Open Season on Food Fraud? Why Food Labelling Is Back in the Spotlight
Food product labelling has always been a highly scrutinised areas of Australian consumer law.
From Health Star Ratings and country of origin claims, through to images of fresh fruit and vegetables splashed across packaging, food labels play a significant role in influencing purchasing decisions. Consumers increasingly want to know not only what they are eating, but where it came from, how it was produced and whether it aligns with their personal values.
That is precisely why food labelling is heavily regulated in Australia.
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, administered by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), prescribes a range of mandatory food labelling requirements. Overlaying those requirements is the broad prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations under the Australian Consumer Law. Businesses therefore need to consider not only whether a label technically complies with food standards legislation, but also whether the overall impression conveyed to consumers is accurate.
Recently, however, food labelling has found itself back in the national spotlight.
"Open season on food fraud"
The ABC's Four Corners recently aired the results of an eight-month investigation into the authenticity of food sold on our supermarket shelves.
Former ACCC Chair Allan Fels did not mince his words, describing the situation as "open season on food fraud."
The investigation examined a range of food products, with some surprising results.
The tomato question
One of the main products under scrutiny was tomato paste and passata.
A range of products marketed with representations that tomatoes were Australian grown were independently tested by forensic food testing company Source Certain.
According to the investigation, the testing indicated that some products instead appeared to contain tomatoes grown in China.
This raises obvious questions about the accuracy of country of origin representations. However, the issue extends beyond consumer preference.
The investigation also highlighted concerns surrounding sourcing from regions where allegations of forced labour practices have previously been raised. For many consumers, ethical sourcing is just as important as supporting Australian farmers, meaning country of origin claims can influence purchasing decisions for multiple reasons.
Manufacturers whose products were questioned maintained that they source through reputable suppliers and had been assured the tomatoes supplied were Australian-grown.
Source Certain, however, stood by its findings, stating it had approximately 98% confidence in its testing methodology.
How can science determine where food came from?
Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of the investigation was the science behind the testing itself.
Rather than relying solely on paperwork or supply chain documentation, Source Certain analyses the unique chemical profile of food.
Factors such as soil composition, water sources and local climate leave identifiable signatures within agricultural products. By analysing these naturally occurring chemical markers, it is possible to determine the likely geographic origin of many foods with a high degree of confidence.
It's an impressive reminder that while supply chains may become increasingly global and complex, scientific verification methods continue to evolve alongside them.
Complex supply chains create real challenges
None of this suggests that every inaccurate country of origin representation necessarily results from deliberate misconduct.
Modern food supply chains can involve multiple growers, processors, brokers, manufacturers and importers across several countries. Businesses often rely on certifications and assurances provided by upstream suppliers.
That complexity, however, also increases the importance of robust supplier verification processes. As regulators continue to focus on supply chain transparency, businesses may face increasing expectations to verify, not simply trust, the information they receive.
Turmeric under the microscope
Tomatoes were not the only products tested.
The investigation also examined turmeric products, with laboratory analysis identifying signs of adulteration in several samples.
Among the substances reportedly detected were lead-based yellow pigments—substances prohibited from being added to food in Australia, as well as elevated levels of iron oxide, allegedly used to enhance colour and increase product weight.
If accurate, these findings raise obvious concerns extending beyond consumer law into food safety and public health.
When "healthy" isn't necessarily healthy
Food labelling issues are not confined to country of origin.
Consumers have long grappled with products promoted through positive health messaging that may tell only part of the story.
A product may be advertised as:
high in fruit;
low in fat;
a source of fibre; or
containing wholegrains,
while still being highly processed or containing significant levels of added sugar or other ingredients that consumers may not expect (the downside of which outweighs the promoted health benefits).
None of these statements are necessarily inaccurate in isolation, but the overall impression created by packaging can significantly influence purchasing decisions.
It serves as another reminder that compliance is not so much about whether an individual statement is technically true, but the need to consider the overall representation conveyed to consumers.
The problem with "natural"
Another recurring issue is the use of marketing descriptors such as "natural."
Many consumers interpret "natural" to mean ingredients that are produced by nature and not artificially created or heavily processed.
The ACCC has previously acknowledged that this is generally how Australian consumers understand the term.
However, unlike some other food claims, "natural" is not a legally defined or protected standard in Australia.
This leaves businesses with considerable flexibility in how the descriptor is used, while also creating uncertainty for consumers attempting to compare products.
Calls for clearer guidance and stronger regulation around such marketing terms have existed for many years and are likely to continue.
Where to from here?
The Four Corners investigation has prompted renewed calls for regulators to devote greater resources to investigating food fraud and to take stronger enforcement action where misleading claims are identified.
Whether those calls result in increased regulatory activity remains to be seen. What is clear is that food labelling remains big business.
Today's consumers are increasingly conscious of nutrition, sustainability, ethical sourcing, Australian manufacturing, environmental impact and labour practices. Packaging often serves as the primary source of information when making purchasing decisions, meaning labels carry enormous commercial value.
For businesses, that makes careful consideration of food labelling more important than ever. For consumers, it makes navigating the supermarket aisle increasingly complex.
As supply chains become more sophisticated and scientific testing methods continue to improve, scrutiny of food representations is unlikely to diminish any time soon.
