Chapter 4
Food labelling
Introduction
4.1
This chapter covers food labelling issues raised in relation to honey,
including the level of detail in the honey standard, country-of-origin
labelling (CoOL), enforcement of standards and labelling, and potential changes
to the content of labels with regard to health information.
Food labelling standards
4.2
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FZANZ) is responsible for the
development and administration of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards
Code (the Food Standards Code). The Food Standards Code includes general food
safety requirements and commodity specific requirements. The code also includes
maximum levels for contaminants, and Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), which are
the maximum amounts of agricultural and veterinary chemicals permitted in
specific commodities including honey to ensure that the chemicals do not pose
an undue hazard to human health.[1]
4.3
The Food Standards Code has a number of standards relevant to bee
products, including Standard 1.2.2 Food Identification Requirements; Standard
1.2.3 – Mandatory Warning and Advisory Statements and Declarations and Standard
2.8.2 – Honey. The Food Standards Code is enforced by state and territory
agencies for food within Australia and the Department of Agriculture for food
that is imported.[2]
Additional food labelling requirements are also set out in the Competition
and Consumer Act 2010 (CC Act). The CC Act requires that labels are used to
provide information that is not false or misleading.[3]
4.4
In 2011, the independent Panel for the Review of Food Labelling Law and
Policy, commissioned by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation
Ministerial Council, presented its final report Labelling Logic, which noted that the approach to food labelling was 'adhoc'
and had evolved in a sporadic fashion to address issues raised by the competing
interests of consumers, industry and government.[4]
4.5
The Council of Australian Governments, Legislative and Governance Forum
on Food Regulation, responded to the Labelling Logic report and proposed
actions to balance the need to improve the information for consumers against
the need for marketing flexibility, minimising the regulatory burden on industry
and barriers to trade. There was support, or in principle support, for many of
the 61 recommendations in the response.[5]
However, during this inquiry the committee has received evidence identifying
continuing concerns about food labelling, which are discussed below.
The honey food standard
4.6
This section covers the honey food standard and issues raised during the
inquiry including the level of detail in the standard, chemical contamination
and the presence of non-honey products.[6]
Food standard 2.8.2 on honey requires that honey must contain no less that
60 per cent reducing sugars, no more than 21 per cent moisture, and
provides that:
honey means
the natural sweet substance produced by honey bees from the nectar of blossoms
or from secretions of living parts of plants or excretions of plant sucking
insects on the living parts of plants, which honey bees collect, transform and
combine with specific substances of their own, store and leave in the honey
comb to ripen and mature.[7]
4.7
The More Than Honey inquiry also identified issues with honey imports
and standards, including price competition, level playing fields and labelling
of blended products. The More Than Honey inquiry recommended that the
Commonwealth government pursue the development product standard for honey and
other bee products with regard to food standard and chemical contamination in
line with those in force in the European Union.[8]
Capilano Honey submitted that the honey standard lacks detail, and is not
representative of international standards of substance for honey, such as those
of the European Union, Canada and China.[9]
4.8
The Australian Food and Grocery Council urged caution about changing the
honey food standard, particularly in relation to potential trade barriers, but
was somewhat supportive of alignment with international standards.[10]
4.9
FSANZ informed the committee that the European standard for honey
contains a number of compositional and quality parameters that are not
appropriate for Australia as they do not relate to public health and safety or
to misleading or deceptive conduct. FSANZ also noted that the Food Standards
Code was created on the basis of 'minimum effective regulation' to remove
unnecessary prescription that could stifle innovation.[11]
4.10
Several witnesses also raised concerns about chemicals in imported
honey, including suggestions that there may be some chemicals which are not
permitted for agricultural use in Australia that may be present in imported
honey as a result of their use in agriculture overseas.[12]
FSANZ informed the committee that: 'There are no agricultural and veterinary
chemicals that are permitted in honey for sale that are not also permitted to
be used in Australian agriculture.'[13]
Concerns raised by submitters about testing for chemicals and residues in
imported honey[14]
are also discussed in Chapter 2.
Non-honey products
4.11
This section discusses concerns raised about whether the honey standard
adequately deals with non-honey products such as corn syrup.[15]
FSANZ informed the committee that, regardless of whether the honey was domestic
or imported, the presence of corn syrup in a product labelled as honey would
breach the honey standard:
The honey standard has been designed and has a definition
which specifically requires honey to be the product that is produced by bees
interacting with plants, and not bees fed on sucrose or dextrose or whatever
sugar they might be fed on or any other sugar product. ... Honey is a prescribed
name—it is one of the few prescribed names in the food code—and so a product
that is on the shelf as honey must be that particular product and cannot be
corn syrup.[16]
4.12
FSANZ clarified that a product containing a combination of honey and added
sugars may be sold under another name, for example, sweetened honey.[17]
4.13
In January 2011, the Labelling Logic report recommended that:
...where sugars, fats or vegetable
oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, the terms ‘added sugars’ and
‘added fats’ and/or ‘added vegetable oils’ be used in the ingredient list as
the generic term, followed by a bracketed list (e.g., added sugars (fructose,
glucose syrup, honey), added fats (palm oil, milk fat) or added vegetable oils
(sunflower oil, palm oil)).[18]
4.14
The government response to the Labelling Logic report indicated that, in
respect of this recommendation, it proposed to request FSANZ to undertake a
technical evaluation and provide advice on the proposed changes to the
ingredient listing and Nutrition Information Panel prior to considering any
amendments to the Food Standards Code.[19]
The committee asked FSANZ
whether an approach similar to Labelling Logic recommendation could be applied
to the ingredients in honey products such as corn syrup and additives. FSANZ
responded to the committee stating that:
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code currently
requires honey products containing ingredients, such as corn syrup and
additives, to include a statement of ingredients which lists the ingredients in
the product. Ingredients must be declared in descending order of ingoing weight
using a common name or a name that describes the true nature of the ingredient.
FSANZ's work on [the relevant] Recommendation...is considering
the technical aspects of applying the proposed approach to ingredients lists to
all foods including honey products. FSANZ expects to provide its technical
evaluation and advice to the COAG Legislative and Governance Forum on food
Regulation in mid-2015.[20]
Committee view
4.15
The committee notes that food labelling as a whole is a vexed issue.
Despite multiple reviews and inquiries, there has been little action to improve
labelling standards. The current system is bad for both consumers and
producers, but there has been a lack of action on the part of successive
governments.
4.16
The committee notes the honey industry’s proposal for a revised honey
standard[21]
and that the industry is discussing the proposal with FSANZ. From the evidence
put before it, the committee considers that addressing the concerns discussed
below about country-of-origin labelling and enforcement of standards and
labelling may be more likely to assist the honey industry than changes to the
honey standard.
Country-of-origin labelling
4.17
A number of submitters raised concerns about country-of-origin labelling
(CoOL) for honey products.[22]
Some submitters suggested that imported honey is often blended with local honey
or substituted for local honey to keep prices down.[23]
It was also suggested that honey may be shipped through intermediate countries
to disguise the true origin.[24]
However this view was not universal; Dr McKee from Capilano Honey informed the
committee that in his view the honey sold in supermarkets was generally
Australian.[25]
4.18
Other submitters noted confusion for consumers about the meanings of the
terms 'made from imported and Australian product', 'made from imported and
local ingredients', 'Packed in Australia', 'Australian Honey', and 'Made in
Australia'.[26]
The Wheen Bee Foundation submitted that:
Consumers are often willing to pay a premium if they believe
they are supporting Australian producers. As it stands there is confusion
surrounding the “Made in Australia” claim on many products that are actually a
blend of imported and Australian honey. This confusion is likely to result in
customers genuinely wishing to support Australian beekeepers but inadvertently
diverting their investment to imported products.[27]
4.19
Another submitter queried the terminology 'Made in', suggesting that the
use of the words 'Made in' should result in a product that was actually
produced (not just packed) in the country claimed however this is not currently
the case.[28]
The Australian Food and Grocery Council submitted its view on country-of-origin
Labelling:
Current CoOL requirements as set out in the Australian
Consumer Law allow the “Made in Australia” claim only when a substantial
transformation of the ingredients has occurred during manufacture. Importing honey
and blending it with Australian honey would not be considered a substantial
transformation according to current court decisions. The use of a “Made in
Australia” claim under these conditions would appear to be potentially
misleading to consumers and in likely contravention of the Australian Consumer
Law.[29]
4.20
FSANZ clarified that the Food Standards Code currently requires that
most packaged foods, including packaged honey products, are labelled with a
statement on the package indicating the country where the food was made,
produced, grown, manufactured or packaged and whether the food is constituted
from ingredients imported into that country or from local and imported
ingredients.[30]
4.21
Some submitters and witnesses suggested that the percentage of each
ingredient and its country of origin should be on the product label.[31]
Others were comfortable with just the imported percentage of the consumable
contents appearing on the label.[32]
FSANZ informed the committee that:
In December 2003, the then Australia and New Zealand Food
Regulation Ministerial Council approved a policy guideline for country of
origin labelling of food which states that country of origin labelling should
apply to whole foods, not to individual ingredients...Food producers or suppliers
can however voluntarily label food to indicate what percentage of the product
is from Australia and whether it is the main product or an additive, as long as
such labelling is not misleading or deceptive, in accordance with Australia
Consumer Law.[33]
Committee view
4.22
From the evidence that it has received, the committee considers that
country-of-origin labelling requirements are not effective and may require
reform. The committee notes suggestions by some submitters that country-of-origin
labelling be dealt with as part of a broader country-of-origin labelling
reform, rather than developing specific provisions for honey products.[34]
The committee generally supports that approach and notes the opportunity
provided by the current inquiry into the country-of-origin labelling by the
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture.[35]
4.23
Subject to the recommendations of the current country-of-origin
labelling inquiry, the committee encourages the Commonwealth government to consider
developing a country-of-origin labelling system that presents consumers with an
accurate picture of a product's contents.
Enforcement of standards and
labelling requirements
4.24
Putting to one side the question of the appropriateness of standards and
labelling requirements, some submitters raised serious concerns about the
enforcement of the honey food standard for imported products and blended honey
which may contain corn syrup or other additives.[36]
Several submitters identified examples of products being sold as Australian
honey that, in their view, were not honey and had misleading information about
the origin of the product. In particular, some submitters expressed frustration
at the seeming lack of action taken by the ACCC, and the timeliness of any
action that was taken.[37]
4.25
The AHBIC raised concerns with the ACCC in September 2012,
regarding misleading advertising for a honey product imported from Turkey
called Victoria Honey. The ACCC replied in October, 2012 to say that the
product may breach the Australian consumer laws and that details had been
lodged in the ACCC database.[38]
4.26
Subsequent testing of the product by the AHBIC and Victoria Health in
October 2013 showed that the product was probably maize sugar syrup.[39]
Hence, there were concerns about misleading advertising for both the origin of
the product and its compliance with the honey standard. The ACCC began
reconsideration of the complaint in November 2013.
4.27
Two other potential cases of imported non-honey products being sold as
honey were identified by the industry and referred to the ACCC and the
Victorian government.[40]
A fourth product was reported to the committee during this inquiry.[41]
4.28
The ACCC informed the committee that following its investigation the supplier
of Victoria Honey had removed all the product from its retail stores and its
wholesale customers had also agreed to remove stock from shelves. The supplier
claimed that they had been misled about the composition of the product. The
ACCC informed the supplier of its intended enforcement action in March 2014 and
the supplier sought more time to respond. The ACCC also indicated that it
intends to communicate the enforcement outcome expected as a result of its
initial investigation to industry and publicly, in order to help bring about
change in the broader honey industry.[42]
In correspondence to the committee, the ACC indicated that:
- Even once lodgement of the initial complaint in the ACCC database
had taken place, a decision not to pursue follow-up action was consistent with
the ACCC's Compliance and Enforcement Policy which states that the ACCC
will focus on matters involving widespread conduct and/or significant consumer
detriment.
- In the absence of health or safety risks to consumers, the ACCC
does not generally request a recall of a product without first giving the
supplier the opportunity to respond to the allegations being made.[43]
4.29
The AHBIC advised the committee that it had raised the issues discussed
above with the Minister and the Department of Agriculture. The department
informed the committee that it:
...assessed the concerns and nature of the complaint being
raised. There were no food safety concerns raised and as the matters related to
misrepresentation through use of brand names and mislabelling to deceive the
consumer (labelled as honey when the product was not honey), the issue was
considered primarily a consumer law matter, which the industry association had
already referred to the appropriate consumer law agencies...[44]
4.30
However, following questioning by the committee, the department
acknowledged that food labelling offences may apply under Section 3 of the
Imported Food Control Act 1992, which is administered by the Department of
Agriculture.[45]
Where the goods description is false, such as labelling synthetic honey as
natural honey, this would contravene the applicable standards and where proven,
the goods would be considered a 'failing food'.[46]
Failing food may be treated to be brought into compliance (re-label with
appropriate goods description), exported or destroyed[47]
and a holding order issued to increase border inspection of subsequent imports.[48]
The department informed the committee that:
The issues detailed in the Hansard are about product in the
market place and the department understands these concerns have been raised
with the relevant state or territory authorities and the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission.
If these agencies were to take action and prove that the
importer was deceiving the consumer through misrepresenting synthetic honey,
the department could consider additional action under the Imported Food Control
Act on provision of this evidence, such as where the importer knowingly
imported synthetic honey but labelled it as natural honey (Section 8A labelling
offence and/or Section 15).[49]
Committee view
4.31
The committee is concerned about the time taken by the ACCC to resolve
issues concerning Victoria Honey, and notes that other instances remain
unresolved. Given that timeliness is one of the principles underlying the
ACCC's Compliance and Enforcement policy,[50]
the committee encourages the ACCC to resolve complaints over labelling in a
more timely fashion than has been evident in the instances outlined above.
Health labelling
4.32
This section covers concerns raised by some submitters about potential
changes to front-of-pack health labelling systems for food products.[51]
4.33
In December 2013 the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation
(the Forum) endorsed a Health Star Rating Calculator. The voluntary
Health Star Rating System is intended to give consumers at-a-glance
information about the food they are buying through a star rating scale of half
to five stars for packaged food products in Australia. The Forum also agreed to
the development of a process for addressing anomalies in the Health Star Rating
System.[52]
The Health Star Rating
Advisory Committee is considering the process for addressing anomalies in the Health
Star Rating Calculator.[53]
4.34
Beechworth Honey Group submitted that a 'traffic light' system, or
something similar would be problematic for the Australian honey industry
because honey, while it is a natural sweetener, is predominantly composed of
sugars, and would automatically be labelled as 'bad' or 'red'.[54]
The NSW Apiarists Association also submitted that:
The proposed traffic light nutrition labelling system could
unfairly label honey as ‘bad’, despite scientific evidence of its potential as
a prebiotic, and the fact that at the standard consumption of one to two
tablespoons a day the sugars in honey are not detrimental as part of a balanced
diet.[55]
Committee view
4.35
The committee encourages the honey industry to consult the Health Star Rating Advisory
Committee regarding the categorisation of honey in the Health Star Rating
System to ensure that honey is treated appropriately under this system.
4.36
Australia needs a comprehensive, cross-portfolio approach to beekeeping
and pollination. These industries are absolutely fundamental to our economy
because of their role in food production.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page