Plant-based food products should not use words like "beef" and "chicken", nor use images of animals on packaging, according to recommendations from a Senate inquiry.
Since June, a Senate inquiry led by Queensland Nationals senator Susan McDonald has been investigating the labelling of non-animal proteins in the meat and dairy sectors.
The inquiry generated significant interest from farmers, livestock groups, plant-based food companies and vegetarian groups, with more than 200 individuals and groups making submissions.
In its final report, handed down on Thursday, the inquiry made nine recommendations, including that a regulatory framework for labelling plant-based protein products be established.
It also recommended a national standard be developed to restrict the use of "meat category brands" to animal protein products.
"We are advising that a current review being undertaken of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act also include reversing its allowance of plant proteins and non-dairy milks to use animal descriptors," Senator McDonald said in a statement.
"We also recommend that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission act on concerns plant proteins are placed too close to animal proteins in stores."
Senator McDonald said the report also recommended supporting the emerging plant-protein industry.
"Australian pulse and veggie farmers can tap into the plant-protein market, so it makes no sense for people to frame this inquiry as somehow wanting to cripple that industry or attack vegans and vegetarians.
"All we're suggesting is that, like margarine makers did by choosing a name that didn't contain butter, plant protein marketers come up with ways to promote their products without trading on animal names and imagery.
"The same goes for cultured meat. When that eventually hits the market, it needs to be clearly discernible from meat grown in a paddock, so we are recommending the government get involved now in regulating meat definitions."
Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) independent chair John McKillop welcomed the report, saying the recommendations would help "restore truth in labelling".
"By concluding that the current regulatory framework for the labelling of plant-based protein products is inadequate and decisive action is needed, the committee supports the protection of consumers, as well as the brand and reputation of traditional animal proteins like beef, lamb and goat," he said.
"The recommendations vindicate industry's long-held view that minimum regulated standards are required to prohibit plant-protein product manufacturers from referencing traditional animal proteins like beef, lamb and goat, and using livestock images on plant-protein packaging or marketing materials."
Greens question validity of inquiry
Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who was a member of the inquiry, issued a dissenting report that rejected all but two of the recommendations and questioned the inquiry's "validity as an appropriate use of public service time, resource and money".
"Throughout the course of the inquiry, no reliable quantitative evidence was presented that demonstrates a systemic problem with the current labelling of plant-based products."
The Alternative Proteins Council had argued the inquiry was framed in a way that stoked a false narrative that emerging protein sectors in Australia were impairing conventional protein sectors based on branding.
It said framing new protein industries as a threat to conventional ones was wrong and did a disservice to farmers and communities that stood to benefit from the growth of the plant-based protein sector.
The council says plant-based meats are a growing food category in response to rising demand from consumers, including those motivated to improve their health.
