Food Labelling and ACCC Risk

Credits: The Humble Co (Unsplash)

When one word on a milk carton become big problem

Walk down the dairy aisle at your local supermarket and try a little experiment.

Don’t pick up a carton. Don’t read the ingredients list. Just look. What you might find is that within seconds your brain has already made up its mind. Fresh. Creamy. Local. Farm fresh. Australian. Pure. Premium and so on.

It’s remarkable how quickly we form opinions. We like to think we are careful shoppers who analyse labels before making purchasing decisions but really our brains are remarkably efficient as we go around collecting visual clues and deciding whether a product will go in our trolley.

Marketers have understood this for decades and it’s fair to say, so has the law.

That is why one seemingly harmless word—”fresh”—recently got a large dairy company into hot water with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Here’s what happened…

The ACCC issued Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd with three infringement notices totaling $59,400, alleging that the company had misled consumers by using the word “fresh” on two milk products that in fact included reconstituted ingredients. It is important to remember here that payment of an infringement notice is not an admission that the law has been breached. Nevertheless, the ACCC’s message could hardly have been clearer: in its view, “fresh” should mean what ordinary shoppers think it means, not what a marketing team might hope it can stretch to so that consumers feel that they can trust product labels.

The case signals that regulators are not just checking technical compliance with the Food Standards Code; they are actively testing whether front of pack claims match the product that goes into the fridge at home. In practical terms, that means every decision to use words like “fresh”, “pure”, “country” or “premium” is a legal decision as well as a creative one, and should be reviewed with the same care as a new formulation or a new processing method.

What makes this story particularly poignant is the history behind one of the brands involved. Golden North was not simply another supermarket label. For generations it represented South Australian dairy farming, local jobs and a proud manufacturing heritage stretching back almost a century. Its acquisition by Lactalis, followed by the closure of its long-standing factory and the relocation of production, was already an emotional chapter for many in the industry. Seeing such a respected brand subsequently become the subject of ACCC scrutiny over “fresh” claims only reinforces how quickly reputations built over decades can be tested.

The law doesn’t read labels like lawyers do

The legal question is rarely whether every individual statement can be defended in isolation. Instead, sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law ask a much simpler question:

What overall impression does this packaging create in the mind of an ordinary consumer?

That overall impression may come from a product name, photographs, colours, slogans, typography or even where certain words appear on the label. Consumers are not expected to perform forensic examinations while standing in front of the milk fridge. If a carton prominently displays the words “Country Fresh”, most shoppers are entitled to assume those words have real meaning.

This principle has appeared repeatedly in Australian courts.

Case Study: Heinz and the power of first impressions

In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v H.J.Heinz Company Australia Ltd FCA 360, Heinz marketed its Little Kids Shredzfruit snacks using colourful fruit imagery and messaging directed at parents. Although the products contained fruit, the Federal Court found that the overall impression suggested a healthier snack than the products really were. One of the lessons here is that consumers judge packaging as a whole—not one sentence at a time—and the law takes that into account.

Another example came in 2015 when the ACCC took action against supermarket chain Supabarn and juice manufacturer The Real JuiceCompany over the labelling of private-label apple and cranberry juices. The apple juice was promoted as being “Made in Griffith” and” Straight From a Farm” despite being made from imported apple juice concentrate, while the cranberry juice was marketed as “really just fruit juice” despite containing added sugar. Each company paid $20,400 in infringement notice penalties. Although payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of liability, the case reinforced an important lesson for all food manufacturers: labels must give consumers an accurate overall impression of a product’s origin, composition and characteristics.

Read about this here:
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-acts-on-alleged-false-or-misleading-juice-representations?utm_source=chatgpt.com

As lawyers, we find that ironically some of the greatest legal risks arise not when launching a new product, but when continuing to sell an existing one without asking whether yesterday’s marketing claims still accurately describe today’s formulation.

Compliance is not something achieved once and then forgotten. Recipes evolve. Suppliers change. Ingredients become unavailable. Individually, none of these changes may seem particularly significant, but collectively they can slowly create a widening gap between the wording on the label and the product inside the carton. Very few businesses deliberately setout to mislead consumers; more often, packaging simply fails to keep pace with operational reality.

Every time your business changes a formulation, ingredient supplier, manufacturing process or production site, ask one simple question:

Does every claim on the front of the pack still accurately describe the product?

A packaging review should become part of your normal quality assurance process—not an afterthought—and it’s wise to involve your lawyers in that review. They can help you spot where creative wording might drift into legal risk and make sure your “fresh”, “pure” or “country” story still matches what’s actually in the carton.

The Legal Framework Behind Food Labelling in Australia

Food labels are regulated by more than one law:

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 —Australian Consumer Law
This is Australia’s principal consumer protection legislation.
The most important provisions for dairy businesses include:
- Section18 — prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. Businesses do not need to intend to mislead consumers for this section to apply.
- Section29(1)(a) — prohibits businesses from making false or misleading representations that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model.
- Section29(1)(g) — prohibits false or misleading representations about the place of origin of goods.
  The ACCC is responsible for enforcing these provisions.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth)
This Act establishes Food Standards Australia New Zealand(FSANZ), the independent statutory authority responsible for developing Australia’s food standards.
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
The Food Standards Code sets legally enforceable requirements for food sold in Australia and New Zealand.
State and Territory Food Acts
Each Australian State and Territory has food legislation that adopts and enforces the Food Standards Code. For example, in Victoria the relevant legislation is the Food Act 1984 (Vic), while New South Wales administers the Code through the Food Act 2003 (NSW). Food regulators in each jurisdiction have powers to investigate, prosecute and take enforcement action for breaches.

Five FAQs to add under the article

What does “fresh” mean in milk labelling under Australian Consumer Law?
Under the ACL there is no fixed statutory definition of “fresh” for milk; what matters is whether the overall impression of the packaging misleads an ordinary consumer about how the product is made and what it contains.
Can I call my milk or juice “fresh” if it uses reconstituted ingredients or concentrate?
Yes, in some cases you can, but only if the label and overall presentation make it clear and do not create a false impression that the product is made solely from fresh, non‑reconstituted ingredients.
What are the main ACCC risks for dairy and juice labelling?
Key risks include using terms like “fresh”, “pure”, “country”, “straight from the farm” or “not from concentrate” in ways that overstate origin, composition or healthfulness, breaching sections 18 and 29 of the ACL.
How often should we review our food packaging for compliance?
You should review front‑of‑pack claims whenever you change formulations, suppliers, processing methods or production sites, and also as part of regular quality assurance – not only when launching new products.
When should we involve a food and beverage lawyer in labelling decisions?
It’s wise to involve a lawyer when you are drafting or refreshing key claims, planning a rebrand, moving into “health” or “fresh” positioning, or after any significant product change that might affect how consumers perceive the label.

Fresh Claims in Need of a Freshen Up

When one word on a milk carton become big problem

The law doesn’t read labels like lawyers do

Five FAQs to add under the article

Further reading