BREAKING NEWS on salmon disease issue
NOTE: Refer to News Index. The following are items for which a reliable URL is not available.Later news
News index
Canadian Compo Bid Uproar
Hobart Mercury, 17 Mar 2000
Canada's $A45m compensation claim from Australia for lost revenue associated with the ban on raw imported salmon is unrealistic. The comment was made by the Tasmanian Salmon Growers' Association on 16 March 2000.
TSGA chairman Peter Bender said it was farcical to suggest that Canada has a 50 per cent share in a $A90m market. Just two per cent of Canada's total production of farmed salmon is exported beyond North America. Bender indicated that Canadian suppliers would need to strip prices by 30 per cent to remain competitive, associated with high freight and distributions costs.
Tasmanian Opposition Leader Sue Napier pressured the Tasmanian Government to ensure an appeal was lodged with the World Trade Organisation.
TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT MEDIA RELEASE
David Llewellyn, MHA
Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment
Thursday, 16 March 2000
SALMON ACTION
Discussions with the Commonwealth on the issue of imported raw Canadian salmon have been ongoing at all levels, including between the Prime Minister and the Premier.
The Tasmanian Government has made it clear that Tasmania will not back away from this issue.
We have also made it quite clear that it is now up to the Commonwealth to take action, and while we continue to press Minister Vaile’s office for a response we are acutely aware that time is running out for an appeal to be lodged.
We urge the Commonwealth to spell out the action it will take to achieve natural justice for Tasmania.
The Government has prepared a final letter setting out this position once again and we’ll be urging the Federal Minister to act accordingly.
Further Information:
Tasmanian Government Communications Office
Phone: (03) 6233 6007
Frankenfish scare
Las Vegas Sun, February 26, 2000
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-aus/2000/feb/26/022600535.html
New Zealand Salmon Research Halted
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BLENHEIM, New Zealand (AP) -- A controversy involving leaked secret documents, deformed fish heads and gargantuan salmon has ended with a New Zealand company agreeing to kill all its genetically engineered fish.
More than a year after New Zealand King Salmon Co. Ltd. was first accused of breeding mutant chinook salmon in the so-called "Franken-fish" experiment, the company announced Friday it would bury the remains of the specially grown fish and suspend its research.
King Salmon's chief executive Paul Steere said the company made the decision after it had successfully introduced an additional growth hormone gene into chinook salmon and passed the trait down three generations.
He denied the decision to suspend the project was influenced by political, ethical or scientific resistance.
Opponents of the project have fought for more than a year to stop it after leaked secret papers showed deformed heads and other abnormalities had occurred during the breeding program.
After receiving the new growth hormone gene, the salmon grew three times faster than the normal rate. According to the company, the genetically modified salmon could grow up to 550 pounds. Chinook, or Pacific king, the largest species of salmon, grow to 110 pounds in the wild.
King Salmon has admitted some of the first-generation fish had developed lumps on their heads due to apparent genetic deformities.
"All modified salmon have been killed and disposed of, in accordance with (scientific) containment protocols," Steere said in a statement.
The company said it would retain frozen sperm from genetically engineered salmon "at a secure location" so it was available to continue the program in the future.
The company's experimental work was halted as the government prepared to establish an inquiry into the project and its controls to prevent live salmon or fertile eggs escaping into the wild.
Time Magazine, 6 March 2000
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,39961,00.html
Make Way for Frankenfish!
--What Happens To These Ordinary Salmon If The Genetically Modified Lunkers Ever Get Loose?
BY FREDERIC GOLDEN
(pic compares a 40cm GM salmon with a 12cm unmodified sibling)
These salmon are siblings, yet one grew spectacularly, thanks to a gene transplant
Whether served as raw sushi, grilled steak or in thin smoked slices, most of the salmon you eat these days is not the sleek sport fish that has been a favorite of anglers since Izaak Walton but rather a chunky, sluggish creature raised in captivity. Indeed, salmon caught in the wild accounts for less than half of all salmon sold in the U.S.
Now gene splicers have cooked up a replacement that sounds like a fish tale: a veritable superfish, one that can grow at least twice as fast, resist disease and outmate competitors. If approved, it could provide protein to millions of people at a time when fish stocks are perilously low. But as you might expect, some critics are carping. They consider the supersalmon a biological time bomb that could destroy the remaining natural salmon populations and wreak other environmental havoc. To them, the supersalmon is nothing less than a "Frankenfish."
Unlike other genetically modified foods--so-called Frankenfoods--the supersalmon was born almost accidentally. About 20 years ago, a fish researcher in Newfoundland found that even though his saltwater tank had frozen, the flounder in it survived. Adapted to icy Canadian waters, the fish turned out to have a gene, known in other polar fishes, that produces an anti-freeze protein. While trying to splice this gene into salmon so it too could be grown in colder waters, scientists made a second accidental discovery: they found that while the gene didn't keep the salmon from freezing, a portion of it, when stitched onto a salmon's growth-hormone gene, greatly speeded development--up to five or six times as fast as in the early months and about twice as fast overall. Patenting their discovery, the scientists started a company in Waltham, Mass., called A/F Protein (A/F stands for antifreeze).
The company has 10,000 to 20,000 Atlantic supersalmon swimming in endless circles in 136 tanks at three locations in Canada's Maritime provinces. The hope is that these fish will soon be producing eggs for commercial aquaculture not just in Canada but in New Zealand, Chile and the U.S. as well. By turning to the supersalmon, says Elliot Entis, A/F's president, fish farmers could double production without doubling costs because the fish converts food into body mass so much more efficiently than ordinary salmon. That, he says, would mean "more fish for more people at a lower price."
But this so-called blue revolution may not reach U.S. shores for a while. Although gene scientists in the U.S. have been tinkering with a variety of marine creatures--not only salmon and trout but also carp, catfish, tilapia and shrimp--these efforts are drawing criticism similar to that directed at genetically modified foods. Opponents, who complain about the fertilizers and other pollutants released into coastal waters by the fish farms, are especially concerned about the potential impact on the gene pool. They note that domesticated fish regularly escape from their pens into the wild and breed with native stocks, upsetting the balance of nature.
No one knows what ripple effects might occur if the new supersalmon escaped into the wild. One of the few studies done by U.S. researchers found a lower survival rate for eggs produced by transgenic fish. Still other studies show that despite their name, so-called superfish have diminished muscle structure and swimming performance. Says Canadian fish geneticist Robert Devlin: "Science, at the moment, is unable to give us a reliable assessment of risk."
Entis and others reply that whatever the risk, it could be lowered to almost zero by raising the fish in closed tanks rather than in storm-exposed pens. Still another tactic under consideration is shocking the fertilized eggs so they create fish that cannot reproduce--a marine equivalent of the self-destructing terminator gene that Monsanto once considered putting in its patented plant seeds.
Fearing a consumer backlash, New Zealand King Salmon, a major producer of Chinook salmon--the largest Pacific salmon--announced last week that it was suspending its gene-modification experiments. Entis, by contrast, believes he can win acceptance of his supersalmon through public education. "We have to show we have nothing to hide," he says.
But don't count on putting supersalmon lox on your Sunday-morning bagel anytime soon. The Food and Drug Administration must first approve introduction of the fish into the U.S., something that probably won't happen before 2001.
LETTER TO EDITORS from Patricia Ranald (AFTINET), 23 February, 2000
The World Trade Organisation dispute panel decision against Australian quarantine provisions to control the spread of disease from the import of fresh salmon (SMH 21/2, p6) sounds another warning bell about the powers of the WTO to restrict the scope of legitimate government regulation.
The Dispute Settlement Panel found in favour of a Canadian complaint that Australian quarantine rules which required the salmon to be gilled, gutted and in consumer-ready packaging were too restrictive for importers to comply with. This was despite the finding of the panel that there were justified concerns about disease spreading into Australian fisheries from the import of whole fresh salmon. The Tasmanian government has in the meantime banned imports of fresh salmon, claiming its salmon industry could be wiped out by imported disease. Australia now faces trade sanctions unless it relaxes its quarantine rules.
Last year the WTO also ruled against European Union requirements for labelling of beef containing hormones and against an industry development grant to an Australian company exporting leather to the United States. Growing public concern at these trends have been expressed through the successful campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1998 and the demonstrations and collapse of the Seattle WTO Ministerial Meeting in November 1999.
The aim of the WTO is to create uniform and predictable investment conditions for business around the world. But this is eroding legitimate regulatory standards in a forum which is beyond the reach of democratic accountability.
A wide range of community organisations, including the Australian Conservation Council, the Australian Council of Social Services, the Australian Council of Overseas Aid and the Australian Council of Trade Unions has formed the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network. The network welcomes the development of fair trading relationships with all countries. It calls for greater public discussion and accountability for government trade policy and for international trade negotiation processes. It supports a critical re-assessment of the WTO framework, structures and dispute processes. It seeks to develop a trade policy framework which does not erode the ability to regulate on issues of economic development, the environment and human rights . The network can be contacted through the Public Interest Advocacy Centre address below.
Patricia Ranald
Principal Policy Officer
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
Level 1, 46-48 York St
Sydney 2000
P_Ranald@fcl.fl.asn.au
Ph 02 9299 7833
fax 02 9299 7855
TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT MEDIA RELEASE
David Llewellyn, MHA
Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment
Wednesday, 23 February 2000
SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR SALMON CONTROLS
A scientific assessment of the risk posed to Tasmania from imported fish products has concluded that protection measures, similar to those introduced on a cautionary interim basis, are appropriate as a permanent level of protection against potentially catastrophic economic consequences.
The conclusion is contained in the draft Import Risk Analysis (IRA), publicly released today by the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Mr David Llewellyn.
The Import Risk Analysis is a key component of the package underpinning Tasmania's measures to prevent the introduction of serious salmon diseases into the State.
"The analysis clearly identifies that the impact of the arrival of any one of several serious diseases of salmon would have a devastating effect on our natural environment and on our economy, in which the aquaculture industry plays an increasingly important role," the Minister said.
"The document sets out a scientific basis for excluding diseased raw fish products and gives separate consideration to each disease which may be introduced into Tasmania through imported fish.
"In the case of six of the diseases, each of which has the potential to extinguish the State's salmonid industry, the IRA concludes that the risk of entry must be reduced to an extremely low level," Mr Llewellyn said.
"Less stringent requirements are recommended for diseases with lower consequences for the State but in the case of five diseases only heat treatment will satisfy our Appropriate Level of Protection standards which buttress our quarantine controls."
The Import Risk Analysis also acknowledges that Tasmania can claim special circumstances because:
- Tasmania has a higher exposure to the consequences of salmonid disease than the rest of Australia.
- There is a very real threat arising from deliberate or accidental placement of imported fish product into waters near salmonid farms or in trout streams and lakes.
- Tasmania's disease-free status has been demonstrated by monitoring and surveillance to international standards (and is the only State to do so).
"Of course, fish from areas demonstrated to be free from serious disease may be imported.
"But in simple terms, the Tasmanian IRA has demonstrated that for some diseases, Tasmania presents more likely pathways for the introduction of disease agents to our environment than other areas of the country.
"Consequently, it concludes that the risk of disease agents escaping into the environment and becoming established is greater here and its economic and ecological consequences are potentially catastrophic.
"That is exactly and entirely the reason why we must draw a line in the sand at this point and defend both our natural environment and our aquaculture industry with extreme vigour," Mr Llewellyn said.
The report is also available on the web site www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/new.html
<
Further Information:
Tasmanian Government Communications Office
Phone: (03) 6233 6007
Jim Bacon, MHA, Premier of Tasmania
MEDIA RELEASE
Wednesday, 23 February 2000$150,000 For Disease Free Salmon Hatchery
The Tasmanian Government is to provide a $150,000 grant to help a salmon hatchery in the north east of the state capitalise on Tasmania’s disease free status.
Premier and Minister for State Development Jim Bacon said the grant made under the $1 million Innovations program would enable the hatchery to extend the spawning season from three months to seven months.
Mr Bacon said the firm. Springfield Fisheries is the oldest continually certified disease free trout and salmon hatchery in the world and a leading supplier of live eggs to the Northern Hemisphere.
"Springfield Fisheries is a perfect example of why Tasmania must jealously guard its disease free status.
"This hatchery sells live Atlantic Salmon and Rainbow Trout eggs to Australian and overseas hatcheries, exporting two thirds of its annual production.
"it has been able to secure and maintain a strong presence in the northern hemisphere market because the hatchery has never been infected by a serious salmon virus.
"In fact, there are no serious salmon viruses in Tasmania - a testament to the State’s stringent quarantine standards.
"The opportunity for Springfield hatchery is enormous with more and more international customers demanding that its fish eggs are supplied from regions recognised as disease free."
Mr Bacon said Springfield is on the verge of securing a major market in Chile, which has just introduced tough protocols prohibiting the import of salmon eggs from areas that are not recognised as disease free.
"Tasmania will have immediate access to the Chilean market because the state is known and recognised internationally as being clean of major salmon diseases such as Infectious Salmon Anaemia.
"By extending the spawning season in Tasmania and by maintaining its disease free status, Springfield expects to be able to double production and increase employment at its Scottsdale hatchery."
Mr Bacon said the Tasmanian Government would not give a centimetre in the fight to protect the state’s disease free status.
"I repeat - the State Government wants to work with the Commonwealth to develop an appeal to the World Trade Organisation to ensure Tasmania gets a special regional concession.
"To use the words of Minister Vaile, we want to extract a WTO sanctioned ban on imports of diseased salmon into Tasmania.
"That is the only way Springfield and dozens of other Tasmanian aquaculture firms can be sure that their reputation for disease free products will be protected."
Salmon Report - Government Considering Next Steps
Excerpt from statement by the Hon. Mark Vaile, Australian Trade Minister, 21 Feb 00The facts in regard to the Tasmanian measure are not in dispute - the Tasmanian measure put in place last November was not based on a risk assessment. Nor could it be claimed that the Tasmanian measure was supported by the AQIS IRA. Furthermore the AQIS procedures, which have now been ticked off by the WTO, already constitute a conservative approach to quarantine protection which the Commonwealth believes adequately safeguards Tasmania's salmon industry."
"The Commonwealth needs to have a reasonable degree of confidence in the strength of its legal grounds of appeal. In the meantime it could be highly prejudicial to our case to engage in public speculation on an appeal and possible outcomes."
Mr Vaile said it was imperative that Commonwealth and Tasmanian Government officials met soon to discuss the handling of the WTO case and our national response.
"I have asked my Department and AQIS to sit down with the Tasmanians this week to discuss the issues in an objective and fully considered way," Mr Vaile said. [Go to full Media Release ] Also: John Laws interview
Jim Bacon, MHA, Premier of Tasmania
MEDIA RELEASE
Monday, 21 February 2000Salmon Protection Measures
The Tasmanian Government has accepted a draft scientific document supporting the state’s quarantine ban on raw salmon imports.
Premier Jim Bacon said State Cabinet this morning endorsed the findings of the Import Risk Analysis (IRA).
Mr Bacon said the IRA provided the scientific evidence to justify the continuation of the import ban.
"Up until now , the ban on salmon imports has been an interim measure pending the results of the Import Risk Analysis.
"This document provides the scientific evidence we need to keep the ban in place and to support an appeal to the World Trade Organisation, to allow Tasmania to protect its disease free status.
"We have been heartened by the Commonwealth’s apparent change of heart on the chances of making a successful appeal to the WTO.
"The Tasmanian Government is prepared to work with the Commonwealth and to demonstrate our willingness, the IRA will be sent to the Federal Government before it is released publicly.
"This Import Risk Analysis (IRA) has been produced in record time to plug a hole left by the deficiencies of the Commonwealth’s IRA.
"The Commonwealth’s case did not sufficiently address Tasmania’s concerns or situation as a regional area needing protection from the risk of imported diseases."
"The Government is firm on this issue. We cannot compromise on our environment health and we cannot allow anyone to gamble with our $120 million a year aquaculture industry.
"The arrival of any exotic disease affecting our farmed fish, wild trout or native fishes would be a major threat.
"At risk would be our fish farming industry, our world-class recreational fishery and our unique environment – to say nothing of the very image upon which Tasmania relies for our future prosperity.
"In the simplest possible terms, we are talking about a potential catastrophe. We will not stand by idly and let it happen."
Jim Bacon, MHA, Premier of Tasmania
MEDIA RELEASE
Sunday, 20 February 2000Tasmania Will Not Back Down On Salmon
Premier Jim Bacon has called on all Tasmanians to unite against the threat posed to the state’s reputation for clean food by the World Trade Organisation and the Federal Government.
Mr Bacon said the Tasmanian Government would not buckle to pressure from the WTO and the Federal Government to weaken our quarantine laws and allow raw salmon into the state.
"This is not a trade issue. This issue is about the protection of Tasmania’s reputation as a producer of fine quality, disease free food.
"Tasmania is the only salmon producer in the world that is disease free and we have managed to maintain that status through tough quarantine measures.
"The Federal Government and the WTO need to understand our determination to maintain that disease free status.
"To send a clear and unequivocal message, I call on all Tasmanians, including Liberals senators to unite behind the State Government and Salmonid Growers.
"I am encouraged the State Opposition has offered bipartisan support but am extremely disappointed that Liberal senators are trying to use Tasmania as a scapegoat."
Mr Bacon said the WTO found that Australia, not just Tasmania, must relax its restrictions on salmon imports or face punitive trade retaliation from Canada.
"This is not just a Tasmanian issue. The Federal Government is being told it must water down its already lax import laws for salmon.
"I urge the Prime Minister and the Federal Coalition to stop using Tasmania as a scapegoat and stand up to the WTO and the Canadian Government."
"All primary industries will be watching Canberra. If it continues to retreat on the salmon issue, then all primary producers around the country have a right to be nervous."
"The Commonwealth has failed to impress upon the World Trade Organisation and the Canadian Government that Tasmania has a legitimate quarantine argument to ban raw salmon imports.
"As a result of the Commonwealth’s incompetence, the Canadians still believe the Tasmanian Government has imposed the import ban as a trade protection measure.
"Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tasmanian salmon market would be worth less than $30,000 to the Canadians - hardly worth the cost of pursuing the issue.
"But on the other hand, the State will lose a $120 million industry if it loses its disease free status with ramifications for all of Tasmania’s food industries."Contact: Tasmanian Government Communications Office, Phone: (03) 6233 6007
B.C. Salmon Farmers reinforce stance against ‘transgenics’
VANCOUVER, March 1 (Canada Newswire)
The Board of Directors of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) has reinforced its position against the use of transgenic - or genetically modified - fish in aquaculture.
At a Board meeting on February 24, 2000 in Campbell River, BCSFA Directors voted unanimously to strengthen its policy against the use of transgenic fish in British Columbia. Membership in the BCSFA is contingent upon companies using only naturally bred salmon for food production in their operations.
The prohibition against the use of transgenics is also enshrined in the BCSFA Code of Practice - a voluntary code of operational guidelines enacted on January 1, 2000 to improve the environmental performance of B.C. salmon farms prior to the implementation of new aquaculture regulations in British Columbia.
“B.C. salmon farmers are wholly opposed to the use of genetically modified fish in aquaculture - both here in British Columbia and around the world,” said BCSFA Executive Director Anne McMullin.
“Transgenic fish are not used in commercial production today, and should not be used in the future unless science can prove that they present no danger to human health, wild stocks or the marine environment.”
McMullin acknowledged the growing public concern about the use of genetically modified fish in aquaculture. She noted, however, that transgenic fish are not approved for use in aquaculture production anywhere in the world and that the international salmon farming industry has taken a firm stance against their use.
“There are activist groups that are using the future threat of transgenic fish in aquaculture as a means to oppose salmon farming as practiced today,” McMullin said. “It’s important that the public understands that the salmon farming industry shares its concerns about genetically modified fish, and has no plans to use transgenics now or in the future.”
CONTACT: Anne McMullin, Executive Director, (604) 682-3077
'Yes, Minister, we are grappling with inconsistency. . .'
The following 'Yes, Minister' type exchanges occurred in an 18 Feb 00 hearing on uncooked salmonid produce by the (Australian) Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. The full transcript is available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s775.pdf (Acrobat Reader needed)
[Hansard proof copy, at page 381]
Mr Digby Gascoine [Director, Policy and International Division, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service]—The SPS agreement recognises that it is a matter of national sovereignty to determine what is the appropriate level of protection. It points out that that term has the same meaning as ‘acceptable level of risk’. There is partly the correspondence with the OIE definition. What we do when we make a risk analysis is to assess risks and if the assessed risks exceed the acceptable level of risk then we specify control measures and other restrictions which would reduce the risk so that it falls within the acceptable level of risk or, in WTO terms, ‘meets our appropriate level of protection’. The appropriate level of protection is something which we can determine on a national basis. Indeed, the SPS agreement obliges us to know what our appropriate level of protection is at the national level and then to apply that in a consistent way. The implication of this framework is that the risk assessment and the measures applied to control risk and the appropriate level of protection must have a plausible relationship to each other. . .
Senator MURPHY—Who wrote that? Sir Humphrey?
* * * * * * * *
[at page 386]
Senator Calvert: . . . It really concerns me that we do not seem to have the power under the WTO rules to stop the importation of salmon or any fish product that comes from an area that has disease or from a farm that is known to have disease or could have disease. It is a difficulty that you face as our quarantine experts but, in a broader sense, we have a country that is free of disease in our wild fishery, basically, and in our farming fishery and we would like to keep it that way. But it seems that is at risk because of WTO rules.
Mr Paul Hickey [Executive Director, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service]: The facts are that there is an underlying rate of incursion of pests and diseases into Australia which happens every year. Generally, the transmission paths are well-known to be the enormous amounts of tourism and trade that come into this country, complex issues like ballast water and its discharge into the Australian marine environment, as well as the movement of particular commodities that we assess from time to time. When we make decisions, we have to be consistent in a way that has regard to the fact that there are other potential transmission routes. That is the sort of legal environment that we have got into through the WTO processes.
You are right to say that, to the extent that we do accept those obligations as a country by being a member of the WTO, we have to abide by the case law as it has been determined and is emerging. There is no argument about that.
Senator CALVERT—But the problem I have is this: we have the right to stop meat coming in from an area that has foot and mouth disease but we do not have the right to stop fish coming in from an area that has disease.
Mr Hickey—That is correct. It is because the starting point under the rules is the international codes and standards. The question you are raising, which is a valid one, is whether there is actually consistency amongst the standards themselves across a whole range of products. That is an entirely separate and very complex set of questions that we grapple with. Our response to that has to be to be involved in international processes. . . which ultimately feed into international standard determination processes. We have to seek to influence those processes in ways that best meet our requirements, but we are not starting from a perfect position. We concede that.
* * * * * * *
[at page 406]
Senator MURPHY—If the Tasmanian restrictions are found to be in breach, how does Foreign Affairs and Trade consider they might deal with that issue?
Mr Peter Hussin [First Assistant Secretary, Trade Negotiations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] —Under the agreement, Australia has an obligation, and the Australian government as the member of the WTO, to pursue with the subnational government to formulate and implement positive measures and mechanisms in support of the observance of the provisions of the agreement. In this case, were the Tasmanian measure to be considered and found wanting, we would need to be able to demonstrate that we had indeed met that obligation in respect of Tasmania. The memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmania would be the conduit through which we would pursue that issue.
Senator O’BRIEN—We were told earlier that that has got no force at law and is not enforceable.
Mr Hussin—I am not necessarily talking about its legal status. I am saying that that is the mechanism within which we would want to pursue the commitment of Tasmania to consult and to observe the provisions of the WTO. I am not commenting on its legal status.
* * * * * * *
[The earlier evidence, at page 390:]
Senator MURPHY—With respect to quarantine measures, how would the Commonwealth deal with the issue of Tasmania having in place quarantine measures that are considered by an international organisation to which the country is a signatory to be inconsistent with a judgment of that organisation, and there is a requirement on the country to ensure that its states comply with it? How would we deal with that? Is that justiciable?
Mr Mark Zanker [Assistant Secretary, International Trade and Environment Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department] —If there was some need to change legislation to ensure that Australia's domestic legislation complied with the requirements of a treaty, the legislation could be enacted at Commonwealth level and under the Constitution any inconsistent state legislation would be of no effect.
Senator O’BRIEN—I understand that. What I was referring to was the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the states on animal and plant quarantine measures.
Mr Zanker—I am not familiar with the memorandum.
Senator O’BRIEN—No, but would that be a political agreement?
Mr Zanker—In terms of having any legal force, I doubt it.
Senator O’BRIEN—So agreements of that nature between the Commonwealth and states have no legal force?
Mr Zanker—That is right.
Senator O’BRIEN—So, if Tasmania argued that the Commonwealth had breached such an agreement, you are saying Tasmania would have no means of pursuing the Commonwealth for breach of the agreement.
Mr Zanker—I do not believe so, no.
Senator MURPHY—Even if compensation measures were contained in that agreement they would potentially not be able to pursue compensation?
Mr Zanker—Again, it would depend on whether the agreement was legally binding, but it probably isn’t, and it would then be a matter of negotiation.
Senator O’BRIEN—So how would such an agreement become legally binding? It would have to be the subject of legislation, would it?
Mr Zanker—Yes, I would imagine it would.
On 22 November, 1999, the Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee conducted a teleconference with an independent UK specialist in fish diseases, Mr David Bucke. The full transcript is available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s2820.pdf
[at page 369 of the Hansard proof copy record:]
Senator CALVERT—. . .one of the criticisms by Canada of our protocols is that they are too strict. Yet, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service requirements rely on visual inspections for lesions and whatever of fish before they leave the processing country. In your experience with any of these diseases like furunculosis or IHN or whatever, just how readily can you see these lesions? We have had evidence that they are possibly hidden in the flesh and they can remain hidden in the flesh and you would not see them visually. Is that a reality?
Mr Bucke—Yes. I am a histologist. That is a person who looks at the tissues under the microscope. You can obviously see a haemorrhagic lesion with your eye. Whether you would see one underneath the skin if the skin was on, is another matter; I do not think you would see it in the muscle if it was a very small lesion. But when you start looking at histology sections of the various organs and muscle and things, you can actually see clumps of bacteria in the muscle bundles, very small foci of bacteria. You would not see these by eye at all, it is just not possible. You are talking of something smaller than a pinhead, much smaller. You can only see some of these lesions with the aid of a microscope. You would not see viral lesions, you only see haemorrhages really and you could easily miss tiny little specks of blood.
Senator CALVERT—One of our quarantine experts in evidence last week said that they were very concerned about ISA because it is not only a very serious disease but the nature of the agent is that it can be distributed in multiple tissues. Are there any other diseases that you are aware of that can be distributed in multiple tissues?
Mr Bucke—Yes, bacterial kidney disease, for example, furunculosis you certainly can, as I have just mentioned. I do not have a lot of practical experience with IHN as we do not have it in the United Kingdom. Any work I have ever done has only been on an experimental basis which is not quite the same as a natural outbreak of disease, so I could not really comment on that. Of course, there are other things like kudoa and other parasites that would certainly be in any tissue.
Senator CALVERT—So, you could have four or five diseases that could be distributed in multiple tissues, similar to what happens with ISA?
Mr Bucke—Yes, I believe so. Not every single fish is going to be diseased, obviously—
Senator CALVERT—It only takes one thought, doesn’t it?
Mr Bucke—It only takes one, yes, that’s right.
* * * * * * *
[at page 371]
CHAIR—If there was a disease in Britain, the European Union countries would not accept fish with that disease from Britain?
Mr Bucke—No, they certainly would not. We have very strict rules about that and it is not just salmonids; it is carp and other fish. We have three different categories of diseases and, if any of those are in the fish, they would not be allowed to be imported—certainly not from third countries.
CHAIR—Do those same rules apply to the US, Canada, Asian countries and, I guess, South America and Africa?
Mr Bucke—Yes.
CHAIR—They are consistent across the board?
Mr Bucke—Certainly from North America and Canada. I do not know about Africa. Did you say Africa?
CHAIR—Yes.
Mr Bucke—I do not know about Africa.
* * * * * * *
[at page 377]
CHAIR—Mr Bucke, the secretariat will send to you a copy of the Import risk analysis on non-viable salmonids and non-salmonid marine finfish as quickly as can get it there. We will also send you a Review of the import risk analysis on non-viable salmonids and salmonids marine fish, the David Gibson report which I quoted from, for you to have a look at. When you have had a look at them, would you address the differences that exist between the 1999 protocols and the 1996 protocols and say how much they have increased the risk with the new protocols that have come in? You will need this material to do that.
MAIL ON SUNDAY
September 19, 1999 Pg. 43
Frankenfish wiping out wild salmon
by William Lowther
STRAINS of farm-bred fish developed to grow fat quickly are threatening to drive Britain's majestic wild salmon into extinction. Millions of modified fish have escaped into the Atlantic from offshore farms in Europe and America.
And the new strains are mating with wild salmon, polluting their gene pool and producing hybrids that can't survive in the open ocean. Don Staniford, of the Scottish office of Friends of the Earth, said yesterday: 'Wild salmon are nearly extinct in a number of Scottish regions and rivers where they used to be plentiful. There's certainly a link between the decline of our wild salmon and the escape of these farm-bred fish. It's genetic pollution.'
Sue Scott, of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick, Canada, added: 'The farm fish are bred to be fat and lazy. Their genes have been manipulated by crossbreeding to produce a fish that grows quickly. 'They are kept in huge pens in the open ocean off the coast of New Brunswick and
the coast of Maine in the States. And over the last few years millions of them have escaped into the Atlantic. '
Wild salmon are muscular and built to make a long voyage into the ocean and back. But over the longer term the farm fish can't survive in the ocean and neither can the offspring of wild salmon and farm fish. The resulting fish can't make the rigorous migration and that''s one of the reasons the wild salmon are being wiped out.'
Selective breeding with salmon strains from all over the world means that farm fish are much bigger than their wild cousins. 'In fact, they're so big they look like footballs,' said federation president Bill Taylor. And scientists believe female wild salmon choose the bigger males for mating.
Miss Scott blamed unrestrained commercialism, saying: 'The problem is that governments have let salmon farming industry grow without regulation.' In the US, two major environmental groups Defenders of Wildlife and Trout Unlimited are suing the Federal Government in an effort to force them to put Atlantic salmon on the endangered species list.
New Zealand Trade Minister comments
11 August 1999: Joint Press Conference. Mark Vaile Australian Minister for Trade and Lockwood Smith, New Zealand International Trade Minister. [Excerpt]
Full transcript is at http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/transcripts/990811_vaile_smith.html
UNIDENTIFIED [Reporter]:
Minister, can we have some details about the salmon [inaudible]?
MARK VAILE:
Lockwood might make comment on that.
LOCKWOOD SMITH:
I think what's been concerning Australian salmon producers has been the difference in the import standard that's emerged from the recent changes between Australia and New Zealand, and what we've discussed today and I think what we've agreed on today is a process to enable our quarantine people to have another look at that in a timely way, to go through proper procedures, but in as short a time period as possible so that the objective being of course to try and get a consistent standard - import standard between our two countries. And I think that, you know, makes sense for our salmon producers in both countries to have a consistent standard - import standard between the two. But we need our officials to work through the proper scientific issues involved, and so we've tried to find a mechanism that does that as quickly as possible, and even exploring a way of making sure that the interests of Australian salmon exporters are addressed just as quickly as possible.
UNIDENTIFIED [Reporter]:
Is New Zealand concerned that Australia has let Canadian salmon in?
LOCKWOOD SMITH:
Not that I'm - that's an unusual question to ask. Although I can see a relevant angle to it. Not that I'm aware of.
UNIDENTIFIED:
You don't see that as perhaps opening the doors? I mean, do your salmon producers have similar concerns that our salmon producers have?
LOCKWOOD SMITH:
I can't say that I'm totally familiar with your salmon producers' concerns. Naturally the concerns that - of all producers of food products like this, there are legitimate concerns that SPS issues - sanitary and phytosanitary issues - must be properly addressed, and - and I'm sure our respective quarantine services are doing that properly. What - just for a little bit of background for you. What happened was New Zealand received an application for the importation of salmon into New Zealand for a certain product, and the proper SPS procedures were followed in assessing and doing a risk-assessment on that, and the product was approved for entry into New Zealand. I think it was in fact an Australian application. Australia, on the other hand, received a little later on an application for a different product. It was still salmon, but a slightly different product. And Australia's been through the proper SPS process there. But because the original applications were for slightly different products, the outcome has been slightly different in terms of the import standard for both countries. And what we've explored is a way of looking back at that to see if we can get a consistent import standard for both countries, and - and I think you'll find - obviously I can't give too much detail on that because my regulatory authority people have to go - my quarantine people have to go back and go through our required procedures under our law. But the objective is to see if we can get a consistent standard for both countries.
MARK VAILE:
Obviously the fundamental basis for that process is going to be a scientific basis, as was our IRA process with the recently announced outcomes in terms of the quarantine on all fish products coming in to Australia. But certainly what we've agreed to address today with New Zealand is one of the issues that's been an issue that's been raised of concern to Australia's salmon industry.