Drive for clearer shop product labels
Research has found the average household wastes up to $2,500 annually, and confusing food labels contribute to this. Here’s what industry should do.
Senate committee findings
Easy to read and understand, and truthful, labelling were key recommendations National Seniors Australia (NSA) made to the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, last year.
We told the committee it was important that seniors could easily compare products and prices across different brands. However, the display of this information is inconsistent across supermarkets.
Small type and labels with confusing designs make it difficult to read and understand the information, and older people and those with disabilities are particularly disadvantaged.
It’s not just an issue with supermarket shelf labels but also packaging information. The print is often too small and in colours that make it difficult to read for many people.
We were pleased that the committee’s report to the Federal Government reflected the NSA submission, including better labelling. However, it’s uncertain what action, if any, the government has taken.
Confusing food labels are costing older Australians and contributing to the nation’s food waste problem.
Research from RMIT University and End Food Waste Australia reveals confusing food labels, small print, and complex icons result in Australians wasting money and throwing away perfectly edible food.
The solution, the study reveals, involves clearer, more consistent date labels and storage advice with bigger print and simple icons.
Each year, Australians waste 7.6 million tonnes of food, much of it still safe to eat.
The study showed poor label design and inconsistent packaging were key reasons consumers throw out food, which could cost the average household up to $2,500 annually.
The lead author of the study, RMIT’s Associate Professor Lukas Parker, said shoppers are being let down by labels that don’t give them the information they need to make the right call.
“It’s time for a consistent, clear system that helps people make smarter choices, saves money, and keeps good food out of the bin,” he said.
Despite consumers wanting label changes, workshops revealed hesitations from industry “stakeholders” (food manufacturers and retailers), who cited concerns about cost, compliance, and regulatory complexity.
The gap between consumer needs and system readiness was also identified as a major barrier to progress.
End Food Waste Australia CEO, Tristan Butt, said smarter labels would only happen if governments, retailers, and food producers work together.
“Clear, consistent date labelling is one of the most cost-effective and scalable ways to reduce household food waste, but it won’t happen without industry-wide collaboration,” he said.
“The UK’s retail sector has already proven this change is possible, without compromising food safety. It’s time we did the same.”
To undertake their study, the researchers set up groups comprising academics, designers, retailers, food producers, policymakers, and consumers.
Participants looked at various food labels that had been developed by researchers, some of which included text cues such as “do not eat after this date”, or changed the colour of the type, or added QR codes for more information.
Both the stakeholders and consumers preferred clear, concise, and visually distinct date labels and storage advice.
The manufacturers and retailers were more concerned about food safety, legal compliance, and the cost of changing the labels, while consumers were more interested in how the labels worked, along with the issues of food quality and waste reduction.
For example, consumers said they often associated QR codes with marketing and did not use them very often, while stakeholders said the codes were helpful in providing more information about the product without taking up too much space on the label.
The report said, “The industry players tended to view household food waste as a consumer responsibility, reflected by their focus on consumer education campaigns rather than addressing systemic factors within their own industry.”
It also found that, if labels were to change, the cost of doing that would probably be passed on to the consumer.
Dr Parker said the research would inform the next phase of the National Date Labelling and Storage Advice Project, which will bring together supermarkets, food brands, and the government to co-design, test, and roll out a national framework for food labelling.
“It’s not easy; we've got two big supermarkets, and unless you have buy-in from both of those … it’s very difficult to get something in,” he said. “But we've seen it with other different types of strategies slowly coming on board, like the recycling logo.
“It can happen; it just takes a lot of time.”
