HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-04-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FOOD (LABELLING OF FREE-RANGE EGGS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:50): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Food Act 2001. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will insert a new section into the Food Act to prevent the sale, promotion, advertising, packaging or labelling of free-range eggs, unless the eggs are produced in accordance with the following requirements: (a) the number of birds kept or housed per hectare must not exceed 1,500, and (b) any other requirements prescribed by the regulations.

I advise members that this bill is identical to that introduced by the Liberal member for Finniss, Michael Pengilly MP, in the lower house. Part of the catalyst for this bill is the recent announcement of the ACCC's prosecution of an egg producer here in South Australia, which the ACCC alleges has been misleadingly selling eggs which have come from caged hens but are packaged as free range.

Currently, there is no legal definition of what constitutes 'free range' and what standards should apply to birds raised under free-range conditions. Consumers can, of course, be confused by the plethora of alternative egg labelling systems, which include free range, cage, barn laid, environmental, eco, farm fresh, vegetarian or organic, all with little or no clarity about what these terms actually mean for that consumer. There is no doubt that Australian consumers have upped the ante when it comes to ethical consumerism, fair trade and animal welfare standards as they pertain to livestock, and the tremendous outpouring of community angst over the live export trade is just one example of that.

According to statistics provided by the Hon. John Kaye MLC in the New South Wales parliament, the volume of the free-range egg trade has expanded significantly. From occupying a market niche at farmers markets and health food stores a dozen or so years ago, free-range eggs are now displacing caged eggs on the shelves of the biggest supermarkets as well as the smallest. In 2009 to 2010, they reached 27 per cent of the market volume and 37 per cent of the market value. Other sources confirm that the free-range industry itself has massively increased across Australia by 64 per cent in recent years. That is big business no matter how you look at it. Where there is money to be made, there are often unscrupulous people looking to take advantage and to exploit others.

Sadly, we have seen cases of egg substitution occur, including the recent announcement of a high profile prosecution currently underway by the ACCC against a larger producer who, it is alleged, has sold to over 115 clients eggs deceptively labelled as free range when they were not. That case is before the courts, and I will not talk further of it. But suffice to note, these actions undermine consumer confidence and harm our state's reputation and, by association, cast a pall over genuine primary producers who do the right thing.

Scandalous rip-offs have characterised the industry in New South Wales in recent years as well, and it does not take too much imagination to understand why when all a shonky producer has to do is change the packaging to say 'free range' and they can charge a premium on their product, from 30 per cent to even 100 per cent or more. In terms of the temptation to make a profit, you can see why some producers would do this. Whilst this is deceptive and, I believe, clearly fraudulent in some cases, with no legislative definition of what constitutes free range, the parliament is unfortunately and unwittingly facilitating this behaviour.

Whilst the impact on consumers is certainly a major concern for the Greens, there is also a significant impact on small businesses and small farmers. Genuine free-range producers who put the welfare of the animals first and foremost just can't compete with the intensive industrialised operations that seek to house 20,000 birds per hectare and yet still claim to be free range.

Whilst my colleague the member for Finniss has pointed out that he has no problem with operations doing that provided they do not try to pretend to be free range, I would flag that the Greens do have ongoing concerns about the welfare of these birds under such conditions. I advise members that we will not be exploring that with this bill, but we may revisit that in the future in terms of the welfare standards for those animals in those industrialised factory farms. I would also note that the Greens have led the way across Australia on this issue and we are still the only party in this parliament with the animal welfare portfolio. I hope that that will change in the near future.

This bill I am introducing today, however, is identical to that introduced by the member for Finniss. I note—and I am sure that he would acknowledge—that our bills are underpinned by the excellent work done by my interstate colleagues, the Hon. John Kaye in New South Wales and the Hon. Caroline Le Couteur and her colleagues from the ACT Greens in their local assembly. It also follows on the heels of concerns previously expressed in this place by the Hon. Ian Hunter and other members. I acknowledge those contributions, and the member for Finniss and I look forward to the support across parties on this issue.

We have consulted with some of the leading experts in Australia on animal welfare that pertains to farm animals including: Lee McCosker who runs Humane Choice, a free-range egg accreditation program on behalf of the Humane Society International; as well as the local producer Mr Tom Fryar of Kangaroo Island Free Range Eggs, which of course is in the electorate of Finniss. Mr Fryar informs us that, of the 16 free-range egg producers that he is in contact with in this state, three-quarters or more of them are in strong support of this bill to define and limit stocking densities.

These often small scale family farms are still sizeable operations. Mr Fryar, for instance, employs 18 or so people and runs over 50,000 birds, but he does it in a way that guarantees high standards of animal welfare. What is more, he does it in a way that allows him to produce eggs humanely, in accordance with standards that consumers of free-range eggs have come to expect—and in fact demand—from suppliers.

Unfortunately, the bigger end of town is not necessarily so concerned with animal welfare. With around 12 million layer hens in Australia at any one time, there is no doubt that eggs are big business. I am sure the member for Finniss is staying away from animal jokes, but we know that this bill is going to ruffle feathers, particularly amongst the big end of town, given their desire for large industrial-scale producers to have a stocking density of 20,000 birds per hectare. That works out to two birds per square metre. It is very clear to me that, while this level of crowding may suit large producers' interests, it is not in the birds' best interests. Nor is it in the best interests of consumers who believe that they are supporting and buying a free-range egg.

We have heard it alleged that consumers will not or do not care. I beg to differ. They are prepared to pay a premium price. In fact, South Australia is looking to make a name for itself as a clean, green food bowl. We were told this in the Address in Reply. The dark satanic mills that some of these industrial caged egg production systems have been likened to, with chickens dead, dying and maimed, and in some cases chemically burned by their own manure, are not what the average consumer envisages when they see the marketing on the cartons of eggs, which is more reminiscent of an idyllic Old McDonald's farm with a few hens meandering about the farmyard next to old Bessie the horse and a few sheep thrown into the picture for good measure.

Unfortunately, one of the opponents to this bill looks like it will be the Australian Egg Corporation, who I think it is fair to say do represent the big end of town. They represent large producers and caged-egg producers, not the genuine, small and often family farm producing free-range eggs, who are doing their products in a way that is more humane and has a higher priority given to the welfare of the birds.

We know that the AEC in the past defended producers' claims to be free range where the operation had 150,000 birds on five hectares, with access to only one paltry 30 metre by 10 metre outdoor range. This is equivalent to 30,000 birds per hectare. At densities above 1,500 birds per hectare, the birds are much more likely to not be able to engage in natural behaviours, be subject to aggression and attacks, even if de-beaked, which is a virtual necessity at the 20,000 birds per hectare levels espoused by the Egg Corporation.

To give members an indication, by the Egg Corporation's own admission, this would be equivalent to cramming 15,500 birds onto one soccer pitch, compared to 1,155 birds onto that same soccer pitch under the proposal in this bill. One level of stocking density is compatible with animal welfare standards and the ethos consumers want and expect from free-range products; the other is not. Higher densities often mean that although there may technically be provisions to leave the climate-controlled shed—complete with its artificial lighting and rank, foetid atmosphere—few birds from the often tens of thousands crammed into these spaces do actually venture outside.

The science is in; we know that hens, like us, are social animals and they need their space. Like us, when overcrowded they get stressed and, when under extreme crowding, suffer from defeathering, higher mortality rates and, in the worst cases, cannibalism. I was appalled to learn that, at higher densities, unless birds' beaks are modified—which means burning them off with a hot wire in the first days of their life—they can quite literally henpeck each other to death.

The European Union, from 1 January this year, banned the battery cage for hens, although they have kept the so-called enriched cages, complete with perches and nesting boxes. Members will note that the sky has not fallen in in Europe. They also have strict definitions of what constitutes free range, and again I alert members to the fact that life as we know it did not collapse when these provisions were introduced into the European Union.

EU farmers and egg producers are going about their business producing eggs, and consumers are busily and happy buying them, breaking them, making omelettes and getting on with their day-to-day lives, but secure in the knowledge that they have not come from an inhumane caged system.

It is clear that self-regulation in the egg industry in Australia is failing. In 2010 the AEC itself changed the stocking density permissible under its own definitions by a massive 1,233 per cent—from the 1,500 birds per hectare considered by the RSPCA (as one example) to be acceptable and appropriate free range stocking density—up to this 20,000 birds per hectare level, which is unacceptable.

By contrast, the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia nominates a figure of 750 birds per hectare—clearly less than the prescribed level in this bill. The absence of any clear, universally accepted and enforceable definition for free range being agreed on in this state is hampering the industry, harming the animals and leading to a loss of consumer confidence. All these issues can and will be addressed by this bill.

I will conclude by stating that this bill is not about telling farmers how to farm. If farmers want to produce eggs at a density of 20,000 or more birds per hectare this bill would not preclude them from doing so. What this bill does is clearly allow consumers to differentiate between eggs produced under those conditions and genuine free range eggs produced at a level compatible with standards that prioritise animal welfare. When they choose from their 30 different options at the local supermarket they will actually have the information that, as consumers, they deserve, and that the animals also deserve. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S. Lee.


[Sitting suspended from 18:03 to 19:49]


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