Understanding “Duped” – Four Corners on food regulation, supply chains, modern slavery and migrant workers

ABC’s Four Corners program recently aired a two-part series “Duped: Food Exposed” on food labelling and supply chain issues in Australia. The series alleged failures of food being sold in Australia to comply with food labelling laws, suggested that there was modern slavery prevalent in the operations and supply chains of Australia’s agricultural and food retail sector, and sought to highlight misrepresentations being made to consumers regarding everyday food items.

In our experience, the Australian food regulation system is more robust than the series represents, and Australian food companies strive not only for compliance but also to educate and support healthy choices by their consumers. However, the system is complex, and tracing and verifying inputs is challenging.  In this insight, we explore the current Australian legal frameworks regulating the issues covered in the Four Corners investigation, and the key considerations for businesses in managing their risks in respect of food labelling, modern slavery, consumer representations and the treatment of workers.

Businesses in the agricultural and food retail sectors should:

1. critically assess how they are monitoring their operations and supply chains, including by leveraging existing due diligence mechanisms;
2. consider how they can deepen their verification of the content and origin of their goods, and the circumstances in which they are produced, including interrogating their tier two supply chains;
3. consider how they are verifying the accuracy of marketing and other representations made on consumer goods; and
4. enhance their mechanisms to detect unfair treatment or exploitation of workers within their direct operations and supply chains.  

Food labelling

Regulatory landscape

The Four Corners investigation highlighted two key issues with Australia's food regulatory framework: it is a complex web of standards, laws and codes, and there is a lack of enforcement action for breaches unless there are concerns for consumer safety.

The first instalment of the Four Corners investigation focused on food fraud, including the deliberate substitution of cheaper ingredients, alleged inaccurate country of origin labels, the adulteration of products for profit and misleading labelling.

Country of origin claims are governed by complex requirements that can be difficult to manage, particularly where suppliers change. However businesses must ensure labels remain accurate despite evolutions in sourcing arrangements.  The Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 (the Standard) imposes prescriptive labelling requirements depending on whether food is categorised as a “priority” or “non-priority” food, and whether it is “grown”, “produced”, “made” or “packed” in Australia. Imported priority food must carry a country of origin statement in a clearly defined box. Where imported food cannot claim to have been grown, produced or made in a single overseas country, it must instead carry a “packed in” label identifying the country where it was packed and indicating that the food is of multiple origins, or from imported ingredients.

Requirements regarding food composition, labelling and safety are set out in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code), which is developed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth). FSANZ is a standard setting body and does not enforce the Code; state and territory governments are responsible for monitoring and enforcement.

These food specific laws are supported by the Australian Consumer Law, particularly section 18 which prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct and section 29 which prohibits false and misleading representations about the place of origin and standard, quality or composition of food. Businesses which promote and sell adulterated food will be breaching these Australian Consumer Law prohibitions and risk very significant penalties if caught.  Equally, if sustainability certification schemes misrepresent to consumers the benefits that they provide, then they are likely to breach these laws.

The following graphic gives an overview of our food regulatory system:

In addition to the allegations about incorrect country of origin claims and food adulteration, the Four Corners investigation raised questions about the following more complex issues:

1. There is no clear legal standard for ‘natural’ claims - According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), a natural claim may imply that a product is superior because it has certain “natural” characteristics, as opposed to being processed, artificial or otherwise removed from its natural form. To many consumers, the term “natural” conjures notions of purity, nature, health and wellness. For food technologists, the term may link to a technical specification or scientific method of extraction. For food companies it may be a relative claim, based on a comparison to another process or ingredient which could have been used. While there is uncertainty, setting prescriptive standards would only stifle innovation and requiring more transparency through QR codes and off-label ingredients communication would be a better regulatory solution.
2. Technical compliance may still produce misleading labels - Formal compliance with the Code does not necessarily shield a business from claims under the Australian Consumer Law and technically accurate labelling can still mislead consumers. While some alleged misleading examples were highlighted in the Four Corners investigation, there has been enforcement in this space.  For example, in the “too much sugar for kids” space, the Federal Court ordered Heinz Company Australia to pay $2.25 million in penalties for misleading health claims that its “Little Kids Shredz” products were beneficial for children, despite the packaging being technically compliant with the Code. This demonstrates that there is ACCC enforcement of food health misrepresentation, but it is sporadic and it is difficult to predict what the ACCC will enforce.

In many circumstances, food companies are forced to consider direct action against misleading competitors to preserve a level playing field.  However, competitor litigation in the food space is rare, as it is expensive, difficult to establish damages and it can be challenging for tests to achieve the necessary standard required for court action.

Following the Four Corners investigation, the ACCC announced that it has commenced inquiries into the claims raised in the program. The ACCC emphasised the importance of consumers feeling confident that claims made about food products are truthful, accurate and not misleading.  It may be that the ACCC will now be more receptive to food companies which raise concerns about competitors.

Modern Slavery

The Four Corners investigation aired at a time of significant changes being announced to Australia’s modern slavery laws, amid criticism that current laws are symbolic and tokenistic, and consumer, political and international pressure to improve Australia’s modern slavery laws. The public debate which has been prompted by the investigation will likely increase scrutiny of the Australian Government’s proposed reforms and whether they are sufficient to address the prevalence of modern slavery in Australian businesses’ operations and supply chains.

Government consultation in respect of these reforms has been underway since July 2025. We summarise some of these proposed reforms to the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (MSA) and broader legal framework below. 

Challenges for businesses navigating food safety and modern slavery regulation

The practical issues facing due diligence for modern slavery

Under Australia’s current laws companies are not required to conduct mandatory due diligence of their operations and supply chains, but in-scope reporting entities are increasingly under pressure to continuously improve their supply chain monitoring as part of improving the quality and content of their modern slavery statements.

The consumer risk of food safety and modern slavery representations

There is considerable overlap in the risks facing companies concerning the public representations they make about food safety and modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, including representations about:

1. the location or origin of the goods and services they provide, particularly in the agricultural and food retail sectors; and
2. the rigour of measures they take to assess and address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains, as reported in their modern slavery statements.

There is currently litigation on foot against an Australian retailer in respect of alleged misleading and deceptive conduct concerning representations about the ‘ethical’ and ‘sustainable’ nature of its supply chain, where its goods have allegedly been sourced from forced labour camps in the Xinjiang region of China.

The court’s decision in that case is still reserved, but just as regulators such as the ACCC have over the last few years enhanced their focus on climate reporting and greenwashing, it is possible modern slavery will become an enforcement priority for regulators and the subject of further private actions based on the representations a company makes about its supply chains.

If more rigorous modern slavery measures and criminal and civil penalty regimes are introduced, companies will need to ensure that in addition to enhancing their supply chain due diligence measures, they are making accurate representations to consumers about all aspects of their supply chains, including the origin of their products or services, and the robustness of their measures to assess, mitigate and ultimately prevent modern slavery risks within their supply chains.

Protections for vulnerable workers under the Fair Work Act

Exploitation of vulnerable workers by labour hire contractors

Labour hire contractors exploiting vulnerable migrant workers was a key feature of the Four Corners investigation. The most vulnerable of these workers come to Australia on working visas that tie their immigration status to their employer (or they are told by their employers that those ties exist). In many cases, these workers do not understand the exploitative nature of these arrangements until they are already working here.

Addressing modern slavery under the Fair Work Act

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) is Australia’s primary workplace legislative regime. Amongst other things, this regime provides the minimum employment standards for most of Australia’s employees, and in some cases, can extend to regulate independent contractors.

While there is no express “modern slavery” offence under the Fair Work Act, conduct constituting modern slavery will likely contravene the Fair Work Act and should be reported to the Fair Work Ombudsman (Australia’s primary workplace regulator) for investigation where it occurs, or is suspected to be occuring. This can occurring:

1. underpayments of wages and entitlements (including non-payment of superannuation contributions);
2. wage theft;
3. requiring workers to work excessive hours without breaks; and
4. impermissible wage deductions and “cash back” schemes.

Additionally, businesses that are notified of a contractor engaging in worker exploitation, but who nonetheless continue engaging with that supplier, may be subject to civil penalties under the accessorial liability provision in section 550 of the Fair Work Act.

For example, where a third party informs the personnel of a business that a contractor is supplying exploited migrant labour to that business, and the business continues engaging the relevant labour provider, the business may be found to be indirectly and knowingly concerned in the contravention of those workers’ employment rights. The Fair Work Ombudsman may commence an investigation into the business and may ultimately commence court proceedings.

The Fair Work Ombudsman can assist exploited workers by investigating and prosecuting their employer for breaching their workplace rights.  Importantly, where such action is taken, a migrant worker may be eligible to apply for a Workplace Justice Visa, which allows temporary visa holders to remain in Australia for the purpose of taking legal action relating to workplace exploitation. This can allow a worker to enforce their legal rights without repercussions for their visa status.

Practical steps to detect and mitigate worker exploitation

To avoid instances of vulnerable worker exploitation in the supply chain, businesses should consider adopting the following steps:

1. implementing clear and accessible internal reporting structures for worker exploitation;
2. including contractual obligations relating to modern slavery and labour standards in supplier agreements, such as warranties and audit rights;
3. maintaining a regularly audited register of reputable labour hire providers who operate in jurisdictions with labour hire licencing regimes (and who are appropriately licensed);
4. training employees to detect the signs of worker exploitation, encouraging a speak up culture and clear avenues for employees and others to raise reports or concerns of worker exploitation without fear of retaliation or victimisation and, where appropriate, establishing confidential communication and reporting channels with labour hire workers; and
5. reporting suspicious activity to the Fair Work Ombudsman, such as cash payments, workers living in overcrowded group dwellings, workers receiving punishments like “fines” from their employers or routinely being required to work while ill or injured.

Key takeaways

Australia has an enviable reputation as a producer of clean, fresh and safe food, with a strong regulatory system.  In our experience, this reputation is well deserved, and Australian food companies strive not only for compliance but also to educate and support healthy choices by their consumers. However, the system is complex, tracing and verifying inputs and monitoring supply chains is challenging, and risk-based approaches are necessary.  As this insight has identified, there is certainly room for improvement and many food companies would welcome more enforcement to support innovation, protect investments and reward more active management of supply chains. 

Our experienced food and agribusiness sector team includes experts who led the adulterated honey investigation reported on by Adele Ferguson in 2019, who have advised on many food labelling compliance matters and competitor misleading food challenges, who have investigated and managed modern slavery risks and issues in supply chains and supported contractor hire investigations and disputes.  Please contact us if you want to learn more.