Kieran Campbell
July 09, 2013
News Limited Network
THE companies that process and supply Steggles-branded chicken products have been found guilty of false advertising after claiming its chickens, which only had access to floor space of less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper, were “free to roam” in large barns.
The Federal Court ruled Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd and Bartter Enterprises Ltd had engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct by describing on packaging and in advertising that its chickens were “free to roam” when that was not the case.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which initiated proceeding against the companies in September 2011, claimed that Steggles’ statistics indicated consistent stocking densities of between 17.4 and 19.6 chickens per square metre.
It said that equated to access to floor space less than the size of an A4 piece of paper and contradicted the claim that they were “free to roam”.
Federal Court Justice Richard Tracey said that at times in their growth cycle the chickens “could not move more than a metre or so (at most) without having their further movement obstructed by a barrier of clustered birds”, the ACCC said.
The Australian Chicken Meat Federation was also found to have engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct by claiming on its website that chickens produced in Australia were “free to roam” or able to “roam freely” in large barns.
ACCC commissioner Sarah Court said the credibility of farming practices played a major role in influencing people’s food choices and was a priority for the consumer watchdog.
The parties are due in for a directions hearing in court on July 12 to debate penalty.
The ACCC also alleged the companies mislead the public as to the nature and characteristics of Steggles meat chickens, but the court found the “free to roam” claim did not relate to the quality of its products.
A spokeswoman for Baiada Poultry Ltd. said the company “strongly believed” that the statement “free to roam in large barns” was accurate, despite the court’s findings.
She said the court’s judgement also acknowledged there was no suggestion that the density of the chickens raised any issues of animal welfare.
“Baiada and Bartter both strictly observed the industry standards and ensured that stocking levels were kept below the maxima prescribed by those standards,” Justice Tracey said.
The Australian Chicken Meat Federation executive director Andreas Dubs said he was disappointed with the court’s decision and said the federation never intended to mislead people.
He said the case was an argument about semantics and the federation had immediately agreed to ditch the “free to roam” description when the issue was first raised by the ACCC.
“We didn’t and we still don’t feel that what we done was misleading,” Mr Dubs said.
He said information about how chickens were kept was readily available on the federation’s website and the term “free to roam” had previously been used because it was believed to have been an accurate description of the way chickens were kept.
“I don’t know what ‘free to roam’ means anymore … obviously the court takes a certain view,” Mr Dubs said.
“What I would say is that we … just used English words that actually are also in the code of practice.
“We aim to inform. We certainly don’t want to mislead anybody.”
Subscribe to our free mailing list and always be the first to receive the latest news and updates.