- PDF Version (416K) - Print Friendly - Help

Review of Requirements for the Transport and some Storage of Animal Materials and Products

4 Rationale for Options

This section summarises the rationales for the options in this paper. A detailed analysis of the options is provided in Appendix 2.

4.1 Option 1: Revert to RMP Regime in Place before the 2008 Exemptions

NZFSA has reviewed the requirements which would apply under Option 1 and believes that they do not represent a flexible and responsive risk-based model. Such a model applies different levels of regulatory control according to the potential risks associated with the transportation of a given animal product or material. Reverting to the pre-2008 requirements does not relate risk to regulatory requirement.

NZFSA believes the requirements need amending for several reasons: they are not feasible or practicable because some operators would have very little or no controls placed on them while others would have quite high requirements; they are not economically efficient because some would face quite considerable costs while others would face little or none; and they are not equitable because some carrying similar risk products would have little or no controls to meet while others would have quite considerable controls to meet.

Impact

This option would impact on all operators transporting non-dairy animal products and material intended for export with official assurances.

Benefits

RMPs provide the highest level of certainty that animal products and material transported for export with official assurances maintain their ‘fitness for intended purpose’ and eligibility. The regulatory framework is already in place therefore no legislative changes would be required.

Costs

Under this option, the costs of an individual RMP would be re-imposed on the transport operators who are temporarily exempt from the RMP requirement (non-dairy for export with official assurances). Transporters of non-dairy products for animal consumption for export and domestic markets would be required to operate under an RMP (with all the associated costs) because there is a gap in the APA transport regime. This gap prevents transporters of products for animal consumption choosing an alternative potentially lower cost regulatory control regime. Such choice is available only for the transportation of products for human consumption (ie the Food Act regime, which by definition applies only to food for humans). The primary disadvantage of this option is that it imposes costs on parts of the transport sector where the imposition of an individual RMP may not be justifiable in terms of the risks presented by the products carried that need control. Nor is the option economically efficient if an alternative and lower cost control mechanism can deliver the same or a similar level of certainty about ‘fitness for intended purpose’. NZFSA believes that the costs of this option outweigh its benefit.

4.2 Option 2: Make the 2008 Exemptions Permanent

New Zealand has a reputation as a principled international trader, a reputation it needs to protect so as not to endanger New Zealand’s export trade in food products valued at over NZ$5 billion per annum.

NZFSA believes that while the 2008 exemptions were an appropriate legal mechanism to address the non-compliance with the RMP requirements of the APA in the short term, they were not a long term solution. NZFSA believes that making the exemptions permanent would simply perpetuate an ad hoc system, which lacks clarity and consistency across the animal products’ transport sector.

Impact

This option may have a negative impact on New Zealand’s reputation in overseas markets. It would also perpetuate the current anomalous treatment of transporters of products for animal consumption for export and the domestic market. They would be required to operate under an RMP because the gap in the APA prevents them choosing an alternative to an RMP. It would also be incongruous in the medium to long term to exempt export with official assurances from the RMP requirement, but continue this requirement for export without official assurances and domestic transportation. Similarly, this option would also continue the current requirements for dairy transport to operate under an RMP solely on the basis that it derives from the all encompassing definition of ‘dairy’ as primary processing.

Benefit

This option would continue to provide a benefit only to the transport operators who currently do not have to operate under an RMP by virtue of the 2008 exemptions. That benefit would be limited (applying only to a subset of food transporters) and raises equity and reasonableness issues.

Costs

This option would retain the impost of RMP requirement costs on parts of the transport sector (ie dairy and products for animal consumption) where an RMP may not be justifiable in terms of risk or the most economically efficient regulatory measure if lesser cost options could apply. The option would be neither equitable (applying to a limited set of transporters) nor reasonable (because of anomalous legislative provisions). Retaining this exemption would also entail continuance of a system which does not ensure that all export transporters are listed as required, or that those listed are verified. The cost of not listing is indirect insofar as the cost occurs to the sector or the country when things go wrong. Finally, this option does not reflect the principle that the users or beneficiaries of a function, power or service should pay the cost of the provision of that function, power or service at a level that matches their use or benefit. Verification for export with official assurances under this option occurs at the processor’s premises or at the stores (at load in/load out points). These processors and store operators then meet the verification costs, not the transporters. NZFSA believes that the costs of this option outweigh its short term benefit.

4.3 Option 3: Amend Regulatory Requirements

4.3.1 Regulate the Transportation for Export with Official Assurances under an RCS

NZFSA considers that an RCS is an appropriate regulatory tool to manage risks associated with the transportation and wharf/airport handling of animal material and products exported with official assurances. NZFSA considers an RCS for this sector provides the same level of certainty as that provided by RMPs, without the costs and resources associated with individual RMPs.

The APA’s risk management controls required for transport of dairy products are the result of dairy transport being derived from the definition of dairy processing as primary processing (which requires RMPs), when the transport of all other animal products is by definition secondary processing. NZFSA does not view the risks in dairy transport as being different in any meaningful way from the risks in transport of other animal products. NZFSA believes that it is economically inefficient for transporters of dairy products for export with official assurances to operate under individual RMPs when a lower cost option is available. On that basis, NZFSA believes that the RCS proposed for non-dairy animal products should incorporate dairy products and materials.

NZFSA also proposes that a food transport RCS could encompass regulatory controls for the transportation and wharf/airport handling all types of animal products, ie non-dairy, dairy; for human consumption and for animal consumption. Such an RCS could clearly differentiate which provision(s) apply to whom.

The types of activities that might be covered under such an RCS could be catered for through activity-specific requirements, if necessary. These might include: minimisation of contamination or deterioration; requirements around vehicle suitability; management of the hygiene and behaviour of persons whose presence or actions may result in contamination; requirements for packing and packaging used to transport animal products and materials; provisions for the identification, labelling and record keeping; and the listing and verification of transport operators.

Impact

This option would apply equitably as an alternative management option to RMPs for transport operators of animal products for export with official assurances (and the handling of these products at wharves/airports). It would manage risks at a level commensurate with product risks.

Benefits

This approach meets NZFSA’s expectations for the management of risks associated with transporting animal products and materials for export with official assurance. To do so collectively by way of an RCS is more practicable and economically efficient than a requirement for individual operators to design and register their own RMPs.

An RCS would provide NZFSA with authority to verify that transportation and wharf/airport handling of the relevant products complies with the required risk management controls. Such authority is lacking under the 2008 exemption. An RCS would also place sufficient direct accountability on transporters for all aspects of the transportation of the animal products and materials, which too is lacking under the 2008 exemptions.

Costs

This proposal will not increase costs for individual businesses that have complied with the RMP requirement to date and may result in lesser costs. For those that could otherwise be covered by an RMP, operating under an RCS will not incur the same level of fees and charges that are payable in respect of individual RMPs but nonetheless will involve some verification costs. For example, an RMP incurs costs for: development; evaluation (where an NZFSA template has not been used); assessment and registration of the RMP; and fees for any subsequent amendments of the RMP by the operator. The cost of listing is already applied under the current regime (listing under OMARs), so no additional cost would be imposed by listing under an RCS for those transporters handling export product.

There would be additional costs incurred for the verification of tranporters’ record keeping to ensure that there was a robust and credible tracking system in place to support the issuing of official assurances. A proportion of this cost is currently met by processors and operators of RMP premises.

4.3.2 Compliance with Animal Consumption Specifications Notice

This proposal would align the level of requirements for the transportation of products for animal consumption (for export and domestic market) with the level of requirements for transportation of animal products for human consumption. Currently the APA contains a mechanism which allows transporters of products for human consumption to choose to operate under an alternative (and less onerous) regime than an RMP, but does not provide the same choice for transporters of products for animal consumption/pet food. This is inequitable.

This proposal addresses a gap in the APA transport regime. At present there is an exemption from the RMP requirement for animal food processed in accordance with Food Act regime.⁷ However, the exemption covers only the situation where food that has the legal status of being fit for human consumption is, for commercial reasons, converted for use as pet food or animal feed. This exemption does not apply to secondary processing of animal products and material for animal consumption, which remains subject to the RMP requirement.

Impact

This option would impact on the transporters of non-dairy animal materials for animal consumption for both the export and domestic market by providing them with a choice of risk management regimes.

Benefits

This approach allows NZFSA to manage the risks and hazards associated with transporting these animal products. This approach is more practicable and equitable than the current framework and NZFSA considers that it would result in a greater level of compliance by the transport sector.

Costs

This proposal would not add cost to the businesses.

4.3.3 Compliance with Dairy Processing Specifications Notice

NZFSA considers that the APA risk management controls required for transport of dairy products are the result of dairy transport being subsumed in the definition of dairy processing as primary processing, when all other animal products transport is by definition secondary processing. NZFSA considers that compliance with Dairy Processing Specifications Notice is commensurate with the level of risks and hazards inherent in these products.

Impact

This proposal would have a positive impact on transporters of dairy products for human consumption for export (except to Australia) as it would remove the need for them having to have individual RMPs and meet the costs associated with those.

Benefit

This approach allows NZFSA to manage the risks and hazards associated with transporting these animal products. This approach is more practicable and equitable than the current framework and NZFSA considers that it would not affect fitness for purpose during transport.

Costs

This proposal would not add cost to the businesses.

⁷ Clause 9 of the Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000