A senate inquiry into the use of animal protein labels by alternative proteins will specifically look at the potential damage done to the meat industry. Queensland senator Susan McDonald launched the inquiry, saying it was up to the makers of non-meat products to come up with their own product names rather than trading off animal protein labelling.
McDonald, a former butcher shop owner, recently established the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat advocacy group with Labor MP Milton Dick.
The inquiry follows a roundtable discussion held on food labelling by federal agriculture minister David Littleproud last year.
The Alternative Proteins Council (APC) cautioned against the inquiry becoming a conventional protein versus new proteins debate as it implied new protein industries would grow at the expense of more conventional ones.
The APC is yet to see any evidence which justifies the broad concerns regarding plant-based product labelling and looks forward to presenting the Inquiry with evidence to the contrary.
“It’s time to have an evidence-based conversation about the opportunity emerging protein sectors present to Australian farmers, and the important choice the category presents for consumers,” the council said.
“The success of both industries will be necessary to meet the clear challenge ahead: to feed a world of 10 billion people by 2050 with finite resources.
“There is overwhelming evidence to show that the diversification of global protein supply is necessary and inevitable to meet rising protein demands. This opens up new opportunities for the thousands of Australian farmers and regional communities who stand to benefit from the growth of the plant-based protein sector.”
The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee terms of reference are:
a) The potential impairment of Australian meat category brand investment from the appropriation of product labelling by manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein brands, including:
- the use of manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein descriptors containing reference to animal flesh or products made predominately from animal flesh, including but not limited to “meat”, “beef”, “lamb”, and “goat”; and
- the use of livestock images on manufactured plant-based or synthetic protein packaging or marketing materials.
b) The health implications of consuming heavily manufactured protein products which are currently being retailed with red meat descriptors or livestock images, including:
- consideration of unnatural additives used in the manufacturing process; and
- consideration of chemicals used in the production of these manufactured protein products.
c) The immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of the appropriation of Australian meat category branding on businesses, livestock producers and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia, including:
- the reliance upon imported ingredients;
- the support of regional employment; and
- the state and commonwealth taxation contribution from the Australian red meat and livestock sector.
d) The implications for other Australian animal products impaired from the appropriation of product labelling by manufactured plant-based or synthetic proteins.
e) any related matters.
Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop said allowing “highly processed plant-based protein made from imported ingredients to be labelled as Australian meat” was a “national disgrace”.
“These highly processed, unnatural plant-based products are increasingly seen as a health risk and are in no way similar to the red meat produced by Australian farmers.
“The brand and reputation of natural beef, lamb and goat has been built over generations and is now being denigrated by companies that are deliberately trying to use piggyback marketing to sell an inferior product,” McKillop said.
The APC said companies producing plant-based alternatives use terms like ‘sausages’ to describe their product’s format and utility are also using “clear qualifiers” like ‘plant-based’ to clearly communicate its ingredients.
“It’s a common-sense and evidence-based approach. Plant-based product branding continues to meet labelling requirements, demonstrating that existing frameworks are serving consumers as intended. To restrict the use of commonly understood format terms on plant-based products would instead generate confusion amongst consumers,” it said.
McDonald said while export legislation had clear definitions of meat being the product of an animal, there were gaps domestically.
“There are intellectual property issues. The industry invests hundreds of millions of dollars each year to develop and enhance the intellectual property and benefits of red meat in Australia, and it’s important that these investments are protected.
“Just like winemakers wanting exclusive use of some wine names, I feel strongly that our Aussie red meat industry should have sole use of product names that have meant only one thing for centuries.
“If you prefer tofu over T-bone, then you go for it but forget the ethics of eating animal products, this is about protecting a highly valuable industry and also providing a clear distinction between the real thing and the alternatives so consumers know exactly what they’re getting,” McDonald said.
The committee will present its report on or before the end of February 2022.
Submissions close on 16 August 2021.
