V.RDA.2009 - Technical review and comparison of red meat integrity systems – how does Australia stack up against the world?

Summary

Australia has long held a global reputation of strong leadership in the implementation of integrity systems. While our integrity system continues to achieve its intended purpose, it is recognised that our competitors are catching up, so we need to proactively embrace innovation and be ready for the future. We also need to do a stocktake and compare how our systems are performing verses our competitors so we can identify areas of risk and opportunities for improvement.

Competitors around the world are implementing integrity systems that are comparable to our current red meat integrity system. Through this project, red meat integrity systems from across the world were compared in terms of their technical capability, sophistication, overall success and reputation.

Objectives

1. Complete a global scan of other countries that have implemented traceability and product assurance systems and models to support similar outcomes to Australia’s red meat integrity systems.
2. Assess the technical capability and sophistication of these systems including how they identify and assess risks, how controls are determined and how performance is measured at both a business/individual and industry level.
3. Assess overall success (or not) of these systems to manage compliance and biosecurity or food safety incidences, how major breaches (if any) have been handled (including impacts to market access) and the subsequent reputation of the system’s/that country’s product.
4. Review any strategic roadmaps that might exist for assessed systems and how these align or differ with the Australian red meat integrity system’s future direction.
5. Compare and contrast the systems assessed, including their key strengths and weaknesses vs the Australian system, and provide recommendations on opportunities for Australia’s integrity systems to remain world leading.

Key findings

There was much in common across the countries reviewed. These include:
• All livestock traceability systems used by each country are about minimising the impact of an exotic/endemic animal disease incursion/outbreak.
• The systems are operated nationally and underpinned by legislation.
• The systems cover relevant animal species (cattle and sheep).
• The systems have devices to provide animals with a unique or group identification (ID).
• The systems record all movements of animals.
• The systems have a database to hold the relevant data.
• The systems have penalties for non-compliance.
There were also key differences noted, including:
• Some systems cover all animals, others include just a subset of animals.
• Some systems are run by the government, others are delegated to industry/commercial entities.
• Some systems are funded largely by users of the system and others are largely funded by the government.
• Some systems have the property (farm) as the responsible entity while others have the person who manages the animals as the responsible entity.
• Some systems mandate electronic (Radio Frequency Identification - RFID) devices while others mandate visual tags.
• Some systems have an additional objective of enhancing customer/consumer confidence.
• Some systems require annual reports on all animals held on a property while others do not.
• Some countries have national on-farm Quality Assurance (QA) schemes as an element of the integrity system while others do not.
• Some systems require the vendor to certify the product integrity of the animal (chemical use, HGPs etc) while others do not.
• The way that compliance is enforced and ensured is different across systems.
• The degree of redundancy built into the system.
• The extent of information required to be gathered is different across systems.
• Some systems mandate that traceability be carried through to cuts at retail while others end at the carcase stage.

Benefits to industry

This global comparison was determining whether Australia is still considered globally at the forefront for red meat integrity systems. The global comparison of integrity systems found that the components of Australia’s red meat integrity systems managed by ISC remain at the forefront of global systems and that the IS2025 strategic plan addresses many of the potential innovations that other countries are considering.

MLA action

It was recommended that a global review and comparison of red meat integrity systems is undertaken every five years to check whether Australia is still at the forefront globally.

Future research

Undertake a global review and comparison of red meat integrity systems every five years to check whether Australia is still at the forefront globally.