France, South Africa ban use of the word 'meat' in fake food labels, are we next?

The bitter lobbying campaigns between fake food makers and traditional livestock industries is back on.

France and South Africa have moved in the last week to ban the use of meat in plant-based packaging.

The Alternative Proteins Council, formed by the Melbourne-based Food Frontier group, last week issued "Industry Guidelines for the Labelling of Meat Alternative Products in Australia and New Zealand".

Again the fake meat industry is pushing for a voluntary code rather than the mandatory label changes which have been recommended.

Red meat industries say the "guidelines" fail to take into account the views of farmers or last year's Senate inquiry into food labelling.

It is seen as the formal response by that group to the Senate inquiry which recommended wholesale changes to labelling laws to draw a distinction between real meat and alternative proteins like those from plants.

The debate has added spice after the French and South African governments recently banned plant-based brands from using "meaty" terminology to sell their products.

South Africa has banned terms like "plant-based meatballs" and "chicken-style strips".

France is the first European Union country to ban the use of words like "steak" and "sausage" from being applied to plant-based food, according to an official decree late last week.

The ban, which was originally agreed to in 2020, will go into effect in October.

"It will not be possible to use sector-specific terminology traditionally associated with meat and fish to designate products that do not belong to the animal world and which, in essence, are not comparable," the official decree reads.

All the recommendations for a label crackdown in Australia came from a Coalition dominated Senate committee but the new ALP government has promised to follow them through.

"To support meat and plant industries an elected Albanese Labor Government will improve existing regulations that deliver accurate and clear food labelling for products so that consumers have informed choice," the new-government pledged during the election campaign.

It is that promise which farmers say has sparked the Alternative Proteins Council's "industry guidelines".

Leading groups like the Red Meat Advisory Council claim groups like Food Frontier are made-up of animal activists despite its repeated claims to be an independent think tank.

The red meat industry points to Food Frontier's constitution which says one of its "stated purposes" was to reduce the consumption of animal products.

Food Frontier earlier this year said the Senate's label crack down threatened to stifle the alternative proteins industry.

MORE READING: Extending flystrike protection in sheep.

In a letter to "stakeholders" last week, Alternative Proteins Council chair Kirsten Grinter said it was important "all Australians and New Zealanders have access to simple, clear, and factual information describing the content and purpose of meat alternative products at point of-purchase".

She said the industry guidelines were developed by the council "in consultation with experts across consumer law, food regulation and government".

The council says the guidelines are to be voluntary, while the Senate committee wanted label changes to be mandatory.

RMAC chair John McKillop said this latest move by the manufactured plant protein sector to crack down on its use of misleading and confusing labelling is long overdue.

Mr McKillop said the proposed new guidelines vindicates the concerns of Australia's red meat and livestock industries by confirming some fake meat companies have been doing the wrong thing and intentionally seeking to confuse consumers into buying their products.

"The fact that some fake meat companies continue to intentionally mislead through confusing and misleading labelling practices shows the sector can't be trusted to do the right thing under a voluntary framework," he said.

Mr McKillop said the guidelines were a weak attempt at self-regulation which fell farshort of what the Senate inquiry had proposed.

The proposed guidelines also underscore the industry's intent to keep using animal references and imagery to sell their products.

"If fake meat companies were already doing the right thing by consumers, they should have nothing to fear from a mandatory labelling framework," Mr McKillop said.

He said the industry had taken note of the crackdown on labels in South Africa which had gone further than the Australian livestock industry had proposed