Un-Australian Honey

 

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has initiated court action against a Japanese drink manufacturing company after one of their drinks, a Chinese honey drink, was incorrectly labelled as being a 'Product of Australia'. Section 5 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) allows Australia to have jurisdiction over a foreign country that is conducting business in Australia, meaning that these false claims are in breach of Sections 52 and 53 of the Act. The company made several false claims about the drink, including that it:

- Contained 39 per cent Leatherwood honey, when in fact it only contained approximately 2 per cent Leatherwood honey, and about 38 per cent Chinese honey;

- Contained 28 per cent Leatherwood propolis, when in fact it contains none;

- Had its main ingredients sourced from Tasmania, when its main ingredients were in fact from China; and

- Was manufactured and bottled in Australia, when the product was in fact manufactured and bottled in China.

Tasmanian Leatherwood honey is prized for its quality, whereas the reputation is far less favourable for Chinese honey, which is thought to be contaminated with antibiotics. If the Chinese honey drink was to continue advertising as being a 'Product of Australia', the image of the Australian honey industry could be harmed, risking the Australia premium honey market overseas.

As a result of the court proceedings, the Japanese company is no longer allowed to represent any product as being a 'Product of Australia', unless the product is produced or manufactured entirely or substantially in Australia and contains a substantial amount of, if not all Australian ingredients. Furthermore, the Company must inform its customers of the misleading information.