Natural, Clean and Plant-Based?

Natural, Clean and Plant-Based?

The Hidden Legal Risks in Food Marketing Claims

There was once a simpler time in Australian food marketing when products mostly just claimed to taste good.

Now, however, your almond milk apparently “supports wellness”, your chips are “all natural”, your kombucha is “clean”, your protein bar is “plant-powered”, and somewhere in the distance an exhausted in-house lawyer is quietly stress-eating regulatory guidance documents while muttering the words “overall consumer impression”.

Because modern food marketing is no longer merely about flavour. It is about lifestyle, ethics, sustainability, origin stories, health halos and emotionally loaded buzzwords carefully engineered to make consumers feel virtuous while buying snack foods.

Legally speaking, this can creates risk.

Looking into this deeper, under Australian law, food and marketing claims are regulated through a mixture of legislation, mandatory standards, regulatory guidance and Court decisions. Importantly, not every problematic claim sits neatly inside the Food Standards Code. Many claims instead fall under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), contained in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

That means businesses often find themselves navigating two overlapping systems simultaneously:

• food-specific regulation: and
• broader consumer protection law

And the penalties for getting it wrong are no longer trivial.

Following recent amendments, breaches of the ACL can expose corporations to penalties exceeding $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period — whichever is greater. In large-scale matters, this can easily move into extraordinarily high figures.

Naturally, this has sharpened ACCC interest in marketing claims considerably, particularly claims that sound scientific, premium or health-adjacent without consumers necessarily understanding what they actually mean.

Take the word “natural”.

Consumers tend to associate “natural” with wholesomeness, minimal processing and purity. Legally, however, the word can become slippery very quickly. Australian regulators and Courts may examine the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, advertising and surrounding context — not merely whether one technically defensible interpretation exists.

That principle was reinforced in cases such as ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd, where the High Court focused heavily on dominant consumer impressions rather than buried qualifications or fine print.

This matters enormously in modern digital marketing, where Instagram captions, influencer partnerships and front-of-pack slogans often carry far greater persuasive power than disclaimers hidden elsewhere.

Similarly, environmental and sustainability claims have become a major enforcement priority.

Terms such as:

• recyclable;
• compostable;
• biodegradable;
• carbon neutral;
• sustainable; and
• eco-friendly

may all raise legal questions depending on the evidence available and the impression conveyed to consumers.

The ACCC’s growing scrutiny of greenwashing has already led to multiple investigations and enforcement actions across industries. Businesses making broad environmental claims without adequate substantiation may attract attention under sections 18 and 29 of the ACL, which prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations.

Importantly, the issue is not always whether the claim is completely false.

Sometimes the issue is whether the overall presentation creates a misleading impression.

And that distinction catches businesses out constantly.

For example, country-of-origin claims remain heavily regulated in Australia. Statements such as “Made in Australia”, “Australian owned” and “manufactured locally” can trigger specific legal requirements. Likewise, claims involving vegan, vegetarian and plant-based products continue to evolve rapidly.

Interestingly, these terms are not always identically regulated or understood. Consumers may attach different ethical, dietary or ingredient expectations to each expression. The legal risk may come out from what ordinary consumers are likely to believe the label means.

And Courts tend to care very much about ordinary consumer interpretation.

Which brings us to the concept of “substantiation”.

One of the most misunderstood areas in food marketing is the assumption that “everyone in the industry says it” somehow operates as a legal defence.

It does not.

Under the ACL, businesses may need appropriate evidence to support claims being made to consumers. The nature and quality of substantiation required will depend heavily on the claim itself.

For example:

• objective scientific claims may require robust evidence;
• nutritional or functional claims may interact with the Food Standards Code;
• comparative claims may require current and accurate testing; and
• premium quality claims may depend on context, imagery and implied representations.

The problem is that businesses often assess claims from an internal marketing perspective rather than through the eyes of regulators, competitors or Courts.

Those are not always the same thing.

And increasingly, digital marketing multiplies the risk.

A claim made on packaging might also appear:

• in influencer videos;
• in TikTok captions;
• on retailer websites;
• in Google Ads;
• through hashtags; or
• in comparative advertising campaigns.

Each communication potentially contributes to the “overall impression” consumers receive.

This is one reason why businesses are increasingly seeking legal review not merely for labels, but for entire marketing ecosystems.

Importantly, this article is not legal advice and does not determine whether any specific claim is lawful. Whether a claim breaches Australian law will depend heavily on the wording used, scientific evidence available, product composition, industry context, consumer perception and surrounding marketing conduct.

But what businesses should understand is this:

• modern food marketing is now deeply regulated territory.
• The era of casually throwing “natural”, “clean”, “healthy” or “Australian made” onto packaging without careful legal consideration is becoming increasingly dangerous.
• Because in Australia today, a catchy slogan can become a regulatory problem surprisingly quickly.

Conclusion

Food and beverage marketing in Australia sits at the intersection of consumer psychology, branding strategy and increasingly aggressive regulatory scrutiny.

Claims involving health, sustainability, ingredients, origin, ethics and product quality can all raise complex issues under the Australian Consumer Law, the Food Standards Code and related regulatory frameworks.

Importantly, legal risk is not always about whether a statement is literally false. Regulators and Courts often focus on the broader impression conveyed to ordinary consumers.

That means businesses should carefully assess not only what their claims technically say, but what consumers are likely to understand from the overall marketing presentation.

At Sharon Givoni Consulting, we advise businesses on advertising, consumer protection, branding, consumer law and regulatory risk in the food, wellness and consumer products sectors.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you legally say a food product is “natural” in Australia?

Potentially — but under Australian food labelling laws and food advertising laws Australia, “natural” claims can create legal risk if they mislead consumers. The ACCC looks closely at misleading food labels and the overall impression created by packaging, advertising and social media marketing — not just fine print.

---

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.