CRACKS are appearing in the egg debate, as new research calls into question a leading consumer group’s reliance on a producers’ code of practice for chicken welfare to determine between free-range and intensive production.
This year, Choice ramped up its campaign for a nation-wide, legally-binding, free-range standard and claimed consumers were ripped off in 2014 when at least 213 million free-range eggs were sold by farms that didn’t meet consumers’ expectations of free-range.
Choice said many producers employed stocking densities that exceeded the maximum rate recommended by the Model Code for free-range developed by industry and government.
However, NSW Farmers chief executive Matt Brand said his association’s research demonstrated a disconnect between Choice’s advocacy and consumer expectations.
A Quantum Research survey commissioned by NSW Farmers and Egg Farmers of Australia, showed 11 per cent of consumers surveyed recognised the industry’s Model Code of Practice – 1500 chickens a hectare – as the benchmark for free-range stocking density.
“(The Quantum research) demonstrates those who argue that each bird should have six square metres of outside space are advocating for only 11pc of shoppers,” he said.
The Model Code is subject to much debate among farmers.
One clause permits higher free-range stocking density of birds which are regularly rotated onto fresh-range ground with continuous fodder cover.
The Code is a non-binding document which was developed in 2002.
It is under federal government review by Treasury, which has produced a Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement.
Choice spokesman Matt Levey has called the 213 million free-range eggs sold outside the Model Code’s free-range standard as “an absolute farce”.
However, Treasury’s impact statement said the Code was designed to focus on production and poultry welfare, as opposed to consumer expectations.
Any new consumer protection regulation should limit confusion for both producers and consumers, a Treasury Department statement said.
Choice media spokesman Tom Godfrey said Quantum merely confirmed consumers were confused about the meaning of free-range.
“Consumers pay a premium for free-range eggs without having any certainty that they are getting what they pay for,” he said.
“The research that we’ve seen from NSW Farmers does not ask people what they think genuine free-range stocking density should be.
“It asked people what they thought about the current minimum standard.”
Mr Godfrey said the multitude of accreditation systems, set individually by states and industry, opened the door for producers to capitalise on the free-range cache while employing what some would call intensive operations.
Mr Brand said the free-range debate had been muddied by activists and the media.
“While consumer views on free-range are varied and diverse, they are generally aligned with egg industry performance and management systems,” Mr Brand said.
Of the 1200 shoppers Quantum surveyed across the country in September, 72pc recognised 10,000 chickens/ha (one chicken every square metre), or higher, as the free-range stocking standard.
The research also showed 76pc of shoppers saw $5.50 as too expensive for a dozen extra-large free-range eggs.
Source: Quantum Research
Mr Brand said the research indicated Australians were more price-sensitive to free-range than assumed and prescriptive regulations could add to farmers regulatory burden.
“I don’t want our egg farmers to have to do a head count of their chooks to figure out if they are going to satisfy the regulator’s expectations.”
NSW Farmers has also questioned the “clucky” methodology of a 2014 Choice survey that claimed that only 2pc of free-range egg buyers saw 10,000 hens a hectare as an acceptable stocking rate.
Mr Brand said the statistic was repeated at least 15 times throughout the government’s impact statement on free-range labelling.
“Choice research is deeply embedded in a government document.
"I hope for the sake of accuracy and common sense, we can see the methodology that was used so that we can all be clear on the accuracy of the claims that have been made,” Mr Brand said.
In 2012 the Australian Egg Corporation failed in its bid to cap the free-range certified trademark at 20,000 hens per hectare.
The federal government is consulting with stakeholders on the free-range impact statement on behalf of Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand.
Click here to make a submission.The deadline is November 2.
