Sign in to Foodlegal

To retrieve your password by email, Click here

Environmental Food Claims and the Legal Limitations of a "Food Miles" Claim

Date Published
 30 January 2009
 Joe Lederman

By Joe Lederman
FoodLegal Lawyers and Consultants
© Lawmedia Pty Ltd, February 2009

This article was commissioned and published by the Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices in the December 2008 issue of “Impact!” (a National Journal of Environmental Law).

The topic of giving preferential treatment to locally-produced food has been in the news of late. For example, the respective governments of both Western Australia and South Australia have initiated marketing campaigns to encourage consumers to purchase local produce. The South Australian government launched its “Buy South Australian, it’s better for you” scheme in December 2008, while Western Australia launched the “Buy West, Eat Best” campaign in May 2008.

Legal care needs to be taken with voluntary trade promotions and claims. This peer-reviewed article by Joe Lederman addresses the legal issues and liabilities that may arise under Australian law in the event that claims of origin for a product are able to be interpreted by consumers as an environmental or “green” claim that is not founded on proper science or where a claim to “environmental superiority” for a food is not properly substantiated. This article looks at the convergence of origin claims and “green” claims in the Food Miles concept.

This article appears in Issue 86 of “Impact!”, which is available here.

Environmental Food Claims and the Legal Limitations of a “Food Miles” Claim

Should the Australian laws that govern the making of representations or claims in relation to food specifically address the making of environmental claims?

In this article, the author considers the existing laws and standards applicable to environmental claims for food products. He considers the legal effect of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (Trade Practices Act), particular State environmental legislation, industry schemes and relevant standards set by the International Organisation for Standardisation and Standards Australia in relation to environmental claims pertaining to food products.

In exploring the laws and regulations on claims regarding the environmental impact of food products, the author examines the concept of “Food Miles” as a specific example of an environmental claim in the food industry and illustrates the legal risks and limitations of using the “Food Miles” concept as a voluntary or mandatory claim.

The author suggests an alternative scheme for environmental claims that will be more effective firstly in representing the environmental characteristics of food products in a more accurate fashion and secondly to utilise government regulation of fair trading to produce better outcomes for the environment and sustainable food production.

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (ANZFSC) is a bi-national mandatory code of standards for Australia and New Zealand that sets out the laws concerning the composition and labelling of food. These standards have the force of law since they are incorporated by reference into the Food Acts of each State and Territory.[i] In addition, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) may prevent entry into Australia of any food imported into Australia that fails to comply with the ANZFSC.[ii]

The ANZFSC prescribes the rules for making certain mandatory claims (such as the requirement to identify country of origin of certain food products[iii]) or for making voluntary claims on food labels (for example, a ‘nutrition claim’ promoting the food as a source of a vitamin or mineral[iv]). However, there is no actual food standard in the ANZFSC that sets out any eligibility criteria for the making of an environmental claim (whether voluntary or mandatory) for a food.

Nonetheless, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has in recent times become an active law enforcer to prevent any labelling or conduct by food businesses that is liable to mislead or deceive consumers. The ACCC now acts under a specific mandate to regulate the food industry. On 29 April 2004, the ACCC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the federal agency responsible for setting the standards in the ANZFSC.  While FSANZ sets the standards that are adopted for incorporation into the ANZFSC, it is not a law enforcement agency.  This has occasionally caused confusion for food suppliers who sometimes seek to claim to be relying on compliance with the requirements of the ANZFSC in order to mitigate or defend actions being prosecuted independently by the ACCC under Sections 52, 53 and/or 55 of The Trade Practices Act.  The ACCC has always taken the view, and continues to hold, that any inaccurate, misleading or deceptive labelling may be considered by the ACCC as a contravention of Sections 52, 53 and/or 55 of the Trade Practices Act irrespective of strict compliance with any labelling requirements in the ANZFSC.

The MoU has done nothing to address the enforcement gap resulting from FSANZ’s purely developmental role in food regulation. Since the ACCC focuses on national-level detriment to consumers and competitors, the ACCC has not always involved itself in some Food Standards Code food labelling issues where infringements have occurred only at a local level. This usually means enforcement action in relation to food laws has been left to State and Territory and local government officers. In some jurisdictions, this has resulted in inadequate attention to enforcement of labelling laws. Another problem has been inconsistency between differing local interpretations of the Food Standards Code.  In examining the role of the ACCC and the compliance obligations of food advertisers and food packagers, it is necessary first to have a better understanding of the relevant sections of the Trade Practices Act.

Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act states that:

(1)  A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

Section 53 states that:

(1)  A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

(a)     falsely represent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use;

(aa)  falsely represent that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade;

(b)    falsely represent that goods are new;

(bb)  falsely represent that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services;

(c)     represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;

(d)    represent that the corporation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation it does not have;

(e)     make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services;

(ea)  make a false or misleading representation concerning the availability of facilities for the repair of goods or of spare parts for goods;

(eb)  make a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods;

(f)      make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; or

(g)     make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.

Section 55 states:

A person shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any goods.

The ACCC has imposed a wide range of sanctions upon recalcitrant food companies, either for mislabelling their products or for making inaccurate claims for their products.  The potential penalties that the ACCC can impose can include fines (of up to $1.1 million for each offence), corrective advertising and court-enforceable undertakings by which the offending company may be compelled by court-enforceable undertaking or court order to commit to the maintenance of ongoing Trade Practices compliance training, reporting and review programs.[v]

Over the past few years, the Australian market has witnessed the emergence of new types of advertising claims or endorsements across a diverse range of food businesses promoting the beneficial environmental impact of their products. In response to the growing proliferation of environmental claims, the ACCC has released guidelines in ACCC publications.[vi] The ACCC’s enforcement policies against inaccurate or unsubstantiated environmental claims highlight the need to comply with Sections 52, 53 and 55 of the Trade Practices Act and this is evident across all industries, not just food.[vii]

Consistently with the message in its publication “Green Marketing and the Trade Practices Act”, the ACCC warns businesses to -

“[B]e cautious in making green claims which may be ambiguous or controversial, particularly in circumstances where consumers are increasingly placing weight on environmental representations. Businesses must be 100 per cent sure of their ability to back their claims”.

The expanding role of the ACCC in relation to general labelling law enforcement is likely to increase further following the recent decision on August 19, 2008 by the Australian Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs to consolidate the nine separate consumer protection laws of the States and Territories into one national law overseen by the ACCC.

International and Australian environmental standards

Apart from the abovementioned ACCC guidelines for environmentally-oriented claims, all companies would find it useful to consider the array of international and Australian standards that can help businesses seeking to conform to environmental best practice for their operations as well as for substantiating the environmental benefits being claimed.

In Australia and New Zealand, there are voluntary standards for environmental management,[viii] self-declared environmental claims[ix] and on life cycle assessment[x] as well as voluntary, self-regulated industry codes of practice. These standards, alongside more recently developed international standards provide businesses with guidelines as to how and when to make certain claims (such as consistent calculation of a carbon footprint). For example, in Australia voluntary standards apply to the criteria for using the term “recyclable” or for applying the Mobius Loop recyclable logo on a product.[xi]

Notwithstanding the recognition under AS/NZS 14021: 2000 that an environmental claim can be self-declared and adequate once various criteria specified in that standard are met, it is generally desirable for any environmental claims to have been subjected to the scrutiny and certification and accreditation of independent third parties. The ACCC has expressly approved environmental endorsements such as for the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program and the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme.[xii]

State laws

Under State laws, there can be special legal labelling requirements specifically aimed at environmental effects. The most prominent example is the South Australian Environmental Protection Act 1993 and corresponding Regulations which require that the packaging of all beverage products sold in South Australia must be approved by the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency and that all beverage product labels must carry the monetary refund statement as prescribed by the law. Senator Fielding of the Family First political party recently introduced the Drink Container Recycling Bill to Federal Parliament to make the South Australian Scheme a national scheme; however the Senate Inquiry into the Management of Australia’s Waste Streams has recommended against Senate support for the Bill.[xiii]

The True Nature of Food Miles”

The previous discussion about the regulation of environmental claims applies to all products, services and industries across Australia. However, the labelling of “Food Miles” on a food product is an environmental claim that pertains solely to the food industry.

“[F]ood represents a unique opportunity for consumers to lower their personal impacts [on the environment] due to its high impact, high degree of personal choice, and a lack of long-term ‘lock-in’ effects which limit consumers’ day-to-day choices.”[xiv]

The term “Food Miles” was reputedly first coined by Dr Tim Lang.[xv] The concept of “Food Miles” was seen as a demonstration of the principle for consumers to show how far a food has travelled before it reaches the consumer. The assumption behind “Food Miles” was that the greater the distance the food had travelled to its consumers, the greater the adverse environmental impact of a food. This assumption has now been seriously challenged by a number of studies that have shown up the weakness of “Food Miles” as an environmental claim:

1.        Carnegie Mellon University researchers have written that it is dietary choice, not food miles, which most determines a household's food-related climate impacts.[xvi] Their study broke down the carbon footprint of foods, and showed 83 percent of emissions came from the growth and production of the food itself. Only 11 percent came from transportation, and even then, only 4 percent came from the transportation between the grower and the seller, which is the part that is measured by “Food Miles”. Additionally, the study showed that food shipped from far off can often be demonstrated to be better for the environment than food shipped within the country for reasons such as long distance ocean travel being more energy efficient than trucking over the short distances close to where the food is consumed.

2.        A separate Report[xvii] that was published on 27 July 2007, by Professor Caroline Saunders[xviii] and Andrew Barber of The Agribusiness Group, showed that the generation of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the production of New Zealand dairy and delivery to the British market nonetheless generated less greenhouse gas emissions than British dairy products produced in Britain for the same market.

The Lincoln University study’s central finding was that the British product produced 35 percent more emissions per kilogram of milk solid than the New Zealand product and 31 percent more emissions per hectare than New Zealand - even including the transportation from New Zealand to Britain with the carbon dioxide generated in that process. An important explanation for the favourable New Zealand outcome in comparison with the UK was that there were greater energy savings and less pollution in production in New Zealand where milk is produced mainly from cows on open pasture, compared with the UK where production of milk is mainly from cows housed in large barns for most of the time.  The study also found that food production rather than its transport counted for more in the greenhouse impact.  The report also took account of all the methane emissions that originate from enteric fermentation in dairy cows and cattle and from manure management, and nitrous oxide emissions, which are a combination of direct and indirect emissions from synthetic fertiliser and animal waste. The Report included analysis as to energy use and carbon dioxide generated as well as the greenhouse gas emissions.

3.        Dr Adrian Williams[xix] was commissioned by the UK Department for Food, Rural Affairs and Agriculture to analyse the relative environmental impacts of a number of foods.[xx] He concluded that the “Food Miles” concept was simplistic and misleading as a measure of the environmental impact of a food. The report suggested that the short trip in the car to the supermarket or local farmers market to pick up the shopping may be as important as the far larger distances travelled by the food itself, in bulk, from overseas by air or sea.

He was subsequently quoted as saying:

“The idea that a product travels a certain distance and is therefore worse than one you raised nearby—well, it’s just idiotic…It doesn’t take into consideration the land use, the type of transportation, the weather, or even the season…

The concept of food miles is unhelpful and stupid. It doesn’t inform about anything except the distance travelled.”[xxi]

4.      A study on Food Miles in Melbourne Australia by Sophie Gaballa and Asha Bee Abraham[xxii] concluded that higher food miles in themselves were not conclusive evidence of higher energy usage in the total environmental cycle of the food product. “Food miles” was merely one of numerous facets in measurement of the environmental impact of a food product or environmental sustainability of the product for the particular market.

Legal basis against a misleading claim

Given the argument that the concept of “Food Miles” is not a real reflection of the environmental impact of the food product, the question can well be asked whether a claim of “low food miles” could be “misleading” or “deceptive” for the purposes of a claim under Section 52, 53 or 55 of the Trade Practices Act.

I believe this would depend on the context of the accompanying claim. For example:

1.      A mere statement of the number of actual food miles if substantiated to be accurate and measured on a proper basis and setting out the full story about the product  and its components but making no other claim as to environmental impact, might not be misleading by itself.

2.      On the other hand, expressing a statement or an inferred conclusion of environmental superiority over other comparable products from further afield or claiming there to be superior environmental benefit for a consumer of the product would probably be legally actionable as being an infringement of Sections 52, 53 and/or 55 of the Trade Practices Act.

Another major legal weakness of the “Food Miles” concept is its vulnerability as to the manner of calculating the food miles travelled. There are no consistent rules that state how food miles are to be calculated as there is for the calculation of a carbon footprint. For example, food miles only take into account the distance travelled since the food was produced. For the food miles system to show the consumer how far a food has travelled and to reflect the ecological impact of the food, the distance travelled for each ingredient would need to be added together, not just the distance travelled by the finished product. Also, if food miles are to be applied to processed foods, how are the food miles to be worked out for ingredients such as the salt, sugar or preservatives?

If the true aim of the concept of informing consumers of the ecological, social and economic impacts of the food is to be realised, the “Food Miles” concept is misleadingly vague as it clearly does not address the real environmental impact in the full product supply chain and product cycle, and verifying its measurement can be uncertain.

The distinction between geographical claims and environmental claims

While it is clear that using a geographical location for production as an environmental claim can be flawed, there are examples of its successful use. The Prince Edward Island Trust is a not-for-profit NGO that protects the Prince Edward Island in Canada by encouraging sustainable use of land.[xxiii] This has led to a certification trade mark brand being developed for food produced by sustainable farming methods on Prince Edward Island.[xxiv] However, it is important to note that while Prince Edward Island produce as a brand identity has become synonymous in Canada with environmentally sustainable produce, it is the method that is being claimed and not the location. By way of comparison, the Western Australian Government recently launched a “Buy West, Eat Best” campaign[xxv] to encourage consumers to buy produce grown or produced in Western Australia. This claim could only ever become an environmental claim if the whole of Western Australia had specific food production and transportation processing standards that were demonstrated to have less adverse environmental impacts than similar foods from other areas. However, no such environmental claims are being made in connection with this Western Australian scheme.

The concept of “Food Miles” may still have some value as a marketing tool. It may not be misleading and deceptive to label food with its “Food Miles” simply as a way to market to consumers the location where the food was produced. However, the making of claims as to the geographical origin of a product is highly regulated within Australia. A number of Australian laws can apply to prevent an Australian food business from selling a product with a geographical indicator in its name if the product is not sourced from that location.

If “Food Miles” were used as a purely geographical claim, it would have to comply with the Trade Practices Act prohibition on making false representations as to the origin of the goods.[xxvi] For example, food with low “Food Miles” could be interpreted by consumers as being a “local” product, despite some ingredients of the food not being sourced locally. The ACCC warns food companies of the example of its Federal Court action in 2002 against Woolworths,[xxvii] where Woolworths had published misleading advertisements claiming that their beef was fully sourced from local suppliers. In a colour full-page newspaper advertisement, Woolworths included the words ‘WOOLWORTHS: Beefing up the local economy’ alongside the image of a butcher. Woolworths also claimed that all the beef it sold in its local stores came from among 150 cattle suppliers located in the North West and New England regions of New South Wales, when in fact, its economy beef and some of its premium beef were sourced from cattle suppliers outside the area.

Another aspect to note is whether a “Food Miles” claim might be interpreted as being a claim that a food product was either “made in Australia” or a “product of Australia”, and therefore needs to comply with the clear tests in Sections 65AC and 65AB of the Trade Practices Act. Under Section 65AC, a representation claiming a product was ‘produced’ in a particular place of origin still requires 100% production at the claimed place, but under Section 65AB one can claim legitimately that a product has been ‘made’ there if the goods have been ‘substantially transformed’ in that place and 50% or more of the cost of producing or manufacturing the goods is attributable to processes that occurred there. Substantial transformation refers to a fundamental change in the form, appearance or nature of the goods, such that they are new and different goods from those existing before the change.

It should also be noted that Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code specifies that, for some foods, it is mandatory to label the country of origin of the products.

Danger of unconstitutionality of mandatory Environmental Labelling Scheme covering less than the whole of Australia

The High Court case of Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia[xxviii] illustrates the risk of State environmental protection requirements for food packaging being considered as unconstitutional. In that case, the High Court invalidated some aspects of South Australian legislation concerning the deposits on beer bottles even though the law had been passed for environmental protection purposes of South Australia. It was held that an effect of the invalid part of the legislation was to discriminate against non-recyclable bottles used by Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd which sold beer from Western Australia to South Australia.  Part of the legislation was overturned on the basis that the Beverage Container Amendment Act 1986 (SA) was unconstitutional because it protected South Australian brewers against interstate competition and hence infringed Section 92 of the Australian Constitution.

Nevertheless, apart from this offending provision, the remaining legislation requiring South Australian retailers to charge and collect a surcharge deposit on all bottles sold in South Australia was legitimate and was held not to infringe section 92 of the Constitution even though it also applied to any beverage bottle produced anywhere in Australia as a legal requirement for sale of the bottled products in South Australia. 

If a mandatory “Food Miles” labelling system were to be introduced in one Australian State jurisdiction but not across the nation, such a law would likely be considered to discriminate in a protectionist sense and hence infringe the Constitutional protection of free trade between Australian States. The principles of the High Court cases Cole v Whitfield[xxix] and Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia would need to be carefully considered.


It is clear that the making of environmental claims for marketing purposes is an increasingly popular trend and will be held in check by the ACCC ensuring that all claims must be substantiated. As a claim, “Food Miles” is vague, legally uncertain and potentially misleading for consumers. This is due to its very nature as a claim of distance travelled between production and retailer and not a more comprehensive and reliable measurement such as the more accurate calculation of the carbon footprint of a food product. Any food business seeking to market its product based on “Food Miles” must be careful that the claim is not misleading by claiming to be more “environmentally friendly” than competitors when this may well not be the case. There would be a real risk of infringing Sections 52, 53 and 55 of the Trade Practices Act.

Furthermore, should any jurisdiction in Australia be considering a mandatory requirement for “Food Miles” to be labelled on food products, such laws will likely contravene Section 92 of the Australian Constitution. The WA “Eat West, Eat Best” only avoids anti-protectionist litigation because it is a voluntary scheme, rather than a mandatory requirement imposed on all food producers who supply the Western Australian market.

By contrast to a ‘Food Miles’ claim, there could be greater merit in the promotion of voluntary affiliation schemes with associated certification trade marks for their food products that are certified to meet appropriate environmental sustainability criteria.  These voluntary schemes allow the free market to operate for voluntary claims that can be monitored for accuracy by the ACCC.  The Prince Edward Island Trust scheme, which has been referred to earlier, is but one example.  Of course there is also a danger that commercial success in some instances may result in a watering-down of certification standards and this should be monitored, although deviation will be difficult for law enforcement agencies to control.  Consumer groups therefore are important to maintain standards but they also need to be mindful of the legal dangers of permitting environmental sustainability or superiority claims to be asserted in the absence of accurate science that substantiates the claims.  It will then be up to the ACCC to enforce compliance by ensuring that no claim is made if it is not adequately substantiated. 

[i] (ACT) Food Act 200, s. 27; (NSW) Food Act 2003;  s. 21; (NT) Food Act 2004, s. 20; (Qld) Food Act 2006, s. 39; (SA) Food Act 200, s. 21; (Tas) Food Act 2003, s. 21; (Vic) Food Act 1984, s. 16; and (WA) Food Act 2008, s. 22.

[ii] (Cth) Imported Food Control Act 1992, s. 8, 8A.

[iii] ANZFSC, Standard 1.2.11.

[iv] A voluntary nutrition claim promoting the vitamin or mineral content of a food must still meet the following criteria:

  • To claim that a vitamin or mineral is present in a food product, a reference quantity of that food product (such as a serve) must contain at least 10% of the Recommended Dietary Intake of that nutrient (see Standard 1.3.2 of the ANZFSC).
  • To claim that a food product is a good source of a vitamin or a mineral, a reference quantity of that food product must contain at least 25% of the Recommended Dietary Intake of that nutrient (see Standard 1.3.2 of the ANZFSC).
  • When proposed changes to the ANZFSC in the form of new Standard 1.2.7 and proposed amended Standard 1.2.8 become law (anticipated to be around late 2008) under FSANZ Proposal P293, additional eligibility criteria under a threshold system point-scoring will need to be met before any nutrition claim or health claim will be permitted to be made.

[v] See for example:

§  ACCC v Nudie Foods Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 943 – The ACCC took the view that Nudie had potentially misled and deceived consumers by labelling a product as “Cranberry Cloudy” when in fact the product was 80% apple juice. The case ended in negotiated consent orders.

§  ACCC v Arnott’s Biscuits Ltd (29 April 2008; Federal Court File No NSD2252/2007) – The ACCC took the view that Arnott’s had potentially misled and deceived consumers by labelling products, for example, “Apricot Slice” when there was more apple in the product than apricot. The case ended in negotiated consent orders.

§  Tasti Products Ltd entered into court enforceable undertakings with the ACCC after the ACCC took the view that Tasti had potentially misled and deceived consumers by labelling a product, for example, “Raspberry Pie” when in fact raspberry only made up 1.5% of the product.

[vi] See for example Green Marketing and the Trade Practices Act (2008) and Carbon Claims and the Trade Practices Act (2005).

[vii] See, for example, previous successful legal actions brought by the ACCC and accompanying news Media Releases issued by the ACCC in relation to environmental claims such as in the cases of Sanyo Airconditioners Manufacturing Singapore (11 November 2003); Lloyd Brooks Pty Ltd in relation to its “Earthstrength” plastic kitchen garbage and freezer bags (31 March 2004); Origin Energy in relation to its Green Power marketing campaigns (21 December 2007); and Woolworths Limited in relation to the labelling of its “Select” tissue products (18 March 2008).

[viii] See AS/NZS ISO 14000 Environmental Management (2007) which includes: AS/NZS ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use and AS/NZS ISO 14004: 2004 Environmental Management Systems – General guidelines on principles, systems and supporting techniques.

[ix] See AS/NZS 14021: 2000 Environmental Labels and Declarations – Self-declared environmental claims.

[x] See AS/NZS ISO 14041: 1999 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis; AS/NZS ISO 14042: 2001 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact; and AS/NZS ISO 14043: 2001 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Interpretation.

[xi] Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO 14021:2000 Environmental Labels and Declarations – Self-Declared Environmental Claims (Type II Environmental Labelling) dictates that the term ‘recyclable’ and the associated recycling symbol, known as the Mobius Loop, can only be used to make environmental claims on products or packaging where there is evidence that:

  • The collection, sorting and delivery systems to transfer materials from the source to the recycling facility are conveniently available to a reasonable proportion of the purchasers, potential purchasers and users of the products;
  • The recycling facilities are available to accommodate the collected materials; and
  • The product for which the claim is made is being collected and recycled.

[xii] ACCC, ‘Green Marketing and the Trade Practices Act’, p. 17.

[xiii] For commentary on the environmental sustainability of reusing glass bottles, see the article by Dr Craig Emerson (Federal Minister for Small Business), 2008, ‘Dark green barbarians’, The Australian, 20 August at (,,24209041-17803,00.html – (viewed 11 September 2008).

[xiv] Weber, C L., Matthews, H. Scott., 2008, ‘Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States’. Environmental Science Technology, 42 (10), p. 3508.

[xv] Professor of Food Policy at City University, London.

[xvi] Weber, C L., Matthews, H. Scott., 2008, ‘Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States’. Environmental Science Technology, 42 (10), p. 3508.

[xvii] Saunders, C., 2007, ‘Comparative Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of New Zealand’s and the UK’s Dairy Industry’, AERU Research Reports, No. 297.

[xviii] Director of Lincoln University’s Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.

[xix] Agricultural researcher in the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University, England.

[xx] Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. & Sandars, D.L.,  2006  Final report to Defra on project IS0205: Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. London:  Defra.

[xxi] Cited in “How the myth of food miles hurts the planet”, Observer, 23 March 2008.

[xxii] First released July 2007 by Melbourne’s Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Strategies (CERES); report presented at the Agrifood XIV conference in Brisbane in November 2007

[xxiii] See - (viewed 11 September 2008).

[xxiv] See - (viewed 11 September 2008).

[xxv] See - (viewed 11

September 2008).

[xxvi] (C’th) Trade Practices Act 1974, ss. 53(eb), 55 and 75AZC.

[xxvii] ACCC v Woolworths Ltd (No 1) [2002] FCA 1001 and ACCC v Woolworths Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1046.

[xxviii] (1990) 169 CLR 436.

[xxix] (1988) 165 CLR 360.