This approach presumes that the market will track consumers’ ethical ‘hard’ regulation such as bans and regulatory limits for dealingĪll sorts of concerns with the contemporary industrial foodĪnimal welfare in particular is seen as an ‘ethical’ issue withĬonsumers expected to take responsibility for choosing Standards are more legitimate and effective than ‘soft’ regulatory mechanisms such as labelling and voluntary Have pointed out, ‘here appears to be a general - albeit vague Is voluntary or mandatory labelling to allowĬonsumers the opportunity to choose to buy non-cage Restriction of liberty involved in cage egg farming and the need for higher Australia has to date rejectedĬage production (albeit enriched cages in some jurisdictions) remains the These are larger cages with flaps toĬreate a nesting box, perches and a scratch pad, which give the birds some Have now legally mandated the use of ‘enriched’ or Some jurisdictions, including the countries of the European Size in many countries including Australia - although the total amount There have been some improvements in regulated animal welfare protections forĬaged hens over the years. ‘battery’ cages have been heavily criticised by animal rightsĪs amongst the most industrialised and cruellest of animal food Wire cages with access only to water and a feedĪround, or stretch, and no opportunity to engage in instinctual behaviours such Theirīelief in the integrity of labelling is being destroyed.Ībility of consumers to effect ethical change is beingġ960s cage farming of hens had become the predominant method of egg productionĬonventional cage systems hens are typically kept in groups of five or six in It goes on to assess the potential of aĬode or other consumer regulation to improve animalĬonsumers’ intention to do the right thing is being exploited. Voluntary regulation of free-range labelling adequately informs consumers aboutĪnimal welfare conditions using data collected It goes on to critically evaluate whether the current Than mandatory government regulation of animal welfare in productionĬonditions. Of layer hens is now largely a matter of voluntary labelling for consumer choice Industrial-scale animal food production and particularly conventional cage egg Conflict over the meaningįree-range on the label is the latest expression in an ongoing series ofĬhallenges, defences and counter-challenges to the legitimacy Would adequately respond to the underlying conflictīetween various actors as to what free-range means. Mandatory information standard under the Australian Consumer Law. What free-range should mean, the proposed A response to significant conflict, claims and counterclaims about Together set ‘a national, legally enforceable definitionĮggs’. MISLEADING THE ETHICAL CONSUMER: THE REGULATION OFĪND JOSEPHINE DE COSTA In mid-2014, Australian consumer affairs ministers announced that they would E Need for Revised Animal Welfare Regulation.D Would a Mandatory Standard Improve Free-Range Labelling?.C Is Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Regulation Adequate?.B Have Production Practices Changed under the Voluntary Labelling Approach?.A How Informative Is the Information on the Free-Range Egg Label?.C Production Practices behind Free-Range.B Regulatory Standards That Lie behind Free-Range and Animal Welfare Claims on Labels?.IV FREE-RANGE CLAIMS ON AUSTRALIAN EGG LABELS AND THE REGULATORY NETWORK BEHIND THE LABELS.E Consumer Protection Enforcement against Misleading and Deceptive Conduct.D The Ambiguous and Contested Definition of Free-Range in the Model Code.MISLEADING THE ETHICAL CONSUMER: THE REGULATION OF FREE-RANGE EGG LABELLING.| Feedback Melbourne University Law Review Parker, Christine de Costa, Josephine - "Misleading the Ethical Consumer: The Regulation of Free-Range Egg Labelling" MelbULawRw 5 (2016) 39(3) Melbourne University Law Review 895
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |