1 / 27

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES ON POULTRY ISSUES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES ON POULTRY ISSUES. Presentation to the portfolio committee on agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 28 April 2015. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATIONS. Brining (injection) of poultry meat Consultation Process Avian Influenza. 2.

ashleyporter
Download Presentation

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES ON POULTRY ISSUES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES ON POULTRY ISSUES Presentation to the portfolio committee on agriculture, forestry and fisheries 28 April 2015

  2. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATIONS Brining (injection) of poultry meatConsultation Process Avian Influenza 2

  3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT STANDARDS ACT 1990 (Act No. 119 of 1991)Brining (injection) of poultry meatConsultation Process 3

  4. OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION • Acronyms • Agricultural Product Standards Act,1990 • Objectives of Poultry Meat Regulations • What is Brining? • Reasons that led to the revision of the Poultry Meat Regulations • Regulatory review process that was undertaken • Implications of the proposed amendments • Reflection of comments in terms of support or lack thereof • SAPA consultation • Major industry concern • Conclusion 4

  5. ACRONYMS • ARC – Agricultural Research Council • CGCSA – Consumer Goods Council of South Africa • DAFF – Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries • DoH – Department of Health • QUID – Quantitative Ingredient Declaration • SAPA – South African Poultry Association • SARS – South African Revenue Service • TBT – Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement • WTO – World Trade Organization 5

  6. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT STANDARDS ACT, 1990 (ACT No 119 OF 1991) • Regulates the sale (local/import) and export of certain agricultural products through regulations: • Grading or classification according to standardised, objective, measurable, minimum quality standards • Marking and labelling • Packing requirements • Regulations for poultry meat (R.846 of 27 March 1992, as amended) prescribes: • Max 8% treatment of whole chicken carcasses with chemical solution • No clear limit restriction on the treatment of poultry portions (does the limit for whole carcasses apply to portions?) 6

  7. OBJECTIVES OF POULTRY MEAT REGULATIONS • Greater transparency in the market place • Purchase specified quality poultry meat over time and distance • Ensuring both local and imported poultry meat conform to certain minimum standards • Consumer’s right to good wholesome quality poultry meat • Provide a platform or quality reference point from which trade within Southern African Custom Union should be conducted • Serve as a reference during negotiations of trade agreements between countries, if poultry meat are imported into South Africa 7

  8. WHAT IS BRINING? • Brine (salt & water) solution is currently used in conjunction with other additives such as phosphates, gums and sweeteners - differ within industry and in terms of clientele • Brine is simply a water based solution of salt (NaCI) and other ingredients (thus a chemical solution) • In terms of regulation 4 (9), the chemical solution may be injected into the breast meat of a whole carcass at a maximum level of 8% • Main objective of brine injection practice is to improve the quality of the meat by tenderization and flavour enhancement 8

  9. REASONS THAT LED TO REVISION OF THE POULTRY MEAT REGULATIONS • Requests from the industry (SAPA) in 2006, SARS (2008), Pick ‘n Pay (2010), Red Meat Producers’ Organisation (2011) and Portfolio Committee in 2011 for the following reasons: • Poor quality product as a result of excessive treatment • Excessive moisture loss during thawing and cooking • Product weight gain • Financial gain • Creates a unfair trading environment – different rates of injection • Consumer protection • Consumer awareness and various media enquiries (Horse meat scandal and “Botox” chicken) • Promotion of trade amongst our trading partners 9

  10. REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN • Initiation of review: • Two drafts made available for comments • Consultative meetings and other informal engagements with: • Regulatory bodies, Industry (producers and factories) including SAPA, Consumers Union, Academic institutions, Retailers and Fast Food Industry, etc. • WTO (TBT) notification of Final Draft • DG approved notification to WTO • Address comments from member states • Considered relevant comments from industry • Final step – Ministerial consideration and approval of proposed amendments 10

  11. REVIEW PROCESS • Work on the revision of the complete set of poultry meat regulations started round about 2010 • Portfolio Committee (22 March 2011) highlighted urgency – DAFF decided to focus only on the brine treatment issue since it is the most urgent and the whole revision will take too long • Draft amendment addressing brine treatment compiled and published for comments in Government Gazette (1 June 2012) • Meeting with SAPA (20 June 2012) to discuss their comments on the revised regulations and the following were decided— • The regulations should address the levels of brine injection • DAFF indicated that they will conduct research on treatments levels via the ARC 11

  12. REVIEW PROCESS • Meeting with industry to discuss revision (28 February 2013) — Represented at the meeting: • Regulatory bodies and other Government Departments • Industry (organisations, producers and factories) • Consumer union • Academic institutions • Retailers • Fast Food industry • Chemical (brine) suppliers 12

  13. REVIEW PROCESS • Outcome of 28 February 2013 meeting with industry — • Consensus on the proposed treatment level of maximum 8% for portions could not be reached • DAFF indicated that the present regulations prescribe maximum 8% treatment levels for whole carcasses and that it should be enforced • DAFF requested that injection level proposals with motivations be forwarded to the Department for a final decision • Other issues related to the brine treatment were also discussed, such as allowable ingredients and labelling 13

  14. REVIEW PROCESS • Revised draft amendment distributed to industry and notified to WTO (TBT agreement) in December 2013 with the following final proposed levels: • Total water/brine uptake for whole carcasses – max 10% (instead of 8% that is enforced presently) • Total water/brine uptake for portions – max 15% • That the water uptake in the water chiller be not more than 7%, and this % forms part of the above limits • The producers must regularly perform tests to ensure compliance with these limits, and keep records thereof 14

  15. IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS • The treatment (injection) levels and the associated control will be affected • Labelling changes – QUID declaration and ingredients list of DoH must be adapted to reflect the new injection levels • Brining practice change – strength of brine must be adapted since less is injected • There will be more meat per bag since there will be less “water” in the bag (meat not diluted) – perceived cost increase for the consumer • The Department intends to revise the complete set of regulations in the near future 15

  16. REFLECTION OF COMMENTS IN TERMS OF SUPPORT AND LACK THEREOF Local comments received on the 2013 WTO draft proposal • In favour of the proposed levels: AFGRI, RPO (Red Meat Producers’ Organisation), SPIF Chickens, Red Meat Industry Forum, AMIE (Association of Meat Importers and Exporters), Rainbow Chickens, Mikon Farming, Supreme Poultry • Not in favour of the proposed levels - want 0%: DoH • Not in favour of the proposed levels - want 25% or higher levels: SAPA, Astral Foods • Concerned about the perceived cost increase to the consumers: CGCSA (Woolworths, Pick ‘n Pay, Shoprite) – referred to SAPA report about cost increase 16

  17. SAPA CONSULTATION • SAPA has been the mainstay of consulted stakeholders throughout • Various meetings and correspondence • Individual constituent members of SAPA have expressed their support to the proposed levels which differ significantly from the 2012 proposal (8% across) • The majority of the participants are in support of the proposal • SAPA – Will only support the proposed draft on 25% injection or more, or unlimited injection level supported only by labelling 17

  18. MAJOR INDUSTRY CONCERN • Poultry meat market is price sensitive, meaning that if one producer injects slightly more than the other their products will have an unfair market advantage if they can sell it slightly cheaper • Proper enforcement of regulations is currently lacking. DAFF should thus consider e.g. the appointment of an assignee for poultry meat 18

  19. CONCLUSION • The proposed raft amendment on brining levels represents a compromise between the industry and the consumer • Consensus can not be reached with some industry role-players and Government will have to take the final decision • Chicken represents a cheap source of protein – consumer protection and improvement of nutrition however remain essential • The majority of the stakeholders accept the draft amendment in its proposed state • The poultry regulations are not cast in stone and may be reviewed should the proposed amendments have an unintended negative impact • Minister is the only empowered person to either approve or reject the proposed amendments 19

  20. AVIAN INFLUENZA 20

  21. Notifiable Avian Influenza (H5 and H7) 21

  22. Abbreviations • AI – Avian Influenza • ECP - Eastern Cape Province • HPAI - High Pathogenic Avian Influenza • LPAI - Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza • WCP - Western Cape Province 22

  23. Notifiable Avian Influenza (H5 and H7): Introduction • Origin of outbreaks are pinpoint virus introductions from wild birds with virus multiplication in ostriches. • No H5 or H7 outbreaks have ever been detected in poultry other than ostriches despite intensive ongoing surveillance. • AI outbreaks in ostriches are usually mild without pronounced signs of disease. 23

  24. Avian Influenza: history of HPAI outbreaks • 2004: • First ever outbreak detected in South Africa (June 2004) • In ostriches of the Eastern Cape Province (ECP) • HPAI – H5N2 • Outbreaks were eradicated by culling and disposal of all ostriches and other poultry on detected farms in the ECP • Intensive countrywide surveillance – detected seropositive ostriches in the Western Cape Province (H5 and possibly also an H7 had circulated during the winter of 2004) • Outbreaks were eradicated and no positive serology were detected in the next generation of ostrich slaughter birds by October 2004. 24

  25. Avian Influenza: history of HPAI outbreaks • 2006: • HPNAI H5N2 outbreaks detected in ostriches of the WCP (unrelated to 2004). • The outbreak was controlled (culling) and eradicated in July 2006. • 2011 to 2013: • H5N2 detected in 2011 in ostriches of the WCP and the ECP - genetically unrelated to the 2004 and 2006 virus isolates • Resolved in June 2013 • No further HPAI outbreaks were detected since June 2013 up to date. 25

  26. Avian Influenza: history of LPAI outbreaks • LPAI in ostriches was detected in 2006 and since then only pinpoint introductions have been detected in ostriches (H5 and H6). • These introductions have limited spread and are detected early and brought under control effectively. 26

  27. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITYTO HEAR OUR NARRATIVE 27

More Related