The Bill, strongly supported by many grassroots producers, requires retailers to provide descriptions that better describe beef on their shelves.

Rather than using nondescript terms like “budget” or “economy” on beef from older animals, the legislation will instead require more direct language like “low grade” or “low quality”.

Since the legislation’s introduction in 2008, attempts have been made to block any potential loopholes by adding a requirement that labelling be underpinned by grading.

Independent Member for the Northern Tablelands, Richard Torbay, who introduced the Bill said his backers believed “truth in labelling” was essential for the ongoing viability of the beef industry.

But parts of Mr Torbay’s Bill are being fought by major beef industry bodies, including Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) and the peak industry representative body, the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC).

RMAC attempted to stall the passage of the legislation through the Lower House at the last minute, with RMAC delegation chairman, Terry Nolan, in a letter to Mr Torbay saying the RMAC believed that “the Bill, if enacted, will place the industry in a situation of financial disadvantage and leave it vulnerable to unnecessary political intervention where none is needed”.

RMAC claims it supported the intent of the original Bill, tabled in 2008, but not additions that have since been made relating to grading.

In response to RMAC’s concerns, the grading portion of the Bill was laid aside for its passage through the Lower House, but RMAC said the grading clauses could still readily be brought into legislation without industry consent.

It wants all discussion of grading out of the Bill altogether.

Mr Toohey said the grading amendments would force the industry, under threat of legislative action, to implement a grading system that accounts for the classes of beef that currently fall between “budget” and the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system.