Another free range court case

Another case has gone to the Federal Court for the alleged “false and misleading “ use of the term “free range’.

Two egg producers are now being pursued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), under the national label Ecoeggs, and the NSW labels of Port Stephens and Field Fresh Free Range Eggs.

The $300 000 penalty against Pirovic Enterprises by the Federal Court in September 2014 for the false and misleading use of free range representations, should have been a major warning to all in the egg industry, according to the ACCC.

As a result the ACCC is actively pursuing this issue and the case is set down for early February 2015.

ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said; “The ACCC considers that free range means more than animals just having potential access to the outdoors. Consumers expect free range to mean animals genuinely can and do go outside on most days.”

The pictures, images and representations on the packaging and internet for the two latest companies does not meet this expectation and that is the reason that the ACCC is pursuing legal action.

There are factors which may affect whether hens can move freely on open range, but regardless in this case the representations do not meet expectations.

However, the big difficulty is that there is still no agreed national definition for “free range” eggs even though work on it has been underway for some time.

It is of increasing urgency as many big businesses are now currently, or planning to, only purchase or sell non-cage eggs. This will mean that an agreed definition for organic, barn and free range will be needed sooner rather than later.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.