Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Hungry Jacks launched its Rebel Whopper in 2019 it was marketed as 100 per cent Whopper, zero per cent beef with a 'smoky BBQ flavour' just like the famous beef Whopper. The Rebel Whopper burger patty is made from soy protein and, for all intents and purposes, the Rebel Whopper has been made to look and taste like the chain's regular Whopper, the only major difference is the protein contained in the burger. The ingredient that makes this plant based burger patty taste like the meat it seeks to emulate is haem, an iron-rich molecule found in all living things. In animals the haem in haemoglobin and myoglobin carries oxygen through the bloodstream and muscles. Haem also gives meat, like beef, its distinctive red colour and metallic, bloody taste. Put simply, haem is what makes meat taste meaty.

Plant based meat alternatives have been made to taste like meat through the inclusion of a haem-rich protein derived from soy plants called leghaemoglobin, which is short for legume haemoglobin. This haem is manufactured using yeast that has been genetically engineered with the gene for soy leghaemoglobin.

The texture of meat has also been replicated in these plant based patty alternatives, because the molecular structures of animal muscle and plant proteins are different. Animal muscle is formed by bundles of interlocking protein fibres, while plants have small, round non-fibrous proteins. Muscle-like threads have been created in plant protein by elongating soy proteins and using heat and pressure to create strands that mimic a muscle-like texture.

Clearly, we have very clever scientists at work here, creating some incredible food products. But this speech is not a biology lesson, or to share scientific innovations. I'm talking tonight about the unnecessary confusion created within the minds of consumers when they face an array of products created to look like meat. That is why I'm talking about a Hungry Jacks burger in the Senate.

I want you to think about what it means when we have businesses creating products to look and taste like meat but are not actually made from meat. Who are these products supposed to appeal to? I don't know of any vegetarians or vegans who actively seek out products that look and taste like meat. In fact, I imagine many would consider them an insult to their choice not to consume meat or animal products.

I've seen plant based meat alternatives at my local supermarket and I'm sure you have too. Did you look twice, like I did, unsure whether the package contained a real meat patty or a chicken strip? When such products look like meat and are positioned in areas adjacent to the section stocked with meat and chicken, is it any wonder that consumer are confused by these options?

Research agency Pollinate, surveyed 1,000 Australians in July on their attitudes to plant based meat. Pollinate found 61 per cent of those that did the survey mistook at least one plant based meat product as containing animal meat and half said they found the packaging for the products tested in the survey to be confusing. When these consumers were asked which elements of the plant based product packaging and marketing they found confusing, they said animal imagery, the small or hard-to-read font for plant based references and the use of meat descriptors.

I don't think it's too much to ask that plant based protein product manufacturers and marketers refrain from using images of cows, chickens or other animals on their packaging. And I don't think they should be allowed to use words like 'beef', 'bacon' or 'chicken' to describe these products because, despite being made to look and taste as such, they're not beef, bacon or chicken. In 2018 the US State of Missouri went so far as to enact a law to stop such marketing trickery from happening. Missouri's law prohibits anyone from misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry. Plant based food producers have launched lawsuits since, alleging that this labelling law violates first amendment rights to free speech by criminalising the word 'meat' and that it unfairly restricts how manufacturers can sell meat alternatives, but they have been unsuccessful.

As my fellow senators know, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has been conducting an inquiry into this situation. The committee examined whether meat branding had been impaired by the appropriation of product labelling by manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein brands. I look forward to reading the committee's report because I believe we should know exactly what is included in the food products we buy and what we're consuming when eating out or taking away.