The commission said its new food descriptor guidelines, published last week, would show food makers how to avoid having problems with the Trade Practices Act. And by clearing up some grey areas, the new guidelines may lead to swifter, stricter enforcement by the commission in the future.
Food companies can fall foul of the Trade Practices Act if they use words or pictures that mislead consumers about the quality, quantity, origin or composition of their products. The commission has taken action against food firms in a number of cases over the years, most recently against Uncle Toby's for suggesting in its ads that its Roll-Ups were made with fruit and minimal processing. In 2003 the Outback Juice Company was ordered to amend labeling that called its product '100% Fresh Orange Juice" because the juice also contained sugar and preservatives.
The ACCC said it is particularly concerned by "the apparent upswing in terms like organic and free-range where business seeks to take advantage of strong consumer demand and where the absence of regulation may provide opportunity for some business to engage in unlawful conduct".
Another body, Standards Australia, is also taking action on misleading use of the term 'organic', voting last week to develop a standard that will be applied to all organic food produced for domestic consumption. There have been reports of widespread rorting and misleading claims by growers and manufacturers in recent months and producers who flout the new standard would be exposed to action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
ACCC Commissioner John Martin said it was the responsibility of every member of the $90 billion sector to ensure they were complying with consumer protection laws.
He told AP-Foodtechnology.com that "we're not trying to stop these claims but just indicating that there are issues that come under fair compliance. And if companies do think there's a question mark or grey area, they need to get expert advice".
"We've been pretty strict already but in some areas where compliance has been made clearer we could be stricter now."
The guide presents ACCC views on when terms like 'natural', 'pure', 'free-range' and 'fresh' can be used. It also stressed that the commission considers both stated and implied descriptions, on a product label, website, or television advertisement, to come under its scrutiny.
"The ACCC believes that consumers would have a reasonable expectation that a food describing itself to be natural or pure should not contain food additives or artificial preservatives. Unfortunately in the past this has not always been the case. Foods that claim to be fresh should not have been processed and then reconstituted," said the ACCC statement.
"Consumers should not be misled by food and beverage businesses relying on finer details or qualifications that are hidden in the ingredients list or elsewhere on the product's label," Martin added.
Results of a pilot study done by the New South Wales food authority and published in this month's issue of the Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition have been picked up by consumer media in recent days as they appeared to suggest that 30 per cent of foods tested did not reflect the nutrient content on their packaging, even after allowing a margin of error.
However the NSW authority said in a statement that the results did not reflect poor industry practice but were due to different testing methodologies and processing techniques. The debate shows however the need for further review of nutritional labeling, an area currently being investigated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).
The Australia Food and Grocery Council said it had 'no comment' on the new guidelines. The guidelines are available on the ACCC website (http://www.accc.gov.au)
