Fresh and Other High-Return, High-Risk Food Claims: What the Lactalis ACCC Penalties Mean for Labelling
Some words work overtime on a food label. "Fresh" and "natural" are two of the hardest workers. They signal quality, minimal processing and something close to how a food occurs in nature. They can add a halo to a product, and shoppers reward them. That marketing value is exactly why "fresh" and "natural" claims attract regulator attention — and why the ACCC's latest round of infringement notices is worth a closer look for anyone responsible for food labelling in Australia.
What happened: the ACCC's "fresh" milk penalties
On 2 July 2026, the ACCC announced that Lactalis Australia had paid $59,400 in penalties after being issued three infringement notices over the labelling of two of its milk products (ACCC).
The products — Golden North "Country Fresh" 2L milk and Ferguson Valley "WA DAIRY FRESH" 2L milk — carried prominent "fresh" claims. The ACCC alleges each contained substantial amounts of powdered, reconstituted ingredients: reconstituted skim milk and lactose in the Golden North product, and reconstituted lactose in the Ferguson Valley product.
The infringement notices were issued for alleged contraventions of section 29(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits false or misleading representations. Lactalis removed the word "fresh" from the labels after the ACCC raised its concerns. Payment of an infringement notice penalty is not an admission of a contravention.
The case came out of a broader ACCC investigation into the milk processing industry, which reviewed several major processors and retailers. The regulator's finding was telling: most processors and retailers label their fresh milk accurately. These two products stood out.
Why "fresh" and similar claims can be risky under the ACL
Words like "fresh", "natural", "pure" and similar terms create a strong overall impression of quality and minimal processing, and under the Australian Consumer Law, it is the impression that matters, not just the literal accuracy of any single word.
As ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh put it, "consumers would not expect fresh milk to contain substantial amounts of powdered, reconstituted ingredients." That gap — between what the word implies and what's in the pack — is where the risk sits. A claim doesn't have to be strictly false to mislead; it just has to leave the reasonable consumer with the wrong overall impression.
For everyday groceries like milk, the ACCC's expectation is plain: labels should be accurate descriptions of what's inside. Mr Keogh's message to industry was equally plain — all food processors are "on notice" about truthfulness and accuracy, and risk serious consequences for misleading claims.
How to substantiate "fresh" and "natural" claims: a checklist for food businesses
The commercial pull of "fresh" and "natural" is real, and using them is a legitimate business decision. The risk is that these words are easy to apply, but food businesses need to do the hard yards of substantiation. Before a high-value word goes on a pack, the label needs to be defensible against the whole formulation — including any reconstituted, concentrated or added ingredients and additives that a shopper wouldn't associate with the claim.
A few practical checks worth building into your labelling review:
Test the overall impression, not just the wording. Ask what an ordinary shopper would take from the front-of-pack claim, in the context of the whole pack, and whether the ingredient list supports it.
Match the claim to the product. Reconstituted, concentrated or heavily processed inputs sit awkwardly with "fresh" and "natural." If the process doesn't fit the word, let's start looking for other great qualities of the product.
Keep your substantiation ready. The ACCC can require a business to back up its claims. Documentation that links each claim to the actual formulation is your first line of defence.
Remember the reputational stakes. Beyond the penalty, the reputational cost of being named in an enforcement action, as well as the cost of corrective actions, can outweigh the marketing lift the word delivered in the first place.
My personal rule of thumb: if the product would be classified as a NOVA ultra-processed food, running a "natural" claim is higher risk — and, frankly, probably damaging to brand credibility. Using a "natural" claim on highly processed foods is challenging to defend, and switched-on consumers see right through it. I'll leave the debate about the nutritional value of the NOVA classifications for another day...
None of this means avoiding valuable descriptors — it means using them thoughtfully where they align with consumers' expectations of "fresh" and "natural."
Frequently asked questions
Are "fresh" and "natural" claims allowed on food labels in Australia? Yes — they are legitimate descriptors when they accurately reflect the product. The risk arises when the claim creates a misleading overall impression, which can breach section 29(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law even if no single word is strictly false.
What penalty did Lactalis pay over the "fresh" milk claims? Lactalis Australia paid $59,400 across three ACCC infringement notices relating to "fresh" claims on its Golden North "Country Fresh" and Ferguson Valley "WA DAIRY FRESH" 2L milk products.
How can a food business substantiate a "fresh" or "natural" claim? Test the overall impression the pack creates, match the claim to the actual formulation and process, and keep documentation ready that links each claim to the product — the ACCC can require a business to back up its claims.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Food businesses should seek advice specific to their products and circumstances.