Pet Food (Marketing and Labelling) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (21:58): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill and indicate that the opposition is supportive of the Pet Food (Marketing and Labelling) Bill 2024 which was introduced into this chamber by the Hon. Frank Pangallo on 19 June. The bill would establish a regulatory framework for the marketing and labelling of pet food and would create a tranche of new offences to do with the labelling and marketing of pet food.

The four offences would cover retailers, producers, wholesalers and marketers, respectively, each prosecuting branches of labelling requirements under Australian standard AS5812:2023 (Manufacturing and marketing of pet food—cats and dogs). It is important to note that there is currently no existing regulatory requirement to meet AS5812:2023.

Additionally, clauses 8 and 9 provide for the appointment of authorised officers and general investigatory powers for the purposes of the act. Clause 10 would create an offence of hindering an authorised officer, with a maximum penalty of $5,000. Clause 11 would create an offence of providing false, misleading information, with a maximum penalty of $5,000. Clause 12 would provide for general regulation and fee-setting powers.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Carolyn Macgill from the Pet Food Industry Association Australia who, along with her team, have been working hard to raise awareness of the lack of regulation of the pet food industry here in South Australia. The Pet Food Industry Association of Australia was established in September 1972 to promote standards of excellence in the pet food industry in Australia.

The mission of the association has been to promote standards of excellence in the development of the pet food industry through the consideration of the needs of pets and the community, active promotion of the benefits of responsible pet ownership, and the promotion of prepared pet food as the preferred method of pet nutrition, and reinforced through establishment and self-regulation of industry standards.

The Pet Food Industry Association of Australia provides certification for all members who meet AS5812:2023 for its long-advocated-for regulatory requirements in line with those the subject of the bill. As a mixed practice veterinarian for 15 years prior to entering parliament, I absolutely understand that the regulation of pet food is crucial in ensuring the health and safety of our beloved pets as it plays a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the products they consume. Pets are cherished members of many families and their nutrition significantly impacts their overall wellbeing and longevity.

Regulatory frameworks help establish essential standards for ingredient sourcing, manufacturing processes and nutritional content, thereby preventing harmful additives, contaminants and substandard ingredients from entering the market. Without these regulations, the risk of foodborne illnesses and/or nutritional deficiencies can rise, posing serious health threats to pets.

Moreover, consistent oversight is necessary to ensure that pet food labels are accurate and informative. This transparency allows pet owners to make informed choices about their pets' diets, catering to specific needs, such as allergies, age and health conditions. Clear labelling also promotes accountability among manufacturers, encouraging them to prioritise quality and safety in their products.

I do note that the bill contemplates regulations, which might exclude certain persons from the operation of the act, and I believe this is important as there are circumstances, such as the selling of homemade dog treats at a fair or market, which we clearly do not want to be the target of this legislation. I think it is sensible that the act provides for that.

Whilst the opposition is supportive of the bill, I do think it is pertinent to address some of the challenges that a piece of state legislation like this bill might potentially face because of what is generally a national industry and the reasons I would like to see this issue taken up by our federal colleagues for national consistency. When only one state regulates pet food labelling and marketing, it can create significant challenges in enforcement and consistency across the industry.

Since many pet food brands operate on a national scale, varying regulations can lead to confusion and complications for manufacturers trying to comply with different state laws. For example, if one state has strict labelling requirements while others do not, companies may prioritise compliance with the more lenient states, potentially compromising the quality and safety of their products in the stricter state.

This inconsistency can also confuse pet owners, who might not be aware of the differing standards. As a result, consumers could unknowingly purchase products that do not meet the rigorous safety and labelling requirements of their home state. Furthermore, without a unified national standard, enforcement becomes fragmented. Regulatory bodies in different states may have varying levels of resources and priorities, leading to inconsistent inspections and oversight. This lack of uniformity can allow subpar products to slip through the cracks, increasing the risk of harmful ingredients reaching pets.

Moreover, the disparity in regulations can create an uneven playing field for manufacturers. Companies adhering to strict regulations might face higher costs and challenges, while those in less-regulated environments could cut corners to boost profits. This not only undermines the integrity of the industry but can also erode customer trust, as pet owners may struggle to know which brands are truly committed to their pets' health. Ultimately, without comprehensive and cohesive regulation across all states, the effectiveness of pet food labelling and marketing efforts can be significantly compromised, jeopardising the health and safety of our pets.

However, in stating these concerns I do want to acknowledge the honourable member in bringing forth this piece of legislation. Despite the limitations and challenges, such regulation remains an important and beneficial initiative. It serves as a crucial safeguard for pet health and safety, ensuring that at least some standards are upheld in an industry that directly impacts the wellbeing of millions of animals.

Even in the face of enforcement difficulties, a regulated environment can promote higher quality products, enhance consumer awareness and encourage accountability among manufacturers. Moreover, it lays the groundwork for potential future harmonisation of regulations across states, fostering a more consistent approach to pet food safety. Ultimately, the push for regulation is a positive step towards protecting our pets and ensuring they receive the nutrition that they need to thrive.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (22:05): I rise briefly to support the Hon. Frank Pangallo's Pet Food (Marketing and Labelling) Bill, as well as his amendment to the bill, and echo the sentiments of my colleague the Hon. Nicola Centofanti. In Australia, the pet food industry is self regulated, and complying with industry standards is optional for suppliers of pet food. While there are set industry standards in place, the problem is that there is no mandatory obligation that pet food companies are to comply with these standards.

Pet food suppliers are not subject to any consequences if they choose to violate established industry standards. When there are pet food retailers who are falsely labelling and marketing their products, the biggest concern is that Australians are being misled when it comes to making decisions about what pet food products they purchase and feed their pets. Misinformed decisions about pet food products cause pets to be susceptible to having their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill aims to ensure that all pet food retailers comply with the Australian standards for manufacturing and marketing pet food, providing full transparency about exactly what substances are present in their products so that pet owners can be educated and make informed decisions about what they feed their pets. The bill also seeks to introduce penalties for not complying with and for breaching the Australian standards for manufacturing and marketing pet food.

Due to copyrights of the Australian standards for manufacturing and marketing pet food, another problem is that there is a financial cost for pet food suppliers having access to it. Why would pet food suppliers comply with set industry standards at their own expense if there are not any penalties for breaching them? How can we hold pet food suppliers accountable in complying with set industry standards if they must pay for it just to be informed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (22:06): In Australia, there are no mandatory standards for pet food. However, pet meat is regulated. For context for this bill, I think it is an important distinction to make. In South Australia, the pet meat regulations are regulated by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions as the accreditation body. Pet meat producers must hold accreditation and comply with the pet meat standard. Accredited pet meat producers are routinely audited to verify compliance with the standard.

As has been alluded to, there was a Senate inquiry in, I believe, 2018 looking at regulatory approaches to ensure safety of pet food, as opposed to simply pet meat, and in 2018 it released its recommendations. The commonwealth responded to seven recommendations, which resulted in the establishment of a working group to determine options for national pet food manufacturing.

I am advised that a pet food working group has presented options to the Agriculture Senior Officials Committee and that the group was tasked with preparing a cost-benefit analysis of various policy options. I am advised that the options are due to be reported back to all agriculture ministers later this year for further consideration. I think that is well and truly overdue. The year 2018 is a long time ago. It is a long time from having had some recommendations made by a Senate committee to not yet getting national agreements or even a list of proposed national agreements.

To that end in particular, I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Pangallo for putting forward this bill. The South Australian government certainly supports in principle what the bill seeks to achieve. It is certainly our preference that such changes would be nationally consistent, and so it is important that we do continue to both be aware of the movements, albeit slow, towards a national approach and feed that information back in, as much as we are able to, in terms of anything that may come out of this bill.

The state government will reserve its right to make potential further improvements to the bill at a later date, which may be informed by the agriculture ministers' national discussions and also, potentially, by input from PIRSA, as I note that PIRSA that has not been consulted in terms of the bill. It is proposed in the bill that it should commence two months after assent, and I note the amendment that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has moved to change that to 12 months, which I think is certainly a more achievable timeframe. I still do not know if it will be easy to achieve but it is certainly a more achievable timeframe than two months, both in terms of what resources might be required by government but also for any changes that the pet food manufacturing industry may need to make potentially in regard to labelling of their products.

I think it is worth noting the intent of the bill. A national approach would be able to go further because it would actually impact manufacturing, not simply the marketing and labelling. But it is fair to say that South Australians love their pets and would expect the safe supply and sale of pet food. The Pet Food (Marketing and Labelling) Bill is one part of that and I look forward to, if this bill passes, being able to work further on the intent of the bill, in addition to hopefully seeing swifter movement in terms of national steps to also address the issues that this is attempting to fix. With that, I indicate that the government will not be opposing the bill, but we do reserve our right to make further amendments between the houses.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (22:10): Thank you to all the members who have contributed to the bill this evening, including the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Clare Scriven. All the speakers tonight have a strong track record in advocating for animal welfare. The Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Nicola Centofanti are veterinarians, and I appreciate their support for this legislation. I would also like to thank the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Minister for Primary Industries, who sees the positive benefits and outcomes that will come from this legislation should it pass both houses.

The minister told me today that she will have this legislation and its intention on the agenda of a coming meeting with her fellow state ministers, and I also welcome her involvement in progressing this legislation further, not just at state level but beyond the state borders. As I have pointed out, the reason this legislation is needed is because there are no mandatory standards for pet foods. It is completely self-regulated with voluntary standards that pet food companies do not have to comply with.

We know, and have seen, where self-regulation can and is abused; no more so than in the multibillion dollar pet food business. Consumers have a right to know what exactly is in the food they buy whether it is dry or raw minced meat products. Preservatives like sulphur dioxide are used to minimise bacterial growth and prevent oxidation of red meats, where, as we have seen, when we are buying meat at the butcher or mince, it could change to a brown colour without the use of that preservative. That was banned for use in meat for human consumption because of the serious health concerns.

Animals are no different. High levels of sulphur dioxide have been detected by researchers in pet food made here in South Australia and labelled preservative free. Dr Richard Malik, one of the world's most respected and well-known feline veterinarians and researchers from the Centre for Veterinary Education in Sydney, says the presence of high levels of sulphur dioxide will lead to the destruction of all the vitamin B1 (thiamine) present in pet food. B1 is an essential vitamin for dogs and cats.

Dr Malik says if this food was fed exclusively, dogs or cats would develop a thiamine deficiency which leads to bleeding into the midbrain and damage to the cerebral cortex. Dogs and cats affected by thiamine deficiency die if they do not immediately receive thiamine supplements and extensive supportive care.

Disclosing the presence of preservatives on the label gives the consumer the information they need to feed such food safely, by not feeding them as an exclusive diet.

He goes on to say it is dangerous to the health of the animal to mislead the consumer by claiming food is preservative free when it contains high levels of sulphur dioxide, which is generated from the addition of sodium metabisulphite. If disclosed, consumers might avoid such foods completely and instead purchase human-grade meat mince or meat by-products suitable for human consumption. We know that many animals have died or suffered health complications from pet foods. This legislation can stop that. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 2, line 6—Delete '2 months' and substitute '12 months'

This amendment deletes the two-month period if and when the legislation is assented to, as has been pointed out by the Hon. Clare Scriven. I totally agree that two months is not a long enough lead time for labels to be amended, particularly by manufacturers, so the intent of this legislation is to extend that period to 12 months.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the honourable member's amendment.

Amendment agreed to; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (3 to 12) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (22:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.