Fake meat inquiry heats up as vegan groups claim ‘protectionist’, ‘anti-competitive behaviour’

The third public hearing of an Australian parliamentary inquiry into the definitions of meat and other animal products has seen strong views expressed from vegans, animal activists, and farming advocates.

A committee of federal senators is examining the regulations around the labelling of plant-based meat alternatives in Australia.

Ryan Alexander from charity organisation No Meat May said attempts to regulate the labelling of plant-based meat products were “anti-competitive” and “protectionist”.

Mr Alexander argued Australian consumers were not being misled but turning to plant-based alternatives because of an increased focus on health and environmental concerns.

“What we’re hearing is that there is no confusion; people quite clearly know what they’re buying,” Mr Alexander said.

A submission from Australia’s competition regulator (the ACCC) said it had never found evidence of misleading claims by alternative meat products, and that plant-based meats were “unlikely to mislead an ordinary consumer”.

Representatives from Vegan Australia said the government should be fostering the emerging industry that could be worth billions to the agriculture sector instead of trying to put regulatory hurdles in front of it.

Labelling ‘far from adequate’

Western Australian Labor Senator Glenn Sterle strongly refuted claims that consumers were not being misled and admitted that he himself had once been duped when buying what he thought was chicken.

“I got caught up myself [buying a non-meat product],” Senator Sterle said.

“I didn’t even check. I just saw butter chicken.

“It’s a little bit mischievous mixing them [meat alternatives] in with the meat products.

“Our labelling system in Australia is far from adequate — don’t start me on seafood.”

Tasmanian Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson questioned whether traditional meat patties were misleading because they contained some plant products, which were not clear from the label.

“Has anyone given any thought to meat-based products declaring that they’ve also got plant-based product in them? Is that mislabelling?” he said.

A representative from the Animal Defenders Office Incorporated, Tara Ward, said the red meat industry was facing normal market forces associated with “change and progress”.

“We hope Australia’s regulatory framework is not used to stifle consumers’ ability to make compassionate choices about the food they eat,” Ms Ward said.

‘Parasitic’ tactics

Agriculture and farming groups also expressed their views during Friday’s public hearing arguing the emerging industry was benefiting from decades of marketing paid for by the meat industry.

The Pastoralists’ Association of the West Darling said that alternative meat companies were trading off the good reputation of the livestock industry.

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but fake meat is nothing short of parasitic,” president Matt Jackson said.

Mr Jackson called for meat alternatives to be kept in a separate section of the supermarket to avoid confusion and tighter controls on “tricky labelling”.

“By using big bold text for the product descriptor and smaller and difficult-to-read text stating that the product is actually plant-based,” he said.

Property Rights Australia argued that some plant-based meat companies were running a “dirty campaign” that relied on denigrating competitors by claiming red meat was worse for human health and the environment.

“It’s very difficult to recall such a dirty campaign in the release of any new product,” said chair Joanne Rea.

“For Property Rights Australia, this represents a declaration of war.”