Country of Origin Labelling for Seafood - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Country of Origin Labelling for Seafood

31 July 2015

Rob Fish

Chair

Northern Territory seafod council

www.ntsc.com.auSlide2

Background

2006

Country

of origin labelling introduced for seafood through Food Standards Code (exemption granted for food service sector

).

2008

CoOL

for Seafood introduced throughout the supply chain in the Northern Territory through their fisheries

legislation.

2011

Review

of food labelling recommends extending CoOL to all primary food products. Implemented at request from COAG 2012.

Review does not remove exemption but is explicit in the requirement for

government

intervention for market failure.

2014

Senate

inquiry into CoOL for Seafood recommends removing the

exemption.

2015

Senate

debate on separate independent Bill demonstrates multi party support for the principle if implementing CoOL for seafood.

TODAY

N

o

firm position provided by either major party. Supported by crossbenchers and the GreensSlide3

OBJECTIVES for Food

Standards

In

developing or varying a food standard, FSANZ is required to meet three primary objectives

the protection of public health and safety;

the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and

the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct.

In developing and varying standards, FSANZ must also have regard to

:

any

written policy guidelines formulated by the Ministerial Council. Slide4

Political Support

To date neither major party has responded to the Senate inquiry recommendation.

Statement from relevant Ministers;

“ There is a need to balance producer and consumer benefits with any additional regulatory burden (costs) on Industry”

The recent Senate inquiry has already considered the costs and benefits and made a recommendation to remove the exemption.Slide5

What are the benefits?Slide6

Producer benefits

Increased demand for Australian farmed and wild caught seafood, leading to increased prices and/or increased production.

These benefits are dependant on being able to produce more product and the consumers willingness to pay more for Australian Seafood.

*additional benefit in the NT has been far greater connect between consumers and industry.Slide7

Objections from food service sector and seafood importers

Mandatory

CoOL would not result in more Australian seafood being sold – the country has already reached its sustainable limit of fisheries production;

Research indicates that whilst consumers may express concerns about issues related to country of origin, less than five per cent reflect those concerns in their actual purchasing

decisions;

Mandatory

CoOL would increase administrative red tape and compliance costs for foodservice

businesses

;

and

CoOL

must not be used as a surrogate for food safety or sustainability information – this is likely to mislead

consumers

.Slide8

Capacity

CLAIM: Australia is at

full

production capacity for seafood

“there

is little, if any, latent capacity for Australian producers to meet any increase in demand that may result from the extension of CoOL

.”

This we now call the “Pinocchio effect”. Slide9

Willingness to pay more?

Willingness to pay less???????????

CLAIM: Consumers are

not

willing to pay more for Australian Seafood and there is no evidence of “margin rip off”.

Australians already pay a premium for what they believe is domestic product.

Evidence of “margin rip off” is extensive.Slide10
Slide11

E

xample menu

Local

Flathead Fillets……………………….$36

Fresh Barramundi Fillets…………………..$39

Chicken Breast…………………………………..$32

(fish dishes served with chips and salad, chicken with Roasted Asparagus, Fennel and Capsicum with a Champagne Buerre Blanc

).

If

the barramundi is imported the margin rip off on a single serve

at 180g could be over

$7.

Australia doesn’t import chicken, without CoOL for

seafood,

imported barramundi

is taking market from

both the Australian flathead producer and the Australian chicken farmer

.

To put this in context if the food service sector provides

1bn

serves of imported seafood a year with

a

margin of $2-3 on each serve, we are seeing consumers being misled out of billions of dollars and domestic producers robbed of this important market.Slide12
Slide13

Admin Costs

CLAIM:

Mandatory CoOl would limit flexibility of operators to source produce based on “price seasonality, quality, menu design and supplier relationship”.

It would create the need to constantly change menus. This claim is evidenced by

reference to a

seafood restaurant and claims menu changes would reach $150,000 per annum.

The menu provided includes

Sydney rock oysters, Hervey Bay scallops, Local octopus, Moreton Bay Bugs, local Flathead, John Dory and Snapper.

The

only two significant seafood ingredients

not

labelled by

origin

are Barramundi and Prawns.

It is claimed that “our

seafood varies from day to day week to week season to season.” The reality however is that the vast majority of the seafood is labelled by origin therefore does not change. Slide14

Using Market Advantage

CLAIM: CoOL

must not be used as a surrogate for food safety or sustainability

information

– this is likely to mislead

consumers

CoOL cannot mislead consumers.

Consumers are confident about the sustainability, health and safety and work conditions in Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Concept of “Halo” marketing fails Australian producers. Net result can only be a loss of market share of other Australian produced proteins such as beef and chicken to imported seafood.

Imported seafood needs to invest in their own branding and consumer trust, not just claim that of domestic consumers.Slide15

KEY MESSAGES

#1

:       CoOL results in an increased demand for Australian Seafood and Australian aquaculture and wild harvest fisheries are well placed to increase production to meet this demand. 

#2:       Without mandatory CoOL, unlabelled seafood on the menu is assumed to be Australian.

#3:       Menus display a large premium for Australian seafood and consumers are misled when this large premium is charged on unlabelled, cheaper imported seafood.

#4:

       The seafood industry has invested millions in providing CoOL and traceability information to the back door of every restaurant, a piece of chalk may be the only investment required to pass this information on.

#5:

       Despite receiving CoOL, the food service sector is unwilling to pass CoOL information on for 

imported

 seafood, a clear failure of the voluntary system.Slide16

KEY MESSAGES

#6:

       Not removing the exemption to the Food Service sector, results in Government supporting a deception worth billions to the consumer and Australian producers.

#7:

       Current price margins are only available because consumers 

are

 willing to pay a premium for Australian

seafood.

#8:

       Mandatory CoOL ensures savings made using cheaper imported seafood, are passed on to consumers by lowering the price of

some seafood

, as demonstrated in the fresh fish sector.

#9:

     Country of origin information prevents consumers from being misled and is a key value driver for seafood purchases.

#10:

      Consumers can be confident that seafood labelled as Australian is from a world’s best practice managed fishery

.

              Slide17