AI food innovation, ‘hot ice cream’ and Australian food

Used under a Creative Commons Licence

Novel Foods, Old Laws: AI Desserts in Australia

What happens when marketing meets the Food Standards Code

From viral AI designed desserts to plant based “sausages”, creative food ideas are booming – but without careful food law advice, clever marketing can quickly become misleading marketing.

This article looks at the laws in this area and the question of when is “ice cream” might not be ice cream under Australian law.

When Tyra Banks launched her “hot ice cream”, it instantly became a talking point — not just because it was warm and drinkable, but because it raised a surprisingly important legal question: how far can you stretch a food name before it stops being accurate?

I recently spoke to the ABC about this exact issue. As a food lawyer, I was asked to explain where the line sits when you’re promoting something that looks fun on social media but doesn’t quite match what people expect from a product like “ice cream”. I explained that while food businesses are becoming more adventurous – especially with AI designed or “weird and wonderful” foods – the legal framework hasn’t disappeared.

Words like “ice cream” still have technical meanings in the Food Standards Code. The Australian Consumer Law still requires that descriptions, whether on a label, a website or a delivery app, are clear and not misleading. Innovation is welcome, but the basics still matter.

Why names matter more than you think

What this shows is that no matter how creative your idea or how viral your product becomes, Australian food law still quietly sets the ground rules. You can play with textures, temperatures and formats, but you cannot simply reinvent what a legally defined food is by giving it a clever name. If you call something “ice cream”, you are not just using a fun word – you are invoking a technical definition that assumes a sweet, frozen product made from particular ingredients and meeting particular compositional requirements. If the reality doesn’t line up with the legal definition, regulators are entitled to ask questions.

The same is true well beyond ice cream. Many everyday food names are defined in the Food Standards Code. When you call a spread “peanut butter” or a product “jam” or present a beverage as a particular type of milk, you are stepping into a regulated category. The law does not stop you from innovating, but it does insist that whatever you put in front of consumers is described in a way that is accurate and consistent with those standards. If your product falls outside the definition, you may need to adjust the name, use qualifiers, or choose a completely different descriptor that better reflects what it actually is.

The Australian Consumer Law: impressions matter

Layered over the Food Standards Code is the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which applies to almost every statement you make about your food, wherever it appears. The law looks at the overall impression your branding, labelling, online menus and social media posts create in the mind of an ordinary consumer. If that impression is misleading or deceptive – for example, suggesting a product is healthier, fresher or more “authentic” than it really is – you can be in breach, even if the fine print somewhere tells the whole truth. The headline matters just as much as the details.

Where AI helps… and where it can get you into trouble

AI is becoming a powerful tool in food innovation. On one hand, AI tools can help you develop novel recipes, find new flavour combinations and tailor offerings to specific dietary niches. On the other, they can also spit out exuberant descriptions, claims and taglines that do not respect the limits of Australian food law.

An AI system does not understand that “ice cream” is a defined term, or that describing something as “100% fruit” or “guilt free” can carry legal implications. If you copy and paste what the system suggests, you may be unintentionally adopting claims that regulators and courts will later say are misleading.

Online Food Sales

Another challenge is the shift to online food sales. As I noted in the ABC interview, there is a gap in how the current law deals with online food sales and marketing. The Food Standards Code was written in a world where most information appeared on packaging and labels, not on websites, delivery apps or social media feeds. Yet this is where consumers now make many of their decisions. Someone might order a product from an app, see it only in a takeaway cup or delivery box, and never read a traditional label at all. Even as regulators work through how to address this more directly, ACL already applies to those digital spaces. That means your online descriptions need to be just as carefully considered as your physical packaging.

What this means for food business

The practical message is clear: compliance is not optional and it is not something you can safely “DIY” by relying on generic templates or AI generated copy.

You need to understand

• what your product actually is in legal terms,
• how the words and images you use will be perceived, and
• how regulators approach creative or borderline marketing.

This is where good advice makes a real difference.

How Sharon Givoni Consulting can assist

We work with businesses that are developing new products – including AI inspired and highly unconventional foods – to help them work out what they can legitimately call those products, what claims they can safely make, and how to align their packaging, menus and online presence with the law. Sometimes that means reining in a proposed name; sometimes it means reframing a description so it is both appealing and accurate. In every case, the goal is always the same: protect your business while letting your ideas shine.

A warning and an opportunity

The “hot ice cream” case is a warning but also an opportunity. It shows that regulators are paying attention to how viral products are presented, and that names, menus and websites can and will be scrutinised. It also highlights the value of getting advice early, before you invest in branding, packaging and a marketing push.

With the pace of AI driven innovation only increasing, the safest way forward is to treat food law as a design constraint rather than an afterthought: build compliance into your concepts from the start, and make sure that however unusual your product may be, the way you describe it is anchored firmly in the reality of what consumers are actually getting.

If you are developing a new food or drink concept – especially something AI inspired, plant based or designed to go viral – now is the time to check that your labelling and marketing are on the right side of Australian food law, not after a regulator starts asking questions. If you would like tailored advice on what you can safely call your product, how to describe it online, or whether your AI generated copy is creating legal risk, contact Sharon Givoni Consulting to discuss a practical, fixed fee review before you launch.

To read the article about this in the news click here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-31/hot-ice-cream-tyra-banks-sydney-food/106283144

Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.