See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260875486

Food safety regulations in Australia and New Zealand Food Standards

Article in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.6657 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

25 2,426

1 author:

Dilip Ghosh
Nutriconnect
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,000 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dilip Ghosh on 28 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review
Received: 31 October 2013 Revised: 10 March 2014 Accepted article published: 17 March 2014 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6657

Food safety regulations in Australia and New

Zealand Food Standards
Dilip Ghosh*

Abstract
Citizens of Australia and New Zealand recognise that food security is a major global issue. Food security also affects Australia and
New Zealand’s status as premier food exporting nations and the health and wellbeing of the Australasian population. Australia is
uniquely positioned to help build a resilient food value chain and support programs aimed at addressing existing and emerging
food security challenges. The Australian food governance system is fragmented and less transparent, being largely in the hands
of government and semi-governmental regulatory authorities. The high level of consumer trust in Australian food governance
suggests that this may be habitual and taken for granted, arising from a lack of negative experiences of food safety. In New
Zealand the Ministry of Primary Industries regulates food safety issues. To improve trade and food safety, New Zealand and
Australia work together through Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and other co-operative agreements. Although
the potential risks to the food supply are dynamic and constantly changing, the demand, requirement and supply for providing
safe food remains firm. The Australasian food industry will need to continually develop its system that supports the food safety
program with the help of scientific investigations that underpin the assurance of what is and is not safe. The incorporation of a
comprehensive and validated food safety program is one of the total quality management systems that will ensure that all areas
of potential problems are being addressed by industry.
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: Australia; New Zealand; food security and safety; food safety regulation; FSANZ

INTRODUCTION countries originates in other countries’. Diminishing trust in the

The integrity of the food supply has been under intense scrutiny in
recent years. It is now recognised that food safety and quality con-
cerns are critical in all components of the food supply chain. Better
quality products and safer foods are the basic need of consumers,
and these higher expectations are resulting in higher requirements
being placed upon producers and exporters. Coupled with the rise
in consumer activist groups and the possibility of adverse media
reporting, increasing pressure has been placed upon policy and
law makers to ensure that food safety and quality are maintained
to a high standard.
WHAT GLOBALISATION MEANS IN FOOD
SAFETY
Proponents of globalisation always advocate that a borderless
economy will stimulate greater market competition, economic
freedom, price reduction, increasing production and availability,
access to new technologies and overall higher living standards
in both developing and developed countries. The high pace of
globalisation has also imposed some tangible challenges on the
world economy. Food security, food safety and nutrition are at the
top of the list of these challenges. A few countries such as India
have recently introduced a Food Security Bill, but critics are very
vocal on the lack of nutrition security in this Bill.
food supply associated with food scares is reflected by major inter-
national researches. The ‘Trust in Food’ survey conducted in seven
European countries demonstrated that, while retailers are trusted
to maintain the safety of food products, other players, including
farmers, food authorities, the food manufacturing industry and
the media, are distrusted by food consumers.1 The role of trust in
food has become increasingly complex, because consumers can-
not possibly be knowledgeable about all of the underlying issues
surrounding food choices.
Newly adopted food governance strategies in the UK rely on
partnership between government and industry. Food safety has
become the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), a
semi-governmental body with a degree of independence with the
goal of protecting public health and restoring confidence in food,
while supermarkets have been given greater responsibility for the
development and maintenance of standards.2,3 This co-sharing
responsibility has resulted in the formation of British Retail Consor-
tium Global Standards, which establish norms for food safety and
quality control for supermarkets,4 while consumer involvement is
encouraged through the establishment of a Consumer Committee
as part of the FSA.5
The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan on 11 March
2011 led to releases of radioactive material into food and the

∗ Corresponding to: Dilip Ghosh, Nutriconnect, Sydney, NSW, Australia. E-mail:

GLOBAL SCENARIO dghosh@optusnet.com.au
One US report (Healthy People 2010, http://www.healthypeople.
gov) said that ‘an increasing amount of the food eaten in most Nutriconnect, Sydney, NSW, Australia

J Sci Food Agric (2014) www.soci.org © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry

 www.soci.org
environment from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant,
causing one of the most significant food safety issues in recent
times.6 With respect to Japan, the assessment of this disaster
‘estimates that the lifetime risk for some cancers may be somewhat
elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups that
were in the areas most affected. On the basis of these findings,
the continued monitoring of food and the environment remains
important’.6
AUSTRALIAN SITUATION
Australian society is continuously emerging as a knowledge-based
one with heightened public interest in science-based issues and
a desire for public participation in decision making. The public
expects that governments will realise and implement the benefits
of new scientific discoveries and new technologies for the pur-
pose of both public protection and economic growth. Global cli-
mate change and its impact on Australian business is a prime and
topical issue, even impacting on a recent federal election cam-
paign. In Australia, projected impacts include higher temperatures,
less rainfall, more frequent and more severe droughts and more
extreme storms. Australian governments are working towards an
adaptation framework to minimise the impacts on agriculture,
water supply, infrastructure, biodiversity and human health. Thus
the issues facing governments are increasing in complexity and
require decisions that have a profound impact on communities
and economies.
HOW AUSTRALIA DIFFERS FROM REST OF THE
WORLD
Australia’s relative isolation and its belief in limited food
importation7 have also been identified as factors that con-
tribute to trust in the Australian food supply.8 Australians are still
sticking to the old adage ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Trust in the
Australian food system differs significantly from that in Europe.
Perceptions of ‘foreign food’ are more negative concerns about
the impact of food safety and quality standards and food scares.
Lack of knowledge and subsequently trust in food systems in
other countries is one of the major factors in distrust in foreign
food. A few recent studies demonstrated that, while politicians
and the media are distrusted, farmers enjoy high levels of trust
in all food-related institutions (except the media).9 – 11 Australia is
considered as one of the safest food suppliers in the world and
has not experienced any significant food scares of the magnitude
experienced in Europe. However, recent Australian surveys high-
light fears surrounding the use of pesticides, food additives and
preservatives.12,13 A number of local developments such as food
microbiological scares,14 new technological developments8,15
and food irradiation16,17 have challenged consumer confidence
in food safety and security. In a consumer attitude survey by
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ),12 the data
suggest moderate levels of trust in the food regulator and a
strong expectation of the role of government in managing
food safety.
In Europe, reform of the food regulatory system was driven by
external factors, including a need to reduce the regulatory burden
on the food industry18 and to remain competitive in the export
market.19 In Australia/New Zealand, FSANZ was established ‘in
response to poor compliance with World Trade Organisation
treaties governing food safety and free trade, which require that
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
D Ghosh
Australia ensure protection of public health without restricting
trade’.20 The preventive approach to food safety is reflected in
legislation that defined ‘what should be achieved rather than
how it should be achieved and, as a result, the whole regulatory
movement ended up more applying general standards across
food groups’. This preventive approach to food safety is mov-
ing towards co-regulation of food production methods through
greater self-regulation of food hygiene by the food manufacturing
industry.19,21 The Australian food governance systems appear to
be less streamlined than those of other countries, with possible
weak consumer understanding and interaction with relevant
bodies and stakeholders.
NEW ZEALAND SITUATION
The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI, http://www.foodsafety.
govt.nz/) is responsible for developing and implementing the
legislation that ensures that safe and suitable food is avail-
able in New Zealand and for export. Within this legislation,
food safety is an important component, and MPI works with
industry and consumers to (1) improve the safety and suit-
ability of food, (2) prevent deterioration of human health and
the environment and (3) sustain and enhance market access
for exports.
The Food Act 1981, Animal Products Act (APA) 1999, Agricultural
Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997 and Wine
Act 2003 are the four main components of this legislation.
MPI approaches food regulation using a risk management frame-
work that includes consultation within New Zealand and through
international networks. New Zealand and Australia work together
to improve trade and food safety through FSANZ and other
co-operative agreements.
MPI has developed a new Food Act (http://www.foodsafety.govt.
nz/policy-law/reform-nz-food-regulations/food-bill/) that is cur-
rently before parliament.
GENESIS OF AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND FOOD
SAFETY REGULATION
Australia is a federation of six states and two commonwealth
territories. Victoria was the first state to introduce laws regulating
foods in the mid-19th century. In 1879 the New South Wales
government passed the first general legislation, the Adulteration
of Food Prevention Act.
After formation of the federation, Victoria again, in 1905, was
the first state to introduce specific legislation to control the man-
ufacture and sale of foods, followed by other states. Since the
elimination of provincial governments in 1876, New Zealand has
applied the Sale of Food and Drugs Act throughout the country.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), an
advisory national body within the Commonwealth Department of
Health, was established in 1936. The main responsibility of this
newly formed council was to advise both commonwealth and
state governments on matters of public health, including food.
Food standards development was transferred from NHMRC to the
Bureau of Consumer Affairs in the Attorney-General’s Department
in 1989 and subsequently transferred to the National Food Author-
ity (NFA) in 1990, which later became the Australia New Zealand
Food Authority (ANZFA).
The current regulatory body, FSANZ, was established by virtue of
the revised amended Commonwealth, State and Territory Agree-
ment in 2000. Although FSANZ is a bi-national body, there are a
J Sci Food Agric (2014)
Food Safety in Australia-New Zealand
few significant areas of non-uniformity in the framework of the
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA). Under
TTMRA, products supplemented with vitamins, minerals and other
substances (e.g. caffeine) may be legally imported from New
Zealand and sold in Australia, though their manufacture in Aus-
tralia is banned.
AUSTRALIAN FOOD SAFETY REGULATION
The cooperative arrangement that exists between Australia,
New Zealand and the Australian states and mainland territories
enables the development and implementation of uniform food
standards with the aim of protecting public health and safety. The
standards in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code are
legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003
(http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandard
scode.cfm), the Code, which is implemented by food legislation in
each Australian state and territory and in New Zealand.
Food regulation in Australia, in contrast, continues to be frag-
mented, occurring over multiple levels of governance.22 After a
series of reviews, the current Code is still not as prescriptive as
industry wants. The current direction is still trapped within a very
basic concept of food.
The responsibilities of the federal government include
the establishment of standards, importation restrictions
and quarantine, and food labelling. State and territory gov-
ernments establish food legislation and implement and
enforce standards, while food inspection is managed by local
councils.19,22,23
The Food Safety Standards were developed to provide more
effective and nationally uniform food safety legislation for Aus-
tralia. This is reflected in Chapter 3 (Australia only) of the Food
Standards Code.
Standards 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.3.1 are mandatory for all food
businesses. A guide to these three standards, called Safe Food
Australia, is available through FSANZ (http://www.foodstandards.
gov.au/foodstandards/foodsafetystandardsaustraliaonly/).
Standard 3.1.1 Interpretation and Application
This is the introductory standard that explains the terms used
in the other standards. It includes the provisions required
by food businesses and food handlers to comply with the
standards.
Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs
This standard sets out the requirements for the control of food
safety hazards during the production, manufacture and handling
of food. This standard is not mandatory for all food businesses.
It applies to certain industry sectors that have been identified as
being of high risk.
Standard 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General
Requirements
This standard sets out specific food handling controls relating to
the receipt, storage, processing, display, packaging, transporta-
tion, disposal and recall of food.
Standard 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment
This standard sets out the requirements for food premises, fixtures,
fittings, equipment and food transport vehicles.
J Sci Food Agric (2014) © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
Standard 3.3.1 Food Safety Programs for Food Service
to Vulnerable Persons
This standard requires food businesses that process food for
service to vulnerable people to implement a documented and
audited food safety program.
NEW FORMS OF FOOD
New forms of food production, processing and distribution have
resulted in rising consumer concern over food safety and quality.
At present, food safety is receiving an unprecedented amount
of attention: problems ranging from ‘mad cow disease’ to milk
products contaminated with melamine have alerted the pub-
lic to the potential hazards of industrially produced foods and
globalised food systems. Consumers tend to be concerned about
different elements of food risks. This was demonstrated in a
government-led, Australia-based consumer study that revealed
significant differences in the ratings that respondents gave to
the perceived risks associated with chemical, health and spoilage
food safety issues. The greatest perceived threats to food safety
were cited as pesticides, sprays and residues (identified by 26%
of respondents), chemicals (20% of respondents) and problems
of spoilage, germs and products being past their sell-by date.24
This study supports previous research showing that various
groups within society understand and respond to food safety risks
differently.
CONCLUSION
When a comparison of food regulation is made between Europe,
in particular the UK, and Australia, it is clear that food regulation
in both regions is heavily influenced by global economic liberalisa-
tion such as international free trade and food safety treaties, which
have diminished the extent of control of national governments
over internal food safety standards. There are differences between
regions, however, primarily related to the degree of consumer
involvement and transparency built into the system. Following
several food scares, the European governments have implemented
food governance mechanisms that promote transparency through
greater industry and consumer involvement in food governance;
in contrast, the Australian food governance system is fragmented,
being largely in the hands of government and semi-governmental
regulatory authorities, with less transparency around food gover-
nance. The Australasian food industry will need to be constructive
and innovative in continually developing its system that supports
the food safety program with the help of scientific investigations.
The incorporation of a comprehensive and validated food safety
program is one of the total quality management systems that will
ensure that all areas of potential problems are being addressed by
industry. For regulators, the ultimate requirement to ensure com-
pliance through verification will remain, although the framework
that necessitates this requirement be addressed may change.
The perceptions associated with food safety and quality are
important and changing these perceptions is an important
endeavour, ‘as the ultimate acceptance of success of a product
will be based on the food these consumers purchase, prepare and
consume’.25
REFERENCES
1 Poppe C and Kjærnes U, Trust in Food in Europe. National Institute for
Consumer Research, Oslo (2003).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org
2 Shaw A, ‘It goes against the grain’: public understandings of geneti-
cally modified (GM) food in the UK. Publ Understand Sci 11:273–291
(2002).
3 Wales C, Harvey M and Warde A, Recuperating from BSE: the shifting
UK institutional basis for trust in food. Appetite 47:187–195 (2006).
4 Havinga T, Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law Pol
28:515–533 (2006).
5 Halkier B, Holm L, Domingues M, Maggaudda P, Nielsen A and Terragni
L, Trusting, complex, quality conscious or unprotected? Construct-
ing the food consumer in different European national contexts. J
Consum Cult 7:379–402 (2007).
6 WHO, Health Risk Assessment from the Nuclear Accident after the 2011
Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. World Health Organiza-
tion, Geneva (2013).
7 PMSEIC, Australia and Food Security in a Changing World. The Prime
Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra
(2010).
8 Lupton D, Lay discourses and beliefs related to food risks: an Australian
perspective. Sociol Health Illness 27:448–467 (2005).
9 Henderson J, Coveney J and Ward P, Who regulates food? Australians’
perceptions of responsibility for food safety. Aust J Prim Health
16:344–351 (2010).
10 Henderson J, Coveney J, Ward PR and Taylor AW, Farmers are the
most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a
national survey of consumers. ANZ J Publ Health 35:319–324
(2011).
11 Henderson J, Ward P, Coveney J and Meyer S, Trust in the Aus-
tralian food supply: innocent until proven guilty. Health Risk Soc
14:257–272 (2012).
12 FSANZ, Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007: a Benchmark Survey of Con-
sumers’ Attitudes to Food Issues. Food Standards Australia New
Zealand, Canberra (2008).
13 Buchler S, Smith K and Lawrence G, Food risks old and new: demo-
graphic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regula-
tion and contamination in Australia. J Sociol 46:1–22 (2010).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
View publication stats
D Ghosh
14 Beers M, Haemolytic–uraemic syndrome: of sausages and legislation.
ANZ J Publ Health 20:453–455 (1996).
15 Cox D, Evans G and Lease H, The influence of information and beliefs
about technology on the acceptance of novel food technolo-
gies: a conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts. Food Qual Prefer
18:813–823 (2007).
16 FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand), Melamine in
foods from China. [Online]. (2008). Available: http://www.
foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2008/mela
mineinfoods from china/ [14 February 2013].
17 Breidbach A, Bouten K, Kroger K and Ulberth F, Capabilities of labora-
tories to determine melamine in food – results of an international
proficiency test. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:503–510 (2010).
18 Blair W, Food: a Growth Industry. Report of the Food Regulation Review.
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (1998).
19 Hobbs J, Fearne A and Spriggs J, Incentive structures for food safety
and quality assurance: an international comparison. Food Control
13:77–81 (2002).
20 Martin T, Dean E, Hardy B, Johnson T, Jolly F, Matthews F, et al., A new
era for food safety regulation in Australia. Food Control 14:429–438
(2003).
21 Winger R, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Food Control
14:355 (2003).
22 Healy M, Brooke-Taylor S and Liehne P, Reform of food regulation in
Australia and New Zealand. Food Control 14:357–365 (2003).
23 Sacks G, Swinburn B and Lawrence M, A systematic policy approach
to changing the food system and physical environments to prevent
obesity. ANZ Health Pol 5:13 (2008).
24 Buchler S, Smith K and Lawrence G, Food risks, old and new. Demo-
graphic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regula-
tion and contamination in Australia. J Sociol 46:353–374 (2010).
25 Taylor AW, Coveney J, Ward PR, Dal Grande E, Mamerow L, Henderson J,
et al., The Australian Food and Trust Survey: demographic indicators
associated with food safety and quality concerns. Food Control
25:476–483 (2012).
J Sci Food Agric (2014)