The Following Submission Is Made by RSPCA Australia on Behalf of All RSPCA State/Territory

The following submission is made by RSPCA Australia on behalf of all RSPCA State/Territory Societies. In this submission we provide a response to the questions in the 'Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review' that are relevant to animal welfare.

This submission complements our previous submissions dated 10 November and 17 November 2009 which are attached for your convenience.

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 (e.g. education or website)?

Information is adequate when it allows consumers to make an informed choice about the product they are buying. Information is adequate when words or symbols convey the message a consumer is looking for. There may not be sufficient room on a label to provide detailed information and, hence, further information should be easily accessible and available on the web. Consumer education may be required to inform them of new words or symbols that convey a particular message.

When it comes to animal welfare, and as consumer awareness and demand for more humanely farmed animal-derived food products grows, consumers need to be able to make an informed choice about the products they purchase. However, product information on the conditions under which the animal was farmed is either lacking or provided through ambiguous or misleading labelling.

What is required are labels that plainly and unambiguously describe the housing system provided. These labels (or production descriptors) must be underpinned by definitions that describe the range of minimum conditions under which the animals have lived. Definitions may include detailed information about method of production and processing/slaughter, as well as sustainability of the species and the country of origin. Definitions should provide clear direction to producers and give consumers the confidence that certain minimum standards have been met. These definitions should be available on producer/retailer websites but should also be available at point of sale. The current arrangements required in the ACT with point of sale descriptors of egg production systems (cage, barn, free range) plus their brief description is workable and easily transferable to other animal products. Eggs, pork and chicken meat are the highest priority animal products for this type of labelling.

Q3. How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured? When it comes to animal welfare labelling, a first step to achieving nationally consistent labelling is to ensure that all descriptors used to describe specific production methods are agreed upon by producers/retailers and that these descriptors are underpinned by definitions that have been developed and agreed upon by relevant stakeholders (e.g. producers, consumer groups, animal welfare groups, retailers). In other words, as mentioned under Q2, the definition provides the detailed information about what the descriptor actually means and what criteria need to be satisfied in order to be able to use a particular descriptor on a product.

All terms/descriptors used to describe specific production methods should be incorporated into the relevant Australian standards for the welfare of animals. These standards specify essential requirements that must be met under law to satisfy the animal’s basic welfare needs. Terms to describe production method would need to encompass descriptions of facilities, production processes, and the animals themselves1. The Australian standards therefore provide an ideal means to define agreed terms that identify the production method used.

Legally defined, nationally consistent definitions describing method of production would form the basis of a food-labelling scheme in which consumers could have the utmost confidence that certain minimum animal welfare standards have been met in the production of that food. In the absence of legally defined terms for product labelling, their often arbitrary use will continue without being considered false representation.

A labelling scheme could be either voluntary or mandatory. A voluntary labelling scheme would be effective where a progressive producer, retailer or producer group adopts agreed labelling terms to identify their production method, and where others follow suit. With this approach, products are positively labelled, e.g. ‘free range’, ‘organic’, or ‘bred free-range’, based on these definitions. Consumers will conclude that unlabelled products are from conventional production systems.

A voluntary labelling system needs to be underpinned by a quality assurance scheme that is both robust and credible, and that has auditable animal welfare standards in place from birth to slaughter. Of importance to the consumer is that such standards are publicly available so that they can be reassured that the method of production meets their expectations.

The main difference between a voluntary labelling scheme and a mandatory labelling scheme is that the latter would require that not only the terms to define production methods are incorporated into legislation, but that there is additional legislation that requires such terms to be included in animal-derived food product labelling. Such a labelling scheme could be progressed through Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and would require changes to three standards: those relating to food identification requirements; meat and meat products; and egg and egg products. Given that the FSANZ Act 1991 has among its objectives “the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices” and “the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct” it is

1 Thompson, P., Harris, C., Holt, D. and Pajor, E.A., 2007, Livestock welfare product claims: The emerging social context, Journal of Animal Science, 85(9): 2354-2360. clear that accurate production system labelling falls well within the mandate of FSANZ.

The RSPCA has a voluntary labelling scheme for eggs, pork and pork products, chicken meat and soon turkeys which is in its infancy called the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme. RSPCA Approved products are available in most major supermarkets across Australia.

This scheme is based on the successful Freedom Food2 voluntary labelling scheme monitored by RSPCA UK that offers whole-of-chain certification and approves well- managed free-range, organic and indoor farms. The scheme’s logo is clearly recognisable on a wide range of beef, dairy, pork, sheep meat, poultry and fish products. The scheme has over 2200 members who adhere to Freedom Food’s strict, yet practical and achievable, animal welfare standards. Freedom Food products are available at all major retailers.

An example of a mandatory labelling scheme is that of eggs in the ACT where egg cartons must display the method of production descriptor (cage, barn, free-range), the retailer must then group eggs according to the production system, and the retailer must also provide a definition of each production descriptor with each egg category at the point of sale (e.g. a notice describing the ‘barn’ system on the shelf where the barn-laid eggs are stacked).

Q4. What principles should guide decisions about government intervention on food labelling?

The Review Issues Consultation Paper identified four competing interests that the Review Panel would have to balance in determining whether to recommend a particular labelling measure:

“The crux of this Review will be to address the tensions between fair and competitive trade in the market, the minimisation of the regulatory burden for business, the securing of government objectives in food labelling and the needs of consumers in order to make informed choices.”

A mandatory labelling scheme would facilitate fair and competitive trade in the market, and the needs of consumers in making informed choices with only a slight increase in regulatory burden for business. Producers would simply have to determine what labelling requirements apply to their methods of production and amend their labels accordingly, if amendments were in fact required. There would be no requirement to change their actual methods of production. Any change in methods of production would be at the volition of the producer. Therefore, based on the competing interests identified by the Issues Consultation Paper, mandatory labelling requirements should be seen as a desirable option.

Q5. What criteria should determine the appropriate tools for intervention?

2 http://www.rspca.org.uk/freedomfood. n/a

Q6. Is this a satisfactory spectrum for labelling requirements?

Q7. In what ways could these misunderstandings and disagreements be overcome?

Q8. In what ways can food labelling be used to support health promotion initiatives?

Q9. In what ways can disclosure of ingredients be improved?

Q10.To what extent should health claims that can be objectively supported by evidence be permitted?

Q11.What are the practical implications and consequences of aligning the regulations relating to health claims on foods and complementary medicine products?

Q12.Should specific health warnings (e.g., high level of sodium or saturated fat per serve) and related health consequences be required?

n/a 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?

See Q2 and Q3 and Q15.

RSPCA Australia is principally concerned with the matter of animal welfare labelling – particularly in the use of terms that are used on animal-derived food products to imply that the standard of animal welfare in the relevant production system is higher than that in conventional production systems.

Additional consumer-related concerns that have been raised with us include environmental sustainability and sustainability of species as well as fishing practices but these extend beyond the remit of the RSPCA.

Q14.What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types of information?

When it is clear that consumers are increasingly interested in the facts about their food – i.e. information that goes beyond a simple ingredients listing, calories, etc. – then that information must be included on the label in order to allow consumers to make an informed choice about the products they are buying.

Consumers are increasingly demanding animal welfare-friendly foods – this means that consumers must be able to identify such products on the supermarket shelf. The only way this can be done is through adequate labelling.

Q15.What criteria should determine which, if any, foods are required to have country of origin labelling?

When it comes to animal welfare labelling, it is important that the same guarantee can be given for imported product as for Australian product carrying a label that implies a higher standard of animal welfare. For example, what guarantee can be given to consumers that ‘free range’ ham from Denmark is produced to the same standard as ‘free range’ ham from Australia? Not only is country of origin important, but information on the standards of free-range production overseas needs to be easily available for public scrutiny.

Q16.How can confusion over this terminology in relation to food be resolved?

Q17.Is there a need to establish agreed definitions of terms such as ‘natural’, ‘lite’, ‘organic’, ‘free range’, ‘virgin’ (as regards olive oil), ‘kosher’ or ‘halal’? If so, should these definitions be included or referenced in the Food Standards Code?

See Q2 and Q3.

Regardless of the term, agreed definitions are vital to ensure consumers can have confidence in the product being purchased. From an RSPCA perspective, any term that implies improved animal welfare must be underpinned by agreed definitions that are used consistently, that are legally defined (enacted in the Food Standards Code, for example) and that are therefore not open to interpretation. Slaughter to meet religious requirements (kosher and halal): RSPCA Australia believes that the slaughter of fully conscious animals (as occurs with kosher slaughter) is inhumane and completely unnecessary. A mandatory labelling scheme is urgently required for meat products that are derived from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter. Consumers have the right to be able to choose not to purchase a meat product that does not meet the standard slaughtering practices expected by the Australian community.

Agreed and legally defined definitions for the terms ‘kosher’ and ‘halal’ are vital. The consumer needs to understand that kosher meat is from an animal that has not been stunned. In contrast, the Islamic councils in Australia have agreed that halal slaughter includes pre-cut stunning. The definition of ‘halal’ in the Australian context must therefore include the requirement to stun an animal prior to the throat cut. Any deviation on an agreed and legally defined term, will be able to be pursued.

Q18. What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such information claims for the food label?

Without agreed descriptors there is little means of determining the legitimacy of information claims. Hence, the need for descriptors and their underpinning definitions to be agreed upon and to be legally defined. The agreed definition will determine the criteria to be used for ensuring that claims are legitimate. Of course, those using the agreed descriptors will have to be subject to independent audits to ensure that their claims are justified.

It should be noted that even with the implementation of agreed descriptors, this measure will not address the issue of misleading or deceptive logos and pictures which could serve to defeat the desired objectives of better informing the consumer about the animal-derived food products they are purchasing. For example, the desired objectives of communicating to a consumer that eggs have come from a battery cage facility through use of the term “cage eggs”, is totally defeated if the carton of eggs also includes a picture of a grassy paddock. In this context, possible reforms of the Consumer Protection Laws to enhance the ability of the ACCC and State and Territory Departments of Fair Trading should be recommended by this Inquiry in order to address misleading and deceptive conduct in the course of advertising and labelling of animal-derived food products. Q19 In what ways can information disclosure about the use of these technological developments in food production be improved given the available state of scientific knowledge, manufacturing processes involved and detection levels?

Q20.Should alcohol products be regulated as a food? If so, should alcohol products have the same labelling requirements as other foods (i.e., nutrition panels and list of ingredients)? If not, how should alcohol products be regulated?

n/a Q21.Should minimum font sizes be specified for all wording?

Where an animal-derived food product is to be distinguished from other like products because it has been produced to high animal welfare standards (as opposed to a conventionally produced item) then a clearly, legible font size and colour on the front of the packaging is required.

Q22.Are there ways of objectively testing legibility and readability? To what extent should objective testing be required?

Q23.How best can the information on food labels be arranged to balance the presentation of a range of information while minimising information overload?

Q24.In what ways can consumers be best informed to maximise their understanding of the terms and figures used on food labels?

A public awareness-raising campaign is essential to ensure consumer understanding – particularly of new terms. FSANZ could engage the media but retailers have an important role to play here in terms of providing clear and accurate information at point of sale as this is where the consumer is most likely to make a final decision on which product to purchase.

Q25. What is an appropriate role for government in relation to use of pictorial icons on food labels?

n/a Q26.What objectives should inform decisions relevant to the format of front-of-pack labelling?

Q27.What is the case for food label information to be provided on foods prepared and consumed in commercial (e.g., restaurants, take away shops) or institutional (schools, pre-schools, worksites) premises? If there is a case, what information would be considered essential?

The growing number of consumers seeking animal welfare-friendly foods do not only want to find these foods at their local supermarket but also at their favourite restaurants and cafés and other public premises they may visit – it is important that all such foods are clearly identifiable. In other words, where premises claim to be providing animal welfare-friendly foods, such claims need to be able to be verified. Indeed, the premise should be using those same agreed terms that would be found on labels in supermarkets.

Q28.To what degree should the Food Standards Code address food advertising?

Q29.In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the interpretation and administration of food labelling standards be improved?

Q30.In what ways 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? n/a

Q33.If such an approach was adopted, what are appropriate mechanisms to deal with the constitutional limits to the Commonwealth’s powers?

Q34.What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining governments’ primary responsibility for administering food labelling regulations?

The key issue here is that the appointed body is independent, is made up of a wide range of stakeholders, and that decision makers have no conflict of interest with regard to the issues they are expected to resolve. Q35.If a move to either: self regulation by industry of labelling requirements; or co-regulation involving industry, government and consumers were to be considered, how would such an arrangement work and what issues would need to be addressed?