While so many companies have shown their disdain for doing the right thing time and time again, this government seems the solution is to reduce their reporting, and thus eliminate effective oversights until ‘something hits the fan’ and a reactive measure is taken. It is worrisome this is all about profits and business, and not a word about us.
5 Likes
One step forward, two steps back…repeat.
I agree that most of it is about business profit at the consumers’ expense.
One thing in his statement that I do agree with is “automatic mutual recognition”. But why is “automatic mutual recognition” only for “workers”? What about doctors, teachers, security, and everyone else who had to get a state-based licence?
3 Likes
Commonwealth mutual recognition legislation has been around for decades. State based registration exists because it is a state responsibility. Whether Commonwealth legislation can over-ride the states in this instance is relevant.
When I was at TAFE each state ran independently. Getting recognition of training when needing to move between states remains a challenging experience.
None should be surprised.
5 Likes
Letting businesses self check might save a few dollars for the business, but about the consumer? The exporters listed have a paid a price in their product being refused, but as the article states how many shipments did not get inspected. There is no reason to think our exports are any more or less wholesome than our domestic supplies.
For those not clicking through, the gist of it is
Critics of company-run inspections say the system can result in more contaminated meat because plant workers often aren’t as experienced as government inspectors and may also feel pressure from their employers to prioritise speed over safety.
The Australian Meat Industry Council, a trade association, did not respond to a request to comment.
Brooke Muscat, deputy national president at Australia’s Community and Public Sector Union, which represents government inspectors and opposes the semi-privatised system, says government inspection jobs have fallen by half.
She anticipates that Australian meatpackers will have replaced almost all federal inspectors with company employees by the end of 2022.
“As they’ve announced more outsourcing of meat inspection, we’re saying what you’re going to see is increasing rejections in the US,” Muscat says.
There was no additional comment to the effect that is also what we will inevitably see here.
3 Likes
This is actually a very complex issue - more complex than just ‘speed over safety’. No matter what sort of industrial process is involved, there is a trade-off between the various costs of process, the end selling-price, and what the end consumer is willing/able to pay. Within the costs of production are issues such as making, packing, transporting and marketing the consumer product, and also the costs of worker safety, quality testing, safety testing, and consumer communications. All of these issues are zero-sum so far as money is concerned; if goods are to be offered to the end consumer at the lowest possible price, then every other consideration has to be sacrificed. The key question to be considered here, I suggest, is how, if at all, is quality testting to be handled with an eye to allowing consumers, here and overseas, informed choices.
My suggestion is for meat packers to be given, by legislation, two choices: 1. They can continue to self-test for safety, in which case they must label their products as ‘uncertified safety’ (or some such term - I’ve an open mind, remembering that there are some people for whom even contaminated food would be gratefully received); or, 2. they may use (and pay for) the certification of a 3rd-party inspecting organisation - government or private-sector - who then puts their name on the product. For marketing reasons (both local and overseas), I’d want there to be just one inspection standard, so that its stamp of approval could be universally recognised, with draconian penalties for both the inspector organisation and its employees if it skimps or cheats on its inspections.
The aim here is to force meat packers to choose: either top-safety, or lower prices - no half-way options.
Oh, and by the way, who pays for guardians to guard the guardians of this safety-first world? I’d suggest that Government inspections should monitor the activities of independent inspector-companies, who would pay for this service themselves. My theory is that quality is a consumer service, and should be paid for, initially by the companies involved, but ultimately by the consumers of their products. Tax-payer money from vegans and vegetarians should not pay for any of this.
1 Like
That may be the case with universal health care like our Medicare, perhaps less so in the USA where a serious case of food poisoning could bankrupt the segment of the population in the economic ranges where they would chance it, and in some areas of the world chancing any nourishment whether or not accompanied by a few days suffering would be better than nothing.
Do you also think childless couples taxes should not pay for child care subsidies? Self sufficient garden farmers’ taxes should not subsidise diesel for the bush farming communities? White people’s taxes should not provide service to aboriginal communities? You can see where that would go so I’ll step back from further expanding on your thought bubble.
Some believe taxes are taxes and everything government does should be user pays. I am of the group that believes we should get something tangible back for our taxes, and the community pays for community good even if it is not congruent with their personal good in each case.
Yes because it is on behalf of the companies rather than explicitly for the companies.
3 Likes
Good points all. Drilling in somewhat…
Actually, I am not advocating FOR contaminated food, but rather observing that that that there are levels of contamination, some of which may seem not so bad to some people. I guess my starting point here is the school of thought that says even the slight traces of diesel pollution that can waft into the meat packing plant’s air conditioners from the delivery vehicles is contamination too much contamination, even though perhaps current measurement technology can’t actually detect it. I know this may seem like nit-picking, but fact is that many or all of our food stuffs are contaminated, even if only a little bit, so the question really is: how much is acceptable, and to whom?
Behind this thought, not made clear, is concern for Climate Change; Cows at least generate greenhouse gases, and I simply don’t hold with the notion of taxpayer money going to pay for other people’s desire to create global warming, or selfish indifference. If there are other animals being turned into food with no environmental implications, fine; for them I withdraw my remarks.
Are you are agreeing with me, or adding comment? Which companies are which?.
Depends how it goes with your proposal. If there is a ‘less safe’ and ‘more safe’ label it should be the companies and their customers who pay since it becomes a market exercise.
I would prefer all foods to be ‘safe’ not just ‘more safe’ through an independent taxpayer funded regulatory and oversight regime funded by everyone, including ‘vegans and vegetarians’.
I too would prefer that. I would also prefer that world over-population, and its consequential resource shortages, global warming and constant pandemics did not exist. Unfortunately, I see a link between the two propositions, and so, with respect and regretfully, I must insist that discussion of one must involve discussion of the other. ‘Business as usual’ is no longer an option.
Having said which: you started this discussion, and I presume you had some practical purpose in mind, such as, maybe, a Choice campaign on this issue? Obviously, from your remarks, you have clear opinions on this topic, and do not need anybody to tell you what to think. So what was your objective? Forgive me, please, but I am a Choice newbie, and so I am unsure where you are looking for this discussion to go.
It’s a very general observation that might apply to just about everything these days. The one caveat is many of us just wish things would go back to how it used to be. The ‘shrinks’ suggest society looks more to past experiences for comfort. It’s not that we are change adverse. It’s more that we would rather change towards something we know than boldly adventure forward.
My take on Government regulation of the mundane reflects the experiences of one working lifetime only. Once upon a time Governments at all levels shared the burden of checking and approving many aspects of our lives. Their interests ranged from building inspection to butter and egg marketing boards.
The thrust of this topic seems to be about the observed risks of transitions from direct intervention by Governments to less hands on outcomes. Regulation has not been reduced. The subsequent consequences/outcomes are less about what is regulated and more about who is responsible for compliance.
In respect of Australian export meat inspection and quality of the exported product. All Australian’s benefit from the trade in one way or another. Poor performance of the industry reflects on Australia’s and hence our general communities standing. It’s the role of The Government of the Commonwealth to manage those external relationships. When something is not going as it should, EG due to compliance back home, the buck stops at that door. It’s not complex.
We all are in one way or another.
1 Like
The initial purpose was to flag that government oversight was never rigorous, and is getting less rigorous by design and intention, at least under the current government, and there is little reason to think anyone in the Tweedle family would do much different.
The Community forum is not an activist ‘organisation’ or website, but is intended to offer a forum for education, opinion, and consumer advice and assistance.
1 Like
This forum is probably not activist by design but it does get linked into Choice campaigns. Also there are some members who want it to be activist either to support their battle against specific vendors or because they are of a mind to mount a campaign themselves and want to drum up support.
1 Like
Thank you PhilT and syncetic; much food for thought. Hopefully fully Government inspected food. 
I’ll go away now and chew on it a bit; I’ve had my say for the moment.
Thanks once more.
3 Likes
