14 Apr, 2015 08:55 AM
0
Laws around food labelling were designed to be confusing and suit the nature of the food industry
RELATED
AN overhaul of country of origin food labels is not likely to hit the shelves until at least the end of the year, with the government considering a system that would use a graph to indicate the percentage of Australian-grown produce in food.
This revamp, ordered by Prime Minister Tony Abbott following February's hepatitis A outbreak from frozen Chinese berries, comes after 11 reviews and attempts to reform Australia's country-of-origin labelling in the past 12 years.
Shoppers are confronted with a confusing, and often deliberately misleading, series of claims about where our food comes from, printed on the packs of the food we buy every day. But confusion surrounds not just packet food, but the fresh food we eat too. This at a time when many Australians are trying to buy Australian products because of their concerns over the quality and safety of foreign-harvested foods.
"Food labelling tells nothing about food," says Tom Godfrey, spokesman for Choice. "The way we do country-of-origin labelling in Australia works for food importers and global food manufacturers. But it does nothing for us [consumers]. It allows food companies to associate with Australian-ness but obscuring the source of the product," says Godfrey, referring to the "Made in Australia" label. According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) online country-of-origin guide, "A product with a 'Made in Australia' label won't necessarily contain any Australian ingredients."
"The laws around food labelling were designed to be confusing and to suit the nature of the food industry," says Godfrey pointing to a recent survey of 700 Choice members, of whom only 12 per cent were able to accurately identify the meaning of "Made in Australia". "And our members are not dumb," he adds.
A jar of jam bearing the label "Made in Australia" could be made with Chinese raspberries and Brazilian sugar if they were cooked together, or substantially transformed, as Australian consumer law would describe it, in Australia. To bear the "Made in Australia" label, at least 50 per cent of the cost of production needs to be incurred onshore. The "cost of production" can include such things as staff training and the finance costs on the hire of the equipment. Similar tests also apply to the Australian Made, Australian Grown kangaroo logo bearing the words "Australian Made".
Consumers can be further confused by packs emblazoned with native animals, wattle blossom, Southern Crosses, cattlemen's hats and statements that the company producing the food is 'Proudly Australian Owned' and yet what is inside the packet could be produced in an industrial estate in Guangzhou. While overseas manufacturers do need to apply to the Department of the Prime Minister to whack a flag on a packet of food before exporting to Australia, a local company repackaging imported food doesn't need to meet this requirement.
According to Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand, country-of-origin labelling also needs to be displayed alongside fruit, vegetables, fish and meat. This is a mandatory requirement that is often flouted, more so in Victoria than in NSW, where there are public "name and shame" registers. Good Food visited greengrocers, farmers' markets and food stores in both states and found businesses displaying country of origin to be the exception.
While the supermarkets generally are quite good displaying country-of-origin labelling, we found several Coles stores with imported Chilean asparagus not bearing its country of origin and at another supermarket, grapes clearly labelled "Produce of USA" on the pack advertised with a much larger Australian Grown kangaroo logo in front of the display. This lack of compliance has angered farmers groups, with Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey saying the practice and the lack of enforcement was making a mockery of the system.
When it comes to seafood, Greenpeace believes slack labelling is hazardous to our health and to the sustainability of fish stocks. Greenpeace recently said that although 70 per cent of the fish we eat is imported, under current laws we often have no way of knowing it.
For example, at present prawns that may have been raised under dubious growing conditions on farms in south-east Asia could be processed in China, then crumbed and packed in Australia and labelled "Made in Australia".
"Knowing where our seafood was caught or farmed is crucial if consumers wish to make informed choices about sustainability," says Greenpeace oceans campaigner, Nathaniel Pelle. He is calling for stricter enforcement of existing country-of-origin labelling as well as correct labelling of the type of fish and how it was caught.
"You go into Woolworths and you see 'flathead'," he says. "You think, 'I remember catching flathead as a kid. It must be local'. The truth is that it is quite possibly Argentine stick fish," he says. This is a fish unrelated to flathead, caught by Argentine bottom trawlers, and is sold $20 a kilogram cheaper.
"In Australia we have the Australian Fish Names Standard but there is no law enforcing its use so we have this situation where you walk into a pub or club and order flathead when in fact what you are getting is something completely different."
This "South American flathead" is also used by Red Rooster and supermarket frozen-fish brand I and J.
Pelle points out that we need truth in fish labelling for health reasons as well. A health scare in Queensland resulted from people eating escolar when they thought they were eating butterfish. Escolar, which has also been known as oil fish, can cause cramping and diarrhoea.
Pelle says that we need to know where are prawns are from, as the use of antibiotics in Australian farmed prawns is extremely rare, but this practice is commonplace in south-east Asia.
He cites Patagonian toothfish caught in Antarctic waters as being much lower in mercury than that caught off the coast of Chile.
"We think that Australians, as great fish eaters, need the correct information, which is country of origin, the fishing method, correct fish name and to have all this information not just at the supermarket, which Coles is doing," he says, "but in pubs and restaurants, which are presently exempt from displaying country of origin on their food."
This is something the restaurant industry is definitely not keen on. CEO of Restaurant and Catering Australia John Hart is on the record stating that such moves would add a further $10,000 burden to businesses.
As far as labelling fish species goes, his response was: "Adding species names to menus assumes consumers have detailed knowledge of the various fish species and their vulnerability to make an informed purchased decision. The requirement would see menus read more like books, and diners having to carry a detailed typology to understand what their purchasing decision means for that fish species."
This is all at a time when food provenance is king, with chefs going out their way to drop their suppliers' names into the body of the menu. This pressure to prove a link between the kitchen and local land and sea creates its own problems.
A mussel grower we spoke with, who asked not be named, claimed a local hatted chef was advertising that he was using the farmer's mussels despite the fact he hadn't sold them to him in months.
One Wagyu farmer we spoke to admitted selling steaks that came from steers that were only one quarter Wagyu. "You don't call a dog that's one quarter labrador a labrador. It's a mongrel," he told us. "But customers want cheap steak and chefs love putting Wagyu on the menu."
The clean-up of Australian country-of-origin labelling laws will clearly take some time. The Prime Minister ordered new reforms to be considered by his ministers and to be as "business friendly" as possible. Manufacturers responded with warnings of increased costs to consumers.
Where it stands now:
Product of Australia
Used more for processed food and meaning that it was produced in Australia from Australian ingredients.
Grown in Australia
Used mainly for fresh food. Self explanatory.
Made in Australia
A process occurred that "substantially transformed" the product from one state into another. Think Chinese peanuts turned into peanut butter. Or South American cacao beans turned into chocolate. Add to this that at least 50 per cent of the cost of making the product is incurred here.
What Ministers Barnaby Joyce and Ian Macfarlane recommend:
Grown in Australia
100 per cent Australian content.
Product of Australia
90 per cent Australian content.
Made in Australia from [country name] ingredients
90 per cent content from the country specified.
Made in Australia from mostly local ingredients
More than 50 per cent Australian content.
Made in Australia from mostly imported ingredients
Less than 50 per cent Australian content.
According to Joe Lederman, editor of FoodLegal Bulletin:
"If it were my decision, I would have the government get rid of the whole lot and do what the New Zealanders do. In New Zealand the label 'Product of New Zealand' is a voluntary claim but is genuinely a premium product claim that can attract ... a price premium. Voluntary claims are legally enforced in New Zealand."
No comments:
Post a Comment