THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL FOOD STANDARDS
Within Australia’s federal system, the regulation of food standards has been the responsibility of the states and territories. This resulted in significant differences between jurisdictions with associated compliance costs for producers and manufacturers of food. Since 1908 both federal and state governments have perceived the lack of uniform food safety laws as a policy problem and have, since that time, been attempting to develop a system of uniform Australian food laws. Between 1910 and 1927 there were four Australian conferences that commenced the work of developing uniform food standards (Cumpston 1989 p 422). Eventually, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) became responsible for developing national food standards (Reynolds 2004 p 89). However, the adoption of these standards, in part or in whole, by the states was discretionary.
In 1991 a significant step was taken in the process of developing uniform laws in the form of the Commonwealth National Food Authority Act. This legislation established a statutory authority, the National Food Authority (NFA) and gave effect to the National Food Standards Agreement. The NFA, subsequently renamed the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) and now the called Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), was established as an independent and expert organisation and it had responsibility for the development, variation and review of food standards. The role of the NFA was made possible through the National Food Standards Agreement under which the Australian, state and territory governments accepted that the states and territories would adopt, without variation, food standards that had been recommended by the NFA and ratified by the National Food Standards Council, now called the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC). Further, under the agreement there was also an acceptance that no food standard would be developed or amended unless in accordance with the agreement (NFA 1993 p 1, 1994 p 4).
The policy objectives of new arrangements were to:
- consolidate responsibility for domestic food standards development with a minimum number of decision making layers
- ensure uniformity between jurisdictions
- establish objectives for the development of food standards
- promote the coordination of domestic and international standards
- ensure an open and publicly accountable arrangement to allow input by all interested parties and provide for public hearings where appropriate
- retain the involvement of the states and territories in standards development and administration.
- ensure uniformity between jurisdictions
The national food standards are embodied in the Australian Food Standards Code (now the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code), the primary national legislative instrument, and are automatically adopted by reference into state and territory legislation (NFA 1994 p 5, Industry Commission 1995 p 7). The Code contains requirements on food manufacturers and importers pertaining to food description, composition, ingredients, additives, labelling and packaging.
The significance of this achievement is better understood when it is considered that the regulatory framework for food and food safety in Australia:
… is complex and fragmented and involves a large number of agencies and legislation spread across three spheres of government. Approximately 150 Acts and associated regulations control food or agrifood businesses in Australia … In addition, there are over 90 separate national food product standards. These laws and standards are developed, administered and/or enforced by numerous Commonwealth departments and statutory bodies, over 40 State and Territory agencies and departments and over 700 local governments.
THE PROBLEM OF NON-UNIFORM FOOD HYGIENE REGULATION
In 1994 the NFA’s attention turned to food hygiene; that is, the standards associated with food handling, processing, food premises standards and related environmental hygiene factors. It was seen as important to ensure that there was a consistent approach by government in its food safety initiatives across the entire food chain from producer to consumer (ANZFA 1996 p 3) and is often referred to as ‘paddock to plate’ (other similar policy catchphrases include ‘farm to fork’ and ‘boat to belly’). As was explained in Chapter 1, differences in regulatory requirements between jurisdictions are often perceived by policy makers as a problem and this was evident in food regulation. The lack of uniform food hygiene standards was seen to be a problem from both the economic and public health perspectives. From the economic perspective there were concerns that varying hygiene standards could affect the potential of Australian and New Zealand food exports and the image, or marketing, of export food:
The food industry is one of the largest industry sectors in Australia and New Zealand. Both countries have high expectations of their industries export potential, especially into the Asian region. The main emphasis of export initiatives is the image of Australian and New Zealand food products as ‘clean and green’.
The public health concerns related to the risks posed by microbiological contamination and other environmental contaminants including pesticide residues (NFA 1994 p 3). Food poisoning in particular was identified:
The incidence of food poisoning is increasing rapidly worldwide and is a significant public health issue for Australia and New Zealand. This is not an apparent increase in food poisoning due to improved reporting, but a real increase resulting from recent significant changes in population and food consumption patterns.
The ANZFA stated that 11,500 consumers contracted food-borne illnesses daily in Australia which cost the community over $2.6 billion. It argued that by reducing the incidence of food-borne illness by 20% would save the Australian community $500 million (ANZFA 1999 p 3). There were also concerns about the incidence of food-related illness and its potential to harm food exports. ANZFA observed that the increasing incidence of food-borne illness was occurring as one of Australia’s largest industry sectors was ‘… poised to sell significantly increasing amounts of value-added food into the Asian region’ (ANZFA 1996 p 1). The cost to government of the then food hygiene regulatory system, where each state and territory developed and implemented its own hygiene standards, was estimated to be a net $18.6 million, while $337 million went in compliance costs for small business (ANZFA 1999 p 3).
The ANZFA was also concerned about the impact of the new food safety standards incorporating food hygiene standards on the small-business sector in Australia which consisted of 131,500 businesses and turnover of $52 billion in 1996–97 (ANZFA 1999 p 3). However, the ANZFA stated that the adoption of its proposed national standard would remove the failings of the state and territory hygiene regulations, which lacked national consistency, relied on inspections and did not promote a preventative approach. Moreover, the regulations needed to be brought up to date in some states and territories, and were not consistent with international best practice or the standards of Australia’s major trading partners (ANZFA 1999 p 3). Importantly, the Authority stated that:
The Australian community, including consumers, industry and government, will benefit from a reduction in the incidence of food-borne illness through lower healthcare costs, less absenteeism, improved business productivity, increased competitiveness on world markets and a reduction in business failure and associated costs, including civil litigation.
THE POLICY RESPONSE
Initial proposals to reform food hygiene regulations in Australia focused on developing a package comprising a nationally consistent food hygiene standard supported by codes of practice and guidelines (NFA 1994 p 5, ANZFA 1996 p 6). The aim of the reform was to remove unnecessary prescriptiveness and, instead, follow international trends using a preventative approach based on risk analysis (ANZFA 1996 p 6). In practice, the preventative approach involved the development of food safety plans by food businesses, ensuring that food handlers receive appropriate training (NFA 1994 pp 18–19). The development of a food safety plan requires:
… the systematic identification of hazard points in the production, processing, and sale of food, and the implementation of risk avoidance, risk minimisation and risk management strategies in respect of these identified hazards.
Regulators would have to be satisfied that food business owners had identified all possible hazards and the means of control for these hazards and not simply require compliance with end-product standards (ANFA 1996 p 6). The NFA argued that there would be a subsequent improvement in food handling practices within the food industry and the reform would be consistent with:
- current government policy which is seeking to increase high value added exports by identifying and removing impediments at government and industry level, encouraging best practice in the food industry and enhancing the clean food image of Australian products
- the need for reduction of the reported incidence of food-borne illness in Australia
- trends in food hygiene reform in the EU [European Union], the United Kingdom and Canada.
- the need for reduction of the reported incidence of food-borne illness in Australia
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
