Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 7:19:09 to 7:26:03
Debate over the development of a voluntary industry code of practice for plant-based protein labeling following the "Don't Mince Words" inquiry.
Topics: Food security, Law reform
Speakers: Speaker 21, Speaker 12, Speaker 18
>> So you're working with the the um the pro the alternate proteins council. What about working with the meat industry?
>> Yes, we will be doing that too. Um so as part of the working group uh that has been established and has met a number of times um that's comprised of um the alternative proteins council but also uh a number of livestock industries I
suppose you'd characterize them as yeah >> so at the same time the EU has voted to outlaw the use of meat terms in alternate or um yes alternate uh proteins. Um, Italy has banned the use of those terms and yet Australia is still faffing around on it. I I'm This has been It's 2002 that we did this in uh 2022 that we did this inquiry. When the government came in in 2022, um the Albani government, they had a commitment to finalizing it. I mean, how hard is this? Four years. How many
rounds of consultation have you done? >> Um so um the I guess the first the first point I'd make Senator is um is certainly aware of the and and acknowledge the uh the Senate inquiries report. Um I think with any regulatory intervention it's really important to ensure that you have a sense of I guess the extent of the market failure and the harms that are um the harms that you're seeking to minimize and that the regulatory intervention that you put in place is proportionate to the regul to the harms that um that might exist. So that's why it was really important important to do the FSAN's work to understand the level of consumer confusion that was out there
and that doesn't pass the pub test when you can walk in. Thousands of people have sent me emails saying, "Yep, I went into the shop. I quickly grabbed chicken nuggets, but they weren't made with real chicken. I quickly grabbed this. It had a picture of an animal on the front. I thought it had that animal in it. It didn't. You know, this is this is just rubbish. And you're pandering to the to the alternate meat protein crowd whose stated aims in their constitution are to get rid of broadscale meat production. Um, happily meat consumption is up by beef consumption's up by 5.2% last year. Um, the average Australian consuming more than 22 kg of beef each year. But 92% of Australians who are buying meat beef in preference or buying meat in preference to anything else and yet you're going to spend millions of dollars consulting again with this alternate meat protein group who was made up of multinationals who don't I don't think are even operating in
Australia. So, so not I'll ask colleagues to to to outline the details, Senator, but absolutely while the voluntary code of practice will be worked up with the alternate protein council, um it will also be done um in consultation with um livestock representative organizations that are on the working group if they choose to continue to participate. And I think we've kind of we've had discussions in this committee before senator about the importance of proportional regulation uh as well and uh voluntary industry code of practice is a proportional regulatory step. Um and look kind of and it doesn't preclude further regulatory intervention down the track. um if there's I guess concerns that are increasing in relation to consumer confusion.
>> Well, it I won't lay to the point, but it absolutely gobsmacks me that the government is spending millions of dollars on consultation, Australian taxpayers money to consult on whether or not it's reasonable to say something is beef or chicken or pork or crocodile when it's not. It's it's beyond belief to me. But
anyway, >> and that they're the types of things that will I think be clarified through the code of practice.
>> Four years, >> four years you've been doing this though, this isn't rocket science.
>> Um, Senator, that the the research we commissioned um looked at all the products on the market. So, they looked at 610 products. Of those 610 products, only 4% had any sort of animal imagery on them. >> So, so very minuscule numbers of products are actually using any animal imagery. And those that do, all of them are using a qualifier of some kind to demonstrate that it's not a um that it's a plant-based protein,
>> tiny little letters, >> protein.
>> Yes. >> And then we did a um a significant um consumer survey of 2,946 respondents. And when we um asked them um when we tested their level of confusion, there was no level of confusion. Um and it was a comprehensive survey. Um the results were very strong. Um it was a randomized control trial, so it was a very rigorous survey. Um and the evidence, so the evidence is that there is consumers know what they're buying. Um so that's the test in terms of market failure.
>> The the Sure. Sure. I won't labor the point, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous. And you wonder why people get frustrated with government. It is that we are still discussing whether or not it's okay to call something by what is common uh common language for the product of an animal in something that's made from plant protein >> or cardboard >> or cardboard or who knows what else because >> the Australian government uh has strict rules for export for for meat. Imagine sending over to a customer in Japan or Korea or China. Uh yeah, I know you said you wanted, you know, shin meat, but we thought plant-based protein would be okay. We just pop that in the box. Anyway, >> I'd be horrified. >> Excellent. We're on the same ticket there, Senator. >> All right, I'll turn to the EU FTA. I want to ask some questions following on the 5th of February, Minister Farrell stated in the Senate that to accept a deal with the EU would result would require a better offer by the EU on agricultural market access. What