Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Fair food for all Australians

  • About
    • History
      • Origins of AFSA by Russ Grayson
    • Our Team
      • Current National Committee
      • Past committees
    • Governance
    • President’s report
    • International
    • Press
      • In the News
      • Media Releases
    • Get in touch
  • Farmers
    • Farming on Other People’s Land
    • Community Supported Agriculture
    • Workers’ Rights
  • Legal Defence Fund
    • Our Services
    • Who we support
    • Campaigns
    • Past efforts
    • Our Vision
  • Peoples’ Food Plan
  • CSA
  • Events
    • Fair Food Week
    • Food Sovereignty Convergence 15-24 Oct 2020
      • Watch: Food Sovereignty Convergence 2020
    • AFSA Solidarity Economy Sessions
      • Why solidarity economies?
      • What is a solidarity economy?
  • Submissions
  • Join Us
    • Join Us
    • AFSA Members’ Sesssions
  • Buy the Book!
    • Farming Democracy
    • Cart

Submission to the Independent Review of the Agvet Chemicals regulatory system

February 15, 2021 by Amida

In December, the federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment released the draft report of an indpendent panel reviewing the regulatory framework for agricultural
and veterinary (agvet) chemicals.

In 2020, AFSA collaborated on submissions to the consultation informing the review, and last Friday attended the review meeting on the draft report. AFSA’s intervention advocated for a regulatory approach that encourages agroecological food systems and the protection of biodiversity over the vested interests of corporations and industrial farming.

Read AFSA’s full intervention below:


Independent Review of the Agvet Chemical Regulatory Framework Consultation Meeting – 12 Feb 2021. 

I join you all today from the unceded lands of the Dja Dja Wurrung in the central highlands of Victoria, where I pay my respects to elders past, present, and emerging. I would like to start my comments by noting the absence of any mention of Indigenous peoples in the draft report – there is no acknowledgment that decisions are being made about the regulation of chemical use on Aboriginal land, and no apparent consultation with First Peoples and their organisations. AFSA would welcome information on whether the Panel has sought the views of Indigenous peoples as part of its review? 

The routine use of pesticides and veterinary chemicals in farming is a relatively recent phenomenon, arising during the Green Revolution from the 1950s onwards, and yet it is now such accepted practice that a review such as this does not even ask whether we should continue our rate of chemical use, but instead asks how to make chemicals more readily accessible. And yet this is quite out of step with discourses taking place in global governance processes, which makes sense given I could find only one reference to the United Nations in the 279 page draft report – there appears to have been no review of international advice on the use of agvet chemicals.  

Let me survey some of this advice:  

In 2019, the FAO released the State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food & Agriculture Report, which highlights the problems of ‘pollution and overuse of external inputs,’ and calls for improved monitoring of recognised threats to biodiversity for food and agriculture, of which agvet chemicals are one such threat.  

The 2019 report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for sustainable agriculture calls for ‘strengthening the regulations on the use of chemicals harmful for human health and the environment in agriculture and food systems, promoting alternatives to their use and rewarding practices that produce without them.’ 

In that same year, IPBES released The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services, providing evidence that ‘Harmful economic incentives and policies associated with unsustainable practices in […] agriculture (including fertilizer and pesticide use), [and] livestock management […] are often associated with land-use change and overexploitation of natural resources[…]. Vested interests may oppose the removal of subsidies or the introduction of other policies. Yet policy reforms to deal with such causes of environmental harm offer the potential to both conserve nature and provide economic benefits, including when policies are based on more and better understanding of the multiple values of nature’s contributions.’ 

I would like to especially highlight the point about vested interests, as we note that CropLife is cited no less than 14 times in the report, and represents the interests of some of the world’s biggest agvet chemical manufacturers. Can there be a more obviously vested interest than chemical companies advising an ‘independent review’ on the regulation of chemicals? As the world faces unprecedented losses of biodiversity, CropLife’s website tells us they are here to help wage a war on nature. I quote: ‘…food crops compete with up to 30,000 species of weeds, 3,000 species of nematodes (microscopic worms) and 10,000 species of plant-eating insects, as well as viruses, fungi, mites and mice. Against these foes, as well as an increasingly volatile climate, our farmers are tasked with growing enough food, feed and fibre to serve a booming population. They need all the help they can get.’ End quote – and CropLife are here to help – by selling them biodiversity-destroying solutions. When we read the Panel’s enthusiasm for more ‘co-regulation’ with industry, the fox in the henhouse comes strongly to mind.  

The UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity is currently drafting a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to replace the failed Aichi Biodiversity Targets. You can see the Zero Draft on the CBD website, where draft Target 6 calls for the reduction of biocides, and Target 17 aims to ‘by 2030, redirect, repurpose, reform or eliminate incentives harmful for biodiversity, including [X] reduction in the most harmful subsidies, ensuring that incentives, including public and private economic and regulatory incentives, are either positive or neutral for biodiversity’. Australia has committed to the earlier Aichi Targets and now the GBF process, but we see little awareness of these aims in the recommendations in this review.  

I will finish with the use of antimicrobials in livestock production, and the rise of antimicrobial resistance. We welcome the acknowledgement of the issue of AMR in the report, and we also welcome Recommendation 19 to improve surveillance of chemical use. We urge the Panel to go further specifically in regards to the use of antimicrobials and require more thorough reporting of the use of antibiotics. I myself am a livestock farmer, so I am subject to reporting requirements, and so am aware that we only have to report any medicines administered that would not meet a withholding period when we send animals to the abattoir.  

The FAO’s Committee on Agriculture has urged countries ‘to take action to continue the development of sustainable food production systems taking into consideration their social, economic and environmental dimensions, in order to reduce the risk of diseases, prevent the unnecessary use of antimicrobials, including the phasing out of antimicrobials as growth promoters  and promote good animal husbandry management, biosecurity and biosafety.’ We urge the Panel to include this recommendation to phase out antimicrobials as growth promoters in its advice to Government. 

Finally, the UN Committee on World Food Security last week released its draft Voluntary Guidelines on Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture. In it, the CFS reminds us that ‘Over 1.3 billion people rely on degrading agricultural land, and globally, 33% of soil is moderately to highly degraded due to erosion, nutrient depletion, acidification, salinization, compaction and chemical pollution. Ruptures to the interlinkages between human and planetary health compromise the well-being of both biodiversity and people.’  

The Draft Report makes frequent mention of ‘social licence’ and the need to educate the community about the importance of agvet chemicals. AFSA respectfully submits that the public and the global scientific community are pretty well across the dangers of over-use of chemicals, and the inherent vulnerabilities of monocultures of crops or animals. There are major problems in the very way we farm – farming against nature rather than with it. So long as CropLife is a key source of information on how best to manage the risks of chemicals in agriculture, we will never address these deeper issues so well understood by the various governing bodies of the UN, and so long understood by the Original Owners of this land.  

Filed Under: Legal Defence Fund, Submissions, Uncategorised

Support Food Sovereignty

Join or renew your AFSA membership today!

Search

Recent Posts

  • Submission to the Independent Review of the Agvet Chemicals regulatory system
  • Solidarity Sessions 2021 – Tyson Yunkaporta & Tammi Jonas, Wed 3 Feb
  • Can agriculture stop COVID-21, -22, and -23? Yes, but not by greenwashing agribusiness
  • 2020 National Committee Report
  • Nominations to the AFSA National Committee for 2020-2021

Read more about…

Latest submissions

Local Laws submission to defend the right to common resources

Last week AFSA made a submission to the Hepburn Shire Council to defend residents’ rights to forage, collect firewood, have more than 20 chooks, and salvage materials from the tip and roadside without need for a permit. We were concerned that these laws originated from overzealous risk management policies rather than residents’ interests. Further, they […]

FSANZ proposes ‘licence to sell lettuce’ – AFSA says NO

On 3 May 2019, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) released an information paper on its proposed approach to a review of food safety standards in the Food Standards Code (the Review). The intention is to create a consistent and up-to-date approach to food safety management with regard to so-called “high-risk horticulture,” which includes a […]

NSW Fresh Food Pricing Parliamentary Inquiry Hearing

On Friday 22 June 2018, AFSA attended the NSW Fresh Food Pricing Parliamentary Inquiry Hearing at Parliament House in Sydney. AFSA was selected and recognised as a key stakeholder in the food system by the parliamentary members in this Upper House inquiry. Tammi Jonas, president of AFSA, and our paralegal Sarah de Wit were welcomed […]

Response to the Proposed Draft Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry

View AFSA’s entire submission here.  The current review of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry offers the first opportunity in 15 years to improve the minimum welfare standards for domestic poultry in Australia. It provides the chance to modify Australian standards to reflect current animal welfare science and […]

Poultry Welfare Reforms Fact Sheet

The Codes for animal welfare for poultry are being reviewed for the first time in over 15 years. The result will be one Australia-wide Code on animal welfare for poultry. Two main documents, along with an independent Farmed Bird Science Welfare Review and many supporting papers, have been released for public comment: The Draft Standards […]

Newsletter

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Become a member

Join or renew

Already a member?

Login

Update membership details

Recent posts

  • Submission to the Independent Review of the Agvet Chemicals regulatory system February 15, 2021
  • Solidarity Sessions 2021 – Tyson Yunkaporta & Tammi Jonas, Wed 3 Feb January 26, 2021
  • Can agriculture stop COVID-21, -22, and -23? Yes, but not by greenwashing agribusiness December 15, 2020
  • 2020 National Committee Report November 3, 2020
  • Nominations to the AFSA National Committee for 2020-2021 October 23, 2020

Copyright © 2021 · Outreach Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in