AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series >> 2022 >> [2022] UNSWLawJlStuS 9

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Malibari, Noura --- "Healthy Diets Are Sustainable Diets: Regulating For Environmental Impact Labelling In Australia" [2022] UNSWLawJlStuS 9; (2022) UNSWLJ Student Series No 22-9


HEALTHY DIETS ARE SUSTAINABLE DIETS: REGULATING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LABELLING IN AUSTRALIA

NOURA MALIBARI

I INTRODUCTION

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought a multitude of restrictions on the everyday lives of those in Australia and worldwide: such restrictions on civil liberties are justified during a public health crisis. Consumption patterns have been sensitive to the pandemic,[1] reflecting how consumers respond to crisis in light of preserving personal wellbeing and security: we’ve witnessed supermarket stockpiling,[2] cautious and slow spending in the face of economic uncertainty,[3] and lucrative spending assisted by government welfare schemes such as JobKeeper.[4] The concept of sustainability has also changed in these challenging circumstances, and continues to evolve from personal initiative to “business resiliency” and drastic public and environmental changes.[5]

Pandemic anxiety is heightened when coupled with recent troubling statistics on climate change and Australia’s obvious inaction. Former UN Chief Ban Ki-moon stated that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions target of 26-28% under the Paris Agreement[6] is “out of step” compared to our international counterparts,[7] and current UN Climate Chief Christina Figueres has strongly criticised our policy, or lack thereof, as “irresponsible” and “suicidal.”[8] We continue to witness the impacts of climate change on food supply all over the world, including extreme weather events such as devastating frosts on Brazilian coffee trees,[9] flooding of China’s pork farms[10] and extreme drought eroding farmland at the US-Canada border.[11]

My paper examines the interconnection between the environment, agriculture and production practices, and human health to find that “healthy” diets are not merely based on nutrients, as implied by the Australian Dietary Guidelines.[12] This provides important context for the urgent action which is needed to address unsustainability in the food industry. In my paper, I argue that the introduction of environmental impact labelling strongly aligns with domestic and international climate change interests by encouraging the food industry to move towards sustainable practices, promoting holistic and healthy diet choices, and by reducing the intergenerational environmental burden in the years to come. For these reasons, my paper argues that a mandatory environmental impact labelling system should be implemented in Australia.

This paper also discusses various legal, practical and political barriers which may prevent the implementation of an environmental impact labelling framework or limit its success. It is important to note that I do not claim this labelling framework is the solution to unsustainable food production, but rather a highly beneficial policy tool that can create wider changes in our social fabric. While I engage with the framework’s limitations, I will suggests methods of mitigating or preventing the impact of these barriers and challenges in the context of health and sustainability.

This paper is structured in three parts. First, I examine Australia’s legal framework for environmental impact labelling and public health in detail. Next, I examine the key benefits of environmental impact labelling and its potential to improve perceptions of food purchasing and consumption. Finally, I engage with the key challenges of the labelling framework in light of legal, practical and political barriers.

II AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A Labelling

There is no regulatory scheme in Australia that provides for mandatory environmental impact labelling. The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code[13] is a set of mandatory standards which govern food labelling in Australia, including the disclosure of ingredients,[14] warnings,[15] and the presentation of food content claims.[16] This is supplemented by the Competition and Consumer Act[17] which mandates that any voluntary claims must not be misleading or deceptive, ‘catching’ voluntary environmental-impact claims. Any voluntary claims on environmental impact are also governed by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act[18] which applies to any groups which may have a significant impact on matters of environmental significance, such as farmers and manufacturers.

B Approach to Healthy Diets

The Australian Dietary Guidelines provides information as to the kinds and amounts of foods we should eat to reduce the risk of chronic health diseases.[19] The Guidelines treats environmental impact vaguely and as secondary to achieving a healthy diet, since nutrient-dense foods “reduces the environmental impact associated with foods.”[20] The voluntary Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack labelling scheme indicates the positive and negative nutritional qualities of food[21] on a 0.5-5 star scale and does not account for environmental impact. While the HSR scheme is a successful example of collaborative partnerships between the government and food industry, concerns have been raised on its potential to incentivise food reformulation to achieve a better star-rating without substantial improvements to nutritional quality.[22] Additionally, its voluntary nature allows companies to ‘pick and choose’ which foods display the rating.[23] Government-funded education and programs have been focussed on encouraging a healthy lifestyle based on losing weight, such as the ‘Measure Up’ campaign, which encourages Australians to reduce their waist measurement through lifestyle changes,[24] and restrictions imposed on what food and beverages state schools can offer to children.[25]

Australia’s regulatory responses to the rise in chronic health diseases have so far been overly simplistic since they largely focus on individual self-help strategies.[26] In the next section, I will engage with a deeper analysis on how this can be improved in the context of promoting sustainable diets and behaviours through product labelling.

III ACHIEVING HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LABELLING

In this part, I will discuss the various ways environmental impact labelling can promote sustainable and healthy diets in Australia. This paper doesn’t argue that this labelling framework is the only solution that will ‘solve’ unsustainable diets. Rather, my paper argues that this policy choice can encourage more sustainable food choices by guiding consumer behaviour.[27]

A Encouraging the Largest Contributors of Climate Change to Shift to Sustainable Practices

Food is one of the most significant contributors to climate change and environmental harm, accounting for 26% of global greenhouse emissions and 70% of freshwater withdrawals.[28] The road from farm to plate is an energy-intensive one[29] and food’s contribution to environmental harm spans across all stages of the food process, including waste. In Australia, food waste alone costs the domestic economy $36.6 billion each year[30] and accounts for 3% of our greenhouse gas emissions.[31] Our consumption of meat is triple the recommended amount[32] and is responsible for 34% of our dietary greenhouse emissions.[33] Our high consumption of meat along with energy-dense discretionary foods has made Australia a country with the highest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater withdrawals through dietary changes.[34]

Environmental impact labelling has the potential to encourage the largest contributing industry to climate change in the international and, especially, domestic context. Such a labelling framework equips consumers with the information to make purchasing decisions based upon disclosure on the impact of their food choices on the environment. As climate action becomes increasingly urgent, studies have found that growing concern for the environment and consumer attitudes positively influence “green” purchases.[35] Accordingly, environmental impact labelling has the potential to create new competitive interests between companies that moves towards adopting sustainable food production practices in order to appeal to consumers’ “green” interests.

B Promoting Holistic Food Consumption

Not only are current industrial agriculture and food manufacturing processes unsustainable, they also pose numerous risks to human health. High output, factory-style animal agriculture has enabled Australians to increase their meat consumption to the point that it triples the recommended daily intake.[36] This high consumption of meat contributes to the development of chronic health and obesity-related illness, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.[37] Additionally, pesticides used in industrial farming can suppress immune systems, disrupt nervous systems, and lead to higher risk of certain cancers.[38] Despite the close link between risk-factors for these non-communicable diseases and greenhouse gas emissions,[39] Australia’s policy response to health has been focussed on weight-loss and self-help programmes which are ineffective since many factors that lead to its development are outside one’s control.[40]

Due to the strong relationship between non-communicable diseases and food, this paper argues that diets are holistic when they are both healthy and sustainable.[41] Environmental impact labelling has strong potential to act as a wider policy “springboard”[42] towards creating sustainable mindsets and habits. Transparent environmental impact labelling can empower individuals to make more sustainable choices in the shopping aisle, and hopefully lessen their dependence on current unsustainable methods of food production that are harmful to their health.

C Reducing Climate Environmental Debt

Climate change is accelerating and we are on track to reaching catastrophic global temperature rises of over 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.[43] While Australia has ratified the Paris Agreement,[44] we are currently scrutinised worldwide for our appalling lack of climate action despite international commitments.[45] It is imperative that urgent action is taken to maintain the liveability of our environment for ourselves and future generations to come.

In the context of food networks, our vulnerability to the environment and climate change is not new. Food supply and security is largely driven by social factors, and rising food prices are attributable to drastic climate events such as those which limited oil supply in 2008 leading to the food price spike.[46] Another example of how our food systems are vulnerable to severe climate consequences includes Cyclone Harold which devastated Vanuatu in April 2020. This led to the displacement of 80 to 90% of people in Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu’s largest island, and the serious destruction of crops and farmlands.[47] These climate vulnerabilities were heightened by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic which significantly reduced access to aid among border closures.[48] The continuance of current unsustainable agricultural and production practices will increase our vulnerability to climate change and drastic events which risk food supply. Implementing environmental impact labelling directly aligns with the interests of slowing down climate change by achieving net-zero emissions, and has the potential to increase our ability to withstand threats to our food supply. By increasing the transparency of our carbon footprint with each purchase, consumers are in a position to shop mindfully and, hopefully, reduce their dependence on current, unsustainable practices which increase intergenerational environmental debt.

IV BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES

A Legal Challenges

1 Defining Environmental Impacts and Scope

There are various difficulties associated with defining the “environmental impact” of food. While the OECD defines environmental impact as the “direct effect of socio-economic activities and natural events on the components of the environment,”[49] assessing the direct effect of specific food products on the environment is difficult to state with certainty. This is because the food manufacturing and production is an energy-intensive process at various stages before it reaches the plate, and environmental impact assessment must consider the resulting waste of the food product.[50] For example, despite not necessarily being healthier,[51] bottled water consumes between 32 and 54 million barrels of oil per year in the US[52] and approximately 86% of bottles become garbage or litter.[53]

Further, where sustainable diets are “protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources,”[54] the definition of environmental impact needs to be tailored to meet the changing context of sustainability based on cultures, locations and their environments.[55] This can be practically difficult to assess, especially since it may be nearly impossible to generate a definition that is nuanced to the trade-offs between location, culture and environment. For example, while rice is a staple food in India, it is estimated that India will experience physical water scarcity by 2025,[56] meaning that their rice-growing economy is vulnerable to the environment due to unsustainable farming and despite the food’s cultural importance.

Therefore, a holistic definition of “environmental impact” that encourages truly sustainable diets in Australia must be nuanced to the various ways food producing and manufacturing can affect the environment from farm to plate. This may be an optimistic ideal, since it is a significant legal challenge to draft a context-specific definition of environmental impact when there is a “lack of reliable data on global food consumption and composition.”[57]

2 Consistency and Enforcement

Even if legislators are able to draft a definition for environmental impact that accounts for a variety of contexts, further legal challenges arise regarding its practical legal enforcement context. That is, whether the nature of participation in the system will limit the success of an environmental labelling framework, and whether we have the resources and ability to enforce the system in its operation.

First, participation in the scheme should be mandatory rather than on a voluntary basis. Current voluntary labelling schemes, such as the HSR, are inadequate since they have been proven to lead to inconsistent and uneven outcomes.[58] This is because the voluntary participation framework allows companies to “cherry pick” HSR logos to products that have higher ratings, and leading to the lowest uptake of HSR logos on products scoring HSR 1.0.[59] The inconsistencies of a voluntary food labelling framework prevents consumers from being able to successfully compare food choices in the shopping aisle.[60] A mandatory labelling framework can assist and guide shoppers towards making sustainable food choices based on the labelled environmental impact of the product they have put in their cart. In creating a mandatory framework, further issues arise regarding what food products, if not all, would have to display the label. While this paper argues that all food products should require mandatory environmental impact labelling, a ‘stepping stone’ introduction of different food products under the scheme may have more success in practice since it would allow for the early rectification of labelling issues at a smaller scale. Regarding the uptake of HSR logos, grocery retailers’ own private-label products are leaders in uptake regardless of HSR value and this is consistent with similar systems in France and the United Kingdom.[61] This is encouraging since it points to the ability for manufacturers and companies to implement labelling on a large-scale, however also noting that it has taken these retailers years to achieve this level of logo uptake on their product lines.[62] As we move towards encouraging choices that are guided by the environmental impact of food products, we require clear expectations on participation and strict timelines as its introduction expands to include different food products and types in order to maintain consistency.

This leads to the second issue regarding enforcement as, naturally, we cannot oversee consistency and uptake without a regulatory body that is equipped to do so. This paper argues that the ACCC is the most suitable body to oversee adherence to environmental impact labelling regulation. First, as a government body, the ACCC can ensure independent oversight without potential conflicts of interests. The ACCC’s methods and oversight would need to be tailored specifically to the environmental impact context, and therefore requires more than their current resources for misleading and deceptive conduct under the ACL.[63] Such regulatory action may be difficult to realise without an express environmental impact or climate change policy driving priority. At the time of writing, the ACCC does not have any climate change policy but does, for example, play a significant role in discussing energy policy and targets action and recommendations to government accordingly.[64]

Despite this, another advantage to equipping the ACCC to enforce this framework is their past experience with commencing legal action against businesses for misleading food credence claims under Corporate Social (Ir)responsibility.[65] Not only do they have a history of enforcing the food industry’s non-compliance with the ACL, their investigations and litigation are also a deterrence mechanism to encourage compliance and cooperation rather than risk timely and costly dispute resolution.[66] For this reason, they are also deemed as a trustworthy and legitimate body for protecting consumers’ interests. Their numerous actions against food companies and manufacturers in the past coupled with their ‘presentational action’ to the public has solidified their position as catering to the welfare of the community.[67] Accordingly, the ACCC is a promising government body to oversee and enforce environmental impact labelling regulation in a manner that will deter corporate non-compliance whilst being trusted by the wider public as a legitimate ‘protector’ of the public interest.

B Practical Challenges and Risks

1 Bearing the Financial Burden

Current agricultural practices in Australia alone comes at a great cost to our climate, amounting to approximately 13% of our annual greenhouse gas emissions,[68] not including the carbon emissions associated with packaging and transporting products from farm to plate, and its resulting waste. While Australia provides little government assistance to producers, totalling to approximately 2% of farmers’ revenues each year,[69] the direct and indirect costs of industrial agriculture and unhealthy diets on the state are high. For example, obesity and obesity-related illnesses is estimated to cost $11.8 billion each year.[70] Currently, these costs are not borne by food producers and manufactures, rather they are borne by the state through the federal Medicare system, paid through taxes rather than at the aisle.

The implementation of environmental impact labelling shifts the burden of paying these environmental and health costs, which may lead to strong opposition of the framework. First, the cost of calculating the environmental impact of a food product may be high, especially if there are numerous stages of processing and transport before it reaches the supermarket shelf. Further, there are additional costs accumulated with redesigning, relabelling, writing off “old” stock and changing production practices.[71] These additional costs risks “pushing out” small producers and manufacturers who are unable to exploit economies of scale, thus concentrating the burden on some more than others. Additionally, the cost of compliance and possible litigation with the chosen regulatory body – such as the ACCC – may increase on a larger scale if the framework is mandatory. These costs are likely to be transferred to the consumer in the shopping aisle, which may not be welcomed despite rising climate change concerns. In the US, for example, while 50% of shoppers say they’re more inclined to buy an ‘eco-friendly’ product, only 40% are willing to pay more for it.[72] Regarding enforcement mechanisms, there may also be difficulty in directing taxpayer funds towards the ACCC or chosen regulatory body to give them the resources to effectively oversee the framework.

In practically applying an environmental impact labelling framework, there are numerous costs that will be shifted to different stakeholders, which has been briefly discussed. To mitigate the challenges posed by shifting the financial burden, the framework must be designed to reduce the operational costs as much as possible. This will encourage compliance and assist small-scale producers and manufacturers who may otherwise be pushed out of the market.

2 Reinforcing Social Inequity

Concerns have been raised over the unique set of challenges faced by low-SES communities who may be disproportionately impacted by the introduction of environmental impact labelling.[73] Studies have shown that there is a relationship between nutrition and socioeconomic status,[74] and low-SES households are more likely to purchase ‘non-core’ snack foods and consume unhealthy diets.[75] Herein, I briefly discuss some key areas of this deeply complex socioeconomic relationship and how this may affect an environmental impact labelling framework.

First, there are issues of access to healthy foods that are produced sustainably. Low-SES communities are more likely to have high exposure to ‘non-core’ foods, such as snacks and soft drinks, at the supermarket.[76] They are also more likely to consume high-energy, cheap snacks and fast food in their local environment,[77] despite being unsustainably produced. Secondly, low-SES communities are less likely to read and use nutritional information on food packaging[78] due to the “cryptic and deceptive” labelling formats that rely on prior consumer understanding and education.[79] Finally, higher actual and perceived costs to buying healthy food[80] can deter low-income shoppers from making food product choices that create sustainable diets. This is unsurprising when we consider the history of organic food and produce, whose perceived environmental benefits have led to common price premiums.[81]

Therefore, while environmental impact labelling may assist consumers to make more sustainable food choices, there is a high risk that these choices won’t be made by low-income households due to limitations in access, translation of labels and higher price points. These risks may reinforce current socioeconomic nutritional disparities and deter engagement with sustainable diets. Accordingly, environmental impact labelling may not be an appropriate solution to address this nutritional disparity.

3 Consumer Visibility and Potential to “Greenwash”

Eco-centric labelling frameworks are only effective when consumers trust the labelled information and understand what it means.[82] Barriers relating to consumer understanding and trust of environmental impact labelling may limit its benefits in practice.

First, environmental impact labelling may not achieve the aforementioned goals of encouraging sustainable diets if shoppers can’t identify or don’t know how to understand labels. Australians generally have a poor understanding of labels and their formats,[83] and current eco-friendly labelling practices are more likely to be used by shoppers who have higher levels of education.[84] If our aim is to guide sustainable food choices effectively, the labelling framework must consider this informational gap in order to maximise its potential benefits to shoppers. A simple logo, such as used in the HSR or Germany’s “Green Dot” System, may not be effective in this context and legislators should look to use a label format that provides more information.[85] These labelling efforts will need to complement wider food education programmes in order to enhance consumers’ understanding of the label and encourage its use. This is particularly important for generating awareness of sustainable diets in low-SES communities, where it has been found that voluntary labels that aren’t paired with educational programmes are less useful to them.[86]

This leads us to the second issue regarding consumer trust of the label. Environmental impact labelling can potentially deter consumers from purchasing the product if they are sceptical of the label information as corporate “greenwashing.”[87] Such aversion to greenwashing tactics has been previously witnessed with organic food labelling in Australia which has a 7.9% price premium[88] and often without due substantiation of organic claims.[89] Noting that issues with organic labelling arose in an unlegislated context that relied on ex-post investigation by the ACCC,[90] legislators can narrow the type of claims that can be made through their definition of “environmental impact.”[91] Moreover, consumer trust can be generated in environmental impact labelling through advertising and educational programmes brought by the government, who is perceived as a credible body.[92]

C Political Challenges

1 Lobbyists and Corporate Resistance

Food industry lobbyists play an enormous role in government food policy and legislative action. This is not surprising since food is the top manufacturing industry in Australia.[93] The food industry has the resources to strongly oppose new labelling regulation, and they also have access to more “insider” knowledge as witnessed with the increasing number of former government representatives moving into roles within the food industry.[94]

A mandatory environmental impact labelling scheme is likely to receive corporate resistance, becoming subject to strong attempts to lobby against the framework. This is because such a scheme would create a new competitive market surrounding the environmental impact of food which has previously gone largely unnoticed by consumers. This is not only the case in Australia, noting the food industry’s €1 billion spent successfully lobbying against a “traffic light” labelling regime in Europe.[95] Direct lobbying is only the “tip of the iceberg” and the food industry frequently employs delaying tactics, such as encouraging voluntary labelling schemes like the HSR,[96] and funding research aimed at keeping the wider public doubtful of proposed government schemes.[97]

Our political vulnerability to the food industry is heightened by the nature of our federal system, whereby the elected government of the day is voted in on short, 4-year terms that don’t necessarily complement long-term issues in our social fabric, such as unsustainable diets. While current Prime Minister Scott Morrison has promised net-zero emissions by 2050,[98] Australia has a track record of not meeting international environmental agreements and is frequently scrutinised for our lack of action on climate change under the Paris Agreement and its predecessor, the Kyoto Agreement. Morrison has recently stated this target can be reached with “plans” that don’t require legislation, however such “soft law” is not effective in achieving international climate change commitments under a dualist legal system.[99] A mandatory and legislated commitment to environmental impact labelling aligns with the interests of sustainability and preserving our natural environment in the spirit of international commitments such as the Paris Agreement.

2 International Trade and Investment

While concerns have been raised on the effects of eco-labelling on international trade,[100] there is a lack of literature that provides strong evidence of these potential risks.[101] Nevertheless, this paper will briefly identify the various trade and investment implications of creating an environmental impact labelling framework in Australia.

This paper argues that trade and investment risks lie largely with international companies that have export interests in Australia’s food economy. Mainly, a labelling scheme has the potential to put foreign food products at a market disadvantage. The cost of relabelling and repackaging may be greater for foreign manufacturers and growers, particularly for those in developing countries.[102] There are further indirect costs if companies have to change practices or forgo other opportunities in order to continue selling their products in Australia. For example, the Indian Ecomark introduced bans on certain dyes in order to keep the Ecomark label which was favourable to them in the European textile consumer market.[103] Considering that Australia is a relatively small importer compared to food economies worldwide,[104] foreign trade may be deterred if the costs of environmental impact labelling outweigh profit. We have already seen the effects of market disadvantage that has arisen from new food labelling regulation. For example, Germany’s Green Dot programme required all companies who didn’t implement labelling, regardless of nationality, to take back their packages and recycle them at their own cost. While this rule was applied equally, foreign companies were at a cost disadvantage compared to their local competitors.[105]

Accordingly, the environmental impact labelling framework must be developed in a manner that doesn’t create barriers to trade that may deter investment or “push out” smaller competitors from the Australian market. Australia may wish to tailor environmental impact labelling to complement other systems which are already in use worldwide, such as Germany’s Green Dot programme, so that it reduces costs to international exporters. Such a system would be made more effective by reference to current labelling frameworks in New Zealand, the United States, Thailand, China and Singapore, who are Australia’s top food import partners.[106]

V CONCLUSION

To date, Australia’s response towards climate action and holistic diets has been lacking. This paper strongly argues that environmental impact labelling can incite widespread, positive changes that both protect the environment and nurture human health. While numerous legal, practical and political challenges arise in the implementation of this policy, there are numerous ways these can be mitigated or prevented in order to maximise the potential benefits of this new form of mandatory labelling. This form of action is invaluable towards fully realising our international and personal commitments towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Articles/Books/Reports

‘Australia's plan to reach our net zero target by 2050’ (Joint media release with Prime Minister the Hon Scott Morrison MP, 26 October 2021)

Arnold, Emily and Larsen, Janet, ‘Bottled Water: Pouring Resources Down the Drain’ (online, Earth Policy Institute, 2 February 2006) http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update51

Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, ‘ACCC role in energy’ (online) <https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/energy/accc-role-in-energy>

Australian Government Treasury, ‘Insights from the first six months of JobKeeper’ (Report, October 2021) 25

Australian Government, ‘Measure Up’ Campaign (2008) <https://www.gethealthynsw.com.au/healthier-you/healthy-weight/measure-up/>

Australian Institute of Family Studies, ‘Families in Australia Survey: Life during COVID-19 – Report no. 6: Financial wellbeing and COVID-19’ (Report, November 2020)

Bernis, Álvaro, ‘Making trade greener: When environmental protection turns into trade protection’ (The Economist, online, 9 October 2021) <https://www.economist.com/special-report/2021/10/06/making-trade-greener>

Blundell, Richard et al, ‘Could COVID-19 infect the consumer prices index?’ (2020) 41(2) Fiscal Studies 357

Butler, Colin, ‘Famine, hunger, society and climate change’ in Climate Change and Global Health (CABI, 2014)

Byrnes, Rebecca and Lawrence, Peter, ‘Can 'Soft Law' Solve 'Hard Problems'? Justice, Legal Form and the Durban-Mandated Climate Negotiations’ [2015] UTasLawRw 3; (2015) 34(1) University of Tasmania Law Review 34

Cameron, Adrian et al, ‘Variation in supermarket exposure to energy-dense snack foods by socio-economic position’ (2013) 16(7) Pulbic Health Nutrition 1178

Capacci, Sara et al, ‘Policies to Promote Healthy Eating in Europe: A Structured Review of Policies and Their Effectiveness’ (2012) 70(3) Nutrition Reviews 188

Chen, Yu-Shan and Chang, Ching-Hsun, ‘Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer

Chenarides, Lauren et al, ‘Food consumption behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic’ (2020) 37(1) Agribusiness 44

Chow, Emily, ‘'The sky has fallen': Chinese farmers see livelihoods washed away by floods’ (online, Reuters, 27 July 2021) <https://www.reuters.com/world/china/sky-has-fallen-chinese-farmers-see-livelihoods-washed-away-by-floods-2021-07-26/>

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, ‘Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: March 2019’ (Report, March 2019)

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, ‘Tackling Australia’s food waste’ (online) <https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste>

Concepcion, Edward, ‘Exploring The Relationship Between Food, Environmental Impact Labelling And Socio-Economic Status’ (2021) 21(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

confusion and green perceived risk’ (2013) 114 Journal of Business Ethics 489

Corporate Europe Observatory, ‘A red light for consumer information’ (online, 10 June 2010) <https://corporateeurope.org/en/2010/06/red-light-consumer-information>

D’Souza, Clare et al, ‘Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels’ (2006) 31(4) International Journal of Consumer Studies 371

Dana, Liyuwork et al, ‘Consumers’ views on the importance of specific front-of-pack nutrition information: A latent profile analysis’ (2019) 11(5) Nutrients 1158

de Irala-Estéves, Jokin et al, ‘A systematic review of socio-economic differences in food habits in Europe: consumption of fruit and vegetables’ (2000) 54(9) European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 706

Do, Christina, ‘Organic Food Labelling in Australia: A 'Murky Environment' in Need of Reform’ [ [2015] UQLawJl 6; (2015) 34(1) University of Queensland Law Journal 123

Effectiveness’ (2012) 70(3) Nutrition Reviews 188

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Labelling: Issues, Policies, and Practices Worldwide (Report, 1998)

FAO, Barbara Burlingame and Sandro Dernini (eds), ‘Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity’ (Paper, 2010)

Francesca Viliani, ‘How Has COVID-19 Changed the Role of Sustainability for Organisations’ (online, International SOS) <https://www.internationalsos.com/insights/how-has-covid-19-changed-the-role-of-sustainability-for-organisations>

Friel, Sharon et al, ‘Public Health Benefits of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions: Food and Agriculture’ (2009) 374 The Lancet 2016

Gallastegui, Ibon, ‘The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature’ (2002) 12 European Environment 316

Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network, Climate Change Performance Index 2022 (Report, November 2021)

Gleick, Peter and Cooley, Heather, ‘Energy Implications of Bottled Water’ (2009) 4 Environmental Research Letters 1

Grant, Tasmin, ‘Why is frost in Brazil causing global coffee prices to increase?’ (online, Perfect Daily Grind, 29 July 2021) <https://perfectdailygrind.com/2021/07/why-is-frost-in-brazil-causing-global-coffee-prices-to-increase/>

Greenville, Jared, ‘Analysis of government support for Australian agricultural producers’ (Research Paper, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, May 2020)

Greenville, Jared, ‘Australia’s place in global agriculture and food value chains’ (online, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, last updated 13 January 2021) <https://www.awe.gov.au/abares/products/insights/global-agriculture-and-food-value-chains#where-does-australian-agriculture-fit-within-gvcs>

Health Star Rating Advisory Committee, ‘Health Star Rating System Five Year Review Report’ (Draft Report, February 2019)

Health Star Rating Advisory Committee, ‘Health Star Rating System Five Year Review Report’ (Final Report, May 2019)

Hendrie, Gilly, ‘Overconsumption of Energy and Excessive Discretionary Food Intake Inflates Dietary Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Australia’ (2016) 8(11) Nutrients 890

Higgins, Isabella and Cannane, Steve, ‘Architect of Paris agreement Christiana Figueres blasts Australia's net zero target’ (online, ABC News, 2 November 2021) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-01/australia-has-suicidal-climate-policy-says-figueres/100584192>

Hobill, Sharn and Sanderson, Jay, ’Not Free to Roam: Misleading Food Credence Claims, the ACCC and the Need for Corporate Social Responsibility [2017] MonashULawRw 4; (2017) 43(1) Monash University Law Review 113

Horne, Ralph, ‘Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability

and routes to sustainable consumption’ (2009) 33 International Journal of Consumer Studies 175

Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert and Walker, Polly, ‘How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture’ (2002) 110(5) Environmental Health Perspectives 445

IBISWorld Top 100 List, ‘Australia’s Top 100 Manufacturers’ (Report, 2020) <https://www.australianmanufacturing.com.au/advanced-manufacturings-top-100-manufacturers-in-australia/>

Ingwersen, Julie and Nickel, Rod, ‘Nervous North American farmers set to ‘seed in faith’ into parched soils’ (online, Reuters, 12 April 2021) <https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nervous-north-american-farmers-set-seed-faith-into-parched-soils-2021-04-12/>

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers’ (Report, 2021)

Ipsos Public Affairs, ‘Nearly Half of Adults Are More Inclined to Buy Eco-Friendly Products, and Four in Ten Would Pay More for Them’ (Survey report, 19 April 2012)

Jain, Meha et al, ‘Groundwater depletion will reduce cropping intensity in India’ (2021) 7(9) Science Advances, 1

Johnson, Hope, ‘Eating for Health and the Environment: Australian Regulatory Responses For Dietary Change’ (2015) 15(2) Queensland University of Technology Law Review 122

Jones, Alexandra, Shahid, Maria and Neal, Bruce, ‘Uptake of Australia’s Health Star Rating System’ (2018) 10(8) Nutrients 997

Journal of Competition and Consumer Law 184

Kaye, Nikki, ‘NZ Adopts New Healthy Food Labelling System’ (Media Release, New Zealand Government, 28 June 2014) <https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-adopts-new-healthy-food-labelling-system>, archived at <https://perma.cc/JP59-XLTZ>

Kim, Brent et al, ‘Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises’ (2020) 62 Global Environmental Change

Lai, Jessica and Becher, Shmuel, ‘Front-of-Pack Labelling and International Trade Law: Revisiting the Health Star Rating System’ [2020] MelbJlIntLaw 5; (2020) 21(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 144

Lal, Anita et al, ‘Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis’ (2017) 14(6) PLoS Medicine e-collection

Mayes, Christopher and Kaldor, Jenny, ‘Big Food with a regional flavour: how Australia’s food lobby works’ (online, 11 September 2014) <https://theconversation.com/big-food-with-a-regional-flavour-how-australias-food-lobby-works-28213>

McAdam, Jane ‘The twin calamities of climate change and COVID-19’ (online, Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, 7 May 2020)

Melchers, Natalie, Gomez, Maria and Colagiuri, Ruth, ‘Do Socio-economic Factors Influence Supermarket Content and Shoppers' Purchases?’ (2009) 20(3) Health Promotion Journal of Australia 241

Mozaffarian, Dariush et al, ‘Role of government policy in nutrition—barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating’ (2018) British Medical Journal 361

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Dietary Guidelines (2013)

Nestle, Marion, ‘Food Politics - More on food company sponsorship of nutrition research and practice’ (online, 21 November 2013) <https://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/more-on-food-company-sponsorship-of-nutrition-research-and-practice>

New South Wales Department of Health, ‘NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy’ <https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/heal/Pages/healthy-school-canteens.aspx>

Nina Hendy, ‘Stockpiling: Pandemic changes the way we shop’ (online, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 November 2021) <https://www.smh.com.au/money/planning-and-budgeting/stockpiling-pandemic-changes-the-way-we-shop-20211109-p59796.html>

Obesity Policy Association, Improving the Effectiveness of the Health Star Rating System (Policy Brief, January 2018)

OECD, ‘Glossary of Statistical Terms: Environmental Impact’ (online, 25 September 2001) <https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=827>

Parker, Christine and Johnson, Hope, ‘Sustainable Healthy Food Choices: The Promise of Holistic Dietary Guidelines as a National and International Policy Springboard’ (2018) 18(1) Queensland University of Technology Law Review 1

Paul, Justin and Rana, Jyoti, ‘Consumer behaviour and purchase intention for organic food’ (2012) The Journal of Consumer Marketing 412

Paull, John, ‘Price premiums for organic food from Australia and China’ (2008) (online, Research Paper) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228841161_Price_premiums_for_organic_food_from_Australia_and_China>

Ritchie, Hannah and Roser, Max, ‘Environmental impacts of food production’ (online, Our World in Data, January 2020)

Robertson, Narelle, Sacks, Gary, and Miller, Peter, ‘The revolving door between government and the alcohol, food and gambling industries in Australia’ (2019) 29(3) Public Health Research & Practice 4

Sims, Rod, ‘Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Priorities’ (2014) 22 Australian

Slezak, Michael and Clarke, Melissa, ‘Australia widely criticised over emission reduction targets ahead of COP26 climate talks’ (online, ABC News, 20 August 2021) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/climate-change-ipcc-australia-uk-conference-glasgow/100392252>

Taufique, Khan, Vocino, Andrea and Polonsky, Michael, ‘The influence of eco-label knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market’ (2017) 25(7) Journal of Strategic Marketing 511

Teisl, Mario, Rubin, Jonathan and Noblet, Caroline, ‘Non-Dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers’ (2008) 29 Journal of Economic Psychology 140

The Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre, ‘National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study’ (Final Report, commissioned by Commonwealth Government of Australia, 2021)

The Obesity Collective, ‘Weighing in: Australia’s growing obesity epidemic’ (Report, 17 March 2019)

Tzilivakis, John et al, ‘A framework for practical and effective eco-labelling of food products’ 2012 3(1) Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 50

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ‘Pacific Humanitarian Team - Tropical Cyclone Harold Situation Report #6’ (Report, 13 April 2020)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Doc A/RES/48/189 (20 January 1994)

World Bank, ‘Australia Food Products Imports by country in US$ Thousand 2019’ (online, World Integrated Trade Solution, 2019) <https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/AUS/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country/Product/16-24_FoodProd>

Yeung, Karen, ‘Presentational management and the pursuit of regulatory legitimacy: a comparative study of competition and consumer agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia’ (2009) 87(2) Public Administration 274

Zagorsky, Jay and Smith, Patricia, ‘The association between socioeconomic status and adult fast-food consumption in the U.S’ (2017) 27 Economics and Human Biology 12

B Cases

C Legislation

Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code 2015 (Cth)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)


[1] Richard Blundell et al, ‘Could COVID-19 infect the consumer prices index?’ (2020) 41(2) Fiscal Studies 357, 357.

[2] Lauren Chenarides et al, ‘Food consumption behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic’ (2020) 37(1) Agribusiness 44; Nina Hendy, ‘Stockpiling: Pandemic changes the way we shop’ (online, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 November 2021) <https://www.smh.com.au/money/planning-and-budgeting/stockpiling-pandemic-changes-the-way-we-shop-20211109-p59796.html>.

[3] Australian Institute of Family Studies, ‘Families in Australia Survey: Life during COVID-19 – Report no. 6: Financial wellbeing and COVID-19’ (Report, November 2020) 7.

[4] Australian Government Treasury, ‘Insights from the first six months of JobKeeper’ (Report, October 2021) 25.

[5] Francesca Viliani, ‘How Has COVID-19 Changed the Role of Sustainability for Organisations’ (online, International SOS) <https://www.internationalsos.com/insights/how-has-covid-19-changed-the-role-of-sustainability-for-organisations>.

[6] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Doc A/RES/48/189 (20 January 1994) (‘Paris Agreement’).

[7] Michael Slezak and Melissa Clarke, ‘Australia widely criticised over emission reduction targets ahead of COP26 climate talks’ (online, ABC News, 20 August 2021) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/climate-change-ipcc-australia-uk-conference-glasgow/100392252>.

[8] Isabella Higgins and Steve Cannane, ‘Architect of Paris agreement Christiana Figueres blasts Australia's net zero target’ (online, ABC News, 2 November 2021) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-01/australia-has-suicidal-climate-policy-says-figueres/100584192>.

[9] Tasmin Grant, ‘Why is frost in Brazil causing global coffee prices to increase?’ (online, Perfect Daily Grind, 29 July 2021) <https://perfectdailygrind.com/2021/07/why-is-frost-in-brazil-causing-global-coffee-prices-to-increase/>.

[10] Emily Chow, ‘'The sky has fallen': Chinese farmers see livelihoods washed away by floods’ (online, Reuters, 27 July 2021) <https://www.reuters.com/world/china/sky-has-fallen-chinese-farmers-see-livelihoods-washed-away-by-floods-2021-07-26/>.

[11] Julie Ingwersen and Rod Nickel, ‘Nervous North American farmers set to ‘seed in faith’ into parched soils’ (online, Reuters, 12 April 2021) <https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nervous-north-american-farmers-set-seed-faith-into-parched-soils-2021-04-12/>.

[12] National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Dietary Guidelines (2013).

[13] Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code 2015 (Cth).

[14] Ibid s 1.2.1.

[15] Ibid s 1.2.3.

[16] Ibid s 1.2.7.

[17] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

[18] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

[19] Australian Dietary Guidelines (n 12).

[20] Health Star Rating Advisory Committee, ‘Health Star Rating System Five Year Review Report’ (Draft Report, February 2019) Appendix G, 130.

[21] Nikki Kaye, ‘NZ Adopts New Healthy Food Labelling System’ (Media Release, New Zealand Government, 28 June 2014) <https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-adopts-new-healthy-food-labelling-system>, archived at <https://perma.cc/JP59-XLTZ>.

[22] Health Star Rating Advisory Committee, ‘Health Star Rating System Five Year Review Report’ (Final Report, May 2019) 28–9.

[23] Ibid 13.

[24] Australian Government, ‘Measure Up’ Campaign (2008) <https://www.gethealthynsw.com.au/healthier-you/healthy-weight/measure-up/>.

[25] New South Wales Department of Health, ‘NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy’ <https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/heal/Pages/healthy-school-canteens.aspx>.

[26] Hope Johnson, ‘Eating for Health and the Environment: Australian Regulatory Responses For Dietary Change’ (2015) 15(2) Queensland University of Technology Law Review 122, 132.

[27] Dariush Mozaffarian et al, ‘Role of government policy in nutrition—barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating’ (2018) British Medical Journal 361, 362.

[28] Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, ‘Environmental impacts of food production’ (online, Our World in Data, January 2020).

[29] Leo Horrigan, Robert Lawrence and Polly Walker, ‘How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture’ (2002) 110(5) Environmental Health Perspectives 445, 445-448.

[30] The Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre, ‘National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study’ (Final Report, commissioned by Commonwealth Government of Australia, 2021) 18.

[31] Ibid; Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, ‘Tackling Australia’s food waste’ (online) <https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste>.

[32] Compared to the recommended intake under the Australian Dietary Guidelines (n 12).

[33] Gilly Hendrie, ‘Overconsumption of Energy and Excessive Discretionary Food Intake Inflates Dietary Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Australia’ (2016) 8(11) Nutrients 890, 896, 900.

[34] Brent Kim et al, ‘Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises’ (2020) 62 Global Environmental Change.

[35] Khan Taufique, Andrea Vocino and Michael Polonsky, ‘The influence of eco-label knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market’ (2017) 25(7) Journal of Strategic Marketing 511, 523.

[36] Australian Dietary Guidelines (n 12).

[37] Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker (n 29) 449-50.

[38] Ibid 450-51.

[39] Sharon Friel et al, ‘Public Health Benefits of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions: Food and Agriculture’ (2009) 374 The Lancet 2016.

[40] Sara Capacci et al, ‘Policies to Promote Healthy Eating in Europe: A Structured Review of Policies and Their Effectiveness’ (2012) 70(3) Nutrition Reviews 188, 195-97.

[41] Christine Parker and Hope Johnson, ‘Sustainable Healthy Food Choices: The Promise of Holistic Dietary Guidelines as a National and International Policy Springboard’ (2018) 18(1) Queensland University of Technology Law Review 1, 3.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers’ (Report, 2021) 4-6.

[44] Paris Agreement (n 6).

[45] Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network, Climate Change Performance Index 2022 (Report, November 2021) 21.

[46] Colin Butler, ‘Famine, hunger, society and climate change’ in Climate Change and Global Health (CABI, 2014).

[47] UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ‘Pacific Humanitarian Team - Tropical Cyclone Harold Situation Report #6’ (Report, 13 April 2020).

[48] Jane McAdam, ‘The twin calamities of climate change and COVID-19’ (online, Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, 7 May 2020).

[49] OECD, ‘Glossary of Statistical Terms: Environmental Impact’ (online, 25 September 2001) <https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=827>.

[50] Horrigan et al (n 29).

[51] Emily Arnold and Janet Larsen, ‘Bottled Water: Pouring Resources Down the Drain’ (online, Earth Policy Institute, 2 February 2006) <http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update51> .

[52] Peter Gleick and Heather Cooley, ‘Energy Implications of Bottled Water’ (2009) 4 Environmental Research Letters 1, 6.

[53] Arnold and Larsen (n 51).

[54] FAO, Barbara Burlingame and Sandro Dernini (eds), ‘Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity’ (Paper, 2010), 7.

[55] Parker and Johnson (n 41) 8.

[56] Meha Jain et al, ‘Groundwater depletion will reduce cropping intensity in India’ (2021) 7(9) Science Advances, 1.

[57] Parker and Johnson (n 41) 8.

[58] Alexandra Jones, Maria Shahid and Bruce Neal, ‘Uptake of Australia’s Health Star Rating System’ (2018) 10(8) Nutrients 997, 1002-3.

[59] Ibid, 1001.

[60] Obesity Policy Association, Improving the Effectiveness of the Health Star Rating System (Policy Brief, January 2018) 2.

[61] Jones (n 58) 1004-5.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Competition and Consumer Act (n 17).

[64] See Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, ‘ACCC role in energy’ (online) <https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/energy/accc-role-in-energy>.

[65] Sharn Hobill and Jay Sanderson, ’Not Free to Roam: Misleading Food Credence Claims, the ACCC and the Need for Corporate Social Responsibility [2017] MonashULawRw 4; (2017) 43(1) Monash University Law Review 113, 128-9.

[66] Ibid; Rod Sims, ‘Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Priorities’ (2014) 22 Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law 184, 184.

[67] Karen Yeung, ‘Presentational management and the pursuit of regulatory legitimacy: a comparative study of competition and consumer agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia’ (2009) 87(2) Public Administration 274, 292.

[68] Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, ‘Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: March 2019’ (Report, March 2019) 7.

[69] Jared Greenville, ‘Analysis of government support for Australian agricultural producers’ (Research Paper, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, May 2020) 5.

[70] The Obesity Collective, ‘Weighing in: Australia’s growing obesity epidemic’ (Report, 17 March 2019) 10.

[71] Jessica Lai and Shmuel Becher, ‘Front-of-Pack Labelling and International Trade Law: Revisiting the Health Star Rating System’ [2020] MelbJlIntLaw 5; (2020) 21(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 144, 163.

[72] Ipsos Public Affairs, ‘Nearly Half of Adults Are More Inclined to Buy Eco-Friendly Products, and Four in Ten Would Pay More for Them’ (Survey report, 19 April 2012).

[73] Edward Concepcion, ‘Exploring The Relationship Between Food, Environmental Impact Labelling And Socio-Economic Status’ (2021) 21(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series.

[74] Jokin de Irala-Estéves et al, ‘A systematic review of socio-economic differences in food habits in Europe: consumption of fruit and vegetables’ (2000) 54(9) European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 706, 711-2.

[75] Natalie Melchers, Maria Gomez and Ruth Colagiuri, ‘Do Socio-economic Factors Influence Supermarket Content and Shoppers' Purchases?’ (2009) 20(3) Health Promotion Journal of Australia 241, 242-45.

[76] Adrian Cameron et al, ‘Variation in supermarket exposure to energy-dense snack foods by socio-economic position’ (2013) 16(7) Pulbic Health Nutrition 1178, 1182-3.

[77] Jay Zagorsky and Patricia K Smith, ‘The association between socioeconomic status and adult fast-food consumption in the U.S’ (2017) 27 Economics and Human Biology 12.

[78] Liyuwork Dana et al, ‘Consumers’ views on the importance of specific front-of-pack nutrition information: A latent profile analysis’ (2019) 11(5) Nutrients 1158, 1166‒67.

[79] Concepcion (n 74).

[80] Anita Lal et al, ‘Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis’ (2017) 14(6) PLoS Medicine e-collection.

[81] Christina Do, ‘Organic Food Labelling in Australia: A 'Murky Environment' in Need of Reform’ [ [2015] UQLawJl 6; (2015) 34(1) University of Queensland Law Journal 123, 130 referencing Justin Paul and Jyoti Rana, ‘Consumer behaviour and purchase intention for organic food’ (2012) The Journal of Consumer Marketing 412.

[82] Ralph Horne, ‘Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption’ (2009) 33 International Journal of Consumer Studies 175, 179-80.

[83] Clare D’Souza et al, ‘Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels’ (2006) 31(4) International Journal of Consumer Studies 371, 372.

[84] Mario Teisl, Jonathan Rubin and Caroline Noblet, ‘Non-Dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers’ (2008) 29 Journal of Economic Psychology 140, 153.

[85] John Tzilivakis et al, ‘A framework for practical and effective eco-labelling of food products’ 2012 3(1) Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 50, 59.

[86] Lai (n 70) 186.

[87] Yu-Shan Chen and Ching-Hsun Chang, ‘Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk’ (2013) 114 Journal of Business Ethics 489, 497-8.

[88] John Paull, ‘Price premiums for organic food from Australia and China’ (2008) (online, Research Paper) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228841161_Price_premiums_for_organic_food_from_Australia_and_China>.

[89] Do (n 82) 130.

[90] Ibid.

[91] See pages 9-10.

[92] Taufique, Vocino and Polonsky, (n 35) 516-17.

[93] IBISWorld Top 100 List, ‘Australia’s Top 100 Manufacturers’ (Report, 2020) <https://www.australianmanufacturing.com.au/advanced-manufacturings-top-100-manufacturers-in-australia/>.

[94] Narelle Robertson, Gary Sacks and Peter Miller, ‘The revolving door between government and the alcohol, food and gambling industries in Australia’ (2019) 29(3) Public Health Research & Practice, 4.

[95] Corporate Europe Observatory, ‘A red light for consumer information’ (online, 10 June 2010) <https://corporateeurope.org/en/2010/06/red-light-consumer-information>.

[96] Christopher Mayes and Jenny Kaldor, ‘Big Food with a regional flavour: how Australia’s food lobby works’ (online, 11 September 2014) <https://theconversation.com/big-food-with-a-regional-flavour-how-australias-food-lobby-works-28213>.

[97] Marion Nestle, ‘Food Politics - More on food company sponsorship of nutrition research and practice’ (online, 21 November 2013) <https://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/more-on-food-company-sponsorship-of-nutrition-research-and-practice>.

[98] ‘Australia's plan to reach our net zero target by 2050’ (Joint media release with Prime Minister the Hon Scott Morrison MP, 26 October 2021).

[99] Rebecca Byrnes and Peter Lawrence, ‘Can 'Soft Law' Solve 'Hard Problems'? Justice, Legal Form and the Durban-Mandated Climate Negotiations’ [2015] UTasLawRw 3; (2015) 34(1) University of Tasmania Law Review 34.

[100] Álvaro Bernis, ‘Making trade greener: When environmental protection turns into trade protection’ (The Economist, online, 9 October 2021) <https://www.economist.com/special-report/2021/10/06/making-trade-greener>.

[101] Ibon Gallastegui, ‘The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature’ (2002) 12 European Environment 316, 327.

[102] Ibid.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Jared Greenville, ‘Australia’s place in global agriculture and food value chains’ (online, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, last updated 13 January 2021) <https://www.awe.gov.au/abares/products/insights/global-agriculture-and-food-value-chains#where-does-australian-agriculture-fit-within-gvcs>.

[105] Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Labelling: Issues, Policies, and Practices Worldwide (Report, 1998), 49.

[106] World Bank, ‘Australia Food Products Imports by country in US$ Thousand 2019’ (online, World Integrated Trade Solution, 2019) <https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/AUS/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country/Product/16-24_FoodProd>.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJlStuS/2022/9.html