Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I would also like to speak to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007. I want to focus on a particular aspect of issues raised by the food standards legislation. The legislation as a whole covers a range of areas, and previous speakers, particularly Senator McLucas, outlined the detailed aspects of the bill and all the different measures contained within it. Senator Siewert has detailed wider issues of labelling. As she points out, the objectives in the food standards act relate to 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 and deceptive conduct.

The authority deals with its responsibilities within a public health framework. But, even with existing labelling where there are requirements—for example, regarding country of origin—it goes beyond just narrow definitions of human health to wider issues. A food label can tell us a lot about the food we put on our plate, like its country of origin or how much fat or sugar it might contain, but the quality of food labelling is often called into question and it can be very controversial. I think this issue of preventing misleading and deceptive labelling is an important one. One only has to think about the debates over the labelling of GMOs in food, which Senator Siewert has just alluded to, to be aware of how passionately people can feel about having the information they want and need in order to make choices to protect their own health and wellbeing or to address other consumer concerns they have regarding, for example, environmental impacts of the production of certain types of food.

People are concerned not only about their own health and wellbeing but also about the wellbeing of others; they are concerned at the moment about childhood obesity and the health and wellbeing of the planet, the environment and the animals that are often used in the production of some of this food. There is a growing awareness within the community about the treatment of animals in food production and the practices of factory farming. Each year more than 540 million farm animals are raised in Australia for food or food production. The clear majority of these animals live their lives in conditions that, I argue, most people would find unacceptable if they were fully aware of them. While many people do not think too closely about the source of their food, more and more are becoming aware of the cruelty associated with many factory farmed meat, dairy and egg products. In addition, many people, whilst they might not think too closely about the source of their food, are nonetheless influenced by words used on labels that might imply that all is well and good, which in some cases is clearly misleading.

A 2001 study of people in Queensland regarding their attitudes to buying meat revealed that consumers ranked the humane treatment of animals ahead of issues such as price. More people are choosing free-range or organic meat and eggs in the belief that they are buying a more humanely produced food as well as, in some cases, for environmental reasons. In 2006 the free-range egg market comprised 20.3 per cent of the total volume of the grocery retail egg market in Australia, which represents a 200 per cent increase since 2000. I would argue that that has been driven by significant and growing community concern based on growing community awareness of the conditions in which battery eggs are produced and that those hens endure. Alongside that, labelling has gone some way towards more accurately reflecting whether eggs are produced from caged birds. Inglewood Farms, which produces 60 per cent of Australia’s free-range chickens, reported a tripling in sales in six months. A 2006 survey focusing on Australian attitudes towards meat found that 63 per cent of respondents were more inclined to buy free-range pig products after becoming aware of the plight of factory farmed pigs.

I have to note in passing that it is quite unfortunate that the recent review of the animal welfare code of practice regarding the housing of pigs, particularly breeding sows, produced such a poor outcome in the face of such clear and overwhelming evidence of the appalling cruelty that sows are kept in for prolonged periods of time. Amendments to the code barely improve that at all and in some cases will make enforcement and oversight of those conditions and meeting of those codes even more difficult.

I would refer to a report that was recently produced by the animal protection and awareness organisation, Voiceless, a very professional organisation that looks at the facts and the details regarding the treatment of animals. They produced a report called From label to liable: scams, scandals and secrecy—lifting the veil on animal-derived food product labelling in Australia. I think it might have been sent to all parliamentarians. I know we all get a lot of mail—a lot of reports in our mail—but I would recommend people to dig that out of the big pile at the back of their desk and have a look at it, because it is very well written, well researched and quite straightforward in the information that it provides. That report highlights that our current food labelling system is woefully inadequate when it comes to the labelling of animal derived food products. Yes, there is certain information about animal derived food that has to be disclosed, but it is information like the lot identification or the date of packaging. There is no requirement under federal legislation in Australia which requires labelling that identifies how products such as meat or poultry were produced. Alongside that, of course, you may well get labelling that carries a very strong implication that it is produced in the open air, on green fields and under sunny skies when in many cases that is far from the reality.

The reality is that many of the commonly accepted terms that we might use to help us make more humane choices are not defined in federal legislation, such as the current law that we are debating at the moment, and they are not linked to any animal protection standards, leaving aside a separate debate about the adequacy and enforceability of our current animal protection standards when it comes to farm and factory animals. There is no certainty about what terms such as ‘free-range’, ‘organic’, ‘barn laid’ or ‘grain-fed’ actually mean. The term ‘free-range’ can and is still interpreted differently by different producers for different products. Animals produced in free-range conditions may still be subject to painful procedures like tail docking, mulesing or dehorning, or subject to limited food, early weaning, routine antibiotics et cetera. As the report from Voiceless says, many producers are hiding their inhumane factory farming through feelgood product labelling, using terms such as ‘farm fresh’ or ‘naturally perfect’ along with positive imagery of happy, healthy cows or chickens frolicking in green fields. I would once again remind the Senate that one of the aims or objects of the food standards legislation is the provision of adequate information and the prevention of misleading and deceptive conduct. I think this is an area that does merit further examination over the coming period.

It is true that we have a number of voluntary certification or quality assurance schemes. Some people may be aware of the RSPCA accreditation system for egg production and pigs. I did mention previously some improvement and standardisation in the basic labelling of eggs in terms of whether they are caged eggs. Even that small advance in accuracy in the labelling of eggs came about only after a very concerted community campaign over long period of time which sought to phase out the battery cage. Indeed, here in the ACT, legislation was actually passed by the ACT legislative assembly to ban battery cage produced eggs, but that was not agreed to by other state governments. Instead a very poor compromise of just a small increase in the size of the cages was put in place.

You might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, a particularly fetching photograph of me with a chicken on my knee, helping to promote that campaign! I am not sure if that helped or hindered—it depends on people’s views. That was just one part of a large number of efforts to campaign on that issue. The end result of that campaign was to get some labelling that at least had that basic message: ‘This egg comes from a bird in a cage.’ Systems like the RSPCA accreditation system have developed because the public is concerned about animal welfare. People have not done this just for the hell of it; it has been agreed to in various ways. They are concerned about how food is produced and they want information. But as this report makes clear, these schemes are largely self-regulated. They apply a variety of standards. Some adopt a very narrow approach to animal welfare, some are more prescriptive than others and some are more open to public input than others.

These systems are helpful as far as they go, assuming they are accurate, but they limited. We need uniform enforceable laws. Without mandated labelling and terms defined in law, there is no easy way of differentiating between more humanely produced products and intensive factory farmed products. This can be done. I understand that the ACT and Tasmania have legislation that requires the way that food is produced be identified, but this is limited to the labelling and sale of eggs.

Mandatory labelling of the way eggs are produced is also legislated in the European Union. Last year the European Commission also adopted an animal welfare action plan which includes a proposal for an EU animal welfare label. This label would identify products produced under high welfare standards linked to scientific standardised indicators. Australia has a precedent for providing information that is not focused just on food safety or public health on food labels. Our country of origin standards for labelling let consumers know where the food was produced—an issue of importance to many people. Food labelling that lets consumers know how their food was produced is another step in helping people make informed choices and using the power of the market to encourage producers to operate in more humane ways.

As well as not having labelling requirements to identify whether animal derived food was produced humanely, Australia also does not have any enforceable standards for the labelling of vegetarian or vegan products. This means that the many people who now, for environmental, ethical or health reasons, choose not to buy or eat animal products and by-products, may, and indeed often do, inadvertently end up consuming these products. Many people may not be aware that marshmallow and liquorice often contain items made from the bones, tissue, hoofs and skin of animals such as cows, pigs and fish, or that emulsifiers that have innocuous numbers like 481, 472 and 471, which are frequently found in basic products like bread, can sometimes contain animal derived fats. Again, some organisations such as the Vegetarian Society have developed their own labels to help consumers. But we should not have to rely just on NGOs to provide us with information. I probably should declare in passing, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, that I am a patron of the Vegetarian/Vegan Society of Queensland. If you want to come along to one of our meetings some time, they are a bundle of fun, I can assure you.