Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Present & Future Jurisprudence of Consumer Protection and Food Law in Australia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Food Law and Policy

Abstract

In this chapter, I explore how the new Australian Consumer Law (“the ACL”) embedded in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) is intended to protect consumers from misleading, deceptive and false credence claims associated with food products made by large corporate food producers and distributors. By “credence claims” I mean representations made by corporations in marketing food products that convey to consumers an impression that the product possesses some added quality that similar products may not possess. Credence claims are often associated with values-choices made by consumers such as “gluten free”, “not tested on animals” or “free range”. The differentiating quality may also appeal to the consumer’s ethical or religious values associated with food production and consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth), s 3(c).

  2. 2.

    Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, 5 March 2010, Food Labelling Secretariat, Canberra, Part 1, 1.3.

  3. 3.

    Food Labelling Law and Policy Review Panel, Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy, 27 January 2011, Commonwealth of Australia, 97, [6.3].

  4. 4.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Report of the ACCC Inquiry into the Competitiveness of Retail Prices for Standard Groceries, July 2008, Commonwealth of Australia at xv.

  5. 5.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Report of the ACCC Inquiry into the Competitiveness of Retail Prices for Standard Groceries, July 2008, Commonwealth of Australia at xv.

  6. 6.

    Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc, The Australian Chicken Meat Industry: An Industry in Profile, 2012 at 13. http://www.chicken.org.au/industryprofile/. Accessed on 29 March 2012.

  7. 7.

    Top 25 Red Meat Processors, ‘Feedback’, Meat & Livestock Industry Journal Supplement, October 2005.

  8. 8.

    ACCC will not Oppose Teys Bros and Cargill Beef Australia Proposed Merger, ACCC Media Release dated 6 July 2011.

  9. 9.

    2010 Australian Chicken Meat Federation: Industry Facts and Figures: http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=4#Production.

  10. 10.

    Farm Facts, 2011, National Farmers Federation, Canberra, Australia, 10.

  11. 11.

    Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) is a corporation whose members are Australian cattle producers. MLA is the corporate entity that acts as the cattle farmer’s advocate in the development of Commonwealth primary industry policies. It also provides marketing and research on behalf of its member cattle farmers.

  12. 12.

    Meat and Livestock Australia, Australian Fresh Meat Consumption Increases, 3 December 2010, on www.mla.com.au at Prices & Markets, then Market News at Dec 2010 (cited 21 August 2011).

  13. 13.

    Animals Australia, Eye on Live Export, on www.animalsaustralia.org (cited 21 August 2011).

  14. 14.

    Australian Bureau of Statistics, 7215.0—Livestock Products, Australia, Dec 2011 at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/7215.0main+features4Dec+2011 (cited 27 March 2012).

  15. 15.

    Sharman and Kossew (2008), p. 9.

  16. 16.

    Lifting the Veil of Secrecy: The Animal Behind your Food, Voiceless, May 2007.

  17. 17.

    United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; World Population Prospects—The 2010 Revision http://www.un.org/popin/ (accessed 29 March 2012).

  18. 18.

    Thornton (2010), pp. 2854–2855.

  19. 19.

    Hocquette and Chatellier (2011), p. 20.

  20. 20.

    Hume et al. (2011), p. 2.

  21. 21.

    Galyean et al. (2011), pp. 29–32.

  22. 22.

    National Farmers Federation, NFF Farm Facts: 2012 at 3. http://www.nff.org.au/farm-facts.html accessed on 29 March 2012.

  23. 23.

    Vinnari and Tapio (2009), p. 269.

  24. 24.

    Winders and Nibert (2004), p. 76.

  25. 25.

    Ibrahim (2007), pp. 89–93.

  26. 26.

    Greenhalgh v Ardene Cinemas [1951] Ch 286; Horrigan (2003), p. 321.

  27. 27.

    Department of Local Government & Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd (Unreported decision of 8 February 2003, WA Magistrates Court).

  28. 28.

    Ibid at 99.

  29. 29.

    Robbins (1987), p. 104.

  30. 30.

    The ‘cellophane fallacy’ is a term used in competition law (antitrust) that refers to an error in market definition. Named after the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co 351 US 377 (1956), the cellophane fallacy is incurred if the price that is employed in the ‘hypothetical monopolist test’ in market definition is taken to be the current monopoly price and not the competitive price. Employing the monopoly price results in an over-broad market definition and thus erroneously gives the impression of less market power than might actually exist. See Corones (2010), p. 68.

  31. 31.

    Voiceless, Pig Factories, consumer action sheet, November 2009, on www.voiceless.org.au at Resources (cited 21 August 2011).

  32. 32.

    http://www.mincos.gov.au/about_pimc.

  33. 33.

    Martin (2006).

  34. 34.

    Ibid 3.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Government Welcomes Action Against Battery Eggs. http://www.chiefminister.acy.gov.au/media.php?v=7457.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    Treasurer Lara Giddings MP, 2012–2013 Budget Speech ‘Strong Decisions. Better Future’, 17 May 2012, delivered on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill (No 1) 2012.

    http://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/v-budget-budget-papers/0 (Accessed 21 May 2012).

  39. 39.

    Ibid 12.

  40. 40.

    Napolitano et al. (2010), pp. 537–538.

  41. 41.

    [31].

  42. 42.

    ACCC v Turi Foods (No 4) Ltd (2013) ATPR 42-448.

  43. 43.

    Cited in Richards et al. (2012), p. 250.

  44. 44.

    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Trade and Environment Review 2013 at 285 (Commentary IV: Getting Farmers off the Treadmill), United Nations.

  45. 45.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C.I. & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511 (23 December 2010).

  46. 46.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [1012] FCA 19 (2 December 2011).

  47. 47.

    Bruce (2013), p. 4. In the Middle Ages, most trade in domestic goods and services was conducted at markets, held once each week. The owners of the markets or fairs charged the merchants who were selling goods at their market a fee called a ‘stallage’ for the space. Unscrupulous traders would often attempt to prevent other traders from entering the market. This had the effect of preventing price competition for various goods as well as preventing the market owner from collecting the stallage fee. This practice was known as ‘forestalling’. When it was practiced during times of poor harvests or famine, it enabled some traders to manipulate the market. The absence of outside competition allowed the traders to extract supra-competitive prices for their goods.

  48. 48.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Report of the ACCC Inquiry into the Competitiveness of Retail Prices for Standard Groceries, July 2008, Commonwealth of Australia at xiii.

  49. 49.

    Mhurchu and Gorton (2007), pp. 105, 105.

  50. 50.

    Kehlbacher et al. (2012), pp. 627, 628.

  51. 51.

    ACCC v C I & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511, [31]; ACCC v Bruhn [2012] FCA 959, [50].

  52. 52.

    Lee (2013), p. 42.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, 5 March 2010, Food Labelling Law Secretariat, Canberra, Australia.

  55. 55.

    Ibid 6.

  56. 56.

    Food Labelling Law and Policy Review Panel, Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy, 27 January 2011, Commonwealth of Australia, Recommendation 36, 12.

  57. 57.

    Response to the Recommendations of Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy (2011), Commonwealth Government, December 2012, 40.

  58. 58.

    Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth), s 3(c).

  59. 59.

    In its Food Labelling Guide, the ACCC warns that it has ‘become increasingly concerned about representation on the labels, packaging and advertisements of food and beverage products.’ ACCC Food Labelling Guide, 2009, Canberra, Australia, 3.

  60. 60.

    Food Labelling Law and Policy Review Panel, Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy, 27 January 2011, Commonwealth of Australia, paragraph 3.20 at p 47.

  61. 61.

    Bruce (2011a), Chapters 1 and 2, pp. 1–50.

  62. 62.

    Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 2.

  63. 63.

    Explanatory Memorandum to the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No 2) 2010 (Cth), 37, [3.11].

  64. 64.

    Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Proprietary Limited v Puxu Proprietary Limited (1988–1982) 149 CLR 191, 197 per Gibbs CJ.

  65. 65.

    Brown v Jam Factory Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 340, 348.

  66. 66.

    ACL s 232.

  67. 67.

    ACL s 236.

  68. 68.

    Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594.

  69. 69.

    Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Proprietary Limited v Puxu Proprietary Limited (1981–1982) 149 CLR 191, 198.

  70. 70.

    Astrazeneca Pty Ltd v Glaxosmithkline Australia Pty Ltd (2006) ATPR 42-106, 44,890.

  71. 71.

    Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 24 ALR 177.

  72. 72.

    Campomar Sociedad v Nike International (2000) 202 CLR 45.

  73. 73.

    Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) (2008) ATPR 42-235, 49,206.

  74. 74.

    Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd v .au Domain Administration Ltd (2004) 139 FCR 215, [17]–[18].

  75. 75.

    AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Bade Medical Institute (Australia) Pty Ltd. (2009) 262 ALR 458, 472.

  76. 76.

    Astrazeneca Pty Ltd v Glaxosmithkline Australia Pty Ltd (2006) ATPR 42-106, 44, 890.

  77. 77.

    Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty Limited v Unilever Australia Limited (No 2) (2007) ATPR 42-136, 46,618 - 46,619 and 46,625.

  78. 78.

    Unilever Australia Limited v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd (2009) ATPR 42-305, [18]–[23].

  79. 79.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Dreamtime Creations Pty Ltd (2009) 263 ALR 487, 493.

  80. 80.

    Bruce (2011b), pp. 51–73.

  81. 81.

    ACCC v Clarion Marketing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1441, 8–9.

  82. 82.

    Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Limited (2004) 218 CLR 592, 621–626.

  83. 83.

    ACCC v Australian Dreamtime Creations Pty Ltd (2009) 263 ALR 487, 493–494.

  84. 84.

    ACCC, ACCC Compliance and Enforcement Policy, Commonwealth of Australia, February 2013.

  85. 85.

    Part XI, s138(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court of Australia in relation ‘to any matter arising under this Part or the Australian Consumer Law’.

  86. 86.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C.I & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511.

  87. 87.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 19.

  88. 88.

    The decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pepe’s Ducks Ltd [2013] FCA 570 concerned misleading claims that duck meat was sourced from ducks that spent a substantial time outdoors when in fact the ducks were entirely barn raised and never permitted out-doors. The decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Luv-a-Duck Pty Ltd (2013) FCA 1136 concerned similar allegations.

  89. 89.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C.I & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511, [31].

  90. 90.

    Ibid [14].

  91. 91.

    These are now Sections 18, 29(1)(a) and 33 respectively, of the ACL.

  92. 92.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SIP Australia Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-702, 43,000.

  93. 93.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C.I & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511, [21].

  94. 94.

    Ibid [31].

  95. 95.

    ACCC Takes Court Action Against SA Egg Supplier, ACCC Media Release 8 March 2012.

    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1037910 (Accessed 12 May 2012).

  96. 96.

    ACCC Takes Action over ‘Free to Roam’ Chicken Claims, ACCC Media Release 7 September 2011.

    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1006465/fromItemId/966100 (Accessed 12 May 2012).

  97. 97.

    Ibid.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Rule 26.01(1)(c) Federal Court Rules 2011.

  100. 100.

    Rule 26.01(1)(a) Federal Court Rules 2011.

  101. 101.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1382, [14] (Unreported decision of Tracey J dated 2 December 2011).

  102. 102.

    Ibid [10].

  103. 103.

    Ibid [13].

  104. 104.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 19 (unreported decision of Tracey J dated 23 January 2012).

  105. 105.

    Ibid [23].

  106. 106.

    It is usual for food animal suppliers to vigorously litigate against persons who threaten to expose their treatment of animals—see Takhar & Anor v South Australian Telecasters Ltd (BC 9702320, Unreported decision of Perry J of the Supreme Court of South Australia, 1997) involving an application for an injunction to restrain a current affairs program from airing footage of a battery hen egg farm operated by a supplier falsely selling eggs as ‘free range’; ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 185 ALR 1 in which a supplier of possum meat sought an injunction to restrain display of footage taken of the plant’s processing practices.

  107. 107.

    Apprehended bias exists where ‘a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.’ Michael Wilson & Partners v Nicholls (2011) 282 ALR 685, 692.

  108. 108.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 19 (unreported decision of Tracey J dated 23 January 2012) [18].

  109. 109.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C.I & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511, [31].

  110. 110.

    ACCC Media Release, 10 December 2013 at http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-institutes-proceedings-against-free-range-egg-producers.

References

  • Bruce A (2011a) Consumer protection law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, Chapters 1 and 2, pp 1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce (2011b) Introduction to misleading or deceptive conduct, Chapter 3 in consumer protection law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, pp 51–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce A (2013) Australian competition law, 2nd edn. LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, p 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Corones S (2010) Competition law in Australia, 5th edn. Thompson Reuters, Sydney, p 68

    Google Scholar 

  • Galyean M, Ponce C, Schultz J (2011) The future of beef production in North America. Anim Front 1(2):29–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocquette J-F, Chatellier V (2011) Prospects for the European beef sector over the next 30 years. Anim Front 1:20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D, Turkenburg W (2003) Biomass Bioenergy 25:119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrigan B (2003) Adventures in law and justice: exploring big legal questions in everyday life. UNSW Press, Kensington, p 321

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume DA, Whitelaw CBA, Archibald AL (2011) The future of animal production: improving productivity and sustainability. J Agric Sci 1:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim D (2007) A return to descartes: property, profit and the corporate ownership of animals. Law Contemp Probl 70:89–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehlbacher A, Bennet R, Balcombe K (2012) Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy 37(627):628

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Jones DD, Hann MA (2009) Energies 2:556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee F (2013) False or misleading credence claims: what’s the harm? Compet Consum Law News 29:42

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay DJC (2009) Sustainable energy-without the hot air. UIT, Cambridge, p 204

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin J (2006) Misleading claims and the trade practices act. Presentation to the 8th annual food regulation and labelling standards conference, Sydney, Australia, 23 November 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Mhurchu CN, Gorton D (2007) Nutrition labels and claims in New Zealand and Australia: a review of use and understanding. Aust N Z J Public Health 31(105):105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napolitano F, Girolami A, Braghieri A (2010) Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:537–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittock AB (2009) Climate change. The science, impacts and solutions, 2nd edn. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, p 177

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards C, Lawrence G, Loong M, Burch D (2012) A Toothless Chihuahua? The Australian competition and consumer commission, neoliberalism and supermarket power in Australia. Rural Soc 21(3):250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins J (1987) Diet for a New America. H.J. Kramer Publishers, Tiburon, p 104

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharman K, Kossew S (2008) From nest to nugget: an expose of Australia’s chicken factories. Voiceless, Paddington, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton P (2010) Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368:2854–2855

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinnari M, Tapio P (2009) Future images of meat consumption in 2030. Futures 41:269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winders B, Nibert D (2004) Consuming the surplus: expanding ‘Meat’ consumption and animal oppression. J Soc Policy 24(9):76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, College of Law, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Alex Bruce

Authors
  1. Alex Bruce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Bruce .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Food Law International, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Gabriela Steier

  2. Food Law International, LLP, Washington, DC, USA

    Kiran K. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bruce, A. (2016). Present & Future Jurisprudence of Consumer Protection and Food Law in Australia. In: Steier, G., Patel, K. (eds) International Food Law and Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07542-6_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07542-6_40

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07541-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07542-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation