Sydney, 22 July 2015: Consumers have been left in the dark over unsustainable food imports with the release of new country of origin labels that fall far short of government promises to help people make informed choices, Greenpeace Australia Pacific said today.
“Over seventy per cent of the seafood we eat is imported, and it comes from a variety of countries with vastly different social and environmental standards, so consumers will still be going to the supermarket blindfolded,” said Greenpeace Australia Pacific Oceans Campaigner, Nathaniel Pelle.
“Australian mums and dads who, when they're picking up a packet of fish fingers, want to avoid seafood from a country where slavery is used in the fishing industry, or where live shark-finning is permitted, will be none the wiser after these labels are introduced,” said Pelle.
Australia imports seafood from 81 countries, according to customs data collected by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The top four sources of seafood imports - Thailand, China, Vietnam and New Zealand - are each on a different tier of the US State Department’s slavery ranking; Thailand, Australia’s biggest source of seafood, is a country of most concern.
Approximately 72 percent of seafood consumed in Australia is imported, but identifying those imported ingredients will apparently be voluntary under the new scheme. This contradicts commitments from Industry and Science Minister Ian MacFarlane, who told the ABC in March: ‘If two significant contents are contained and they're from different countries, they will have to be named on the can.’
“Minister MacFarlane is being disingenuous in saying these are ‘country of origin labels’, given they won’t have to tell consumers the country of origin of ingredients unless it’s Australia.
“The Government has done some serious backtracking on commitments made in the wake of health scandals related to imported tuna and berries earlier this year,” said Pelle.
The Department of Industry and Science conducted a two-month industry consultation on labelling from May this year, before allowing consumers less than four weeks to comment on a range of labelling options. The consumer survey closed on July 3, 2015.
“The Industry Department’s consumer survey only closed 17 days ago, and they reportedly received 17,000 public submissions.
“You’ve got to wonder whether these labels were already agreed upon to meet the needs of food industry lobby groups, rather than the Australian public,” said Pelle.
“Australian mums and dads who, when they're picking up a packet of fish fingers, want to avoid seafood from a country where slavery is used in the fishing industry, or where live shark-finning is permitted, will be none the wiser after these labels are introduced,” said Pelle.
Australia imports seafood from 81 countries, according to customs data collected by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The top four sources of seafood imports - Thailand, China, Vietnam and New Zealand - are each on a different tier of the US State Department’s slavery ranking; Thailand, Australia’s biggest source of seafood, is a country of most concern.
Approximately 72 percent of seafood consumed in Australia is imported, but identifying those imported ingredients will apparently be voluntary under the new scheme. This contradicts commitments from Industry and Science Minister Ian MacFarlane, who told the ABC in March: ‘If two significant contents are contained and they're from different countries, they will have to be named on the can.’
“Minister MacFarlane is being disingenuous in saying these are ‘country of origin labels’, given they won’t have to tell consumers the country of origin of ingredients unless it’s Australia.
“The Government has done some serious backtracking on commitments made in the wake of health scandals related to imported tuna and berries earlier this year,” said Pelle.
The Department of Industry and Science conducted a two-month industry consultation on labelling from May this year, before allowing consumers less than four weeks to comment on a range of labelling options. The consumer survey closed on July 3, 2015.
“The Industry Department’s consumer survey only closed 17 days ago, and they reportedly received 17,000 public submissions.
“You’ve got to wonder whether these labels were already agreed upon to meet the needs of food industry lobby groups, rather than the Australian public,” said Pelle.