Case Matter: Incorrect Labelling on Products
| Case Title: | NSW Food Authority v Inside Out Nutritious Goods Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1278 (31 October 2025 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Parties: | NSW Food Authority (Prosecutor) Inside Out Nutritious Goods Pty Ltd (Defendant) |
Food regulator NSW Food Authority, brought ten (10) breaches of The Food Act 2003 (NSW), s21(3) against the defendant, Inside Out Nutritious Goods Pty Ltd (‘Inside Out’).
The defendant pleaded guilty to the breaches at the earliest possible opportunity.
The offences occurred between 24 October 2022 and 12 January 2023.
The offences relate to the wrong labelling being placed on almond milk and oat milk products, which were sold to Woolworths for retail sale.
The offending labels stated the following with regard to storage:
“Once opened, keep refrigerated and consume within five days.”
The products were meant to state the following with regard to storage:
“The products must be kept refrigerated at all times (below 5 degrees Celsius).”
Botulism – a causative effect?
The court found that the heat pasteurisation process for these products was inadequate for the deactivation of the bacteria that can cause botulism. The defendant, Inside Out, agreed.
Human error
It was found that the mistaken labelling was due to human error; an error that was not picked up by procedures and quality checking within the organisation.
Follow-up rectification
The court found that since the incident, Inside Out had implemented satisfactory changes to their processes and quality control measures within the organisation to ensure this does not occur again.
Principal area of factual dispute
The court was required to decide to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, whether the illness of a person by the name of “Mr Mace”, who became seriously ill with botulism, was caused by the incorrect labelling by Inside Out on their products.
The court found that on 26 November 2022, Mr Mace’s partner Ms McGrigor had purchased ten one litre bottles of the unsweetened almond milk from Woolworths online.
Ms McGrigor placed the bottles in the kitchen cupboard.
Mr Mace consumed the produced at some later stage and became seriously ill with botulism, spending a significant amount of time in intensive care.
Ms McGrigor submitted two of the bottles to be tested by specialists and one tested positive to botulism.
The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Mace drank the contaminated milk and became ill. Whether the labelling was the causation for Mr Mace’s illness needed to be established to determine legal responsibility.
The court did not find beyond reasonable doubt that Ms McGrigor, nor Mr Mace, had read the incorrect labelling and acted upon its instructions. Therefore, the causation between the incorrect labelling and Mr Mace’s illness was not established.
Other disputed facts
The court regarded the CEO of Inside Out, Mr Tuong’s apology to be sincere and that the finding of whether Inside Out’s products caused Mr Mace’s illness could be made independently of the apology; the apology was found not to extend to cover whether the incorrect labelling caused Mr Mace’s illness.
The court also found that the impromptu attendance by an officer of the Department of Primary Industries Ms Wong prior to the events, could not have picked up on the incorrect labelling because it had not been printed yet.
Considerations for penalty
The matter refers to incorrect labelling of 46,494 bottles of almond and oat milk products. Inside Out acknowledges the breaches of incorrect labelling.
The court rejected the notion that the incorrect labelling caused Mr Mace to become ill.
The maximum penalty is $275,000 for each offence.
The court accepts that the nature of offending was not purposeful, but an oversight.
The court did also consider the delay of when the incorrect labelling was discovered (on 18 January 2023) to when the recall was announced (mid-February 2023).
The court availed the 25% discounted sentence to Inside Out for their early guilty plea.
Conclusion and Orders
The defendant is convicted of each of the ten offences.
The defendant is to pay fines totalling $120,000 (with half being paid to the prosecutors).
The defendant is to pay the Prosecutor’s costs in the amount of $75,000.00.
The offender is to place at least a quarter page ad in the ‘Australian Institute of Food service and Technology’ in the next available edition giving details of the outcome.
[ DISCLAIMER ]
The materials available on or through this website are distributed as an information source only.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, Anna Rosemarie Pty Ltd and any of its Associates makes no statement, representation or warranty about the quality, accuracy, context, completeness, availability or suitability for any purpose of, and you should not rely on, any materials available on or through this website.
Despite our best efforts, Anna Rosemarie Pty Ltd and its Associates make no warranties that the materials available on or through this website are free of infection by computer viruses or other contamination, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Anna Rosemarie Pty Ltd and its Associates disclaims, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages and costs you or any other person or entity might incur for any reason including as a result of the materials available on or through this website being in any way inaccurate, out of context, incomplete, unavailable, not up to date or unsuitable for any purpose.
A user of this website who uses links to an external website and material available on or through that other website acknowledges that the disclaimer and any terms of use, including licence terms, set out on the other external website govern the use which may be made of that material.
businessfusion.au 