FoodLegal Bulletin April 2011 Foreword

Date Published

Author

Welcome to the April 2011 issue of FoodLegal Bulletin

Our “Blewett Between the Lines” FoodLegal Symposium in Sydney in late March was well-attended. Check out some of the photos here. We received very good feedback from attendees. Most said they gained a lot of practical information from each of the speakers. The Symposium introduced different viewpoints from the speakers, who included members of the Blewett Labelling Review Panel, a leading university academic, and the spokesman of Australia’s leading consumer advocacy organisation. FoodLegal lawyers also provided legal analysis and a critique of numerous recommendations contained in the Blewett Panel Report. Participants also had the opportunity at the FoodLegal Symposium to network and catch up on food industry gossip.

We begin this issue with a FREE article on Recent Developments in Food Law and Food Policies.

This FoodLegal Bulletin also expounds on some of the issues brought to the fore by the Blewett Panel Report, including my article Sweet cereals don’t justify bitter medicine from food regulators. The article explains how the Blewett recommendation on removing the important distinction between eligibility requirements for nutrition claims as against health claims, is likely to have a counter-productive effect if accepted. In particular, the article explains how innovation would be hampered but suggests a possible alternative solution.

The recommendation of the Blewett Panel Report favouring a specific form of Traffic Lights Scheme is analysed in the article entitled A suggested solution to make Traffic Lights Labelling meaningful. The article explains flaws in the Blewett Panel recommendations for its proposed form of front-of-pack labelling. The article suggests more meaningful ways for governments to allow a health message to be conveyed.

In the article entitled Can the Blewett Panel push for private standards and industry self-regulation work, the increasing relevance of private standards and their interaction and effectiveness in law are compared with other forms of government regulation.

A discussion about the tensions between national food law requirements and the encouragement of international free trade emerges out of the recent AAT decision is considered in the article AQIS denies Free Trade argument in Red Bull blockage.

The article How much of a bad thing: A review of food sampling in enforcement and legal remedies for food companies provides an overview of Australia’s food sample-taking laws, which ought to be of high relevance to all food businesses.

Happy reading!