In the beginning of 2015, Australia announced the introduction of mandatory standards of information for “free range” eggs, a “regulatory clarification” that was meant to both increase consumer confidence and settle some marketplace confusion on both consumers’ and producers’ sides. When the new free range standards were announced in 2016, however, consumers and welfare advocates were disappointed to find that maximum outdoor stocking densities were up to 10,000 hens per hectare – compared to the 1,500 to 2,500 they had advocated – and that the egg industry had managed to shift several more goalposts in their favor as well. It was a show of industry strength, as well as a show of the way industry is able to work with government to shape and define the meaning of animal welfare, to the detriment of consumers and animals, even in an age when consumers have many ways to challenge industry power, and increasingly support higher levels of animal welfare.

However, as this paper suggests, the “cozy” relationship between the egg industry and the government in Australia is not the whole story. Here researchers set out to show the key role that retailers play in the balance of power, acting as “brokers” between consumers and industry in the food system. In a system where private citizens and advocacy groups have their own interests on one side, and where governments and industry may be on the other, retailers have the unique ability to both facilitate, and set the pace of change. In Australia, three main egg suppliers – Pace, Sunny Queen, and Farm Pride –  control about 60% of the market, while two supermarkets – Coles and Woolworths – hold around 60% of the grocery market. The relationship these companies have with each other matters a great deal, and it matters even more what they do with it.

Through a thorough analysis of policy documents, media statements, and more, the researchers found that between the initial announcement of the regulations to announcing their implementation, there was a “significant shift” in defining the problem as one of “consumer uncertainty” to “industry uncertainty.” The initial announcement of the regulations was the first opening of a “policy window,” but the public consultation that followed opened a “second policy window” which allowed the egg industry “contest the framing of the problem,” and forming industry coalitions that would challenge the idea that consumers had been mislead by egg advertising.

Ultimately, these coalitions argued that the new standards “attempted to define free range eggs in a way that was not consistent with existing industrial-scale free range egg production systems, and the supplier standards for free range eggs required by Australia’s two dominant supermarkets.” Supporting this was the fact that the retailers’ standards for “free range” were very much closely aligned with what the egg industry was proposing, which allowed them to form a powerful bloc that was was able to essentially set the bar as low as possible.

Though the findings of this study are not necessarily “applicable” to North America – since they simply analyze what happened in the Australian context – the case study shows how power is fluid and how different actors can shift the balance of power in unexpected ways. For animal advocates in other parts of the world, the case of Australian “free range” shows that advocacy efforts need to be deployed from multiple angles: changing the hearts and minds of consumers, pressuring government and producers to shift practices, and challenging retailers to keep them accountable. Without a multi-faceted approach, it becomes easier for those wielding disproportionate power to shift the balance as it suits them.

The good news is that the landscape for “free range” in Australia continues to shift. The authors note that one of Australia’s three main egg producers has set a maximum stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare, and “civil society advocacy” for that level of density continues, “particularly from the consumer group Choice.” In other words, the meaning of “free range” in Australia continues to be defined, and improvements may yet be on the horizon.