Australian animal farmers upset about vegan labelling want us to know where food comes from... just not how it was killed
Farmers in Australia are ‘uniting’ to demand that the government step in and stop vegan food brands from using terms like ‘meat’, ‘chicken’, ‘beef’ and so on with accusations of misleading marketing and a lack of transparency. They want people to know the truth about where their meat comes from, but not the whole truth.
In Europe, we have Amendment 171, a piece of legislation that if passed by the European Commission would make it illegal for producers of plant-based milk alternatives to use terms like “creamy” and “buttery” or even hint at any link to dairy in their marketing. Likewise, in the United States, the Texas Meat and Imitation Food Act could soon set a precedent for other states to outlaw the use of animal-product terms and euphemisms - such as pork and beef - by companies that produce plant-based protein substitutes.
It seems that Australia is the next country whose farmers are up in arms about pesky vegans hijacking their apparently exemplary reputations when it comes to food production, or at least that’s what they’re saying is the issue.
“It is clear the [manufactured plant protein] sector has continued a deliberate strategy to unfairly trade on the reputation of Australia's meat and livestock industries,” John McKillop, independent Chair of the Red Meat Advisory Council, wrote in a letter to the Australian federal government, as reported by Beef Central.
The Red Meat Advisory Council, together with other industry bodies, also called for the banning of the use of any imagery of animals on plant-based product packaging believing it would mislead consumers.
“People need to know what is in these products so they have to open the transparency around how they develop the products,” Australian Pork Limited chief executive Margo Andrae told ABC. “Don't call it meat, don't call it pork or beef or lamb if it's not.”
“It's illegal to make use of someone else's trademark and the same should go for highly processed products that try to mimic beef,” said Cattle Council chief executive Travis Tobin, ignoring the fact that it’s impossible to trademark terms like beef.
At Surge, we couldn’t agree more that the images used on packaging should convey the truth of how the products were “developed”. Absolutely, consumers deserve transparency to be fully informed about their choices. As such we expect the Australian meat industry to get behind our call to put images of animals being slaughtered on all their products. What about pictures of broiler chickens on fast food packaging, or caged hens on boxes of eggs?
That may seem petty of us, but no more so than getting riled up about using terms like burger and sausage - which refer more to the shape and form of a food item than to what’s inside it - or milk and butter when we already have coconut milk and peanut butter, and so on.
It also seems very insulting to Australian consumers, with little to no evidence that any of them are getting tricked into buying vegan products under the illusion of them being products of animal suffering and death.
Thomas King from the independent think-tank Food Frontier told the Daily Mail that in Australia there was no widespread confusion surrounding the labelling of vegan and vegetarian meat. “These products use highly visible claims like '100 per cent plant-based' or 'vege' or 'meat-free' or 'beefless' in addition to terms like 'sausage' or 'burger' or 'mince' that speak to the utility and format of the product,” he said.
Researchers from the University of Louisville agree. According to a study published last year in the Journal of Animal and Environmental Law, “consumers are no more likely to think that plant-based products come from an animal if the product’s name incorporates words traditionally associated with animal products than if it does not” and that “legislation prohibiting companies from using words like ‘beef’ and ‘butter’ on their labels does not advance the government’s interest in preventing consumer confusion.”
While it is true that makers of vegan alternatives to animal protein do utilise words long associated with animal products, it is not to trick people into thinking they’re exactly the same, but rather to quickly convey a similarity and familiarity, or an expectation of taste and texture.
But all vegan packaging also makes it very clear that they are 100% plant-based or vegan-friendly - after all, they are aimed at vegans and the growing numbers of people waking up to problems associated with animal agriculture. If the objective was to mislead animal consumers into believing vegan products weren’t vegan, Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat and all the other innovators would be shooting themselves in the foot by missing out on an increasingly food-conscious customer base.
It seems that the animal food industry the world over is confused and conflicted when it comes to ‘vegan meat’ products - either they’re too convincing and action must be taken to combat the threat, or they’re a passing trend. What’s clear is that producers of animal products simply don’t know which way to go in a world that is changing rapidly around them.
Being pedantic about the semantics of labelling is just an attempt by industry bodies to be seen to be doing something in the eyes of the producers they represent, but if they really cared about anything more than collecting association fees and levies then they would help farmers move with the times and transition to more sustainable, less harmful plant-based food production.
Andrew Gough is Media and Investigations Manager for Surge.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES
