Briefing on new import health standards for pork

Transcription

1 Briefing on new import health standards for pork Report of the Primary Production Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Introduction and background 2 Supreme Court analysis 2 Statutory Independent Review Panel 3 Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome 3 Standards of acceptance for pork imports 3 Trade requirements 3 Conclusion 4

2 Briefing on new import health standards for pork Recommendation The Primary Production Committee received a briefing on new import health standards for pork and recommends that the House take note of its report. Introduction and background New Zealand has a relatively small pork industry, with around 300 commercial producers supplying the domestic market. Exports are negligible. Production has remained largely static for a decade, although consumption has steadily increased. As a result, over 40 percent of the pork consumed in New Zealand is imported. Major suppliers are Australia, Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Europe. The Biosecurity Act 1991 empowers the Ministry for Primary Industries to decide on biosecurity measures to prevent high-risk imports while meeting New Zealand s obligations under international agreements for science-based and least-trade-restrictive import requirements. The relevant provisions prescribe the matters that the Director-General must consider before making decisions on such measures. In 2011 the Director-General issued biosecurity standards permitting the importing of raw pig meat from countries where the highly contagious porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is present, and from which importing was previously restricted. The decision followed consultation with interested parties, and consideration by the Statutory Independent Review Panel. These standards restrict imports to consumer-ready cuts weighing no more than 3kg, with lymph nodes removed, derived from healthy pigs that have been inspected before and after slaughter, and certified for human consumption by official veterinarians in the exporting countries. The 3kg limit is an arbitrary figure based on assumptions about the maximum size of a typical family meal. Although PRRS poses no health threat to humans, the New Zealand Pork Industry Board objected to these biosecurity standards and sought judicial review of the decision-making process, complaining that the ministry did not comply with the Act, and arguing that it was improper for officials whose work was the subject of the dispute to prepare a decision paper based on the disputed issues. It also argued that the issue was predetermined, as evidenced by lack of consultation on a revised model of risk analysis that could be applied to this matter. Supreme Court analysis In 2013, the Supreme Court of New Zealand, agreeing with the High Court, and Court of Appeal, found that the ministry followed a proper decision-making process before allowing raw pork into New Zealand from countries where the PRRS is found, and that their consultation procedure met the standard required under the Act. A minority opinion in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court proposed that the ministry s failure to consult on the revised risk analysis fell short of the standard required of it, with the result that the risk was not calculated appropriately. 2

3 Statutory Independent Review Panel We asked whether the Statutory Independent Review Panel had been helpful in the decision to lift restrictions on the importation of pork, and whether it was needed at all since its findings can be overridden by the ministry. We were told that the panel was being reviewed and that any government decision on its future should be deferred until the review had been completed. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome We asked whether the science regarding PRRS was robust and whether New Zealand would be able to contain the disease if there was an outbreak. We were assured that there was a substantial body of science available on the subject; but because only New Zealand and Australia are completely free of the disease, only these two countries were concerned and advocated caution. This caution has been reasonably questioned by our trading partners; and because New Zealand has decided on the basis of scientific evidence that any risks can be managed, imports have been allowed. Outbreaks of the disease are able to be controlled by the simple expedient of halting the movement of animals, unless to slaughter. Some of us have concerns about the ministry s capability in this area. The success of this control method has been amply demonstrated in outbreaks in several countries, and most recently in Sweden. Standards of acceptance for pork imports We were concerned that there was a difference between the board s standard of acceptability for pork imports and those applied by the ministry, and asked if international trade obligations, and a desire not to be seen introducing what might be interpreted as a non-tariff trade intervention, played a part in the ministry s decision to lift restrictions on pork imports. We were assured that this was not the case, and that although the ministry was not obliged to accept risk under World Trade Organisation rules, it was obliged to justify the science demonstrating any risk, and the appropriateness of any measures taken to manage it. We heard that the risk of importing pork from countries with PRRS was assessed, and on the basis of the scientific evidence available, it was properly decided to allow pork imports and manage the risk. We were told that risk assessments are inevitably subjective, and focussed on minimising rather than eliminating a threat; it was impossible to demand precision where expert reports differed, but the ministry believed that the final decision was appropriate. We were also assured that no deals with our trading partners had in any way led to the ministry s lifting restrictions on pork imports. In view of the requirement that the ministry assess and justify risk from imported products, we asked about the risks to the ministry and to New Zealand if it made a poor decision, and an import was either banned without good reason, or not banned and proved to be dangerous to consumers. We were told that doubt would be cast on New Zealand s reliability as a trading partner in the first case, and in both cases on the credibility of New Zealand science. Trade requirements We asked if commercial pressure from pork exporters in the USA and the EU, both large producers of pork where PRRS is endemic, was in any way causing trade imperatives to triumph over robust science concerning risk in pork imports. We were told that this was 3

4 not the case, especially as the original notification of the PRRS risk came from scientific research in the EU, not New Zealand. Conclusion We took note of the ministry s assurances that the decision to lift restrictions on importing from countries where PRRS is endemic was justifiable on the basis of robust science, and that biosecurity concerns were paramount in any assessment of risk. Some of us felt that the science was not considered adequately, and that New Zealand remains under international pressure in these matters, and may have to accept standards for imports that are lower than domestic standards. We recognise that such decisions must balance international trade obligations and scientific evidence, but we feel that the rationale behind these decisions could be communicated more effectively to both stakeholders and the public. 4

5 Appendix Committee procedure We heard evidence from the Ministry for Primary Industries on 15 May 2014 and considered it on 29 May Committee members Shane Ardern (Chairperson) Steffan Browning Colin King Ian McKelvie Hon Damien O Connor Eric Roy Meka Whaitiri 5