evatech

Safety Management Services
Nelson, New Zealand

HSNO Issue 77. Sept/Oct 2009. Bruce Evans, Evatech, Nelson

I was planning to open this column on compliance with a good news story from the latest NZFSA survey results of chemical residues in our food.
But the following not-so-good news story takes precedence.
When it comes to non-compliance the Crafar family and its affiliated farms take some beating with a half a dozen pollution charges over recent years spread from Waikato to Hawkes Bay.
The Waikato Times printed a list of the Crafar prosecutions on 18 August headed ‘Full dirt released on Crafars’.
In that article the Crafars reportedly said: “The family wholly regrets the spate of recent compliance prosecutions in which it has been involved. As dairy farm operators we recognise we are not perfect, yet neither is any New Zealander. The Crafar family is committed to protecting our environment.” Evidence to date indicates otherwise and I’m not sure other Kiwis will be happy to have their compliance activities compared to this business.

As far as other topical news - it has to be said that beaurocracy faces a no win situation with the level of compliance it administers.
Either it’s seen as too much and in need of ‘streamlining’ (RMA comes to mind), or it is far too lax and there appears no evidence of prosecutions being taken (HSNO comes to mind).
NZFSA has tackled some important prosecutions in recent times that are highly relevant to our industry and we need to ask ourselves, are these cases the tip of the non-compliance iceberg or are they isolated incidents?
NZFSA successfully prosecuted a Northland farmer who contaminated meat exports with endosulfan.
More recently it prosecuted two farmers who sent bobby calves for slaughter that tested positive for vet medicine residues.
In both cases label instructions were not followed, and good agricultural practice had not been practiced. 
Reason enough to understand the impact of residues, withholding periods and the vulnerability of our food exports to international residue scare stories.
Reason enough to study these key issues at Growsafe® training courses and perhaps during your Approved Handler renewal if there is time provided to cover them.

NZFSA has also recently been busy prosecuting a Pukekohe man for illegally importing and selling counterfeit agricultural chemicals.
To quote the judge on this case: ‘This was sustained, calculated and illegal conduct which undermined the integrity of NZ’s regulatory reputation for safe, high quality produce.’
Opinions differ on whether the $119,000 fine was severe enough but there is agreement that NZFSA has done a very good and necessary job.
Now, who says we have got too much beaurocracy? 
Should NZFSA fund food integrity issues to a higher level to achieve compliance, as education obviously hasn’t worked in these three cases?
With Government seeking to reduce regulation, will NZFSA have to provide annual regulatory plans for all compliance programs to prove that policy options have been thoroughly budgeted on a cost/benefit basis?   
How do you cost lost trading reputations when you have violations like these?

Unfortunately there is more bad news:

Like the availability of cyanide in Nelson, questions are being asked in Dunedin how the highly flammable product can be obtained so easily and why alarm bells were not going off for somebody when the chemicals were being off-loaded into a residential address.
As the Crafars argue nobody is perfect, but I am sure our systems should and need to work better than this.

Just time to conclude with the NZFSA good news: “Tests on locally produced food show the average New Zealand diet presents no chemical residue food safety concerns”. NZPA 18.8.09.
Let’s hope the NZFSA budget survives for this vital survey work in the regulatory reforms sweeping Wellington.