaviour can add credibility to assurances about safety. For example, a consumer may believe that if an animal is humanely raised, it also has been subject to other responsible practices that allay safety concerns, such as being raised without antibiotics or artificial hormones. [and as a result] many consumers see ethical claims as an important part of a cluster of responsible behaviours shown by food producers and manufacturers. 18 Environmental Concerns The abovementioned evidence proves that consumers increasingly want to make environmentally conscious purchasing decisions. Clear and adequate method of production labelling will allow them to do so as it differentiates between intensive 7

8 production methods, associated with more negative environmental implications; and the more free range and organic production methods, which are significantly more environmentally friendly. At a time when land, energy and water are scarce and costly, lower-input farming would be more environmentally efficient than intensive farming and is capable of providing adequate nutrition for the nine billion people of Evidence to prove intensive and alternative (free range) production methods impact the environment differently, and so therefore provide reason for labelling to allow consumers freedom of choice, is as follows: Climate Change It is now commonly acknowledged that rural industries and meat farming contribute greatly to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and are subsequently one of the leading causes of global warming. The UN s Food and Agriculture Organisation reported that livestock contributes to approximately 18% of greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent) 20. It has also recently been purported that a shift to free range production methods would not only reduce emissions associated with livestock industries, but would concurrently reduce the effects of global warming by sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere. As there is more carbon stored in soil in comparison with the atmosphere, free range farming methods can contribute to the better management of that bank of carbon. By moving animals frequently, it allows the grass to accumulate the carbon. The animals then trample the soil, enabling it to absorb the carbon. When the animals are moved, the grass is allowed to re-sprout and the process is repeated. 21 Such free range farming effectively mitigates the methane emissions associated with raising cattle. 22 Studies are also showing that cattle grazing on healthier grass that is allowed to regenerate produce up to 20% less methane during digestion, 23 thereby directly contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Both the United Kingdom 24 and Sweden 25 are considering food labelling schemes that will provide information on greenhouse gases involved in food production, which will be linked to environmental standards relating to, among other things, energy inputs, fertiliser use, soil management, waste management and water pollution. In a Humane Society International (HSUS) report on the impact of animal agriculture on global warming and climate change, it was explained that As the largest anthropogenic user of land and responsible for more GHG emissions than transportation, the farm animal production sector must be held accountable for its many deleterious impacts, and changes in animal agricultural practices must be achieved. Individually, reducing food miles and choosing less harmful transportation and energy use options are effective strategies; however, incorporating environmentally sound and animal welfare-friendly practices into daily life, including adopting consumptive habits less reliant on meat, eggs, and dairy products, are necessary to slow the effects of climate change 26 Furthermore, Compassion in World Farming s (CIWF) report, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, suggests that 8

9 The most effective and fairest solution for reducing global livestock-related GHG emissions is to reduce the consumption of factory farmed products 27. (p.8) With increasing public concern for climate change impacts, the ability for labelling to reflect consumers efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a valid reason for the mandatory labelling for method of production for meat products. Water Livestock production processes impact water quality by releasing nutrients, pathogens and other substances into water systems 28, which often lead to environmental problems such as eutrophication and oxygen depletion. To illustrate the extent of its impact, it has been reported that around 30% of nitrogen that pollutes water in the EU and the US is a result of agriculture 29. To add, water usage on intensive farms is far greater than that used with free range production methods. For example, a free range pork producer would use seven times less water than an intensive farm with the same number of breeding sows. 30 There is a clear correlation between method of production for livestock and the environmental impacts on watersheds, with evidence to show that intensive production systems have greater potential to pollute and disturb biotic and natural systems. Moreover, a UN report, Livestock s Long Shadow, predicted that continued intensive livestock farming will intensify emerging traditional and zoonotic diseases 31. The UN report, Livestock s Long Shadow, predicts that continued intensive livestock farming will intensify emerging and traditional zoonotic disease. (pp ) Waste The impact intensive livestock production has on waste management is significantly greater than less intensive systems. Reports show that the processes involved with intensive systems indoor animal rearing, increased demand for feed etc. results in a depletion of natural resources and breaks the links between livestock and the carrying capacity of the land and its ability to recycle wastes. 32 Evidence that greenhouse gas emissions, water system degradation and waste production varies according to livestock production systems, and that intensive production systems are more environmentally damaging, demonstrate that consumers ability to choose products based on method of production is a viable label which, through consumer influence, can help reduce environmental impacts of livestock production. Ethical Concerns Consumers must have the right to make informed purchasing decisions that align with their ethics and belief systems. The conditions in which the 500 million animals currently in factory farming environments are housed and treated is widely documented. As education campaigns inform consumers of the common practices in these environments, including cramped and often inhumane living conditions and cruel husbandry practices, 33 increasing numbers of consumers are choosing to purchase more ethically produced products, quite often at 9

10 premium prices. HSI s national consumer survey reported that, in fact, 95% of respondents were prepared to pay a little more for ethically produced food (Table1; Attachment 1). Furthermore, the use of terms and marketing practices promoting happy and free animals by producers shows that there is an increasing demand for such produce and an urgent need for a nationally consistent labelling scheme to protect consumers and to assist them in being able to identify those products that are produced according to humane production methods and standards. HSI Recommends: That the Ministerial Council consider consumer concerns for environmental and ethical labelling. Specifically, that method of production is developed as a key labelling standard as it provides opportunity to address environmental and ethical consumer concerns. Q.14 What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types of information? As discussed in relation to Question 13, labelling which addresses consumer-related concerns with no immediate public health and safety impact should include issues which are of importance to consumers and which allow their interests to be represented through the goods they purchase. HSI has presented valid evidence that method of production for animal products has significant influence over consumer choice driven by environmental and ethical standards sufficiently identified through method of production. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2006, reported that Growing economies and populations combined with increasing scarcity of environmental resources and rising environmental problems are already translating into a growing demand for environmental services At the local level, markets will undoubtedly develop for the provision of such services There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people, the relatively affluent, middle to high level income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries.this group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases. The development of markets for organic products and other forms of eco-labelling are precursors of this trend, as are the tendency towards vegetarianism in developed countries and the trend towards healthier diets 34 Consumer demand and market forces are criteria which underpin the need for FSANZ to include method of production standards for labelling. 10

11 Consumer Demand Results from HSI s national consumer survey on animal derived food products revealed that 98.3% of respondents believe that full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right, yet only 7.4% believe that current labels give enough information to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. Further evidence provided (see HSI s response to question 13, p.x) also shows that consumer demand for labelling specific to animal welfare standards, including labelling method of production. Livestock in a Changing Landscape, a new international report looking at the sustainability of the livestock industry, produced by leading institutions 35 and led by the UN FAO, is the first time such institutions have come together to discuss the environmental, social, health and economic impacts of global livestock industries and the developing a more sustainable future. Of the report, one of the co-editors explains that So much of the problem comes down to the individual consumer People aren t going to stop eating meat, but If they are informed that they do have choices to help build a more sustainable and equitable world, they can make better choices. 36 To add, the report states that Consumers, because of their strong and growing influence in determining the characteristics of products, will likely be the main source of commercial and political pressure to push the livestock sector into more sustainable forms. Major progress has been made in the fisheries and forestry sectors in eco-labelling of sustainably harvested fish and forest products This has not yet emerged in the meat and milk sector The development and application of environmental standards critically relies on functioning institutions that need to include specific environmental challenges of the livestock sector. 37 Meeting consumer demand is a key criterion in determining labelling reform for method of production. It provides confirmation that consumer demand can help drive and develop sustainable development and associated policies. Market Forces A FSANZ standard on welfare labelling, namely method of production, would create market opportunities for sustainable development. To exclude market opportunities in determining labelling standards would be to hinder economically sustainable development. The UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, 1999, states that Responsibility for sustainable consumption is shared by all members and organizations of society, with informed consumers, Government, business, labour organizations, and consumer and environmental organizations playing particularly important roles. Informed consumers have an essential role in promoting consumption that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable, including through the effects of their choices on producers. Governments should promote the development and implementation of policies for sustainable consumption and the integration of those policies with other public policies. Government policy-making should be conducted in consultation with 11

12 business, consumer and environmental organizations, and other concerned groups. Business has a responsibility for promoting sustainable consumption through the design, production and distribution of goods and services. 38 HSI s national consumer survey on animal derived food products also revealed that 95% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay a little more for ethically produced food. A willingness to pay can provide the driving forces to more sustainable meat production for the market. As stated earlier, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that consumer demand for environmentally and ethically produced products in increasing, which has the potential to develop more sustainable markets. For example, Consumer spending on RSPCA s Freedom Food (UK) chicken increased by 55 million pounds over the past year, whereas consumer spending for standard chicken decreased by more than 26 million pounds. Correspondingly, RSPCA Freedom Food chick production increased by more than 15 million kilograms and standard chicken production dropped by 11 million kilograms. 39 To add, Choice Magazine s article on Organic meats states that the retail value of the Australian organic market in 2008 was more than $600 million, with between 10% and 30% growth per annum for some sectors 40. Furthermore, a report drafted by UNESCO, in 2009, on Energy flow, environment and ethical considerations for meat production stated the need to promote and support more sustainable livestock production, which market forces can play a significant role in: Developing policies related to livestock production should provide opportunity for meaningful participation of various stakeholders. Human and institutional arrangements that could facilitate the process as well as the dynamics of engagements The role of these smallholder systems [less intensive livestock producers] as basic units of social organization with unique cultural identity has to be considered when national and international policies are implemented. The small-scale family farms hold the key to more productivity, environmental sustainability, and more employment. 41 Research from the FAO has found that in achieving prices which reflect the full environmental costs of livestock, including all externalities, lower-input farming can more than halve the external costs per kilogram of product. 42 Allowing market access for more sustainable products, and facilitating sufficient market functioning, is a valid and significant criterion to consider when deciding on developing standards for method of production labelling. HSI Recommends: That the Ministerial Council consider consumer demand trends and market based tools in determining the inclusion of labelling for the method of production of meat products. 12

13 Q17. Is there a need to establish agreed definitions of terms such as natural, lite, organic, free range, virgin, kosher or halal? If so, should these definitions be included or referenced in the Food Standards Code? At present, the wide array of voluntary terms, standards and third party certification schemes for animal welfare labelling has led to no clear and uniform definition. Consequently, consumers and retailers are increasingly confused and misled when purchasing or selling eco-labelled products. The 2009 Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into meat marketing addressed concern that labelling claims about ethical animal treatment were being misused to the detriment of legitimate operators 43. In response to concerns and issues submitted, the Committee commented that The committee agrees that it is currently too easy for food producers to make dubious claims about their animal welfare practices on the labels seen at retail level. This is because it is too difficult for the ACCC to prosecute misleading and deceptive conduct in this area when the meaning of these descriptors are broadly understood but not clearly defined. Any misuse of animal welfare descriptors such as free range threatens the competitiveness of genuine producers bearing the increased costs associated with meeting high animal welfare standards. 44 HSI s own national consumer survey showed that consumers are clearly confused about terms currently being used which are loosely defined and often misused. For example, 93% of respondents did not know that animals raised in bred free-range farming systems only have access to the outdoors in the first few weeks of life and are kept in intensive systems the rest of the time; and 98% of respondents did not know that animals kept in eco-shelters have no outdoor access, nearly half (44%) did not even know what the term meant and 35% thought it meant continuous free access to outdoor areas with/without shelter. (See attachment 1) In the labelling of free range products, method of production provides an avenue through which a standardised set of terms can be created to provide consumers with the information needed to make informed choices on true free range products. Case study: Free range pork definitions Free range pork definitions in Australia are a prime example in demonstrating current confusions regarding method of production labelling and the resulting stakeholder disadvantages. Choice Magazine reported that consumers are now looking for more than just health information on food labelling, and current labelling is misguiding Consumers want to be able to trust organic and free-range claims on products. 45 In HSI s recent national consumer survey, respondents were asked to identify the conditions for animals raised in bred free range. Only 7% of respondents answered correctly. Over 41% believed it meant continuous free access to outdoor areas with or without shelter, which is in fact the description of Free Range conditions. 13

14 Q4 Animals raised in "bred free range" conditions have: Continuous free access to outdoor areas without shelter from the elements 4% Can t say / Don t know 34% Continuous free access to outdoor areas with shelter from the elements 37% No outdoor access. Animals are kept in pens or cages 1% No outdoor access. Animals are kept in barns 3% Outdoor access for the first few weeks of life only 7% Some sort of limited access to outdoor areas, but spend most of their lives indoors 14% CORRECT ANSWER: Outdoor access for the first few weeks of life only Only 7% of respondents answered this question correctly Over 41% of respondents believed it meant continuous free access to outdoor areas with/without shelter. 34% didn't know the answer Graph 1 Results from HSI s 2009 national consumer survey Multiple choice responses to the statement Animals raised in bred free range conditions have: (Attachment 1) Pork product eco-labels currently include the following terms: free range bred free range outdoor raised open range all natural grain fed organic pasture raised hormone growth promoter free barn reared (eco) housing indoor intensive housing The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (the Code), a set of guidelines providing each State and Territory with minimum standards from which to develop their own regulations in relation to pig farming, does not place any restrictions on the use of the phrase free range and does not define bred free range. Australian Pork Limited (APL), a producer owned company which represents Australian pork producers, defines free range pork as Pork derived from animals raised in Australia with adherence to humane animal practices as prescribed by the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs. 14

15 Throughout their lives the pigs are provided continuous free access to the outdoors and shelter from the elements furnished with bedding. This term may only be used when both the growing pigs and the sows from which they have been bred have been kept under these conditions. 46 Australian Pig Farmers Association, an association representing Australian free range pig farmers, defines free range pork production as the following Free range pork production consists of outdoor paddocks, which include rooting areas, wallows and kennels or huts for shelter. The huts allow the animals to seek shelter from environmental extremes. They also provide additional protection for the piglets when very young. 47 Whilst an industry supported definition exists, these definitions are not adhered to by all producers and retailers because there is no State or Commonwealth legislation which specifically defines free range. The UK voluntary code of practice for labelling of pork and pork products was created based on advice from the UK Food Standards Agency 48 and LACORS. (See attachment 3, pp.4-5, for details of pig production terms established) The code reasons that There are accepted industry norms relating to these terms but there are not agreed, auditable definitions as there are, for example in the poultry sector. The Code of Practice therefore includes such definitions so that consumers can be fully informed when buying these products. 49 In Australia, without any standard definition for free range mislabelling impacts producers, retailers and consumers alike. A lack of definition has meant that the ACCC is unable to prosecute cases of mislabelling and deceptive conduct. Furthermore, under the Trade Practices Act (TPA) 1974, only two states Tasmania and South Australia take into consideration cases of misleading or deceptive conduct (section 52, TPA) without the existence of a standard definition for free range. This has led to constant abuses of the term in the free range market, which is impacting true free range producers, retailers and consumers freedom of choice. The following are specific examples of how current lack of definition causes issues: Australian Pork Limited producers competing against imported free range APL has stated that a standardized set of requirements for method of production is necessary to protect both producers and consumers 50. This is especially significant in protecting Australian pork products from competition against imported pork products. For example, Primo free range pork products have entered the Australian market. With Australia currently holding no standards on free range pork, the market is open to foreign products dominating the market as free range. A prime example is the case with a Danish pork product, which has entered the Australian market labelled as free range when, in Australia, their method of production is actually only recognised as bred free range. With an Australian set of standards, the market would be protected against lower international standards. 15

16 Voluntary codes misguiding retailers and consumers Voluntary codes developed to promote free range products give the opportunity for producers to become accredited without following the highest possible standards. Recent reporting by the ABC on food labelling gave the RSPCA s Approved Farming Scheme- Pigs as an example of how voluntary codes fill the vacuum and lower labelling standards to push their own agendas (See attachment 2). The RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Pigs standards clearly identify method of production systems as a guiding standard: Indoor systems where all pigs are kept in a fully covered environment (e.g. sheds or covered shelters) which meet the specifications of these Standards. Outdoor systems (marketed as free range ) where all pigs have access to outdoor range areas that meet the specifications of these Standards. Combination systems (marketed as bred free range ) where breeding pigs (sows and boars) have access to outdoor range areas and growing pigs are kept in indoor or covered systems. Such definitions are quite broad and do not correspond with the highest possible standards for free range. The same ABC report included a comment from a free range pig farmer, which explained that it s a real pity the RSPCA are not clearer in their systems that they have. Again, it misleads the consumers, because they have introduced a system which we can t use, because we can t be differentiated within it, and we would be classed with people that we just don t think that the welfare of the animals is good. 51 Furthermore, all pork products under the scheme are labelled with the same logo which does not distinguish between pork produced from indoor, outdoor and combination systems. For example, As a result, Gooralie and Otway, two pork producers under the RSPCA s scheme use the paw of approval logo on their products and maintain the image they are free range despite the fact they are only classified under the scheme as bred free range. In essence, consumers trusting they are buying free range offered by the RSPCA continue to support producers with lower welfare standards. Similarly, Boks Bacon has a number of free range products which, according to industry definition, are not free range because they still use enviro shelters 52 and also source from Gooralie under the impression they are also free range 53. Free range mislabelling by retailer David Jones HSI has made numerous complaints to the ACCC in regards to David Jones Ltd mislabelling Otway bred free range pork sold in their Market Street store as free range. Despite the complaints, David Jones continued to label the product incorrectly. Recently, in response to the allegations made against them through ABC reporting on labelling, David Jones provided the following statement As there is no law or standard governing the use of the terms free range or bred free range, David Jones is fully compliant with its legal obligations on supermarket packaging. 54 (See attachment 2 p.11) 16

17 The fact that one of Australia s most trusted brands is misrepresenting products, and charging premium prices for them, is a definite indication that labelling standards for free range are insufficient. Free range Bangalow Pork trade mark registration Bangalow Sweet Pork has recently advertised through Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia) the registration of the trade mark Free Range Bangalow Pork. According to their website, Bangalow pork is only hormone and antibiotic-free, but their system is not free range. The lack of standard definitions for free range allows such producers the ability to apply for such trade marks with ease. If successful, consumers will be blatantly misguided and true free range farmers will be at a loss. HSI Recommends: The development of a set of nationally standardised, legally enforceable, definitions for method of production of meat products. Specifically, for the term free range. Without a standardised set of definitions for method of production, producers and retailers can continue to mislabel without answering to regulations protecting consumers rights. HSI recommends that a standardised, mandatory set of terms for the method of production of meat products, specifically for the term free range, be developed. 17

18 Q18. What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such information claims (i.e. labelling in relation to methods of production) for the food label? While we understand that the primary objective of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (FSANZ Act) is the protection of public health and safety, the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices, and the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct are also objectives of the Act. A key example is Country of Origin labelling (CoOL), which has demonstrated the application of a national mandatory labelling scheme, facilitated by the FSANZ Act and incorporated into state and territory legislation, for the express purpose of providing adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices. Given this precedent, and the health aspects described involved with the production of intensively farmed meat products, we feel our proposal for a method of production labelling standard is not limited by the FSANZ Act. Method of production differentiates systems of production which are proven to be directly and indirectly associated with risks to, and impacts on, human health; the environment; and animal welfare. Specifically, for method of production for meat products it has been reported that factory farming is the wrong model for feeding the world in lower-input, extensive farming, is the most effective response that farmers and policy makers in developed countries can make to achieve this goal. 55 Furthermore, consumer demand for method of production labelling must be considered a decisive factor as freedom of choice and consumer needs are valid market drivers. HSI s national consumer survey clearly shows that there is a demand for labelling to correspond to consumer interests and needs. The survey revealed that 98% of respondents agree that full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right, yet only 6% believe that current labels give enough information to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. Furthermore, 93% of those surveyed felt that current labels did not give them enough information to make informed purchasing decisions. (See attachment 1) The labelling of environmentally cognizant products to meet consumer interest through method of production relays important information on the ethically and environmentally sustainability of product production processes. Furthermore, it develops a discourse for consumers to consider specific impacts certain products have, and give them the choice of supporting those. To add, method of production labelling has the potential to develop a discourse for more sustainable products which can enter, and drive, the market and lead to reduced environmental impacts of livestock industries and improve their longterm viability. With increasing public concern for sustainable development, and corresponding behavioural changes, method of production labelling standards will give provide consumers the opportunity to steer markets towards more sustainable outcomes and respond to consumer demand. Strategic policy for sustainable development needs to take into account method of production, which includes labelling standards that allow consumers the right to choose more sustainable products. 18

19 Consumers Environmental Considerations Livestock production methods have become so significant that is has been labelled a revolution 56 within the industry. What was once an old Mac Donald s farm scenario has turned into a combination of intensive 57 and extensive 58 systems developed to meet demand for animal products. UNESCO s 2009 Report, Energy flow, environment and ethical considerations for meat production, addressed the idea that Labelling of products to consumers offers consumers choice over different options [and] can be used as a tool to develop markets for alternatives to use of industrial meat production facilities 59 Furthermore, the report recommends that policies for health safety aside concrete policies that promote environmental protection, mechanisms to evaluate impacts of intensive livestock production and existing mitigations need further discussion 60 (5.8) Various scales of industrialized production systems affect air and water quality, de-value real estate and create health and well being issues The rapid increase of intensive (confined) livestock production and the land and livelihood needs of extensive production (rangeland grazing) are crucial challenges 61 As livestock moves to more intensive systems it will put pressure on arable land for feed production. To add, the global nitrogen cycle impacts from intensive livestock, and livestock produce over 60% of global anthropogenic ammonia emissions which contribute to acid rains and acidification of ecosystems, photochemical smog, acid deposition and coastal eutrophication. 62 Director-General of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, in a presentation on The impact of meat production and consumption on climate change in late 2008, stated that there was a correlation between growth in meat consumption and growth in factory farming. Pachauri recommended that change be achieved through the power of consumers and citizens - through their choice of organic and free range products and through the decisions of policy makers and the promotion of healthier and more sustainable policies. 63 Similarly, CIWF s report recommended similar policies The most effective way to reduce the impact of the livestock industry on the climate, environment, natural resources and health is to reorient the world s animal production towards lower-input, more extensive systems. At a time when land, energy and water a scarce and costly, lower-input farming would be more environmentally efficient than intensive farming and is capable of providing adequate nutrition for the nine billion people of (Badgley, C. et al., 2007 in p.9) 19

20 With evidence to prove that sustainable livestock production is the best policy for a healthy and long-term meat product industry, consumer choice is an integral part in addressing such change. Furthermore, consumers have the right to such information. Consumers Health Considerations Intensive farming systems for livestock have significant health implications for consumers. Labelling of animal products according to method of production provides consumers with the ability to choose the best product taking into consideration the impact it will have on their health. The final report for the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Meat Marketing (June 2009) identified that Consumers actively seek out organic produce for very real health reasons people with allergies and those on doctor s instructions. Fraudulent organic labelling places these people at risk of medical complications. 65 Similarly, the UN FAO reported that Public animal-health and food-safety systems need to recognize that the impacts of livestock disease and food borne illnesses vary across countries and production systems depending on their economic status. The capacities of different groups to respond to these challenges, and the incentives needed to encourage them to do so, must be considered in the design of disease control and risk-management strategies. 66 With increasing evidence of the public health implications of animal production, stricter food labelling policy must be implemented to provide consumers with potential health risks. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, in their 2008 report on industrial farm animal production in America, stated that Recent food-borne illness outbreaks and meat recalls have called into question the reliability of our system for ensuring the safety of domestic and imported meat. Ifap [industrial farm animal production] facilities can have a variety of effects on public health if precautions are not taken to protect the health of their food animals. Livestock production systems must be assessed for vulnerabilities beyond the naturally occurring disease agents. The US production of food has been a model for the world, but a number of countries have now instituted better practices. The food production system is one of our most vulnerable critical infrastructure systems and requires preparation and protection from possible domestic or foreign bioterrorism. Confidence in the safety of our food supply must be maintained and, in some cases, restored. 67 Furthermore, report findings concluded that there is an increased opportunity for the generation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria or new strains of pathogens to be identified as a factor which increases risk of pathogen transfer from animals kept in crowded, confined conditions to humans; and that the scale and methods common to industrial farm animal production can significantly affect pathogen contamination of consumer food products

21 Industry research has shown that there is not only increasing concern for the health impacts of animal production, but growingly, a concern for health impact of intensive animal production systems. Further evidence for increased health risks of intensive farming can be shown through the following research and reporting: In 2004, the WHO, World Organisation for Animal Health, and the FAO reported that the increasing global demand for animal protein in the human diet, associated with the expansion and intensification of animal agriculture, long-distance live-animal transport and other factors, were in part responsible for the emergence of zoonotic diseases. Industrial agriculture practices have been blamed for the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalophathy, multidrug-resistant food-borne bacteria, and highly pathogenic strains of avian influenza. 69 CIWF s 2009 report, Beyond Factory Farming, found that 70 - The stress of factory farming and reduced genetic diversity impacts on animals natural ability to resist infection and maintain health. - The overuse of antibiotics in intensive farming, used to prevent diseases more likely occurring due to crowded conditions, is a major cause of the resistance of many common pathogens to the antibiotics used to treat humans. - Factory farm use of antibiotics is also linked to the spread of superbugs, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) - Factory farming linked to development of human health issues such as Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza and questionably, human swine flu - It is estimated that 73% of new or currently emerging animal diseases are transmissible to humans (zoonotic) - Factory farmed chicken meat contains approx. One third more fat than free-range organic, which can cause significant health issues It has been recognised by the FAO that Intensive industrial farming of livestock is now an opportunity for emerging diseases. 71 Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at The Humane Society of the United States, Dr Michael Greger, published an online book on the impacts of the bird flu which states that The unnaturally high concentrations of animals confined indoors in a limited airspace producing enormous quantities of manure provides, from a microbiologist s perspective, ideal conditions for infectious diseases. 72 (Ferrari, J., 1997, in Greger, M., n.d., II3a) Finally, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the WHO, World Organisation for Animal Health, and the UN FAO recommended that Given the animal agriculture sector s considerable role in environmental degradation, zoonotic disease emergence, and chronic disease promotion, reducing livestock production and promoting health plant based diets should be a global health priority. Healthcare providers can, individually and collectively, play a significant role in ensuring healthy and environmentally sustainable nutrition policies and practices. 73 With such overwhelming evidence for health risks associated with intensive animal production, method of production labelling is an essential standard which must be developed in order to address FSANZ s objectives. 21

22 Case Study: Pigs With an abundance of evidence proving the health risks associated with intensive pig farming, method of production labelling for pig products would provides consumers the ability to choose products according to their health concerns. The growing link between industrial intensive piggeries and human disease has seen the husband of a woman who died of the swine flu in May 2009 launch a wrongful-death suit against Smithfield Foods, the world s largest pork producer and owner of a massive pig farm in Perote, Mexico, near the village of La Gloria where the earliest cases of H1N1 were detected. 74 The petition filed seeks to investigate the claims that the virus outbreak began in Smithfield s La Gloria piggery, and that the virus may have been caused in part by the horrifically unsanitary conditions under which the farm operates. The Perote operation raises one million pigs every year in extremely cramped conditions. Locals have complained about the stench from the farm in the air and water, the vast amounts of manure produced and the swarms of flies hovering around waste lagoons for some time. They have also complained of respiratory ailments and a stench so bad it causes them to vomit and get headaches. 75 The first confirmed case of H1N1 is largely thought to be a 5 year old Mexican boy from La Gloria who lived close to the Smithfield farm. Municipal health officials had stated that preliminary investigations indicated the disease vector was a type of fly that reproduces in pig waste and that the outbreak was linked to pig farms. 76 This legal case is still proceeding. Evidence is now increasing of a direct link between the swine flu virus and intensive piggeries. In May 2009, The Independent reported on research conducted by Columbia University that has shown the H1N1 swine flu virus is not a new emergence of a triple human-swine-bird flu virus as previously thought, but rather a slight variant on a virus that has appeared before, and one that evolved in an immense factory farm in North Carolina in This genetic footprint was first released by Columbia University s Center for Computation Biology and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton 78, and has now been confirmed by the University of Edinburgh, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital and virologist Ruben Donis, chief of the molecular virology and vaccines branch at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 79 North Carolina is home to the largest pig production operation in the US, and the densest pig population in North America. 80 In 1998, North Carolina s pig production was dramatically intensifying; pig population reached 10 million, a five-fold increase over just 6 years, while in the previous four years, the number of pig farms had decreased from 15,000 to 3, The Independent describes how modern day intensive piggeries are the perfect environment for virus mutation and transmission. Housed in their thousands, and crammed into tiny stalls where they can barely move, pigs raised in these environments have severely compromised immune systems. They survive in the midst of their own waste where viruses can combine time and again, and pigs can repeatedly infect each other. Scientists are now concurring that this artificial environment is driving the evolution of new diseases. The Independent reported that the detailed, on-the-ground studies of Dr Silbergeld, Professor of Health Sciences at John Hopkins University, have led her to conclude that there is very much a link from factory farms to the new, more powerful forms of flu we are experiencing. She continued that Factory farms are not biosecure at all. People are 22

23 going in and out all the time. If you stand a few miles down-wind from a factory farm, you can pick up the pathogens easily. The article further notes the dramatic increase in new viruses in the past decade, concurrent with booming factory farms. It states the number of pigs in American factory farms increased from 10% to 72% between 1994 and 2001, while at the same time swine flu went super-charged after being stable since Earlier research has drawn similar conclusions. A study conducted in Malaysia and published in 2008 found that pigs from large farms (those with a standing pig population of more than 5000) were five times more likely to carry the swine influenza virus compared to pigs from smaller farms of fewer than This result was corroborated by research on pig farms in North America. 83 Concerns of the link between factory farms and human health are not new. In 2003, with concerns heightening, the American Public Health Association, the largest and oldest association of public health professional in the world, called for a moratorium on factory farming. 84 The APHA concluded that the immense waste generated froom factory farming operations contains constituents and byproducts that are of health concern, including heavy metals, antibiotics, pathogen bacteria (Campylobacter and Salmonella species, Listeria monocytogenes, Heliobacter pylori, and E. coli), nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as dust, mould, bacterial endotoxins, and volatile gases. The APHA s policy statement also makes reference to moratoria on the construction of new factory farms being called for by the Canadian Medical Association, the Michigan State Medical Association, as well as local boards of health, generally citing scientific evidence for threats to worker health and public health, combined with insufficient data to determine whether accordingly, public health is being adequately protected. Warnings continued in 2005 when the United Nations urged governments, local authorities and international agencies to increase their role in combating the role of factory farming, which combined with live animal markets, they believed provide ideal conditions for the [influenza] virus to spread and mutate into a more dangerous form. 85 Most recently, in their final report released in 2008, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production concluded that industrialised animal agriculture posed "unacceptable" public health risks, "Due to the large numbers of animals housed in close quarters in typical [industrial farm animal production] facilities there are many opportunities for animals to be infected by several strains of pathogens, leading to increased chance for a strain to emerge that can infect and spread in humans. 86 They further noted that practices restricting natural motion, such as sow gestation crates, induce high levels of stress in the animals and threaten their health, which in turn may threaten human health." 87 The report also noted that, The continual cycling of swine influenza viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or flocks provides increased opportunity for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission of these viruses. In addition, agricultural workers serve as a bridging population between their communities and the animals in large confinement facilities. This bridging increases the risk of novel virus generation in that human viruses may enter the herds or flocks and adapt to the animals. 23

24 The European Commission's agricultural directorate warns that the "concentration of production is giving rise to an increasing risk of disease epidemics" and the concern has prompted Danish law to cap the number of pigs per farm and put a ceiling on the total number of pigs allowed to be raised in the country. 88 HSI Recommends: Nationally standardised labelling for method of production of animal products. Driven by consumer concerns and demand for more sustainable products, and increasing environmental and health risks associated with method of production systems, labelling needs to provide consumers with more information and capacity to choose. 24

25 Part 4: Food Labelling Presentation HSI has no specific comment on food packaging and labelling technicalities which the Review is investigating through Part 4. However, in supporting the need for method of production labelling the European Commissions Special Eurobarometer survey into attitudes of EU citizen towards Animal welfare provides further evidence that [l]abelling is seen as the best means of identifying product sourcing. 89. Attachment 4 shows the Special Eurobarometer survey results preferred source of identification labelling. Results highlight the fact that consumer s do in fact look for animal welfare-protection conditions in food labels, and provides insight into the best way to represent these. HSI Recommends: A nationally standardised set of labelling for method of production on meat products. To prevent confusion of various labelling schemes used to promote products rather than true method of production. 25

26 Part 5: Administering and Enforcing Food Labelling Standards Q29. In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the interpretation and administration of food labelling standards be improved? Q.30 In what way can consistency, especially within Australia, in the enforcement of food labelling standards be improved? Q31. What are the strengths and weaknesses of placing the responsibility for the interpretation, administration and enforcement of labelling standards in Australia with a national authority applying Commonwealth law and with compatible arrangements for New Zealand? Q32. If such an approach was adopted, what are the strengths and weaknesses of such a national authority being an existing agency; or a specific food labelling agency; or a specific unit within an existing agency? Q34. What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining governments primary responsibility for administering food labelling regulations? Q35. If a move to either: self regulation by industry of labelling requirements; or coregulation involving industry, government and consumers were to be considered, how would such an arrangement work and what issues would need to be addressed? Q36. In what ways does such a split or shared responsibility (ACCC and SA) strengthen or weaken the interpretation and enforcement of food labelling requirements? Current Context Current legislation and regulations which frame the way information on method of production for animal products is made known on labels is comprised of a medley of mandatory and voluntary tools which only complicate labelling regulation and confuse consumers. The absence of mandatory and legislated labelling terms for the method of production of meat products has led to a suite of voluntary terms, standards and third party certification schemes of varying regulation that have resulted in the big producers redefining the terms to suit themselves. Consequently, consumers are left with a spectrum of products produced under a range of conditions with ambiguous labelling. Within the current framework for the enforcement and administration of labelling of animal products by method of production, there exists: Mandatory tools Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Food Code) Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the bi-national statutory authority responsible for determining and administering food standards in Australia and New Zealand. Under the Code, standards exist for animal products to disclose information on 26

27 labels such as the name of food, the lot identification and the name and address of the supplier 90. There are no standards specifically requiring method of production labelling for animal products. Furthermore, as a tool used to define standards for food the Code is more specific towards food health and safety and so the extent to which it can provide truth in labelling for methods of production is questionable. Furthermore, FSANZ s ability to effectively regulate has been questioned due to the fact there has been accusations of conflict of interest impeding the development of standards. In response, Elaine Attwood, former FSANZ board member, explained in an ABC report that I think there s a conflict there. I mean, there is. First and foremost, a food authority should be looking after a public health and safety, and giving the public the information it needs to make appropriate choices. I really don t think trade as such should come into it at all that s a different department altogether. 91 (Background Briefing, p.17) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Under regulation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), corporations shall not Engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive 92 ; or In connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services: (a) falsely represent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style, or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use 93 Under this legislation producers and retailers can be held accountable for misrepresenting meat products based on their method of production, but only after they have committed an error, which says little in regards to the legislation supporting consumers right to choice. State and Territory Fair Trading Laws Each jurisdiction has their own Fair Trading laws administered by State and Territory Departments of Fair Trading and Consumer Affairs. Only the ACT and Tasmania have specific legislation which requires method of production to be shown on labels, and this only refers to the labelling of eggs 94. All other fair trading laws leave method of production labelling of meat products as voluntary and open to multiple schemes which often contradict each other. ACCC s enforcement of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) In 2007, the Free Range Pork Farmers Association complained to the ACCC 95 about Gooralie Free Range Pork and Bundawarrah Free Range Pork marketing their pork as free-range when it is bred free-range. In 2008, HSI made a complaint 96 about David Jones marketing and selling Bangalow Sweet Pork as free-range when it was actually intensively raised. 27

28 In both instances the ACCC did not take any further action. In the case of the Free Range Pork Farmers Associations complaint, the ACCC based its decision on the fact that there are no fixed standards against which to define the terms (i.e. free range and bred free-range), and that they could not be certain of the average consumer s understanding of the labelling terms 97. Furthermore, HSI has made numerous complaints to the ACCC in regards to David Jones Ltd mislabelling Otway bred free range pork sold in their Market Street store as free range. Despite the complaints, David Jones continued to label the product incorrectly. Recently, in response to the allegations made against them through ABC reporting on labelling, David Jones provided the following statement As there is no law or standard governing the use of the terms free range or bred free range, David Jones is fully compliant with its legal obligations on supermarket packaging. 98 (See attachment 2 p.11) Only after numerous complaints and intense media interest, and after David Jones was exposed to the public, did David Jones remove the misguiding signage. Voluntary tools In their recent inquiry and reporting 99 into meat marketing, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport concluded stated, it is currently too easy for food producers to make dubious claims about their animal welfare practices on the labels seen at retail level. This is because it is too difficult for the ACCC to prosecute misleading and deceptive conduct in this area when the meaning of these descriptors are broadly understood but not clearly defined. Any misuse of animal welfare descriptors such as 'free range' threatens the competitiveness of genuine producers bearing the increased costs associated with meeting high animal welfare standards. Animal welfare-related labelling should be subject to tighter controls to protect both consumers and genuine producers (p. 33). The report also made note that numerous stakeholders, including ourselves, Animals Australia, RSPCA, Free Range Pork Farmers Association, and Lawyers for Animals, expressed concern over the lack of standardised and consistently defined labelling terms for meat products. Specific cases which show evidence of mislabeling as a result of current administration and enforcement frameworks include the following: Egg industry s free range labelling scandal An analysis of egg industry data from showed that producers are substituting cage eggs for eggs labelled as free-range. 100 In order to produce the quantity of eggs sold as free-range according to Australian Egg Corporation data, the overall flock of laying hens would have needed to increase by over 200,000. In actual fact, they decreased by 6% during that time period, indicating that 36.8 million eggs, or just over 16% of eggs produced, were incorrectly labelled. 28

29 Largely to blame is the voluntary accreditation scheme of the Australian Egg Corporation, who have a vastly different definition of free-range than the definition endorsed by the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia. According to the Australian Egg Corporation, free-range indicates: - Hens are housed in sheds with access to an outdoor range - Stocking capacity within sheds can t exceed 14 birds / m 2 - Maximum of 1500 birds / hectare - Beak trimming is permitted The Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia definition indicates: - Unrestricted access to free-range during daylight hours - Stocking capacity within sheds can t exceed 7 birds / m 2 - Maximum of 750 birds / hectare - Beak trimming is not permitted It is therefore clear that the use of the term free-range is being used to describe vastly different welfare standards for egg-laying poultry. The fact that the industry is self-regulated has significant impacts not only on welfare standards implemented by producers, but also on consumers ability to support sustainable industry practices through their capacity to make informed choices about the products they buy. The Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGauran, at the breaking of the scandal admitted that the issue was a serious matter of consumer swindling and labelling inhibiting informed choice 101. At present, the ACCC has admitted to receiving complaints from both consumers and producers and responded by simply rapped those engaged in the misconduct over the back of the hand with a feather, and that s probably all that s happened [and] where you don t have a specific, prescribed standard, what you have is even voluntary standards, you re going to have some grey areas. 102 International Standards and Precedence The United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection state that: - Governments, in close collaboration with manufacturers, distributors and consumer organizations, should take measures regarding misleading environmental claims or information in advertising and other marketing activities. The development of appropriate advertising codes and standards for the regulation and verification of environmental claims should be encouraged Governments, in partnership with business and relevant organizations of civil society, should develop and implement strategies that promote sustainable consumption through a mix of policies that could include regulations; economic and social instruments; sectoral policies in such areas as land use, transport, energy and housing; information programmes to raise awareness of the impact of consumption patterns; removal of subsidies that promote unsustainable patterns of consumption and production; and promotion of sector-specific environmentalmanagement best practices

30 - Governments should promote the development and use of national and international environmental health and safety standards for products and services Governments are encouraged to create or strengthen effective regulatory mechanisms for the protection of consumers, including aspects of sustainable consumption 106. Australia is lagging behind the European Union when it comes to the labelling of animalderived food products. The EU has required the mandatory labelling of egg production systems since 2004, 107 and has simplified labelling on egg cartons by only allowing the use of the terms free range eggs, barn laid and eggs from caged hens. 108 These are stipulated in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 and amended in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1515/2004, which also defines these terms according to legislated criteria according to animal welfare conditions. The European Union has also proposed a mandatory labelling scheme for chicken meat and meat products based on compliance with animal welfare standards. 109 The UK, following an inquiry into the state of the Pig Industry in England, created an Industry Code of Practice on pig meat labelling which provides a set of product descriptions covering on-farm animal rearing methods. The Code removes consumer confusion that has been reported under the current food labelling regulations 110. The EU is following suit in developing rules that will require manufacturers to improve labelling on meat products, including country of origin 111. If they are to be based on the UK voluntary code, hopefully they will also include method of production labelling. The Transatlantic Animal Welfare Council (TAWC), an initiative developed to respond to developments in animal welfare-related transatlantic issues and to foster further bonds of cooperation between European and US-based animal protection organisations 112, has developed the Washington Declaration on Animal Welfare which states the following principles for the trade of live animals and animal products: Believing that animal welfare has an integral role in the social and economic status of a country and sustainable development. Additionally there is a critical relationship between animal health and animal welfare and that both are also connected to human health and wellbeing. 113 Recognising that trade agreements can provide economic incentives to strengthen animal welfare practices in order to meet consumer demand for such products, thereby increasing trade opportunities. 114 Noting the widespread call for harmonisation of standards but taking the view that any harmonisation should not lead to baseline standards which compromise the welfare of animals or potentially mislead consumers. 115 Australia has no such guidelines or standards in place for imported free range products. This has significant implications when imported goods have varying standards yet are labelled the same, especially for consumers who trust that they are choosing a certain 30

31 quality. Also, there are implications for local producers who have to compete with imported products and are disadvantaged as a result of a lack of national standards. HSI recommends: The development of a nationally standardised mandatory labelling scheme for the method of production of all meats, eggs and dairy products that allows the use of only a limited number of nationally consistent and legally defined terms. These would enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions on the basis of health, environmental, and ethical considerations; and prevent confusion of various labelling schemes used to promote products rather than true method of production. The avoidance of relying on voluntary codes for the labelling of animal product method of production systems. Voluntary codes will create a competitive labelling discourse, which risks decreasing the standards of the product and has potential to misguide consumers and retailers alike. Improve mandatory regulation for labelling so that is focuses on pre-emptive strategy and policy, for meeting consumer demands, rather than post-emptive actions in response to consumer, producer and retailer concerns. Particularly for the case with method of production labelling, a lack of national standards has led to a multiple cases of consumer misguidance and retailer and producer mislabelling. With mandatory method of production labelling in place, consumers freedom of choice will not be compromised. The formation of a whole governing entity, such as a Ministry of Food. There is a need for the development of a body which can represent consumer demands, market behaviours, and regulate policy in regards to food in general. Especially in regards to the social, environmental and economic frameworks which food concerns fall into. Furthermore, given the current concerns over food issues, and the need for long term strategic management of the country s food supply, such a body could provide for strengthened management and national food policy planning. 1 Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, 2010, Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, March 5, P.6, paragraph Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council policy guidelines: Country of Origin Labelling of Food, 2003, 3 'using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased', As defined by Australia s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD) 1992, Australian Government DEWHA, 1992, Ecologically Sustainable Development, 4 Stein, J., 2009, The legal status of eco-labels and product and process methods in the World Trade Organisation, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 1(4): Foster, E., 2010, Sales of RSPCA chicken up by 55 million in a year, April 14, Community Newswire, 6 Ketchum, 2008, Ketchum Food 2020: The Consumer as CEO, executive summary, 31

32 7 World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA USA), 2009, Finding Animal Friendly Food: The Availability of Humanely Labelling Foods in US Grocery Stories, 8 Ibid, University of California Santa Cruz, 2005, What do people want to know about their food? Measuring central coast consumers interest in food system issues, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable food Systems. 9 Deloitte, 2010, Consumer Food Safety Survey, April, UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/Consumer%20Business/us_cp_Deloitte2010FoodSurveyResults _ pdf 10 OnFood, 2010, Packaging reinforces product claims, April 29, 11 Food Magazine, 2008, Australian charge to free range chicken, October, 12 European Commission, 2007, Special Eurobarometer Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare, March p Ibid, p Ibid., p Ibid., p Commission of the European Communities, Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of animals, 2009, p Context Marketing, 2009, Beyond Organic How evolving consumer conerns influence food purchases, October, p.7 18 Ibid. 19 Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, p UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2006, Livestock s Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options, Rome, 21 Walljasper J (2008). Can cattle save us from global warming? 30 June Eatwild: Grassfarming benefits the environment Finishing cattle on pasture may reduce greenhouse gases. Eatwild: Grassfarming benefits the environment DeRamus HA, Clement TC, Giampola DD & Dickison PC (2003). Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 32(1): Clover C (2008). Eco-label will create green standard for food, says Miliband. The Telegraph UK, 19 April says-miliband.html 25 Climate labelling of food in Sweden. KRAV Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), 2008, The impact of animal agriculture on global warming and climate change, p Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, p.8 28 FAO, 2006, Livestock s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, p. 273, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf 29 Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, p.9 30 Humane Society International. The environmental benefits of free range farming over intensive farming. 31 FAO, 2006, Livestock s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, p , ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf 32 Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom; UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2006, Livestock s Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options, Rome, 33 RSPCA Australia. Fair go for farm animals. 34 FAO, 2006, Livestock s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, p. 276, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf 35 Made up of FAO, Swiss College of Agriculture (SHL), Woods Institute for the Environment, International Livestock Research Institute (LRI), Scientific Committee for Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Agricultural Research Center for International Development (CIRAD) and Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD) 32

33 36 Fritz Schneider, SHL, in Schwartz, M., 2010, News Release: New report reveals the environmental and social impact of the livestock revolution, Stanford News Service, March 16, 37 Ibid., p UNDESA, 2003, UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (as expanded in 1999), part Foster, E., 2010, Sales of RSPCA chicken up by 55 million in a year, April 14, Community Newswire, 40 Choice, 2009, Organic Meat in Question, July 30, 41 UNESCO, 2009, Energy flow, environment, and ethical considerations for meat production, draft report 4 of 22, July, Ethics of Energy Technologies in Asia and the Pacific (EETAP) Project, Bangkok, pp Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, p.8 43 Commonwealth of Australia Senate, Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Meat Marketing Report, June, p Ibid., p Hughes, C., 2010, Labelling laws should put consumers first, Choice Magazine, May. 46 Ibid., p Aussie Pig Farming, n.d., Free Range [website], 48 Food Standards Agency, 2008, Country of Origin Labelling Guidance, October 31, 49 BPEX, 2009, Code of Practice for the Labelling of Pork and Pork Products, p.4, 50 APL, 2009, APL s Submission to the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy, November 20, p. 10, aw%20and%20policy_final_201109%20(3).pdf 51 Caspar, J., 2010, in Crittenden, S., 2010, Background Briefing: Food Fears, ABC Radio National, April 18, p.9 52 Boks Backon, n.d., Boks Bacon [website], 53 Dunn, S., 2009, Rita s Bite [blog], personal blog commentary, February 2, 54 David Jones Ltd., 2010 in Crittenden, S., 2010, Background Briefing: Food Fears, ABC Radio National, April 18, p Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, p.5 56 Greger, M., n.d., Bird Flu: A virus of our own hatching, available online at 57 Intensive livestock production systems that are associated with a concentration of animals into large units, generally focusing on a single species and rely on commercial inputs and trade. (UNESCO, SCOPE, UNEP, 2008, Livestock in a Changing Landscape, policy brief, April, no. 6, p.5, 58 Extensive livestock production which refers to a system of raising animals under conditions that use predominantly non-commercial inputs to the system, in which more than 90% of dry matter fed to animals comes from rangelands, pasture, annual forages and purchased feeds. (Ibid.) 59 UNESCO, 2009, Energy flow, environment, and ethical considerations for meat production, draft report 4 of 22, July, Ethics of Energy Technologies in Asia and the Pacific (EETAP) Project, Bangkok, Ibid., UNESCO, SCOPE, UNEP, 2008, Livestock in a Changing Landscape, policy brief, April, no. 6, p.2, 62 Ibid. 63 Pachauri, R.K., 2008, Global Warming! The impact of meat production and consumption on climate change, September, IPCC, 64 Badgley, C. et al., 2007 in Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, p.9 33

34 65 Organic Food Chain P/L Submission 72, p.2, in Commonwealth of Australia Senate, Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Meat Marketing Report, June, p UN FAO, 2009, State of Food and Agriculture Report, Rome, 67 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. 2008, Putting meat on the table: industrial farm animal production in America, p.72, 68 Ibid., p WHO/FAO/OIE, 2004; Greger, M, 2007 in Akhtar, A Z, Greger, M, Ferdowsian, H, and Frank, E., 2009, Health Professionals Roles in Animal Agriculture, Climate Change and Human Health, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(2), pp Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 2009, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable solutions for animals, people and the planet, United Kingdom, Executive Summary. 71 Senior FAO official, Madec F and Rose N, 2003, How husbandry practices may contribute to the course of infectious diseases in pigs, In: 4 th International Symposium on Emerging and Re-emerging Pig Diseases, Rome, Italy, June, pp. 9-18, available online at 72 Ferrari, J., 1997, in Greger, M., n.d., II3a, in Greger, M., n.d., Bird Flu: A virus of our own hatching, available online at 73 WHO/FAO/OIE, 2004; Greger, M, 2007 in Akhtar, A Z, Greger, M, Ferdowsian, H, and Frank, E., 2009, Health Professionals Roles in Animal Agriculture, Climate Change and Human Health, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(2), pp Walsh B (2009). H1N1 Virus: The first legal action targets a pig farm. TIME, 15 May Fainaru S (2009) Mexicans blame industrial hog farms. Washington Post Foreign Service, 10 May Philpott T (2009). Swine-flu outbreak linked to Smithfield factory farms. Grist, 25 April Hari J (2009) Life-threatening disease is the price we pay for cheap meat. The Independent, 1 May Trifonov V, et al The origin of the recent swine influenza A(H1N1) virus infecting humans. Eurosurveillance 14(17) Greger M (2009). CDC confirms ties to virus first discovered in US pig factories Environmental Defense Factory hog farming: the big picture. November North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services North Carolina agriculture overview. February Suriya R, et al Seroprevalence and risk factors for influenza A viruses in pigs in Peninsular Malaysia. Zoonoses Public Health (7): Poljak Z, et al Prevalence of and risk factors for influenza in southern Ontario swine herds in 2001 and Can J Vet Res (1): American Public Health Association Precautionary moratorium on new concentrated animal feed operations. Policy number United Nations UN task forces battle misconceptions of avian flu, mount Indonesian campaign. UN News Centre, October 24. un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsid=16342&cr=bird&cr1=flu 86 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production Expert panel highlights serious public health threats from industrial animal agriculture. Press release issued April Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production Putting meat on the table: industrial farm animal production in America. Executive summary, p MacKenzie D This little piggy fell ill. New Scientist, September 12, p European Commission, 2007, Special Eurobarometer Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare, March p FSANZ, Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, standard 1.2.2, 91 Crittenden, S., 2010, Background Briefing: Food Fears, ABC Radio National, April 18, p Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52(1) 93 Ibid. s53(a), 94 Egg (Labelling and Sale) Act 2001 (ACT) s 5 and Egg Industry Act 2002 (TAS) ss 8, McCosker, L. 2007, letter to ACCC, personal communication, 27 August, Sydney. 96 Simpson, V. 2008, Letter to ACCC, personal communication, 26 May, Sydney. 97 Sutherland, D. ACCC Letter to McCosker, L., personal communication, 27 August, QLD. 98 David Jones Ltd., 2010 in Crittenden, S., 2010, Background Briefing: Food Fears, ABC Radio National, April 18, p.11 34

35 99 The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (2009). Meat Marketing. Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia Burke K (2009). Free-range egg claims don t add up. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September Lauder, S., 2006, Free range scandal dupes consumers, ABC AM, 31 July, Barlow, K., 2010, From Farm to Fork, ABC Lateline, 25 March, UNDESA, 2003, UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (as expanded in 1999), part Ibid., part Ibid., part Ibid., part Council Regulation 2001/05/EC of 19 December 2000 amending Regulation 1907/90/EEC on certain marketing standards on eggs [1999] OJ L 2/1; cited by Voiceless (2007), above n Commission Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 of 23 December 2003 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1515/ Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals Brussels, 23 January Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2010,Report of the Pig Meat Supply Chain Task Force, February, p.4, final-report.pdf 111 Meat International, 2010, Pig industry endorses EU labelling rules, January, Transatlantic Animal Welfare Council (TAWC), 2010, [website] TAWC, 2010, Washington Declaration on Animal Welfare, p.1, point Ibid., p.2, point Ibid., p.2, point 9 35

36 The Results of HSI s consumer survey are in Based on an initial analysis of 3085 responses, the survey has demonstrated extensive consumer confusion over labelling terms that are currently used on animalderived food products. Consumers are clearly confused about the term bred free-range. 93% of respondents do not know that animals raised in bred free-range farming systems only have access to the outdoors in the first few weeks of life. 37% believe that these animals have continuous outdoor access and 34% responded that they didn t know what the term means. The use of the term eco-shelters on product labels is misleading consumers with 98% of respondents not knowing that animals kept in eco-shelters have no outdoor access. Over 35% believe that animals in eco-shelters have continuous outdoor access, and nearly half of all respondents answered that they did not know how much access to outdoor areas animals in eco-shelters have. Even the term free-range is not particularly well understood, with only 60% of respondents knowing that free-range animals are born in outdoor areas, and 69% aware that animals raised on free-range farms have continuous outdoor access. When it comes to eggs, consumers are still unsure about commonly used labelling terms. Only 50% of respondents are aware that cage-free eggs are produced by chickens that are housed in barns with no outdoor access. The perception of barn housing is also quite different from the reality, with less than 50% of people aware that these chickens have little room for movement because of high stocking densities, and over 32% believing that that have free movement in barn environments. The survey has revealed that consumers want labelling reform. 98% of respondents agree that full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right, yet only 6% believe that current labels give enough information to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. 95% of respondents indicated that they would be prepared to pay a little more for ethically produced food. HSI will be forwarding the results to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council review of food labelling law and policy, as part of our submission calling for the development of a national scheme for the mandatory labelling of the method of production on all meat, eggs and dairy products. Such a scheme would allow the use of only a limited number of nationally consistent and legally defined terms to describe production method. These terms would relate to criteria on the source of the product, the type of housing provided and specific animal welfare standards of husbandry, transport and slaughter. Further detail including graphs of the results is available at Thank you to all those who took the time to respond to the survey.

37 CONSUMERS CALL FOR REFORM of FOOD LABELLING The results of hsi s national consumer survey are in and have demonstrated that there is extensive confusion over labelling terms that are currently used in the marketing of animal-derived food products. The survey asked respondents to identify what they understood to be meant by terms such as free range, bred free range, barn raised and caged, as well as seeking their views on the adequacy of current food labels and their desire for change. Of the 3085 survey responses processed by hsi to date, 98.3% of respondents believe that full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right, yet only 7.4% believe that current labels give enough information to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. hsi sought consumer responses to the survey following a number of instances of false and misleading product representation, most notably produce deceptively marketed as free-range. in such cases, the accc has failed to take action because there are no fixed standards against which to define labelling terms. it is clear from the consumer confusion evident in the hsi survey that this lack of regulation is paying directly into the pockets of the big producers. Misleading marketing and ambiguous terms such as bred free range are being used to misguide consumers into thinking they are purchasing ethically produced food. Our survey has shown that over 93% of respondents did not know that animals raised in bred free-range farming systems only have access to the outdoors in the first few weeks of life. The results of the national survey have been forwarded as part of hsi s submission to the australia and new Zealand Food regulation Ministerial Council review into food labelling law and policy which is currently underway. hsi is calling for a national and mandatory labelling scheme for the method of production of all meat, eggs and dairy products that only permits the use of a limited number of legally defined and regulated animal-welfare descriptors. Thank you to all those who responded to the national Survey. We will continue to keep you posted on the outcomes of the Ministerial Council review. Copies of the survey and survey results are available on the hsi website: Survey Question Correct Answer Survey Result* Q1. Animals raised in free range conditions are born: In outdoor areas with shelter from the elements. 40% of respondents did not know or answered differently. Continuous free access to outdoor areas with shelter Q2. Animals raised in free range conditions have: 69% of respondents answered correctly. from the elements. Only 42% of respondents answered correctly. Q3. Animals raised in bred free range conditions are born: In outdoor areas with shelter from the elements. 34% did not know the answer. Only 7% of respondents answered this question correctly. Over 41% believed it meant continuous free access to outdoor Q4. Animals raised in bred free range conditions have: Outdoor access for the first few weeks of life only. areas with/without shelter. 34% did not know the answer. Only 2% of respondents answered correctly. 44% did not know what the term meant. Q5. Animals raised in eco-shelters have: No outdoor access 36% believed it meant continuous free access to outdoor area with shelter from the elements. 90% of respondents answered correctly, with an additional Q6. Chickens laying caged eggs have: No outdoor access. Hens are kept in cages. 5% not sure. Only 50% of respondents answered correctly. Q7. Chickens laying cage-free eggs have: No outdoor access. Hens are kept in barns. 26% believe there was continuous or some sort of limited access to outdoor areas. Continuous free access to outdoor areas with shelter Q8. Chickens laying free range eggs have: 72% of respondents answered this question correctly. from the elements. 66% of respondents answered correctly. 8% did not know. Q9. Chickens laying barn laid eggs have: No outdoor access. Hens are kept in barns. A total of 21% believed the term meant continuous / or some sort of limited access to outdoor areas. Only 47% of respondents answered correctly. Limited free movement in indoor areas because of Q10. Chickens in barns have: 33% or a third of all respondents believe it meant free high stocking densities. movement within indoor areas. 71% of respondents answered this correctly, with a further Q11. Chickens in cages have: No free movement because of small cage size. 22% believing limited free movement was possible. Responses to statements on product labelling I believe full and adequate labelling is every consumer s right: I feel that current labels give me enough information to make informed purchasing decisions: I would be prepared to pay a little more for ethically produced food: 98% Agree 1% Disagree 1% No response 6% Agree 93% Disagree 2% No response 95% Agree 3% Disagree 1% No response *Survey results based on analysis of 3085 responses received. 10

38 Volume 1 Humane Society International Submission to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy: Issues Consultation Paper May 2010 Attachment 2 Background Briefing: Food Fears ABC Radio National, April 18, 2010 Note: As the transcript is presented online, no copy could be provided. However, the article can be accessed at the following address

39 Code of Practice for the labelling of pork and pork products INTRODUCTION British consumers consider a range of factors when buying pork and pork products. Research shows that while price and freshness are primary concerns when deciding what to buy, consumers want clear and unambiguous labelling so that they have the ability to make an informed choice. Of particular interest is country of origin, pig production terms such as free range and the use of breed names. This Code of Practice sets down the minimum standards which supporting businesses will use when labelling pork and pork products. It is largely based on advice on best practice from the Food Standards Agency 1 and LACORS. The Code sets out a number of principles that supporting businesses will use in their labelling. It then lists examples of the terminology that could be used. Companies may use similar terms with the same meaning in the design of their labels and literature. SCOPE The Code of Practice applies initially to fresh and frozen, pork, bacon, gammon, ham, sausages and pork pies. Once established it is planned to extend coverage of the code to other processed products where pork is an important constituent. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN Background Under EU law specific food groups are required to be labelled with information on country of origin. These include beef, veal, fish, shellfish, most fresh fruit and vegetables and poultry meat imported from outside the EC. Other food groups including pork and pork products are covered by The Food Labelling Regulations There is a general principle in the regulations that the place of origin or provenance of the food should be labelled if failure to do so might mislead a purchaser. However there are areas where there is a lack of clarity or the regulations do not match consumer s expectations. For example the legislation allows imported pork processed in this country to be labelled as Produced in the UK (as this was the place of last substantial change). 1

40 This Code of Practice addresses these ambiguities and provides clarity for consumers in the labelling of pork and pork products. 1. Code of Practice - Retail Labelling 1.1 The country of origin of pork and the pork used in processed products will be clearly displayed on the front of the packet. If this is not practical due to label size or extended origin descriptions the country of origin will be clearly displayed on the side or back of the packet. For products not sold pre-packed a country of origin statement will be displayed in close proximity to the product concerned. 1.2 Single country of origin declarations mean that the pig used to produce the pork or pork product was born, reared and slaughtered in that country. Example Origin country x Country y bacon 1.3 Where a country of origin is stated and the pig is born, reared or slaughtered in more than one country then additional information will be provided on the pack. This will be either a) a statement of each of the countries involved or b) the country where the pigs were born or reared (farmed) will be stated. Example Country x pork from pigs born in country y and reared / farmed in country z Country x pork from pigs reared in country y Bacon from country x from pigs reared in country y Country x pork from pigs born in country y 1.4 The terms Produced in the UK and Packed in the UK can be ambiguous about origin if not qualified and so will not be used in isolation. The country or countries of origin will be clearly stated. Example Produced in the UK using pork from country X Made in the UK using country x and country y pork Packed in the UK using pork from country x 1.5 Pork products such as sausages, ham and pork pies can sometimes be made with pork from a number of different countries. In such cases the countries of origin will be stated or the EU will be the declared origin Example made with pork from country x and country y made with imported pork made with pork sourced from the EU made with pork from a number of EU countries made with pork from country x, country y or country z

41 1.6 Statements of origin containing a list of possible countries that includes the UK such as Produced using pork from country a, b, c or UK has the potential to mislead consumers that the product could be entirely or predominantly of UK origin. Therefore this will not be used. 1.7 Where national terms and symbols (such as flags or logos containing flags) such as Great British Classics are used as part of the description of processed pork products then this means that the ingredients that characterise the product (such as bacon or the pork in pork pies) and all of the main production/manufacturing processes associated with the product originated within that place or country. 1.8 Product specific terms or recipes that state a geographical origin within the UK will be made from UK pork. Otherwise they will be accompanied by an origin declaration in the same field of vision on the label. Example Wiltshire Cure bacon Wiltshire Cure bacon. from country x Melton Mowbray Pork Pie. using country x pork Cumberland sausage.. made from country x and country y pork Lincolnshire sausages.. from EU pork 1.9 The use of breed descriptions that state a geographical origin within the UK will be from UK pork. Otherwise they will be accompanied by an origin declaration in the same field of vision on the label. Example Hampshire cross breed pork Hampshire cross breed country x pork Country y Berkshire pork 1.10 The use of trade names (for example Rural Valley) and/or imagery (for example English village scenes) used on packaging that could imply a UK country of origin will be UK origin. Otherwise they will be accompanied by an origin declaration in the same field of vision on the label. Example Rural Valley pork Rural Valley pork.. from country x Rural Valley Country x bacon 2. Code of Practice - Food service 2.1 The country of origin of pork and the pork used in processed products will be available to customers either on menu, on accompanying literature, on a company website or directly from the company on request. Pork products such as sausages, ham and pork pies can sometimes be made with pork from

42 more than one country. In such cases the countries of origin will be available or the EU will be the declared origin. 2.2 The use of terminology and descriptions relating to origin on food service menus will be clear and unambiguous. 2.3 The use of the term local or locally sourced pork and pork products will be clearly defined and available to customers either on menu, on accompanying literature, on a company website or directly from the company on request. 2.4 Product specific terms or recipe names that state a UK geographical origin will be made from pork UK. Otherwise they will be accompanied by an origin statement on the menu or on accompanying literature. Example Wiltshire Cure bacon Wiltshire Cure gammon from country x Melton Mowbray Pork Pie using country x pork Cumberland sausage made with country x and country y pork Lincolnshire sausages made with EU pork 2.5 The use of breed descriptions that state a UK geographical origin will be UK origin pork. Otherwise they will be accompanied by an origin statement on the menu or on accompanying literature. Example Gloucestershire Old Spot gammon Hampshire cross bred pork from country x 3. PIG PRODUCTION TERMS Background A number of terms relating to pig production methods are currently in use on retail packs and menus featuring pork and pork products. These include free range, outdoor bred and outdoor reared. There are accepted industry norms relating to these terms but there are not agreed, auditable definitions as there are, for example in the poultry sector. The Code of Practice therefore includes such definitions so that consumers can be fully informed when buying these products. The precise minimum requirements that define these terms are still under discussion and will be published in mid-april Free Range Pigs are born outside, in fields where they remain until they are sent for processing. They are provided with food, water and shelter and are free to roam within defined boundaries. Very generous space allowances are defined with minimum requirements dependent on soil conditions and rotation

43 practices. Breeding sows are kept outside, in fields for their productive life. They are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. 3.2 Outdoor Bred Pigs are born outside, in fields where they are kept until weaning. Breeding sows are kept outside in fields for their productive lives. Where soil types and climate are a constraint gestating sows may be housed for a defined limited period in groups on deep straw bedding. They are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. Pork and pork products labelled as Outdoor Bred will also contain a statement about how the pigs are subsequently farmed. Where possible this will be in the same field of vision on the label as Outdoor Bred. Retailers and food service businesses are encouraged to make further information available about the method of finishing to consumers through literature or websites. 3.3 Outdoor reared Example Outdoor bred..and housed in straw barns Outdoor bred pigs that are reared for approximately half their life (defined as at least 30kg) outside in fields. They are provided with food, water and shelter and generous minimum space allowances. Pork and pork products labelled as Outdoor Reared will also contain a statement about the way the pigs are subsequently farmed. Where possible this will be in the same field of vision on the label as Outdoor Reared. Retailers and food service businesses are encouraged to make further information available about the method of finishing to consumers through literature or websites. Example Outdoor reared..and housed in straw barns 3.4 The term Outdoor used on its own will mean that the pork and pork products come from Outdoor Reared pigs that are kept outside, in fields until they are sent for processing. Minimum space allowances are generous although these are lower than for Free Range pigs. 3.5 In all cases it is allowed to house pigs for a very limited period of time in case of veterinary treatment, emergency and when directed or advised to do so by the relevant authorities (for example during an exotic disease outbreak) 3.6 Label imagery that features outdoor pig farming scenes will only be used on Free Range, Outdoor Bred, Outdoor Reared or Outdoor products.

44 4. BREED NAMES 4.1 Where a specific breed name is used without qualification (for example Hampshire pork) this comes from pigs resulting from the mating of a pedigree boar and sow of the same named breed. 4.2 Where pork and pork products come from the mating of animals of different breeds (i.e. a pedigree Berkshire boar with a commercial hybrid sow) reference to the parentage will be provided on the label. The following types of statements (using bacon as an example) could be used: A. Berkshire Cross Breed Bacon B. Cross Breed Berkshire Bacon C. Produced from Pigs Sired by Pedigree Berkshire Boars D. Produced from Pigs Bred from Pedigree Berkshire Sires E. Produced from Pigs Bred from Pedigree Berkshire Boars 4.3 While all these descriptions can be used Statements A and B are considered to be the true names of the food for these products. Statements C, D and E are likely to be statements accompanying and expanding upon the true name. 4.4 The type font and size used on packaging will not give an undue prominence to the breed over the actual cross breed status of the meat. 4.5 Any reference to a specific breed should refer to an animal registered by an officially recognised registration authority licensed within the EU, for example the British Pig Association. 4.6 If the produce is not from two pedigree registered animals of the same breed, any photographs or illustrations shown on labels, point of sale materials, advertisements or supporting literature should be clearly linked with the true name statement (i.e. captioned with the words in paragraph 3 (A or B) above). Such captions should be sufficiently prominent and clear to avoid the consumer being misled (i.e. in the same weight and size of font as any other reference to the breed on the packaging). 4.7 This Code of Practice applies to retail labels used on pre-packed or loose pork and pork products. It also applies to the use of the terms in food service. 4.8 Any trade mark applied to the products should not be capable of being confused with the actual breed/cross breed of the product. MORE INFORMATION For more information on the Code of Practice contact Mick Sloyan at BPEX. T Mick.sloyan@bpex.org.uk

45 Special Eurobarometer European Commission Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare Fieldwork September-October 2006 Publication March 2007 Special Eurobarometer 270 / Wave 66.1 TNS Opinion & Social This survey was requested by Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection and coordinated by Directorate-General Communication This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

46 Special Eurobarometer 270 Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare Preferred sources of identification. QC12. Which of the following would be for you the best way to identify the animal welfare-protection conditions under which food products are sourced? (pick a maximum of up to 2 answers) Labelling is seen as the best means of identifying product sourcing QC12 Which of the following would be for you the best way to identify the animal welfare\ protection conditions under which food products are sourced? (ROTATE MAX. 2 ANSWERS) - % EU25 Textual written information labels on the product 39% wrapping Logos on the product wrapping 35% Use of a grading or scoring system (e.g. such as five welfare stars for the best product, one "star" 26% for the basic product) Information posters or displays in the shop where 20% you purchase the food Colour coding on the product wrapping 18% Providing an image of the production system (e.g. laying hens kept in barns or free-range production 16% systems) Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1% DK 8% Consumers preferred means of identifying welfare protection systems is through labelling. Around four in ten (39%) say they would like to receive information via text on product wrapping, with a similar proportion (35%) saying logos here would be a good method of identification. Though there is little difference at an overall level between preference for text or logos, respondents in individual countries often show a clear liking for one method over the other. Text is particular favoured by Cypriots (73%), Greeks (59%), Swedes (56%) and Romanians (53%), with only 9% of the latter mentioning logos. Logos are more preferred in the Netherlands and Belgium (both 49%). Beyond labelling, there are some countries where alternative sources of identification may also be viable. Swedes, Irish (both 39%) and Cypriots (35%) all show a degree of acceptance of the idea of posters or displays in shops. Meanwhile Danes were favourable to a star rating system (e.g. *= basic standard, *****= high), with 44% choosing this option

47 Special Eurobarometer 270 Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare Text more universally understandable than logos, and appeals more to those interested in welfare Information in the form of text looks to have an advantage over logos in that it appeals equally to all segments of the EU population. In particular, logos may be slightly less popular amongst the oldest and less educated consumers, with 30% of both these groups showing a liking for logos compared to 42% of the youngest age group and 37% of the most educated. Text versus logos: Analysis by demographics and other opinions Which of the following would be for you the best way to identify the animal welfareprotection conditions under which food products are sourced? (pick a maximum of up to 2 answers) [% mentioning method amongst subgroup] Textual written information labels on the product wrapping Logos on the product wrapping EU25 39% 35% Age % 42% % 38% % 35% % 30% Education (End of) 15 40% 30% % 36% % 37% Still Studying 40% 43% We also see that there is little difference between preference for text and for logos amongst the groups who say they have no desire to be better informed (text 35%, logos 36%) or that animal welfare is unimportant (text 32%, logos 31%). Instead it is among those who see the subject as an important one, or who wish to be further informed that a clearer view emerges. Of the high importance group, 42% mention text compared to 36% who cite logos and for those who desire to be more informed, the difference is greater still 43% compared to 35%. Overall, it is clear that consumers would prefer to receive sourcing information via product labels. Doing this via text has the advantage of appealing more to those who are most interested in such information, although it must be remembered there are some countries where consumers would more prefer logos

48 Australian Office: PO Box 439 Avalon NSW 2107 Australia Head Office: 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC USA Fax: hsi@hsihsus.org Officers Wayne Pacelle President Andrew N. Rowan, Ph.D. Vice President G. Thomas Waite III Treasurer Australian Office Michael Kennedy, Director Verna Simpson, Director Australian Board Peter Woolley Jean Irwin Elizabeth Willis- Smith Patricia Forkan Dr. Andrew Rowan Michael Kennedy Verna Simpson Food Labelling Review Secretariat MDP 150 GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT May 2010 Dear Sir or Madam, Re: Food Labelling Review consultation Humane Society International (HSI) is providing this submission in addition to our more detailed submission to the Food Labelling review consultation, which should be referred to separately. The intent of this submission is to focus solely on the labelling of seafood. HSI s interest is in ensuring that there is better transparency around the labelling of all seafood products. Greater transparency is needed on the provenance of seafood products imported into Australia beyond the current, minimal requirement of country of origin. All imported seafood products should be required to meet the same standards of sustainability as domestic seafood production. These changes are essential to ensure consumers are able to make informed choices to enable them to buy sustainable seafood. Internationally the European Community and the USA have adopted measures to regulate the import of seafood that has been sourced from Illegal, Unregulated or Unreported (IUU) fisheries. Australia should adopt a regulation based on the EC s to require that all imported seafood products are not sourced from IUU fisheries. It is important that the source, method of harvest, and sustainability assessments for both domestic and internationally caught seafood be provided by the fishery for display at the point of sale. Regulations should be developed to display provenance of domestic and international seafood products and on standards of sustainability for imported seafood product. The area, vessel and method of capture for both domestic and internationally caught seafood should be provided by the fishery for display at the point of sale. HSI also recommends that all seafood sold in Australia is labelled with the Australian Fish Name Standard 1. The Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) website states that all seafood (live, frozen, chilled, fresh, canned, etc) sold in Australia, whether harvested and processed here or imported from another country, has to adhere to the Australian Standard Fish 1 The Australian Fish Names Standard AS SSA