Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

Malik, Shanzeh --- "The Feasibility of Mandating Environmental Impact Labels on Packaged Foods in Australia" [2024] UNSWLawJlStuS 20; (2024) UNSWLJ Student Series No 24-20

THE FEASIBILITY OF MANDATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LABELS ON PACKAGED FOODS IN AUSTRALIA

SHANZEH MALIK

I INTRODUCTION

Climate change is a pressing global concern with the rate of global warming progressing more than three times as fast since 1982.^[1] In Australia, increasing environmental awareness driven by catastrophic bushfires and severe flooding has intensified the demand for innovative strategies to mitigate climate impacts. ^[2] One such strategy is the implementation of environmental impact labels (‘EIL’) on food packaging. These labels aim to inform consumers about the environmental footprint of their purchases, encouraging more sustainable consumption patterns as food labels significantly influence consumer purchasing decisions.^[3] The utility of health information on food packaging, which have effectively steered consumers towards healthier choices,^[4] illustrates the potential success of EIL in promoting environmental sustainability. Further, given that more than half of Australians do a weekly grocery shop, ^[5] grocery products represent a strategic point for intervention as they are purchased in high volumes and are a notable contributor to climate change.^[6] However, the proposal to mandate EIL raises challenges regarding practicality, legal feasibility and the political landscape. This paper, in section II, will provide foundational knowledge by defining EIL and detailing Australia’s and the global position on environmental labelling. Section III will argue in favour of EIL by detailing the climate impact of food production, the effectiveness of labelling and by discussing the innovation and market competition fostered by EIL. Section IV will focus on addressing the legal, practical and political challenges that could hinder the adoption of EIL in Australia, advocating for the mandate of EIL despite potential obstacles. Ultimately, this paper supports the implementation of EIL on packaged foods in Australia, arguing that despite the legal, practical, and political challenges, the benefits of such labelling outweigh the drawbacks. It contends that EIL can effectively guide consumers towards more sustainable consumption patterns, a critical step in addressing climate change.

II BACKGROUND

A Defining EIL

In the context of this paper, similar to nutritional labelling, which discloses health-related information about food products,^[7] EILs disclose information about the environmental impact associated with the production and manufacturing of the product. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the focus will be exclusively on packaged food products, not extending to other types of products. This paper considers the regulatory dimensions of EIL, proposing the introduction of mandatory EILs on all packaged foods in Australia. Part IV will delve deeper into the complexities surrounding what should be included under an EIL scheme and the extent of its regulatory framework.

B Regulation of EIL in Australia

In Australia, food labelling regulations are governed by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth),^[8] with Food Standards Australia New Zealand (‘FSANZ’) overseeing the implementation of the Food Standards Code.^[9] The Food Standards Code mandates detailed labelling requirements that apply universally to all foods, as well as specific requirements tailored to particular food products. Key elements such as allergen information, country of origin, ingredient lists and nutritional content must be clearly displayed on packaging to ensure consumers can make informed choices, in line with other laws which prohibit false, misleading, or deceptive representations.^[10]

While FSANZ meticulously regulates health and safety information on food labels, EIL remains a voluntary practice governed separately by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 which dictates that any voluntary environmental claims must not be misleading or deceptive.^[11] Additional governance is provided under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1998 (‘EPBC Act’) which provides a framework to protect matters of national environmental significance.^[12] Although the EPBC Act does not directly regulate the specifics of EIL, it sets broad environmental standards that could underpin the veracity of environmental claims made in voluntary EIL schemes.^[13]

C Global Trends in EIL

Considering that a significant 66% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products,^[14] there is a clear market-driven impetus for integrating mandatory EIL into food labelling regulations. International efforts and corporate commitments demonstrate a strong movement towards embracing these practices. Globally, companies are taking significant strides in integrating EIL into their products. For instance, Unilever, a major Dutch food producer, has committed to adding carbon labels to all 70,000 of their products.^[15] This initiative is part of a broader ambition to achieve a deforestation-free supply chain and a completely carbon-neutral operation by 2039.^[16] Similarly, Quorn, a British company known for its meat replacements, provides detailed carbon footprint information on its packaging,^[17] allowing consumers to compare the environmental impact of their products directly, fostering greater transparency and enabling informed consumer choices. Countries are also moving towards mandatory EIL. Denmark, for example, has announced plans to introduce mandatory carbon footprint labels on all food products,^[18] setting a precedent that could influence policy in other nations.

Considering that approximately 70% of Australian consumers use food labels to inform their purchasing decisions,^[19] integrating EIL into the mandatory labelling requirements could significantly influence consumer behaviour towards more sustainable food consumption patterns. To address this regulatory gap, there is a compelling case for expanding regulation to mandate environmental impact labels which will be explored in section III.

III THE CASE FOR EIL

A The Climate Impact of Food

The food industry significantly influences global climate change, with studies finding that food systems are responsible for approximately a third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions.^[20] This vast environmental footprint stems from all stages of the food lifecycle, including production, processing and distribution, which are heavily dependent on energy and resource-intensive practices.^[21] The use of fertilisers in agriculture alone are a significant contributor to environmental degradation, primarily through the emission of nitrous oxide, a potent GHG.^[22] Additionally, methane emissions from livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats, are a major source of agricultural GHG. This occurs through a natural digestive process involves microbes breaking down food in the animal's stomach, producing methane as a by-product, which is then mostly released into the atmosphere through belching.^[23] Methane is particularly impactful as a greenhouse gas, being far more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Since this process contributes to around 44% of all agricultural methane emissions,^[24] addressing it is crucial for reducing agriculture's overall impact on climate change. Beyond this direct emission, the demand for agricultural land driven by intensive farming practices often leads to deforestation and other land use changes.^[25] These activities not only release large amounts of stored carbon dioxide as forests are cleared but also reduce the land’s capacity to act as a carbon sink,^[26] thereby exacerbating overall carbon emissions. This underscores the significant impact of current food production methods on the climate. In addressing the substantial climate impact caused by the food industry, EIL stands out as an indispensable strategy for mitigation. EIL plays a pivotal role in guiding consumer behaviour towards environmentally friendly choices.^[27] By mandating EIL, there is an opportunity to not only inform consumers about the environmental costs associated with food products but also to enforce transparency that compels producers to improve their environmental performance.^[28] This shift towards transparency and accountability can lead to a decrease in demand for high-impact products, thereby promoting a transition towards sustainable agricultural practices and more efficient food supply chains. EILs can effectively drive both market competitiveness and environmental sustainability by leveraging consumer preferences for sustainable products,^[29] as evidenced by the growing demand for environmentally responsible choices.^[30] Thus, EIL serves not just as a tool for education and choice but as a catalyst for broader industry change, aligning production methods with the pressing need for environmental stewardship in the face of climate challenges.

B Effectiveness of Labelling

The effectiveness of food labelling in driving behavioural change among consumers and influencing manufacturers' practices presents a compelling case for implementing mandatory EIL. Drawing on the success of mandatory nutrition labelling, which has evidently led to more health-conscious consumer behaviour and prompted food providers to offer healthier and more informative packaging,^[31] EIL holds significant potential for addressing environmental issues related to food production. The requirement for mandatory nutrition labels on food products in Australia and New Zealand clearly demonstrates how labelling influences consumer decision-making and prompts manufacturers to reformulate products. Research shows that following the implementation of mandatory nutritional labels, there was a measurable improvement in the nutritional content of labelled products,^[32] indicating that manufacturers are reformulating products to meet consumer demand for healthier options. This is a clear instance where labelling not only guides consumer choices but also pushes companies towards healthier product offerings due to the competitive advantage gained from nutrition labelling.^[33] Such data underscores that consumers are attentive to label information and often use it as a key factor in making purchasing decisions.^[34] Furthermore, the effectiveness of food labelling extends beyond individual consumer choices; it influences the broader market dynamics and industry standards. For instance, the introduction of mandatory nutritional labels has been linked to a reduction in the average calorie, sodium and fat content across various food categories,^[35] demonstrating manufacturers' response to consumer preferences shaped by label information. Drawing on the proven successes of nutritional labelling, implementing mandatory EIL could similarly transform consumer and manufacturer behaviours, driving significant environmental improvements.

While labelling has proven effective, its full potential is often not realised due to gaps in implementation and execution. The Health Star Rating (‘HSR’) system in Australia exemplifies this, where the system's voluntary nature led to only about 36% of eligible products displaying the HSR.^[36] This partial adoption does not provide a comprehensive or consistent guide across all food products, limiting consumers' ability to make fully informed choices. Consequently, the potential impact of the HSR system on improving public health outcomes is not fully realised,^[37] illustrating that the effectiveness of a labelling system hinges significantly on how it is implemented and integrated into the market. This highlights the need for mandatory labelling to ensure uniform compliance and maximise impact. By mandating EILs, all products in the market are required to display environmental impact information, eliminating the inconsistency and partial adoption seen in voluntary schemes. This comprehensive approach ensures that all consumers have access to critical information, empowering them to make environmentally conscious decisions as consumers are willing to pay a higher price for environmentally sustainable products.^[38] Mandatory labelling also obliges all manufacturers to adhere to higher standards, thereby fostering an industry-wide shift towards more sustainable practices. The success of mandatory nutritional labelling sets a strong precedent for EIL. Implementing mandatory EIL can harness proven strategies to drive similar changes in environmental practices within the food industry, aiming to mitigate climate change and achieving a sustainable future.

C Innovation and Market Competition

Mandating EIL drives innovation and stimulates market competition within the food industry, leading to significant environmental and consumer benefits. By requiring companies to disclose the environmental impacts of their products, EIL not only increases transparency but also compels producers to adopt innovative practices and technologies to improve their sustainability metrics.

The implementation of mandatory EIL creates a dynamic where market competitiveness is closely tied to environmental performance. Companies are motivated to outperform competitors not just in cost and quality, but also in how sustainably they can produce and sell their goods.^[39] This motivation drives innovation within the food sector by highlighting the environmental costs of traditional practices and compelling companies to adopt sustainable technologies and greener methods. A notable example of this is seen in the actions of major Australian supermarkets like Woolworths and Coles, who banned single-use plastic bags in response to growing sustainability concerns.^[40] This initiative not only reduces plastic waste, but also demonstrates how regulatory changes can lead companies to implement innovative, environmentally friendly solutions that benefit both consumers and the broader ecosystem.

Further, the benefits of such innovation extend directly to consumers. As companies innovate to meet or exceed EIL standards, they often develop products that are not only less harmful to the environment but also potentially healthier and of higher quality. Consumers benefit from a broader selection of sustainable products, enabling them to make purchases that align more closely with their environmental values. This shift in consumer behaviour towards sustainable products further drives companies to prioritise green innovation, creating a positive feedback loop that accelerates progress towards sustainability.^[41] Such is evident through Nestlé’s development of plant-based products. Nestle expanded its offerings to include a range of meatless alternatives like the Garden Gourmet brand and Sweet Earth products,^[42] which require fewer resources like water and land and produce lower GHG emissions compared to traditional animal-based foods.^[43] These sustainable plant-based alternatives provide consumers with healthier options that have a significantly lower carbon footprint, demonstrating how innovation driven by EIL can benefit both the environment and consumer health.

By instituting mandatory EIL, the push for sustainable practices becomes universal, necessitating every company within the food industry to innovate and reduce environmental impacts. This regulatory approach ensures that sustainability is not a niche market but a standard expectation across all products. Currently, the higher cost of sustainable products can be prohibitive for many consumers, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, limiting their ability to participate in environmentally friendly purchasing behaviours.^[44] However, when EIL is made mandatory, it levels the playing field, compelling all producers to adopt sustainable practices. This widespread adoption drives increased production and investment in sustainable technologies as established above, which in turn leads to economies of scale.^[45] As these practices become more prevalent and the technology more refined, the costs associated with producing sustainable goods decrease.^[46] Consequently, the price of sustainable products will become more affordable to a broader audience, enabling consumers of all economic levels to make purchases that support environmental sustainability. This broader accessibility not only amplifies the positive environmental impact but also integrates sustainable practices into the mainstream market, fostering a more inclusive approach to addressing climate issues. Such systemic change is crucial for achieving significant, long-term environmental benefits, making the case for mandatory EIL compelling in its potential to transform industry standards and consumer behaviour on a global scale.

While the benefits of mandating EIL are substantial, concerns about companies focusing merely on minimal compliance rather than genuine sustainability warrant attention.^[47] These concerns can be effectively addressed through robust and comprehensive EIL standards that mandate continuous improvement and cover a broad spectrum of environmental impacts. By establishing such rigorous frameworks, regulators can ensure that the innovations and market shifts driven by EIL are not only about meeting basic requirements but truly advancing environmental sustainability. Challenges in implementing EIL are discussed more thoroughly in section IV of this paper, emphasising that while the path to effective EIL is complex, the potential rewards justify the efforts.

IV ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES FACING EIL IN AUSTRALIA

A Legal Challenges

1 Defining ‘Environmental Impact’

One of the primary legal challenges in implementing EIL is accurately defining the term 'environmental impact.'^[48] As detailed in section III, part A of this paper, the food production industry significantly affects the climate beyond just carbon emissions – it also contributes to biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and resource depletion. Consequently, restricting the legal definition of 'environmental impact' merely to the carbon footprint – defined as the total GHG emitted during food production^[49] – would not provide a comprehensive representation of the full environmental impact. For example, while a product like almond milk may exhibit low carbon emissions, its production is water-intensive, needing nearly 7000 litres of water to produce 1 litre of almond milk.^[50] Such nuances must be captured in the definition of ‘environmental impact’ to avoid misleading consumers and unfairly penalising or favouring certain producers. The definition of environmental impact should, therefore, extend to a comprehensive assessment that includes various sustainability metrics.

2 Compliance with International Trade Laws

The implementation of a mandatory EIL scheme introduces potential conflicts with international trade laws, particularly under the World Trade Organisation's (‘WTO’) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.^[51] For example, if Australia implements a mandatory EIL that requires specific information on food packaging not required in other countries, it could act as a trade barrier. This would force international producers who export to Australia to create special packaging just for Australian consumers, potentially increasing their costs and complicating their logistics. Such a requirement could be challenged by other WTO Member States as more trade restrictive than necessary^[52] and could require Australia to present extensive evidence to justify its approach.

3 Regulatory Framework and Enforcement

Establishing a robust regulatory framework for mandatory EIL poses another legal challenge. Being compulsory, the framework must detail who will enforce the labelling requirements, how compliance will be monitored and the penalties that will apply for non-compliance. Due to the diverse and complex nature of food production's environmental impacts, establishing uniform standards that accurately reflect these impacts demands cooperation across multiple sectors, complicating consistent implementation and oversight. Thus, it may be prudent to establish a new regulatory body that operates alongside existing agencies like FSANZ and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’).^[53] This body would be responsible for the ongoing review and adjustment of EIL criteria to reflect current scientific understanding and industry practices, ensuring that the labels remain relevant and effective in driving environmental improvements. However, the creation of a dedicated regulatory body to manage EIL standards involves significant resource allocation and expert recruitment to ensure effective enforcement and adaptability to evolving environmental and scientific insights.^[54]

4 Addressing Legal Challenges to Support EIL

Despite these challenges, the legal framework for EIL can be structured to support its successful implementation. First, by defining environmental impact comprehensively, the legislation can ensure that EIL provides a true picture of the sustainability of products. This involves not only legislating the scope of what should be included in EIL but also ensuring that the labels communicate this information accurately and effectively to consumers. Moreover, engaging in international dialogue to foster alignment on environmental labelling standards could alleviate potential conflicts with WTO obligations. This approach could influence the standardisation of EIL globally, reducing the burden on international companies and facilitating smoother trade relations. Additionally, given other pre-existing mandatory elements of Australia’s food labelling regulations such as the Country-of-Origin Labelling,^[55] the addition of an EIL may not constitute a significant additional trade barrier.^[56] Finally, the establishment of a dedicated regulatory body for EIL would centralise efforts to monitor compliance and enforce standards, ensuring that EIL achieves its intended goals. This body could also play a crucial role in educating consumers about the significance of EIL, further enhancing its effectiveness. While this would be costly, given the Australian government is working towards a more sustainable future,^[57] government support could aid in the establishment of such a body. Thus, while the legal challenges to mandating EIL are significant, they are not insurmountable. With careful planning, robust legislation and international cooperation, Australia can implement a mandatory EIL system that not only informs consumers and encourages sustainable production, but also aligns with global trade practices.

B Practical Challenges

1 Measuring ‘Environmental Impact’

As identified in part A, defining ‘environmental impact’ involves various sustainability metrics such as carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and resource depletion. Effective measurement must track these impacts from production through to distribution.^[58] Inspiration can be taken from the French Eco-Score label which incorporates additional quality criteria, including the environmental impacts of food transportation, the recyclability of packaging, and the origin of ingredients.^[59] However, measuring these varied impacts accurately presents significant challenges. Environmental impacts are calculated based on life-cycle analysis.^[60] This follows a product during production and across the supply change, requiring extensive data gathering and collaboration with local and international farmers.^[61] This process is both resource-intensive and logistically complex.^[62] The complexity is further exacerbated when environmental data varies significantly within the same product category. For instance, an Our World in Data study shows that environmental impacts differ markedly between general categories of plant-based milk and specific types such as soy or almond milk. ^[63] This variation is due to the distinct production processes for each type of plant milk. Consequently, categorising foods broadly can hinder the collection of detailed data, impacting the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of national environmental impact labelling.

2 Labelling

Once it is established what can and cannot be included in EIL, the next challenge becomes how this information will be displayed. Labels with interpretive elements, such as color-coded systems or star ratings are most effective at influencing consumer behaviour as the information is easier to digest quickly than detailed text.^[64] These systems simplify complex information, making it easier for consumers to make environmentally conscious choices quickly. The design of these labels must balance simplicity with the need to provide comprehensive environmental information.^[65] For example, the traffic light system could categorise different sustainability metrics, such as carbon, water and nitrogen footprints, using colour coding.^[66] This system uses green, orange and red to signify good, moderate and poor. This approach, while intuitive, requires that consumers understand the significance of each colour in terms of sustainability. Without proper education, such a system could lead to misunderstandings about the relative importance of different environmental factors.^[67] For example, a red label in water use, for example, might have different implications from a red label in carbon emissions. The challenge lies in ensuring that such labels not only capture the complexity of environmental impact but also remain user-friendly so that all consumers can make informed decisions without needing extensive background knowledge.

3 Addressing Practical Challenges to Support EIL

To effectively address the practical challenges associated with implementing mandatory EIL, enhancing data collection and analysis capabilities is essential. This could involve developing partnerships with local and international agricultural stakeholders to gather comprehensive environmental metrics and leveraging technologies like blockchain for more accessible and transparent data collection from farm to shelf.^[68] For example, leveraging existing resources could be pivotal. The Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society has a comprehensive, publicly-accessible database of environmental information on a wide range of Australian products and services over their entire life cycle.^[69] Further, the George Institute details carbon emissions data for Australian supermarket foods.^[70] These sources could significantly streamline the process of gathering accurate and comprehensive environmental data, enhancing the overall effectiveness and reliability of EIL. Additionally, targeted educational initiatives in schools and various media channels can be used to increase public understanding of EIL metrics.^[71] This can make it easier to understand the EILs displayed on food products so that labelling design be simplified but still informative.

Thus, practical challenges can be addressed effectively and given the substantial benefits of EIL, it is feasible to invest in implementing a mandatory EIL system in Australia.

C Political Challenges

1 Political Resistance

Political resistance forms a significant barrier to the implementation of mandatory EIL in Australia. Domestically, the introduction of such labelling will likely face stiff opposition from food industry lobbyists, who argue that EIL could harm competitiveness by forcing transparency on environmental impacts previously unnoticed by the general public.^[72] For instance, corporations may be concerned about the potential negative effects of receiving low EIL scores, which could expose their less sustainable practices to consumers, leading to brand damage and decreased sales.^[73] This transparency could shift consumer preferences away from products that have traditionally been profitable but are now revealed to have a greater environmental burden. Additionally, lobbyists might contend that the financial burden of improving sustainability or even just measuring and reporting it, could be substantial. Considering that large multinational corporations have had considerable success in lobbying efforts due to their economic power and influence over government food policy,^[74] these lobbyists could ultimately pressure policymakers into constructing a more lenient scheme,^[75] limiting the potential effectiveness of the labelling scheme to urge the food industry to adopt sustainable food production practices.

2 Addressing Political Challenges to Support EIL

Engaging with stakeholders through transparent and inclusive policymaking can address the concerns of industry lobbyists.^[76] Offering phased implementation periods and providing financial or technical support to businesses adapting to new labelling requirements could ease the transition and reduce opposition. Internally, the government must demonstrate strong leadership by integrating EIL into a comprehensive suite of climate-positive policies.^[77] Linking EIL to clear environmental targets and publicly endorsing the scheme as a critical component of Australia’s climate strategy could improve its acceptance and viability. Ultimately, the success of mandatory EIL in Australia will depend on the Government's ability to present the scheme not just as an environmental measure but as a comprehensive strategy benefiting public health, the environment and economic sustainability. This approach will help balance the interests of various stakeholders and integrate EIL into Australia's broader policy landscape effectively.

IV CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the need for mandating EIL on packaged foods in Australia is clear, with the potential to significantly influence both consumer behaviour and the environmental practices of the food industry. Despite the notable legal, practical, and political challenges outlined in this paper, the overarching benefits of such a system – to educate consumers, drive industry change towards sustainability and ultimately reduce environmental degradation – are compelling. EIL offers a unique opportunity to integrate environmental accountability into daily consumer choices, fostering a culture of sustainability. Legally, the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework that includes detailed definitions and stringent enforcement mechanisms will be crucial. Practically, enhancing data collection methodologies and adopting innovative labelling designs will ensure EIL's effectiveness and user-friendliness. Lastly, politically, strong government leadership and strategic stakeholder engagement are essential to overcome resistance and integrate EIL into national environmental strategies effectively. By addressing these challenges through thoughtful legislation, robust infrastructure and inclusive policy-making, Australia can lead by example in global environmental stewardship. The success of similar initiatives in health labelling and international trends towards greater transparency in consumer goods underscores the feasibility of EIL. Moreover, the public's increasing environmental consciousness and demand for sustainable products indicate a readiness for such a shift. Implementing mandatory EIL is not merely a regulatory step but a significant move towards aligning market practices with the urgent need for environmental preservation. As such, despite the complexities involved, the effort to mandate EIL is not only justified but necessary. Thus, this essay concludes that mandating EIL on packaged foods in Australia is feasible and should be implemented.

^[1] Rebecca Lindsey and Luann Dahlman, ‘Climate Change: Global Temperature’, Understanding Climate (Web Page, 18 January 2024) < https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature#:~:text=According%20to%20NOAA's%202023%20Annual,0.20°%20C)%20per%20decade>.

^[2] ‘8 in 10 Australians Are Concerned about Climate Change with a Clear Public Expectation of Government Action’, News and Events: News (Web Page, 20 April 2022) <https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/8-10-australians-are-concerned-about-climate-change#:~:text=The%20annual%20Ipsos%20Climate%20Change,and%20up%20from%2056%25%20in>.

^[3] KM Priya. and Alur Sivakumar, ‘Analyzing Consumer Behaviour towards Food and Nutrition Labelling: A Comprehensive Review’ (2023) 9(9) Heliyon e19401, 3.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Sophie Wallis and Joshua Godfrey, ‘Supermarket Statistics 2024’, Insights (Web Page, 21 August 2024) <https://www.finder.com.au/insights/supermarket-statistics#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20of%20Australians,third%20(38%25)%20in%202021>; Anne Sharp and Meagan Wheeler, ‘Reducing Householders’ Grocery Carbon Emissions: Carbon Literacy and Carbon Label Preferences’ (2013) 21(4) Australasian Marketing Journal 240, 242.

^[6] Sharp and Wheeler (n 5).

^[7] ‘Nutrition Labelling’, World Health Organisation (Web Page) < https://www.who.int/initiatives/food-systems-for-health/nutrition-labelling>.

^[8] Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth).

^[9] Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Cth).

^[10] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

^[11] Ibid sch 2.

^[12] ‘EPBC Act: Frequently Asked Questions’, EPBC Act Publications and Resources (Web Page, 2013) <https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/publications/factsheet-epbc-act-frequently-asked-questions>.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Joanna Kaczorowska et al, ‘Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Customers’ (2019) 11(24) Frontiers in Psychology 7240, 7253; ‘The Sustainability Imperative’, Insights (Web Page, 12 October 2015) <https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2015/the-sustainability-imperative-2/>.

^[15] Harun, ‘Carbon Labelling Picks Up Steam as Allbirds, Unilever, Others Lead the Way’, Environment + Energy Leader (Web Page, 19 August 2021) < https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/2021/08/carbon-labeling-picks-up-steam-as-allbirds-unilever-others-lead-the-way/#>.

^[16] ‘These Food Companies Put Their Carbon Footprint on Their Packaging’, Knowledge Blog (Web Page, 17 June 2024) <https://ecochain.com/blog/these-food-companies-put-their-carbon-footprint-on-their-packaging/>.

^[17] Ibid.

^[18] Flora Southey, ‘Denmark “First Country in the World” to Develop Its Own Climate Label for Food’, Food Navigator Europe (online, 19 April 2022) <https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2022/04/19/denmark-first-country-in-the-world-to-develop-its-own-climate-label-for-food>.

^[19] Amy Lando, ‘Single Large Portion Size and Dual Column Nutritional Labelling May Help Consumers Make More Healthful Food Choices’ (2013) 113(2) Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 241.

^[20] M Crippa et al, ‘Food Systems Are Responsible for a Third of Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions’ (2021) Nature Food, 2.

^[21] Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, ‘Environmental Impacts of Food Production’ (Research Paper, Oxford University, January 2020) 2.

^[22] Crippa et al (n 20) 2–3.

^[23] Ibid 4.

^[24] Ibid 2.

^[25] National Geographic Society ‘Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Modifications’, Education (Web Page, 19 October 2023) < https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/environmental-impacts-agricultural-modifications/>.

^[26] Ibid.

^[27] Ibon Gallastegui, ‘The Use of Eco-labels: A Review of the Literature’ (2002) 12 European Environment 317.

^[28] Ibid 316.

^[29] Kaczorowska et al (n 14) 7250.

^[30] Ipsos (n 2).

^[31] Kaczorowska et al (n 14) 7242–7.

^[32] Mar Giró-Candanedo et al, ‘Use and Understanding of Nutrition Labels: Impact of Diet Attachment’ (2022) 11(13) Foods 1918.

^[33] Ibid 78.

^[34] Lando (n 19).

^[35] Siyi Shangguan et al, ‘A Meta-analysis of Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Diet Behaviors and Industry Practices’ (2019) 56(2) PubMed Central 300, 314.

^[36] Sarah Dickie, Julie L. Woods and Mark Lawrence, ‘Analysing the Use of the Australian Health Star Rating System by Level of Food Processing’ (2018) 15(128) International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 128.

^[37] Ibid.

^[38] Kaczorowska et al (n 14) 7244–7.

^[39] Michael E Porter, ‘What is Strategy?’ (November – December 1995) Harvard Business Review <https://hbr.org/1996/11/what-is-strategy>.

^[40] Niki Burnside and Sarah Richards, ‘Supermarket Giants Woolworths and Coles Changing up Plastic Bag Policies in Queensland and ACT’, ABC News (online, 15 February 2023) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-15/woolworths-coles-reusable-plastic-shopping-bag-policies-act-qld/101976184>.

^[41] Porter (n 39).

^[42] Nestle, ‘Creating Shared Value and Sustainability Report 2022’ (Report, 2022).

^[43] Crippa et al (n 20) 3.

^[44] Leon Pieters et al, ‘The Cost of Buying Green’, Deloitte Insights (Web Page, 17 June 2022) <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-distribution/consumer-behavior-trends-state-of-the-consumer-tracker/sustainable-products-and-practices-for-green-living.html>.

^[45] Fanny Hermundsdottir and Arild Aspelund, ‘Sustainability Innovations and Firm Competitiveness: A Review’ (2020) Journal of Cleaner Production 280(124715) 4.

^[46] Ibid 5.

^[47] Richard M Crossley, Mohamed H Elmagrhi & Collins G Ntim, ‘Sustainability and Legitimacy Theory: The Case of Sustainable Social and Environmental Practices of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises’ (2021) 30(8) Business Strategy and the Environment 3740, 3754.

^[48] Wendy Zheng, ‘Should Food Be Labelled with Warnings abouts Its Environmental Impact?’ (2021) 14(21) University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series.

^[49] Crippa et al (n 20) 2.

^[50] Rainer Haas et al, ‘Cow Milk Versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes’ (2019) 11(18) Sustainability 5046, 5047.

^[51] Anne Marie Thow et al, ‘Nutrition Labelling is a Trade Policy Issue: Lessons from an Analysis of Specific Trade Concerns at the World Trade Organization’ (2018) 33(4) Health Promotion International 561, 562.

^[52] Tania Voon, ‘Exploring the Meaning of Trade-Restrictiveness in the WTO’ World Trade Review (2015) 14(3) 451-477.

^[53] Zheng (n 48).

^[54] Ibid.

^[55] 'Country of Origin Food Labelling', Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Web Page) <https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-and-promotions/country-of-origin-food-labelling>.

^[56] Thow et al (n5 1).

^[57] ‘Adapting Australia's Unique Environment to Climate Change’, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Web Page) < https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/policy/environment>.

^[58] Amy Warren, ‘Environmental Impact Labels on Food Packaging in Australia: Practical and Political Challenges’ (2022) 22(26) University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series.

^[59] ‘Présentation’, Eco-Score (Web Page) <https://docs.score-environnemental.com/v/en/>.

^[60] Hannah Ritchie, Pablo Rosado and Max Roser, ‘Environmental Impacts of Food Production’, Our World in Data (Web Page, 2022) <https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food?insight=differences-carbon-footprint-foods#key-insights-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food>.

^[61] Ibid.

^[62] Warren (n 56).

^[63] Hannah Ritchie, ‘Dairy vs. Plant-Based Milk: What Are the Environmental Impacts?’, Our World in Data (Web Page, 19 January 2022) <https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks>.

^[64] Alexandra Jones et al, ‘Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling to Promote Healthier Diets: Current Practice and Opportunities to Strengthen Regulation Worldwide’ (2019) 4(6) BMJ Global Health 1, 10.

^[65] Ibid 11.

^[66] Warren (n 56).

^[67] Ibid.

^[68] Ibid.

^[69] ‘Australian National Life Cycle Inventory Database’, Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (Web Page) <https://www.alcas.asn.au/auslci>.

^[70] Alison Gaines, et al, ‘Switches in Food and Beverage Product Purchases Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Australia’ (2024) 5 Nature Food 524–532.

^[71] Dariush Mozaffarian et al, ‘Role of Government Policy in Nutrition – Barriers to and Opportunities for Healthier Eating’ (2018) 361 British Medical Journal 1.

^[72] Kaczorowska et al (n 14) 7240.

^[73] Warren (n 56).

^[74] Mozaffarian et al (n 69) 7.

^[75] Ibid.

^[76] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Lobbying in the 21st Century: Transparency, Integrity and Access’ (Brochure, 2021) <https://www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/Lobbying-Brochure.pdf>.

^[77] Ibid.