False Labelling Hides the Truth About Superfoods

Our recent research shows that Australia’s current food regulation system is not adequately protecting consumers from ‘food fraud’ – misleading or false statements made about a product for economic gain. We illustrate our argument by reference to overreaching health claims on superfood products

Consumer Power to Change the Food System? A Critical Reading of Food Labels as Governance Spaces: The Case of Agai Berry Superfoods

This article argues that the marketing claims on food labels are a governance space worthy of critical examination. We use a case study of superfood agai berry products to illustrate how marketing claims on food labels encapsulate dominant neoliberal constructions of global food systems. These marketing claims implicitly promise that by making careful choices consumers can resist and redress the ravages of unbridled global capitalism

Unlocking the Energy of the Amazon? The need for a Food Fraud Policy approach to the Regulation of Anti-ageing Health Claims on Superfood Labelling

The prevention and control of ‘food fraud’, including false or misleading statements made about a product for economic gain, is now emerging as an important and discrete policy goal for governments and regulators in the interface between food and public health. The control and prevention of food fraud complements regulation to ensure microbial food safety. This article uses a case study of anti-ageing claims made in the labelling and advertising of açai berry superfood products to argue that Australia's new regulatory system for nutrient content and health claims on food (Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code Standard 1.2.7) inadequately addresses ‘food fraud’. This article argues that the over-reaching claims on açai product labelling will potentially mislead consumers and subvert public health messages in a context of ‘gastro-anomy’ (confusion over appropriate norms for eating) and ‘healthism’ (individual responsibility for making healthy choices). This conduct can usefully be conceptualised as food fraud. Second, the article argues that although the substance of Standard 1.2.7 is well designed to avoid food fraud, the fact that the standard allows food businesses to self-substantiate evidence when making some health claims undermines the protection offered. Australian food regulators need to articulate a more strategic and proactive approach to the prevention and control of food fraud