Labelling laws should provide consumers with an understanding of the origin or origins of products but not become a non-tariff barrier to trade.

More and more, consumers want to know precisely what is in their food; and, ideally, where it originated. Even those forced by economic circumstances to buy whatever is cheapest are concerned about the quality behind the labels. Those concerns can furrow brows at the best of times. The outbreak of serious illness as a result of food readily available for purchase on our supermarket shelves escalates concern into anxiety.

Food produced and grown in Australia is amongst the safest in the world. Biosecurity measures are stringent here and much more likely to be rigorously enforced by strong regulatory and quality processes. Those measures and the enforcement they require do not come cheaply. They cost governments as well as consumers and they might appear to be unduly rigid – until food becomes poison. There are systems for which resources must be found – and those that ensure food safety are amongst them.

Australian farmers produce the vast majority of the food sold in Australia and Australian consumers have justifiable confidence in its safety and quality. But do consumers know what is Australian and what is not? Can they be sure that what they are eating comes from a place where food safety is a priority?

The accurate labelling of food, so that choices are at least informed, is obviously desirable. But it is a more complex matter than it might appear. The term “Made in Australia”, for instance, is applied to bacon and ham made from imported pork and orange juice made with imported juice concentrate. There is no legal requirement that consumers are informed that the main ingredient of a product proudly labelled as Australian-made is necessarily of Australian provenance. Imports can masquerade as local produce, while food that is locally grown can find it difficult to be designated as a “Product of Australia” – because it uses small quantities of imported ingredients that are difficult to source here.

Labelling laws should provide consumers with an understanding of the origin or origins of products. They must be practical, so that they can in fact be implemented. They should not impose unreasonable costs or lead, through excessive complexity, to adverse trade implications.

Farmers have a vested interest in ensuring the safety of their produce. It makes it trustworthy in Australia; and exemplary, premium produce elsewhere. They want Australia’s food labels to advertise their presence in our food. The safety and quality of their produce does not come easily or cheaply. They have worked at it; invested in it. They do not wish to see their investment rewarded by changes to country-of-origin labelling in which the costs of implementation result in financial loss to them. They do want measures that are consistent and transparent, while allowing for the degree of flexibility required in as complex a matter as food production.

The sourcing of ingredients and the transformation of products into items for shopping shelves do not necessarily fit into simple, boxed categories. Any claims concerning provenance need to be qualified appropriately.

Labelling laws also need to consider the realities of seasonal Australian domestic supplies. There are times of the year when manufacturers must import produce. They are unlikely to modify labels on a seasonal basis and might be tempted – if labelling laws force them to do so – to avoid using labels bearing the term “Australia” and save themselves the bother.

There is a danger that labelling laws applied as a blunt instrument in response to particular problems might become a form of non-tariff trade barrier. Under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article 3 (National Treatment), Australia must treat imports no less favourably than domestic products. Labelling rules required for imported products must also apply to those produced here.

Australia is also required, under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, to ensure that technical regulations and standards (including packaging, marking and labelling requirements) do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. To do otherwise would be to run the risk of compromising Australian produce in international markets.

In short, food labelling is not an area where knee-jerk reactions are helpful – to anybody. There are anomalies which should be addressed, but they need to be addressed carefully and in consultation with the industry groups which will be required to implement them and are most likely to be affected by them.

Simon Talbot is the CEO of the National Farmers’ Federation. This article can be republished with attribution under a Creative Commons Licence.