FoodLegal

FSANZ CEO Steve McCutcheon on Maximum Residue Levels

FoodLegal Lawyers and Consultants
© Lawmedia Pty Ltd, June/July 2009

In response to an article in our April 2009 issue of FoodLegal Bulletin, we received a letter to the Editor from Mr Steve McCutcheon as Chief Executive Officer Australia’s food standard-setting agency, Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The letter outlines a division in legal responsibilities for detection and enforcement of the regulations governing agricultural and veterinary chemicals used in Australia and contaminants in the food supply.

Letter to the Editor from CEO of FSANZ

Dear Mr Lederman

I am writing in regard to the article on regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia in the March [sic] 2009 edition of Food Legal [see our April 2009 article “Australian regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals: Who is having two-headed fish for dinner?”].

I thought there would be some value in me providing you with a summary of the current roles of both the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) in promulgation of Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) into food legislation.

FSANZ and the APVMA have separate but defined roles in establishing MRLs and take a collaborative approach to the advancement of MRLs into food legislation. We have a shared commitment to the safe and legitimate use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and ensuring that resulting residues in food are safe for consumers. Further details on these roles are outlined in Attachment 1.

FSANZ is committed to ensuring that practical and flexible mechanisms exist to consider MRLs for residues in imported food. FSANZ is currently taking a case by case approach to each circumstance relating to MRL amendments that may be relevant for imported foods, and considers this the most appropriate approach in the short-term. Further details on these arrangements are also outlined in Attachment 1.

You may wish to note that various opportunities exist for industry to advocate MRL amendments such as Codex MRLs or MRLs for food imported from another country that may differ from an APVMA MRL notification in one of the regular FSANZ MRL Proposals. In addition, industry can consider making an Application for an MRL amendment to FSANZ independently of a notification of the APVMA. In all these situations, to facilitate entry of an MRL in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, it is important that industry considers precisely what MRLs are needed, provides justification for the MRL amendment and considers what mechanism meets its needs.

In regard to endosulfan, although New Zealand’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) withdrew the approvals for the insecticide endosulfan and prohibited its importation, manufacture and use in New Zealand, you should note that the use of endosulfan in New Zealand was not considered a food safety issue by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA). Moreover, the NZFSA has publicly stated that residues of endosulfan have never exceeded established MRLs or exceeded appropriate reference health levels in testing undertaken as part of the Food Residue Surveillance Programme and the Total Diet Survey.

Following an extensive review on endosulfan, the APVMA’s current position is that endosulfan registrations in Australia remain appropriate, given the scientific evidence reviewed and the controls that are in place. Therefore, the current MRLs for endosulfan are appropriate to account for legitimate use of this chemical. Past Australian Total Diet Studies have found that residues of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in food, including endosulfan, are low and that dietary exposure to these residues is well within the reference health standards.

Therefore, FSANZ considers that public health and safety is appropriately protected by permitting legitimate use of endosulfan in accordance with legitimate use levels in Australia. [Editor’s emphasis added]

In conclusion, I hope this clarifies the current regulatory environment for agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia, the roles of the APVMA and FSANZ and the mechanism for inclusion of an MRL in the Code.

Yours sincerely
Steve McCutcheon
Chief Executive Officer
12 May 2009

Attachment 1

Role of the APVMA in establishing maximum residue limits (MRLs)

Agricultural chemical products and veterinary chemical products are used to control pests and diseases of plants and animals and assist producers in providing wholesome foods from healthy plants and animals. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) administers the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia. The Scheme registers and regulates the manufacture and supply of all agricultural chemical products and veterinary chemical products used in Australia, up to the point of wholesale sale.

The safety and performance of all chemicals that are used in food producing crops and animals must be assessed by the APVMA prior to registration to ensure that the health and safety of consumers is protected. As part of that assessment process, using data submitted with the registration application, the APVMA determines the likely level of chemical residues remaining at the time of harvesting or slaughter. Drawing on this information and considering relevant health standards the APVMA recommends MRLs. No product is registered unless these levels are safe for people consuming treated foods.

Role of FSANZ in establishing MRLs in food legislation

The APVMA regularly makes notifications to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) for specific maximum residue limits (MRLs) to be included in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) so that the MRLs in the Code reflect the approved use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in Australia.

FSANZ’s primary role in developing food regulatory measures for agricultural and veterinary chemicals is to ensure that the potential residues in food are within reference health standards. FSANZ conducts and reviews dietary exposure assessments in accordance with internationally accepted practices and procedures.

In assessing the public health and safety implications of chemical residues, FSANZ considers the dietary exposure to chemical residues from potentially treated foods in the diet by comparing the dietary exposure with the relevant reference health standard. FSANZ will not approve variations to limits in the Code where dietary exposure to the residues of a chemical could risk public health and safety.

The steps undertaken in conducting a dietary exposure assessment are:

The estimated dietary exposure to a chemical is compared to the relevant reference health standard/s for that chemical in food (i.e. the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and/or the acute reference dose (ARfD)). FSANZ considers that dietary exposure to the residues of a chemical is acceptable where the best estimate of this exposure does not exceed the relevant standard/s.

Standard 1.4.2-Maximum Residue Limits

Standard 1.4.2 includes MRLs in the Schedules to the Standard for permitted chemicals along with the specific commodities or food products that may contain them. Currently, under Commonwealth of Australia, State and Territory food legislation (subject to exceptions for food from New Zealand) there must be no detectable residue in a food commodity for which an MRL has not been listed in Standard 1.4.2.

It should be noted that MRLs are not direct safety limits but are monitoring limits set to ensure that approved chemical products are used in accordance with approved conditions of use. However, as noted above consideration is always given to the relevant reference health standard when an MRL is established. MRLs are included in food legislation to allow the legal sale of safe and legitimately treated food.

Relationship between Australia and New Zealand in establishing MRLs

All food imported into Australia must comply with the requirements in Standard 1.4.2, except for food from New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand independently and separately develop MRLs for agricultural and veterinary chemicals in food. The Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA) between Australia and New Zealand commenced on 1 May 1998.

The following provisions apply under the TTMRA:

  1. Food produced or imported into Australia that complies with Standard 1.4.2 of the Code can be legally sold in New Zealand.
  2. Food produced or imported into New Zealand that complies with the New Zealand (Maximum Residue Limits of Agricultural Compounds) Food Standards 2008 and amendments can be legally sold in Australia.

Establishing MRLs for foods that are not part of the APVMA Notifications

FSANZ seeks comment on all amendments to MRLs in the Code, and identifies relevant Codex MRLs as part of the consultation documentation. FSANZ also considers submissions for legitimate MRLs that may be different from an MRL notified by the APVMA. In addition to the regular consideration of APVMA MRLs, applications may be made direct to FSANZ for any MRL and this would be considered in accordance with the FSANZ Act 1991. Guidelines and formats for making an application are available on the website of FSANZ. Key issues for FSANZ will be the safety of the residues, the legitimacy in food and the justification for presence in food.

Therefore, industry or another regulatory agency may advocate specific MRL amendments through the following mechanisms:

Potential applicants and advocates of MRL amendments are encouraged to contact FSANZ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FoodLegal Bulletin Editor’s Comments

  1. FoodLegal Bulletin notes that the above letter from FSANZ's CEO, Mr Steve McCutcheon, is an explanation of the demarcation of responsibilities between different government agencies when it comes to the statutory responsibility for assessing the health effects of chemicals.
  2. FSANZ confirms that it considers the current law on levels of endosulphan are acceptable to it notwithstanding the position in other countries. FSANZ argues that the New Zealand ban was not initiated by the food safety regulator and states that this justifies the ongoing use of the chemical in food production in Australia.
  3. This system clearly lays responsibility for initiating changes in Australia's Maximum Residue Limits on the APVMA. The legislative framework forces FSANZ to wait on the APVMA and it is not easy for the consumer end of the food supply chain to initiate a change to lower an MRL or to ban a chemical. Furthermore, while Mr McCutcheon has stated that private industry can apply to have the Food Standards Code amended, the only interest private industry would have in changing an MRL would be to increase residue limits rather than decrease them. Also there is a lack of incentives inherent in the FSANZ application process (please see our article “Changing Australia’s Food Standards: It’s Pay to Play!” in the May 2009 issue of FoodLegal Bulletin).
  4. Interestingly, since our FoodLegal Bulletin article in April 2009, the Australian Government (through its AUSTender online service) announced on 20 May 2009 that the government would be seeking experts to tender to join a panel to provide advice on Health Effects of Industrial Chemicals and related advice to the Commonwealth.

 


FoodLegal Consultancy
www.foodlegal.com.au
Call +61 3 9606 0022