Chapter 4
Australian Fish Names Standard, sustainability and provenance labelling
4.1
This chapter considers the Australian Fish Names Standard (AFNS) and explores
the arguments in relation to sustainability and provenance labelling with
particular focus on the European model.
Australian Fish Names Standard
4.2
The process of naming fish species is the responsibility of the Fish
Names Committee (FNC) which sits within the Australian Fisheries Research and
Development Corporation (FRDC). The FNC receives applications from industry regarding
the naming of species before undertaking a public consultation process and deciding
on species names. As part of this process, fish names are developed and
modified while new species are named and incorporated into the AFNS.[1]
4.3
The purpose of the AFNS is to:
-
improve monitoring and stock assessment thereby enhancing the
sustainability of fisheries resources;
-
increase efficiency in seafood marketing and improve consumer and
industry profitability;
-
improve accuracy in trade descriptions which enables consumers to
make more informed choices when purchasing seafood and reduces the potential
for misleading and deceptive conduct;
-
provide more efficient management of seafood related public
health incidents and food safety through improved labelling and species
identification which reduces public health risk and facilitates efficient
product recall arrangements;
-
enhance marketability and consumer acceptability of the standard
fish names used for a species eliminating misleading and deceptive conduct.[2]
4.4
FRDC noted that the AFNS was developed to ensure that all fish have a
common set of names that are used along the supply chain. It made the point
that the correct use of fish names enhances traceability and provides
confidence for consumers.[3]
According to Dr Patrick Hone, Executive Director of FRDC, development of the
AFNS provides the opportunity for uniformity across the states and territories
with regard to the recording of species, which is fundamental for both
sustainability and fishery science.[4]
Challenges in achieving
standardisation
4.5
As a voluntary scheme, the AFNS has no legal weight and serves as a
reference.[5]
SIAA argued that, as the AFNS had not been adopted by Food Standards Australia
New Zealand (FSANZ) or state food safety authorities, its voluntary application
had 'significantly weakened' it.[6]
4.6
Some submitters supported mandatory application of the AFNS for this
reason.[7]
They argued that legislated application of the AFNS would ensure that customers
are provided with accurate information about their seafood choices and could be
confident that they are getting the fish they have paid for.[8]
The point was made that national application of standard fish names would
provide food safety benefits, particularly in the area of product recall.[9]
The Common Language Group (CLG) argued that the introduction of a legal
requirement to use fish names in the AFNS, coupled with the application of
country of origin labelling throughout the supply chain, including in relation
to unpackaged seafood, would largely resolve concerns regarding 'misrepresentation,
deception and subsequent consumer complaints'.[10]
4.7
However, not all specific species have a unique, standard name that can
be incorporated into the AFNS. One such example is that of flathead which can
be used to describe a number of different Australian species including dusky
flathead and tiger flathead as well as some imported species which are not flathead
species at all.[11]
FRDC explained that while the AFNS has recorded the names of over 5000 species,
many such names are group names, covering multiple species for which naming
conventions are yet to be established.[12]
Greenpeace argued this made parts of the AFNS so broad as to be ineffective,
allowing a large number of species groups to be labelled with the same common
name. As a case in point, it is legal to label any number of species as white
fish. Greenpeace made the point that while such labelling was not untrue, it
provided consumers with no useful information as white fish is not a species of
fish and the term does not appear in the AFNS.[13]
4.8
Greenpeace and WWF-Australia argued that it was important that Australia
achieve accuracy in naming fish and recommended that adequate resources be
provided to develop the AFNS to a point where standardised common names match
each individual species. They suggested that until such time as the AFNS has
been adequately developed, in instances where common names have yet to be
applied to each species, the scientific name should be legally required.[14]
4.9
However, other submitters held different views. While some recognised
mandatory use of the AFNS as an important aspiration, the fact that species are
known by different names in different states was seen as a major challenge. As NT
restaurant proprietor, Mr Simon Matthews explained, some fish are known by up
to four different names across the country.[15]
A further challenge identified was that the universal application of fish names
would need to be applied across the entire supply and not only to fresh fish
retailers.[16]
4.10
The point was made that standardisation would not only require agreement
between the states and territories on a name for each particular species, but
also an extensive consumer and industry awareness campaign to complement the
name changes.[17]
In fact, MFMA argued against a mandatory scheme on the grounds that there is
limited awareness of fish names standards and name changes to key species
within the industry let alone amongst the community.[18]
Furthermore, requiring businesses to sell seafood under new and unfamiliar
names would carry a financial burden. Mr Kitchener also submitted that, while
businesses can currently sell seafood under the names listed in the AFNS, they
are also able to use historically entrenched common use marketing names as long
as they are not misleading or deliberately mislabelled.[19]
However, any move from locally used names, which are familiar to consumers, to
standard names which would be unfamiliar to both consumers and industry alike,
would require a complementary consumer awareness and education campaign at
additional costs on the industry.
4.11
The voluntary status of the AFNS also brought to light an anomaly in
labelling requirements regarding the import and export of fish and fish
products to and from Australia. As Australian exporters of fish and fish
products must use the Australian Fish Names list as part of the department's
export documentation system (ExDoc system), they are compliant with the AFNS.[20]
According to FRDC, the same requirements are not placed on importers of the
same products. While the Imported Food Inspection Scheme refers to the Code, as
AFNS is not mandated in the Code, the naming of fish and fish products cannot
be enforced at Australia's borders. This means that the description on a box of
imported fish products may not actually match the fish inside the box.[21]
This anomaly provides scope for mislabelling to take place, with flake being mislabelled
as gummy shark one such example.[22]
FRDC argued that mandating names in Standard 2.2.3 of the Code would address
this anomaly.[23]
Sustainability and provenance information
4.12
While supporting the introduction of country of origin labelling in
relation to the food services sector (as discussed in chapter 3) and the
mandatory application of the AFNS, submitters including Greenpeace and AMCS
argued that an additional step was required by way of the provision of sustainability
and provenance labelling information.[24]
4.13
At present, the Code has no labelling requirements regarding
sustainability of seafood production.[25]
Furthermore, there are no current requirements that food for retail sale be
identified with information about either sustainability or farming, harvest or
capture methods.[26]
However, according to the CLG, in order for consumers to make an informed
choice on sustainable seafood, they need to know:
-
Which fish is this?
-
Where did it come from?
-
How much is caught and how is it caught?
-
How is the fishery managed and assessed?
-
Who is saying/endorsing that the fish is sustainable and on what
basis?[27]
4.14
CLG recommended that the Code be amended to require the source, method
of harvest, and sustainability assessment of both domestic and internationally
caught seafood. In addition, it proposed that FZANZ develop regulations to
display provenance of domestic and international seafood products as well as
regulations on standards of sustainability for imported seafood product.[28]
4.15
WWF-Australia also supported the introduction of a mandatory requirement
to label products with details of species, origin and production method. It
argued that these requirements, combined with independent third party seafood
certification under schemes such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Aquaculture
Stewardship Council, would significantly enhance the ability of consumers to
make informed decisions when purchasing seafood.[29]
4.16
However, SIAA argued that it was unlikely that a standard for labelling
information could be developed that sufficiently, accurately and honestly
articulated the complex subject of sustainability and provenance. It noted the
wide abuse of words such as 'sustainable', and cautioned against the use of
such words to cover complex subjects.[30]
4.17
This concern was supported by a CLG survey which revealed considerable
confusion with regard to sustainability, starting with the need to 'agree key
elements to be included in sustainability definitions, use consistent terms and
agree on terminology used across all the key elements of sustainability'.[31]
CLG noted that the definition of sustainability around any one species is too
technically complex for consumers and that the introduction of values-neutral
data which identifies species, origin and production method could be provided
to consumers to enable them to make informed, independent choices.[32]
4.18
Similarly, the NSIA made the point that there are approximately 18 different
bodies within Australia which apply certification but that without a consistent
and universally applied definition of sustainability, consumers are left
confused about what constitutes a 'good' method of catch.[33]
4.19
SIAA suggested that the development of a standard for optional
statements to ensure accuracy and honesty would be more desirable. It argued
that this was already partly achieved through the voluntary display of best
practice certification logos and use of codes that can be scanned by portable devises
to obtain more detailed provenance information.[34]
Furthermore, the NSW Food Authority made the point that, while the Code does
not prescribe any requirement to label a food product on sustainability and
provenance grounds, where producers choose to do so, the basic truth in
labelling provisions in state and territory legislation would apply. Therefore,
any claim in relation to environmental certification and sustainability would
need to be substantiated.[35]
4.20
In recognising the complexity in defining product as 'sustainable', some
witnesses argued in favour of the provision of value-neutral information
including where product is from, how it is caught or if it is farmed.[36]
While recognising that it was unrealistic to expect all stakeholders to agree
on matters of sustainability in all cases, Greenpeace argued that
values-neutral data which identifies species, origin, and production method
should be provided to consumers to allow them to make informed, independent
choices.[37]
Similarly, Mr Matthew Evans pointed out that at under the current labelling
framework, consumers do not know exactly what they are putting into their
mouths, where the product is from, how it was caught or whether it was farmed.[38]
Greenpeace and AMCS argued that seafood labelling laws for all seafood
purchased at all points of sale should require display of the following
information:
-
What it is – standardised species common name indicating unique
species and/or scientific name;
-
Where it was caught –
- For Australian
seafood: the individual Australian state or Commonwealth fishery from which the
fish is sourced;
- For imported
seafood: the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) major
fishing area designation identified by name or, where fish is harvested
exclusively in national exclusive economic zones (EEZ), the name of the
individual country(ies); and individual stock where more than one known stock
exists in a given FAO area or EEZ or fishery.
-
How it was caught – specific type of fishing gear used as per UN
FAO designation.[39]
4.21
In regard to catch method, Mr Evans provided an example of a gummy
sharks which are fished by line and net:
As a consumer, if you want to make a valid choice about
sustainability, if you could buy the line caught knowing that no school sharks
have died, you might be willing to pay more for that or you might simply choose
to eat a different fish, rather than eat one that came from the net.[40]
4.22
However, Mr William Mure from Mures Fish Centre in Tasmania highlighted
the importance of education in relation to catch method given that perceptions about
method of capture may have no basis in reality. He argued that legislating provision
of information on catch or production method might be a step too far given
these widely held misperceptions. He noted that one such common misperception
was that trawling and netting are bad practices.[41]
Yet, in Australia, trawling is the only way to capture prawns.[42]
NSIA shared these concerns as its Chairman, Mr Grahame Turk, explained:
The example I used was 'trawled' – and you put on the label
that it was trawled product, many people will think that trawling is bad,
because they have been told that. And that is incorrect. Not all trawling is
bad. Mid-water trawling is not bad if you have by-catch exclusion devises and
so on, in the trawl nets. Bottom trawling is not bad if it is over shifting
ground.[43]
European Union Regulation 1379/2013
4.23
A number of submitters made the point that both the European Union (EU) and
the United States (US) adopted measures to regulate the importation of seafood
sourced from illegal, unregulated or unreported fisheries. According to the
CLG, greater transparency is needed in relation to the provenance of seafood
products imported into Australia beyond the current, minimal requirements of
country of origin.[44]
Mr Evans made a similar point, emphasising that as at least 70 per cent of
seafood consumed in Australia is sourced from overseas, it is derived from
countries outside of Australia's regulations.[45]
4.24
Regulation 1379/2013 was put in place by the EU in December 2013. It
sets out the conditions for the common organisation of the EU market for
fish/fishery products. Article 35 of the regulation requires that all fishery
and aquaculture products marketed within the EU, irrespective of their origin
or marketing method, may be offered for sale to the final consumer or to a mass
caterer only if marketing or labelling indicates:
-
The commercial designation of the species and its scientific name;
-
The production method, in particular by the following words
"....caught..." or "...caught in freshwater...." or
"....farmed....";
-
The area where the product was caught or farmed and the category of
fishing gear used in capture of fisheries;
-
Whether the product has been defrosted;
-
The date of minimum durability, where appropriate.[46]
4.25
The information may be supplied on billboard or posters at point of
final sale for non-pre-packaged fish.[47]
Under the EU regulations, catch documentation from the point of export and in
some instances, from the point of capture, is also required. Importers to the
EU must provide a paper trail which reveals the species of the consignment,
vessel or processing plant that it came from.[48]
4.26
AMCS, WWF-Australia and Greenpeace argued that the EU managed to
implement the regulations in a market which is far more complex than that in
Australia.[49]
They suggested that there should be little practical impediment to adopting
similar guidelines in Australia given the less complicated nature of
Australia's seafood trade.[50]
In terms of some of the costs involved in moving to an EU-type model,
Greenpeace stated that the costs of adding fishing gear type, date of catch and
related details to seafood labels in England and Wales amounted to an estimated
AU $1 million a year.[51]
Reinventing the wheel?
4.27
A number of submitters argued against moving towards an EU-style model
for reasons including the substantial and complex changes that would be required
to the existing labelling regime, which would pose a red tape and cost burden
for the industry and involved businesses with the real prospect of causing
greater confusion rather than clarity for consumers.[52]
Mr Fish from the NTSC stated that establishing a system such as that of the EU
with sustainability and provenance information would require an entirely new
system to be established in Australia which was tantamount to reinventing the
wheel.[53]
4.28
FRDC noted that application of the EU model in Australia would be a
significant exercise given that Australian fisheries are managed by the
Commonwealth as well as the states and territories, which record data on fish
species differently. As there is no single straightforward process by which
information is collected, every state and territory applies a different
collection method.[54]
Dr Hone explained that:
The EU is requiring a whole lot of information. For example,
they want confirmation that it does not come from an illegal source. They also
want confirmation that the source of stock is sustainably fished. Verifying
that across Australia, in terms of the different processes—you have picked a
good example with the South East Trawl because that is relatively easy; the
Commonwealth fisheries have very good systems—they are not always the same in
every jurisdiction and territory.[55]
4.29
In contrast to the EU, Australia has many species and its fishing
community has not yet reached the stage where it can provide the level of
detailed information required in jurisdictions such as the EU. To highlight
this point, Dr Hone provided the example of regional branding in the
marketplace, whereby any claim that identifies seafood in accordance with
location of production should have a scientific basis. While the technology is
available to provide such evidence to demonstrate that western king prawns
caught from Shark Bay are not western king prawns caught from the Spencer Gulf
in South Australia, as a case in point, it comes at a cost.[56]
4.30
MFMA emphasised the contextual differences between the EU and Australian
markets in relation to seafood sustainability, including recent research which
indicated that half of European stocks are overfished and subject to
overfishing.[57]
Seafood New Zealand also raised concerns with the implementation of regulations
based on those in the EU. It argued that if similar regulations were introduced
in Australia, the operation of supply chains to retail would be made
considerably more complex. Therefore, Australia would become a much less
attractive export market for small scale suppliers from New Zealand who provide
the wide range of inshore fish species that are in strong demand in Australia.[58]
4.31
Furthermore, MFMA submitted that ensuring compliance of such a scheme
would be a time consuming and costly undertaking, and expressed doubt as to
whether the inclusion of scientific names would make a material difference to
the mitigation of product substitution as it is already an offence to call one
type of seafood by another name.[59]
MFMA also noted that it was not clear whether consumers would benefit from
knowing the catch location of a species (outside country of origin) or the
catch method.[60]
Similarly, the department argued the point that it would be difficult to prove
a genuine net public benefit from extending labelling to include sustainability
and provenance information given the likely additional costs that would be imposed
on the industry.[61]
4.32
MFMA also pointed out that, while it currently labels all species that
have been produced by aquaculture (thereby all unlabelled species are wild
caught), going the next step and labelling method of capture (such as trap,
beach hauling, purse seine fishing and trawling) would be extremely
complicated. Mr Kitchener provided the example of snapper which is fished
around the country:
It is the same product, the exact same species, but it may be
caught in a number of different ways. For the retailer to put, say, snapper
from three different locations on display – and to show those different
locations – would just be impossible.[62]
4.33
SFM also noted the complexity which such a system for the food services
sector given the fact that many restaurants and other outlets source product
from multiple suppliers.[63]
Mr Skepper explained that the:
MSC is a very expensive process, and we always fall back on
to the fact that Australia has the EPBC Act, which is based on the FAO codes of
responsible fisheries management and responsible fishing practices. So we have
a regulatory system in place now that says that we will manage our fisheries in
accordance with the FAO codes. In many respects, the baseline is already there.
So, if is produced in Australia, if it is correctly named and if it is
correctly labelled for country of origin, the consumer can purchase that
product with confidence that it is well managed.[64]
4.34
ABFA made the point that freshness is the primary consideration of
consumers followed by origin while matters relating to catch method are yet to
register on the minds of consumers.[65]
SFM and the ABFA suggested that if sustainability is important to a consumer in
choosing what to purchase, they can be confident that buying Australian product
constitutes a purchase of sustainably managed stock.[66]
While Greenpeace argued that not all seafood is sustainable in Australia, it
acknowledged that Commonwealth fisheries are amongst the best fisheries in the
world.[67]
Furthermore, according to the respective industry bodies, barramundi is either
gillnet caught or farmed domestically while most imports are farmed fish.[68]
The Australian prawn farm sector is almost exclusively ponds while catch brood
stock is relied upon for only a small percentage of production.[69]
Therefore, there would be limited value in providing information on the catch
method for these products.
4.35
The Queensland Government emphasised that current regulatory
requirements do not prevent businesses from providing information to consumers
regarding the sustainability and provenance of food, including seafood that
they sell.[70]
4.36
The NSW Food Authority drew on the position of the Blewett Review into
food labelling to argue that any consumer values information is best left to
market forces, concluding that:
It would be an unnecessary burden on industry to mandate
consumer value claims and at this time it is best left to commercial market
mechanisms to drive consumer value information.[71]
4.37
FRDC warned that if Australia is to require further labelling
information for consumers at the final point of sale beyond the current species
naming requirements and CoOL labelling, the objectives underpinning the
requirement for such additional information should be made clear and be
generally supported by stakeholders. Noting that additional information
requirements would have implications for business compliance and impact on
costs, FRDC explained that:
The more information detail that may be required on point of
sale labels – for example as to method of catch or origin of fish tracked back
to capture or farming area – the greater the need to maintain secure, physical
separation between batches of fish product and ensure that the integrity of
those information elements is maintained from origin to point of sale.[72]
4.38
FRDC further noted the importance of Australia remaining conscious of
its international trade rule obligations to ensure equal treatment as between
domestic suppliers and suppliers of imported products. To this end, Article
11.2.6 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries explains that:
States should not directly or indirectly create unnecessary
or hidden barriers to trade which limit the consumer's freedom of choice of
supplier or that restrict market access.[73]
4.39
FRDC suggested that the starting point in respect of labelling was to
ensure the use of correct fish names, and for all retailers to use the AFNS. It
noted that this would 'go a long way to providing consumers the information
needed to make informed decisions about their purchase'.[74]
As consumers have a right to make informed choices when purchasing, they must
also have confidence in the correct labelling. For reasons including traceability
and the fact that some species of seafood may cause problems to susceptible
populations, ranging from allergies to serious illness, FRDC and the fish names
community promoted the use of the fish names listed in AFNS throughout
Australia.[75]
Committee view
Australian Fish Names Standard
4.40
The committee recognises the importance of a universally applied
standard in relation to fish names. To this end, the committee acknowledges
efforts to establish a common standard under the AFNS which is consistent with
international principles including the FAO guidelines.
4.41
While recognising the validity of the arguments in support of the mandatory
application of the AFNS, the committee takes the view that the challenges
identified in this report and in evidence to the committee, including the fact
that different names are given to the same species across the country and the
naming conventions in relation to each and every species, must first be
addressed.
4.42
The committee holds the view, reflected in the evidence of many
submitters, that any steps to mandate the use of the AFNS in the future should
be accompanied by an extensive education and awareness-raising campaign
targeted at the industry as well as consumers.
Sustainability and provenance
labelling
4.43
While there were many divergent views in relation to seafood labelling,
most witnesses were in agreement that CoOL should be extended to include the food
services sector.[76]
The committee holds the view that steps beyond this, including the introduction
of an EU-type labelling model, would require substantial changes to industry
structures which would be onerous for the Australian industry and premature in
terms of consumer awareness.
4.44
To this end, the point was repeatedly made throughout the inquiry that
any changes to seafood labelling would not have the desired effect of informing
consumers unless it is clear, simple, consistent and demand-driven.
4.45
The committee expects that greater consumer awareness brought about by
the expansion of CoOL as recommended by this report, together with 'buy local'
campaigns that will inevitably follow, will drive positive sustainability
outcomes. Consumers will ultimately decide whether they are happy to purchase
Australian or imported product or whether they want additional labelling information,
including method of capture, to make informed choices. Ultimately, it is in the
interests of retailers, supermarkets and the services industries to provide the
information demanded by consumers. For this reason, information such as catch
method, gear type and related information including traceability may well
become important opportunities for branding and therefore selling points for
retailers and restaurants. The committee notes that, in response to consumer
feedback, Coles Supermarkets provide information on all its Coles Brand seafood
labels as to whether the seafood is farmed or wild caught.[77]
4.46
The committee's prediction in this regard is informed by the NT, where
licence condition have provided consumers in the territory with a means of
distinguishing between seafood products, resulting in increased engagement with,
and more consciousness of, their seafood choices. To this end, the
introduction of the licence condition coupled with a 'support local' campaign
has had the effect of educating consumers as Mr Hanna explained:
...it has actually taught the consumer in a very short time
that there is a question to be asked every time they order seafood, whether it
be in a restaurant or at a retail level or even for fast food.[78]
4.47
Another NT proprietor, Mr Simon Matthews observed that consumers are
becoming more aware of what they want to eat and whether or not they are
endangered a species by consuming it.[79]
Within this context, sustainability, freshness and ecological issues are
increasingly raised by consumers. Mr Matthews explained that common questions
at NT restaurants now focus on where the seafood comes from, whether it is
fresh and its journey to the plate.[80]
There is no reason to suggest that the extension of CoOL to the food services
sector, combined with a robust education campaign, could not have a similar impact
on consumer awareness around the rest of the country.
4.48
The committee upholds the view that introduction of an EU-type model would
require considerable structural changes to the way the industry operates and
with it, substantial compliance costs. Notwithstanding this point, the
committee notes that the EU reforms were progressively introduced. Species
names and common names were legislated before the EU 2014 reforms were
introduced.[81]
Moreover, the additional labelling information required as part of the EU
reforms including gear type and information regarding the catch is to be
implemented over the course of the year.[82]
Noting that these requirements were introduced progressively and that the
naming conventions were in place for some time before the additional labelling
requirements were introduced, the committee suggests that any steps towards
sustainability and provenance labelling in Australia take a similarly gradual
approach that is led by consumer demand and begins with the national adoption
of the AFNS.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page