HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FOOD LABELLING

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:55): I move:

That this house requests that the state and federal governments implement more comprehensive food labelling laws.

Members will know that this has been a passion of mine for a while, for various reasons. It was initially triggered by a Social Development Committee inquiry into ADHD and ADD, where there was concern about additives and so on in foods, as well as two other inquiries by the Social Development Committee, one into genetically modified foods and the other more generally into genetic engineering.

During one of those hearings we had representatives from the Grocery Council of Australia appear as witnesses. I asked them how they would define 'natural', which is on the labels of a lot of products sold in supermarkets, and they could not. Well, what is natural? Snake poison is natural, but it is not good for you if you get it the wrong way. Yoghurt is not natural—I am yet to see yoghurt lying around, occurring without human intervention of some kind or other. They are probably more trivial aspects, but these labels are thrown around. What does 'fresh' mean when you go into a supermarket? When was it fresh? 'Fresh daily', but what you get may not have come in that day; the label simply implies that they get fresh supplies each day—but maybe not for you, you may be buying something that has been there for a while.

'Lite' (which is spelt differently to what I was taught at school) does not mean there is no fat in it. A lot of these so-called 'lite' products still have 3 per cent fat; they will brag about 97 per cent fat-free but they still have 3 per cent fat in them. The label may suggest that the product has 30 per cent less fat than the standard product, but how much fat does that have? You do not really know. Then we get into areas such as 'homemade'. I suggest that most of the 'homemade' things sold in shops are not actually made in the home with a little stove and a Mixmaster. There are also 'handmade' products, such as pies and pasties—and I am always a bit concerned when it says handmade, because I hope the hands that made them were clean.

You can go on and on through what I believe are all these vague and misleading labels. For example, a lot of people think they are on a good thing because they are eating vegetable oil. However, without their knowing, as it is presented, it is probably the worst oil they can consume because they are almost certainly consuming palm oil. They do not have to list palm oil, because it is not required to be listed. However, they must list peanut oil, soy oil and sesame oil. We know that peanuts can cause allergies and that palm oil is not good for your system, but you do not have to be told that you are consuming palm or coconut oil. The label often states 'vegetable oil', and people assume that 'vegetable' must be good, but that is not the case.

If you go through many other products, you will find that in Australia they do not have to tell you the percentage of water in a product. In supermarkets, I have seen water bizarrely labelled 'organic water'. The last thing you want in your water is organic material, but that is what you can buy if you are silly enough to pay for it or if you are misinformed.

Here and in other parts of Australia, we make beautiful olive oil. Tests recently done by the New South Wales government found that many of the imported oils were not true to label. These were big brands (I will not name them all, but there was Moro and others) but they were found not to be true to label. They were not virgin or extra virgin oil as they had been heat-treated. Nine of the oils that were tested failed.

Unlike Germany, we do not have a standard in Australia for virgin or extra virgin olive oil. Some of the Australian oils were tested, and they all met the criteria for being genuinely virgin or extra virgin olive oil. There is no legal standard, but the test will tell you whether or not the oil has been heat-treated or whatever. An alleged olive oil spray sold by Woolworths actually contained quite a bit of canola. Canola is not a bad oil, but it is not olive oil if that is what you think you are buying. So, we have this misleading and inappropriate labelling going on.

If you look at the area of so-called 'free range', you will find that there is no definition of free range in Australia for poultry or eggs. People are selling products that they claim to be free range, but they are not. There are some genuine free range products in South Australia; some come from Kangaroo Island, and the member for Finniss will attest to that. Although they are a little more expensive, I buy those eggs. People are being fooled and duped.

A business at Glenelg was repacking eggs and putting them in containers that made them look as though they were free range when they actually were not. There is no standard for free range eggs or poultry. A company called Farm Pride (they always use these rustic names), near a large regional Victorian city, has 40,000 hens in each shed. The hens form a queue behind a trapdoor so that they can get outside for a little while. If they are free range, you would think they would be going out to get some green food. However, in the Weekly Times, the manager said, 'Oh, no, there is no vegetation out there, but we're going to plant some trees.' As far as I know, chooks do not eat trees, but maybe one day they will get a bit of shade.

There are some genuine free range producers, and some have done very well, and their hens can genuinely move around. There has been controversy in Victoria because the RSPCA suggested that barn-raised chickens are free range chickens, but they do not fall into my definition of free range. They may be barn raised, but they are not free range. Certainly, caged hens are not free range.

The UK has a definition of 'free range', and the ACCC has been looking at it here. There has been one prosecution where a company in Geelong was deliberately misleading the public about free range, but there is no agreed definition. A group called the Free Range Poultry Producers, which produces poultry meat as well as eggs, is trying to get a definition and a legal standard, but it is being resisted somewhat by the Egg Corporation. Members can draw their own conclusions as to why that might be the case.

We also have the farcical situation of logos and expressions. People think that the Australian logo is a government logo, but it is not; it is owned by business groups and the government gives them a donation. You might think that, if it has the 'Australian made' or 'product of Australia' logo, it is totally Australian, but that is not necessarily the case. According to the definition (which is owned by this business group), there has to be a 'significant transformation' in Australia.

We currently have a product, under the name of Goulburn Valley (which I think is now owned by Coca-Cola), which comprises 100 per cent imported apple juice, but the container states that it is made in Australia from imported ingredients. That is a farce because it is not made in Australia and the juice is totally imported. However, they can claim the packet as made in Australia. So, we have this farcical situation where these labels and symbols are used and the public can quite easily be misled.

The situation is worse for products such as fish. I do not know whether members realise, but Australia is now importing almost half its fish. Even though we have the best fish in the world, we export a lot of it. We are getting what years ago people would have understood to be mulloway, but it is now called butterfish, coming in from China. I do not have a problem if people want to buy butterfish from China, good luck to them, but they should know what they are buying.

At long last, supermarkets are starting to tell people whether our prawns and fish are locally produced in terms of whether they are wild or farmed. If members do the shopping, like I do, they may have noticed that, increasingly, the big supermarket chains are telling us not only whether the product is from overseas but also whether, if it is local, it is a farmed product. Many people think that prawns are a wild catch when, in fact, many of the prawns sold in supermarkets come from farms. There is nothing wrong with that. My point with all of this is that you have a right to know. In a democracy, the most fundamental right is to know what you are eating. Dieticians will tell you that you are what you eat. We know that that is somewhat of an exaggeration, but it conveys the message that if you do not eat appropriately you may pay a price.

In Australia, if you add something to a food product for a technological purpose you do not have to tell people what it is; whereas, in the United States you do. If you buy dried bananas in America, they will tell you that they have added an ingredient to make the banana look like a banana in dried form; but in Australia you do not have to be told that, because it is done for technological reasons. Once again, in my view, that is a form of deception.

When it comes to additives, Australia is pretty free and easy. A lot of our additives in foods are not allowed in Europe and the United Kingdom. I have an allergy to 211, sodium benzoate, which is in virtually every soft drink except Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola does not need a preservative because it has enough sugar in it, but all of the other drinks, except Schweppes bottled lemonade, contain sodium benzoate (211), which is generally not approved in Europe and the UK. It is also in biscuits, chocolates, and a lot of other things. Likewise, in the UK they do not allow artificial colourings in things like kids' Smarties; here we do.

What is the issue? I notice the Minister for Health is here. He is a good minister, not only competent, but also a pleasant person. He is not artificial; he is real. He is our representative on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Authority (ANZFSA), which is the body responsible for this whole issue of identifying what is in foods and so on. As our health minister, he has been putting the case. I think he needs to be even more vigorous and really get stuck into his fellow ministers to push the case.

It is not only a question of what you are eating and the effect on individuals, children, and so on: it is the fact that our growers are missing out, because people are not being told the truth in terms of the products they buy. To that extent, almost half of our pig producers have gone out of business in the last year or so because they cannot compete with imports from Canada and the United States. One big producer of processed meats in Australia was importing pork meat and then pressing it onto a local pig bone, and calling it 'ham on the bone', which it was. It is ham on the bone, but it is dodgy. They had to withdraw it; but that is what they were up to.

That is the sort of thing that pig producers here have had to compete with: dumped ham, which local processors have used. As a result, this Christmas, if you have not already bought your Christmas ham, you will find that it is a lot dearer than last year, because the pig producers have been forced out of business.

So it goes on. With generic engineering and genetically modified foods I do not have a problem. The ones that I am aware of are safe to eat. Our Social Development Committee inquired into it, and we had top people from Waite—Dr Langridge and others—speak. If it is good enough for them and their kids to eat, it is good enough for me. But, the point I make is that people should know; people have a right to know. If they do not want to eat genetically engineered food it should not be snuck in on them. I suspect that, at the moment, a lot of what people are eating is genetically engineered or genetically modified without them knowing.

There are a lot of other points that I could make, but I urge our minister, John Hill, to put the case more strongly through ANZFSA for better, more comprehensive labelling in Australia so that the ongoing deception of the public in Australia ceases. I commend the motion to the house.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (12:12): I move the following amendment:

Delete all words after 'That this house' and insert:

calls on the state government to support the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council and Food Standards Australia New Zealand in ensuring comprehensive food labelling laws that protect the health of the community and assist consumers to make healthy food choices.

I move this amendment because it is important that we use the correct mechanisms to make the changes necessary to achieve this aim. South Australia is party to an agreement which establishes a national food regulatory system with nationally consistent food legislation. The Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (ANZFRMC) is responsible for establishing food regulation policy and reviewing food standards. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is responsible for the development of food standards.

As we are all aware, and as the member for Fisher has so correctly pointed out, food labelling standards play an important and well-established role in Australia in protecting health and safety through mandatory requirements such as ingredient and allergen labelling and date marking. Increasingly, South Australia has pushed for the role of food labelling to be expanded to include necessary information, which allows customers to make informed decisions about health aspects and their diets.

Australians are becoming more and more educated about the effects on the body of chemicals ingested and body reaction. Food legislation can contribute to the reduction of diet related diseases. At the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting on 24 October 2008 ministers agreed in principle to commission an independent comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy. The review will be undertaken by an independent expert panel comprising prominent individuals appointed by the ministerial council and chaired by an independent public policy expert.

At this meeting the ministerial council also agreed to continue working on a front-of-pack labelling system for Australia. This work includes the consideration of the very simple UK traffic light labelling system that can be useful. It is easily understood information to consumers about the fat, sugar and salt content of foods.

This system assists consumers to make healthy choices and provides an incentive for industry to formulate foods that qualify for 'green lights'. South Australia also successfully placed the issue of trans fatty acid (TFA) content of food on the national agenda. This resulted in a review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of a number of voluntary industry and non-regulatory initiatives aimed at reducing the TFA content of foods and a commitment to keep these measures under review. The Minister for Health, the Hon. John Hill (who, as the member for Fisher points out, is an excellent minister), raised this issue again at the October 2008 meeting, and ministers agreed that the national survey of TFA content in food currently underway will also include a dietary assessment of TFA intakes using the new information provided by the National Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey.

Ministers also requested that a report on the progress of voluntary industry initiatives to reduce TFA intake be provided to their next meeting. I commend the amendment to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:16): I rise to speak to the initial motion moved by the member for Fisher. I support the fact that we do need better food labelling laws, because, when they go shopping, people are confused when they see 'Produce of Australia' or 'Made in Australia'. What does it all mean? I doubt whether many members in this place would know all the criteria involved in how companies, manufacturers and importers get around the various nuances of labelling to sell their products.

Personally, I have a bit of an aversion, not just with respect to cost, or anything, but to some of the Black and Gold foods, because I think you do pay for a lot of water in some products. I want to add to my brief comments and talk about genetically modified food. I think there should be better food labelling, because people would be absolutely surprised at how much genetically modified food they are consuming currently. They would be absolutely stunned. We get a lot of furore in the public about genetically modified substances, but, whether you are for it or against it, we do need to be educated about what is already out there so that we know exactly what is going on.

I have an understanding of most breeding, especially grains, and it is certainly current at the moment with the harvest of the first genetically modified crops in Victoria and New South Wales happening as we speak. It makes us focus on what goes on with genetic modification. The fact is that, before some of this technology, we did have genetic modification of plants but it happened over time frames of 10 to 20 years. Essentially, what has happened in the new processes is fast-tracking in the principal form. Food labelling would clear up some of the misconceptions no matter what people's views are on genetically modified substances, as well as providing a more informed debate.

I refer members to genetically modified BT cotton. People are growing this cotton in northern New South Wales and Queensland and they do not need to spray insecticides, or they may need to use one insecticide instead of eight. You would think that wanting to be more green and wanting a better environment that we are better off not using those insecticides. However, back to the debate of better labelling. Whether we are looking at imported food or whether we are trying to learn whether food is a blend of imported food (and we see that quite a bit with fruit juices, such as Brazilian juice blended with Riverland juice, depending on supply and demand), better food labelling would certainly be a good thing. I would like to know whether genetic modification is used on any food. I think people would be surprised at how much is already on the market shelves. I commend the motion.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:20): I wish to speak briefly on this. I commend the member for Fisher for his motion, as well as the member for Morialta for her amendment which does improve it and which probably takes it to a greater level. No doubt society in the last 35 years, or so, has changed. The options available now to consumers in any product they wish to purchase is enormously larger than it was a generation ago. It is also very true that now consumers want to be far more aware of the food they put into their mouths. So, we should ensure that appropriate labelling occurs to give the opportunity to those consumers who want to review every item or morsel of food they consume to make sure that it does not react against a problem they might have with their physical wellbeing.

Importantly, it allows them to provide their family with a diet with which they are very comfortable, because society is made up of different people with different attitudes. I know that, growing up as a young child, we ate what was put in front of us. All consumers are now far more aware. I believe the motion is a good one, and it is probable that all members will support it. I hope that it goes through, because it allows only for an improvement to occur and it is important that we give that information to people. Many people wish to make deliberate decisions. They do not want to consume blindly whatever is put in front of them and whatever is available on their supermarket shelves. They want to make sure that the choices provided to them have been acted upon, and that, when purchasing their goods, they purchase items they know will only improve their health and not be detrimental to it. I commend the motion.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT