Chain of events: a blog of Food Chain Intelligence

The Government is calling for submissions on a national food security plan. It intends drawing upon ideas and suggestions to develop policy options for a national food plan, but not formally responding to specific submissions or issues.

An “issues paper” has been published, which includes the general consultation questions listed in this summary, plus further detailed questions on specific topics.

The summary of the questions to respond are:
Question 1: What is the most important thing you think a national food plan should try to achieve?
Question 2: What do you think the vision and objectives for a national food plan should be?
Question 3: What do you see as the major risks to Australia’s food supply in the coming years and decades? How could they be avoided or managed more effectively?
Question 4: What does food security mean to you? How would this be achieved? How would we know if/when we are food secure?
Question 5: What are the most important benefits that Australian consumers get or should get from our food supply? Why?
Question 6: What two or three actions:
• by the government sector would most benefit food consumers?
• by the non-government sector would most benefit food consumers?
Question 7: What do you see as the major opportunities for Australia’s food industry in the coming years and decades? How could they be realised?
Question 8: What two or three actions:
• by the government sector would most benefit businesses that make,
distribute and sell food?
• by the non-government sectors would most benefit businesses that
make, distribute and sell food?
Question 9: What specific food policy and regulatory functions within or between governments:
• overlap?
• are at cross-purposes?
• have gaps?
Question 10: Which regulation or regulatory regime poses the greatest burden on the food industry along the food supply chain (production, processing/manufacturing, transport and logistics, wholesale, retail)? What could be done to reduce this burden?
Question 11: What two or three actions:
• by the government sector would most benefit communities that are
highly dependent on food production, processing, distribution or sale?
• by the non-government sector would most benefit communities that are highly dependent on food production, processing, distribution or sale?

The agriculture representatives to the G20 developed an action plan to tackle food price volatility and enhance food security. This document is based on the outcomes of a report commissioned by the World Bank, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, among others. The communique will be submitted to the leaders attending the G20 in November this year. The document has the following key recommendations:

1. Increase agricultural production and productivity on a sustainable basis.

2. Increase market information and transparency in order to better anchor expectations from governments and economic operators.

3. Strengthen international policy coordination in order to enhance confidence in international markets and to prevent and respond to food market crises more efficiently.

4. Improve and develop risk management tools for governments, firms
and farmers in order to build capacity to manage and mitigate the risks associated with food price volatility, in particular in the poorest countries.

5. Improve the functioning of agricultural commodities’ derivatives markets, through the work of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.

Point 1 is of particular interest to R&D organisations because the mechanisms proposed to achieve an increase in productivity include an agreement to strengthen agricultural research and innovation and support results based agricultural research for development through national agricultural research systems, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR).

Further, the promotion of technology transfers, knowledge sharing and capacity building through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation is emphasized in the document, as is innovation in plant breeding and strengthening internationally agreed legal mechanisms for plant varieties.

The first G20 conference on agricultural research for development,involving the most important agricultural research centers, will be held in Montpellier on 12 and 13 September 2011 and the G20 seminar on Agricultural Productivity to be held in October 2011. There is ongoing work by FAO and interested G20 members to develop a platform for capacity building in tropical agriculture in developing countries.

Another initiative in the document is the launch of an International Research Initiative for Wheat Improvement (IRIWI) in order to coordinate research efforts on this important crop for food security. Research work on rice through CGIAR, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP) and the Coalition for African Rice Development (CARD) was also highlighted.

The goal to increase investment in agriculture is expected to be achieved through public-private partnership on investments, based on a value-chain approach, for services (e.g. financial services, agricultural education and extension services), infrastructure and equipment for production (such as irrigation), agroprocessing, access to markets (e.g. transport, storage, communication) and for reduction of pre and post-harvest losses.

Countries, international organizations and the private sector are encouraged to increase investment in developing countries agriculture, and in activities strongly linked to agricultural productivity growth, food security and generation of income in rural areas, such as agricultural institutions, extension services, cooperatives, research, roads, ports, cold chain, power, storage, irrigation systems, information and communication technology, climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The group welcomes the initiative of Multilateral and Regional Development Banks to scale up their interventions. We encourage further interaction with the Development Working Group and the joint Finance / Development Ministerial Meeting in September 2011. G20 encourages the Banks’ coordination efforts including the Joint Working Group on Food and Water Security to develop an Action Plan on Food and Water Security by November 2011.

The triple challenge for agriculture was articulated as meeting food security objectives while adapting to climate change and reducing its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this, R&D on climate change adaptation -especially for smallholder farmers- and mitigation technologies, was highlighted as a crucial element in developing countries.

The document also discusses the importance of strengthening international and regional networks, national and international standards, information, surveillance and traceability systems, good governance and official services, to ensure an early detection and a rapid response to biological threats, facilitate trade flows and contribute to global food security.

Another important point was the removal of food export restrictions or extraordinary taxes for food purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by WFP and agree not to impose them in the future. The G20 will seek support within the United Nations agencies and will also recommend the adoption of a resolution by the WTO for the Ministerial Conference in December 2011.

The launch of a Global Agricultural Geo-Monitoring Initiative is also crucial, in my view.This initiative will strengthen global agricultural monitoring by improving the use of remote sensing tools for crop production projections and weather forecasting. The initiative will involve representatives from various organizations and institutions interested in enhancing international monitoring capabilities around the world, including the organizations that comprise the GEO Agricultural Monitoring Community of Practice (FAO,
World Meteorological Organization - WMO, etc.) created in 2007 by GEO. The roles of the various actors in this initiative will be defined by June 2010; Australia should seek to have a strong role here.

Also important is the establishment of a Rapid Response Forum within the framework of the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS). Through the participation of senior, capital-based agricultural policy officials from the major producing, exporting and importing countries, the Rapid Response Forum will promote early exchange of key information on and discussion of prevention and responses to crises among policy-makers and assist in mobilizing wide and rapid political support for appropriate policy response and actions on issues affecting agricultural production and markets in times of crisis.

The Rapid Response Forum will:

- assess information and analyses from AMIS Secretariat on the current global market situation and outlook;

- receive information and assessments electronically from early warning systems on the extent to which global market developments affect vulnerable countries and assess the ensuing implications for food security;

- when the market situation and outlook as evaluated by the AMIS Secretariat indicates a potential crisis, meet to discuss and promote appropriate policy options on issues affecting agricultural production and markets (but not seek influence on humanitarian responses); and,

- work closely with the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to promote greater policy convergence and strengthen policy linkages at global level.

FAO will be in charge of forming this group, with the first meeting to be organized in the second half of 2011 involving countries and international organizations to discuss processes and scheduling. Again, a very important initiative where Australia should be represented.

In regards to emergency humanitarian food reserves, the G20 will support the preparation of a feasibility study and a proposal for a pilot. The WFP
and other international organizations will establish by the end of June 2011 a working group with bilateral development partners and potential eligible countries in a particular region that could participate in an emergency humanitarian food reserves pilot, involving expertise from the civil society and the private sector. The final proposal for a pilot for the emergency humanitarian food reserves will be discussed at the Joint Finance / Development Ministerial Meeting in September 2011.

All considered, the response of G20 shows that food security is an issue that will be taken seriously internationally. I find many of these initiatives novel and exciting. However, the reduction of biofuel production from food sources and the reduction of export bans was significantly opposed by the US, Brazil and China. The draft of the communique did include a call for a feasibility study on flexible mandates to restrict biofuel production from food supplies in times of food scarcity. However, the final version does not contain this important addition. However, the G20 did agree on exempting food purchased for humanitarian purposes from export bans.

The latter recommendation is unlikely to resolve the live cattle ban for Australian producers, where the ban is seen as a positive step toward supporting local farmers in Indonesia.

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 in Germany to discuss key issues in the global economy. The G20 countries are:
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
European Union
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Republic of Korea
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America

The 2011 meeting in France will be important for our readers because a prior meeting in June 22-23 will see G20 agriculture ministers seeking a deal on improving global food security amid increasing global commodity prices.

Some of the aspects to be discussed include:
-More transparency on food supply chains. President Nicolas Sarkozy has blamed speculators for food price inflation that fed unrest in North Africa and the Middle East.

-Better sharing of information on food commodity markets across G20 nations – which could help reduce speculation.

-More regulation of financial markets linked to raw materials.

-Ease export restrictions for humanitarian aid. The possibility of creating emergency humanitarian food reserves – e.g. development of regional storage facilities – will also be discussed.

-The launch of the Agricultural Price Risk Management facility. This is a new World Bank-backed instrument, which would provide up to $4 billion to help farmers in developing countries hedge the sales of their products in cases where prices rise or fall sharply. This instrument also addresses the issue of high up-front costs and limited or no access to financing by farmers in poor countries, which keeps them out of international markets.

Groups such as Oxfam are calling for restrictions in the production of biofuels, including the removal of subsidies for biofuels production and the development of contingency plans to adjust their biofuels targets when food supplies are endangered.

The World Food Programme (WFP), the food-aid arm of the United Nations, is proposing that G20 countries share market information through a database, the Agricultural Markets Information System (AMIS), which would be housed at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with a secretariat that includes WFP, the World Bank and others.

Australia’s role in food security is important in several fronts: a) as an effective food producer and marketer; b) as a provider of training and education in agri-food; and c) and a delivered of aid through its many organisations, including AusAid, ACIAR and World Vision Australia. Australia also delivers aid through its participation in the WFP. The Australian aid programme will deliver about $4.8 billion on development assistance during 2011-12. This is an estimated 0.34% of Gross National Income for the year. and will continue to grow to reach 0.5 % of the national income by 2015.

Given this commitment from the public purse, the Australian Government is also obliged to push for better trade conditions for Australian producers. Trade Minister Craig Emerson recently stated that “The single most-powerful means of dealing with the food security problem is through agricultural trade liberalisation” and that free trade “[..] enables food production to concentrate in those areas that are most productive at producing food” “[..]That means a greater amount of food at lower cost. That’s the equation that countries worried about food security are looking for: quality and price. Specialisation through free trade in agricultural products enables both of those to be achieved - that is, greater quality at lower price.”

Minister Emerson believes that Australia’s efficiency in agricultural production meant it could become “the food bowl of the world”, notwithstanding the problems of Murray-Darling Basin - and clearly, notwithstanding the relatively low public investment in agricultural R&D, which has been shown to be a factor slowing down agricultural efficiency itself.

It has been suggested in Japan that Australian beef is the culprit behind the food safety incidents (i.e. contamination with E.Coli O157:H7) in the Japanese chain Gyaku in June 2011 and the Yakiniku-zakaya Ebisu in May 2011.

After the May incident, Dr. Douglas Powell wrote an interesting note about the track record of Japan in food safety incidents involving raw beef. Dr. Powell is a professor of food safety at Kansas State University and the publisher of barfblog.com.I am reproducing here the note fully, with my thanks to Dr Powell for allowing me to do so.

Food safety disasters nothing new in Japan
POSTED: MAY 8TH, 2011 - 12:51PM BY DOUG POWELL

In June 1996, initial reports of an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in Japan surfaced in national media.

By July 1996, focus had centered on specific school cafeterias and two vendors of box lunches, as the number of illnesses approached 4,000. Lunches of sea eel sushi and soup distributed on July 5 from Sakai’s central school lunch depot were identified by health authorities as a possible source of one outbreak. The next day, the number of illnesses had increased to 7,400 even as reports of Japanese fastidiousness intensified. By July 23, 1996, 8,500 were listed as ill.

Even though radish sprouts were ultimately implicated — and then publicly cleared in a fall-on-sword ceremony, but not by the U.S. — the Health and Welfare Ministry announced that Japan’s 333 slaughterhouses must adopt a quality control program modeled on U.S. safety procedures, requiring companies to keep records so the source of any tainted food could be quickly identified. Kunio Morita, chief of the ministry’s veterinary sanitation division was quoted as saying “It’s high time for Japan to follow the international trend in sanitation management standards.”

Japanese health authorities were terribly slow to respond to the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7, a standard facilitated by a journalistic culture of aversion rather than adversarial. In all, over 9,500 Japanese, largely schoolchildren, were stricken with E. coli O157:H7 and 12 were killed over the summer of 1996, raising questions of political accountability.

The national Mainichi newspaper demanded in an editorial on July 31, 1996, “Why can’t the government learn from past experience? Why were they slow to react to the outbreak? Why can’t they take broader measures?” The answer, it said, was a “chronic ailment” — the absence of anyone in the government to take charge in a crisis and ensure a coordinated response. An editorial cartoon in the daily Asahi Evening News showed a health worker wearing the label “government emergency response” riding to the rescue on a snail. Some of the victims filed lawsuits against Japanese authorities, a move previously unheard of in the Japanese culture of deference.

Fifteen years later, with at least four dead and 100 sick from E. coli O111 served in raw beef at the Yakiniku-zakaya Ebisu barbecue restaurant chain, Japanese corporate, political and media leaders are still struggling.

Under Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry guidelines, only meat that meets strict standards–such as being processed on equipment exclusively for handling meat for raw consumption and in a meticulously hygienic environment–can be shipped to be eaten raw.

However, the decision on what meat can be served raw is left up to the restaurant serving it. The wholesaler who sold the beef in question to the Yakiniku-zakaya Ebisu chain reportedly told a public health center that the meat it shipped “was supposed to be eaten after being cooked.”

The sanitation guidelines have no binding power and have largely been ignored. The health ministry, for its part, has long failed to stringently push industries to comply with the sanitation standards.

To ensure people can eat raw meat without fearing for their health, the government must review the regulations for the entire meat preparation process.

Anrakutei Co., a Saitama-based yakiniku barbecue chain, stopped serving yukke at its 250 outlets, mainly in the Kanto region, on Tuesday.

“We’ve been providing the dish to customers based on strict quality control, but customers’ concerns make it difficult to continue to serve it,” a public relations official of the company said.

Anrakutei said the company conducts bacteria tests on the Australian beef it uses for yukke three times–first before it is purchased, again before it is sent to the company’s meat processing plant and finally before it is shipped to outlets. At the plant, the meat is processed separately from other food materials to prevent it from coming into contact with bacteria, the company explained.

There is no discussion of what is being tested, and how valid those tests are at picking up a non-O157 shiga-toxin producing E. coli like O111 There is no verification that anyone is testing anything.

In the absence of meat goggles that can magically detect dangerous bacteria, eating raw hamburger remains a risk.