2016-05-15
Dinny Laurence
There has been outrage about the government decision to confer the 'free range label on eggs from farms with outdoor stocking densities of 10,000 hens per hectare. Similarly, there is concern about the evident lack of transparency in the decision making process, in which the views of consumers and animal welfare groups have been ignored.
On 31 March 2016 the ministers of consumer affairs from the Commonwealth, states and territories agreed a new “information standard” for free range eggs. The minute of the meeting as recorded on the Treasury website states:
The new information standard, made under the Australian Consumer Law, will require eggs labelled as 'free range to have been laid by hens with meaningful and regular access to the outdoors, and there will be a ceiling on outdoor stocking density of 10,000 hens per hectare. For the first time, this will provide an enforceable, national requirement that producers must meet to label their eggs 'free range. The information standard will also require producers to prominently disclose the outdoor stocking density of hens laying free range eggs, allowing consumers to easily compare the practices of different egg producers.
It is not clear what this means. For instance:
- What constitutes meaningful and regular access?
- In stipulating a maximum outdoor stocking density of 10,000 hens per hectare, must account still be taken of the recommendation in the Model Code of Practice - Poultry (2002) that for free range hens any density higher than 1,500 per hectare “is acceptable only where regular rotation of birds on to fresh range areas occurs and close management is undertaken which provides some continuing fodder cover”?
- How will disclosing the outdoor stocking density allow consumers to easily compare the practices of different egg producers? Self-evidently all this will do is allow consumers to compare different outdoor stocking densities, which in itself is virtually meaningless.
To expand on the last point above: there are a number of factors deemed important by consumers deciding to buy free range eggs. Most of these are associated with animal welfare standards, including whether beak trimming and forced moulting are permitted, and whether the birds can display natural behaviours such as stretching, dustbathing and foraging. Also important are the indoor stocking density, the conditions in the barn (such as whether there are perches and nests) and the quality of the outdoor range (such as fodder cover, shade, food, water, protection from predators). On its own the outdoor stocking density does not tell consumers what they need to know.
In the series of cases against egg producers for misleading and deceptive conduct in their use of the label “free range”, the definition applied by the ACCC was whether most hens go outside on most ordinary days. This test is swept aside by the new standard that requires only meaningful and regular access to a range, where it is irrelevant whether the hens ever actually go outside or not. In many so-called free range systems most of them never do, because they are often reared inside huge barns housing 20,000 or even 30,000 hens, so that by the time the “popholes” are opened for the first time they are habituated to indoor living. With that number of hens in a barn most of them would never get near a pophole in any event, or even know that they were there. Moreover, if the outdoor range is exposed and bare there would be little incentive to go outside.
Under the new information standard consumers may think they are being better informed, but in fact they will continue to be misled into paying more for a product with a meaningless label.
Public consultation by Treasury
These are all important issues: that consumers are still being duped, that the increasingly lucrative free range market has to a large extent been usurped by the not-really-free-range players in the market, and that animal welfare is being subjugated to profit.
But there is an even more fundamental principle at stake that revealed itself in the consultation by Treasury into what the national standard for free range eggs should be. Because the consultation generated a lot of interest the deadline for submissions was extended from 2 November 2015 to 27 November 2015, and no doubt the overall cost to the taxpayer was considerable.
In a media release on 29 October 2015, Small Business Minister and Assistant Treasurer Kelly ODwyer said: “Stakeholder feedback will be essential in informing the development of any final information standard and I encourage interested parties to make a submission.”
In total 149 submissions were received from the stakeholders in the industry: big and small egg producers, consumers, animal welfare groups and politicians. Of these 114 were published on the Treasury website, and 35 were confidential. There were also 2043 informal comments and 7611 emails which do not appear on the website.
Of the published submissions, over 82% of respondents favoured a national definition consistent with the recommendations of the Model Code. More than half of those thought that the ACCC definition should form part of the national standard but that it did not go far enough; most of the others do not mention it.
On 3 March 2016 an article by Colin Bettles appeared in Stock and Land in which Ms ODwyer is quoted as saying, The consultation period recently concluded. This issue will be discussed at the Consumer Affairs Ministers meeting on March 31, 2016.
There then follows this extract from the article:
Mr Joyce said he and Ms ODwyer had resolved the egg labelling issue between them and the upcoming meeting with the States would be the final tick-off point – but he didnt want to upset that process, by announcing anything beforehand.
“Im basically as happy as I think I could be and have gone as far as I think were going to get on the issue,” he said.
“And in talking to egg producers theyre pretty well on side with where we are now.”
The report of the Treasurys findings and recommendations has not been published on its website and it is not clear whether it was considered by the Ministers prior to the meeting on 31 March 2016.
What is clear is that the Joyce/O'Dwyer decision not only pre-empted the ministerial meeting, it also ran counter to the Treasury's own public consultation on this issue. Why have a public consultation and then ignore the findings?
As Richard Langford, a small free range farmer from South Australia said on Radio Nationals Blueprint on 2 April 2016, “Egg farmers [Australia] wrote the book and handed it over to the Ministers to be rubber stamped”.
Ministers are supposed to represent the concerns of all their constituents, not just those of big business. Why are they not being held accountable? Their decision has received a lot of media coverage, but little has been said about the Treasury consultation, whose findings have not been published, appear to have been ignored, and which was an incredibly cynical and expensive sham.
Photo: A 27 year-old photo of Dinny's favourite hen, Phyllis, with her son, Joe. Dinny Laurence