Australian chicken brands and peak body caught by Court for ‘free to roam’ claims
The Australian Federal Court has found processors and suppliers of Steggles branded chicken products, engaged in “false, misleading and deceptive conduct” in describing on product packaging and in advertising that its meat chickens were ‘free to roam’ in large barns when this was not the case.
The Australian Chicken Meat Foundation Inc (ACMF), the peak industry body for Australia’s chicken meat industry, was also found to have engaged in “false, misleading and deceptive conduct”, by claiming on its website that chickens produced in Australia were ‘free to roam’ or able to ‘roam freely’ in large barns.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) instituted proceedings against Steggles processors and suppliers, Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd and Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd, and the ACMF in September 2011.
“Consumers must be able to make informed purchasing decisions,” said Sarah Court, ACCC Commissioner. “Promotional activities that convey an impression of farming practices are powerful representations that influence food choices,” she said.
“Misleading credence claims can also undermine the level playing field and disadvantage other suppliers. The Court’s decision makes it clear to producers and suppliers that any claims made in relation to farming practices must be accurate,” Ms Court said.
The Federal Court found that the “ordinary and natural” meaning of the phrase ‘free to roam’ is “the largely uninhibited ability of the chickens to move around at will in an aimless manner”. In contrast, Justice Tracey found that at times in their growth cycle, the chickens “could not move more than a metre or so (at most) without having their further movement obstructed by a barrier of clustered birds”.
Steggles statistics indicated consistent stocking densities of between 17.4 and 19.6 chickens per square metre. The ACCC alleged that at these densities each chicken, on average, had access to floor space that was less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper and that this was contrary to the representation that they were ‘free to roam’.
The ACCC had also alleged that the companies had engaged in conduct that was likely to mislead the public as to the nature and characteristics of Steggles meat chickens. However, the Court found that the ‘free to roam’ representations did not relate to the inherent qualities of the chickens.
The parties appear at a directions hearing on 12 July 2013 for timetabling orders regarding submissions on relief, including penalty.
In a report of an earlier case, Australian Food News reported in January 2012 that Justice Tracey had found that Turi Foods Pty Ltd, the processor and supplier of La Ionica branded products in New South Wales and Victoria, had engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct of a similar nature. Turi Foods Pty Ltd was ordered by consent to pay a pecuniary penalty of $100,000, publish corrective advertisements and implement a compliance training program.
Making cheese leaves a lot to chance as a batch could be ripened for months or even years before a ...
KROGER is progressing its driverless grocery delivery pilot by moving this week to remove humans fro...
Earlier this year German discount supermarket Kaufland were advertising for employees in key positio...
Australian consumers who purchase free-range eggs are more concerned about the taste of their eggs t...
Visy, the privately held packaging company of the billionaire Pratt family, is understood to have p...
COULD genetic mapping allow allergy sufferers to enjoy peanuts without risk of anaphylaxis?
The CSIRO has turned to gamification to help make eating vegetables appealing.
Australian breakfast staple Weet-Bix is the latest Australian product to attract heavy demand from c...