February 2012

A warm welcome to this February issue of FoodLegal Bulletin. And what an exciting year 2012 is shaping up to be.

In recent interviews of FoodLegal’s Joe Lederman with the Herald Sun newspaper and Channel 10 and Channel 7 television news in Melbourne, it was revealed that Victoria’s system for “naming and shaming” unsafe food shops and restaurants was not working. This article considers some of the issues in greater depth.

1.            Japan imposes ban on Australian poultry and egg imports

2.             Primary Production Processing and Safety Problems with Alfalfa and Other Sprouts

3.             Some Recent Food Standards Code Amendments

4.             Australia bans carbendazim in orange juice and oranges following US ban

5.             Genetically Modified Foods – more applications to FSANZ

6.             Mandatory Reporting Changes for ACCC Requirement

7.             Court case over poisoned Gladstone Fish

8.             Re-launch of the Code of Practice to Manage Pests in the Food Industry

On 9 December 2011, in the wake of the Forum on Food Regulation’s response to the Blewett Report, Food Standards Australia New Zealand was asked to engage on yet another round of public consultation on the proposed Health Claims Standard. The last round of consultation held in March 2009 was in fact the 4^th draft and the 4^th round on consultation in the 12-year development of this standard. However, some new developments in mobile phone technology prompt FoodLegal to ask: Will any of it even matter?

On 23 January 2012, Federal Court judge Richard Tracey J handed down a fine of $100,000 to Turi Foods (trading as La Ionica) for claiming over a number of years that the chickens from which their products derived were “free to roam”. This article explores the broader legal issues and reasoning for the decision.

The ability to make claims that a product is ‘free’ of particular substances, additives or processes can be useful to marketers seeking to add value to a product or brand. However, manufacturers and suppliers need to be aware that there are limitations and legal risks on the types of ‘free’ claims or other absolute claims that may be made. This article focuses on FSANZ’s guidance on ‘free’ claims, as well as the ACCC’s approach to ‘free’ and other similar absolute claims, providing examples of enforcement action taken by them for breach of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Flavours have wandered down widely divergent pathways in Australian food legislation over the past 30 years. Without sidetracking into further history on what constitutes a flavour and hence its definition (both locally and internationally), this article will concentrate on the current situation and possibly the future for Australia and New Zealand.