Dissenting Report by Government Senators
1. Rationale for the policy change
In 2001, the Australian Government introduced a blanket ban
on the domestic sale of beef and beef products from any country that had a
confirmed case of BSE. It was implemented to protect the Australian population
from BSE contamination in the food supply, because of the link made between the
consumption of certain tissues from BSE infected cattle and the rare fatal
human disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD).
At the time of the outbreak, the ban on the importation of
beef into Australia was based on the best scientific knowledge available. It
was acknowledged that this science was conservative, and that it would be
subject to review.
The science has since been reviewed as a result of the now
vast body of international scientific evidence that supports a relaxation of
this approach.
Throughout the Inquiry, Government Senators have become
aware of a number of key reasons as to why a change in policy was required:
1. The science has
developed significantly since the ban on imported beef was introduced in 2001.
• It is now
scientifically evident that BSE cannot be introduced by the safe importation of
beef (i.e. there is no viable pathway for BSE to enter Australia).
2. The risk to human and
animal health can no longer be the reason to prevent imports of beef.
3. The vast majority of
the Australian beef industry strongly support the change in policy
• The peak body for the
Australian beef industry (the Red Meat Advisory Council Ltd) sought these
changes, noting that it had been an outstanding issue for more than two years.
• The beef industry
sought confirmation that they will be consulted in the development of the
import protocols. FSANZ consulted with the peak industry body in the
development of the policy.
4. The trade implications
of not changing the policy are significant.
• Key to Australia’s
trade policy is our commitment to abide by the international trade rules. The
former policy is inconsistent with current science and the relevant
international standard.
5. Beef off the shelf
• The policy of ‘beef
off the shelves’ is gone with the introduction of the new policy. For our
domestic industry, this means we no longer have the ridiculous situation where
if there was an outbreak in one corner of Tasmania, all Australian beef would
have to be removed from all Australian shelves. That policy is finished with.
The change in policy was announced on 20 October 2009. The
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in their Submission explained
that the change in policy followed a Government Review that considered a range
of issues, including the current international standard, international practice
in BSE management, the latest scientific information on BSE and vCJD and
international trade rules and trade implications.
The Committee has been told that the Government Review
included extensive consultation with a wide range of health and beef industry
stakeholders. No concerns were raised by those that were consulted. This has
satisfied Government Senators that appropriate consultation took place. Indeed
Government Senators acknowledge that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry’s role in developing the new policy was to conduct consultations
during policy development with peak beef industry bodies i.e. the Red Meat
Advisory Council Limited (including its members the Cattle Council of Australia
and the Australian Meat Industry Council), Meat and Livestock Australia and the
National Farmers’ Federation and the state and territory animal health
officials.
2. Industry support
Government Senators note the strong support from the vast
majority of the Australian beef industry for this change in policy.
The Red Meat Advisory Council Limited (RMAC) is the peak
body for the Australian beef industry. RMAC has as its members Australian Meat
Industry Council, Cattle Council of Australia, Sheepmeat Council of Australia,
Australian Lot Feeders’ Association and Australian Livestock Exporters’
Council.
RMAC’s Submission to the Inquiry noted that “BSE is not a
contagious disease, and its only significant route of transmission is through
feeding cattle meat and bonemeal produced from BSE-infected cattle.”
(SAFEMEAT).
RMAC has clearly expressed their support for the policy
change in their Submission to the Inquiry:
“The Federal Government’s decision to modernise Australia’s
import policy as it relates tobeef and beef products is scientifically
justifiable and supported by industry. Until thischange, Australia stood out
from the international trading community as having an outdated policy developed
at a time when scientific knowledge was significantly less than it is today.
With the rigorous application of the new rules Australia will continue being
recognised as a Negligible BSE Risk country and enjoying the level of trade
this has traditionally brought” (RMAC Submission, 26 November 2009, p.7)
RMAC’s members include representatives from industry groups
along the supply chain – from beef producers to processors to retailers.
Government Senators feel confident that these views are therefore
representative of the Australian beef industry.
The Committee heard that a key factor in the Government’s
decision was the correspondence from RMAC urging a policy change. That is,
that a change in Australia’s BSE policy was sought by the Australian beef
industry.
The Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) is the peak national
lobby group for beef cattle producers. CCA represents over 20,000 beef cattle
producers and more than 50 per cent of the Australian beef cattle herd. In its
submission to the inquiry, CCA explains that it:
“supports the policy being adjusted to better align with
international standards and trading policies, provided that such a change is
underpinned and justified by science.”
This view is also shared by the Australian Meat Industry
Council, the Peak Council that represents retailers, processors, exporters and
smallgoods manufacturers in the post-farm-gate meat industry. AMIC has noted
they:
“support Australian food safety legislation coming into line
with international standards so beef is not removed from sale if a BSE case is
detected in Australia”.
In their Submission, CCA notes that it understands that it
was intended that the policy be reviewed two years after it was instigated. It
notes that the review commenced in 2003 but stalled sometime after. Government
Senators question why the previous government, with knowledge of the science,
did not change this policy.
Economic consequences of the policy change
It is also evident to the Committee that the Australian
beef industry does not feel threatened by the economic consequences of this
change in policy. That is, the threat of imports ‘taking over’ is not
real.
Prior to the ban, imports as a percentage of Australian beef
consumption have historically been very low — mostly well under one per cent.
The highest ever beef imports into Australia were in
2004-2005, when Australia imported just over 8 thousand tonnes. That equates to
1.14% of Australia’s total beef consumption. Importantly, this was before the
ban on US beef (i.e. before they had a BSE outbreak) and includes periods of
time when the Australian dollar was strong against the US dollar. This means
that even in the year of the greatest ever amount of imported beef, it was only
a tiny proportion of our overall beef consumption.
Also, the Committee heard that the Australian beef industry
is very competitive. It is the second largest exporter of beef in the world,
producing 4 per cent of the world’s beef supply. It is a $7.1 billion industry
that exports more than 60 per cent of its production. Australian beef
producers are clearly able to compete on the world stage. Therefore, the
threat of product substitution is not real.
There has been specific concern that meat from the United
States will flood the Australian market. Meat and Livestock Australia have
indicated that the US consumes approximately 95 per cent of its production with
the majority of its exports being forequarter cuts to Asia, tongues to Mexico
and livers to Egypt. They further note that these cuts are unlikely to find a large
consumer base in Australia.
This is backed up by ABARE in their most recent publication
Australian Commodities, March quarter 2010:
"It is likely that the potential quantity of beef or
beef imported under these changed conditions [the new BSE policy] will be small
given the competitiveness of the Australian beef industry and the small
quantities of imported beef, both historically and currently. The combined
effect of the medium-term projections of saleyard prices and production,
allowing Australia to remain a significant global beef exporter, and transport
costs suggests than any potential imports would have to focus on small niche
markets to be competitive. Prior to the decision in 2001 to stop imports from
countries that had one or more cases of BSE in its cattle herd, Australia only
imported small quantities of beef and beef products."
DFAT explained in their Submission that a change in policy
may actually open up markets in the event of an indigenous case of BSE:
“Continuation of the 2001 policy may have resulted in our
major markets treating Australia in similar terms to its treatment of them
(i.e. banning our beef), leading to the closing of markets and very lengthy
delays in reopening these markets. This would severely exacerbate the damage of
any requirement to remove Australian beef from domestic butcher and supermarket
shelves. The new policy will put Australia in a stronger position to argue that
it should not be excluded from its beef export markets should a BSE event occur
in Australia”.
3. Human and animal health
The Committee received Submissions and heard evidence
relating to both the risks and risk mitigation strategies for both human and
animal health under the new policy.
Human health
The Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) commissioned
Professor John Mathews in 2009 to review the current scientific evidence on
BSE. Professor Mathews is an eminent scientist with 40 years experience as an
epidemiological researcher and is well equipped to consider the implications of
a change in policy for human blood, human blood products and other human
therapeutic goods.
The scientific evidence since the ban in 2001 has improved
significantly. In developing his Report in 2009, Professor Mathews built on two
earlier reviews, conducted in 2005 and 2006. In recognition of the greater
knowledge of BSE, the World Organization for Animal Health (the OIE) agreed to
amend the standard in 2005 and adopt a three category country classification
system assessing countries as either ‘negligible’, ‘controlled’ or
‘undetermined’ BSE risk.
The final report ‘Review of Scientific Evidence to Inform
Australia’s Policy on
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)’ (Mathews
Report) concluded that the overseas epidemic of variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob
Disease (vCJD) is declining, and that beef imports from “controlled risk” or
“negligible risk” countries, with appropriate certification, would lead to only
a negligible increase in risk for vCJD in Australia.
The Submission by DoHA to the Inquiry listed the key
findings from the Mathews Report:
“The Mathews’ Report concluded that:
- Over the last five years the evidence for more
effective control of the global BSE epidemic has strengthened. Passive and
active surveillance, carried out in accordance with OIE guidelines and European
Community legislation, has shown that numbers of BSE-affected cattle are
falling year by year in virtually all affected countries;
- The amount of BSE-infected material entering the
human food chain in “controlled BSE risk” countries such as the UK is now very
small because of the decline in BSE, the removal of brain and other specified
risk materials (SRMs) from carcasses, and the detection and destruction of
infected animals;
- The risk of future food-borne transmissions leading
to human vCJD is very small, if not negligible, even in the UK, where
previously the risk was greatest; and
- An estimate of the absolute risk to Australians
from UK beef imports, if this was to be allowed, is found to be 40 million
times less than the risk from road accidents.”
The Committee was told that the Mathews Report was not only
written by an expert, but it was also peer reviewed by expert scientists under
the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies Advisory Committee. Australia’s Chief Medical Officer,
Professor Jim Bishop, was also consulted.
The Australian Red Cross and their Blood Service are also
satisfied that the change in policy will not impact on Australian blood supply.
In a media release, the Red Cross has rejected claims that blood donations
could be hindered by the Federal Government's decision to allow imports of beef
from countries previously affected by mad cow disease.
Government Senators are therefore satisfied with all the
available scientific and medical evidence that the risk to human health is not
a reason to avoid the policy change.
Animal health
Government Senators understand that BSE can only be
transmitted by feeding cattle meat and bonemeal produced from BSE-infected
cattle.
In its Submission to the Inquiry, the Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) explained that BSE is not a
contagious disease and has a very different route of transmission from viral
diseases of livestock such as foot and mouth disease. It does not spread
directly between cattle.
“The only important route of transmission is by feeding
cattle with meat and bone meal by rendering BSE risk materials, such as brain
and spinal cord, from cattle that are infected with BSE... Australia has in
place comprehensive regulatory controls which prohibit the feeding of meat and
bone meal to cattle and other ruminant animals. Therefore, there is no
plausible route by which this non-contagious disease could be transmitted to
Australian cattle via safe, imported beef which, in the case of Category 2
countries has already had BSE risk materials removed in the country of origin”
(DAFF Submission to the Inquiry, p. 11)
Government officials consistently explained that countries
that want to export beef to Australia will need to meet Australia’s strict
quarantine conditions. This includes undergoing a rigorous risk assessment for
food safety led by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). An IRA
conducted by Biosecurity Australia will examine the animal quarantine issues.
The new import conditions will require exporting countries to prove they have
acceptable controls in place, even if a country has not reported BSE, and
demonstrate that those controls are monitored. This will include controls on
food safety, animal health, surveillance, feeding and slaughtering practices.
In their Submission, DAFF explains that countries do not
need to have exactly the same arrangements in place as those in Australia.
“It means that the measures that they do have in place
provide a safe supply of beef and beef products at or above Australia’s
appropriate level of protection. Australian officials may also conduct
in-country audits if considered necessary”.
Government Senators also understand that the new policy
takes into account the requirements of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
DAFF has explained that Australia’s new policy is more conservative than this
Code in some aspects because it is tailored to Australia’s specific needs.
They note “the risk assessment will include a desk audit of
technical submissions from applicant countries against the OIE’s criteria and
using the OIE’s methodology. Additionally, an in-country inspection by
Australian officials to verify this information will be undertaken if
necessary. This is not part of the OIE’s methodology.”
From all the scientific evidence available, Government
Senators are confident that the risk to animal health of importing beef is not
a reason to avoid a change in policy.
4. Implications of not changing the
policy
Government Senators consider the Committee heard a number of
compelling reasons for changing the existing BSE policy relating to
internationals trade rules.
First, the policy change is needed to bring Australia into
line with our obligations as a Member of the World Trade Organisation. In
particular, the Committee heard Australia is bound by the WTO Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (the SPS Agreement). This means we are
entitled to implement rules to protect human, animal or plant life, but must
ensure these rules are based on international standards.
Second, Australia would have to ban the sale of Australian
beef in the event of an outbreak of BSE in Australia. The Committee heard that
this relates to WTO rules on ‘national treatment’ which mean we cannot
discriminate between locally and foreign produced goods. In short, if we ban
the sale of beef from countries that have had a BSE outbreak, and Australia has
an outbreak, we have to ban our own beef. The Committee heard that the States
and Territories enforce Australian food standards, not the Commonwealth.
However, Government Senators agree that this does not change Australia’s
international obligations; it does not matter what level of government makes a
decision that breaches international trade rules. Australia would still be in
breach of international trade rules if the States did not ban Australian beef
from the shelves if there was a BSE finding in Australia.
Third, Australia’s current BSE policy exposed Australia to a
WTO dispute. The Committee heard that for the reasons outlined above, a number
of countries, including Canada and the US, had made representations on this
policy and suggested it was inconsistent with our WTO obligations. In
particular, we heard from DFAT that there was a strong risk of a WTO dispute
challenge because:
“A number of trading partners have complained over a long
period that Australia’s 2001 policy was no longer consistent with the science,
the relevant international standard or Australia’s WTO obligations”.
The Committee also heard that Canada had already initiated a
WTO dispute against Korea and that the issues in that case were very similar to
the ones we would face. In fact, the Committee heard that Australia’s current
policy is even stricter than Korea’s on BSE.
Fourth, the Committee heard there were commercial imperatives
to compliance with international trade rules. The Committee heard that the beef
industry is very important to Australia in terms of both its domestic and
export value – more than 60% of the total $7.1B of beef produced in Australia
each year is exported. The Committee heard there would therefore be adverse
ramifications for our beef export trade if the policy remained unchanged or a
WTO dispute was brought against Australia. In particular, DFAT told the
Committee that continuation of the 2001 policy may have resulted in
retaliation, with major markets closing down trade in response to our ban on
beef from those markets. Equally, the committee heard there would likely be
significant damage to Australia’s beef trade – both in domestic and foreign
markets – if Australian beef was withdrawn from sale due to a BSE outbreak.
Fifth, there was little evidence to suggest there would be
any significant change to the imports levels of beef into Australia following
the change in BSE policy. The committee was told that the Australian beef
industry is very competitive, being the second largest exporter of beef in the
world, producing 4% of the world’s beef supply, producing $7.1B of beef
annually and exporting around 60% of that production. Moreover, the Committee was
told that historically Australia has imported very little beef, and that this
trend was evident even before the BSE ban was in place and even during times
when the Australian dollar was strong against the US dollar.
5. Food labelling
Government Senators recognise that labelling has been raised
as part of this debate.
Government Senators note that:
- Our quarantine
standards protect consumer safety, whereas our food labelling laws are aimed at
consumer information and choice
- Government Senators
note, therefore, that it is our import standards on human and animal health
that protect against the importation of unsafe beef, not country of origin
labelling which serves to inform consumer choice
- There are anomalies
in some of our labelling laws as a result of conflicting and contradictory
rules developed under the previous government
- Therefore the Council
of Australian Governments and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation
Ministerial Council have agreed to undertake a comprehensive review of food
labelling law and policy.
- Government Senators
acknowledge that the Primary Industries Ministerial Council has noted the need
for further consideration of country of origin labelling of red meat at its
November 2009 meeting.
In response to consumer concerns, Government Senators note
that the important issue of labelling is being addressed. In a press release
of 9 March 2010, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, the Hon. Mark Butler
MP, stated:
“We have taken expert advice and implemented strict risk
management procedures to ensure that our food safety standards will not be
compromised by these changes. In addition, the Government is taking action to
respond to consumer concern about labelling of beef products.
Australians can be confident that there will be clear
labelling in place before any imports under the new rules occur so that
consumers can easily choose to buy only Australian beef or beef products should
they wish to do so”.
6. Announcement of an Import Risk
Analysis (IRA)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has
written to the Director of Quarantine requesting that IRA for the importation
of beef from countries other than New Zealand be commenced.
Government Senators note the media release, issued by the
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, on 8
March 2010 explained:
“There has been significant community concern raised
questioning whether or not the protocols which were to be put in place,
adequately engaged the community and the extent to which they were different
from a legislated Import Risk Analysis.
“These community concerns have been brought to me directly
through Labor backbench colleagues and through the media. I have formed a
view that conducting an Import Risk Analysis is the best way of reassuring the
Australian community that effective protocols will be put in place to provide
for the safety of imports”.
Minister Burke also explained that “There are three
differences between the decision I have taken today and the process which has
been available since the first of March; this is a formal process with
statutory time lines, guaranteed opportunities for community engagement and
consultation, and involvement of the eminent scientists group”.
The IRA process will consider the animal biosecurity risks.
Government Senators note that the IRA will provide additional reassurance and
certainty to the Australian community. They also note that the IRA process
will include the involvement of the Eminent Scientists Group.
7. Recommendations and Conclusions
Government Senators are concerned about some of the
statements and recommendations made in the Committee’s report. In relation to
the specific recommendations, Government Senators make the following remarks:
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the provisions for the recall
of beef, in the event of an Australian case of BSE, should be developed in
consultation with the Australian beef industry.
Government Senators heard throughout the Inquiry that this
is the approach that the Government took in developing the policy. This was
reiterated by key industry representatives during the Inquiry, who explained
the consultation process. Industry representatives also expressed their
satisfaction with the consultation process.
The Committee heard that a key factor in the Government’s
decision was the correspondence from RMAC urging a policy change because of
this concern.
The change in policy means for our domestic industry that we
no longer have the ridiculous situation where if there was an outbreak in one
corner of Tasmania, all Australian beef would have to be removed from all
Australian shelves. This is sensible policy, and the change in policy has been
appreciated by the Australian beef industry.
As mentioned earlier in this Report, Government Senators
cannot understand why the previous Government, with the knowledge of how much
damage this could cause, did not address this issue earlier, particularly
because it had been raised with them by the Australian beef industry.
The Committee also recommends a COAG process to seek input
and agreement from the relevant Federal, State and Territory human health and
food safety Ministers.
Government Senators recognise the importance of discussions
between Commonwealth and state/territory governments. It is not, however, the
role of this Committee to determine whether a discussion at COAG is necessary.
Government Senators believe that this issue could be discussed via another
means, such as the Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC) and Primary
Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC).
Recommendation 2
Government Senators do not believe that all administrative
process for the assessment of applications from countries seeking to import
beef need to be suspended pending the outcome of a formal IRA. This does not
add value to the process, nor make it more rigorous. Government Senators heard
consistently from trade experts that this process should not be drawn out for
longer than necessary.
The Government has made it clear that the necessary
technical assessments – both protocols and the IRA - will be undertaken in a
timely manner.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Questionnaire to assess
BSE risk must demonstrate that applicant countries must demonstrate that they
have in place a national animal identification scheme with the same physical
ability to trade an individual animal from birth to point of retail sale.
Government Senators are confident that the traceability
requirements under the new policy are stringent.
The traceability requirements on countries wanting to export
beef to Australia have been discussed at length by Government officials, who
explained that the ability to trace both backwards and forwards is necessary.
The rigorous nature of the traceability requirements was
reinforced by the Chief Veterinary Office, Dr Andy Carroll who said during the
Inquiry that “we can be absolutely convinced that the traceability system meets
our requirements”.
The CEO of FSANZ also remarked “that what we want to see, in
doing our assessment of the risks for food safety, is the ability of a country
to track animals from their property of birth through to the slaughterhouse and
back, and, similarly, to trace the birth or cohorts of that animal from that
same property, where they may have been exposed to contaminated meat and bone
meal, through the system as well. The concept is quite simple”.
This has been reinforced in a paper provided to the Shadow
Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. John Cobb MP, by the Minister for Trade, the
Hon. Simon Crean MP. The Government’s approach to traceability has been
clearly outlined:
“We will demand the same traceability standards of foreign
beef producers as we demand of Australian beef producers”.
After listening to the technical experts, Government
Senators feel confident that the traceability requirements for imported cattle
under the new policy are adequate.
Recommendation 4
The Committee has recommended a mandatory in-country
inspection be undertaken as part of the assessment for each import application.
Committee members heard repeatedly through the hearings that
in-country inspections would be undertaken if necessary. It is unnecessary for
this Committee to mandate such a requirement. Government officials are
undertaking a science-based process. It is for the relevant food safety and
quarantine authorities to determine if an in-country inspection is warranted.
Recommendation 5
The Committee has recommended a review of the administrative
framework through which the policy relating to import applications is
developed. It also recommends that the final responsibility for the
development and administration of such policy should rest with the Minister,
and should be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Government Senators make two points in relation to this
recommendation.
First, Government officials – whether in FSANZ, Biosecurity
Australia or elsewhere – are accountable. There has been no dilution or change
to the normal accountability levels of officials for this process. It is
irresponsible for the Committee to suggest otherwise.
Second, the final decision relating to Australia’s
quarantine import arrangements is made by Government officials with the
technical ability to make such decisions. Government Senators understand that
this process has been deliberately kept at arms length from Ministers. The
Committee has been pleased to see the remarks from both the Ministers for Trade
and Agriculture that this is a science-based process.
Recommendation 6
The Committee has recommended that Australia’s current
labelling requirements are amended to reflect the country of origin for all
food products, including unpackaged fresh beef.
Government Senators make the following points:
- As noted above, food
labelling concerns have been raised in this debate
- Australia’s rigorous
import standards on human and animal health protect against the importation of
unsafe food, including beef, whereas country of origin labelling serves to
inform consumer choice
- There are anomalies
in food labelling laws inherited from the previous government
- Parliamentary
Secretary Mark Butler has announced that Australians can be confident that
there will be clear labelling in place before any beef imports under the new
rules occur and that Australians will be able to choose to buy Australian beef
- The Committee has not
been tasked to review food labelling for all food products. Nevertheless,
Government Senators note that the Government has also launched the Blewett
Review into food labelling laws, to address anomalies on labelling for food
products
Senator Glenn Sterle Senator
Kerry O'Brien
Deputy Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page