Table 2 Cattle and sheep by state in 2011 (in millions) Cattle Sheep New South Wales 5.710 26.825 Victoria 3.97 15.212 Queensland 12.612 3.653 South Australia 1.252 11.009 Western Australia 2.067 14.0 Tasmania 0.689 2.344 Northern Territory 2.197 - Australian Capital Territory 0.009 0.054 Total 28.506 73.009 Question 1 Are there any specific state or territory industry issues that you believe we should be taking into account in doing our analysis? The key in the production and processing of farm animals are summarized in Chart 1 below. Chart 1 Production and processing of farm animals Cattle production and processing Cattle production in Australia is on extensive farming systems, which range from the harsh, dry climates of the north to the cooler, wetter, green pastures of southern Australia. Significant differences exist between climatic and geographical conditions, and on the breed of animal grown and the production practices employed.
Meat Exports Destination Volume (kt) USA 205 Japan 326 Republic of Korea 123 Total 948 Live Animals Numbers (thousands) Indonesia 376 Israel 60 Turkey 37 Egypt 32 Philippines 24 Total 578 The main destinations of Australia’s of sheep and sheep meat exports in 2011‒12 were: Table 6 Mutton, Lamb and Live Sheep Export Destinations 2011‒12 Destination Volume (kt) Mutton Middle East 42.7 Total 89.1 Lamb Middle East 42.7 USA 35.0 China 24.6 173.8 Live Sheep Numbers (millions) Middle East 2.232 Turkey 0.293 Total 2.562 Risk The Australian Productivity Commission in its report on Performance Benchmarking of Australian and New Zealand Business Regulation: Food Safety, released on 22 December 2009, stated that the red meat industry is well regulated and intensely monitored. The Commission indicated that “red meat exporters incur greater costs and more regulatory intervention than any other businesses.” With regard to food borne illness, sixty-six outbreaks associated with meat products in Australia were reported to OzFoodNet between January 2003 and June 2008. However these outbreaks, which were attributed to Salmonella serotypes, Clostridium perfringens and Staphylococcus aureus, resulted largely from undercooking and temperature abuse FSANZ has concluded that there were few unmanaged food safety risks pertaining to meat, and at First Assessment for cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, proposed maintaining the status quo, supplemented with greater self-regulation that could be cost effectively managed. Subsequent consultation with a range of stakeholders, particularly those who had a more overarching view, a long-term perspective and a more holistic approach to the meat industry, revealed a number of concerns and that cost effective steps could be taken to better manage risk. Consequently for the minor meat species and wild game, FSANZ proposed two options at 1st Call for Submissions, i.e. develop a draft national standard containing minimal primary production requirements, where relevant, for traceability, inputs and managing waste; and transfer of the processing
Attachment 2 Consultation with Government Agencies Questions NSW Vic Qld SA DAFF A General Questions 1 (a) What issues if any have been raised at abattoir level regarding matters that should be addressed on farm (ie. incorrect completion on NVDs)? The following issues have been raised during abattoir audit: • NVD’s being completed incorrectly • Lost or missing ear tags on cattle • In - correct details for non-vendor bred animals All abattoirs have contacts with LHPA and DPI compliance officers to investigate non-compliance with these issues. Incidental amount of incorrectly completed Vendor Declarations (ovine), Misread or missing NLIS Tags (Cattle). Yes – Incomplete NVD’s Instances of with NLIS Smaller plants failed to have the provisions for NLIS Incorrect completion of NVDs including, traceability (use of depots), withholding periods and sourcing location to prevent residue breaches. Animal welfare issues regarding fit to load. 1(b) Indicate the numbers or percentages affected? NSW Food Authority would not be able to provide exact percentage Low in percentage terms, too low to approximate for ovine. For NLIS Tags on cattle compliance is around 99% accuracy. Less than 5% noncompliance in this area NVD issues have been picked up at a random audit and treated as systemic issues and address by both industry and DAFF. Animal welfare issues are raised directly to the
appropriate state authority. 2. How and to what extent will the requirements for producers in the Standard make things easier for the abattoirs? If it will allow NSWFA to take action against primary producers and/or sale yards for breaches which cause issues at abattoir, this may have most benefit to abattoirs. No change, other than have potential to include all required information in one declaration etc. May assist in identifying the problems about stock being farmed on contaminated areas. E.g Dee River - Coal Seam Gas etc; Ensures that the responsibility for provision of animals meeting the requirements can be enforced by state and territory jurisdictions. DAFF require the abattoir to source appropriately to meet the requirements. 3. Can this be expressed in monetary terms? NSW Food authority would not be able to provide this information No No Unknown monetary advantage. B Costs 1 (a) Will the adoption of the draft Standard impose any compliance costs on Producers? No as it formalises what producers should currently be doing to comply with Primary Industry requirements There will be some costs to the individual producers who have not already installed appropriate on farm management practices. No additional costs No Producers are not in DAFF’s jurisdiction 1 (b) Will the adoption of the draft Standard impose any compliance costs on a processor? Processor already licensed and paying levies to industry and Government. No further costs No. Processors already have substantial requirements in place for identifying the place of purchase of animals (refer to A 2 above) Status Quo No DAFF does not expect any addition compliance costs
2. Will jurisdictions incur additional costs (excluding responses to food incidents) If it is used for non compliances (instead of current DPI/LHPA system), then yes. If excluding incidents, then no. Not anticipated. This should provide greater efficiencies “through No DAFF does not expect any addition compliance costs C. When compared with the status quo, how will the draft Standard make it easier/quicker/more efficient/more effective to respond on farm to a food incident? There are currently systems in place to provide adequate response back to farm through NLIS if there is an incident occurring. System could be challenged more frequently and permit more efficient and effective response to incidents No difference. It is rare for food incidents to be created on farm. Most issues will be animal welfare and bio-security regarding disease control/traceability. Note, given the current state of health of national herd zoonotic disease outbreaks are rare in Australia. Further MRL’s do not contribute to food incidents. As stated above It will provide the basis for full investigation of all potential sources related to an incident under the Primary Produce (Food Safety Schemes) Act. Whereas previously this was restricted to action under the Food Act, and limited to situations where the evidence was not refutable. Producers will now be included in the meat food safety scheme. Producers are not in DAFF’s jurisdiction, standard potentially allows state and territory jurisdiction to additional provisions to manage/trace food incidents at the producer level. D. When compared with the status quo, how will the draft Standard make it easier/quicker/more efficient/more effective to contain/manage a food incident? Only marginal gains to be had. No difference. Identification of place of purchase/delivery is a current requirement. Further it is extremely rare for on farm cause of food safety incidents (refer to C above) Should provide a more rapid response through chain to go back on farm if required. See Producers are not in DAFF’s jurisdiction, standard potentially allows and territory jurisdiction to additional provisions to manage/trace food incidents at the producer level.
E. When compared with the status quo, how will the Standard make it easier/quicker/more efficient/more effective to introduce better practices industry/state-wide in the wake of a serious food incident? If a single agency is able to regulate across producer, sale yard, processor and retailer, then consistent policies, practices and enforcement actions can aid to obtain a better compliance outcome. Response: No difference (refer to response to C & D above) we need to identify them. Once identified through PICs or a register it should make it easier to disseminate information through the peak bodies eg Safe Meat. Producers will now be included in the Meat Food Safety Scheme. Producers are not in DAFF’s jurisdiction, standard potentially allows state and territory jurisdiction to additional provisions to manage/trace food incidents at the producer level. F. In the event of a major food safety incident, will the draft Standard adequately empower jurisdictions to respond effectively? Powers reside under individual food acts and should be sufficient. No difference (refer to C/D/E above). Yes – We will be able to go back on farm Yes Producers are not in DAFF’s jurisdiction, standard potentially allows state and territory jurisdiction to additional provisions to manage/trace food incidents at the producer level.