By Mark Armstrong, Senior Associate 

12 August 2026

Drawing parallels to a crime show, forensic scientists working with Four Corners have conducted testing on a spread of Australian tomato products and have discovered that a large number of products declaring their tomatoes are from Australia or Italy, actually contain tomatoes with ‘unique chemical fingerprints’ consistent with Chinese origin.  Testing suggested that these brands are dressing up lower-grade tomatoes with claims they are from a more premium origin country.  Findings were also made on other products like eggs and seafood, suggesting this might have uncovered a widespread issue of falsified origin claims on foods. The watchdog has now stepped in. While no legal action has commenced as of yet, just days ago the ACCC has announced they have initiated inquiries into Aldi, Coles and Leggo’s following the Four Corners claims. If these allegations are true and the claims made are found to be false or misleading, the legal consequences for these suppliers could be enormous, especially in light of the recent increase of the maximum penalty for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).  Read on as we cut into the findings and the implications for food origin claims.

What is happening?

A Four Corners-led investigation has pieced together evidence which suggests that country of origin and composition claims made on a wide number of products are false.  Journalists gathered thousands of food import inspection records and other documentary evidence over an eight-month period and liaised with Source Certain, an Australian forensic traceability lab whose forte is verifying food origins.  Source Certain conducted extensive testing across the food sector and found that country of origin labels on a wide range of products were inconsistent with the ‘chemical fingerprint’ of the food inside the products.  Products were tested against verified reference samples from various regions around the world and in many cases, the origin claims on pack did not line up with the overseas samples.  Tomatoes were one of the main targets (and biggest failures) of the investigation, and across 221 products from 39 brands, 22% failed country of origin testing, with 6% being flagged for further testing.  Notably, all tomato products whose descriptions did not match the origin testing were traced to Xinjiang, China, a region with a reputation for utilising forced labour.

However, the testing conducted also revealed information of great concern in other categories in the food industry.  The testing uncovered turmeric packs containing lead chromate (a toxic lead compound that is commonly used in paint and is not permitted as a food additive), egg cartons labelled as ‘cage free’ containing eggs with a fingerprint more closely matched to caged eggs, prawns represented to be from Australia with an Asia-based fingerprint, ‘Australian’ frozen white fish that likely came from Vietnam (almost 50% of frozen farmed products tested) and alcohol with dangerous levels of methanol (including one brand that was 9.4 times over the legal limit of methanol).

The evidence suggests that the country of origin statements of these products, along with various other claims made on pack are either incorrect, in breach of applicable legislation, or at worst unsafe.  Australians have shown they are willing to pay a premium for products of perceived superior quality (such as for tomatoes from Italy) and for local Australian products, and there is significant consumer trust and credibility vested in these claims.  If product origin claims are false, whether through calculated misrepresentations or traceability failures in supply chains, this would put a large target on the company’s back for legal action from the ACCC.

What is a country of origin statement?

A country of origin statement is a claim relating to where a product originated and the inclusion of a country of origin statement on food packaging has been mandatory for most foods sold in Australia since the introduction of the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 (Cth) (“Origin Standard”) on 1 July 2018.  There are various types of country of origin statements that can be made, each with its own threshold that must be met before applying the statement.  To make a ‘grown in’ or ‘produced in’ claim, all significant ingredients must have been grown or otherwise wholly obtained in the country stated, and all or virtually all processing must have occurred in the country stated.  However, a ‘made in’ claim carries a lower threshold, as a food is deemed to be ‘made in’ a country if it underwent its last substantial transformation in that country.  Suppliers can also specify the amount of ingredients that are of Australian origin where that is the case.

For example, if a ‘peaches in syrup’ product contained peaches grown in Australia that are placed in a fruit syrup consisting entirely of peaches, apples, pears and sugar, all of which was grown in Australia, and fully processed in Australia, the label for this product could use a ‘Grown in Australia’ or ‘Produced in Australia’ claim with the standard kangaroo logo set out in the Origin Standard and a full bar chart, which indicates that 100% of ingredients are of Australian origin.  However, a ‘peach puree’ product comprised of at least 50% peaches that were grown in Australia, which were then cooked, mashed and mixed in Australia with other overseas-grown/produced ingredients (accounting for the other 50% of ingredients), would not be able to make the same claim.

The allegations by Four Corners are that various companies have used claims to represent that a product is made with ingredients of Australian or Italian origin, when the ingredients are actually from somewhere else – i.e. the country of origin claims are false or misleading.

Is this the first time this has happened?

Certainly not.  The ACCC has consistently kept close watch on food labelling and has amassed an impressive résumé of victories over the years, both relating to country of origin statements and misleading claims regarding a product’s composition.

Before mandatory country of origin labelling, a series of penalties for misleading origin claims were paid in 2015 following an ACCC investigation, including for a product called ‘Aussie Beer’ that was made in China, and a prawn meat product featuring Australian flag and outline devices with an ‘Australian caught’ claim, that was actually packed and processed in Thailand.  Since the mandatory origin requirements came into effect, several businesses were caught out including:

• Birds Eye, who amended packaging claims in 2018 to ‘Packed in Australia’ instead of ‘Made in Australia’ after the ACCC raised concerns that the imported frozen fish used in the product were not ‘substantially transformed’ in Australia, as the transformation only involved slicing, crumbing and par-frying the fish; and
• Costco, who paid a $33,000 fine in 2023 for only selling two packages of lobsters labelled as ‘Kirkland Signature PREVIOUSLY FROZEN WHOLE COOKED WA LOBSTER’ and ‘Australian Lobster’, when the lobsters were actually imported from Canada.

Additionally, many more businesses have been slapped with fines over the years for misrepresenting the nature of their products including:

• Doreen Egg, who paid a fine as recent as June 2026 for selling eggs labelled as ‘free range’ when the hens that laid those eggs did not meet the legislative requirements for making a ‘free range’ claim, as the hens had not had access to an outdoor range;
• Grape Co Australia Pty Ltd and Grape Co Farms Pty Ltd, who in 2021, collectively paid a penalty of $34,920 after claiming that ‘Every single one of our grapes is personally hand-selected from the finest fruit on our family’s estate in Sunraysia Australia’, when some of their grapes were grown on third party growers’ properties;
• HBC Trading Australia Pty Ltd who also in 2021 paid a penalty of $26,640 after receiving infringement notices that its ‘Chef’s Choice’ branded ‘alcohol free pure vanilla extract’ was not ‘pure’, as it contained vanillin flavouring from clove oil and various other additives including xanthan gum, glycerine and added colour; and
• Hoyt Food Manufacturing Industries Pty Limited, who paid a $10,800 fine in 2017 for selling ’Oregano leaves’, when the packet contained around 50% olive leaves.

This is especially significant because notwithstanding any reputational damage and consumer mistrust associated with making a false or misleading claim, the maximum penalty for breaches of various sections of the ACL, including making a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality or composition, or concerning the place of origin of goods, were increased in March 2026 to the greater of:

• $100,000,000;
• if the Court can determine the value of the ‘reasonably attributable’ benefit obtained, three (3) times that value; or
• if the Court cannot determine the value of the ‘reasonably attributable’ benefit, 30% of the corporation’s adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period for the contravention.

Does this mean consumers cannot trust country of origin statements or tomato producers at large?

Yes and no.  Not all brands failed testing, including Mutti (my passata of choice, as confirmed by my second-generation Italian mother), which passed the tests, amongst others.  However, some major industry players including house brands and external brands sold in all major supermarkets showed failures in country of origin testing.  Leggo’s recorded the highest failure rate, and Coles and Aldi home brand tomato products also failed testing, but the extent of the failures uncovered could point to potentially more systemic issues. If the allegations are true, what would become clear is that there are widespread issues with food labelling claims and fraud detection procedures across the industry.

In light of the Four Corners investigation, the ACCC has published an update on their website stating that they have initiated inquiries into the allegations, with the ACCC Commissioner stating, ‘It is important that consumers can be confident that any claims made on food labelling, packaging and in advertisements are truthful, accurate and not misleading.  We know that consumers may be guided by non-price factors, including claims about the country of origin or supply chain, when choosing which food products to buy.’  Accordingly, there is potential for greater scrutiny of food products and these claims.

What does this mean for businesses?

The ACCC actively monitors food labels and has the budget to pursue businesses that they allege have breached the ACL.  Importantly, it is not necessary to prove intention to mislead or deceive for a representation to be found misleading or deceptive.  Although one of the companies whose products failed testing stated that their ingredients were from Australian farms as evidenced by supply chain documentation, there is still a risk that this would not be sufficient to defend a challenge that a product’s claims are incorrect. The ACCC is inquiring with supermarkets directly for their “home brand” products showing that relying on supplier documentation is inadequate and suppliers will ultimately be accountable to defend origin claims. Therefore, businesses should review their product formulations and their supply chains to ensure that they can follow through on their country of origin and compositional claims, and ensure that Australians are not misled.

This story is emerging and will likely develop if the ACCC believes they have sufficient evidence to instigate legal action.  We will keep you informed of any further updates as they come to light.

Contact us

If you would like further information on the above and how it impacts on you or your business, please contact one of our experts below. We can provide tailored legal and practical advice to assist you with reviewing product labels, related claims and clearing advertising material.