$300000 penalty in Free Range case
A recent Federal Court ruling has once again reinforced that labelling must tell the truth and be representative of what is in the package.
In this case, the ruling was about the term “Free Range” and the use of it with eggs.
The Court imposed a penalty of $300,000 on the business involved for engaging in misleading conduct and making misleading representations on it’s labelling and promotion of eggs.
The case was part of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s current investigation into the use of the term “Free Range’.
It is acknowledged that free range eggs will attract specific consumers and therefore increase sales, so ensuring that it is only used on the packaging of those eggs that actually are free range is important.
The following are the basic farming conditions which contribute to whether eggs are free range and will vary from producer to producer;
• the internal stocking density of sheds
• the conditions of the internal areas the hens are housed in
• the number, size and location of any openings to an outdoor area
• the time of the day and how regularly the openings are opened
• the size and condition of the outdoor area, including any shaded areas, the presence of food, water and different vegetation and ground conditions
• the stocking density of any outdoor area
• whether the hens have been trained or conditioned to remain indoors
ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said; “Credence claims such as free range claims are powerful tools for businesses to distinguish their products. However, if they are false or misleading, they serve to mislead consumers, who may pay a premium to purchase such products. This decision provides very clear guidance that any free range egg claim must be backed by farming conditions and practices implemented by suppliers under which hens actually move about on an open range each day.”
Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.