2.1
The principal debate of this inquiry is whether the plant-based protein sector’s use of animal protein descriptors, images and utility terms cause confusion amongst consumers. Perspectives on this matter varied, with some stakeholders arguing that there is insufficient evidence of consumer confusion. Whereas other stakeholders, predominately from the livestock and traditional protein sector, disagreed, giving reference to numerous examples of consumers unintentionally purchasing such products.
2.2
This chapter considers the potential impairment of Australia’s meat category branding by current labelling and marketing practices of plant-based protein sector. This is followed by consideration of studies and surveys that have sought to determine whether consumers are confused. This analysis includes evidence of reported instances of consumer confusion to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), along with criticisms of the ACCC’s data and enforcement of Australian Consumer Law.
2.3
Finally, this chapter considers evidence about the placement of plant-based protein products on supermarket shelves and its contribution to consumers’ understanding of those products’ true nature. This is followed by discussions about the potential future impact of cultured meats being introduced to the Australian market.
The use of animal protein descriptors, utility terms and images
2.4
Terms associated with animal proteins, meat utility terms, and animal imagery, are used by the plant-based protein sector on product labels and in other marketing material. During this inquiry, the committee received numerous examples of plant-based protein products using meat terminology (such as ‘meat’, ‘beef’, ‘chicken’, ‘pork’ and ‘lamb’) and utility terms (such as ‘burger’, ‘patties’ or ‘sausage’). According to advocates for the plant-based protein sector, the rationale for utilising such terms is because it supports consumers’ understanding of a product’s flavour, texture and use. Further, advocates for the continuation of current labelling practices argued that any attempt to restrict the use of these terms would increase, rather than decrease, consumer confusion and may have broader unintended consequences.
Traditional protein industry’s concerns
2.5
The traditional protein industry challenged the necessity for utilising terms used by the animal protein sector on plant-based products. These witnesses and submitters argued that consumers are confused by current labelling practices and warned of underreporting of the matter to the ACCC. Further, these stakeholders argued that labelling and marketing practices employed by the plant-based protein sector were appropriating meat terminology, devaluing and undermining the reputation of Australia’s animal protein sectors, and misleading consumers. As described by the Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF), the primary issue faced by the traditional protein sector is the protection of ‘animal protein terms from exploitation by those who are using those terms inappropriately to attract value to their products in a way that can’t be justified’. A risk of such action, as described by the Consolidated Pastoral Company, is the ‘potential to inflict damage on the industry’s hard-won reputation in producing high-quality meat’, both domestically and on international markets.
2.6
These stakeholders called for ‘truth in labelling’, enhanced product labelling laws and recognition of the industry’s contribution to the Australian economy through its payment of levies. However, the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and Victorian Farmers Federation emphasised that measures to strengthen product labelling should not seek to prioritise one agricultural sector against another.
2.7
As a key representative of the red meat industries, the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) expressed concern about the appropriation of Australian red meat category brands, and the underlying motivations and marketing strategies employed by the plant-based sector. The RMAC submitted that these companies were using ‘piggyback marketing practices to trade on the good name of Australia’s red meat category brands’ to appeal to mainstream consumers. The RMAC argued that the reason for this behaviour is because of the pre-existing reputation of Australia’s red meat as being ‘one of the safest and most nutrient-dense foods available’.
2.8
This concern was shared by many representatives for the animal protein sector. Various stakeholders from across protein groups emphasised the significant investments made to develop and promote Australian-made animal protein. As demonstrated below, these stakeholders were distressed by the tactics of the plant-based sector to utilise meat category brands, which may undermine consumers’ recognition and trust in those brands.
2.9
The ACMF spoke of the adverse consequences of plant-based products utilising the terms ‘chicken’ and ‘chicken meat’, or images of chickens on those products. The ACMF accused the plant-based foods sector of ‘deliberately exploiting consumer trust in recognition of chicken meat to drive sales of non-chicken products that, potentially, consumers wouldn’t otherwise have actually purchased’. In its view, a consequence of this practice is the potential devaluation of chicken terminology ‘to the detriment of [the industry’s] producers’ and negatively impact ‘on the integrity of [the industry’s] products’.
2.10
Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) described the experience as ‘incredibly disheartening’ and expressed dismay of plant-based protein products being ‘allowed to piggyback off [the seafood industry’s] reputation of producing great Australian seafood’. It emphasised that this reputation was built upon ‘generations of hard work, underpinned by the ongoing support of the Australian Government in areas of marketing, traceability, international trade and domestic industry support’.
2.11
Similarly, Australian Pork Limited (APL) described the current marketing practices of the plant-based protein sector as ‘passing off’ their products by utilising established definitions of meat such as ‘bacon’ and ‘pork’. The APL added that this practice is problematic because over 90 per cent of Australian households use these meat ‘definitions to support their purchasing decisions’.
2.12
Further concerns shared across animal protein groups relate to the broader economic impact on the industry (Chapter 5) and the nutritional, environmental and animal welfare claims made plant-based manufacturers (Chapter 6).
Are consumers confused?
2.13
A key question asked throughout this inquiry was whether consumers are confused by the labelling and marketing practices of plant-based products. Various studies and surveys were referred that have sought to answer this question.
2.14
A 2021 Pollinate survey of 1000 Australian consumers found 64 per cent of participants expected plant-based products to contain animal protein if the packaging presented with at least one of the following attributes:
the product is described as ‘meat’;
the product uses an image of an animal; and
the product uses words like ‘beef’, ‘chicken’ or ‘lamb’.
2.15
This Pollinate survey found 56 per cent of respondents believed that plant-based protein packaging should not be permitted to use any of the attributes listed above. Of those attributes, animal imagery was regarded as the most likely source of confusion. Regarding misattribution of plant-based protein products, the survey reported an average rate of 25 per cent. Those most likely to mistake a plant-based product for an animal protein product were people aged 65 or over, spoke a language other than English with family and friends and had a household income of $40 000 per annum or below.
2.16
Another industry-led survey, by APL, found 50 per cent of participants surveyed, ‘upon initial view of package labelling of a ‘plant-based roast pork’, believed the product’ to be made of pork. Fifty per cent of respondents also believed that the use of terms such as ‘pork’ or ‘bacon’ should not be permitted on plant-based products. It also referenced a US study that found:
… almost a third of participants incorrectly identified a meat analogue burger patty labelled as “Beyond Meat Beyond Burger” as containing beef mince, when it was displayed side by side with two traditional meat burger patties.
2.17
A 2020 empirical study conducted by Jareb Gleckel (Gleckel study, US) surveyed 155 participants to determine whether consumers were confused by plant-based food labels. This study found ‘[c]onsumers are no more likely to think that a plant-based product comes from an animal if the product’s name incorporates words traditionally associated with animal products than if it does not’. The Gleckel study also sought to answer whether consumers are more confused without the use of traditional animal protein and dairy descriptors. On this matter the study found that the omission of words traditionally associated with animal protein on plant-based products ‘causes consumers to be significantly more confused about the taste and use of these products’. The study concluded that legislation that prohibits ‘companies from using words like “beef” and “butter” on their labels does not advance the government’s interest in preventing consumer confusion’.
2.18
The contrasting view that consumers are not confused by the labelling practices of plant-based products was shared by various submitters and witnesses to this inquiry. These stakeholders argued that there was no quantitative, peer-reviewed evidence that consumers are confused by these labels and mistakenly purchasing plant-based protein products. The Alternative Protein Council (APC), as a representative of Australia’s leading plant-based protein and dairy producers, highlighted that ‘clear product labelling is of critical importance to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions’. It referenced market research by Food Frontier that found consumers are buying plant-based protein products not because they are confused or mistaken by the product, ‘but because they’re actively seeking out plant-based options’. Further, the study found ‘the plant-based nature of the product is the key selling point, with manufacturers keen to highlight this’ fact. This view was emphasised by a number of plant-based protein producers.
2.19
Customer research data from Colmar Brunton found 91 per cent of customers reported that they ‘have never mistakenly purchased a plant-based product thinking it was a meat-based counterpart, or vice versa’. Of the 9 per cent who mistakenly purchased the wrong product, the study found ‘they were more likely to be vegetarian or vegan’.
2.20
Similarly, Woolworths Group conducted a nation-wide survey of 5 700 customers in March 2021. It found 7 per cent reported that they had purchased a plant-based product in error, which Woolworths pointed out is in alignment with the Colmar Brunton/Food Frontier’s findings. Woolworths also reported 62 per cent of its customers purchased plant-based protein products at least sometimes, with the majority of sales resulting from new customers to the category, with a 40 per cent growth (year-on-year) in plant-based protein purchases. However, this figure remained significantly smaller than sales of red meat by a factor of 60-to-1. The basis for this growth in consumer demand for these products include health, ethical and environmental reasons, with a growing number of people pursuing a flexitarian diet (a consumer who has consciously reduced the amount of meat consumed).
2.21
The Australian Farm Institute found there to be no concrete evidence of consumer confusion other than anecdotal evidence. Its representative, Ms Katie McRobert spoke of ‘a few surveys which were quite extensive but were based on consumer intention, not based on consumer behaviour’ with ‘a fairly small percentage of people who said that they would be tricked by the product that they were shown’. Overall, the Australian Farm Institute has found there to be no evidence of systemic confusion amongst consumers:
… we couldn't see any evidence to support the claim that people were being tricked into buying a different product based on the label, or not consistently tricked…[S]ometimes people might make a decision in a hurry…Anecdotally, it has happened. People have put the wrong thing into their trolley, but then they've not done it again.
2.22
Various plant-based protein manufacturers, such as Nestle, Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat and Deliciou advised the committee that they had not received any complaints of consumers being confused by their products.
Reported incidents of consumer confusion
2.23
The ACCC reported that it had ‘not received information that demonstrates that the labelling of plant-based substitute products is an issue causing consumer detriment’. The ACCC submitted that it had received ‘very few reports’ of consumers being misled by the labelling found on plant-based substitute products. Of these reports received, the ACCC had found them to originate from those associated with the production of meat or dairy products:
… consumers and industry stakeholders in sectors that produce meat or dairy products raising concern that plant-based substitute products use animal product related descriptors (e.g. ‘meat’; ‘burger’; ‘milk’), or pictures of animals on their labelling. 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. These reports were more in the nature of enquiries as to whether the products were allowed to use animal product related descriptors or animal pictures on their labelling.
2.24
The ACCC initially reported between January 2020 to June 2021, there had been eleven reports about the labelling of plant-based protein products ‘out of around 564,000 total contact over the same period’. This figure was later updated through a reassessment of the data, resulting in a further six relevant consumer contacts, bringing the total to 17. The ACCC reiterated that those complaints were not from misled individuals; rather, ‘the majority of those persons contacting [the ACCC] were obviously aware of the nature of the product and were querying the legality of the use of animal-related images or words as part of the label’. It added that some of the 17 complaints were made by meat industry bodies. Upon reviewing those products, the ACCC concluded that in their opinion ‘a court would view the overall impression conveyed by the labelling of these products as unlikely to mislead an ordinary consumer’.
2.25
Concerning the ACCC’s consideration whether such matters should be subject to an enforcement action, its Deputy Chair, Mr Mick Keogh explained the first assessment is to determine whether a breach of ACL has occurred. Further action is then guided by the ACCC’s compliance and enforcement priorities, which considers the ‘extent of economic or consumer harm…the strategic importance of the issue and the impact of the issue on vulnerable consumers and consumer communities’. Mr Keogh emphasised the importance of this compliance framework because the ACCC has finite resources and an ‘obligation to prudently utilise taxpayer dollars’. A comparison was made to the ACCC’s actions against the new motor vehicle sector, which consisted of 10 000 consumer contacts per year, with an average purchase price of between $30 000 and $50 000.
2.26
Mr Keogh reassured the committee that the ACCC would continue to consider further allegations raised by consumers, in line with ACL and its compliance and enforcement policy. Mr Keogh added that those ‘parties that believe [ACL] has been breached can initiate their own actions and do not need ACCC involvement’.
2.27
The committee also heard from FSANZ about its consideration of consumers’ capacity to distinguish between plant-based and traditional protein products. Its representative, Mr Glen Neal, referred to FSANZ’s consideration of social science research as part of its assessment of Impossible Foods’ application for the additive soy leghemoglobin:
… when we're assessing applications, if I may, is not only what the evidence is saying around safety but also what the social science is telling us around consumer understanding. In particular, if I could go back to the Impossible Foods soy leghemoglobin application last year, we reviewed the evidence around what consumers aren't understanding from what's on shelves at the moment. That actually identified a couple of studies, one Australian and one New Zealand study, that highlighted that the vast majority of consumers in both countries are able to discern plant based products from meat products. There was a minority of consumers in both countries that reported having accidentally purchased a plant based product rather than their intent to buy a meat based product. It is nine per cent for Australia and six per cent for New Zealand. That's obviously a bit annoying for those people who purchased those products, but that's what the social science is telling us, that there's not a great deal of consumer confusion present in either Australia or New Zealand.
Criticisms of the ACCC
2.28
Various stakeholders objected to the ACCC’s assurance that consumers are not confused. The committee received a number of notifications of consumers unintentionally purchasing plant-based protein products. Many witnesses suggested those consumers confused by plant-based protein products were not reporting such incidences to the ACCC, suggesting few knew such an action was possible.
2.29
These concerns were confirmed by numerous examples describing circumstances of consumer confusion, none of which reported such incidents to the ACCC. Ms Emily Pullen from Jim’s Jerky informed the committee that she had accidently purchased plant-based chicken stock thinking it was traditional chicken stock. Ms Pullen confirmed that she had not contacted the ACCC. Mr Troy Setter from the Consolidated Pastoral Company had also unintentionally purchased plant-based beef stock on a couple of occasions, having been confused by the image of a cow on the product and the use of the term ‘beef’. The issue of misidentified stock was raised by Ms Emma Germano of the Victorian Farmers Federation, who also spoke of a neighbour who had purchased a plant-based prawn product with the understanding it was made of prawns.
2.30
Mr William Wilson, the Cattle President of AgForce Queensland Farmers Limited, reflected upon his dismay after discovering he had unintentionally purchased and cooked a plant-based beef mince product for friends. Similarly, the Australian Check Meat Federation provided the committee with correspondence from Clare Buckley who had been ‘duped’ by a pre-made frozen plant-based chicken meal.
2.31
Ms Elisha Parker argued consumers were confused by plant-based protein products being sold in restaurants. She referenced a plant-based ‘lamb’ pita wrap and expressed concern about the risk of misidentification for people with allergens:
As a mother to a severely allergic child with an allergy to lamb, I wouldn't take the chance that this could be a grass-fed lamb product. But what about the consumer who's not up on agriculture terms that may also make this mistake and eat a product that may be inferior to a genuine Australian lamb product, reflective on our industry.
2.32
Broader, more systemic concerns were expressed by other stakeholders who questioned the effectiveness of ACCC’s enforcement of ACL. These witnesses and submitters questioned whether the ACCC was thoroughly investigating the matter and perceived the ACCC as unwilling to commence proceedings against the plant-based protein sector. The RMAC made a comparison to the number of proceedings the ACCC has made against the livestock sector. It proposed the ACCC could address this market failure by establishing an information standard for red meat category branding under section 134 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This proposal is further considered in Chapter 4.
Research gaps
2.33
Various stakeholders raised concern with the quality of the research into consumer confusion. Criticisms were directed at findings of the Food Regulation Standing Committee’s 2018 review of food labelling, because it did not complete a like-for-like comparison between products.
2.34
The Australian dairy industry expressed concern with research produced by Food Frontier to inform the Industry Working Group’s findings. Dairy representatives had sought clarification on whether Food Frontier’s research had been peer reviewed but noted that it was ultimately the decision for the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to ensure the ‘quality [of] evidence that went forward into that discussion paper’. The Australian Dairy Farmers agreed that Food Frontier’s ‘evidence is highly questionable’ because of its constituted purpose to ‘reduce consumption of animal products’.
2.35
Criticisms were also directed at the Gleckel study. The Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) pointed out that Jareb Gleckel was a legal academic, ‘with no apparent qualifications or accredited experience in market and social research’. Further, the study ‘was comprised of non-nationally representative survey of 155 participants, none of whom lived in Australia…[and] was undertaken using only text with no images shown of actual product packaging used in the market’. RMAC expressed dismay that this study was referenced as scientific literature by the CSIRO. The SIA also criticised the study because its findings were inconsistent with the results of the Pollinate survey.
2.36
Shortcomings were also raised with the Pollinate survey. The Australian Foodservice Advocacy Body (AFAB) thought the methodology was solid, but had issue with its findings. Specifically, the survey not recognising the role of contextual information available to consumers in a supermarket. Further, various stakeholders stated the four products sampled by Pollinate were not reflective of the 250 products available on the market. Whereas Beyond Meat questioned the three second timeframe participants had to view a product, which it believed was not reflective of ‘consumer purchasing decision’. v2food described the study as ‘flawed’. More generally, v2food was critical of the traditional protein sector’s overall reliance on anecdotal evidence.
2.37
Overall, there was a notable lack of peer-reviewed research into the matter. The NFF advised the committee that it had no independent peer-reviewed data on this matter. This point was also raised by the Australian Food and Grocery Council’s (AFGC) Deputy Chief Executive, Dr Geoffrey Annison. He stated that the AFGC was ‘very aware of the concerns regarding the labelling the new plant protein based products’ but ‘is not aware of any convincing peer-reviewed evidence that a substantial proportion of consumers are unaware of the true nature of these…products arising from their labelling’. Dr Annison added that, should a regulatory pathway be taken to address labelling concerns, then ‘the evidence would have to be there that it was a sufficient problem in order to bring in a regulatory intervention’.
2.38
Various stakeholders, including the NFF and the CSIRO, welcomed the suggestion for a more detailed, independent peer-reviewed study to take place. Some witnesses argued this research should occur before any regulatory reform occurs. Whereas AgForce Queensland Farmers denied further research was needed; instead, it called for urgent action to improve product labelling laws.
2.39
The Industry Working Group also found there to be ‘limited consumer research’. It noted that it had received a range of evidence, both ‘published and un-published surveys and reports’, that supported the ‘various positions about whether consumers are being misled’. The Industry Working Group’s representatives noted that ‘the nature of this evidence meant that there are perceptions of limitations about the validity of the conclusions that these studies provide’.
Product placement
2.40
The Australian Farm Institute explained the importance of appropriate product placement to ‘either aid or abet consumer clarity of choice’, noting that ‘alternative meat products are usually quite close to or co-located with their animal-based counterparts (albeit generally well segregated with signage)’. Ms McRobert informed the committee that the evidence suggested that rather than the terms used on food being an issue, the bigger problem is when plant-based protein products are ‘displayed alongside traditional animal protein’. In these instances, ‘deception would be more likely to occur’.
2.41
The placement of plant-based protein products was also raised as key factor when determining the overall impression of product. The ACCC advised the committee that ‘most retailers that supply both animal derived food products and plant-based substitutes have these products located separately’. Accordingly, this practice ‘makes it even more unlikely for consumers to be misled’. This view was objected to by RMAC and AgForce Queensland Farmers, who submitted that it was indicative of the ACCC’s lack of proactive investigation and appreciation of the issue.
2.42
The Northern Territory Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade spoke of the importance of an easily identifiable product separation in retail outlets. Its representative noted precedence already existed with the clear separation of halal certified products, and that a similar approach should be taken with the placement of plant-based products.
2.43
The committee received numerous reports and photos of plant-based protein products being placed alongside traditional protein products. Arcadia Organic & Natural Meat Co. noted that the display cabinets used for plant-based protein products frequently contain signage with terms such as ‘meat’, ‘beef’, ‘pork’ and ‘chicken’. Sutcliffe Meats suggested strategies by the plant-based sector to specifically target consumers of meat resulted in supermarkets agreeing to place plant-based protein products alongside traditional protein for consumers’ convenience, which ultimately has led to labelling confusion. In addition, the committee spoke of knowledge that major supermarket chains were self-regulating by removing products from shelves because those products do not provide adequate clarity to consumers.
2.44
The committee sought to raise these matters with Woolworths, Coles and Aldi; however, all declined to appear before the committee. Woolworths did reference product placement in its submission. Woolworths referenced its ‘Fresh Made Easy’ program that utilised specialised signage and product placement for plant-based products. Woolworths reported that this initiative had made ‘it very clear to customers what these products are and effectively separate them from meat products’. Additional training for staff had also been implemented to better inform its customers of plant-based products.
2.45
Online shopping platforms were also discussed. Woolworths submitted that it had developed a dedicated landing page for plant-based products. Mrs Jacynta Coffey, owner and director of Coffey Cattle Company referred to a recent search of the word ‘mince’ via Coles online. Mrs Coffey advised the committee that this search function placed traditional beef mince alongside its plant-based protein replica.
2.46
The committee raised with the ACCC reports of meat and plant-based protein products in close proximity on retailers’ shelves. In response, the ACCC said its ‘evidence was based on communication and discussions with retailers, and was based on observations’. It added that some retailers may not adhere and it ‘would be willing to revisit and correct’ its evidence should the ACCC be mistaken. The implications for this would be considered within the context of ACL.
2.47
The matter of product placement and signage of plant-based products was considered by the Industry Working Group. It concluded that the approaches discussed ‘were not deemed feasible by the retail representatives’. The discussion paper noted that ‘[m]ajor retailer’s stores also range in size and are individually designed, with the use of signage and placement built around customer behaviours’. For this reason, there was a concern ‘that a prescriptive standard for retailers would hinder core competitive retail business strategy’. Retailers emphasised that they had not received feedback or evidence that existing placement strategies cause consumer confusion, and that current approaches were designed to support consumer locating desired products. The report also recognised there to be differences in product placement and signage between major and smaller grocers.
Future developments—cultured meat
2.48
A further matter raised concerned the development of synthetic or cultured meat. This type of protein involves sourcing cells from healthy animals that are then grown in ‘cell culture within a controlled production environment’. Vow, an Australian research and development-stage company into cultured meat, submitted that these finished products, which are still under development, ‘are produced ex vivo, meaning outside of the animal, in a way that is safe and scalable’. The cultured meat industry is anticipated to be worth US$25 billion by 2030.
2.49
The Cultured meat industry is in its pre-commercial technology stage globally, meaning these products are not currently available on the market for Australian consumers. For this reason, Vow submitted that the committee’s consideration of the labelling requirements for these products was premature. When asked about Food Frontier’s position of cultured meats and whether it could produce its food at a cost-competitive level, Mr Thomas King responded that:
Potentially. This technology and this industry are still at a very early stage. It's still in the R&D phase, so there are still a lot of unknowns. That's why there are a lot of research dollars being put into trying to explore the potential of that technology, but, because cell cultivation technology for food is not currently undertaken at commercial scale, it is hard to know, in terms of things like price, when and whether these products will get to price parity. There are certainly folks who believe there is great potential for that, but this sector is still at a very early stage. There are only a few companies in Australia that are pursuing that work.
2.50
Should these foods be destined for the Australian market, they would be considered by FSANZ under its ‘normal safety assessment process, through the established novel foods pathway’.
2.51
Despite these products not being available for Australian consumers, witnesses and submitters expressed concern for their impact, particularly if those products are permitted to utilise meat terminology under the existing regulatory regime. The SIA stated that cultured meat products are anticipated for the Australian market, and regulators should ‘get ahead of it before it actually starts coming into the market’.
Committee comment and recommendations
2.52
Whilst the committee is supportive of both the traditional and plant-based protein markets, it is strongly opposed to the appropriation of animal protein descriptors and animal imagery by the plant-based protein sector. The committee sympathises with the animal protein sector’s concerns and agrees that the current regulatory framework is inadequate. This inadequacy is demonstrated by the labelling and marketing practices of plant-based products, which are piggybacking upon the significant investment made by the animal protein sector to develop brand recognition by consumers. This significant investment is undercut by the plant-based industry’s efforts to replicate known meat category brands, rather than creatively develop its own terminology and brand recognition.
2.53
The committee is of the view that current labelling and marketing practices by the plant-based protein sector is causing consumer confusion, demonstrated by the numerous reports of consumer confusion throughout this inquiry. Consumers are reporting incidences of unintentionally purchasing plant-based replicas of traditional protein products, yet they remain unheard. Many consumers are unaware that they can report such incidences to a consumer watchdog.
2.54
Due to underreporting of cases of consumer confusion, the committee is not convinced that this issue is accurately presented by the ACCC, nor by research presented by the plant-based protein sector. The committee respectfully disagrees with the argument that further research is needed into the matter. Further, the committee considers the ACCC’s opinion about a court’s prospective findings on product labelling presumptuous, and believes it is for a court to make that determination, not the ACCC.
2.55
It is time for decisive action by the Australian Government to address consumers’ concerns. For this reason, the committee recommends the Australian Government initiates proceedings to develop a mandatory regulatory framework for the labelling of plant-based protein products. Any regulatory framework developed should be done in consultation with representatives from across the traditional protein sector (including red meat, chicken, pork and seafood industries), the plant-based protein sector, the food service industry and retailers. This process should seek to build upon the substantive work already spearheaded by the Minister for Agriculture’s Industry Working Group.
2.56
As discussed further in this report, there are alternative proposals and pathways forward to address this matter. Specific details of these pathways, and committee views on the appropriate course of action are detailed in Chapters 3 and 4.
2.57
The committee recommends the Australian Government develops a mandatory regulatory framework for the labelling of plant-based protein products, in consultation with representatives from the traditional and plant-based protein sectors, food service industry and retailers.
2.58
The committee believes a widely overlooked contribution to consumer confusion is the role of product placement on supermarket shelves. The evidence presented by the ACCC is not representative of the evidence presented to this committee. Anecdotal and photographic evidence has shown meat and non-meat products being placed side-by-side. The committee congratulates Woolworths with its efforts to differentiate products on its shelves and online. However, the committee believes further review and reform is needed to ensure best practice is implemented throughout the retail sector.
2.59
The committee disagrees with the ACCC’s conclusions, and for this reason, recommends that it reviews its findings regarding the placement of plant-based protein products on retailers’ shelves. Online sales platforms, and whether appropriate product identification and separation are applied, should be considered as part of this review. This review should result in an appropriate framework to assist Australia’s retailers with establishing suitable product placement of plant-based protein products. Such measures with greatly enhance consumers’ understanding and reduce confusion.
2.60
The committee recommends the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reviews the placement of plant-based protein products in retailers’ stores, including online platforms.
2.61
Finally, the committee sees significant issues arising with the prospect of cultured, lab-grown meat entering the Australian market. The committee foresees this new development resulting in further consumer confusion, with existing labelling and marketing practices likely to enable further appropriation of meat category branding used by the traditional protein sector. The failure to prepare for this likely future could have dire outcomes for Australia’s livestock sector, with impacts on the livelihoods of people throughout the entire supply chain.
2.62
The committee disagrees that any action to prepare for this future is premature. Instead, the committee calls for the Australian Government to ensure any mandatory regulatory framework is applicable to cultured meat products, in preparation for their introduction onto the Australian market.
2.63
The committee recommends the Australian Government ensures the application of a mandatory regulatory framework is applicable to cultured meat products, in preparation for the introduction of those products onto the Australian market.