Politics on a plate: marketing meat and Australia’s war over words

In a move that resembles Goliath dobbing on David to Big Brother, the Australian red meat lobby has spit the dummy and secured a federal inquiry into the labelling of animal products. The lobby hopes that by criminalising language it can hobble the skyrocketing market of its plant-based competitors. 

In the face of mounting consumer disinterest and accusations of environmental vandalism, the Australian red meat lobby has cried wolf and argued that their rivals are using words they say are solely their own. In its haste to cripple the competition, it has sped past shock, has never considered or contemplated guilt of any kind, and has barrelled head-long into anger and desperate bargaining. What we’re seeing isn’t a sector bringing to bear a legitimate injustice. Instead, we are watching the seven stages of grief play out at the checkout of your local supermarket. What happens next will reveal how far influential special interest groups can bend political will to shape legislation and our consumer rights.

Meat eating in Australia

For many years, Australia was the indisputable “meat-eating capital of the world”: average per capita meat consumption was nearly three times the global average as recently as 2007. Today, many Australians are reducing their meat intake and eating for ethical, environmental or health reasons is no longer considered the behaviour of a niche set of concerned consumers. As more Australians have added environmental and animal welfare issues to their grocery budget, meat-eating sits at close to its lowest point since 1996. This decline has sent shivers down the spines of many with interest or investments in the sector. More than any other, it’s sewn doubt in the viability of the red meat industry.

In the past, cows were the most eaten animal in Australia. In 2001, per capita consumption of chickens exceeded beef for the first time. Even though the Australian Government says the astonishing figure of more than 600 million chickens eaten every year has more than offset the declines in other sectors, the red meat lobby has sunk millions into marketing trying to revive its golden days. 

At the same time it lost prize position, the red meat lobby launched a campaign blitz exceeding $40 million to assist in “halting the ongoing decline in consumption”. When that didn’t hit the mark, it launched another. Since then, the lobby has continued to work on ways to enhance the reputation of red meat, largely by spreading misinformation about the necessity of eating animals. At one stage, it even led a junket across the country showing thousands of Australians the lighter side of the sector through virtual reality: in their version of reality, no animals are shown harmed and the slaughterhouse scene was cut on the factory floor. Each campaign employed “nutritionism”, a strategy the animal agriculture lobby has used for several decades to promote a selective array of nutrients in order to promote meat as both healthy and essential. But it’s still not working. Now the lobby is picking a fight with an unlikely foe: the dictionary. 

What is meat and do we need to eat it?

What “meat” means varies according to the source, as well as the time and the place. In medieval English, the term was used to describe food of any kind, and up until the fourteenth century, it could mean any form of nourishment. Modern dictionaries define meat in many ways: it could mean “the edible part of something”, the “flesh of a mammal” or, more generally, “the core of something”. The word is deeply intertwined with beliefs about its particular place during meals and the real debate about labelling has more to do with “a battle for the centre of the plate” than anything else.

But what about protein?

While most people are aware that protein exists outside meat and other animal products, one of the most common myths is that eating animals is necessary to get enough protein. While meat may be tied to landmarks in human history, like the discovery of fire or the expansion of the brain, sound science and strong evidence show that it's not an essential element of meals today. While proteins are vital for growth and development, many of these can be found in abundance in plants. Plant proteins contribute 65% of the world’s supply 

The Inquiry

As no other sector has done before, the meat lobby has suggested it has an unspoken copyright on common words and that consumers are being hoodwinked when they spend their hard-earned salaries on anything other than their own products. The only problem is, the data indicates that it’s the other way around: more people intending to buy plant-based products make the mistake than meat-eaters do. Despite this, the suggestion that words that have been used for decades are confusing customers is a guiding argument of the inquiry into definitions of meat and other animal products. 

The inquiry was launched by Senator Susan McDonald, an Australian politician with thick ties to the sector. From 2014 to 2019, the Senator served as the managing director of Super Butcher, a five-store and online business owned by the McDonald family. In 2016, the Senator was appointed to the board of Beef Australia, a week-long expo held in Rockhampton that celebrates and promotes the very industry this inquiry was formed to protect. It was these influences that leaned on the Senator, who has used the Office to attack the rising stars of its competition.

Rather than accepting competition as an inescapable element of business, the red meat lobby has brazenly taken their contempt for compassionate choices and the companies that service a growing sector of Australians to a disturbing and tyrannical new level. After decades of dwindling returns and waning social support, the lobby has taken aim at its plant-based competitors. Despite not having a single copyright or legal claim to any common word, the underlying motivation is clear: banning your competitors from being able to legally use these terms means the industry has a chance to claw back its shrinking market share. If its competitors are forced to invent an entirely different word, it might give them just enough shelf space to buy back a fraction of what they’ve lost.

In addition to investigating the use of language, the inquiry also intends to scrutinise the use of livestock imagery on plant-based packaging. The mere suggestion brings to mind many of the misleading marketing strategies employed by the industry, including one that ended in a substantial fine for deceiving consumers into believing ducks had access to open water (spoiler: they don’t) and another in which Australia’s largest chicken producer was found guilty of engaging in “false, misleading and deceptive conduct”. Many companies continue to use ambiguous or false terms to promote the health benefits or positive welfare of their products. 

Despite its lobby making mighty claims that Australia is a world leader in animal welfare, decades of exposés have revealed the opposite. Inquiries have been launched across the country into various elements of the animal agriculture sector, including whether animal rights activism poses a threat to the industry, yet none have ever focused narrowly on welfare or environmental impacts. Hedging its bets, the lobby has forgotten that previous inquiries into labelling have come down hard on the sector. 

Why here and why now?

One rationale for the increasing push to ban the use of such terms is the recent success of plant-based products. “Plant-based” has become an increasingly popular and well-known choice or preference. In Australia, the prevalence of veg*n diets increased from 9% in 2012 to 11% in 2016, triggering a five-fold increase in the number of plant-based alternatives on supermarket shelves since 2015. In 2019, such products earned retail sales of $5 billion in the United States alone and recent studies have found that the term “vegan” is “the most common buzzword” used on health food products sold in Australian supermarkets. Between 2016 and 2018, sales of plant-based dairy alternatives grew by 58% and data shows that growth exceeded 150% in just five years. During COVID, 24% of Australians ate fewer animal products and 10% became either vegetarian or vegan: demand for all plant-based products in Australia grew by 46% in 2020 with revenue doubling in the same year.

Are meat-eaters confused by plant-based products?

Despite their growing ubiquity, a common argument raised by lobbyists about plant-based products is that consumers mistakenly buy or consume them because they believe that they contain meat. The Australian Meat Industry Council (‘AMIC’) welcomed the inquiry, saying that they want to ensure that the “labelling of manufactured plant proteins does not constitute a point of confusion for consumers”. Though it may seem plausible, let’s unpack the argument and see if it stacks up.

Surveys assessing the validity of this claim asked meat-eaters whether they had ever entered a shop intending to buy meat but had unintentionally come home with a plant-based product. The survey also asked vegans or vegetarians whether they had ever done the opposite: had they ever entered a shop intending to buy a plant-based product but had unintentionally come home with meat instead. Responses revealed that only 9% of Australians had ever made such a mistake. But that’s not all: respondents who stated that they were vegan were more likely to have unintentionally purchased a product than meat-eaters were.

Who is really being misled?

In 2009, another senate inquiry into the marketing of red meat found that its practices were “misleading”. The Committee’s report states that “the current labelling arrangements meant that information presented to consumers is inadequate or misleading” because most products list only the price and the part of the animal packaged. This led to a damning conclusion: when buying meat, making decisions at the supermarket was “something of a lottery”. Exposés have found the same: recent analyses of meat sold at a popular fast-food chain could not even identify the species it once was. When it came to the life the animal lived before being butchered and shrink-wrapped for sale, the Committee pulled no punches: “it is currently too easy for food producers to make dubious claims about their animal welfare practices”. It concluded that the meaning of many descriptions used in meat marketing is “broadly understood but not clearly defined”. 

Though the argument that shoppers could be confused might seem solid, the evidence doesn’t support it. In fact, it supports the opposite. Consumers aren’t confused by plant-based products but they are forced to enter a lottery when they eat meat. 

Australia, once again, following in America’s footsteps

Another consideration is the fact that Australia seems to have a tendency to copy American policies and politics. American states led the development of “ag-gag” laws designed to silence whistleblowers and animal rights activists from exposing the conditions in factory farms. Since then, Australia has followed in their footsteps and is repeating the trend with attacks on plant-based labelling laws. In 2018, Missouri became the first American state to regulate the labelling of “artificial meat” products. Mislabeling plant-based alternatives could land the offender with a fine or even a stint in prison. 

Far from a legitimate attempt at setting the record straight, the lobby’s attack on common words has the potential to dramatically infringe on Australian democracy and the rights of consumers.

Why the world needs more plant-based production 

Animal agriculture, directly and indirectly, contributes to many of the contemporary world’s most pressing problems. Eating animals causes deforestation, water pollution, the production of greenhouse gases, global warming and a wide range of public health issues. The growing awareness of these issues has caused the meat industry to fall on hard times, as more and more consumers opt out of eating animals and vote with their credit cards at the supermarket. 

The combination of limited resources, deteriorating public trust and a plummeting market share mean one thing: business as usual cannot continue on a scorched earth. In this climate, plant-based products offer both an opportunity and a way out. For those concerned about the environment, the reduction or elimination of animal suffering is simply icing on the cruelty-free cake. 

Where to from here?

Development and innovation are inevitable. New ideas, products and behaviours spread through a population over time. Some people are more likely to embrace or consider particular changes than others are, but those early adopters help spread it throughout society over time. Nearly 2.5 million Australians have adopted an entirely or almost entirely vegetarian diet. The market for plant-based products in Australia is quickly increasing, with several companies leading the way. 

A diversified protein portfolio has been identified as one of the most effective and commercially successful pathways a company can take in response to the rising environmental impacts wrought by animal production and its supply chains. It’s why agribusiness giants overseas have decided to add plant-based protein production to its portfolio.

Evidence shows that shifting community attitudes and growing mistrust of the animal agriculture sector have led to the increasing sales of “alternative proteins”. These shifts have hit the industry hard, leading some to speculate whether it is possible for the sector to retain its social license. Crucially, concern for animal welfare, not the labels alternative products have printed on their packaging, are “the most crucial consideration underpinning social licence for Australian animal use industries”. The Red Meat Advisory Council itself has acknowledged this in its most recent strategic plan. 

Animal agribusiness has always tried hard to keep its many secrets under wraps. If they’re not doing it by lobbying politicians to pass increasingly draconian and undemocratic laws, they’re doing it with words. The meat industry is rife with euphemisms that it uses to mislead consumers, allowing them to participate in practices that they might otherwise regard as immoral. From the processing of chickens to the harvesting of kangaroos, agribusiness obscures killing at every possible turn. 

The writing is all over the walls. Instead of rallying supportive Senators and launching skirmishes, the industry could be proactive. The first step is avoiding trivialising the legitimate concerns of many Australians by falsely claiming they are making mistakes at the checkout. The data doesn’t back it up and the soaring market share clearly shows this.

Australian consumers, 90% of whom share the opinions of activists, are less likely than ever to continue supporting an industry whose production causes significant environmental damage and animal suffering. The pressure that led to the industry securing the inquiry could do their cause more harm than good, as many are likely to see it as a desperate attack on legitimate businesses providing a growing segment of society with the products they have every right to easily obtain. It might not be its 11th hour, but the industry may have shot itself in the foot. 

Now is your chance to have your say.