'Get on with it': meat industry demands urgent action on food labels

Well over a year since a heated Senate inquiry pushed to outlaw fake food claims, government bureaucrats are instead considering the adoption of a voluntary code of practice.

The inquiry into food labelling pushed for regulatory changes to make the rules around food labels compulsory.

The inquiry clearly wanted plant-based mimics of meat to be outlawed, from early advice it appears those recommendations will be watered down.

Even after eight months of collecting hundreds of submissions and many public hearings, officials from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Department are now asking for both plant-based and meat industries to make fresh submissions.

This is despite the Labor government promising during the 2022 election to support meat and plant industries by fixing existing regulations and "deliver accurate and clear food labelling so that consumers have informed choice".

The Red Meat Advisory Council said it was underwhelmed by the government's lack of progress around its election commitment to restore truth in labelling for Australian consumers.

In a department document seen by Australian Community Media, it stated: "... this is a complex issue with diverse views, the department is seeking industries' views on how plant-based protein products are labelled and the impact on the industry, and the specific elements of product labelling of highest priority to the industry".

It then asks industry groups to outline their priorities on the present labelling of plant-based products and whether their priorities had changed since the Senate inquiry's report from July last year.

And whether they had any fresh information since the inquiry concluded?

"For example, any new research on consumer misinformation, any evidence of false or misleading conduct, any changes in industry practices?"

Despite the time delay, what has alarmed meat industry groups is the reference to the Australian Proteins Council's proposal for labeling of "meat alternative products".

The APC is closely linked with Food Frontier, a not-for-profit "independent think tank" based in Melbourne, which riled the meat industry with its involvement in the Senate inquiry although it insists they are not "anti-meat activists".

Founder and chair Thomas King agreed under questioning a "stated purpose" of his group's was to reduce the consumption of animal products.

"We do not have an anti-livestock agenda," Mr King said.

APC and Food Frontier do not believe there is any major need to change food labelling laws as there was little evidence of much confusion among consumers.

They believed the development of a code of practice for alternative protein food labelling would be more desirable than statutory regulation.

It is that voluntary code of practice which alarms meat industry groups which wants the tougher regulatory approach proposed by the Senate inquiry.

New laws for the labelling of vegan foods, with the view to forbidding the use of words like beef and chicken and livestock imagery, were recommended by the inquiry.

Reversing the national food authority's allowance of plant proteins and non-dairy milks to use animal descriptors have also been recommended.

The Red Meat Advisory Council was a central player in the industry response to the Senate inquiry.

Chair John McKillop said the government was elected with a mandate to improve labelling practices for fake meat products.

"But we've not seen any meaningful progress to develop minimum regulated standards to prohibit plant-protein product manufacturers from referencing traditional animal proteins like beef, lamb and goat, and using livestock images on packaging or marketing materials," he said.

Mr McKillop said if the government was planning to endorse the fake meat sector's own voluntary guidelines, "they need to think again".

"The voluntary guidelines are a slap in the face for consumers and all meat industries given this approach blatantly ignores the findings and recommendations handed down by the Senate inquiry," he said.

"It's been more than 18 months since that report was handed down, we don't need to re-prosecute the same issues, let's just get on with it already.

"Rubbing salt in the wound, the guidelines continue to approve the usage of animal brands, references and imagery to sell fake meat products."

He said the guidelines were developed without any red meat industry consultation and are not aligned with community expectations.

The meat industry claims there is widespread community support for clearer labelling, with its researching finding 73 per cent agreed plant-based products should not be allowed to use the term 'meat'.

The majority of people also think fake meat product packaging should not be allowed to use animal images (70pc) or use words or use words like 'beef', 'chicken', and 'lamb' (63pc)", according to industry research.

"While fake meat might be falling flat after years of hype, this does not diminish the importance of putting in place firm rules around how these products are marketed to consumers," Mr McKillop said.