Pet Food (Marketing and Labelling) Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (19:46): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to regulate the marketing and labelling of pet food and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (19:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill arises from a shocking realisation brought to my attention by a number of constituents, animal welfare bodies, advocates, veterinarians, pet food industry bodies and Australian pet food manufacturers and retailers that, unlike other countries, such as New Zealand and the US, there are no mandatory standards for pet food in Australia.

In Australia, pet food is completely self-regulated, with voluntary industry standards that pet food companies do not have to comply with. This means that, as Carolyn Macgill, the Executive Officer of the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia, also known as the PFIAA, told me, there is currently 'no pet food regulation at all' in Australia. Given the number of serious pet food poisoning incidents in recent years, I find this astonishing.

South Australians, like most Australians, love their pets. Currently, there are more pets than humans in Australia. Those 28.7 million companion animals include dogs, cats, fish, birds and other small animals. Nearly 40 per cent of Australian households own a dog and 27 per cent own a cat, so it should come as no surprise that the pet food industry in Australia is estimated to be worth almost $6 billion and is growing.

In addition to this, as much money again is estimated to be spent on services, pet insurance and accessories. Pets have become important family members and many animals also undertake vital working and service roles to the vision impaired, people with health issues such as PTSD, and children with autism.

It comes as no surprise that the ABC series Muster Dogs had over two million viewers and a third series is planned. The TV series The Dog House Australia was a top program for Channel 10 last year with 876,000 viewers, up 12 per cent. The ABC's A Dog's World with Tony Armstrong had 569,000 viewers, also up 12 per cent. It is hard to know whether it was the attraction of the dogs or Tony that contributed to this outstanding ratings success.

I must say at the outset that the majority of pet food businesses in Australia are reputable and strive to do the right thing, but there are a few that have ignored problems and complaints in the past and continue to operate in a cavalier manner. Of course, the worst of them are very keen to maintain a regulatory-free environment in which to operate.

Highly reputable operators, who are the vast majority of industry participants and who I have found to be strongly committed to the highest quality standard of their products, are completely powerless to do anything about the dodgy operators who put profit above pet health. There are a wide range of players in the industry, from big multinational companies with big advertising budgets through to smaller Australian producers and family-based businesses, but none are regulated.

The PFIAA tells me that they field at least three inquiries a week from people inquiring about entering the industry. There are currently between 70 and 80 pet food businesses which are members of the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia, but this only covers about 70 per cent of the pet food sold in Australia. There are also of course some very reputable pet food businesses that choose not to be members of the PFIAA.

Pet food businesses operated by conscientious industry leaders, such as Lisa and Russell Botten, have been victims of these issues of non-regulation. The Bottens, who took over what they believed was an all natural preservative-free pet food product range, were swindled into discovering that artificial preservatives were used in the majority of their products and that the labelling and marketing of these products did not disclose this.

The Bottens found, much to their horror, that the Australian pet food industry has no regulatory requirement for preservative or ingredient disclosure and that the products produced by the company they had purchased labelled their products as 'all natural and preservative free' which were false statements. The Bottens and all of their staff who believe pets and their owners deserve better protection made the decision to be open and transparent by providing full product ingredients in providing preservative-free pet food. Disillusioned and upset by what they discovered they had bought, the Bottens sadly chose to close the business in an unselfish act of goodwill even though it cost them dearly.

I am pleased to see small businesses selling safe, healthy and nutritious food that is properly labelled now popping up around the state. I will mention one where I buy pet meats and treats for my dog. It is called FYPO, For Your Paws Only, operated by Jane Whitehead and her son, Xander White, on Findon Road at Findon. Jane worked for Lisa and Russell and has now gone out on her own. The pet food is made to the highest standards on the premises and is the quality you would expect for your beloved pets. Their stock is sourced locally, the contents are all disclosed, and there are no preservatives or nasty additives used in FYPO's wide range of meat, chicken, duck and fish products. It is real meat, and you can see what you are buying.

They also make a range of treats on site, again with no preservatives or additives, and sourced locally, not from overseas countries which do not have to enforce any standards or make disclosures. While it might cost a little bit more, you can have confidence in it. Jane and Xander are proud of what they make, and their growing satisfied customer base proves it. They also have a champion dog groomer on site, Tam Quinn, who last week won a swag of awards for her skills in making even the scruffiest mutt look like a show dog when they leave.

It is these PFIAA members, other reputable pet food businesses, vets, animal welfare groups, consumers and veterinarian and pet food industry bodies which are unanimously and urgently calling for more regulation. It reflects poorly on the industry that dodgy operators are able to get away with unacceptable practices, such as using the cheapest, lowest standard ingredients and manufacturing processes under the cover of poor labelling, labelling manipulation and misleading and false marketing. It also puts pets at risk, as the many recorded incidents and recalls testify.

This bill aims to address this and support the pet food industry as a whole, in particular for South Australian consumers. I am very pleased to introduce this bill today, because as I am sure the two vets in the chamber, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Sarah Game (who is not here this evening), know only too well from firsthand experience, pets have died and are dying because of dodgy pet food and a complete lack of enforceable pet food regulation.

This has been because pet food importers can import anything, and manufacturers can make anything using any ingredients and processes they choose and then present the product as pet food, making claims they know will appeal to consumers without any oversight other than federal generic and largely unenforced ACCC consumer law.

Whilst I welcome PIRSA's recent announcement of a regulating Australian standard for the hygienic production of pet meat, AS 4841:2006, this bill regulates the comprehensive labelling and marketing provisions of Australian standard AS 5812:2023. The PIRSA regulations deal only with non-heat-treated food and stipulate only four minor labelling requirements on this type of food, all of which and much more is included in AS 5812:2023. PIRSA's standard also prescribes packaging should not leak when defrosted and that it be durable material to withstand handling without damage.

Whilst this action from PIRSA is very welcome and encouraged, the industry itself developed and refined AS 5812:2023, which goes much further and covers marketing and content labelling in a much more comprehensive standard. Currently, consumers can be completely in the dark about the content, such as additives, colouring, flavouring and preservatives, ingredients, nutritional value, manufacturing standards, ingredient type and sourcing, and the quality of the pet food product they are purchasing.

Brands do not have to disclose how much of anything they use, and they can make claims on their packaging and in marketing like 'perfect for a balanced diet' or 'scientifically formulated' without having to back them up. As Debbie Delahunty, veterinarian from Fur Life Vet Horsham says, and I quote, 'You can't always necessarily believe the marketing hype that is on the packet.' She adds that introducing more regulations around pet food marketing and labelling will make it easier for owners to ensure their pets are getting the nutrition they need. She says, 'Particularly in the marketing and labelling, it would be really good to have some clarity on what claims are allowed to be made and how they are going to be enforced and regulated.'

I am sure none of us want to be in a situation where we have, in all good faith, bought a product based on false labelling and marketing that has made our pet sick or, even worse, caused their untimely death. With the rise of social media and pet influencers online, it can be hard to filter legitimate advice from myths and scare tactics. How can a consumer know if they are feeding their pet 10 per cent or 30 per cent species-specific meat flesh? Is it raw beef, camel or horse? Did it come from a knackery, a pet food grade abattoir or a human grade food source? Brands can also swap out ingredients to a cheaper option or lower quality with impunity, especially in regard to cheaper grains like corn and tapioca.

Another popular tactic evident on many pet food products are attempts to conceal the true country of origin by stating in obscure small print 'product of PRC', an elusive way of labelling a Chinese import. Others distract from the truth by stating 'packaged in Australia' or saying they are from an Australian company when the content is wholly manufactured overseas and imported into Australia with no requirement to comply with any standard whatsoever.

Price alone has also shown to be a very poor indicator of quality and safety of pet food, as evidenced in 2018 when a top-shelf dry food was pulled from sale after more than 74 dogs consumed the product and fell ill with megaesophagus, an incurable condition which causes lifelong eating difficulties or death through an enlargement of the oesophagus. Simply, it means dogs cannot properly move food down to the stomach.

I will add here that I have seen photographs of one of these affected dogs. The owner went to great extent to ensure that the pet was able to eat its food by creating a step so that, each time the dog had to feed, it would be able to step up and feed so that the food would then be able to go down the oesophagus. That is the extent that owners have to go to and the love they show for their animals.

In another case, in 2021, an eastern Victorian pet food supplier linked to a cluster of dog deaths issued a voluntary recall of raw chopped meat more than three weeks after animals started falling ill. More than 10 dogs died and another 50 were ill with liver toxicity from contaminated meat provided by a local knackery. Ten of these dogs were police corrections dogs. As you would know, these dogs not only are cherished by their handlers but have undergone extensive, expensive training to undertake important roles in protecting our community.

It was reported in May this year that a vegan dog food manufacturer was being sued over claims that it produced a toxic batch of biscuits which killed seven dogs and caused illness to more than 60 others. According to court documents, expert testing found toxic levels of fumonisin B1 and fumonisin B2 linked to a contaminated corn-derived ingredient. The toxic batch of dry biscuits was manufactured in June 2020 in a volume of 22,155 kilograms at a facility in Western Australia.

In November 2023, another big brand manufacturer of a super premium dog food brand issued a warning and an apology for dog food containing mould sold across Australia. The company issued a warning on Facebook, advising customers to carefully inspect affected dog foods. Dean Cosenza recently brought a similar case to my attention, where he fed his pet an imported chicken treat that made his dogs very, very ill. He has taken extraordinary steps to make sure that this does not happen to any other pets but has met substantial resistance from big retailers when he complained about what it did to his two proud show dogs.

As tragic as it is, it is not only the animals who are impacted by adverse pet food incidents. Incidents like these have lasting implications for pet owners as well. As Carolyn Macgill from the PFIAA says, and I quote:

If their animal has an adverse reaction to pet food, there's a whole range of personal issues that happen for them. And guilt is one of those things. They then have vet bills, but it's also the psychological stuff that affects the pet owner, as well. So it isn't just a case of the animal is sick. It has a much broader effect on the family that that pet is part of.

In the case of Samantha Jedzejczak of St Agnes, in 2016 she lost her entire breeding stock of ferrets, which had taken nearly 10 years to build up, due to lead-contaminated kangaroo meat sold as pet food. Only six survived, with neurological damage, and Mrs Jedzejczak suffered significant emotional and financial loss, not to mention the immeasurable loss of a 10-year genetic breeding program.

PFIAA CEO Ms Carolyn Macgill advises that, over the past 12 months, they have seen a rise in the number of pets getting sick from pet food containing excessive vitamin D or mould and salmonella contamination. When you take a deep dive into pet food labelling and marketing, as I have in developing this bill, you will find that the labelling and marketing of pet food makes it well near impossible to know if a product will meet your pet's needs or lead to future health problems and possibly premature death.

I have been surprised to learn that an ingredient can be listed on top of the ingredients list but that does not mean it makes up a significant part of the final product. 'Real meat' may really mean that it is only 20 per cent of the formulation, and if this is beef then some of it is moisture. 'Beef casserole' could have very little beef content, and 'real chicken' could mean chicken meal from ground-up chicken bones. Similarly, 'real fish' may mean fish carcasses and no actual fish.

A short stroll through the extensive aisles of major pet food retailers reveals a huge variety of labelling and marketing practices evident on pet food that make it impossible to compare products in any meaningful way. I looked at some products on the weekend. One brand boasted that its dry food was beef and farm vegetables. Well, there were two: carrots and peas—printed in capitals. But if you looked at the fine print on the side, it also contained other 'species', described as chicken meal, essential vitamins and minerals and natural antioxidants—but what were they? It was free from artificial colours, flavours and preservatives. You have to take them on their word, I guess.

A can of popular dog food, labelled 'lamb and vegetables', also contained meats and liver, including chicken and/or lamb, and/or sheep, and/or beef, and/or pork, and/or turkey, and/or kangaroo vegetable fibre. Please explain. A product sold by Coles had all types of meats, preservatives and other additives, with a disclaimer that it was not nutritionally complete. Go figure.

One of them, sodium tripolyphosphate, is used in domestic and industrial products like detergents. It can be linked to skin and cardiovascular issues. The preservative, sodium metabisulphite, is used widely as a food preservative and in beverages that can be found in medications. Breathing sodium metabisulphite dusts may aggravate asthma or other breathing diseases, cause headaches, breathing difficulties, or heart irregularity. Ingestion may also cause gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhoea.

Without regulation, there is very limited transparency and disclosure. Pet food consumers are kept in the dark. We put a lot of trust into pet foods and that what we are doing is safe and the right thing by our pets, but in reality in Australia this comes down more to good luck than informed choice. There is no government oversight of the pet food industry, such as we have for other food standards. This bill is to address this wholly unsatisfactory regulatory environment in South Australia and to make sure there are at least minimum mandatory requirements and standards for marketing or labelling to properly disclose what suppliers are selling and, importantly for consumers, to know what they are buying.

This bill is to enable pet owners to make educated, informed decisions about what they feed their pets so that their pets live longer and better lives. In New Zealand and the United States, it is the government's responsibility to monitor pet foods and act on adverse pet food incidents. For example, the FDA in the US has recently issued warnings over chicken jerky treats made in China and Thailand that are still readily available here in major supermarkets. The RSPCA has also raised concerns about irradiated pet food products which have proven to be fatal to cats but are still being sold in Australia.

Australian standard AS 5812:2023 was recently reviewed and updated by some of the most senior industry leaders, the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia, the Australian Veterinarians Association, the RSPCA, and a number of responsible Australian pet food manufacturers and retailers. They worked very hard over several years to develop it. But not only is the Australian standard completely unenforceable, there is a cost to access it, being copyrighted to Australian standards. Despite the 2018 Senate inquiry into pet food recommending that the standard be available at no cost, you still have to purchase it and there is absolutely no requirement for anyone to comply with it. Sarah Zito, senior scientific officer at the RSPCA Australia, has commented:

There's been little substantial progress since the 2018 review [which] is proof that national leadership on this matter is necessary.

Certainly, national oversight and uniform legislation would be a positive step, but the government's response to the Senate inquiry was to pass the responsibility onto states and territories. Ideally, we would have nationally consistent legislation enforcing the entire standard, but as absolutely nothing has been developed since the 2018 Senate inquiry, despite a number of working groups looking at this over the intervening six years and promising to produce something possibly later this year for agriculture ministers to consider, we are now some six years post-recommendations of the Senate inquiry into pet food with zero outcomes. To do nothing, in my view, is not conscionable.

We cannot sit on our hands and allow pet foods that are dangerous or deadly to be sold to unsuspecting, well-intentioned pet owners in South Australia. Just take into consideration the cost of pets today, particularly the pedigree ones. They now cost between $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 and $7,000, and upwards, many of them, heading around the $15,000 to $20,000 mark. They are expensive and there is real reason why their owners want to ensure that what they give them is of the highest standard and will not kill them.

In the absence of national leadership on this issue, this bill introduces important, immediate and well-overdue protections for South Australian consumers in regard to the pet food they purchase for their beloved pets. The Australian standard was recently reviewed and updated, although some industry representatives believe the standard could be even further improved. However, they are unanimous in their views that the standard is somewhat meaningless if it is not enforceable.

The potential for this legislation to elevate standards nationally offers an additional compelling argument to support it. By addressing these issues, we can, at a state level, create an opportunity to catalyse the shift towards more comprehensive and effective national legislation. We have been leveraging the other jurisdictions to gather national momentum, just as we have in relation to other innovative legislation, such as my defibrillator bill and the government's mobile phone ban in schools.

We can model improvements in pet food safety and nutrition in South Australia, setting the stage for national-level reforms that align with the best interests of pets and their owners throughout Australia. As I have acknowledged, it addresses some but not all of the issues insofar as we are limited in what we can or should legislate within South Australia. It is designed to protect South Australian consumers in relation to transparency of labelling and marketing of pet food.

The bill itself creates four offences in relation to the marketing and labelling of pet food in South Australia: (1) that a person must not sell pet food that is not labelled in accordance with AS 5812:2023. There is a defence to this provision that the person can prove, on reasonable grounds, that they believe the pet food was labelled according to the standard; (2) that a person must ensure that a pet food label complies with AS 5812:2023; (3) that a person must provide relevant information to the person who is buying the pet food; and (4) that a person must not engage in prohibited marketing, that is, it does not comply with AS 5812:2023.

There are also enforcement provisions and the ability for the minister to appoint authorised officers who have their powers to enforce the law set out in part 3. It is an offence to hinder these officers, with penalties of $5,000 applicable. There are also substantial penalties for each of the offences in part 2, ranging from $20,000 for a first offence to $40,000 for a second offence and $60,000 for a subsequent offence.

The bill commences two months after assent so that pet food businesses have time to ensure they can comply. As AS 5812:2023 is not new, but would under this legislation be enforceable, the complying companies will find this quite routine. In practice this bill means that, if you sell your product in South Australia, you must comply with the marketing and labelling standards of AS 5812:2023.

I thank Australian Standards for working with us to provide a watermarked copy to all members of parliament and their staff so that they can properly consider the bill. Unfortunately, because the bill can only apply in our jurisdiction, it is not workable or fair to enforce the entire AS 5812:2023, although, as I have noted above, ideally the entire standard would be nationally legislated via uniform state legislation.

To enforce the entire AS 5812:2023 only in South Australia, for example in regard to manufacturing processes or mandatory recalls, would be to unfairly disadvantage or act as a disincentive to manufacturers and production companies basing themselves in South Australia, which of course is not our intention in this parliament. The bill does, however, regulate marketing and labelling of pet food products sold in South Australia, according to that part of the standard. I have been very encouraged that industry believes that, despite the challenges, simple South Australian legislation has the potential to drive positive change here and on a national scale.

I have consulted widely on the bill and thank everyone for the valuable contributions I received to develop the proposed legislation into the final bill you have before you today. It has the strong support of the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the Australian Veterinary Association and various Australian pet food manufacturers, retailers, private advocates and consumer groups.

The bill has been met with overwhelming consumer and pet owner support and I hope that it receives bipartisan support from members of the Legislative Council and then in the House of Assembly. There has been no-one saying we do not need to or should not regulate the enforcement of the Australian standard. On the contrary, there are some who want to see the standard further strengthened and improved, and I hope this continues to happen.

There are, of course, many well-respected advocates, such as Tom Armstrong, who has spoken out over decades and generously shared with me his work on more fundamental questions of what we should be feeding our pets as well. To be clear, the bill does not address manufacturing or the specifics of pet nutrition, but informed consumer choice is the cornerstone of this bill. I congratulate Tom on his tireless work to improve the health of pets—dogs in particular.

The bill's intention is simple: it provides an important first line of protection for South Australian consumers and their pets; that is, mandating transparent and accurate marketing and labelling of pet food products sold in South Australia to ensure that pet food is safe and nutritionally adequate.

I would like to thank all those who helped develop this bill, particularly one of my senior advisers Adrienne Gillam, along with the input received from the veterinary profession and also Lisa and Russell Botten. I would like to welcome Lisa to our chamber today. She has been here all day—she must be a glutton for punishment. I thank Lisa and Russell for their input in helping develop and inspiring me to pursue this needed reform for Australian consumers and their pets.

I have also received a number of emails of support from professionals, including Dr Tom Lonsdale, who has written a bestselling international book on how to feed your pet and what to feed your pet. It was good to receive his response as well. As Carolyn Macgill from the PFIAA says, and I quote:

Australians should be able to buy food for their pets knowing that there are robust mandatory systems in place, by having a standardised approach it will allow for more transparency and accountability for the industry around pet food labelling, ingredients, and manufacturing practices.

With those expert words, I conclude my second reading and commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Henderson.