CHAPTER 5
USE OF CHEMICALS AND FOOD SAFETY IN POULTRY PRODUCTION
5.1 The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) is responsible for
setting food standards in the food production process. Dr Gordon Burch,
Scientific Director, ANZFA, advised that there are five main objectives
by which the Authority sets standards. These are:
- protecting public health and safety;
- ensuring that consumers are adequately informed and that fraud and
deception are avoided;
- promoting fair trade;
- promoting trade and commerce; and
- harmonising with international standards.(1)
5.2 The importation of food is controlled under the Imported Food Control
Act, which is based on the Australian Food Standards Code. AQIS administers
this legislation on ANZFA's behalf. The Act also provides for the nature
and frequency of inspection of food products on arrival in Australia to
be determined by the risk assessment process that is carried out by ANZFA.(2)
5.3 Like most livestock growing industries, the poultry industry, in
Australia and overseas, uses a wide range of agricultural and veterinary
chemicals at both the growing and processing stages of production. Examples
of such chemicals include:
- Growth promotants;
- Antibiotics;
- Insecticides;
- Disinfectants;
- Vaccines;
- Parasite control agents; and
- Herbicides in the production of animal feeds.
5.4 Countries commonly set maximum residue limits for these substances
in livestock intended for human consumption.
5.5 Considerable public attention has recently focussed on the use of
antibiotics in the livestock industries, due to the development of antibiotic-resistant
organisms such as vancomycinresistant entrococcus (VRE).
5.6 Industry representatives also drew the Committee's attention to this
issue at the public hearing in Maitland. For example, Dr Geoff Fairbrother
argued that overseas producers use chemicals that are not allowed in Australia.
He expressed doubt about AQIS's ability to detect residues from these
chemicals in post arrival testing, registering his concern in the following
terms:
There is the use of antibiotics in feeds overseas, specifically sulphaquinolones,
tetracyclines and associated products. Anyone who listened to Sydney
radio or watched TV during the last week of August would have heard
the furore on the use of the feed enhancer avoparcin, yet we do not
seem to care what antibiotics are used by overseas poultry companies
in their feeds. Any residues will be picked up by the monitoring on
arrival we are told. I just ask the question: will they? With pesticide
and chemical residues, we must ask the question what is being used overseas
because you cannot possibly test for everything.(3)
5.7 Committee members sought information from AQIS and ANZFA about the
use of substances, particularly antibiotics, not permitted for use in
the Australian poultry industry by poultry producers in Thailand, Denmark
and the United States of America.
5.8 Dr Burch advised that avoparcin, an antibiotic about which there
had been some concerns expressed in Europe, is not used in the poultry
industry in Australia. He cautioned that there is no direct evidence that
antibiotic resistance can be transmitted from animals via the food supply
to humans. However, he acknowledged that:
Nevertheless, the link is such that it could occur. Therefore, from
a regulatory point of view, we would always be examining that question
on a precautionary basis.(4)
5.9 AQIS's draft importation protocol will not specify MRLs for individual
chemicals. AQIS accepts the standard set by the government of the country
of product origin but requires the exporting country to certify that the
product, in this case cooked chicken meat, meets the required standard
in that country. Dr Kahn explained:
We do not intend to tell the exporting country what products they may
or may not use. That is really the responsibility of their government
having regard to their own animal health situation and husbandry practices
and the types of chemical products that are available for use, but we
would require on the export certification that the exporting country
certifies that the product meets their own national requirements for
monitoring and surveillance and compliance with residue tolerances.(5)
5.10 Mr Hickey emphasised that the acceptance of exporting country food
standards is a matter of government policy and that AQIS was required
to implement that policy. He explained:
I am guided as the officer responsible for administration of the Imported
Food Control Act by policy decisions taken by the government reflected
through statements passed to us by the ANZFA.(6)
5.11 Committee members questioned the consistency of the ANZFA approach,
noting Europe's attitude to the importation of Australian beef where Australia
is required to declare that certain chemicals such as steroids had not
been used.
5.12 Mr Hickey advised that the United States joined by the Australian
government was currently challenging the European ban on the use of HGPs
on meat products coming from Australia in the WTO. He said that Australia
considered that there is no scientific or technical basis for this protocol.
Mr Hickey emphasised that it is important to adopt a consistent approach
in respect of such matters:
...it would look at odds with the case that we are attempting to put
to the WTO on beef and beef products in Europe if we were then to turn
around and impose a similar ban ourselves on meat products from other
countries.(7)
5.13 Mr Gascoine reminded the Committee that Australian producers use
chemicals that other countries do not permit. He said that the principle
AQIS follows is that if a drug is registered for use in Australia it is
safe for Australian consumers if used in accordance with directions; on
that basis it ought to be safe for consumers in other countries. He provided
the Committee with an example of a product currently used in Australia
for cattle ticks:
At the present time, for example, we are seeking to have the United
States establish a tolerance for an acaricide,a tickacide,called acatack,
so that we can continue to use this product in Australia and export
that product to the United States.(8)
Committee view
5.14 The Committee acknowledges that ANZFA policy determines AQIS' actions
in this regard. However, the Committee questions the consistency of this
approach with local requirements. There seems little point in forbidding
local producers access to chemicals if Australia is to accept food produced
overseas using these chemicals.
Chapter 6
ENDNOTES
- Evidence, 28th August 1996, p. 101.
- Evidence, 28th August 1996, p. 103.
- Evidence, 13th September 1996, p. 127.
- Evidence, 28th August 1996, p. 112.
- Evidence, 30th September 1996, p. 240.
- Evidence, 30th September 1996, p. 241.
- Evidence, 30th September 1996, p. 240.
- Evidence, 30th September 1996, p. 241.