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

1. Brining (injection) of poultry meatConsultation Process

2. Avian Influenza

2

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT STANDARDS ACT 1990 (Act No. 119 of 1991)

Brining (injection) of poultry meatConsultation Process

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN

10

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

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

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

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

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

REFLECTION OF COMMENTS IN TERMS OF SUPPORT AND LACK THEREOF

Local comments received on the 2013 WTO draft proposalIn 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%:

DoHNot in favour of the proposed levels - want 25% or higher levels:

SAPA, Astral FoodsConcerned about the perceived cost increase to the consumers:

CGCSA (Woolworths, Pick ‘n Pay, Shoprite) – referred to SAPA report about cost increase

16

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

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

CONCLUSION

19

AVIAN INFLUENZA

20

Notifiable Avian Influenza (H5 and H7)

21

Abbreviations

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

22

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

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

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

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

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITYTO HEAR OUR NARRATIVE

27