The Senate Inquiry into meat definitions has come to a conclusion with a final report delivered last week suggesting the overhaul of food labelling regulations to protect the red meat industry from being ‘piggybacked’ by plant-based alternatives. 

The inquiry into Definitions of Meat and Other Animal Products began last year, after campaigning from the meat industry insisted that money was being lost to plant-based alternatives who used the word ‘meat’ in their product labelling, supposedly confusing consumers and capitalising on the well-established market for meat. 

Concluding last week, the inquiry committee handed down nine recommendations, including reviewing the placement of plant-based protein products in stores, and developing a mandatory regulatory framework for the labelling of plant-based protein products. 

Cattle Council of Australia President Markus Rathsmann said if adopted, the recommendations would lead to greater transparency in food labelling and increased consumer knowledge on the products they choose. 

“There’s nothing wrong with plant-based food, but you must respect the consumer and be transparent about what you’re selling them.” Mr Rathsmann said.

“We’ve spent decades building a reputation for high-quality nutritious, sustainably produced food that delivers on health and nutrition expectations,” he said. 

Within the inquiry, a survey was conducted to gauge public confusion of packaging, measuring whether words such as ‘chicken’, ‘meat’, or ‘lamb’ used on plant-based labels were misleading. 

Of the survey of 1000 people, 65 per cent of respondents believed that plant-based protein packaging should not be permitted to use any of those attributes (chicken, meat, lamb, etc.). Animal imagery was regarded as the most likely source of confusion for consumers. 

Submissions to the inquiry offered in support of plant-based proteins claimed that the inquiry was a protective ploy from the meat industry who were ‘threatened’ by growing competition. 

Vegan Australia director Greg McFarlane labelled the inquiry an “unfair attempt by the animal industries to ensure their market dominance”, rejecting calls to ban the terms. 

At the Senate hearing into the labelling of plant-based alternative products, Mr McFarlane said “the food code takes into account the context of labelling. For example, a confectionary product can be labelled ‘bananas’ even though it contains no bananas. Ginger beer is not considered a beer. Soy milk and soy ice cream are not considered dairy products.”

According to both sides of the argument, there is room for both on the shelf, even if they are in different places. 

NSW Farmers president James Jackson said at the time of the inquiry that alternative proteins will be an important contributor to the $30 billion by 2030 goal for the agriculture sector. 

“We believe there is room in the marketplace for both animal and plant-based proteins, but there needs to be clear labelling in place,” Mr Jackson said. 

Similarly, the Alternatives Proteins Council said that rising investment in plant protein generates opportunities for farmers and to increase regional jobs. 

“The success of both industries will be necessary to meet the clear challenge ahead: to feed a world of 10 billion people by 2050 with finite resource,” noted the Alternative Proteins Council on the inquiry. 

While the report will be used to inform further policy in the space, no changes have been made to labelling and packaging laws as of yet.