Although there has now been a decision made on the definition of free range eggs, a ruling made by the Australian Federal Court after the decision, is making waves in the food industry.
The ruling imposed $300,000 penalty on an egg producer because labelling and promotion which occurred between 1 January 2012 to 2 December 2014, had eggs which were not free range and did not comply with Australian Consumer Law.
During the judgement Justice Edelman said the conduct was significant, occurring over nearly a three year period and involving a widely consumed food. He noted that the conduct concerned “representations upon which consumers were heavily reliant” and that the loss and damage suffered by consumers and competitors is likely to be significant.
CHOICE believes the court’s decision was correct, whereas the company and others in the food industry say that it is unfair.
CHOICE spokesperson Erin Turner said; “Ministers responsible for consumer affairs had an opportunity to clean up this market. Instead they bowed to the requests of big industrial egg producers and locked in an information standard that will continue to rip-off consumers as ‘free-range’ hens can still be kept in cramped conditions with no guarantee they go outside.”
Joe Lederman, expert in food law from food compliancy practice, FoodLegal said; “I can understand why the company could feel it was unfairly treated, it was advertising its eggs at a time when free range was not properly defined, it’s a bit rough.”
The case was initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said; “This decision reinforces the position the ACCC has taken that any free range egg claim must be backed by farming conditions which allow hens to actually move about on an open range each day.”
The company has responded to the ruling by confirming that the specific farm involved is no longer supplying their business and there have been various changes to it’s farm practices recently as well as a review of labelling.