Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3437 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The commission also noted that surveys of consumer attitudes to egg production showed that many consumers were not aware that they were buying eggs from battery cage systems. In fact, surveys have shown that more people claim to buy free-range eggs than actual sales of free-range eggs. This indicates either that people feel guilty about buying battery cage eggs or that they are being misled by advertising or packaging of battery cage eggs. A later consumer survey commissioned by Animals Australian in 1998 also found that 40 per cent of battery egg buyers did not know that they were buying eggs from hens kept in cages.

The egg industry has always said in its opposition to the ban on battery cage eggs that it should be left up to consumers to choose which eggs to buy, and if they want to buy battery cage eggs then they should be allowed to. Of course, the obvious implication of this view is that consumers should also be getting the full information about where their eggs come from. But the egg industry is clearly reluctant to alter the traditional image of happy farmyard hens that it portrays on its packaging. I therefore believe that the introduction of egg labelling will provide a significant boost to consumer information about the eggs they are buying. This is why it is so important to ensure that the new egg labelling requirements are effective.

While I support the work that has been done in the regulation to define the different types of egg production, I am concerned that the key part of the labelling requirement - that the labels be conspicuous - has not been adequately addressed in the regulation. At present, all the regulation says is that a label is conspicuous if the prescribed expression is in the standard type of at least six millimetres. I do not think this is an adequate definition of conspicuous.

For example, there is not much benefit in having six-millimetre lettering if the label is on the back of the egg carton where nobody would see it because of the way the egg cartons are normally placed on supermarket shelves. Interestingly, this is exactly what Bartter had started doing with their labelling. You can see that from the carton here. Apparently I cannot table the carton. The Minister is a bit worried about the idea anyway. I will not seek to table the carton, but for the record I am holding up a carton which shows that the labelling is on the back.

MR SPEAKER: It would also be very difficult to incorporate in Hansard, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER: I notice that Mr Smyth has the same carton, which may be something he wants to wave around. Bartter obviously have a different view of what is conspicuous labelling, which reinforces my view that the regulation needs to be more prescriptive in this area. We do not want to leave decisions over whether a label is conspicuous or not for the courts to decide in a prosecution. We do not want to leave it to ad hoc randomness either, depending on which way the cartons are stacked and so on. This Assembly needs to give clear guidance to the egg industry and the regulators on what it expects of this labelling.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .