THE official line regarding vegan food labelling of the independently-funded organisation set up to deliver analysis and insights on farm policy is there is no evidence of a problem.
The Australian Farm Institute's investigations of plant-based protein packaging that uses words like beef and meat and images of livestock found no existential threat to the Australian livestock industry or consumer health at any scale.
However, AFI's general manager Katie McRobert, appearing yesterday at the public hearings for the senate inquiry into definitions of meat and other animal products, did say that 'from a personal point of view' the practice rubs her the wrong way.
"But it is certainly not the only product that rubs me the wrong way," she said.
"When I walk up and down the supermarket aisle I feel tricked at every turn. There are many many products on the shelves today that don't pass the pub test."
ALSO SEE:
Ms McRobert had been pushed by the inquiry's chair Senator Susan McDonald on whether the practice of using animal descriptors on products containing no animal protein was acceptable.
The labelling was certainly legally acceptable, Ms McRobert said.
"Where the deception is more likely to occur is where these items are placed alongside animal protein products," Ms McRobert said.
"Retail display choices may be questionable, but again perfectly legal."
Senator McDonald, who has been the driving force behind the senate inquiry, said that was the nub of the matter.
"What is legal and what is right are two different things," she said.
War of words
The 'war of words' playing out between the livestock industry and plant-based protein food manufacturers was engendering consumer mistrust that could backfire on either, or both, sectors, Ms McRobert told the inquiry.
"The undermining is detrimental to both sectors," she said.
AFI's projections show there will be an increase in demand for both sectors.
"We'd also like to note that any threat we see to the livelihood of Australian livestock producers is much more likely to come from regulatory change driven by community pressure, which is often driven by misinformation," Ms McRobert said.
"We think it is vital all protein producers are accountable for any claims so consumers can make informed choices and evidence-based sustainable production decisions."
Ms McRobert outlined the marketing dangers of taking an 'all or nothing' approach.
"Presenting things in an 'either or' scenario - that is, it is either good for you or bad for you - can be detrimental to both product segments," she said.
"That sort of marketing can backfire. For example, an alternative product saying meat is bad for you and running down the meat industry may find if people don't believe that they are less likely to trust that particular product and rather than gain consumers they are just as likely to lose them.
"It's exactly the same the other way around. If the meat industry says these alternate products are made out of chemicals then people mistrust the meat industry."
Ms McRobert also said AFI research showed there was no threat to the livestock sector within the next ten years from laboratory-grown, or cultured, meat products.
The costs were too high and the health benefits too unknown, she said.
The only development that might change that situation was wide scale regulatory change across developed economies which limited the amount of animal meat available for sale and forced people onto the planetary health diet suggested by the Eat Lancet study, she said.
Start the day with all the big news in agriculture! Sign up below to receive our daily Farmonline newsletter.