Table A1 Feedback and response on option 1 Proposed reform initiatives in option 1 Support Concerns Response Importer declaration of producer information Industry supported this initiative. One submitter from industry also supported sharing information with industry on importers of failing food to educate importers and identify importers history and competence. – – Improved Australian Government communication during an incident Industry supported this initiative. Some submitters from industry requested that government improve communication with industry during incidents by contacting relevant industry parties early, before any media alerts or public communications, to avoid confusion and ensure the correct message is communicated. Government has already recognised the need to improve communication with industry during food incidents and since February this year, a Food Incident Forum has been established. This government/industry group is coordinated by FSANZ and enables early and timely sharing of information during food incidents. Tiered FICAs Fully supported by industry. One submitter stated that the alternative of an importer setting up a separate company to import food under a FICA is inefficient and costly. Industry also recommended a communication campaign to expand industry’s understanding of the benefits of FICAs. One submitter from industry believes the Australian Government should consider increasing its requirements for risk foods under FICAs – countries such as the EU and US undertake food safety audits of establishments in Australia but Australia imposes no reciprocal requirements and relies solely on the provision of audit outcomes from government or third party audits. This should be considered in future negotiations with export partners. Agree that the benefits of FICAs need to be communicated to industry, particularly the benefits of tiered FICAs. Food businesses operating under a FICA have their food safety management systems audited by the Department to ensure risks associated with imported food are being managed. a risk food requires mandatory government certification, the Australian Government undertakes a competent authority assessment of the exporting country.
Raw poultry Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp. None imported due to biosecurity restrictions. Eggs (whole eggs, unprocessed egg products) Salmonella spp. None imported due to biosecurity restrictions. Raw milk cheese Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC), Listeria monocytogenes No products can be imported without a recognised foreign government certificate, with the exception of raw milk cheese from New Zealand. Roquefort is currently the only raw milk cheese being imported from France. raw or minimally processed bivalve molluscs Biotoxins, foodborne viruses, Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus Fresh or frozen clams, cockles, mussels, oysters, pipi and scallops Ready-to-eata minimally processed finfish Listeria monocytogenes Cold smoked salmon a Is expected to be eaten without being cooked. Table B2 Top five prescribed food groups imported over a three year period, by tonnes Position Prescribed Food Group Total (tonnes) 1 Raw meat and meat products (pork only) 461,759 2 Ready-to-eata raw or minimally processed nuts 87,497 3 Ready-to-eata raw or minimally processed produce associated with foodborne disease 63,413 4 Ready-to-eata raw or minimally processed bivalve molluscs 16,132 5 minimally processed finfish 7,871 Total 636,672 a Is expected to be eaten without being cooked. Source: ICS data Figure B1 Top five prescribed food groups imported over a three year period, by tonnes and percentage Figure B Top five prescribed food groups imported over a three year period, by tonnes and percentage
chewing gum or an ingredient or additive in chewing gum, or any substance used in preparing chewing gum or any substance or thing declared to be a food under a declaration in force under section 3B of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 of the Commonwealth [and prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph], whether or not the substance, thing or chewing gum is in a condition fit for human consumption. (2) However, food does not include a therapeutic good within the meaning of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 of the Commonwealth. (3) To avoid doubt, food may include live animals and plants. Section 3 Unsafe food Not defined. However, IFC Act 1992 includes a definition for ‘failing food’. failing food means examinable food, that: as a result of an inspection, or inspection and analysis, under the Food Inspection Scheme, is found to be: food that does not meet the applicable standards for that food; or food that poses a risk to human health; or is under the provisions of the Scheme, to be such food. Section 3 Interpretation It also expands on the circumstances where food poses a risk to human health under subsection 3(2), as below. For the purposes of this Act, food is unsafe at a particular time if it would be likely to cause physical harm to a person who might later consume it, assuming: it was, after that particular time and before being consumed by the person, properly subjected to all processes (if any) that are relevant to its reasonable intended use, and nothing happened to it after that particular time and before being consumed by the person that would prevent it being used for its reasonable intended use, and it was consumed by the person according to its reasonable intended use. (2) However, food is not unsafe for the purposes of this Act merely because its The main differences are: imported food is only considered unsafe if it has been examined and meets the definition of a ‘failing food’ – under the Model Food Provisions, it is an offence to sell unsafe food at any time definition of ‘failing food’ includes food safety and suitability issues the Model Food Provisions make assumptions that the food has been processed and consumed according to its reasonable intended use and nothing happened to it to prevent the food being used for its reasonable intended use – for example, raw poultry is cooked before it is eaten, according to the instructions on the label. the Food Provisions exclude foods being considered unsafe because they may cause
not comply with the Code or is considered unfit for human consumption (see definition of ‘failing food’ above). Maximum penalty: $40 000 in the case of an individual and $200 000 in the case of a corporation. A person must not sell food that is unsuitable. Maximum penalty: $40 000 in the case of an individual and $200 000 in the case of a corporation. For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether the food concerned is safe. such food could be failed at the border, if referred for inspection. In the Model Food Provisions, the offence to sell unsuitable food does not require proof that the person knows that the food is unsuitable. There is also an offence to handle food in a manner that will render, or is likely to render, the food unsuitable. For example, storing perishable foods at incorrect temperatures. Other offences The IFC Act 1992 has a separate offence related to food labelling, as it is exempted from the importation offence discussed above. The labelling offence is dealt with separately to allow a person to import food that does not meet the labelling requirements in the Code, provided the food is correctly labelled when it arrives in the country. The Food Provisions has additional offences for: False descriptions of food Misleading conduct relating to sale of food Sale of food not complying with the purchaser’s demand Sale of unfit equipment or packaging or labelling material Compliance with the Code. The Model Food Provisions have more offences than the IFC Act 1992. It may be appropriate to include some of these in the IFC Act 1992, particularly those that relate to false and misleading descriptions and sale of food. Table D3 Comparison of emergency powers in Imported Food Control Act 1992 and the Model Food Provisions Emergency powers Imported Food Control Act 1992 Model Food Provisions (Annex A) Differences Powers to restrict the importation or sale of food Section 15 Holding orders for certain food If: an inspection, or inspection and analysis, of examinable food of a particular kind Section 26 Making of An order may be made under this Part by the relevant authority if the relevant authority has reasonable grounds to Under the IFC Act 1992 a holding order, preventing the importation of a food, can be made if the food fails an inspection or analysis or there are reasonable grounds to believe a