Melbourne Law School - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemIntroduction(ROUTLEDGE, 2020)BACKGROUND: One important way to transform food systems for human and planetary health would be to reduce the production and consumption of animals for food. The over-production and over-consumption of meat and dairy products is resource-intensive, energy-dense and creates public health and food equity risks, including the creation of superbugs and antimicrobial resistance, contamination and pollution of land and waterways, and injustice to animals and humans who work in the sector. Yet the continuing and expanding use of animals is entrenched in food systems. One policy response frequently suggested by parties from all sectors (industry, government and civil society) is voluntary or mandatory labelling reforms to educate consumers about the healthiness and sustainability of food products, and thus reduce demand. This paper evaluates the pitfalls and potentials of labelling as an incremental regulatory governance stepping-stone to transformative food system change. METHODS: We use empirical data from a study of the regulatory politics of animal welfare and environmental claims on Australian products together with an ecological regulation conceptual approach to critically evaluate the potential of labelling as a regulatory mechanism. RESULTS: We show that labelling is generally ineffective as a pathway to transformative food system change for three reasons: it does not do enough to redistribute power away from dominant actors to those harmed by the food system; it is vulnerable to greenwashing and reductionism; and it leads to market segmentation rather than collective political action. CONCLUSION: We suggest the need for regulatory governance that is ecological by design. Labelling can only be effective when connected to a broader suite of measures to reduce overall production and consumption of meat. We conclude with some recommendations as to how public health advocates and policy entrepreneurs might strategically use and contest labelling and certification schemes to build support for transformative food system change and to avoid the regressive consequences of labelling.
-
ItemThe Consumer Labelling Turn in Farmed Animal Welfare Politics: From the Margins of Animal Advocacy to Mainstream Supermarket Shelves(Routledge, 2019)“Free range” and other higher welfare label claims are increasingly visible on Australian egg, pork and chicken meat products. This paper critically examines the way in which these claims have shifted animal welfare concerns from the “margins” of the animal advocacy movement to the “mainstream” of everyday consumer choice. It asks what has been lost and what gained as mainstream producers and retailers have adopted these label claims. The chapter argues that the growing market share of higher welfare labelled foods and the increasing public discussion and contestation of the meaning of terms such as “free range”, “free to roam” and “bred free range” does represent the success of animal advocacy campaigns aimed at activating mainstream consumers to express their concern about animal welfare. At the same time label claims also exhibit the creativity of industry and retailers in appropriating and accommodating civil society critiques of dominant production and distribution systems by narrowing down the range of contested issues, and sentimentalising, simplifying and de-radicalising potential solutions. This indicates a governance gap - a chasm between what can be achieved via voluntary certification and labelling and the need for a more inclusive, sustainable and official government regulation of animal welfare.