Uncertainty for small-scale Tasmanian farmers over new food safety rules – Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Report on Proposed Tasmanian Food Safety Regulations and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Proposed food safety regulations in Tasmania for horticultural products present a critical intersection of public health objectives and the economic viability of local food systems. This report analyzes the conflict between the proposed standards and the operational realities of small- to medium-scale producers, examining the implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Regulatory Framework and Public Health Concerns: Aligning with SDG 3

Justification for New Standards

Biosecurity Tasmania has initiated a consultation on new food safety regulations developed by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. The primary driver for these regulations is the enhancement of public health and safety, a core target of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. The necessity for these standards is underscored by a history of foodborne illness outbreaks linked to horticultural products.

• Between 2011 and 2019, multiple Salmonella outbreaks were recorded.
• These outbreaks resulted in 10 fatalities and 275 reported cases of illness.
• Other pathogens, including hepatitis A, have also been identified in horticultural products.

The regulations aim to bring Tasmania into alignment with national standards, thereby protecting the state’s industry and reputation for producing safe, high-quality food.

Socio-Economic Challenges for Small-Scale Producers: A Threat to SDG 2, SDG 8, and SDG 12

Impact on Local Food Systems and Livelihoods

While the regulations serve a clear public health purpose, their proposed implementation raises significant concerns for the viability of small and medium-sized enterprises, directly impacting progress towards multiple SDGs.

1. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Producers like Sparrow Foot Farm, a 3-hectare market garden, fear that a one-size-fits-all regulatory model will impose prohibitive costs and administrative burdens. The draft regulations outline accreditation fees and auditing requirements that may not be scalable, threatening the economic sustainability of small businesses that are vital to local economies.
2. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The potential failure of small farms could undermine local food security. These producers are key to resilient local food systems, providing fresh, nutritious produce through direct-to-consumer models like vegetable box programs and farmers’ markets. Placing barriers on new entrants to the industry further jeopardizes the promotion of sustainable agriculture.
3. SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): Small farms often exemplify sustainable production patterns with shorter supply chains and direct customer engagement. The proposed regulations are seen as more appropriate for large-scale commercial operations with extensive distribution networks, potentially disadvantaging more sustainable, localized models of food production and consumption.

The Call for a Tiered Approach and Inclusive Policy: A Matter of SDG 17

Advocacy for a Proportional and Practical Framework

In response to the draft regulations, producers and representative bodies such as Sprout Tasmania are advocating for a “tiered” approach. This reflects a need for effective partnership and inclusive policymaking, central to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Key Concerns and Recommendations

• Lack of Proportionality: Stakeholders argue that the risks associated with small farms selling directly to local customers are fundamentally different from those of large distributors. A tiered system would apply regulations proportional to the scale and risk profile of the operation.
• Uncertainty and Frustration: The draft released for public consultation does not include a tiered framework, despite Biosecurity Tasmania indicating it was “looking at” such an approach. This has created significant uncertainty and a feeling among producers that the consultation may not be genuine.
• Call to Action: Sprout Tasmania and affected growers are urging Biosecurity Tasmania to revise the draft to incorporate a practical and achievable tiered system, citing successful precedents in other states. This would ensure that regulations protect public health without dismantling the local food economy.

The public consultation period, ending December 5, is a critical opportunity to integrate these concerns and develop a regulatory solution that balances food safety with the principles of sustainable development.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article focuses on small-scale food producers (Sparrow Foot Farm) who contribute to local food systems. The proposed regulations threaten the viability of these farms, which could impact local food production and the livelihoods of farmers.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • This is a central theme, as the proposed food safety standards are a direct response to foodborne illness outbreaks (salmonella, hepatitis A) that have caused deaths and sickness in Australia. The goal of the regulations is to protect public health.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article discusses the economic viability of small- and medium-sized agricultural businesses. The financial burden of the proposed regulations, including accreditation fees and auditing requirements, poses a significant threat to the livelihoods of these producers and could stifle the growth of an industry that is “already quite hard to make a living off.”
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights the role of government institutions (Biosecurity Tasmania) in developing regulations. It also covers the process of public consultation and the calls from producer groups (Sprout Tasmania) for a more inclusive, responsive, and transparent decision-making process that considers the needs of small-scale producers.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger):
   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The regulations aim to improve food safety, which is a key component of this target.
   • Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers… The article directly addresses this by highlighting how the proposed regulations, without a tiered approach, could negatively impact the income and viability of small farms like Sparrow Foot Farm, working against this target.
2. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of… water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases. The article explicitly mentions that the regulations were developed following outbreaks of salmonella and hepatitis A linked to horticultural products.
   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from… water… contamination and pollution. The regulations are a direct policy response to the “10 deaths and 275 reported cases” of foodborne illness, aiming to prevent future occurrences.
3. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support… creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises… The debate over a “tiered approach” to the regulations is central to this target, as a one-size-fits-all policy could harm small enterprises instead of supporting their growth.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article examines the process by which Biosecurity Tasmania is developing and consulting on regulations, with producer groups questioning the effectiveness and transparency of the draft.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The public consultation process is an example of this target in action. However, the frustration expressed by Sprout Tasmania suggests a concern that the process may not be genuinely responsive to the needs of small producers.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Indicator 3.9.2: Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene. The article provides specific data points that relate directly to this: “10 deaths” and “275 reported cases” from foodborne illness outbreaks between 2011 and 2019. The number of future outbreaks would be a key measure of the regulations’ success.
2. For SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Indicator 2.3.2: Average income of small-scale food producers. While not providing income data, the article implies this is at risk, citing concerns about the “viability of their businesses” and the difficulty of “mak[ing] a living.”
   • Cost of compliance: The article explicitly mentions an “annual accreditation fee” ranging from “$175 to $750” as a direct financial indicator of the burden on small producers.
3. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive. The article implies a negative perception from the small producer community, with Sprout Tasmania being “perplexed” and concerned that the “public consultation won’t be genuine.” The existence of the consultation process itself, with a deadline for submissions, is an indicator of participatory mechanisms.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: abc.net.au