Absolute arrogance. You guys want to impose your own distorted perceptions on the rest of us, while pretending to speak for consumers.

Go away and do some talking to real consumers. I'll give you a hint - they care how much eggs cost because they don't have money to waste and they don't live in trendy inner suburbs.

Good news - after massive public outcry, the APIA have recently announced that their application to the ACCC has been withdrawn.

David L, your comments disgust me - "Absolute arrogance. You guys want to impose your own distorted perceptions on the rest of us, while pretending to speak for consumers." There is absolutely nothing arrogant about animal welfare and people having a problem with factory farming. Your comments tell me that you are only interested in your food being cheap, and not interested in large corporations and industry groups lying to you! If they can lie to you about whether your chicken is free-range, can't those same companies and industry groups lie to you about other things related to your food (genetic modifications, what the animals are fed, etc)?
What has gotten into consumers to think that their food can be cheaper and cheaper as the cost of producing the food goes up and up and the shareholders of Coles and Woolworths want bigger and bigger profits. Something has to give. Perhaps a bit less spending on things that are un-necessary in life, and a bit more spending on good wholesome, cleanly produced food, would do our society a whole lot better.
I happen to believe that if a package says something is free-range, and I have paid more for it, then that is exactly what it should be and nothing less.
I can see no other reason for an industry body to want to produce non-free range products, and label them as free range except for being able to charge a premium for a product that is not produced in a humane or premium way. As a consumer, I would think we would all want to know that when a food label says something, it is actually what it says - the truth - rather than some half-baked marketing spin.

Whether chickens are kept at 14 birds per square meter or 5 ‘free range’ is pictured as ‘Elysian fields’ to many consumers (the logic of kg/ha as a measure escapes me). A backyard chicken run with birds at less than 5/ha still becomes a moonscape with little growing (having been on free range egg and pig farms I have seen this first hand). Free range is not Elysian Fields. What exactly is achieved?

DavidL is correct, what a Barrister sees as being an acceptable increase in cost is not the same as those on average or below salaries agrees to. Just how much of the price differential is driven by marketers’ ‘charge as much as the market will bear’ and how much is driven by increased costs of production is not clear.

Generally ‘free range’, organic and other healthy lifestyle labelling is treated as advertising spin. Clear and consistent use of labels is essential; and that has to be created by independent bodies as those with an interest to pursue can not be trusted.

Should this be a role of government? Yes; governments are a balancing force between interested parties. Industry and interest groups should have direct input but government needs to set a standard by accommodation and enforce it. Wherever the line is set people will argue, just do it.

Organic industry, for instance, needs to be told until they agree to a single standard (instead of 11) all standards will have no weight at law. Interestingly evidence is mounting organic food does not have nutritional benefit.

It is interesting how much of the argument is opinion based. What science is there to use to set standards?

<<Yes; governments are a balancing force between interested parties.>>

How reminding of the story of the monkey and the two cats - it tells it all:
http://kidsfront.com/stories-for-kids/a_monkey_and_two_cats.html

One of the many delights of this Forum is that it regularly brings to my attention snippets of life that had previously escaped me. This is one of them.

And a perfect microcosm it is, to be sure.

Paragraph after paragraph of earnest fulmination, painting a picture of dastardly dealings... in the chook industry.

Nothing wrong with that of course. The subject matter clearly means a great deal to the article's writers. (I notice it took two people to bring it together. Obviously too much for one individual, the sheer horror of it all must have taken its toll).

Being the curious soul that I am, I looked up both the application itself...

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/APIAStandardsforChickenandTurkey.pdf

...and the notice of withdrawal.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1065487

What I found was a perfectly respectable effort by an industry body to self-regulate by introduing a code of conduct, and using the Trade Mark as the enforcement mechanism. Self-regulation, in the absence of government standards, is a legitimate and powerful means to impose discipline on an industry, to ensure that it does not get its practitioners a bad name.

And the reason for withdrawal? "..based on the fact that the Federal and State Governments decided recently to bring forward the development of new animal welfare standards for the industry. New Poultry Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines to replace the existing code of conduct are now scheduled to be developed next year."

Sensible enough reason, one would think. Wait until the government sets the rules, then introduce the TM as the industry's carrot-and-stick.

None of this was apparent from the article.

Not surprising, I guess, as both writers would be bound by the lawyer's oath, to only give one side of the story, and to find every means possible to denigrate the motives, intentions and character of their opponents.

But I had to chuckle at this line from Jordy:

>>...after massive public outcry, the APIA have recently announced that their application to the ACCC has been withdrawn<<

I do recall, we spoke of little else down our pub, such was the outcry...

As a butcher all my working life I have witnessed this scam called 'free range' rip people off for years.

On the other hand, if anyone pays say $12 per kilo, or less for free range chicken breast, thinking they are actually getting free range, then they deserve to be ripped off.

I can tell you now, the only sure way to get free range eggs is to feed the chooks yourself.

Having recently visited the Vic markets, I just laugh at the number of people being gullible enough to be ripped off with the likes of free range and other rip offs like a whole tray of rib fillet for $10, which is actually round or chuck eye.

One can never legislate against stupidity.

It seems that Pericles hates (other kinds of) animals. I look forward to the time when tigers are in charge. For a serious discussion of this issue I recommend that readers move to The Conversation, where you can this week find a discussion of this issue. "Serious attempt at self-regulation".... Just kills me!

David L,

Your comment would appear more arrogant than the article. If cost is all that is important to you, then the meaning of the "free range" label is of no importance at all to you. Changing the label is not restricting the availability of battery farm eggs, in fact it will allow many such operations to label themselves as free range.

To other consumers, who see 'free range' as an ethical matter on which they are prepared to pay more, watering down the meaning of that label to virtually meaningless may be of importance. Certainly, the view of consumers who do take note of the label should be considered over and above the wishes of the industry. The question is whether changing the rules around the 'free range' label would deceive consumers who take note of said label.