Organic farmers and retailers have warned that Australians are being misled by producers who engage in a form of greenwashing by falsely labelling their products “organic”.
Australian consumers may be happy to pay higher prices for meat, cheese, cosmetics and other goods marked “organic” but producers can use the term without meeting any particular standards or being certified.
The Coalition is pushing the Albanese government to support a bill it has introduced to federal parliament that would create a legal definition for the term and restrict its use on goods sold in Australia.
Sonya Dowling, an organic poultry producer who runs Enviroganic Farm in New South Wales, said consumers were being misled and might not know to look for an official organic certification logo on their products.
“It’s not just poultry alone; it’s cosmetics, fruit and vegetables,” she said. “It’s rife, unfortunately.
“A lot of these consumers are unassuming and they just don’t know … And they’re paying a huge premium for it.”
Dowling said she had even encountered retailers using the name of her business – along with an “organic” label – on chicken she had not supplied.
Since 1992 Australia has had a national standard that requires producers of organic goods for export to have their practices audited and certified by an accredited body.
The agriculture department says these practices should emphasise using renewable resources, the conservation of energy, soil and water, livestock welfare and environmental maintenance without using synthetic chemicals.
But the requirement does not apply to goods sold domestically, meaning some products may be labelled “organic” without being certified or made from 100% organic ingredients.
If the Coalition’s legislation passes, the national standard for export would be introduced as a mandatory standard for goods in Australia.
The Australian Organic Limited’s chief executive officer, Jackie Brian, said Australia was the last developed country not to have domestic regulation for its organics industry.
“From a consumer perspective, products that have only a very small percentage of organic ingredients can claim to be organic and can be labelled as such,” she said.
“I often get calls from organic operators that are certified and doing the right thing, and they’re facing competition at the point of sale from companies that are basically being fraudulent.”
Brian said introducing a national domestic standard would also make it easier for producers to export their products because they wouldn’t need to go through multiple expensive re-certification processes to be recognised overseas.
She said some major trading partners, including the US and South Korea, did not consider Australia’s organic export system “equivalent” because it did not have a domestic regulatory framework.
The opposition’s agriculture spokesperson, David Littleproud, said previous efforts to introduce a domestic standard had been held back by disagreement between the various organic representative bodies.
“There’s a little internal politics between the organic groups,” he said.
“And I’m not fully aware of the in-depth machinations between [the] industries, but that was the biggest sticking point – getting them all to agree.”
Littleproud said he believed the government had so far been reluctant to support the change because it had received “bad advice” from the agriculture department.
after newsletter promotion
“If the Greens support it, it will get through,” he said. “And I’m confident.”
The Greens environment spokesperson, Peter Whish-Wilson, was unavailable for comment, but Guardian Australia understands the progressive party is likely to support the legislation.
The government is yet to announce its position. The agriculture minister, Julie Collins, said it would carefully consider the recommendations from an inquiry examining the bill.
The inquiry is due to deliver its report on 31 January.
Most of the organic retailers and producers – as well as the peak body for the Australian wine industry – who made submissions to the inquiry said they supported a domestic standard for organic products.
In its submission, the agriculture department acknowledged regulation of the domestic organics industry had been a “long-standing issue”.
It said introducing a mandatory domestic standard would ensure all organic producers were certified to the same standard, which could improve consumer trust and stop companies from “unfairly” claiming organic status.
But it said two previous cost-benefit analyses had found there was no certification option that had a “net benefit” over 10 years and that a mandatory regulatory scheme would disproportionately affect smaller operators.
Businesses that were “making a genuine effort” to produce organic goods but whose practices did not align with the new standard would face additional hurdles and expenses which could be passed on to consumers, the department said.
Under the Coalition’s proposed legislation, there would be a transition period of three years for producers to become certified and operators would not require organic certification if their annual turnover was less than $25,000.
The agriculture department said this would put a financial imposition on small operators who made more than $25,000 a year but less than major producers.
The Australian Honey Bee Industry Council took a similar view. In its submission, the council said it generally supported the legislation but the change would “have an impact” on many smaller honey producers.
The chief executive of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, Erin Turner, said “organic” was one of many “confusing green terms” that were applied to a wide variety of products in Australia.
“Australia needs clearer rules for green claims,” she said. “Ensuring the term organic is defined and limited only to genuinely organic products is a good start.”
