Appendix 3
Questions on Notice
Australian
Branded Beef Association
Michael
Pointer, President
1
April 2009
We
refer to the Committee’s hearings in Melbourne on 26th March, and would like to
respond to various matters raised by the Committee that were unable to be
addressed because of time constraints.
However
before addressing those issues we would like to acknowledge that the Committee
has extended its Inquiry into Meat Marketing beyond the original focus on Lamb
and Hogget to cover issues that are pertinent to the Beef Industry, and we
thank the Committee for dealing with these matters.
We
also thank the Committee for the detailed discussions on the three main points
in our original submission:-
- Misrepresentation
- Use of Breed
Names in describing beef products
- Certification
Statements/
The
additional items raised with us by the Committee were:-
- Regional Claims
- Budget Beef Descriptor
- Labelling
- Use
of Regulations.
We
would like to respond to each of these items as follows.
1.
Regional Claims.
We
assert that regional claims should refer to the origin of the cattle whose
product is being ascribed a regional name.
However
we have considerable sympathy with the King Island position that the regional
name should apply to both the origin of the cattle and place of production of
the product. However King Island is unique in that it is an island and has an
abattoir on the island. Consequently in the case of King Island we would
support their position.
Unfortunately
on the mainland there is not always a processing plant in a region that
produces cattle for a branded beef product that ascribes the region to its
brand.
An
example is OBE Beef’s “Channel Country” beef. The cattle are bred and raised in the
Channel Country of Queensland; however there is no abattoir in the Channel Country
to process the product.
Therefore
we would assert that for a branded beef product to make a Regional Claim the
cattle being used to produce that product should be bred and raised in the region.
It is not difficult to verify regional claims because every animal is now identified
with a National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) electronic tag that identifies
the origin of the cattle, and therefore the region of origin is readily determined.
It
would not be difficult for King Island to be treated as an exception.
2.
Budget Beef Descriptor
Various
contributors commented on the use of the term “Budget Beef” to describe either
old cow beef or beef derived from bulls.
In
our original submission we asserted that there is nothing intrinsically wrong
with either
cow or bull beef; however it is not the same as prime eating quality beef, and consumers
are entitled to know exactly what they are buying.
Therefore
we think that these products should be described as “Old Cow Beef” or “Bull
Beef” as the case may be and not have product hiding behind euphemisms.
3.
Labelling
In
our original submission we stated:-
Quote
Australia
is a producer of healthy, safe, disease free meat and consumers are entitled to
be unequivocally fully informed about the content of meat and meat products
they are buying.
There
should not be any room to avoid the facts by using terms such as “Made from Australian
and Imported etc etc...........”.
If
products are made from a mixture of Australian and imported raw materials the consumer
is entitled to know the facts and it should be mandatory for labelling to state
the relevant percentages of domestic and imported raw material and country or countries
of origin of imported raw material.
Unquote
We
continue to strongly support that position.
Furthermore
labelling claims such as “Tender” should not be allowed unless there is scientific
evidence to back up the claim. The MSA grading technology specifically identifies
beef for tenderness, and therefore only beef that has passed the MSA grading
process should be allowed to be labelled with the word “Tender”.
Non
MSA graded beef may be tender, and certainly some will not be tender; however
there is no technical or scientific basis on which to support a claim for tenderness.
4.
Use of Regulations.
Having
stated that the implementation of the Raising Claims in our submission was possible
by regulation, Senator O’Brien asked us if this was available in writing.
We
understand that it is included in regulations for Approved Arrangement Guidelines
in respect of raising claims and that AQIS is responsible for these trade arrangements.
General
In
addition to the forgoing issues, a National Beef Grading System was raised by
Mr. Norman
Hunt representing Bindaree Beef.
We
assert that in Australia we have the world’s leading grading system in Meat Standards
Australia (MSA); however nothing is perfect and MSA only describes the product
that meets its requirements. We believe that we need a system that accounts for
and describes the entire product.
It
is also important to reinforce the fact that MSA is NOT a Brand. It is the
grading system
that ascribes a tenderness/ eating quality grade that underpins brands like Certified
Australian Angus Beef, Hereford Prime, Coorong Angus Beef, Riverine Prime
Beef etc.
Therefore
we would support the Bindaree position on a National Grading System provided
that it incorporated the current MSA system/ technology for the product that meets
the MSA specifications and then ascribed grades/ descriptions to the product that
does not meet MSA requirements.
The
cost of grading was raised during discussion. Grading is, or should be an integral
part of the production system and therefore the cost of grading should accrue
to the processor as part of the production process.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry
Division/Agency: Food and
Product Safety and Integrity
Public hearing Hansard 17 March
2009 (p.43)
Senator
Nash asked:
Senator
NASH - Have the people been appointed yet? Will it be an independent panel, or
who will do that?
Ms
Sriram-Prasad - No, not as yet.
Senator
NASH - Do you know when they will be appointed?
Ms
Sriram-Prasad - The Food Regulation
Ministerial Council will be considering the terms of reference for the review
at its meeting in May.
Senator
NASH - At that stage would you mind coming back to the committee and providing
us with a timeline, if there is one, and would you inform us whether a decision
has been made about who will be appointed to the independent panel? It might be
quite useful for the committee to have that information at that point in time.
Ms
Sriram-Prasad - Yes.
Answer:
At 22
April 2009, no appointments have been made to the independent panel for the
Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy. The Australia New Zealand Food
Regulation Ministerial Council (ANZFRMC) will be considering the terms of
reference for the review at its May 2009 meeting. ANZFRMC is required to
provide a progress report to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) by
July 2009. The final report on the review findings is due to COAG by July 2010.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry
Division/Agency: Livestock
Industries
Public hearing Hansard 17 March
2009 (p.46)
Senator
Sterle (Chair) asked:
CHAIR—I have a couple of
questions. I refer to page 5 of your submission on which
you talk about AUS-MEAT developed language and you
refer to how Meat Standards
Australia provides a non-mandatory grading system. The
committee will be visiting a
butcher in Melbourne who applies
the Meat Standards Australia system. I would like to pursue this issue a bit
further. Your submission talks about calls from the mandatory beef quality
grading system, in particular, for low-value cuts to be instituted in
Australia. You also state that the beef industry was consulted on the issue in
2003. I take it that you have consulted with the beef industry. Is that right?
Mr Murnane—This was before my
time. My understanding is that the beef industry
led consultations within the
industry about what might be appropriate standards, descriptors and those sorts
of things.
CHAIR—I
would appreciate your assistance. If it was before your time—
Mr
Murnane—I am happy to take the question on notice.
CHAIR—Take
that question on notice. I would rather be able to talk about it now if we
could, but I understand that. You state in your submission that the industry
concluded that a legislative approach was not necessary as private company
labelling initiatives would provide the necessary market incentive to maintain
truth in labelling. Would you be able to inform this committee whether the
industry is still the same now?
Mr Murnane—It might be easier for
me to get back to you with details of that
consultation process, who led it,
and who was consulted.
Answer:
The previous consultation process for a mandatory
beef quality grading system was led by the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC).
Industry groups consulted in the process include supermarkets, butchers,
processors, producers, consumer organisations and peak industry bodies.
The consultation was instigated following concerns
from sections of the beef industry that retailers were not adhering to
appropriate truth in labelling laws, particularly lower quality beef from older
animals.
The Hon.
Warren Truss MP, then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, wrote
to RMAC in May 2001 seeking its advice on truth in labelling for beef and
associated product descriptions.
In May
2003, RMAC responded by convening a beef industry roundtable forum in Sydney to
consider the issue. The forum identified the major issues as being at the
pre-retail and retail sections of the beef supply chain. The roundtable
resulted in the formation of three taskforces in June 2003 investigating beef
language, legislation and research and development.
From
July 2003 to February 2004, members of the legislation taskforce met with all
state ministers and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
In
November 2003, RMAC advised Minister Truss of the three taskforces and their
progress. In its letter, RMAC suggested that any scheme related to meat
labelling should cover all areas of the meat supply chain with an element of
compulsion.
In March
2004, RMAC forwarded the findings of the taskforces to the peak industry bodies
for their consideration. The findings recommended the formation of voluntary
beef grading language and that state and territory governments underpin this
scheme with legislation requiring adherence to the language to hold a beef
handling licence.
The
Australian Meat Industry Council replied to RMAC stating that it did not
support the recommendation.
RMAC
itself did not accept the recommendations of the taskforces, and holds the
position that a national legislative approach to mandatory uptake is
unnecessary, as the current voluntary system based on AUS-MEAT language
encourages truth-in-labelling, while allowing some flexibility.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry
Division/Agency: Livestock
Industries
Public hearing Hansard 17 March
2009 (p.48)
Senator
Milne asked:
Have you
looked at the effectiveness of the United States meat grading system?
Answer:
In 2004,
the department developed an informal comparative analysis of the United States
(US) beef grading system in response to arguments from sections of the beef
industry that Australian beef consumption had fallen due to the absence of a
national beef grading scheme.
The US
beef grading scheme is voluntary. After meat
undergoes a compulsory food safety inspection, producers and processors may
request to have the products graded for quality by a licensed federal grader.
Those who request grading must pay for the service. Grades are based on
nationally uniform federal standards of quality.
The
department found that the decline in beef consumption was not dramatic, and
that overall domestic beef consumption by value and volume had remained steady
during the 1990’s. The analysis concluded that there was no evidence to support
the proposition that any difference between Australian and US domestic per
capita beef consumption is the result of the US having a beef-grading scheme.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry
Division/Agency: Food
Public hearing Hansard 17 March
2009 (p.51)
Senator Nash asked:
Mr
Williamson, could you find out for the committee whether or not drenched sheep
can still be classed as organic?
Answer:
The
National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce applies to organic exports
and does not allow organic certification of sheep drenched in conventional pest
and disease control substances. However, livestock treated with permitted pest
and disease control materials as specified in the standard (refer attached) are
permitted to be certified as organic for export purposes.
The
proposed new Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce, expected
to be released by Standards Australia in mid-2009, is broadly based on the
National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce.
Permitted materials for livestock
pest and disease control
Where wetting agents are
required, caution needs to be exercised with commercial formulations as these
may contain substances prohibited under this Standard. Acceptable wetting
agents include some seaweed products, plant products (including oils) and
natural soaps.
Livestock
pest control
Substances
|
Specific
conditions/restrictions
|
Ayurvedic
preparations
|
None
|
Biological
controls
|
Naturally
occurring organisms and cultured organisms
|
Boric
Acid
|
None
|
Clay
|
None
|
Diatomaceous
earth
|
None
|
Essential
oils, plant oils and extracts
|
None
|
Garlic
oil, garlic extract or crushed garlic
|
None
|
Homeopathic
preparations
|
None
|
Hydrogen
Peroxide
|
None
|
Natural
plant extracts obtained by infusion
|
Excluding
tobacco
|
Magnesium
Sulphate (Epsom salts)
|
None
|
Methylated
spirits
|
None
|
Monosodium
fluorosilicate
|
None
|
Potassium
permanganate
|
None
|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents