Ministers incompetence over egg standards

The decision by Australian Ministers for Consumer Affairs and the Small Business Minister to allow egg producers with outdoor stocking densities of 10,000 hens per hectare to label their eggs as 'free range' demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance as well as gullibility and incompetence. Apart from anything else, thjey seem to have overlooked the fact that each chook excretes half a cubic metre of manure a year – so 10,000 chooks will leave a 5000 cubic metre pile of manure on each hectare of land. Such a heavy nutrient load would destroy the viability of the land and would almost certainly create Massive environmental damage particularly along any watercourses which adjoin the land. As a result, this decision may make it much harder for farmers to set up free range egg farms. Local Shire planning departments will find it easier to reject applications as 'intensive' operations – effectively treating them as feed lots instead of an as-of-right use on land zoned for farming.

Myths about eggs

The widespread concern over the definition of 'free range' will be sorted out when the ACCC has taken a few more big egg producers to court for their deceptive practices, and State Ministers for Fair Trading have finally established a legal standard for what constitutes a free range egg.  Genuine producers in the industry have followed the Model Code which sets a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare and prohibits beak trimming as a matter of course. Hopefully it will all be done and dusted by April.  Even when a definition is finally agreed the crooks will still try to find ways around the regulations.
But there are other issues too. There are so many myths around eggs some of which we have dealt with on a new page on our website: http://www.freeranger.com.au/myths-about-eggs.html

Egg labelling is a shambles in Australia

Egg labelling laws and accreditation processes are a shambles in Australia because there is no legally recognised national definition of the term 'free range'. The Queensland Government has relaxed its regulation limiting stocking densities to 1500 hens per hectare on free range farms to 10,000 per hectare.

The NSW Government seems set to reject a Truth in Labelling Bill which has passed the Upper House and the SA Government is introducing a 'voluntary' code for the industry in that State.

Egg substitution has been rife for years but probably first came to general notice in Victoria during 2007 with a high profile case when a company was fined for labelling eggs as organic when they were from conventional farms.

In 2012, a NSW barn egg farm was fined for packaging its eggs as free range and a South Australian egg seller was fined for putting cage eggs in free range cartons.

Also in 2012. An egg farm in WA was caught with a huge overstocking rate which breached its planning conditions. This farm was accredited by a national egg quality scheme but despite annual audits which required compliance with planning conditions the farm remained accredited. The accreditation was only withdrawn once the breaches became public and legal proceedings began.

In Victoria in 2012 inspection and audit processes revealed that a farm was packing and selling non-accredited eggs from dubious sources and that colouring additives were being used in poultry feed – breaching particular standards.

Labels can also be misleading, with pictures of hens frolicking on green pasture, which frequently don't resemble conditions on the farm.

A questionable 'organic' accreditation body also exists in Victoria which is not recognised by mainstream organic bodies and which does not have a credible inspection process – but claims that the products which its members sell are certified organic. AQIS, which registers organic certification bodies in Australia, is apparently only involved with export industries – so it has no jurisdiction over domestic 'organic' claims.

Accreditation means different things to different people. Consumers rightly expect it to convey a message of credibility about a particular product, but to many businesses it's simply a marketing tool designed to allow them to make claims which increase their profits.

Similarly, a logo can be a valuable asset if it is trusted by consumers. But it's value can be destroyed if it is shown to be meaningless. Any accreditation program is only as good as the willingness of the accreditation body to maintain its standards and defend its logo.

That is why it is so disappointing that standards are ignored by accreditation bodies. Even using things like egg yolk colourings should be disclosed to consumers. Everyone expects cage farms to use them to enhance yolk colour but it is neither needed nor necessary on a genuine free range farm with low stocking densities and plenty of green feed.

To maintain ethical standards and credibility, all certification bodies need to defend their standards and take action against suppliers who break the rules.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has asked many egg producers to justify the claims made on their packaging – claims such as 'free range'.

Hopefully this will start a 'clean-up' process.

Egg Corp still can't get its new standard up

The Australian Egg Corp wanted to get its new bodgy egg standard up and running by December 2010 - then it was January 2011, then February/March - now the latest missive from Egg Corp says it won't be revealed to members until May!
Could it be that they have encountered massive problems getting the standard past its own Technical Advisory Committee? They may also be having problems with Standards Australia as well as JAS-ANZ and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Long may it last.
This is the latest info sent out to Egg Corp members:

The TAC met for two days last week with the aim of finalising the content of the proposed egg QA Standard. Due to the volume of discussion and critique of the current content by TAC members, this task was not completed as hoped. Therefore, the TAC is required to meet for another sitting in April to complete the task bestowed upon them.



As a guideline, currently it is anticipated that the egg QA Standard will be presented to the AECL Board at the April meeting for review. Pending a successful outcome, the Standard will then be launched to egg producers in May.


The egg standard program Rules are still with the ACCC hence the new name and logo for the Standard are yet to be confirmed and subsequently made available to egg producers.
 
It seems that AECL is trying adopt the name 'Egg Standards Australia' for its new QA program. It seems highly unlkely that such a name will be approved as it will clearly mislead consumers.

Food Labelling Review calls for agreed 'free range' standards

The Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, headed by Dr Neil Blewett  called for submissions in October 2009 to identify issues that the public would like to be considered as part of the Review, and people were asked to provide data, evidence and/or documentation to support their views.

The Results of the Review have just been published.

The desire to make food purchasing decisions based on ethical convictions and personal values by consumers has brought another dimension to the food labelling debate. The Review Panel recognised that consumers feel strongly about the origins of their food from the huge number of submissions that were received.


Consumer values issues such as animal welfare and the environment were raised in a large number of submissions. Issues such as free range and organic were categorized by the panel as specific consumer value issues. The very narrowness of these claims means that they lend themselves more easily to precise and agreed definitions.


The Panel has taken the view that where specific values issues are concerned, it may be advantageous to develop a prescriptive definitional framework to ensure a level playing field. However, self-regulatory measures may need to be introduced or escalated to ensure that the consumer is provided with consistent and accurate information and not polished positive claims made by unscrupulous suppliers and producers.

A range of regulatory mechanisms, in particular of the self- regulatory kind, can cater to the nature of the values issues and structures of the markets. These include voluntary codes of practice, certification, agreed standards or mandated requirements. All have differing levels of consumer acceptance. Governance conditions, compliance levels and effective enforcement also differ with each.

Voluntary Codes of Practice arise mainly though industry agreement but this will only work if there is a unified industry view. If adoption and compliance is variable it could undermine consumer confidence in voluntary codes.

Another option is Certification. Certification schemes involve the use of a values claim eg. Pasture raised, linked to an accreditation program. This is a particularly useful way of tackling generalised value issues. Certification can provide certain marketing advantages, but consumer confidence will depend on their trust in the endorsing organisation and its capacity to monitor and enforce the claims processes. The use, and misuse, of certification schemes is governed by existing consumer protection laws in terms of ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’ provisions. Their use is supported by litigation, if appropriate, where a trade-marks or claims are used contrary to, or in absence of a contract between the certifying body and the supplier.


A further method is setting an agreed standard to provide clarity for definitions where there has often been multiple definitions and consumer confusion. The approach is particularly relevant to specific values issues. (such as free range.) An agreed standard is based on extensive stakeholder consultation and has the advantage of being able to be called up in regulations or legislation.


In situations where the market is not capable of effective self-regulation, government intervention will be required to incorporate mandatory requirements within the code or in appropriate consumer protection legislation to ensure adoption and enforcement of clearly defined claims.

The Panel has made the following recommendations:
No. 36:
That Food Standards Australia New Zealand consider adopting, by reference in the Food Standards Code, values-based definitions and/or standards relating to specific food production methods and processes, if requested by industry, to achieve consistency of definitions.
No. 37:
That the relevant livestock industries consider the benefits of establishing agreed standards under the auspices of Standards Australia or Standards New Zealand for terms related to animal husbandry (e.g. ‘free range’, ‘barn laid’ and ‘caged’ in the case of poultry).

Hopefully the Australian Egg Corporation will take some notice of this report before it tries to implement its proposed standard.

New Draft Standard for egg producers

Tighter regulations on egg producers are being considered in an effort to improve food safety. The details are in a draft standard prepared by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and if it is adopted it will further restrict the sale of dirty eggs and will require all eggs sold in Australia to be individually marked to identify the farm on which each egg was laid.

At first glance it seems a bit bureaucratic, but, as a small-scale egg producer we welcome this initiative which should help to improve the system.

There are so many eggs sold on roadsides and an on market stalls which pose huge potential health problems for consumers because the backyard operators have no idea about food safety – the eggs are often dirty and have not been stored at the correct temperature. They generally have no food safety program in place, they use second hand packaging and local health inspectors usually turn a blind eye.

As long as these new standards apply to ALL egg producers, no matter how small they should go a long way towards bringing honesty back into the system.

Adding a farm identification mark to each egg is already required in Queensland and it doesn't present much of a problem - it's just another step in the process. But I do wonder how these standards will be enforced to ensure there is a level playing field for everyone who sells eggs. It's hardly fair if some of us do the right thing and then have to compete against others who cut corners by not having a food safety program, use secondhand cartons etc etc.

Here's the submission we have made to FSANZ:

As a small producer of eggs, we agree with the introduction of tighter standards designed to achieve better food safety outcomes for consumers. The current, largely voluntary requirements, have put consumers at risk.

We have been particularly concerned that backyard producers are not subjected to the same food safety and packing requirements as registered producers. There have been estimates that as many as two million dozen eggs each year are sold on roadsides, at markets and direct from properties by operators who have no food handling training, do not have a food safety program in place, are not inspected or audited and meet no labelling or packaging requirements.

The proposed change to tighten traceability by marking each individual egg will be a great step forward and we are pleased to note: 'FSANZ agrees that any regulatory obligations should apply to egg producers irrespective of the size of the operation. This is reflected in the draft Standard.'

Hopefully this means what it says and is applied to ALL egg producers. Presumably the definition of an egg producer is someone who sells eggs (regardless of quantity) and will not include people who keep hens in their backyards and give away any surplus eggs. Only if they sell eggs should there be an obligation for them to meet any new requirements. One on-going difficulty will almost certainly be the enforcement of any changes.

We also fully endorse the use of only new packaging and are pleased that in the proposal, 'retailers are required to comply with the packaging requirements in Standard 3.2.2 which prohibits the use of packaging material that is likely to cause contamination.' But does this mean that second hand cartons must not be used or is there an opportunity for producers to make individual decisions on what they think 'is likely to cause contamination' ? Unless the use of new packaging is mandatory this loophole will be widely exploited.

In our experience, the managers of many Farmers' Markets (at least in Victoria) try to ensure that egg sellers do have food safety programs in place and are registered with their local councils. The problems are more apparent with the many hundreds of general or 'trash and treasure' markets which often make no attempt to regulate egg sellers.