As a company owned by a religious order it is indeed a ‘charitable tax exempt company’ that professes to do much good work. Yet in spite of their claims they are and are allowed to be opaque in detail. (table is a hotlink to the ACNC)
Sanitarium, seem to think this is Ok indicating on their home page I linked in my prior post.
In 2008 the Charities and Not-for-profit Commission undertook an in-depth review of the charity sector and concluded that Sanitarium does not gain a preferential position within the food industry because of its charitable taxation status.
There’s an assumption that what was OK in 2008 is still OK. Whether the CNC is the best expert to assess the impact of the special status on the competitive market place, others might expect that’s the role of the ACCC to determine?
The competitive or anticompetitive nature is a separate topic to what they use their charitable dollars for. Is it all ‘healthy food distribution’ or is some ‘religious evangelising or education’ or as some non-profits go, ‘top pay for executives’? A non-profit cannot distribute dividends/profits. Other than that it can be open slather.
Alas, we have wandered off topic. If this track warrants ongoing discussion perhaps make a new topic.
That is a questionable statement by Sanitarium, given the below information from the ACNC website.
“The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) is the national regulator of charities. The ACNC was established in December 2012 to achieve the following objects; …”
I was hoping to contribute to the conversation until it turned into a Sanitarium bashing exercise (and no, I’m not an SDA).
I am constantly irritated about labelling laws as they relate to Australian content. There should be a circle on the front divided into 3. Each third should represent Australian Owned, Australian sourced product, and Australian manufacturing transformation process. Then each third could be colour coded (red, yellow, green perhaps?) to show you at a glance what percentage there is for each measure. E.g. a fully green circle is 100% Australian Owned, manufactured in Oz from and Australian-sourced food.
There have been public submission requests about labelling that CHOICE have linked to in the past. I encourage you to reach out to the ACCC about your ideas and concerns. While I can find nothing currently involving changes, that you contact them may add to any call for change.
There have been some topics on this site that have revolved around label laws
New Product of Australia labelling
And a survey that was undertaken in late 2020 but you can still supply your responses
It’s advertising. That’s what advertising does. Advertising openly attempts to persuade. The bounds to what’s reasonable persuasive techniques have long since been broken. We have sat back and allowed it to happen to the point that we are bombarded with advertising that contain blatant lies and we simply dismiss it as reader beware. Who gets caught? The disadvantaged of the community as usual and all we can say is that it’s in accordance with the rules. Is this what Choice is about? It wasn’t when I first joined many years ago.
The print is hidden at the bottom of the back label in the smallest print on the jar. I’m 72 and struggle to read that print. “MADE IN AUSTRALIA” is in 3mm high upper case on the front, “…less that 10% Australian…” is written in 1mm high lower case on the back.
We understand this is an emotive subject, a friendly reminder to keep the discussion on the idea rather than on individuals.
We’ve heard a lot from people on the issue, and in short CHOICE has called for improvements to the labelling system to avoid people being misled and to improve clarity around the origin of ingredients. You can read more about our position in the article below.
The kangaroo triangle has for many years been subject to qualifications, which could be in tiny print, under the image.
‘Product of Australia’, ‘Made in Australia’, ‘Made in Australia and Australian owned’.
Now we have this barcode thing that indicates percentage of what?
It is unfortunate that you do need to examine in detail everything on labels front and back.
If you want to buy Australian made Peanut Butter from the major supermarkets, made with Australian peanuts - Bega Simply Nuts range - Made in Australia from 100% Australian Ingredients
I bought a jar of that some weeks ago with high expectations but my wife and I did not like it at all.
It tasted like no other peanut paste we have ever eaten. Very disappointing.
We gave it away and bought a normal jar of Bega peanut paste.which contains 85% peanuts, vegetable oil, sugar and salt.
And the jar even has a very timely warning.
“Allergen Statement: Contains Peanuts”.
Who would have thought?
As they say, “If it aint broken, then don’t fix it”.
It must be a matter of taste, we buy all the time and love it. Plenty of variety, everything from “No Added Salt” to various degrees of crunchy.
That’s the one and there are a few variants within Simply Nuts.
so Mr. PhilT, you are saying that this kind of labeling is perfectly okay? have in BIG letters what the company wants you to see and the not so attractive truth in small print… oh, so convenient, isn’t it, because its all legal…
Tts interesting. I have Bega Crunchy peanut butter this time round and its label says its proudly made in Port Melbourne from “less than 10% Australian ingredients”. I reckon that must be the jar and label.
Reading the full content of a post can be worthwhile.
Under rules of law issues consumers have problems with are rightly changed by activism and modifications, changes, and introduction of relevant laws.
Criticising companies for operating within the laws such as they are seems overbearing although consumers are free to purchase their goods or not for whatever reason they choose, to make their points.
Thank you for adding your voice asking for change and posting about your displeasure with the Law as it stands.
No @PhilT isn’t saying that it is OK. Is it lawful, yes it is. His post is not giving approval to the labelling, it is pointing out it is legal and compliant.
CHOICE have certainly advocated for better labelling laws. I have signed petitions and provided comment as I’m sure @PhilT has (I’ve seen his commentary on this site in support of changes). Again, if you haven’t already done so I strongly encourage you to contact the relevant Govt authorities who are responsible for the Laws (ACCC at least), and advise them of your objections to current Labelling Laws. Another way to add your displeasure to current labelling requirements is to provide your voice to surveys, petitions and CHOICE campaigns when they arise, about the Laws that govern the requirements. You should also contact the Company of any product where you have concerns with how they label. Personal feedback to businesses is an important tool in getting them to change their habits.
Shonky that a Company is compliant with the Law and that many others have similar sized and compliant placement seems to me a bit arbitrary. Perhaps a Shonky worthy issue is the entire Law not an individual product which is complying with a Shonkily worded Law.