A LACK of national standards means some pork and chicken producers deceive consumers with bogus free-range claims, says LEE McCOSKER

While the demand for free-range pork and chicken grows, we still do not have a national standard or even industry codes for the production of these products.

As a pork producer, it concerns me that we are seeing more and more producers take advantage of both consumer ignorance and the lack of a legal definition for free-range.

Most pigs marketed as free-range or "bred" free-range will have spent only three weeks of their lives outdoors - not exactly what consumers are expecting when they buy the product.

While the free-range breeding system is far more humane than intensive pig production, the pork they produce is not free-range and the use of this description is misleading.

The Free Range Pork Farmers Association has appealed to our peak industry body, Australian Pork Limited, to show some initiative and at least develop clear industry guidelines for free-range production.

Our requests have not only been denied but a descriptor once posted on the APL website defining the term free-range has now been removed.

As responsible pork producers, and to enable our own farms to meet quality assurance requirements at NSW abattoirs, we had to seek help from outside the pork industry as there was no QA within the industry that covered outdoor pig production.

Eighteen months later, nothing has changed and the only QA available is Humane Choice, developed with the Humane Society International and audited by Aus-Qual Pty Ltd.

The structure of APL is such that it allows producers who pay the most levies to control what happens within the industry and the small producer is not given a voice.

I believe they would like to see the genuine free-range farmer forced out of the industry because we stand in the way of some intensive producers who would like to exploit the demand for free-range pork, with no requirements for truth in labelling to deter them.

In a current survey (www.pigout.net.au), 88 per cent of respondents believe free-range pigs should be able to roam large, fenced paddocks.

The pork industry needs to acknowledge this fact.

Ethical eating is a growing trend and conscientious consumers seeking meat that has been grown under free-range conditions, and without certain drugs, can only trust the product label is not misleading and does reflect the production method used to produce that meat.

These consumers are an influential group who are changing our views on what we eat and how it is produced and delivered to market.

We need standards to protect these consumers as well as the genuine free-range farmers who find themselves competing with product that is deceptively labelled.

A recent letter received by FRPFA from the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport announced that they will extend the meat marketing inquiry to include "the use of labels 'organic' and 'free range' across all meat products".

NSW MP Richard Torbay's truth in meat labelling bill will also be taken to the national level.

The proposed bill would make it an offence to falsely describe meat including beef, sheep, goat and pig in advertising, packaging, or labelling.

State Minister for Primary Industries Ian McDonald was quoted as saying recently, "truth in labelling would be a major step forward in ensuring consistency of quality for consumers".

Here's hoping change is imminent and we do not continue down a path that allows intensively housed pigs to be sold as free-range pork.