Chief Executive Officer’s Review
Ten years ago, Australia and New Zealand signed a Treaty that has led to the development of a single food regulatory system for the two countries. Two sovereign nations… one set of food standards. An historic event, without precedent.
This agreement recognised that Australia and New Zealand are essentially a single food market, with food businesses trading freely across the Tasman. It has not only survived the decade, but also prospered to the benefit of both parties. It has set a model for future cooperation – one that we are proud of.
I mention the Treaty with New Zealand to illustrate the scope of Australia’s food regulatory system which, in part, is a product of our federated system of government. For example, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) develops food standards within guidelines prescribed by the FSANZ Act or provided by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, while States and Territories and New Zealand are responsible for implementation and the enforcement activities that ensure compliance with the standards, usually through local government.
Adding to the comprehensiveness of the arrangements is the whole-of-government approach to food regulation being pursued at every level of the system. In particular, the involvement of agriculture and primary industry portfolios has widened debates on food matters, such as country of origin labelling and the possible consequences for food control measures in the event of an avian influenza pandemic. These developments offer the prospects of enhancing consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply and providing our food industry with regulatory goalposts that equip it to trade effectively with the rest of the world.
Our food standards are the minimum impost necessary to achieve desired outcomes. We have no wish to saddle industry with red tape that provides consumers with little-to-no benefit. We strongly support innovation at all stages of the food supply chain and are working with our regulatory partners to minimise the costs to industry of complying with our regulatory measures.
Despite its complexity, the system works surprisingly well. However, two reports issued in 2005-06 have supported our contention that we could do better.
The first was a review of FSANZ’s assessment and approval processes by the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC). FRSC recommended a number of legislative and administrative changes that would speed up the standard-setting process, including giving FSANZ the flexibility to reduce the consultation period for matters other than the development of new standards and other major projects. We strongly support these measures and have worked hard to ensure they deliver the benefits predicted.
We have worked closely with the Department of Health and Ageing on amendments to the FSANZ Act, and we have anticipated many of the changes by revising our guidelines and procedural arrangements. The new arrangements will represent a sea change in the way that we do business. We will communicate these changes to our stakeholders and partners as they come into effect.
Another report – commissioned by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – examined policies and programs impacting on the agriculture and food sector. It largely reflects the views of primary producers. The report called for reform of the food regulatory system and recommended that ‘impediments to the efficient operation of FSANZ be investigated and removed in a way consistent with public health and safety’.
These two reports, prepared from different perspectives, came to the same conclusion: FSANZ needs to work within a more flexible framework.
We welcome the identification of such issues and the endorsement of the Ministerial Council for the legislative changes that will free up our operations. Although organisational change can create uncertainty, we intend to devote the resources necessary to make sure that we can capture the full benefits of reform initiatives – both those stemming from changed legislative requirements and from our own administrative arrangements.
Strengthening our evidence base
To maintain the integrity and objectivity of our work, we put significant weight on the need to base our decision-making on the best available evidence – the ‘evidence base’ of the agency.
Scientific evidence provides the solid grounding behind our assessments of the potential risk from a food or a hazard associated with food to the health or safety of consumers. Other areas of our evidence base help us to develop the minimum measures necessary – including changes to the Food Standards Code – to reduce that risk to acceptable levels.
The better our evidence base, the greater confidence Australians and New Zealanders can have in the effectiveness of the food regulatory system. Strengthening the advice and information available to us is therefore a priority for the agency. We work closely with states and territories and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to develop a shared understanding of the evidence available to us and the implications of that evidence for standard setting.
In 2005-06, we appointed a Chief Public Health Nutrition Advisor to help us identify the effects of nutritional changes in the food supply. We also appointed a Principal Social Scientist to enhance our consumer research programs and to investigate more fully why consumers react in the way they do to changes in the food supply. In particular, we need to predict how consumers will respond to individual food standards so that we can prevent adverse consequences to consumer diets and longer term health.
New arrangements to involve jurisdictions earlier in the standard-setting process should lead to the regulatory system as a whole moving forward on contentious or complex food matters on a broad front, without the need for time-consuming delays at the end of the process. And a new Consumer Liaison Committee will provide valuable grassroots perspectives of our work.
In addition, we continued to play a significant role in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission – the international body responsible for setting benchmarks for standard setting. And we improved bi-lateral relationships with the major food economies. The result is access to cutting-edge scientific information on food issues as they unfold around the world.
Big ticket items for 2005-06
It is natural for some projects to stand out because of the sheer complexity of the work involved (health claims and fortification), their public interest (country of origin labelling) or the ground-breaking nature of the standards (primary production standards for poultry meat and dairy products).
FSANZ has committed significant resources to these projects, much of it assigned to the consultation process. In most cases, we were assisted by experts from industry, government, consumer organisations and academic and research institutions.. We held public meetings in cities across Australia and New Zealand. We held workshops with public health professionals from State and Territory agencies.
I am pleased to report that new requirements for the country of origin labelling of unpackaged and packaged foods came into effect in Australia on 8 June 2006. We will be seeking Board approval of standards for the mandatory fortification of food with folic acid and iodine in August and October 2006, respectively. We are holding a further round of public consultation on the proposed health claims standard, after comment from the previous round suggested the need to revise the draft standard. The Board is expected to consider the standard again in September 2006.
As for the two primary production and processing standards: the standard for dairy products will go to the Board for approval in July and that for poultry meat in December 2006.
Several of these projects took longer to complete than originally anticipated. It is important to recognise that we are in the midst of a rapid change – industry innovation, globalisation and new consumer demands for information continue to accelerate. Regulating against this backdrop, especially on matters relating to public health, warrants a careful and considered approach to allow all parties to adjust to these new external influences.
As in previous years, I am indebted to FSANZ’s staff for their commitment to the objectives of the agency in a climate of rising expectations. Our scientific risk assessment work continues to be world class. Our legal team continues to draft food standards that are rarely challenged. Our communication and consultation activities continue to ensure transparency of process. I am privileged to work with such a dedicated team.
Finally, I must extend my thanks to The Hon Rob Knowles, Chairman of the FSANZ Board, and to the members of the Board itself. They have not only shown due diligence in the way they govern the agency, but have also brought particular perspectives to the standing-setting process that have added considerable value. I acknowledge, with gratitude, their contribution to the life of FSANZ.
The Ministerial Council recognised Mr Knowles’ contribution to the Board by reappointing him as Chairman for a further two years. The Council also extended the appointment of other Board members.
I commend this annual report to you as a record of the outputs and outcomes of FSANZ during 2005-06.
GRAHAM PEACHEY
Chief Executive Officer