Home

Industry backs probe into ‘fake meat’ packaging

Headshot of Adam Poulsen
Adam PoulsenCountryman
Plant-based burgers have been referred to as ‘fake meat’.
Camera IconPlant-based burgers have been referred to as ‘fake meat’. Credit: Daniel Wilkins

Australia’s meat, poultry and seafood industries have formed a united front against “fake meat labelling”, claiming the majority of consumers are being duped by misleading plant-based protein packaging.

A Federal Senate inquiry into definitions of meat, instigated by Queensland Senator Susan McDonald, has received more than 120 submissions from a host of industry bodies.

They include Australian Pork Limited, Sheep Producers Australia, Seafood Industry of Australia and the Australian Meat Industry Council, who have called for “truth in labelling of food”.

In her submission, AMIC processing and export general manager Mary Wu said manufactured plant protein products that sought to “artificially mimic natural red meat in appearance, taste or texture” must be prevented from misappropriating meat category branding.

“The Australian red meat industry is strongly opposed to the use of livestock images on MPP products or synthetic products that are not naturally or wholly derived from animal inputs,” Dr Wu said.

“A strengthening of Australia’s regulatory and enforcement framework is urgently required to protect the past, current and future industry investment into meat category branding.

“A more stringent regulatory and enforcement framework, coordinated between federal and state regulators, with mandatory protections for traditional meat terminology and livestock images should be prescribed.”

Cattle Council of Australia chief executive Travis Tobin said while alternative protein products were nothing new, legislation and regulation around their labelling “has not kept pace with the advancements in technology”.

“Substantial producer investment through the cattle transaction levy has contributed to the development of positive community sentiment and experience of Australian beef,” he said in his submission.

“Deceptive use of terminology or imagery on products with little to no beef implies that these products provide the same nutritional benefits as consuming real beef, potentially undermining confidence in traditional beef products and Australian labelling regulations.”

However, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission deputy chairman Mick Keogh said the ACCC had not received any indication the labelling of plant-based substitute products was “causing consumer detriment”.

He said between January 2020 and June 2021, the ACCC received just 11 reports of consumers being misled by such labelling.

“The few we do receive are reports from consumers and industry stakeholders in sectors that produce meat or dairy products raising concern that plant-based substitute products use animal product related descriptors, or pictures of animals on their labelling,” Mr Keogh said.

“However in general, the information provided by these contacts demonstrated that they had not been misled by the labelling of the products, as they were fully aware of what the relevant product was made of when viewing it for sale.”

Mick Keogh, ACCC Commissioner.
Camera IconMick Keogh, ACCC Commissioner. Credit: WAFarmers

Mr Keogh said the ACCC had no power to determine whether the Australian Consumer Law had been contravened, but it was “unlikely” a court would view the labelling of meat substitute products as misleading.

His comments were backed by one of the plant-based manufacturers under fire, Los Angeles-based Beyond Meat, who claimed the company received “very positive ongoing feedback” from Australian consumers.

“Beyond Meat products are all plant-based, and our product labels globally make this as clear as possible, primarily by including the phrase ‘plant-based’ in prominent, green font in the centre of our label,” a spokesman said.

“We strongly believe a labelling approach for plant-based meat products that allows the use of traditional animal meat terms with a prominent and clear qualifier (such as ‘plant-based’ or ‘meatless’) is the most transparent and consumer protective approach, because it accurately describes the nature of a product and also explains how a consumer can expect a product to taste and function.”

The deadline for public submissions closed earlier this month, with other key respondents including the Australian Dairy Industry Council, National Farmers Federation, GrainGrowers, and the Australian Oilseeds Federation.

The inquiry, which will wrap up in February, coincided with a national survey of 1000 people which found six-in-10 consumers believed they had been tricked by plant-based protein packaging.

The survey, carried out by International Organisation for Standardisation accredited market research agency Pollinate and published this month, found 73 per cent of participants wanted clearer labelling standards introduced.

The findings prompted a joint campaign by a host of industry bodies, many of whom made submissions to the enquiry.

National Farmers’ Federation chief executive Tony Mahar said the survey by the Pollinate agency confirmed consumers were misled.

“This is at best unethical and potentially misleading from a consumer law and industry perspective,” he said.

“The NFF is also alarmed that the current use of animal protein language and animal images on plant-based products has the impact of conveying the nutritional equivalence with animal-based products when often these products are not nutritionally equivalent.”

Get the latest news from thewest.com.au in your inbox.

Sign up for our emails