News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 Cattle 
 Chicken case leads to "natural" cattle beef 

Chicken case leads to "natural" cattle beef

21 Nov, 2011 06:38 AM
THE beef industry could face a crackdown from the consumer watchdog for using the word ''natural'' to describe its products in the wake of legal action against the chicken meat industry for using the term ''free to roam''.

A former Woolworths executive and now the head of an Angus beef branding company, Phil Morley, has said using the term natural to describe beef could be meaningless.

''My concern is that unless there is a robust description behind what natural means, then I think our industry could find itself in a spot of bother similar to the chicken meat industry,'' Mr Morley said.

He said the beef industry needed a clear definition of what natural meant or faced action from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

He said he expected that consumers would believe ''natural'' meant that the animals were pasture-raised, grass-fed and free from antibiotics and hormone growth promotants, but the term was often loosely used.

Mr Morley, the chief executive of Certified Australian Angus Beef, which verifies the beef used by companies such as McDonald's, said the Cattle Council of Australia would be the most appropriate body to define standards.

He said there were companies which could legitimately use the term natural but there were others that should not.

The ACCC launched legal action last month in the Federal Court against Baiada Poultry and Bartter Enterprises, which supply chickens under the Steggles brand, alleging barn-raised chickens are not ''free to roam''. It is also taking action against Turi Foods, which supplies La Ionica, and the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, which represents meat chicken breeders, growers, processors and suppliers.

The federal government is expected to release its response next month to the Blewett review into food labelling.

The egg industry is also under pressure to come up with a legally enforceable definition of the term free-range.

A bill passed the upper house of the NSW Parliament last month which would enforce that eggs in NSW could be labelled as free-range only if they have come from a farm that has no more than 1500 hens a hectare.

The Australian Egg Corporation, which represents most local egg farmers, wants to allow a free-range egg farm to run 20,000 chickens a hectare to ensure the long-term sustainability of the entire free-range industry.

The truth in labelling bill has been introduced into the lower house but has not yet been debated or voted on.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
There has been a case for a few years now to certify and nationalise the "organic" industry. Currently there are numerous private bodies which certify food "natural" and "organic". This should be a government controlled register so all have a level playing field. Until then what I term organic my potato growing mate down the road doesn't. This will move along way to a better system and can easily catch people who have misused the terms.
Posted by Farmer Greg, 21/11/2011 8:03:54 AM
B.S. marketing spin is just that - B.S. marketing spin.

It serves only one function, and that is to reduce the gap between peoples intelligence, and the amount of money they have.

Posted by Qlander, 22/11/2011 4:45:21 AM
Greg - there are two levels of of compliance in organic farming - firstly certification through any of (I think) 6 certification bodies. Once you've signed up, that agreement is legally binding.

Secondly, last year there was an organic standard Australian Certified Organic Standard 2010, and again there are penalties for not telling porkies.

So be careful if you flog your spuds as organic - and they're not.

As much as some whinge about this and the cost, it's the only guarantee that buyers haeve that the word has any meaning.

Posted by John Newton, 22/11/2011 5:16:43 AM
Exactly right John, who out of the 6 bodies who do you go with? My point exactly!. They all have different standards. There should be 1 standard for all ag industries which is governed and policed by a central body. I run beef cattle on best practise and as organic as possible. I looked into the organic certification 18 months ago. To get certified I had to pay money, I already qualified, but the extra cost did not justify the certification. In other words I make more money not being certified. Pretty good incentive to get certified aye.
Posted by Farmer Greg, 22/11/2011 6:46:18 AM
Scuse me? 'There are penalties for NOT telling porkies'.

Now I understand the organic industry

Posted by Roger Crook, 22/11/2011 8:10:46 AM
Truth and trust and a sense of balance. 20,000 chickens per hectare is not balance, with the economic argument the only one sustained. Feedlotting beef is the equivalent to intensively growing poultry - and cattle don't naturally select grains, but they do eat grasses. In modern farming, it costs huge amounts of energy to produce grain - 10 units for 1 unit of feed energy - and THIS is not sustainable! Grass fed is natural and best.
Posted by Gerhard, 22/11/2011 4:40:59 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you believe that agriculture is going to be able to keep up with our ever-expanding population?

Yes
(31.3%)

No
(41%)

Only if global farming practices and efficiencies improve rapidly
(27.6%)

Total Votes: 351
Poll Date: 14 November, 2011

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...