“All of this forest is our land,” he says with the gesture. “The forest is our supermarket, we are free to take whatever we want. Although we don’t have money, everything is free here – medicine, food, vegetables, it’s all here. The forest is the king. A generous king,”. 

Mutang is the chief of Long Payau, a small village of traditionally nomadic Penan indigenous people in the Baram region of Sarawak, Malaysia on the island of Borneo. He has been fighting to protect his people’s traditional homelands against various logging companies for decades. 

“For the people of Long Payau, if they log the whole forest we will die. If we can’t hold the forest there is no future for the next generation,” he says with a weary voice. 

The community’s struggle in Long Payau is reflective of small battles taking place all across the East Malaysian state of Sarawak, as indigenous people try to prevent the mass destruction of the forests their people have lived in and relied on for centuries. 

Just outside the village of Long Payau we are taken to see the logging blockade, a crude fence of wooden poles constructed by the villagers to keep the loggers at bay. On the other side of the fence bulldozers have flattened the mountainside, the dense green forest replaced with muddy brown dirt.  

This may seem a world away from Australia, but the logs being gathered here travel along a supply chain that traverses South East Asia and ends in the local hardware and furniture stores we all shop at. 

Broken promises 

According to Global Forest Watch, between 2001 and 2024 Sarawak lost 3.3 million hectares of tree cover, equivalent to 29% of the total tree cover that existed across the state in the year 2000. Half of the forest lost was primary forest – forest that hasn’t been cleared or regrown in recent history.  

In late 2025, ����Vlog visited two villages in Baram, Long Payau and Long Tepen, to meet the communities and hear about the impact of logging and deforestation on their everyday lives. 

Both communities are being impacted by Shin Yang, a Malaysian-owned conglomerate with export markets all around the world. Shin Yang is known as one of the biggest logging companies in the state of Sarawak and boasts exports to Europe, Japan and Australia.

While the community of Long Payau has resisted logging efforts for decades, in Long Tepen the situation is more complicated.��

Long Tepen villagers had longstanding agreements with Shin Yang for royalties, jobs and compensation and agreed to allow the company to log much of the forests surrounding the village.

But recently the agreement has frayed and villagers say the company hasn’t honoured their financial commitments. Earlier in 2025 they accused the company of logging in areas they had previously agreed to leave untouched, prompting villagers to set up a logging blockade.  

Local man Radang Tik says the community’s traditional hunting and access to the forest has been severely affected. 

“What is important now is the recognition of the land that we have now. The land is not recognised by the government or the company, so what is happening is Shin Yang is entering saying that ‘the government gave us this land, whether you agree or not, the government gave it to us’,” he says.��

The Sarawak government grants logging concessions to companies such as Shin Yang, giving them the right to log large tracts of untouched native forest across the state. While ����Vlog is not suggesting Shin Yang is acting illegally under Malaysian law, activists and the indigenous Penan villagers say these concessions are often granted without their consent or consultation.��

Shin Yang’s Australian connections 

Shin Yang Group manufactures wood pellets, sawn timber, wooden furniture and floor base plywood for hardwood flooring among other wood-based products. 

Shin Yang’s company report lists Australia as one of the global export destinations for these products. But that’s where the trail gets murky. Wood logged from Long Payau or Long Tepen could be sitting in your living room right now, but there is no way to know for sure. 

Australia has no mandatory customer-facing certification scheme that discloses the country of origin, name of the company, sustainability ranking or even the type of wood, so it is almost impossible to pin down exactly where Shin Yang, or other companies’ wood products are going once they arrive in Australia. 

����Vlog obtained export data from the Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation which showed that between January and October 2025 Sarawak exported over $5 million in plywood, veneer, sawn timber and furniture or furniture parts to Australia. Australia was also the top export destination in the world for Sawarak’s ‘other timber products’, including laminated products and wooden stakes and lattice. 

We asked Shin Yang a range of questions about the communities in Baram and their exports, including which Australian companies they sell to but did not receive a response.

Certification lacking

Jettie Word, director of the environmental non-government organisation The Borneo Project, says they would like to see Australian consumers provided with more information about the wood products we purchase.

Transparency, she says, would make it easier for consumers to make ethical choices about which wood they buy and pressure companies to do better. 

“When it comes to Australia, which is a huge destination for Malaysian timber products, I think customer action could create the right amount of pressure to create change in Malaysia,” she says.

Marcelo Feitosa De Paula Dias, an environmental law expert at Queensland University of Technology, says Australia enacted an illegal logging prohibition amendment in 2024, which has improved the information importers have to collect about wood products coming into the country. However, there is still no mandatory scheme for information to be provided to consumers at the point of purchase. 

“Customers have a right to know where their wood has come from, from the cradle to the grave, and any labelling that takes place should be mandatory, not voluntary, and take into account local laws, yes, but also international law,” Dias says.

Mystery shopping

To test just how little information is provided to customers shopping for wood products instore and over the phone, ����Vlog mystery-shopped three Bunnings Warehouse stores, one Freedom Furniture and one Amart furniture store. 

At the three Bunnings stores we visited in person we chose a wood product and asked staff if they had any further information about the country of origin or sustainability of the product. 

“Could be Indonesian, not sure exactly, could be Thailand or Vietnam,” one Bunnings staff member said when asked about the country of origin of a table with a wooden top. Another Bunnings store was also unable to specify the country of origin of the wood and neither of the first two stores could provide any details other than vague claims of ‘sustainably sourced’. In the third Bunnings store an employee said the wood was Indonesian and that it came from a plantation. 

Country of origin information was also in short supply at the furniture stores. 

Freedom told us they had no information about the origin of a wood table, and at Amart, when asked about a wood chair, a staff member said: “It says it is quality Acacia timber, that’s all it says, it doesn’t say where it’s from”. She then went to check with her manager, who had no further information. 

Greens Senator Nick McKim says it is unfortunate that Australia is still allowing the importation of wood from native forest logging from countries across the world. 

“The import regime has been improved recently, and that’s a good thing, but it’s still nowhere near strong enough and our view is that we should be continuing to strengthen provisions around the importing of hardwoods from other countries,” he says.

“This includes making sure that things like environmental impacts, human rights abuses, and corruption are properly captured in the Act as information that’s required to be provided to the government and ultimately consumers. Customers in Australia should be better informed about those things,” he adds.

‘Please stop buying’

Back in Long Payau, the sun is setting and the villagers gather in a circle on the floor to share a meal.��Mutang says he wants the Australian people to see how his community is suffering and to not buy wood from the companies responsible.��

“My message is to think before you buy, and to please stop buying logs from this company Shin Yang,” he says. 

Dayang Ukau, from the indigenous rights organisation Keruan, who travelled with us, explains that the poverty and lack of basic necessities in the village are common across the state. 

“It’s not fair for the communities. The company is making a lot of profit,” she says.

“Maybe Australians don’t know what is going on behind the thing that you purchase, but now you can see people are suffering, people are struggling to defend their rights and their resources,” Dayang says.

Dayang, and the villagers here, want Australian consumers to understand a simple fact: that the wood products they buy come with a heavy cost to the people who live in the forests where they grow. 

The post ‘If they log the whole forest we will die’ appeared first on ����Vlog.

Whether or not you’ve heard of “B Corps” before, you’ve probably been exposed to their marketing and labelling, even subconsciously.��

The recognisable ‘B’ inside a circle is present in the advertising and imagery of the more than 9500 registered B Corp businesses around the world across over 160 different industries.��

More than 750 of the growing number of these registered B Corps are in Australia and New Zealand.

The certification scheme, which started in 2006, promotes registered businesses as being committed to “Benefit for all” and certifies them as socially and environmentally conscious enterprises based on a complex points-based ranking system.

But critics of the scheme say the bar is too low for certification, its regulations are too vague and lax, and that the B logo is being used by big for-profit businesses as a greenwashing exercise.��

“If we’re looking for systematic change and radical change and we want consumers to be able to identify good businesses from bad, then we need better systems, we need better certification programs,” says Michael O’Regan from Glasgow Caledonian University’s School of Business and Society.�� 

How do B Corps work? 

For-profit businesses seeking B Corp certification do so through an organisation called B Lab, which, for a fee, certifies them as B Corp-compliant.��

Businesses rank themselves on a series of metrics across social, environmental and governance criteria and are given a score based on these self-appraisals. They must reach an overall 80 points to be eligible for B Corp certification. B Lab says the median score for an ordinary business is 50 points.��

B Lab checks that the businesses have accurately portrayed their social and environmental credentials, and then certifies them.��

The fee to become a B Corp varies based on the size of the business, with certification fees in Australia starting at a $1750 one-off fee or a $2500 annual fee for businesses with revenue of under $2 million. For businesses with revenue over $1 billion, the annual fee goes up to $82,800.

B Lab Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand (B Lab AANZ) brought in almost $6 million in operating revenue last financial year, $3.3 million of which was spent on operating expenses, and a further $2 million of which was paid to B Lab’s umbrella organisation, B Global Network.

Good intentions, big criticisms 

O’Regan has been studying and writing about the B Corp movement for several years.��

While he doesn’t doubt the good intentions behind the scheme, O’Regan believes the certification standards aren’t rigorous enough and that some businesses are using the scheme to ethically-wash and greenwash their brands.��

“There’s a lot of wild and exaggerated claims as to what B Corp is actually doing for a company,” he says.��

O’Regan says B Corps often get away with focusing on low-hanging fruit, such as making their offices more environmentally friendly, while ignoring things like human rights abuses in their supply chains.��

“It is giving consumers a false confidence that they are making better choices in their purchasing decisions,” he says.

Those guys are a B Corp? 

MoneyMe is a provider of personal loans, car loans and credit cards “with a B Corp difference”.��

The company, which scored 91.2 on B Corp’s rating system, says “we care deeply about people and the planet, and we believe that accountability and transparency are key to ensuring we have a positive impact on the community at large”.��

But financial counsellor Deb Shroot from Financial Counselling Australia (FCA) says the company is “very problematic”. FCA has documented stories of MoneyMe offering promotions to customers, encouraging them to take out further loans that they would likely struggle to pay back. FCA also says the company’s approach to pursuing debts from vulnerable people is often inconsistent with their hardship policies and from case to case.��

“The volume [of] complaints about MoneyMe [that] come in, they’re not demonstrating behaviour that’s respectful and fair to their customers through the practices that we’re seeing,” Shroot says.��

A MoneyMe representative told ����Vlog that the company “adheres to the goals of the B Corp movement by prioritising social responsibility, stakeholder impact, and transparency.”

“We take a sympathetic and respectful approach to customers experiencing financial or other difficulty, and we have well-documented policies and procedures in relation to hardship,” the representative said in a statement.��

“This includes special procedures to deal with customers who are in a position of vulnerability, to ensure we treat them in a way that does not compound the difficulties they are experiencing.” 

Former B Corp company not happy 

Criticism of the B Corp system has also come from a former B Corp-certified business.

Dr Bronner claims to be the highest selling natural soap brand in North America and the B Corp business with the highest ranking score in the world. The company announced in early 2025 that it was pulling out of the scheme because of the scheme’s low standards and B Lab’s decision to give certification to certain multinational companies.��

“The increasing certification of multinationals including Unilever Australia and Nespresso in 2022, followed by Nestlé Health Sciences in 2023, demonstrated that B Lab is not committed to protecting the integrity of the B Corp Certification and movement, nor ensuring that the certification won’t be used to mislead consumers,” Dr Bronner said in a statement.��

“Sharing the same logo and messaging regarding being of ‘benefit’ to the world with large multinational companies with a history of serious ecological and labour issues, and no comprehensive or credible eco-social certification of supply chains, is unacceptable to us,” it added.  

Unilever ANZ received a B Corp certification score of 82.7 and Nespresso, despite its well-documented issues with child labour and human rights abuses in its supply chains, received a score of 84.3.��

B Lab responds 

CEO of B Lab (AANZ) Andrew Davies says B Lab’s decision to certify big multinational corporations hasn’t compromised the integrity of the scheme.��

“We made a decision a while ago that in order for us to drive change in the wider economy, we need to work with bigger businesses as well. We’ve had to build far more comprehensive standards and processes for those bigger businesses, and that’s been a big theme of our work,” he tells ����Vlog.��

“There is a tension, it would be silly not to acknowledge that. That tension is an important one to work with because if we’re going to change the way the world works and the kind of harm that’s done by business, you’ve got to deal with both big and small,” Davies says.��

“I think if you look for businesses that have a B Corp certification to be perfect, then you’re holding them to the wrong standard, it’s about a willingness to be accountable,” he adds.��

B Lab was keen to highlight the work of companies like toilet paper sellers Who Gives A Crap in Australia, which donate 50% of its profits to clean water and sanitation not-for-profit organisations around the world.��

Chia Sisters, another company put forward as a positive example by B Lab, is a New Zealand-based health drinks and breakfast company that sells into Australia. Co-Founder Chloe Van Dyke says B Corp certification has become part of its brand in markets where sustainability is a growing expectation.�� 

“We wanted an external framework to test and challenge our business. We’d always prioritised sustainability and social impact, but B Corp gave us a structured way to see where we were strong and where we could improve,” she says.

Regulation key to improving outcomes 

B Corp has recently moved to update and strengthen its certification criteria. By 2026 all businesses applying for new certification or undergoing their three-year renewal process will be assessed by an independent third-party, not B Lab itself. The move, Davies acknowledges, is in part in response to changes of the law in Europe and in part due to “growing expectations that the certifications themselves need to stack up to expectations of what good looks like”.��

The European Union has introduced new stricter rules around green claims made on products and their certification. Michael O’Regan says B Corp’s old standards may have fallen foul of the EU’s new regulatory regime had they not updated and strengthened their procedures.��

“The fact that these directives from the EU are far stronger than anything B Corp has done registering almost 10,000 businesses, shows that regulation in this space is part of the solution,” he says.��

Andrew Hughes, a lecturer in marketing at the Australian National University, agrees that, closer to home, consumers are increasingly looking to make ethical choices – and poor certification schemes, along with the sheer volume of them, may hinder their ability to do so.��

“Ultimately we need someone like the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to be regulating these schemes and policing them, because as we have seen, time and time again, leaving it up to these schemes to certify themselves privately doesn’t guarantee ethical outcomes,” he says.��

The post B Corps: Real change or just more greenwashing? appeared first on ����Vlog.

Nearly eight out of 10 Australians check to see if the canned tuna they buy is labeled as sustainable. But new research suggests the claims of many brands are not backed by credible evidence.

A report released earlier this month, Greenwashing in the Tuna Industry, rates the claims of 14 popular canned tuna brands against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC’s) greenwashing guidelines. The claims of many brands fall short on credibility.��

The research was conducted by the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and commissioned by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).��

‘Greenwashing’ is when a company markets its products or services as more environmentally friendly than they actually are, a practice that’s rife across many industries.��

To help stamp it out, the ACCC published its Principles for Environmental Claims guide for businesses in December 2023. They’re based on eight basic principles: 

1. Make accurate and truthful claims.

2. Have evidence to back up claims.

3. Do not hide or omit important information.

4. Explain any conditions or qualifications on claims.*

5. Avoid broad and unqualified claims.

6. Use clear and easy-to-understand language.

7. Ensure visual elements do not give the wrong impression.

8. Be direct and open about sustainability transitions.��

_{* Principle number four was not applied to the MSC report’s scoring}

Brands failing to back up claims

The UTAS researchers found that many commonly-bought brands didn’t adequately support their sustainability claims, with some failing dismally.��

Six of the 14 brands – Aldi, Woolworths, Greenseas, Community Co., Fish4Ever and Black & Gold – scored less than 2.5 on a scale of 5.

At the upper end of the spectrum, John West performed best in the credibility stakes, followed by Coles, The Stock Merchant, Little Tuna, Walker’s Tuna and Safcol.

In a statement accompanying the release of the report, the MSC didn’t mince words.��

“Brands generally lacked sufficient evidence to support their environmental claims. There were widespread issues with omitting key information, and broad, unqualified claims were common.”

Call for third-party verification

The big takeaway from the report is that third-party certification by organisations such as the MSC is critical, if claims are to be believed by shoppers. The brands that scored the highest for credible claims in the research are all MSC-certified.��

Anne Gabriel, the MSC program director for Oceania and Singapore, tells ����Vlog that the shortcomings of self-certification are well known.

“None of this really comes as a surprise. The process and outcome of the study is just kind of underpinning some of the thoughts and perceptions that we’ve already had,” she says.

The lead UTAS researcher, Associate Professor Dan Daugaard, says: “Our analysis shows that independent certification isn’t just helpful — it’s essential. Brands with verified claims are more aligned with regulatory standards and far more likely to win consumer trust.”

A high bar for MSC certification 

Gabriel says fisheries go through 12 to 16 months of independent monitoring and assessment to achieve MSC certification, and the certification covers other players in the supply chain such as processors, traders, various middlemen and the canned tuna brands themselves.��

“There’s a really high bar and a high benchmark, so we know that as long as that fishery is MSC-certified, we can put our hand in our heart and say it’s absolutely sustainable,” says Gabriel. “While the MSC blue fish tick is a simple looking label on a tuna can, I can tell you that the process behind it is far from simple.” 

The MSC has a presence in 63 countries and is involved in 716 fisheries, 572 of which are certified. In 2023–24, about 15.5 million tonnes of marine life was caught under MSC guidelines, including about half of the commercial tuna catch around the world, around 2.8 million tonnes.

Other seafood certification schemes operating in Australia include the Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Best Aquaculture Practices, both of which authorise certification labels for approved products.��

Although neither MSC or UTAS are accusing non-MSC certified brands of greenwashing, Gabriel says greenwashing is always a possibility with self-produced ecolabels that lack third-party verification. All the non-MSC brands that were evaluated make environmental claims of their own.��

“Without the independent verification, consumers just can’t know if the tuna comes from healthy, responsibly managed fisheries,” Gabriel says.

“Unsubstantiated claims don’t just undermine consumer trust and integrity, they also undermine all the positive sustainability work being done.” 

Only 15% looking for verified claims 

The canned tuna industry has come a long way toward greater sustainability in recent years. In 2014, around 14% of tuna brands around the world had MSC certification. That’s now up to around 54%, but the expansion of the program doesn’t necessarily mean consumers are making more informed decisions when buying tuna.��  

The UTAS research revealed that only 15% of shoppers in Australia look for independently verified canned tuna labels. Instead, many may be reassured by labels that make general claims such as responsibly caught or responsibly sourced, or by opaque language that merely suggests sustainability.��

“I think this is because a shopper has so little time to be verifying, and they can’t tell the difference between third-party certification claims and self-certification claims,” Gabriel says.�� 

At the same time, MSC research shows that Australian shoppers would choose third-party verification if they knew how to identify it.

Some brands ‘way out in front’ 

Dan Daugaard of UTAS says the ACCC guidelines have an important role to play, given the inconsistency in canned tuna claims that emerged during the research.��

“Some of the brands are way out in front. They’ve got QR codes and URL addresses so you can see what is actually supporting their claims, even down to supply chain tracking through their websites. But there’s a bunch that aren’t close to that yet. What surprises me is the variety of brands getting on board or not.” 

This doesn’t necessarily mean claims should be standardised; they just need to be clear and credible on their own terms, Dauggard says.�� 

“What we’ve done is tested the extent to which consumers should be confident about the message being presented to them and whether the information is clear and accessible. We checked whether brands are clearly explaining what the certification means, so that you don’t just put a stamp on the can, you actually guide and inform the consumer.” 

But even the brands with clear and credible explanations of sustainability practices failed to adequately communicate future plans toward improving them (ACCC principle number eight). Dauggard says this level of transparency remains aspirational at the moment, but that could change.

“There is likely to be demand from consumers to see a brand’s future direction in terms of its sustainability practices, including the things you are not yet achieving, and that element was missing from all the brands we reviewed.” 

Greenwashing hard to define 

An ACCC spokesperson tells ����Vlog that making a case for greenwashing depends on many factors.

“When deciding if conduct is misleading or deceptive, or if a representation is false or misleading, it is necessary to consider whether the overall impression created would be misleading to the ordinary and reasonable consumer,” the spokesperson says.��

And while businesses are not required to disclose information under consumer law, “the omission of relevant information can in some circumstances be misleading or deceptive”.

When businesses make environmental claims, “the courts will factor in a range of circumstances” to determine whether greenwashing has occurred.��

Something to celebrate 

Anne Gabriel of the MSC is upbeat about the canned tuna industry’s willingness to commit to third-party verification of sustainability claims, but it won’t happen overnight.��

“Over the past twelve months, we have seen so many brands come on board to MSC certification. That is an extraordinary development and something to celebrate,” says Gabriel.��

And whether or not shoppers are choosing independently verified claims, the increase in brands committing to them can only be good for fisheries around the world, she says.��

“Consumer choices absolutely drive positive change in fishing practices, and we’ve seen this all around the world,” says Gabriel. “The more consumers choose products that are certified, the stronger the market incentive is for fisheries to adopt sustainable practices and seek certification.” 

Dan Daugaard of UTAS believes that, despite the general absence of independent certification, the ACCC guidelines could pave the way forward.��

“There is such a range in the credibility of the claims, but I am encouraged by the impact that I think the ACCC guidelines are having in getting these discussions happening out in the marketplace,” he says. “I am seeing evidence of brands changing and jumping on board. I’m encouraged at the momentum that’s been building around these guidelines.”

The post Can you trust canned tuna sustainability claims?  appeared first on ����Vlog.

On this page:

• Ikea 'leather' couches
• Bonded leather at Fantastic Furniture and Dare Gallery
• What to ask before you buy a leather couch

These days leather couches and chairs are advertised everywhere, and are often priced at well under $2000. But with the recent drop in cost comes a trade-off: not all leather couches are equal. In fact, some are not really leather at all.

At ����Vlog we’ve heard from unhappy consumers who’ve bought ‘leather’ couches that turned out to be more plastic than animal, while others have found their furniture peeling and cracking in a way that genuine leather shouldn’t, and still don’t know exactly what they’ve bought.��

And with no national standard for leather labelling in Australia, it’s not easy to know exactly what you’re buying when you see the word ‘leather’ on a label.

We investigate what you get when you buy a leather couch in Australia.

What is leather, exactly?

To get technical, the British Standards Institute defines leather as follows: “Hide or skin with its original fibrous structure more or less intact, tanned to be imputrescible. The hair or wool may, or may not, have been removed. Leather is also made from a hide or skin that has been split into layers or segmented either before or after tanning.”

The amount of surface coating applied to the leather influences whether or not the item can be described as ‘genuine’ leather. “If the leather has a surface coating, the mean thickness of this surface layer, however applied, has to be 0.15mm or less.”

Too complicated?

In a nutshell, there are three basic types of genuine leather.

Full grain

The full hide of the animal has been used with minimal interference. It’s the most durable kind of leather but also the rarest and usually the most expensive.

Top grain

Top grain leather is the uppermost layer of the animal hide which has been buffed and polished.

Split

Split leather is taken from the bottom of the hide; it’s fairly fragile but it’s the cheapest type of leather available.

Corrected-grain

Another common description, corrected-grain leather refers to any of the above leather that has had an artificial grain applied to its surface. Any imperfections are corrected or sanded off, and an artificial grain embossed into the surface and dressed with stain or dyes.

Not quite leather

While the definitions above sound reasonably straightforward, if you go shopping for a leather couch, you might see the words ‘cow hide leather’, ‘genuine leather’, ‘100% leather’ or made-up names like ‘Lucia leather’ or even ‘bonded leather’ instead.

None of these names really give any indication of what kind of leather is being used or if indeed it’s leather at all. Bonded leather (despite the name) has more in common with synthetics and is technically not considered leather at all.

Other pieces of ‘leather’ furniture may have the ‘contact areas’ (such as the seats, arm rests, vertical seat backs and rolls) upholstered in leather, but the ‘non-contact areas’ (such as the outside arms and back) upholstered in a leather-like synthetic material.

Leather certification in Australia

While the UK has a leather certification and testing body, in Australia it’s up to shoppers to do the hard work when buying a couch. We found several couches that were advertised as leather yet the fine print disclosed only the contact areas were actually leather, and with other retailers there was little to no information about what the various components were made of.

Paul Simmons, project co-ordinator at the Australasian Furnishing Research and Development Institute (Furntech), runs a voluntary certification scheme for leather goods in Australia. He says it’s likely in many cases that while a couch may be all ‘leather’, it’s made of differing types of leather, which can affect the quality.

Furntech’s certification scheme is used voluntarily by some manufacturers and retailers in Australia, and the furniture that’s been been tested will carry a swing tag confirming the certification.

Ikea ‘leather’ couches

Earlier this year, the Ikea website stated: “There’s something special about leather sofas. It comes from their natural look and texture and the way they age so beautifully.” Underneath was a range of sofas priced from $795–3000. Sounds good, but the devil’s in the detail.��

It’s only when clicking on the individual pieces that it became clear leather doesn’t always mean leather. One couch was described as being covered in a “durable fabric that has the same look and feel as leather” and is actually not leather at all.

Another couch was listed as being upholstered in leather in the ‘contact’ areas, meaning the seat and back cushions are leather but the rest of the couch is covered in a mix of coated polyester and cotton. While the information was there if you know what to look for, it was buried deep in the product specifications and wasn’t particularly obvious.

����Vlog recognised Ikea’s creative copywriting with a 2015 Shonky Award for their faux-leather couches. Within days, Ikea updated its Australian website to clearly reflect the different types of couches available in their leather sofas category – a ‘genuine’ win for confused consumers.

Bonded leather at Fantastic Furniture and Dare Gallery

In 2010 Fantastic Furniture was for “misleading or deceptive conduct” promoting its ‘Eurohide’ and ‘Pellisima’ couches as “the luxury of leather for less”.

However, the couches were upholstered in ‘bonded leather’. Bonded leather is made from a mishmash of plastics and bits of leather glued together. The actual leather content in bonded leather was approximately 10%.

Furniture retailer Dare Gallery was also found to have engaged in “false, misleading or deceptive conduct” by representing furniture as being ‘bonded leather’ on its website, where users navigated to this description by clicking on the hyperlinks ‘See all leather sofas’ or ‘See all leather sofa suites’.

Graeme Samuel, ACCC chairman at the time, said consumers seek out and often pay a premium for leather goods. “The ACCC will not tolerate traders in the furniture or any other industry misrepresenting predominantly synthetic materials as leather. If a trader chooses to use terms like ‘leather’ or ‘hide’ to describe goods that are only partially leather, then they should also clearly disclose the fact it is not wholly leather to avoid consumer confusion.”

Leather couches that peel and sweat

����Vlog member Vicki contacted us because the leather couches she had bought for almost $2000 began to peel and flake after about five years of use. She says the material covering the armrests and back fabric looked and felt different to the seats and back cushions.��

When she complained to the retailer, she was offered another couch at cost price. After speaking to ����Vlog Help, she was given a full refund. Vicki was told that while the original couch was actually all leather (and not part vinyl as she suspected), different types of leather of varying quality had been used all over the couch.

Another ����Vlog member, Robert (not his real name), was in battle with a well-known retailer after the ‘genuine leather’ couch he bought started peeling after just six months. He lodged a warranty claim, but after an assessment, he was told that the problem wasn’t covered by warranty because the couch had suffered from a build-up of sweat and excess body oils.��

He says he wiped down the couch weekly and in no way treated it differently to his other leather couch, which is in perfect condition despite being eight years old. Robert was left with questions around what his couch was actually made of.

According to Paul Simmons, genuine leather kept under reasonable circumstances shouldn’t peel. “A corrected grain or genuine leather couch should not peel in most circumstances and definitely not in that [six-month] time frame. It could only possibly happen if the tanning process was extremely poor or it’s not leather.”

What to ask before you buy a leather couch

Our consumer law specialist Meredith Cridland recommends you ask these questions so you know exactly what you’re getting before you commit to buying a new couch.

“What type of leather is this couch?”

Go for full grain or top grain leather, depending on your lifestyle and budget. Be wary of anything else, including split leather, bonded leather, pleather, faux leather, vegan leather, bicast, and synthetic leather.

“Is this leather used all over the couch?”

A couch might have real leather on the seats and the tops of the arm rests, but not on the back or the sides. These will deteriorate faster than the leather parts.

“How long is the warranty?”

And “what parts of the lounge are covered?”

“Can I have it in writing?”

Once you’ve asked the questions, get the answers in writing in case there are problems later on.

What to do if your leather couch turns out to be fake

If you’ve been told that your couch is leather but it becomes clear that it’s actually not, you should do something about it.

• Go back to the business and tell them you don’t think the lounge is leather. Show photos if you can.
• You may have a right to a refund or a replacement, depending on the extent of the problem.
• If the business won’t help, you can contact your state or territory’s Fair Trading office for more information, or contact the .
• If you’re a ����Vlog member, contact ����Vlog Help for advice and assistance.

The post Fake vs real leather couches: How to tell the difference appeared first on ����Vlog.

On this page:

• Avoiding greenwash: What to look for
• Why make green claims?
• Who's regulating this?
• Greenwash watchwords
• What should businesses be doing?

A Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC) report from 2022 noted that their researcher documented 122 green claims in 24 hours across 17 sectors, including banking, groceries, fashion and beauty.��

That’s not surprising when you consider that many Australians – about 45% of us – consider sustainability when deciding what to buy. Businesses are quick to respond to that demand, eager to capture those green dollars.

As consumers become more interested in sustainable products, the need to be able to trust the accuracy of credentials grows. But unfortunately, there are concerns that a significant proportion of claims made by businesses may be false, misleading or have no reasonable basis.

Our January 2023 Consumer Pulse survey found that:

• more than a quarter of consumers do not trust the accuracy of companies in describing their environmental practices
• a similar number simply don’t believe product claims like ‘eco-friendly’
• only 10% trust businesses to make honest and accurate claims about their environmental impact.  

Read on to find out how to sort the green from the greenwash.

Avoiding greenwash: What to look for

With so many businesses bombarding us with claims about their environmental credentials, it can be difficult to know how to distinguish the legitimate claims from the greenwash.��

In a 2023 report based on a sweep of 247 businesses and brands, the ACCC found that more than half (57%) were making concerning claims about their environmental credentials.��

 The regulator identified eight key issues that could be greenwashing.

1. Vague and unqualified claims

A company that describes itself as ‘green’ or ‘kind to the planet’ may not necessarily be engaged in greenwashing, but broad, unqualified claims can be problematic for consumers.

These sorts of words and phrases are often vague and rarely provide enough information to help consumers make informed decisions.

2. Lack of substantiating information

There’s obviously a limit to how much information a business can provide on its packaging, but too often there’s little effort made to provide backing to claims.��

If you can’t find information, there’s not enough detail or it’s outdated, it could be greenwashing.

3. Absolute claims

A statement saying that something is ‘100% recyclable’ or produced with ‘zero emissions’ creates a very strong impression in the mind of the consumer – which is, of course, what the marketer wants to do.��

Once again, companies making these sorts of claims need to provide evidence to back them up. The information needs to be accessible to shoppers and presented in such a way that consumers can verify it without having to undertake extensive research.

4. Use of comparisons

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the aspects of a business or product that set it apart from its competitors. Problems arise when such comparisons are made in a way that doesn’t allow consumers to accurately assess the claims.��

If the methodology used to make the comparison isn’t clear or meaningful, that can be a sign of greenwashing.

5. Exaggerated benefits or omission of relevant information

These sorts of sneaky claims go to the heart of the problems with greenwashing. Saying that a product is recyclable might technically be true, but if there’s no system in place to collect and process the item, the claim may simply be greenwashing.

Likewise, telling consumers about environmental protection measures as a way of promoting green credentials, but failing to mention that these measures are required by law, also has the potential to be misleading.��It can make one product seem better than a competitor’s, when in fact they may be essentially the same due to legal regulations.

6. Use of aspirational claims without supporting information

It’s great if a business is working to reduce waste, move to renewable energy or otherwise reduce its environmental impact, but saying you’re going to do something and actually doing it are two different things.

If a business makes these sorts of lofty pronouncements but fails to provide any detail of what changes are being made to achieve their goals, greenwashing may be at play.��

7. Third-party certifications used misleadingly

An important-looking logo implying well-regulated credentials covers a multitude of sins. Does the certification apply to an entire business, a range of products or a single item? 

Adding to this confusion is the fact that there are multiple schemes for different aspects of environmental performance.��

For example, in its 2023 report, the ACCC pointed out it had found four different cocoa certification schemes and seven different carbon-neutral certification and offsetting schemes.��

All of these factors can make it difficult for consumers to identify greenwashing.��

8. Use of images that appear to be trustmarks

A trustmark is an image, badge or logo that indicates compliance with relevant standards. They’re widely used in the environmental arena to suggest compliance.��

Trustmarks may feature nature-based imagery, such as leaves or the planet, and make heavy use of the colour green.��

Unfortunately, they are often not related to any certification and are used merely to hint at third-party endorsement.

Why make green claims?

Products may make claims about environmental sustainability, recycling, energy and water efficiency, or impacts on animals and the natural environment. They can be self-declared statements, symbols and graphics on product packages and labels.��

Businesses include these statements on their packaging or promotional material because they know that a significant number of consumers are concerned about environmental issues and want to choose products that align with their personal ethics.��

Unfortunately, many shoppers simply don’t know if they can trust the messages they receive from business.��

The CPRC reported that 50% of Australians are concerned that green claims they see may not be truthful. In other words, as consumers we’re worried that it’s all just greenwashing.

Who’s regulating this?

Environmental claims are subject to the Competition and Consumer Act, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) can take action against dodgy claims. Australia also has a voluntary standard for green claims, AS 14021:2018, which is designed to foster consumer confidence.

Greenwashing is firmly in the crosshairs for Australian regulators, with both the ACCC and ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) stating that greenwashing will be an enforcement priority in 2024. That’s good news for consumers struggling to make sense of conflicting and confusing claims.

Greenwash watchwords

In its 2022 report on the prevalence of environmental claims on social media, the CPRC identified a list of words and phrases that suggest green credentials.��

If you see them used, look out for substantiation – for example, auditing or accreditation by third parties – to support the claim.��

If you don’t find it, think twice about investing your green dollars in that business or product.��

The words to watch are:

• Green
• Clean
• ���ܲ��ٲ����Բ���������
• Recyclable/Recycled
• Bio
• �ʳܰ�����
• Eco-friendly
• Biodegradable
• For the planet 
• Eco
• Renewable energy
• ���ڴڲ������
• Environmentally friendly
• Carbon neutral
• �������ٳ�-�ڰ�����Ի������
• Circular
• Home compostable

What should businesses be doing?

It isn’t all down to us as consumers to avoid being taken in by greenwashing.��

It’s more important than ever that businesses step up and do their bit by following these eight guidelines from the ACCC. This is important not only because it helps them to comply with the Australian Consumer Law, but because it also helps us make informed purchasing decisions.

So next time you encounter a green claim while strolling the supermarket aisles or scrolling a website, look out for the common signs of greenwashing and be aware that businesses should be complying with the principles set out by the ACCC.��

If you believe that the environmental claim you’ve seen is false or misleading you can contact the business and explain the problem. If you don’t receive a satisfactory resolution you can .��

The post Green marketing: How to tell if a product really is eco-friendly appeared first on ����Vlog.

Australians are increasingly aware of the environmental and ethical impacts of the products they buy, and this influences their purchasing decisions. Many manufacturers are keen to tap into this sentiment.��

Eco labels such as Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance and the Green Tick are meant to provide certainty that the choices we make are good for the environment and the workers in the supply chain. But there are a wide range of labels out there, and it isn’t always easy to tell which are trustworthy and which aren’t.��

With so many eco and ethical labels, can consumers really make sustainable purchasing choices? Or does the sheer volume and differing methodologies simply leave us confused? 

Australians want to buy sustainably

According to the Eco Label Index, there are 57 different labels in use in Australia, as well as various international rankings and ratings, purchasing guides, certificates and certifications.

In a November 2020 ����Vlog member survey, 14% say they wouldn’t mind paying more for sustainable, ethically sourced or environmentally friendly products. A further 51% say they’d choose such products if they could afford them.

In a January 2021 nationally representative ����Vlog survey, 57% say it’s important to them that the products they purchase are environmentally friendly.

Yet only two out of five people say it’s easy to make environmental choices. Unclear or confusing labelling was listed as one of the main reasons for the difficulty.

A growing trend

Dr Robin Canniford, senior lecturer in management and marketing at the University of Melbourne, says consumer demand for sustainable products is growing.

“There is a growing consumer movement globally and we are seeing evidence of increasing numbers of people, especially from Gen X onwards, who are making choices based on what brands match their ethics,” he tells ����Vlog.

“We are seeing consumers boycotting certain brands, we are seeing consumers saying ‘I’m not going to buy from brands that aren’t ethical’. This is an emerging trend in the marketplace and I think companies need to start to sit up and take notice.”

But companies aware of the trend also realise that the appearance of environmental sustainability can be achieved through marketing and branding.

“The marketing front stage is designed to build a positive impression, it’s full of nice marketing imagery. But the back stage is where the real nitty gritty happens in terms of sustainability and ethics,” says Canniford.

Too many certifications?

Associate Professor Sukhbir Sandhu from the University of South Australia says confusing eco labelling disempowers consumers.

Companies that make environmentally sustainable claims are rewarded at the checkout, sometimes regardless of their actual practices.

“Currently there are so many accreditations, so many certifications floating about, that almost any firm can make an environmental claim, and for consumers, even if they want to do the right thing, it’s not easy,” she says.

Some of the labelling and certification schemes are run by industry themselves, while others are run by independent non-government organisations, and others by governments.��

Some examples of for-profit industry-led certifications in Australia include BMP Certified Cotton, Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices and LowCO2 certification.��

Examples of nonprofit-led certifications include Dolphin Safe and Fairtrade.

Seafood industry example

Sandhu pointed to a 2016 ABC Four Corners investigation into the salmon fishing industry in Tasmania that revealed that Tassal paid almost a quarter of a million dollars a year to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for their eco label. The investigation also uncovered that the WWF had asked another salmon producer for large sums of money in exchange for certification and refused to provide it when they declined.

WWF disputed some aspects of the Four Corners report, and said they were open and transparent about who they worked with and why. They added that Four Corners failed to inform viewers about the successful environmental outcomes they had achieved in Tasmania and around the world.��

“WWF always maintains the highest integrity with the use of its logo and we strongly reject the Four Corners unfair accusation,” Dermot O’Gorman, CEO of WWF Australia says.��

Inconsistent rankings

Adrian Meder from the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) says many consumers in the seafood and fisheries space want to make sustainable choices.��

AMCS runs its own that he says isn’t influenced by any financial relationships with industry, and he calls into question the reliability of some seafood labels, such as the Marine Stewardship tick of approval.��

Some products in the AMCS guide that have the tick rank lower than some products without it, which Meder says suggests the tick of approval may not be a reliable indicator of sustainability.��

However, the Marine Stewardship Council tells ����Vlog that it “goes to great lengths to ensure we meet the highest international benchmarks for credible certification and ecolabelling”.��

Are some certifications going backwards?

Meder says sustainable certifications are essential as the major supermarket chains require it.��“Our Australian major supermarkets all have sustainable seafood processes in place, a relatively high standard I should say, by global standards, but global standards are a very low bar,” he says.

“Certification is meant to make consumers confident they can go to a retailer and everything on the shelf is sustainable. I wish that was so.” 

Some providers of sustainability certifications around the globe are lowering their standards to certify more products, rather than ensuring only the most sustainable products get certified.

“We are actually concerned that some certifications are going backwards,” says Meder.

Consumers should look for transparency 

The ACCC tells ����Vlog that consumers need to be cautious about environmental claims that are vague and not easy to substantiate. When it comes to eco labelling, the ACCC recommends consumers do their own research about the certification process.

Experts recommend that consumers google the relevant certification scheme and search for open and transparent methodology about how and why various certifications are given.��

Meder says the Aquaculture Stewardship Council’s certification is an example of a certification which provided open and transparent methodology and regularly published the results of their audit reports on their website.��

Sandhu says another example of a very open and transparent certification is , which certify a wide range of businesses from different industries, and publicly provide methodology and the structures that each certified company is measured against.�� 

Labelling schemes with third-party audits

Stefan Renckens, assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, says the most rigorous labelling schemes contain independent audits by third-parties, but even then there is often a conflict of interest.

“The one being audited pays for the audit to be done, so there is a clear conflict of interest there. Sometimes it is a box-ticking exercise,” he tells ����Vlog.

He says labelling schemes, whether from industry, nonprofits or governments, need to be open and transparent about their methodology and criteria for accessing a product, something which was rarely the case.

Government should step in

Sandhu says there is a role for governments to play in simplifying eco labelling schemes.

“Greenwashing is pretty rampant. The easiest thing would be for governments to regulate and for firms to meet those standards. But it doesn’t necessarily work this way,” she says.

“Industry associations coming together to do some kind of environmental accreditation can only take us so far. After that comes the confusion: is it symbolic or more substantial? There are so many floating around how do we know which ones to trust? The government has to step in and clean up some of these systems, so that a tick means the same thing to everyone,” she adds.

Until that time, consumers looking to do the right thing will need to rely on more than the label.

Updated 25 August: The comment from the Marine Stewardship Council was added to the original version of this story.��

The post Eco labels – too many, and too confusing? appeared first on ����Vlog.

The amount of animal fur coming into Australia greatly exceeds the market for it, not least because many major retailers have switched to faux fur for ethical reasons.

Fur products are denied entry to Australia if they come from a dog, cat or some endangered animals under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

But there are no laws against the importation of the types of fur that have long been mainstays of the industry, such as racoon, racoon dog, mink and muskrat. And there are no traceability mechanisms in place to determine the source of the fur products that are allowed to be imported.��

That should be troubling for anyone who’s trying to avoid buying real fur, because with all the fur coming into the country, shoppers looking for faux fur have a problem – they may be buying real fur without knowing it.

And fur farms around the world have a well documented history of inhumane treatment of animals.

Faux fur or the real thing?

In November 2019, the animal protection organisation Four Paws teamed up with the Animal Justice Party to investigate whether faux fur being sold in the Queen Victoria and South Melbourne markets was actually real fur.��

The hunch paid off.��Genetic testing revealed that the fur trims on clothing came from racoons and racoon dogs, animals that have long been subjected to cruel and abusive practices in the international fur trade. (Racoons are native to North America; racoon dogs are native to Asia and are canines.)

Mink and muskrat fur were also discovered during the investigation, and where animal fur was listed on the label the fur often turned out to be from a different animal.��

According to a 2019 report from the non-profit ACTAsia (whose mandate includes animal welfare), real animal fur labelled as faux fur and dog and cat fur labelled as rabbit or raccoon dog “is especially common when fur is exported to Europe, Australia and the US, where the fur-free movement is strongest and the use of dog and cat pelts is illegal”.

“Dog and cat fur are exceptionally cheap to produce and help to subsidise the industry further, with false or insufficient labelling facilitating export to countries where their use is illegal,” the report says.��

In a follow-up investigation by Four Paws and the Animal Justice Party in March this year, mislabeled items were again found at Queen Victoria Markets.��

Victorian government steps in

The revelations in November 2019 led to a commitment from then Victorian Consumer Affairs (CAV) Minister Marlene Kairouz to put a task force to work on the issue.

We asked CAV for an update and were told a follow-up investigation by the agency found no mislabelled items.

“The Victorian Government takes businesses making false or misleading representations about goods seriously,” a spokesperson told us.��

“Letters have also been sent to South Melbourne Market and Queen Victoria Market to remind market operators and stallholders of their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law regarding labelling of fake fur and fur products. Consumer Affairs Victoria inspectors continue to monitor the issue.”

False or misleading claims on product labels contravene the Australian Consumer Law in every state and territory.

As the ACCC puts it, “businesses are not allowed to make statements that are incorrect or likely to create a false impression,” adding that the rule “applies to their advertising, their product packaging, and any information provided to you by their staff”.��

The regulator also says, “It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead you or not.” 

Under your Consumer Guarantees of the Australian Consumer Law, if products are mislabeled you are entitled to seek repair, replacement or refund through the retailer.

Animal Justice Party: Your fake fur may be real 

Andy Meddick MP, the Animal Justice Party Member of the Legislative Council for Western Victoria, says many Australians are probably buying real fur that’s labelled as fake.

“Many people are now being deceived about what they buy because there’s a very large industry out there that is taking advantage of the fact that real fur in many instances is cheaper to produce than fake fur. Consequently, there is a massive problem with mislabelling,” Meddick told ����Vlog.

Fur trim on hoods or sleeves has become especially popular in recent years, and many people buying such products would check the labels to make sure the fur is not real.

But the tags are often not trustworthy, Meddick says.

“That’s a deliberate deception of the Australian consumer because they’ve made that choice to not buy fur products. So they’re being deliberately deceived, and that in and of itself is a consumer problem that I believe that all consumer affairs departments need to take a lot more seriously.”

Elise Burgess from Four Paws also points out that brands and designers are now creating their own faux fur lines, which is making faux fur products more expensive.

“Both real and fake fur are improving in quality, but then real fur is decreasing in value as well. So it’s fair to say that, at least in some cases, the real thing is cheaper than the fake thing.”

“Tens of thousands of fur products are imported into Australia every year,” Burgess says.��“It’s almost guaranteed that if you are purchasing a fur product, it has come from an animal from one of the fur farms.”

As to whether it might be from a fur farm with a well-documented history of cruelty, “Well, you just wouldn’t know,” Burgess says. “There’s no traceability, really.”

Without traceability, consumers are left in the dark, Burgess says.��

“Of these thousands of fur products that are coming into the country every year, where are they going? And where are they being sold? And are they being labelled correctly?” 

“I think the fact that those three things are missing makes this a concerning issue for more than just the animal welfare angle, but just to address that lack of traceability.”

How to tell if fur is real

Four Paws recommends a simple test for checking whether fur labelled as faux fur is actually real when you’re out shopping.

• Part the hair and look closely where it joins the base
• If it’s fake, you’ll see stitching; if it’s real, you’ll see skin.
• You can also check a product you already own by plucking and burning a strand of hair. It’ll crumple and react like a plastic if it’s fake, and if it’s real it’ll smell similar to human hair when it’s burnt.��
• If you’ve purchased real fur that was labeled as faux fur or is fur from a different animal than the label says, take the product back and ask for a refund. If the retailer refuses, your next step is to make a complaint with your state’s consumer affairs or fair trading agency.��

The post Is it faux or is it real? Australia’s hidden fur trade  appeared first on ����Vlog.

Food companies were using statements such as “Packed in Australia from imported ingredients”, which were too muddled to help consumers make informed decisions.

In 2015, this issue was thrown into the spotlight when dozens of Australians contracted Hepatitis A after eating frozen berries from Brazil and China. Although some products were recalled, people were unable to avoid other berry products from these countries because their packaging didn’t say where the berries came from.

In response, we launched a campaign to improve country of origin labelling. During the following year, the government consulted with ����Vlog experts and thousands of our supporters to come up with labelling that reflected what consumers actually want to see.��

The current system

In 2016 the government launched the revised labelling system that is still in place today. Labels now require food companies to specify the percentage of Australian ingredients, as well as whether the product was made, produced or grown in Australia.

But the labels still don’t require food companies to list where the main imported ingredients come from.��

The government is currently reviewing this labelling system. We’re making a submission to the review on behalf of consumers, with a number of recommended improvements.

Popularity of country of origin labelling

It isn’t perfect, but there’s no doubt that country of origin labelling is popular with consumers, and plays a significant role in many people’s buying decisions.

In a recent survey of more than 20,000 ����Vlog subscribers, almost all (99%) respondents said that knowing where the food and drink they buy comes from is important.��

More than 90% of respondents also said that they use country of origin labelling to make decisions when buying food at the supermarket – 51% say they use the labels “frequently” and 40% say they use it “every time”.

����Vlog campaigns and policy advisor Amy Pereira says it’s clear people value knowing where their food comes from.��

“The results of our survey show that accessing country of origin information on food products is an important part of how people decide what to buy at the supermarket,” she says.

Consumer concerns

Country of origin labelling is evidently valuable, but there are significant frustrations with the current system. Our survey respondents identified several areas where the labels fall short of their expectations.

Not saying where key ingredients were grown

The current system is useful for helping people determine whether or not a product is Australian grown, made, produced or packed. But for those products with a significant proportion of ingredients sourced from outside Australia, there’s no clear indication of where those ingredients come from.�� 

As one respondent in our survey put it: “These labels are not really telling me what the item’s country of origin is. It’s only telling me that [a] certain percentage is made in Australia. Which ingredients are in this percentage and where is the rest actually coming from is not shared. I see it more as a campaign for buying Australian-made goods than informing the consumer of the country of origin.”

����Vlog food and nutrition expert Rachel Clemons says there are various reasons why people are interested in the exact country of origin of ingredients.

“They might want to choose a product with Australian ingredients, in order to support Australian growers and producers,” she says. “They could be looking for a product with ingredients from a country with a reputation for producing high quality, such as coffee beans from Guatemala.��

“Some might also use the label to help them avoid food from particular countries due to concerns around food hygiene or human rights in those countries, for example.”

Misleading ‘Made in Australia’ claims

Currently, food companies can claim their product is made in Australia if the food is processed here. But that doesn’t mean any of the ingredients are from Australia.��

����Vlog’s Amy Pereira says ‘Made in Australia’ claims are misleading and hard to understand, particularly when there are minimal Australian ingredients.��

“This can be confusing to people shopping who see the kangaroo logo and think ‘every aspect of this product is from Australia’, when in fact, all ingredients may come from overseas and were only processed in Australia,” she says.

People in our survey were particularly concerned about misleading ‘Made in Australia’ claims on meat products, as the country of origin can often give an indication of quality control and animal-welfare conditions.

For example, bacon can show the ‘Made in Australia’ label if it is cured and dried here, even if the pork itself comes from overseas.��

One survey respondent expressed their frustration: “The Australian Made triangle/kangaroo label is very misleading. It is impossible to buy Australian grown ham, bacon and related products from the main supermarkets. They all carry the green and gold symbol yet, the pork is grown overseas. Manufacturers use a loophole that adding salty water in Australia to fully imported pork makes it Australian made… None of the ‘Australian Made’ ham, bacon and related items divulge the actual country of origin.”

Increased country of origin labelling on some products

There are seven food categories that do not have the same requirements as ‘priority’ foods such as milk, bread, fruit and vegetables. These categories are:

• seasonings
• confectionary
• biscuits and snack foods
• bottled water
• soft drinks and sports drinks
• tea and coffee; and 
• alcoholic beverages.��

These products only have to carry a country of origin text statement identifying where the food was grown, produced, made or packaged. If the food is packaged with food from more than one country, the label must indicate that the food contains imported ingredients or has multiple origins. The statement doesn’t have to be marked out in a box.

Almost all our survey respondents (98%) said they wanted these food categories to be included in the country of origin labelling scheme.

“The scheme is less helpful when it is not applied to all food products in the supermarket and this means people might waste time looking for this information on products or not use the scheme at all out of frustration,” says Amy Pereira.

“����Vlog would like consistency across the board for food products.”

Inadequate country of origin labelling online

This year, grocery shopping online has gone up significantly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, there’s a lack of consistency around how (or whether) country of origin information is shown online.

����Vlog’s Rachel Clemons says the websites of Australia’s two largest grocery retailers, Coles and Woolworths, currently display country of origin information for some foods, but not all.

Amy Pereira says: “In order for consumers to be able to effectively compare products for features that matter to them when they’re shopping online (and in store), country of origin labelling needs to be consistently displayed for all products.” 

Our survey results confirm that people are struggling with online labelling, or the lack of it.�� Only about five percent of those surveyed who do their grocery shopping online say it was easy to find country of origin information.��

Our campaign

We want the system of country of origin labelling to stay in place, but with three main improvements to make it more useful to people.��

1. List the overseas country of origin on packaging

If key ingredients come from  or are grown overseas, the product label should clearly state their origin. Key ingredients should be defined as those that make up at least 20% of a product, or are marketed as a defining characteristic of the product – for example, ‘raspberry’ in raspberry-flavoured yoghurt.

2. Ensure more food types display country of origin labelling

The seven food categories currently exempt from the country of origin labelling scheme should be included.

3. Clearly show country of origin information online

People shopping for food online should be able to see the country of origin information when making their choices. Ideally, an image of the label should be shown, but at the very least the information should be available as text in the product description.

A system Aussies can trust

The muddle of the current system makes it hard for people to trust food labels and food manufacturers.��Pereira says people deserve clarity about where the food they buy really comes from.��

“We know that these reforms will increase consumer confidence and trust in the country of origin labelling system,” she says. “A system that meets people’s needs would promote trust between consumers and food manufacturers. A system that does not do this will further erode confidence in country of origin labelling.”

The post Do you know which country your food comes from? appeared first on ����Vlog.

Knowing where our food comes from is important to many of us. Whether it’s about choosing local, supporting Australian farmers or reducing ‘food miles’, we need clear labels to help us make informed choices.��

But until 2016, we saw many companies take advantage of lax regulation to provide unclear and unhelpful labels about where our food was made.��

Here’s our story of how thousands of people came together to put pressure on the federal government and win our campaign for transparent and fair country of origin labels.��

Confusing and unhelpful labels

Food companies are required by law to tell us where their food comes from – these are commonly called ‘country of origin’ labels. But until our campaign, we regularly spotted ambiguous statements like “Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients” or “Packed in Australia from imported ingredients” – which meant it was almost impossible for people to make informed decisions in the supermarket.

A catalyst for change: dangerous berries 

Back in 2015, you may have read about dozens of Australians who contracted Hepatitis A after consuming frozen berries from Chile and China. Two popular brands were recalled but many frozen berries were still on supermarket shelves displaying labels like “Packed in Australia using imported fruit”. These labels meant we couldn’t tell where our food came from.��

Thanks to public outcry, ����Vlog launched a campaign calling on the then Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce to take action. We asked thousands of people to write to the minister and share why they wanted to see country of origin labelling. Within just two weeks, more than 22,000 people had contacted him directly, and 18,000 shared our campaign on social media – putting the minister under serious pressure to respond.��

The minister responds

This upswell of community pressure worked. In response to people’s emails, calls and comments, the minister responded, and even referenced passionate ����Vlog supporters: 

“Because I looked at my emails today and there were 22,000 emails there – 22,000… people are relying on this government to deliver.” 

Now it was time to shift to what these new proposed labels would look like. Over the next year, the government consulted with ����Vlog experts alongside thousands of supporters, and together we gave detailed feedback about what consumers wanted to see on labels at the supermarket.��

In 2016, just over a year on from launching this campaign, the government released the new country of origin food labelling scheme. The result? Companies were forced to provide clearer information about where their ingredients come from.

The revised labels are a huge step forward, especially for people who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally.��

The biggest label changes are for products made, grown or produced in Australia. These now need to display a triangle logo with a kangaroo icon, a bar chart indicating the percentage of Australian ingredients, and text to explain whether the product was made, produced or grown in Australia.��

Unfortunately, the labels don’t require food companies to list where the main imported ingredients come from. But we now have a solid foundation to further improve labels and have called on companies to provide this information voluntarily.��

What’s next?

Every day, ����Vlog supporters like you take action to make laws and business practices better for everyone. Whether it’s signing a petition, filling in a survey or writing to your MP – everything you do counts. Change doesn’t always happen overnight, but with sustained pressure and passion, we can win meaningful change on the issues that mean the most to you.

The government is currently reviewing Australia’s country of origin food labelling system and ����Vlog is making a submission to the review on behalf of consumers. If you’d like to include your thoughts on how country of origin labels on food and drink can be improved, .��

The post How ����Vlog won better country of origin labels appeared first on ����Vlog.

We wanted to find out where the major supermarkets source their packaged food products from, and if we could tell by reading the labels.

New labels on the way, but until then…

The government has released the designs for new country of origin labels, which is a big step towards ending the confusion around country of origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally. But you won’t see these labels in supermarkets until later in the year, so at the moment consumers only have access to sketchy information on packaged foods. And what little info is provided can be quite confusing.

‘Product of Australia’, ‘Made in Australia’, and ‘Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’, for instance, all mean different things. And the rules around the current country of origin labelling system leave plenty of room for confusion.

A product labelled ‘Made in Australia’ must be made (not just packed) in Australia, and at least 50% of the cost of making must be incurred here. But it can contain ingredients from other countries, and may not necessarily contain any Australian ingredients at all. So where does the rest of the stuff we put in our mouths come from?

Packaged food mysteries

We recorded the country of origin statements for more than 320 packaged foods from market-leading brands as well as Aldi, Coles’ and Woolworths’ private label brands. Based on feedback from about 460 members, we focused on packaged product categories deemed most important for country of origin, including:

• canned and frozen fruit and veg
• dried fruit and nuts
• fruit and vegetable juices
• frozen ready meals
• smallgoods (eg bacon and ham).

Food labels are required by law to tell you where a product was made or produced, but the current system creates a barrier to making informed choices. If you want to know for sure where the ingredients in your strawberry jam, cans of baked beans, party sausage rolls, or bottles of shelf-stable juice come from, forget it – there’s a good chance you won’t find that information on the label.

What the labels told us

For almost 60% of the 300-plus products we looked at, the country of origin statement didn’t reveal where the ingredients were actually sourced:

• ‘Made in’ claims, notorious for being misunderstood by consumers, were used on more than half of the products.
• Just 34% of products displayed ‘Product of’ labels – arguably the most helpful of the current approved statements for packaged foods since it means the main ingredients come from that country and virtually all the processing was done there.
• Although 66% of the products we reviewed mention Australia in their country of origin statements, once you navigate the confusing terminology it’s only possible to be certain that 26% of the products – or at least their major or characterising ingredients – have been sourced in Australia.

View the full list of 320 products (PDF, 50KB) we looked at and their country of origin statements.

Is it Australian?

In our most recent survey on the topic, 95% of 743 ����Vlog members surveyed told us they try to buy Australian foods, and the top reason given was the desire to support Aussie farmers.��

The major supermarket chains publish figures for the proportion of their fresh produce that’s sourced locally, but their commitments to sourcing local products under their private label brands for packaged food products are less specific.

Coles’ position on local sourcing

Coles’ ‘Australia first’ sourcing policy supposedly covers private label products as well as fresh. But the only details we could find on its website were that it recently replaced all frozen vegetables in the Coles Smart Buy range with 100% Australian-grown vegetables through a contract with Simplot, and committed to sourcing 100% of its private-label canned peaches, pears and apricots from local fruit processor SPC Ardmona.

Woolworths’ position on local sourcing

Like Coles, Woolworths has partnered with SPC Ardmona to supply its own-brand canned apples, pears, peaches and apricots, and with Simplot to provide all its Select-brand frozen vegetables. It reports that its private-label brands (Homebrand, Select, Macro and Gold) were 75.8% Australian-sourced in 2014.

Aldi’s position on local sourcing

Aldi’s latest TV ads focus on the local suppliers of its private-label products. An Aldi Australia spokesperson told us, “We only source products from overseas when we can’t find the product, quality, efficiency or innovation we seek here in Australia”. They added, “In some instances, Australian suppliers do not have the volume of product to meet high consumer demand, so we source an equivalent alternative from overseas to ensure we can continue to deliver high quality products at permanently low prices.”

Looking for evidence of local sourcing

We looked at a subset of 240 products – 60 different product types each with product representation from a market-leading brand and an equivalent Aldi, Coles and Woolworths brand – to see if local sourcing was evident from the label.

At first glance, it appeared that 80% of market-leading brand groceries in the sample were sourced locally, compared with 69% from Woolworths, 67% from Coles and 63% from Aldi. But once you eliminated all those that were simply ‘packed in’, ‘processed in’ or ‘made in’ Australia, you were left with a much smaller proportion you could be confident were sourced predominantly from local suppliers based on their country of origin statements – just 41% of Coles, 39% of Woolworths, 31% of market leaders, and 13% of Aldi products in our snapshot.��

Hoping to get to the bottom of the issue, we asked the retailers directly. Aldi provided information about where its fresh foods are sourced and outlined its commitment to transparency in front-of-pack labelling, but gave no additional clarification about where it sources its private label products beyond what’s stated on the label. Both Coles and Woolworths chose not to respond.

While all three retailers were compliant with current mandatory country of origin labelling requirements, and aren’t required by law to supply more details than they have, more transparency wouldn’t go astray. Is it really that hard to tell consumers where the cashews in a pack of cashews come from?

Coles does better

In our snapshot, Coles more often had labelling that allowed us to pinpoint the source of its products, and gave a level of detail beyond the minimum requirement. Its Thai Green Chicken Curry, for example, states: “Made in Australia with Australian Chicken. Rice from Thailand. Coconut milk from the Philippines or Thailand. Vegetables from Australia”.

In comparison, the equivalent Woolworths Select green curry says: “Made in Australia using 100% Australian chicken” and Aldi’s green chicken curry states “Made in Australia”.

Coles’ labels are also in a consistent format, with country of origin labelling always appearing under the heading ‘Information’ so you know where to look.��

Country of origin labelling can be complicated for manufacturers when there are multiple ingredients, or when ingredients are sourced from various locations at different times of year due to seasonality. But even so, transparency across the board could be vastly improved.

����Vlog verdict

The current country of origin labelling system make it difficult to check if supermarkets’ sourcing policies extend to their private label brands.

The government’s new system should make it easier to identify if the product is manufactured in Australia or what the proportion of Australian ingredients in the product is (if any), which is great if you care about how Australian your food is. But it’s less useful if you’re interested in the source of non-Australian ingredients. It will be interesting to revisit our list of 320+ products once the new system is in place, to see if it provides better clarity around where they’re sourced.

To help consumers know where their food comes from, we urge food manufacturers to be more transparent about the origin of their ingredients and provide information on the origin of all the main ingredients in their products, Australian or not.

Current country of origin labels explained

Most foods in Australia are required by the Food Standards Code to have country of origin labelling. The current rules for country of origin claims are set out in Australian Consumer Law and these claims are regulated by the ACCC. New statements and associated logos will replace these later this year.

Where do supermarkets source their fresh food from?

Our research looked at the sourcing of packaged food products. Is it any easier to find out where the major supermarkets source their fresh food from?

Aldi told us 100% of its eggs, bread, fresh meat and fresh poultry products, 93% of its fresh dairy products and 91% of its fresh fruit and vegetables are ‘Australian made’.

Coles’ 2014 annual report states that 96% of its fresh fruit and veg is Australian grown – along with 100% of meat from its meat department. Woolworths has the same stats, according to its 2014 corporate responsibility report.

So why isn’t 100% of fruit and veg sourced locally all of the time? It might be that they’re not always in season in Australia, weather might have affected crops, or the product might not even be grown here, for example. Aldi supplied us with a list detailing where its fresh fruit and veg are sourced throughout the year, which you can access by clicking on the link below. Coles and Woolworths shoppers can check the charts on each retailers’ websites.��

For details of where retailers source fresh fruit and veg and when, go to:

The post Supermarket-brand groceries’ country of origin labelling appeared first on ����Vlog.