Prev
Next

“Made in Australia” should mean made in Australia

Amanda Rishworth

by Amanda Rishworth

25 Feb 05:30am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Australian Made, Consumer Affairs, Food, Labelling Laws

50 comments

Walking down the aisle of the average supermarket, the local shopper is bombarded with labels claiming a whole range of virtues including the Australian-ness of their product.

Even this kangaroo isn't sure if it's really Australian

“Manufactured in Australia”, “Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients” and “Australian Owned” are just some of the catchcries that food manufactures use to get our attention and convince us to buy their product. This is an effective marketing tool, evidenced by explosions of claims on labels that line our supermarket shelves. But as always the devil is in the detail. Or - when it comes to food labelling - the devil is in the definition.

Australian consumers want to buy Australian-grown food not only to support Australian farmers but also because they have confidence in the standard and quality of food products grown and packaged in their own backyard. Often the Australian-ness catchcries touted on food labels are not clear and can be extremely misleading, making it difficult for the consumer to determine which part, if any, of the product was indeed grown in Australia.

Take for example the slogan regularly seen on packaged food, “Made from local and imported ingredients”. It is not surprising that such a label leaves shoppers confused as to which part of the food is actually from Australia. After trawling though websites or ringing around companies consumers discover that, for example, their packet of frozen broad beans consists of imported Chinese beans with Australian water included.

Again, the Made in Australia slogan is one that generates significant confusion among shoppers who come away believing that they have purchased an Australian product. For this particular claim to be made, the product must have been substantially transformed in Australia so that it is new and different after the manufacturing process, with at least 50 per cent of production costs incurred here.

As you can see, this definition is clearly designed for non-comestible products. While it may be appropriate for products such as clothing or shoes, this definition simply does not cut it for food products where the consumer is concerned not only with where it was manufactured but also where it was grown.

While the promotion of the voluntary Australian Grown logo has successfully helped consumers identify food grown in Australia, there still remains significant confusion for consumers given the vast array of other slogans and claims routinely displayed on packaging. Definitive, consistent and mandatory criteria for country-of-origin labelling would reduce confusion and empower consumers to make more informed choices.

Consumers have a right to access comprehensive information about food products in order to satisfy health requirements and their own personal value system. Clear, simple and accurate food labelling identifying the origin, production methods and nutritional value of food products is critical to empowering consumers to make informed choices and to protect the health and safety of all Australians. With the public release of the independent review into food labelling standards headed by Dr Neal Blewett late last month, it is timely to consider the importance of getting our food labelling regulations right.

It is good to see that the Food Labelling Review addresses some of the concerns about inaccurate and, at times, deceptive country-of-origin labelling in a number of its recommendations - most significantly, by recommending that for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly and food-specific country-of-origin labelling framework be developed based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients (excluding water).

This would mean greater clarity and simplicity for consumers who wish to make purchases on the basis of country-of-origin. Standardising the use of such claims would not only assist consumers to make informed choices, but it would also provide genuine domestic food producers and manufacturers with a competitive edge.

Whether the motivation comes from a desire to secure the long-term viability of the Australian food production industry, or whether it comes from a desire to empower consumers, there is a clear need for greater clarity and accuracy around country-of-origin claims.The release of this review provides all levels of government and industry with a unique opportunity to think seriously about the importance of clarity, simplicity and accuracy in food labelling practices and the need for rigorous and consistent enforcement of regulations governing these practices. Let’s not waste it.

Most commented

50 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:05am | 25/02/11

      What an excellent article! If only more politicians could make contributions like this.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      10:26am | 25/02/11

      You wouldn’t say that if you lived in her electorate…

    • Erick says:

      02:49pm | 25/02/11

      Well, that reply was probably one of the nicest and praisingest comments I ever made on The Punch.

      So why was it censored?

    • acotrel says:

      04:12pm | 25/02/11

      ‘Made in Australia’ - what is that?  Do we still do that these days?  I thought the conservatives had sent all our industry offshore!

    • Tejas says:

      07:05pm | 25/02/11

      So Kate you live in her electorate, what does she do wrong? She of course received the largest swing of any member of the ALP. A ton of investment was put into her electorate, she deserved to be rewarded. I wish I lived in her electorate because I think from the outside looking in she does a very good job. Please do tell me and everyone else.

    • S.L says:

      05:43am | 25/02/11

      Anything marked “made in australia” that isn’t should be regarded as fraud. Unfortunately the companies that get away with such a scam have lawyers to argue otherwise.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:10am | 25/02/11

      In the olden days, enforcement of the Commerce Markings Act was applied along with tariffs on imported goods, by the Department of Customs & Excise.  Now we have the ‘Free Market’ we don’t need to protect our industry any more?  Our importers are obviously, and blatantly opportunistic.  Supermarkets want it all their own way! It’s all about the quick dollar, NOT AUSTRALIAN JOBS!  (We also used to enforce anti-dumping legislation)

    • Brian says:

      01:07pm | 25/02/11

      Part of the problem is, what does ‘Made in Australia’ mean - I would say that a shirt which was made in Australia from imported fabric was Australian made, but some would not. What about the reverse? Cotton grown and spun in Australia, but the sewing done in Indonesia? Or Italy? That is what the argument the lawyers use, and one I don’t think is easy to resolve. If you changed it so that EVERY step had to be done in Australia, then you could enforce it… and it would be much, much rarer.

    • JPK says:

      06:13am | 25/02/11

      Granted that the “Made in Australia” logo should have integrity, but the real issue is whether we should even purchase products in Australia.
      Anyone who has basic training in economics understands that products should be produced where they can be done so most efficiently.
      When commodities such as cotton are produced in Australia, they have a net negative effect on our environment and economy.
      Those who subscribe unequivocally to “Made in Australia” brands are doing more damage to our global economy in the long term.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:41am | 25/02/11

      I often wonder if Food Standards Australia and New Zealand are doing their job?  Those sun dried tomatos in the supermarkets might come from countries where Hepatitis A is common?

    • Jon says:

      12:47pm | 25/02/11

      Hepatitis A is not exactly rare in Australia…..granted, not a ‘hotspot’ but we do have it and it gets into the food supply - oysters anyone?

    • Kate says:

      07:26am | 28/02/11

      Couldn’t agree more; why do people feel compelled to prop up inefficiency by paying a premium? Of course, the irony is that manufacturers have difficulty filling the highly desirable (NOT) jobs which such misguided nationalism supports.

    • Vince says:

      10:33pm | 25/10/11

      What crap.  First of all, I have a business degree (HRM) and have the “basic training in economics” of which you speak.  Your “net negative effect on environment and economy” is exceedingly short sighted.  Our cotton (and other) products will out last the Chinese/Indian/Anywhere else in the Third World you want to go ([possibly] barring fairly traded products - because there is quality built into the processes) because of the quality of the product we produce.  For too long this world has considered cheaper to equal ‘better’ and it is seldom so.
      I have recently started a T-shirt printing business that will be using only Australian made (organic cotton grown, spun, woven, dyed and sewn in Australia) or Fairly Traded garments (from a Third World country where conditions are generally very poor but the workers making a Fair Trade garment are paid a fair wage in safe conditions).
      I challenge you to find a T-shirt made in China that will outlast one of my Aussie made ones; I reckon you’ll have put three in landfill before ONE of mine wears out, which will then be good for an oil rag in the boot of the car.
      Sustainability is not going to be found in the sweatshops of China, India, Cambodia and Uzbekistan (or any others).  We should wind down our support of them and force them to clean up their act.

    • acotrel says:

      06:45am | 25/02/11

      And what a bout the guy in the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service who let the prawns infected with a dangerous virus into Australia?  They’ve recovered a couple of tonnes, but about eight is unaccounted for. - has the potential to stuff our entire prawn fishing industry!

      Reply

    • stevie p says:

      07:20am | 25/02/11

      Who wrote and edited your article for you Amanda? Nick Xenophon?

      No one gives a rats what you say anymore.

      No Government I lead will introduce a carbon tax - Gillard. Really?

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      08:25am | 25/02/11

      Gillard has broken campain promises (they must have been non-core) and is working to introduce a tax she earlier claimed she would never, ever bring in. I agree we should vote these people out, but who should we vote for in their place? You’re not seriously going to suggest the Liberals are you?

    • Joanne says:

      07:47am | 25/02/11

      Any party that introduces tight food labelling laws (so they have to tell the truth about country of origin), will win the next election.  There may not be many comments on this article, but EVERYONE I speak to and hear on talk back is infuriated by our vage labelling laws.

      Any politican reading this - take note!

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      01:04pm | 25/02/11

      John Howard’s government brought in country of origin laws for food which took effect in 2005 - and which were a huge advance on the system beforehand.

      They lost the next election.

    • Jon says:

      08:08am | 25/02/11

      When Oh When will people realise that Country of Origin Labelling (which is what this is about) when it comes to food is important for about 10% of consumers who usually have a philosophical or xenophobic reason for ensuring their food does not come from Asia.  All the studies have shown that consumers are motivated by price first, then allergens, fats, etc But a few years ago CoOL was brought in for food - to satisy the few, and the many had to pay for it.

      There is a plethora of information out there for consumers who want to know the difference between “produce of Australia”, “Made in Australia” etc - hopefully the review will assist - but also you CoOL freaks - if retailers etc are making misleading claims, that is what the ACCC and state based enforcement bodies are for.  Duh!

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      07:28am | 28/02/11

      I vote 90%+ fall into the xenophobic camp.

    • Mark says:

      10:58am | 22/01/12

      A lot of uneducated people, through lack of schooling or having never travelled through Asia, are not aware of foreign agricultural and manufacturing processes.

      This lack of education should not be seen as acceptance of foreign grown/made items nor should it be seen as a lack a concern for their own health and that of their family since misleading labelling does lull people into a false sense of security over the products they purchase.

      There is also the ethical question of overseas manufacturing that may employ children in sweat shops to keep their own costs down, let alone the source of their raw materials.

      I ask you Jon, Kate, Julia, Amanda and Nick, would any of you dare call me xenophobic, if I baulked at buying a lampshade made in Germany circa 1942.

    • Vickijoan says:

      08:33am | 25/02/11

      Thanks Amanda for a good article on ‘Made in Australia”. It shouldn’t be this hard to define what is and what isn’t made in Australia. Why is this kind of information being kept or held back from us,  the consumers. Are the powers that be concerned that by the backlash that may happen when it’s all revealed how much of “made in Australia” is or isn’t in the product.
      Consumers do have a right to know exactly where the product they are buying originated from. When I buy a product I want to know country of origin concerning all aspects that go into the making of the product so I can make an informed decision regarding that product.

      Reply

    • Huey says:

      08:34am | 25/02/11

      We do not buy any food from “forrin parts’ that we don’t have to. Some we have to because we don’t have Australian or N Z sardines for instance. Go without or make a choice based on country of origin eg sardines from Canada or Norway NOT Thailand or Malaysia. Condensed milk from Vietnam? No way! Baby formula from anywhere except Australia? ..Bugger that. Cannot make choices if there is incorrect or obscure labelling.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:32am | 25/02/11

      The ‘Australian Made/Made in Australia’ logo has about as much credence as the Heart Foundation ‘Tick’. Both great ideas that sold out to corporate greed and have since become known to stand for the direct opposition of what they were created for.

      I think Food Labelling laws are a great concern for many people I speak to and across the wider community. I’d love to see proper labelling laws to let us know what is actually grown here, what is manufactured here and, even more importantly now, what’s genetically modified and what not. We have a basic right to know what is in the food we are eating.

      We need to start fining/rubbing out these corporations that are rolling the dice with our long term health for nothing else but greed.

      Reply

    • DougB says:

      10:46am | 25/02/11

      Agree with you 110% about the Heart Foundaton “Tick”, TheRealDave. This is one of the most misleading bits of labelling I have seen. Probably 95% or more of the products I have seen with the tick, I am unable to eat as a person who suffers with a heart condition. They don’t even remotely meet the guidelines for sodium that we need. You just pay your money for the research, get some advice and receive the tick is how it seems to me.

    • Helen Jacobs says:

      01:25pm | 25/02/11

      I have to disagree about the AMAG logo.

      It’s a certification trade mark. The rules are approved by the Federal Government (the ACCC) and the AMAG Campaign is directed by a national Board.

      The campaign licenses businesses to use the logo on products which must be registered with the Campaign and it does this strictly in accordance with the rules.

      No licensees exert any influence on the administration of the Campaign.

    • Chris says:

      10:02am | 25/02/11

      Nothing will be made in Australia any more if your government’s carbon tax gets up. Take the tax to an election and let us decide, rather than breaking a promise and forcing a policy on the Australian people that you have no mandate for.

      Reply

    • DougB says:

      10:17am | 25/02/11

      A great article. We need clear labelling, especially in terms of “Made In Australia” Products.  Traffic lights for minerals etc such as Sodium, Fats etc would also be a great idea.  Imagine having a heart problem like myself, and being able to tell at one glance that the green “lights” mean I can eat this without the sodium and fats killing me.

      Reply

    • Danny B says:

      02:01pm | 25/02/11

      Doug, that idea’s got a snowball’s chance of happening.  It’s simple, clear and cheap to implement.  I’d love to see it happen, though.

    • Roddy Sexton says:

      10:30am | 25/02/11

      Amanda, I would like to know how a rasher of bacon can be made from “imported and Australian produce” as it is advertised in Coles & Woolies?

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      12:45pm | 25/02/11

      If the pork comes from Canada or the Netherlands but the salt and other ingredients are Australian but there is not sufficient substantial transformation for a ‘made in’ claim - similarly with the case if the pork is Australian but the other bits and pieces to make it into bacon are foreign - and guess what, it is a fact of life that Australia, as ALL countries do, import ingredients based on silly reasons such as seasonal availability.

      If you want to buy Australian food there is ONE simple way of doing it - look for “Product of”/“Produce of”  Australia.  Easy really.  Too easy actually.

    • Brian says:

      01:17pm | 25/02/11

      Because it depends entirely on the date it was produced - there may not be enough pork around at any given time, and rather than take the risk of having two types of packaging and mistakenly using the wrong one they have the same packaging, regardless of whether they’re using imported or local at that time.

    • Jon says:

      03:46pm | 25/02/11

      And Brian - that is exactly why some stuff is imported - it is a fact of life.  And when the tabloids go into a flap about ‘filthy imported (asian) catfish” they use pictures of sewers as if this represents what we are getting.  Come off it - but with seafood guess what xenophobes Australia cannot, repeat cannot produce enough seafood products on its own to meet demand.  So we import.

    • Dan says:

      10:46am | 25/02/11

      I especially love the packages that say ‘FAT FREE’ and then you look at the packet and see that it’s 70% sugar….
      We too try to buy only Australian and New Zealand food simply because we hope they have better regulations than some of the Asian countries (ie melamine in milk, industrial chemicals in rice noodles and packet noodles. I also understand that it’s probably futile so I grow as much of my own veg as I can in my backyard.

      Reply

    • malohi says:

      01:46pm | 25/02/11

      I find it amusing too. I wonder what would happen if coke advertised its fat free properties. Ignorant fatties would well up with tears of joy.

    • Ruth says:

      12:11am | 28/02/11

      Dan, I would watch what you buy from NZ, too, because much of “their” frozen produce is imported to there from China, and packed in NZ, then exported to Australia labelled as “product of NZ”. The packet it comes in may be, but I even doubt that.
      I but only frozen produce labelled “product of Australia”, or fresh from a local greengrocer or farmers’ market.
      I flatly refuse to buy any product marked “made in Australia from local and imported ingredients” It sometimes takes a while and a bit more expense to find a local equivilent, but it’s worth it.
      My backyard looks like a market garden, too.

    • Helen Jacobs says:

      10:56am | 25/02/11

      A very thought provoking article, Amanda - thank you.

      At the Australian Made, Australian Grown Campaign we also feel food labelling laws need to be tightened up so all consumers know where the food they’re buying comes from.

      We are in the process of changing our Code of Practise so processes like mixing, blending, curing or homogenising are excluded from the definition of substantial transformation.

      When it comes to Australian Grown, our criteria is actually stricter than those in the new Australian Consumer Law. For a product to carry the AMAG logo with the ‘Australian Grown’ claim, a minimum of 90 per cent (by total weight) of the ingredients must be grown in Australia. The ACL only requires a 50 per cent minimum.

      The AMAG logo is in fact a certification trademark - businesses must register their products with the not-for-profit AMAG Campaign, sign a stat dec and pay a licence fee.

      And research shows it is recognised by 94% of consumers and, more importantly, trusted by 85% over any other country-of-origin symbol such as flags, maps and pictures of animals.

      So I think it’s fair to say that people can be sure that when they see the green and gold logo, the item has been made or grown right here.

      If you’re interested, you can find out more info at australianmade.com.au.

      - Helen, PR and Communications Executive, AMAG Campaign

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      12:51pm | 25/02/11

      ” so processes like mixing, blending, curing or homogenising are excluded from the definition of substantial transformation”.

      Changing a Code of Practice???Wow - I know, I’ll throw a meringue at a brick wall - probably have the same impact.  Those processes are a world standard based - you will have to change the whole world…would it not be better for the ACCC and local food authorities to actually take some enforcement action (FSANZ is not an enforcement body, btw) - lots of luck with that because they have clearly indicated they are not interested in policing this end of labelling

    • Brian says:

      01:21pm | 25/02/11

      Jon, a Code of Practice is enforceable, if they want to keep the labelling. If they want the ‘green and gold, Australian Made, Australian Grown’ logo they MUST follow that Code of Practice. Note that your comment about changing the world is a little wierd, as they’re not saying ‘Don’t homogenise it’, they’re saying ‘Don’t try to claim homogenising it makes it Australian made’. The trouble with enforcement is that it is never as easy as it sounds, and enforcement is much more expensive than monitoring a code of practice

    • stephen says:

      11:41am | 25/02/11

      But business does not want any more regulation, because they say they are over-regulated, yet any perusal of food markings will tell you that they are dishonest, and will try to misinform the consumer so that they will buy their product.
      People who sell things require to be treated as babies, and the Govt. agencies who act on our behalf must be given full authority to convict when sellers breach the laws.

      Reply

    • Killer Bees says:

      01:20pm | 25/02/11

      I’m only interesed in Australian grown food.  Our country is big enough in land mass and temperate enough in climate that we should be able to grow anything we like to feed ourselves.  But that’s not the case.  I was looking for fresh garlic the other day and could only find garlic from China.  I didn’t buy it.  I have no idea what their pesticide and farming standards are like.  I don’t know how old the garlic is, or who handled it before it came to me.  Judging by the quality of the product, it must have been frozen in the Siberian Tundra for a hundred years and then quickly defrosted in the microwave.

      It really makes me mad when I can’t buy Aussie produce in Aussie supermarkets.  So I go to farmer’s markets where I know the stuff is fresh and grown here.  If I can’t find something because its out of season, I go without and use foods that are in season.  It doesn’t matter to me - it’s still food and still good.  So what if I have to wait for a few months before it’s available?

      Because I’m vegan, I find it a lot easier to buy Aussie produce.  But for things like rice milk or soy milk, I make sure that it’s pretty damn clear from the packaging that the product is made here.  If not, I leave it on the shelf and Google the product for the next shopping trip.

      If more people got behind our farmers, we would only need labels that tell us when it’s NOT Aussie grown/made.  In the meantime, I read all the labels all the time and if I’m not certain, I don’t buy it.  I’m more than happy to take a price increase at the checkout to buy Australian.

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      02:11pm | 25/02/11

      Good points Brian - but simply because it is all done in Australia is no guarantee - Australian prawns have been rejected in Europe due to high cadmium levels and the export grape industry was in a tizz because ‘clean green Aussie grapes’ have had problems with residues of pesticides still legal here, but illegal in Europe.  Fact is, even in Australia we cannot be entirely sure where our food comes from or whether it has been handled in accordance with proper standards (Garibaldi meat scandal???? People died).  When you buy anything you take a lot on trust.  But if you want to buy Australian as I posted above it is too easy - “Product of”/“Produce of” Australia.  I cannot understand how hard that is for some people to grasp.

      The problem is not the labelling really - it is the utter lack of any form of meaningful enforcement of those standards.  An FOI request to the ACCC or any state/territory food authority will turn up ducks eggs I bet.

    • kasper says:

      02:27pm | 25/02/11

      chasing 100% Australian may be reasonable for things like produce. but anything that’s been processed in any way? close to impossible. thickeners, emulsifiers, preservatives - noone makes them here.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      03:03pm | 25/02/11

      “Consumers have a right to access comprehensive information about food products in order to satisfy health requirements and their own personal value system.”

      Um, why? Here’s a radical idea. Food producers should have to include an accurate list of ingredients on their products, nutritional information based on solid science and that’s it. If producers want to make additional claims (low far, high fibre, fair dinkum Aussie, etc) they have to be accurate, but they are not required to put everything this-or-that interest group wants on the label.  Wouldn’t life be so much easier.

      And, furthermore, why would you care about the geographical origin of the ingredients that go into your processed slurry? What difference does it make?

      Reply

    • Martin says:

      03:33pm | 25/02/11

      Yes a very. very good article Amanda and you indeed got my email. I told you to talk about this issue because I know how much it means to you and I am so glad you have written this piece. Go Amanda!

      Reply

    • The Cat's Mother says:

      11:29pm | 25/02/11

      Killer Bees, the Chinese garlic you rejected wondering what made it look so manky was quite probably irradiated. For those who are unaware, there are currently nine tropical fruits which, when imported into, (or exported out of ) Australia can be subject to irradiation. There are currently applications under way for the following to be able to be irradiated in addition to the nine fruits: tomatoes, capsicums, honeydew and rockmelons, zucchini, persimmons and another stonefruit (don’t as yet know which). And some overseas countries are huge irradiators of various foods - China especially.  Whilst this is moving a little off original topic (“buying Australian”), this is relevant to the general topic of food labelling. Blewett’s recommendation was that now that irradiation has been around for a generation, about 30 years, without any ill-effects in humans, (we don’t actually know, 30 years isn’t long enough) it is no longer necessary to label foods as irradiated if they have been. What you might not know is that fruit and veg that have been irradiated do not need to be individually labelled as such but there should be a sign close to the produce display indicating that it has been irradiated. Has anyone reading this post ever seen such a sign? Please post if you have, thanks. The fact is by the time said fruit/veg reach the end retailer it has passed through so many hands that would not know and would not think to enquire - nor perhaps be concerned enough to enquire, let’s just make our middle-man buck. Recommended reading on the suppressed truth about safety studies of irradiated food and the politics surrounding its introduction, in spite of widespread public opposition including several petitions to parliament in the 1980s, is “Zapped! Irradiation and the death of food” by Wenonah Hauter and Mark Worth available for $10 from the Food Irradiation Watch website (just use search engine). Indeed why has Blewett set up himself and his panel as the arbiter of what is/is not safe? Surely that is outside his brief? The brief was to review food labelling based on public and industry consultation, not give opinion on the safety of any processing method.  He is careful to say no ill effects found in humans, what he does not mention is that in 2008, 100 Australian cats fed an irradiated imported pet food suffered a debilitating neurological disease, not dissimilar to MS,  which killed them or rendered them paralysed. My own cat is paralysed in her rear legs as a result. When it suits them to do so, scientists use animals in horrific experiments using the results as the predictors of safety/danger of products for human use. When it suits them not to do so, adverse effects in animals are ignored. It should be noted that the cats’ disease showed delayed onset, 4-6 months, a fair proportion of the life of an animal with a lifespan of just 12 -18 years. How much longer might it take for ill effects to manifest in humans living 70-90 years - and indeed the effects might not be overt as those seen in the cats. Various experiements as referenced in “Zapped!” have shown a variety of adverse effects in humans and animals with varying onset periods.  How do you feel about irradiated foods now that you have read this information? How aware were you of the extent of irradiation and the largely circumventable labelling laws attached to its use? Were you aware that the very day before the approval was granted to irradiate the nine tropical fruits, Europe had placed a moratorium on any further irradiation until more safety studies were carried out? Yes Dr Blewett, the World Health Organisation does endorse irradiation. The same WHO that allowed themselves to be convinced by scientists affiliated with vaccine manufacturers that a vaccine was necessary for Swine Flu and endorsed it - how many have died (mostly children) or become severely ill as a result of this vaccine? Similarly the WHO allowed itself to be persuaded by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which it had put in charge of safety studies of food irradiation, that the process was safe. Talk about the fox in charge of the hen house.

      Reply

    • Youssef says:

      12:44pm | 26/02/11

      great article. some of the ones posted on here from other authors are not worth reading but this issue really needs to be put out there and I commend Amanda for putting it across. I hope something comes out of it, after all her party is in power.

      Reply

    • John says:

      01:19pm | 26/02/11

      Thanks for bringing this up Amanda. I am proud to live in your electorate and I love all the work you have done and your pieces on this site are always insightful. I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks and hope something can be done about this. Well done, that is all I can say.

      Reply

    • Dimitri says:

      12:24pm | 23/05/11

      Well unfortunately the outsourcing of Australian products has resorted to job losses which doesn’t sound very Australian made to me??

      Reply

    • Brett says:

      02:14am | 15/10/11

      The use of pictorial Logos and their descriptors has reached its use by date. A Kangaroo and label such as Product of Australia or Made in Australia fails to convey the vast difference between the two.

      The Buy Australian Logo is an Australian Authenticity Logo which embodies Truth in Labelling.
      It permits you the consumer to see exactly how much of an item is truly Australian in simple percentage terms for Content, Owned, Made and Packed.

      This will enables you to compare apples with apples, so to speak, and determine just which items are truly Australian. The term Australian Made has enabled our producers and manufactures to be white anted by foreign goods which also carry the label Australian Made.

      The Buy Australian Logo remedies this problem in a clear and concise manner.

      To see how visit: http://buyaustralianlogo.com.au/australian-made.html

      “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the Bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The Bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we’ve been so credulous.”
      -Carl Sagan

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 20 May 13 06:28PM

@DaveJory Rex's latest trip?

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 20 May 13 06:17PM

What a day to just look at Twitter.... Proud to be part of @newscomauHQ today! http://t.co/NELofB3o0j

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 20 May 13 06:00PM

@bigwordsblog Best night I had there I won backstage passes to meet Warrant, of Cherry Pie fame. Didn't happen in the end, though!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 05:59PM

RT @sarahmichael24: Such a nice story - 'No hoper' to become little town's first doctor http://t.co/toN1UDSWeM by @itsKShort @newscomauHQ

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter