Egg wars: how politics of influence block free-range labelling reform
|
Version 0 of 1. The chief consumer affairs bureaucrat of Australia's largest state has just done something quite unusual for a public official. NSW fair trading commissioner Rod Stowe has departed from script on free-range labelling – usually along the lines of "there’s nothing to see here" – to respond to a super complaint from national consumer advocacy giant CHOICE. In doing so, he has admitted to the major failure of the free-range egg market. Cases of false labelling, inconsistencies across standards and a proliferation of high-cost, low-welfare eggs led him to call for nation-wide legally enforceable standards. By doing so, he has now made it impossible for governments, the egg industry and large industrial producers to continue hiding behind their stone wall of denial. Despite the consumer tide rapidly turning against factory farmed foods and the grotesque levels of animal cruelty they involve, Australian governments have blocked, reversed or subverted almost every move to stop free-range being little more than a marketing tool. In August of this year, the NSW Coalition government used its numbers in the lower house to axe a Greens bill to impose real meaning on the free-range label. In Queensland, the Newman Liberal National party government quietly dumped that state's requirement that free-range egg farms stock no more than the industry standard of 1,500 birds per hectare. In both cases, Coalition governments danced to the tune of the big industrial producers. They allowed the ethical motivations of consumers to continue to be exploited and cashed in for massive profits. Yet the figures show just how out of touch they are. Increasing numbers of consumers are looking for a better animal welfare alternative to factory farmed meat and eggs. In 2011, 34%of all eggs sold in Australia were labelled free-range, representing 44% of the entire value of the market. If recent trends continue, the appetite for ethically produced eggs will overtake the caged products early next decade and it will spill over into other foods including poultry and pig products. While the statistics reveal an explosive growth in the demand for free-range eggs, they disguise a crisis in the authenticity of the products and the labels. In their quest for even greater profits, industrial egg producers are combining the pulling power of the free-range label with high stocking densities that deprive their animals of room to move and genuine access to a fresh range. In responding to CHOICE’s super complaint, the NSW department of fair trading found that egg farms with some of the highest stocking densities were actually charging the highest prices. The report states: The current lack of a consistent, standard definition of what is meant by ‘free-range’, coupled with the prevalence of varying industry certification schemes, makes it difficult for consumers to know whether the products they are purchasing meet their expectations. Since 2010, the Egg Corporation has been pushing for formal endorsement of the intensification of free-range standards. The egg lobby wants the current industry-accepted stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare to be boosted by more than 1,200 per cent to a staggering 20,000. Most consumers expect free-range products to come from farms where the animals have the freedom to move about in the outdoors and express their "natural behaviours." Many would be appalled to learn that far from these basic expectations of animal welfare, many hens would not even make it out to the range, no matter how green and lush it might look in the marketing image on the carton. Despite the loud protests from consumer rights and animal welfare organisations, current laws fail to prohibit the Egg Corporation from trashing the term free-range. In the absence of any state or federal legally-enforceable definition, the big industrial producers are able to determine just how "free" free-range their hens need to be to justify the label and the price increases. It turns out to means not very free at all. While reform at a political generally lags community values and expectations, when it comes to the egg industry and labelling rorts, there are more sinister and active forces at play. In justifying her party’s opposition to the Greens NSW Truth in Labelling bill in NSW in August of this year, National party MP and primary industries minister Katrina Hodgkinson said: The Food Authority is also actively enforcing existing truth in labelling in relation to eggs… [it] already has the power under the Food Act 2003 to pursue food businesses if they are guilty of misleading or deceptive conduct … the system works and that there is nothing to be gained by duplicating regulatory powers that the authority already has and takes seriously. This is in stark contrast to the NSW fair trading commissioners assessment, where consumer expectations were so badly subverted that he called for binding national standards to end the inconsistency. Action on closing the gap between labelling and expectations has been stymied by the National party and their pro-cage and anti-regulation mantra. The big industrial egg producers are determined to keep churning out low-welfare high-cost "free-range" to consumers who don’t get to see behind the farm gate to tell the difference. The National party appear to have willingly taken up their cause, despite the consequences for consumers, chickens and, most surprisingly, small and medium-sized free range farmers. These National party priorities are making many of their Liberal colleagues quite uncomfortable. Truth in labelling is a small but persistent thorn in the relationship between the Coalition partners. The idea that the label free-range is being misused to gouge more money out of consumers would not sit well with the often well-education product-savvy constituents in Liberal electorates. Most Liberals would understand that for any market to operate will it needs high quality information. Misleading product labelling and advertising are the enemy of free-market capitalism, distorting the supply-demand chain. Extraordinarily, the then-NSW fair trading minister Anthony Roberts failed to even contribute to the debate on the Greens Truth in Labelling bill. He was wedged between protecting consumer rights and maintaining peace within the Coalition. Political convenience won out over his constituents and his commitment to ensure a well-functioning free-range market. Vested National party interests are poisoning the debate over free-range labelling and curtailing sensible efforts to introduce labelling reform. This is the case of minority power blocking reforms supported by the majority. The National party, with its 550,000 voters , is denying 10m free-range consumers their rights. The good news is that while the National party are a vocal minority, they are only a minority. The pressure for a fair go for genuine free range farmers, consumers and hens is growing daily. It is increasingly apparent to voters and law makers that industry self-regulation is failing, and that parliaments must step in and make free range mean free range. Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |