By Tom Kelly
One anomaly of the new trade regime is that it appears to allow the sale of contaminated meat in Australia. The March 24 Financial Review reported that meat from 452 quarters of beef which had been rejected for human consumption by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) has been passed as fit for sale within Australia.
The meat, originally intended for sale in South Korea, was rejected by AQIS after microbiological tests revealed unacceptable levels of contamination resulting from a failure to freeze the quarters quickly enough.
The bad meat was cut off the rejected quarters. The salvaged beef was then checked for discolouration and odour by an AQIS inspector, who passed it as fit for sale within Australia, but not for overseas markets.
This double standard was also illustrated by an incident late last year. One carcase out of 49 from a particular cattle feedlot was inspected and found to contain 60 parts per million DDT, 12 times the legal limit. The company sent the test to Brisbane for confirmation; meanwhile it boned and packed the suspect meat, sending some to Japan and selling some on the domestic market.
When the second test confirmed the first result and AQIS was eventually notified, it initiated a mad scramble to recover the exported meat, a few cartons of which had been sent in each of several consignments. While the export recovery exercise was successful, thereby protecting the reputation of Australian beef on overseas markets, no serious attempt was made to recover the contaminated beef sold on the domestic market.
Tony Webb, of the Food Policy Alliance, made the point to Green Left Weekly that it is "no longer acceptable to consumers to have a lower level of quality assurance for the Australian market compared to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, North America and Europe". The FPA has been pushing for consistent enforcement of uniform standards for all foods, whether they are exported, imported or produced for domestic consumption.
To this end there is a need for a complete overhaul of Australia's food inspection services. At present the states have responsibility for domestically produced food, while the Commonwealth is responsible for exports and imports.
There are widely differing standards, duplication of effort and gaping holes in the system, says the FPA. Some states have contracted AQIS to do domestic inspection, others employ their own inspectors, and there are moves in some states to devolve responsibility for the maintenance of standards back on to the companies.
Webb points out that entrusting companies with the responsibility of maintaining standards is like "leaving the fox to guard the chook shed".
Discussing the issue of contaminated beef, Webb speaks of a "myth going around in economic rationalist circles" that deregulation makes companies responsible because the market will punish those who offend. "The reality is that it doesn't. It doesn't single out a particular abattoir; it singles out the whole of the Australian meat industry."
Webb says that pressure to privatise inspection services at both state and national levels needs to be resisted as a move in the wrong direction. He argues that the responsibility for public health and safety and consumer protection should remain with independent public agencies.
The February newsletter of the FPA points to the lesson of Europe, that deregulation of food surveillance is a recipe for disaster.
"The public service cuts of the 1980s UK government led to a series of food scandals — salmonella in eggs, mad cow disease, widespread listeria contamination — all associated with the industry's technological decisions and a breakdown in the public health controls."
The Thatcher government was forced to do a U-turn in the area of food inspection, increasing local government health inspection staff by 35%, despite the mythology of deregulation.