December 2011

Ministers Identify Australian Food Labelling Priorities FREE Show More Info
The Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food regulatory policies (including the State and Territory Ministers and the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Health) met in Melbourne on Friday 9 December 2012 The purpose of the meeting was to issue a formal response to the recommendations in the Food Labelling Review Report, "Labelling Logic" (also known as the Blewett Report) tabled by Dr. Neal Blewett AC and his colleagues in January 2011.

Time to Reform the Confusing Laws of Food Lubricants in Australia Show More Info
In the Australian vernacular, ‘Lubrication’ has its own special meaning, often associated with drinking beer! While this may be construed as an internal use of ‘lubrication’ but it is not the intention of this article deal with beer. This article of more than 1900 words addresses the meaning of lubricants and qualities such as “food grade” in the Australian context.

The Legal Requirements for Food Regulators to Avoid any Potential for Bias Show More Info
This article considers some of the potential for conflicts which may arise for regulatory personnel and government agencies dealing with any food industry sector, and the need to avoid bias or apprehended bias when investigating or prosecuting offences.

Supermarket Powers, the ACCC and the Metcash Decision Show More Info
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has unanimously upheld the decision of a Federal Court judge dismissing the ACCC’s application to prevent wholesale distributor Metcash from acquiring Franklins supermarkets. This article examines and explains why the ACCC failed and the areas where changes in competition law in Australia are likely to be made.

Food Marketing and a Lesson in Trade Mark Law: Woolworths and the “Honest to Goodness” Trademark Case Show More Info
In March 2011, legal action was brought against Woolworths supermarkets for trademark infringement - Organic Marketing Australia Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd [2011] FCA 279 (“Honest to Goodness”). This article provides a summary of the Federal Court judgment and analyses issues of trademark protection raised in the litigation.

“Overall Impressions” and the “Reasonable Consumer”: How the Food Industry Can Learn from a Court Case about Telephones Show More Info
In July 2011, Singtel Optus Pty Ltd was fined $5.26 million (and this figure obviously does not include their legal expenses and loss of reputation, goodwill and market share) for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct over their “Think Bigger” and “Supersonic” broadband advertising campaigns. This was the second time in the last two years that their marketing had been prosecuted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the facts and principles of these cases ought to be mandatory reading for marketing teams for any product.