Cold shoulder for US pork SA producers oppose January deal South African pork producers argue that US pork imports are allowed to bypass veterinary protocols. The SA Pork Producers'' Organisation (Sappo) and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) are at odds over the processes involved to allow US pork shoulder cuts into the country.Sappo, which serves about 110 400 sows owned by approximately 230 pig farmers, six stud breeders, and 153 registered pig abattoirs, is of the view that US pork shoulder cuts entering South Africa threatens the health status of the national herd. It has taken this battle to the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.
At the centre of this clash is an agreement signed in January as a side letter to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), which gives South Africa duty-free benefits to trade with the United States.
Sappo CEO Simon Streicher alleged the side letter allows the US to bypass the Veterinary Procedural Notice (VPN) route for pork shoulder cuts.
According to Steicher, the VPN requires stringent control of imported uncooked pork and pork products from countries like the US, which is not free from Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS).
PRRS, which is a highly contagious, results in reproductive problems, such as premature births, late-term abortions and increased stillbirths. The disease is economically devastating because it leads to increased piglet mortality and reduced growth, and sickens pigs.
“All pork imported from countries that are not free from PRRS should be subject to the procedures of the Veterinary Procedural Notice (VPN42) for the importation of uncooked pork and pork products,” he said.
Steicher explained that under the VPN, movements of pork will be allowed only from state veterinary approved import cold storage facilities directly to state veterinary approved processing and packing facilities.
“Auditable records are required to demonstrate that all of the uncooked pork and uncooked pork products have been processed by suitable methods and all potentially remaining risk material has been disposed of in a safe manner.
“We are convinced that the VPN was promulgated to protect the health status of the SA pig population and that any concessions will jeopardise these measures,” Steicher said.
However, the DAFF dismissed Sappo''s interpretation of the side letter relating to VPN.
“This side letter does not allow the bypassing of the VPN route as alleged by Sappo”, Bomikazi Molapo, spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Senzeni Zokwana, told Fin24.
She explained that the letter is an agreement relating to the pre-export handling of pork in the US and post import handling of pork in South Africa.
Review of PRRS
In 2012 the DAFF did a risk review of the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSv) entering the South Africa via imported pork. “The review found that the risk was not negligible and thus import requirements would need to be implemented to mitigate the risk of PRRSv being imported via pork,” she said.
This intention, Molapo said, was notified to trade partners and the public via (World Trade Organisation) WTO notifications and was finally implemented on May 31 2013.
“VPN42 provides the procedures for the import of raw (frozen) pork from countries that are not free from PRRSv for importers, cold stores and processing establishments,” she added.
Concern over unrestricted imports
Steicher insisted that DAFF''s claim is not correct, saying the VPN provides for the unrestricted importation of certain agreed cuts.
“The pork side letter goes much further as it allows for a long list of shoulder cuts. No other exporting country is allowed to export all the cuts that DAFF agreed on,” he said.
“The cuts agreed on, if imported from other countries, have to be processed in approved facilities whilst the US is allowed to export these cuts as unrestricted cuts.”
What the US is doing over PRRS
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Fin24 that PRRS is present throughout the world, with the exception of Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
“The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) does not list PRRS as a disease of concern because the risk of transmittal by trade in meat products is extremely small,” said Brian Mabry from the USDA''s communications office.
“Research shows the disease is found in sick animals, but not in recovered animals.”
Mabry noted that the USDA''s Food Safety and Inspection Service inspects all animals prior to slaughter and determines whether the animals are healthy and acceptable for slaughter.
“The United States tests for PRRS in live animals with diagnostic tests on blood using laboratory techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA),” he explained.
Mabry added that many swine producers also take a number of preventative measures to decrease the possibility of PRRS.
“Vaccinating against the virus and controlling the ventilation in houses where pigs are kept can help protect against the virus.”
He said the United States has a variety of resources and voluntary control programmes available to help swine producers control or eliminate PRRS in their operations.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative said it is keeping a close watch on the case brought by Sappo.
“We are aware of the litigation and watching developments,” a spokesperson told Fin24. “The United States expects South Africa to honour the pork agreement.”
NEWS24