Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Law Reform Commission - Reform Journal

You are here: 

Sharman, Katrina --- "Lifting the Veil of Secrecy on Animal-Derived Food Products" [ 2007] ALRCRefJl 11 ; (2007) 91 Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal 40

Lifting the veil of secrecy on animal-derived food products

By Katrina Sharman*

Australians love food. From bacon and eggs at Bondi to Chiko Rolls and meat pies at the cricket. From traditional Sunday roasts to lazy TV dinners, food has been an important part of our cultural identity for generations. We sing about it, we write about it— it’s the fabric around which we celebrate our trials and tribulations—in family, in business, in life.

Australia also claims to be a nation of animal lovers. Many people say that they care deeply about the treatment of animals. This appears somewhat paradoxical given that many of the animals they claim to love produce or comprise the core ingredients of the nation’s most popular meals.

Are we all party to a form of wilful blindness or is the law simply making it too hard to see?

In the last 30 years, our society has experienced a food revolution ¹ which has transformed the lives of more than half a billion farm animals who constitute the meat, milk and egg producing machines annually called on to satisfy our national appetite. ² The nature of food production, especially the manufacturing of animal-derived food products, has changed dramatically as producers compete in domestic and international markets, on cost, scale and efficiency, to meet growing demand.

The interests of farm animals, who are classified in law as ‘livestock’ or property, have been largely disregarded in this relentless pursuit for profit. Many Australians still subscribe to the iconic image of a rustic farmhouse dotted with pigs wallowing in mud, happy chickens and a few cows watching on lazily in knee high yellow grass. However, in reality, Old MacDonald’s farm has long been consigned to the dustbin of history. The bulk of animals raised in Australia today are suffering behind closed doors in large industrial facilities known as factory farms.

Most animals in factory farms live a life of confinement. They spend their time crammed into cages, sheds or feedlots and they never see the sun. Take for example the breeding pigs (sows), numbering about 300,000. ³ These intelligent, emotionally complex beings spend the bulk of their reproductive lives in stalls so small they cannot turn around. ⁴ The sole purpose of their existence, as determined by us, is to produce the five million pigs slaughtered every year to fill the mouths of our pork, ham and bacon lovers. ⁵

In case you thought it was merely the pigs that Lady Justice forgot, spare a thought for our nation’s 10 million caged layer hens, lawfully allocated a space so small they can barely preen or stretch their wings. ⁶ Or its 470 million broilers (meat chickens), crammed into sheds with tens of thousands of others—‘hormone-free’ but selectively bred to be fast-tracked from nest to nugget in a mere 35 days. ⁷ Australia’s consumption of chicken meat has increased 600% over the past 40 years, with the average Australian now eating 36kg each year. ⁸

In 2007, our nation is pumping farm animals along the ‘invisible’ factory farm assembly line faster than ever. We are mutilating baby animals without pain relief—the tails and teeth of piglets, the beaks of chicks, the horns of calves and the tails of lambs, because it’s practical, cheap and lawful to do so. Our regulatory environment is specifically designed to sanction and subsidise factory farming operations on the proviso that ‘no unnecessary suffering’ is caused. ⁹

Things, however, are beginning to change. In recent years, the veil of secrecy which has shielded many factory farming operations from the public eye has been lifted by a range of factors, including the work of animal protection groups and an increased focus on the environmental and human health effects of factory farming. ‘Ethical Eating’ has become the subject of media speculation, literature, public discussion and debate.¹⁰ Consumers everywhere are waking up to the plight of farm or ‘production’ animals. According to the European Union, increased awareness has caused a ‘seismic shift’ in public attitudes. ¹¹

This change in consumer consciousness is prompting a global demand-led revolution. For example, Burger King, Wholefoods and Ben & Jerry’s (in the United States) and Marks & Spencer, McDonald’s and Starbucks Coffee (in the United Kingdom) are some of a growing list of retailers adapting their product lines to supply humanely produced animal products.¹² Large corporations such as America Online (AOL), Google and more than 150 educational institutions across the US are also introducing ‘cage-free’ dining facilities.¹³

The consumer wave has now reached Australia. For example, the free-range egg market has more than doubled in size in the last six years.¹⁴ It comprises 30.6% of the total retail/grocery egg market value.¹⁵ The free-range pork and chicken markets have also grown, with free-range production lines emerging in major supermarkets. The organic industry, which consumers associate with the humane treatment of animals, is one of the fastest developing sectors in the food industry both in Australia and overseas, with growth rates expected to continue at 10% to 30% per annum.¹⁶ Vegetarian and vegan food product markets are also rapidly expanding, reflecting a growth in the pool of consumers that wish to abstain from any food that had a mother or a face.

The big question is this; now that consumers are beginning to think critically about where their food comes from, is the current regulatory framework empowering them to make informed choices? Sadly it seems it is not. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, our current legislative regime does nothing to lift the veil of secrecy which shields consumers from the truth about how animals are raised in factory farms. In fact it facilitates it by permitting factory farmers to remain silent about the production system used to create their end products. To make matters worse, it permits marketers to use positive imagery such as farmhouses, butterflies and happy cartoon figures on animal-derived food products. This encourages consumers to disassociate products from the horrendous reality of factory farming.

Secondly, ambiguously worded food labels such as ‘farm fresh’ or ‘naturally perfect’ appear frequently on animal-derived food products. Similarly, words such as ‘corn-fed’, ‘barn-raised’, ‘bred free-range’, ‘select

free-range’ and ‘grain-fed’ appear all over our sanitised supermarket produce. These words are not subject to any legislative definition. Consumers do not know what they mean. Producers have their own ideas. The truth is, these words mean different things to different people and they mean substantively very little at all. In allowing consumers to be bombarded with an abundance of terminology that seeks to harness their good will, the law reinforces the likelihood of consumers being misled as to the true origin of a product.

Finally, while Australia has consumer protection laws and food safety laws which cover many aspects of food labelling, there is simply no federal legislation which requires production systems for animal-derived food products to be identified on product labels.¹⁷ State and territory legislation which requires compulsory labelling of animal-derived food products has been introduced in some jurisdictions, however it is limited to egg production labelling and, as such, does not sufficiently facilitate consumer choice.¹⁸

In order to make informed decisions, consumers need information about the production systems from which animal-derived food products are sourced. Codes of practice and third party accreditation schemes have emerged to address consumer concerns about the treatment of farm animals, for example the RSPCA’s food accreditation scheme and the Egg Industry’s ‘Egg Corp Assured Industry Quality Assurance Scheme’. However, these schemes do not offer uniform animal protection standards and consumers may in some cases overstate the significance of their animal welfare claims. In any event, such systems are no substitute for proper law reform.

We might well ask ourselves how our nation of animal lovers measures up internationally when it comes to our legislative framework for the labelling of animal-derived food products. The answer is not so well at all. Labelling of egg production systems has been mandatory in all European Union (EU) member countries since 2004.¹⁹ The EU is now also giving serious consideration to the development of an Animal Welfare Label over the next 5 years. ²⁰

Australia is already lagging embarrassingly behind the EU in terms of animal welfare. The sow stalls which we recently endorsed for the next 10 years will be prohibited in the EU by 2012 (except for the first 4 weeks of pregnancy) and are already banned in England and Switzerland.²¹ The battery cages that we have ‘graciously’ agreed to increase by 100cm (the average size of a beer coaster) will be banned in the EU from 2012.²² The installation of new battery cages has been prohibited in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Portugal and Greece since January 2003.²³ The EU is phasing out both of these horrific aspects of the factory farming system in response to scientific evidence of animal suffering and consumer concerns.

Europeans are not the only people that care about the treatment of animals. Australians care too and for this reason they deserve laws that offer truth in product labelling. The Government has delivered on the labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms.²⁴ It has delivered on Country of Origin Labelling.²⁵ It is time to deliver truth in labelling of animal-derived food products. We need to move away from a system which confuses consumers and which enables producers to hide the horrible truth about how the majority of our animals are raised.

The law must bend to the will of Australians who want to take a stand against the institutionalised suffering of animals each time they eat. The law should empower us to take responsibility for the effect of our food choices on the lives of others. The time for wilful blindness has passed.

Endnotes

1. John Robbins, The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and the World (2001).

2. Comprised of 419 million poultry, 94 million sheep, 24.1 million cattle, 2.55 million pigs; See Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Commonwealth Government, Australian Agriculture and Food Sector Stocktake (2005).

3. Animals Australia, ‘Save Babe.Com: Behind Closed Doors’ [15 November 2007] <http://www.savebabe.com/doors.php> .

4. The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals- Pigs (revised) permits pregnant pigs to be kept in stalls measuring 0.6 x 2.2m. See: Primary Industries Ministerial Council, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals- Pigs (revised), 20 April 2007, Appendix III.

5. Australian Pig Annual 2005, Australian Pork Limited (2005), p 22.

6. Animals Australia, ‘Battery Hens, Animals Australia’ [15 November 2007] <http://www.animalsaustralia.org/freebetty/battery_hens.php> .

7. Australian Chicken Meat Federation, Inc, Industry Facts and Figures <http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=4> Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, R & D Plan for the Chicken Meat Program 2004 – 2009 <http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/chick5yr.htm> .

8. Australian Chicken Meat Federation, From Hatchery to Home, [15 November 2007] <http://www.chicken.org.au/> .

9. See for example, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW), s24(1); Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT), s8; Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), s19(2); Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (VIC), s36(1); Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD), s3(c); Animal Welfare Act 1993 (TAS), s8(1); Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 (SA), s13(2)(a); Animal Welfare Act 2004 (NT), s6(3)(a).

10. So, Just How Unethical is Your Supper? What Joanna Blythman Won't Eat’, Observer Food Monthly, 20 August 2006; Michael Harden, ‘Hard to Swallow’, The Age (Melbourne), 22 August 2006; ‘Voting with their Forks’, Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles), 16 August 2006. See also: Peter Singer and Jim Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter (Rodale Books, 2006) and Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (The Penguin Press, 2006).

11. Commission of the European Communities, Commission Working Document on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, 23 January 2006, 11 <http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/work_doc_strategic_basis230106_en.pdf> .

12. 1 Andrew Martin, ‘Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals’, The New York Times (United States), 18 March 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/business/28burger.html?em & ex=1175572800 & en=6e52639740815826 & ei=5070> The Humane Society of the United States, Wild Oats and Whole Foods Show Compassion with Cage-Free Egg Policies <http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/nbe/wildoats/wild_oats.html> Environmental News Services, Wild Oats Markets will Sell Only Eggs from Cage-free Chickens, 3 June 2005 www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-03-09.asp#anchor7; ‘Ben & Jerry's Will Get Eggs from Cage-free Hens’, Times Argus (United States), 27 September 2006 <http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060927/NEWS/609270347/1003/NEWS02> Compassion in World Farming, Marks & Spencer Make Major Improvements for Farm Animals, 15 January 2007 <http://www.ciwf.org.uk/home/news_MandS.shtml> ‘McDonald's praised for happy cows’, BBC News (United Kingdom),13 October 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4338308.stm; Compassion in World Farming, The Good Egg Awards <http://www.ciwf.org.uk/thegoodeggawards/pages/award-winners.asp> .

13. Wayne Pacelle, Testimony Before the Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry on the Subject of the Welfare of Animals in Agriculture, 8 May 2007, p4.

14. The free-range egg market was estimated to be 5.5.% in June 2000; SCARM Working Group, Synopsis Report on the Review of Layer Hen Housing and Labelling of Eggs in Australia, June 2000 <http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/animalplanthealth/layerhenhousing/synopsis.pdf> .

15. Australian Egg Corporation, Egg Industry Overview (2006) <http://www.aecl.org/Images/2006%20egg%20industry%20statistics%20(2).pdf> .

16. David McKinna, Australian Government Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Export Potential for Organics: Opportunities and Barriers, June 2006, 3; Andre Leu, Organic Federation of Australia Ltd, Organic Industry Booming, 23 June 2006 <http://www.ofa.org.au/Media/organic_industry_booming.doc> .

17. Fair Trading Act 1992 (ACT) s 12; Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act 1990 (NT) s 42; Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 42; Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 38; Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) s 56; Fair Trading Act 1990 (Tas) ss 14, 16, 20; Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic) s 10; Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA) ss 10, 12; Food Act 2001 (ACT) s 15, 18 ,24; Food Act 2004 (NT) s 14, 17, 21; Food Act 2003 (NSW) s 15, 18, 21 42; Food Act 2006 (Qld) ss 34, 37, 40; Food Act 2001 (SA) ss 15, 18, 22; Food Act 2003 (Tas) ; ss 15, 18, 22; Food Act 1984 (Vic) ss 10, 10A, 13, 17A; Food Bill 2005 (WA) ss 16, 19, 23.

18. Egg (Labelling and Sale) Act 2001 (ACT) s 5; Egg Industry Act 2002 (Tas) ss 8, 19..

19. Council Regulation 2001/05/EC of 19 December 2000 amending Regulation 1907/90/EEC on certain marketing standards on eggs [1999] OJ L 2/1.

20. Commission of the European Communities, Commission Working Document on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, 3.2 <http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/work_doc_strategic_basis230106_en.pdf> .

21. Council Directive 91/630/EC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L316, 11.12.1991, amended by Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L316, 1.12.2001; The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 and The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003/299; Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981, Article 22.

22. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens, Official Journal L203/53, article 5(2).

23. ibid.

24. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Standard 1.5.2, (commenced December 2001).

25. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Standard 1.2.11; Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998 (Cth). Country of Origin standards have been incorporated in state and territory legislation through the adoption of the Food Standards Code. See below n158. See also Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 (Cth) s 7; Commerce (Imports) Regulations 1940 (Cth) reg 8 for Country of Origin standards for imports.

* Katrina Sharman is General Counsel for Voiceless, the fund for animals, www.voiceless.org.au. Voiceless works to promote respect and compassion for animals; and raise awareness of the conditions in which they live and take action to prevent them from suffering. This article is based on a Report produced by Voiceless in May 2007 entitled ‘From label to liable: lifting the veil on animal-derived food product labelling’.