4.1
As noted in the previous chapters of this report, consumer trust in the reputation of Australian-farmed seafood as a premium, safe and sustainable product is likely to have a significant bearing on the ongoing growth of the aquaculture sector in this country. However, this trust is reliant on accurate labelling of a seafood product at the point of sale: what is it and where did it come from?
4.2
A consistent theme from witnesses and submitters to the inquiry was the concern that the current standards for naming and labelling seafood in Australia – whether local or imported, farmed or wild-caught – are not sufficient to ensure consumers understand what is on their plate, particularly in foodservice settings.
4.3
This chapter provides an outline of the current frameworks for seafood labelling in Australia, examines concerns raised in the inquiry by the seafood and aquaculture sector, considers previous inquiries into these matters, and makes recommendations for a pathway forward.
Current framework for seafood labelling
4.4
All seafood sold in Australia is subject to standards and regulations designed to ensure consumers are provided with information about the products they are purchasing and consuming.
4.5
At a national level, seafood products are required to conform with the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (Food Standards Code) and country of origin labelling requirements under Australian Consumer Law, while seafood sold in the Northern Territory is also subject to territory-specific country of origin labelling regulations. In addition to those mandatory requirements, there is also a voluntary Australian Fish Names Standard (Fish Names Standard) which prescribes standard names for all fish sold in Australia. These standards and regulations are set out below.
Fish Names Standard
4.6
The Fish Names Standard prescribes a standard name for each of the over 4000 species of fish produced or traded in Australia. It was first adopted as an official standard in 2007 and its use in fisheries, aquaculture, trade, and food settings is currently voluntary.
4.7
The Fish Names Standard is developed and maintained by the Australian Fish Names Committee, established by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), which includes members and experts from across seafood industry, fisheries, retail, hospitality, and government. It is reviewed and updated at regular intervals, with any proposed amendments subject to assessment against the Standard Fish Name Protocols and a process of public consultation ahead of inclusion.
Food Standards Code
4.8
The Food Standards Code establishes how all food products in Australia and New Zealand must be labelled for sale and consumption. It sets out a range of general labelling requirements, such as information about ingredients, expiry dates, and substances added to foods, as well as specific requirements for certain classes of foods.
4.9
Under the Food Standards Code, in addition to general labelling requirements which apply to all foods, seafood products are subject to Standard 2.2.3 - Fish and fish products. This standard requires labels to include a declaration if a fish product is formed or joined fish. It also provides an Advisory Note about both the Fish Names Standard in Australia and of fish names requirements in New Zealand, but it does not mandate the use of either.
4.10
Adherence with the Food Standards Code is mandatory, and compliance in Australia is generally monitored by food authorities in each state and territory. The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment also has a role in inspecting and sampling imported foods.
4.11
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the statutory authority responsible for maintaining the Food Standards Code in line with food regulation policy developed by the Food Ministers' Meeting, formerly known as the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, made of up of each of the ministers in Australia and New Zealand responsible for food regulation.
Country of Origin Labelling Information Standard
4.12
The Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 (Country of Origin Standard) requires that most food products sold in retail settings in Australia be labelled with information about the country where the product was grown, produced, made or packed. It has been a mandatory requirement under the Australian Consumer Law since 2018 and its use is enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state and territory consumer protection agencies.
4.13
Labelling requirements differ depending on whether the food was grown, produced, made or packaged in Australia or in another country, but in general the Country of Origin Standard requires a statement of origin and/or a standard mark (a green and gold kangaroo logo and a graphic showing the proportion of Australian ingredients) to be present on packaging or a label for the food product.
4.14
All food sold in foodservice, such as restaurants, cafes, canteens and catering, is exempt from the Country of Origin Standard. Any inclusion of country of origin information provided by businesses in these settings is entirely voluntary but, under Australian Consumer Law protections, must not be false, misleading or deceptive.
Seafood labelling in the Northern Territory
4.15
Since 2008, the Northern Territory has required all fish retailers advertising seafood for sale to the public in the territory – including restaurants, cafes, take-aways and fish and chip shops – to clearly state if that seafood is an imported product.
4.16
The Northern Territory is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia to have introduced a mandatory country of origin labelling requirement for seafood in foodservice settings.
Key issues raised in this inquiry
4.17
Several witnesses and submitters from across the aquaculture and seafood sectors discussed seafood labelling in Australia and how changes to the current framework could contribute to significant growth in Australian aquaculture and the Australian seafood sector more broadly.
Mandating fish names
4.18
The intent of the Fish Names Standard, when it was introduced, was primarily to ensure consumers were not confused by multiple names for the same product. However, it appears that this confusion is still happening, in part due to the voluntary nature of the standard.
4.19
Dr Patrick Hone, Managing Director of the FRDC, explained that there has not been interest from governments to adopt the Fish Names Standard into either fisheries management legislation or the Food Standards Code, and that there are reasons businesses may choose not to use the standard names:
… there are commercial gains, let's say, from misleading the public on what a true name is. It's quite true that, if you're eating King George whiting, you're probably willing to pay more, but, if you're eating just ordinary whiting, you might be substituting a lesser whiting to get that price.
4.20
For this reason, the FRDC recommended that Standard 2.2.3 of the Food Standards Code be amended to make use of the Fish Names Standard mandatory in labelling of fish and fish products, to ensure that it is clear to consumers which species of fish they are purchasing and eating. Introducing such a mandate would not only improve customers’ understanding of seafood but may also serve to limit the risks of product substitution and support truth in product naming to assist in the broader traceability of seafood products through import and export markets.
4.21
However, mandating standard fish names alone would not address all concerns from the seafood industry out about species confusion in the market. This is particularly the case for barramundi.
What is ‘barramundi’ and is it always Australian?
4.22
In Australia, the fish species Lates calcarifer is known as barramundi, a word understood to come from an Australian Aboriginal term for ‘large scaled fish’, and this name is prescribed in the Fish Names Standard. But the species is not only native to Australia, it is also found throughout South East Asia, where is it known to the international community as Asian sea bass.
4.23
Currently around 60 per cent of all barramundi sold in Australia is imported from overseas. However, research conducted by the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association suggests that, due to its Aboriginal name, consumers associate and expect that all barramundi is Australian.
4.24
The Australian Barramundi Farmers Association told the committee that this widespread misunderstanding about country of origin, when partnered with the term barramundi being prescribed as the standard name for the species, has provided a competitive advantage to those selling imported fish which is cheaper than Australian-grown and sold elsewhere as Asian sea bass.
4.25
This competitive advantage is particularly stark in foodservice, where there is no requirement for country of origin labelling at the point of sale. One producer of barramundi in Australia, Mainstream Aquaculture, told the committee:
… typically, what will happen is there will be a price conscious wholesaler who will buy the more cost-effective imported product and sell into pubs and clubs, other hospitality venues and fish and chip shops. … there is a direct value transfer—that is, the trade will buy a cheap imported barramundi product and market that at a similar price point to what they would otherwise be able to market Australian product for. The unsuspecting consumer thinks they're buying an iconic Australian fish, but they're actually buying something that may have been grown … in Vietnam or Taiwan.
4.26
These concerns from the barramundi sector have led to calls for the name barramundi to be protected and reserved for Australian-grown fish only.
4.27
One recommendation from the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association is to introduce two marketing names standardised for the species under the Fish Names Standard – barramundi for Australian fish and Asian sea bass for imported fish – which would need an exemption from the usual one-name-per-species requirement of the standard.
4.28
The FRDC informed the committee that a similar distinction already exists for the species known as Rainbow Trout (when reared in fresh water) and Ocean Trout (when reared in salt water). Another example of a naming exemption under the standard is usage of the name ‘flake’, which is assigned to two species of gummy shark but refers only to the flesh product and not the animal itself.
4.29
The other recommendation was to either register a certified trademark for the term ‘Australian Barramundi’ or a geographical indication trademark (used for products like champagne) so that ‘barramundi’ can only be used by Australian producers of farmed and wild-caught barramundi. However, it is unclear who would be responsible for pursuing and maintaining such a registration, particularly as costs to defend the use of a geographical indicator may be beyond the capacity of any industry body.
4.30
For this reason, the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association indicated that the most straightforward way to address concerns about the distinction between Australian and imported barramundi would be to mandate country of origin information labelling in foodservice.
Ongoing calls for country of origin labelling reform
4.31
With close to 70 per cent of all seafood currently consumed in Australian foodservice coming from imported sources, there is ongoing concern from the seafood industry that consumers incorrectly assume most seafood sold in these settings is of Australian origin.
4.32
The Northern Territory Seafood Council told the committee:
As you can understand, when you see something like barramundi or a fish species that is very well-known for the region that you're in—such as, if you're in South Australia and there was whiting on the menu or if you were in Tasmania and flathead was on the menu—you'd fully expect that to be a local product.
4.33
Witnesses and submitters to the current inquiry expressed the view that the exemption of the Country of Origin Standard from foodservice settings is contributing to continued consumer confusion about seafood origin, which is easily exploited by businesses pricing cheaper imported products as if they were premium Australian products.
4.34
Several industry groups told the committee that introducing mandatory country of origin labelling in foodservice across the country would allow Australian seafood products to be better differentiated from imported products. This distinction could lead to significant growth for the Australian seafood industry, as surveys suggest that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products that they know are Australian.
4.35
For example, the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association estimates that the increased market share of Australian seafood from the introduction of mandatory country of origin labelling could lead to an increase in economic value of $100 million and additional 250 direct and 1000 indirect jobs in regional areas for the farmed barramundi sector alone, and up to $2 billion in economic value for the broader Australian seafood industry.
Options for labelling
4.36
Although there was significant support for mandatory country of origin labelling of seafood in foodservice from witnesses and submitters to this inquiry, the was no clear consensus on how it should be implemented.
4.37
One labelling approach proposed was an extension of the Northern Territory model, which would require that any imported product be identified on a menu, such as using a small ‘i’ to indicate ‘imported’.
4.38
Alternatively, Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) submitted that a ‘if it’s not labelled, it’s not Aussie’ approach would provide transparency to consumers without placing an unnecessary burden on foodservice settings unlikely to be using Australian seafood, such as hospitals, prisons and aged care facilities. Under such a model, Australian seafood would be required to be clearly labelled by country, region or brand (e.g. Australian Barramundi, Northern Territory Barramundi, Spencer Gulf King Prawns) and imported seafood would be labelled as imported or not labelled at all.
Previous inquiries into the labelling of seafood products
4.39
Before the introduction of the Country of Origin Standard under the Australian Consumer Law, the labelling of seafood products was examined in several inquiries by the Productivity Commission, independent reviewers, and parliamentary committees, including:
Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy, an independent review of national food labelling law and policy, conducted by
Dr Neil Blewett in 2011 (Blewett Review)
an inquiry into the requirements for labelling of seafood and seafood products by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in 2014
an inquiry into country of origin labelling for food by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
(the predecessor to the current committee), also in 2014
an inquiry into a private Senator’s bill, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015, by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in 2015
an inquiry into opportunities for expanding aquaculture in Northern Australia by the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia in 2016
Inquiry into Regulation of Australian Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors by the Productivity Commission, also in 2016.
4.40
Across these inquiries, views were mixed as to whether mandatory country of origin labelling should be introduced for seafood products in foodservice, and whether the potential economic impact and regulatory compliance burden, particularly on the small and family-run businesses which make up much of the foodservice sector, to maintain up-to-date country of origin information on menus would outweigh any benefit to the seafood sector and consumers more broadly.
4.41
There was also some concern that any regulatory change would require the agreement of all states and territories and that without a public policy reason for country of origin labelling such as food safety or consumer protection, which are already addressed by the Food Standards Code and Australian Consumer Law, this agreement would be very hard to achieve.
4.42
While each of the parliamentary committees ultimately recommended the consideration or introduction of country of origin labelling for seafood in foodservice, both the Blewitt Review and the 2016 review by the Productivity Commission recommended against such an action.
4.43
During debate about the introduction of the new retail country of origin labelling requirements in 2016, the Commonwealth Government committed to undertake a review to consider options for improving consumer access to seafood origin information in foodservice in light of the ongoing concerns raised through these reviews and inquiries.
Consultation on consumer access to seafood origin information
4.44
In 2017, the Commonwealth Government commenced a consultation process with stakeholders across both the seafood and hospitality industries to consider options for improving seafood origin information in the foodservices sector, the object of which was to:
… ascertain whether there was widespread evidence of consumers being unable to obtain seafood origin information in food service, and whether industry had pursued non-regulatory, industry-led initiatives.
4.45
The consultation process involved seeking submissions from stakeholders (including food service, seafood producers, small business, and consumer groups), undertaking an extensive review of materials available from the previous inquiries, considering consumer research and competition issues in seafood and food service, and investigating existing consumer protections.
4.46
The findings were then summarised by the then Department of Industry, Innovation and Science into two reports to support meetings of a Seafood Origin Working Group, convened by then Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science the Hon Craig Laundy MP, in June and November 2017.
4.47
In December 2020, the then Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, the Hon Karen Andrews, issued a response to the findings of the process undertaken in 2017 and provided an update on the status of the work. In this response, the Minister noted that in the time following the consultation:
the Australian and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation considered the specific matter of seafood origin labelling in foodservice and had concluded that ‘based on extensive consumer research, there was insufficient evidence to warrant extension of origin labelling to seafood in the foodservice sector’
the state and territory ministers responsible for fair trading and consumer protection had also reconsidered the matter of seafood origin labelling and agreed that there would be no further changes to the Australian Consumer Law on country of origin labelling at that time.
4.48
However, the Minister’s statement also noted that a broader evaluation of the Country of Origin Standard in 2020–21, aimed to review the standard after its first two years of operation, would:
… present an ideal opportunity to engage with consumers to understand their preferences and desires, and to determine whether any adjustment to the existing [country of origin] arrangements is warranted.
Evaluation of the Country of Origin Standard
4.49
In July 2020, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) commenced an evaluation of the 2016 country of origin labelling reforms to consider their impact on consumers and businesses. The findings of this evaluation are anticipated to be released in the current months.
Committee comment
4.50
The Committee recognises the importance of ensuring that consumers of seafood have ready access to accurate information about the products they are purchasing and eating.
4.51
It is apparent that, for many operators in the aquaculture sector, there could be significant economic advantages in being able to clearly differentiate their premium Australian products from imported products by improving the current regulatory framework for naming and labelling of seafood.
4.52
The Committee agrees with the concerns raised by submitters that while the use of the Australian Fish Names Standard remains voluntary in the Food Standards Code there remains a risk that consumers could be confused or misled about the type of fish they are purchasing.
4.53
Mandatory use of the Australian Fish Names Standard for seafood is likely to improve consumers’ understanding about what exactly they are eating.
4.54
The Australian Fish Names Standard currently provides for one standard name per fish species, except in rare cases.
4.55
The Committee recognises that there is a compelling argument for an exception to be made in the case of Lates calcarifer, known as barramundi, to address the widespread misunderstanding among consumers that any fish sold as ‘barramundi’ is Australian. In the absence of mandatory country of origin labelling for seafood products, allowing for a naming distinction between Australian and imported barramundi products within the Australian Fish Names Standard may reduce consumer confusion about the country of origin of the fish.
4.56
While the current regulatory framework for food labelling in Australia requires information about country of origin to be included on the packaging of all seafood sold in retail settings, consumers enjoying seafood at cafes, restaurants and local fish and chips shops aren’t provided with this same level of information about the origin of their meal.
4.57
Despite repeated calls from the seafood industry for change, decision-makers over the past decade have continued to exempt foodservice settings from the mandatory country of origin labelling regulations.
4.58
The Committee notes that seafood labelling is one of the matters under consideration by the DISER, in their evaluation of the 2016 country of origin labelling reforms.
4.59
The Committee recognises that there is a trade-off to be made between the costs and difficulty associated with mandatory country of origin labelling for the foodservice industry and the benefits of such labelling for both consumers and the seafood industry.
4.60
It seems that a reasonable compromise must be found between the needs of the foodservice and seafood industries. Above all, however, consumers have a right to know where their seafood is coming from.
4.61
The Committee noted with interest the suggestion from SIA that labelling changes for foodservice could be implemented in such a way as to not disadvantage sectors unlikely to be using premium Australian products, such as hospitals, prisons and aged care facilities, which would significantly reduce the burden of introducing labelling.
4.62
The example of the Northern Territory has also shown that country of origin labelling in foodservice does not have to be onerous to businesses and can be as simple as noting on a menu or sign when a product is imported. This model, which has been in place in the territory for over 12 years, seems to be working well and should be considered on a national level.
4.63
The Committee recommends that Food Standards Australia New Zealand consider mandating the use of the Australian Fish Names Standard under Food Standards Code Standard 2.2.3 for fish and fish products in Australia.
4.64
The Committee recommends that the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation work with barramundi industry groups to support an application to assign two standard names for Lates calcarifer under the Australian Fish Names Standard: ‘barramundi’ for fish grown or caught in Australia and ‘Asian sea bass’ for any imported products.
4.65
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with the states and territories, consider changes to the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 to require labelling of imported seafood products in foodservice settings, such as restaurants, cafes and fish-and-chip shops, in line with current regulatory requirements in the Northern Territory.