For the past half a year there has been much debate on the merits, or lack of, involved with the idea of enabling Australian imports of Malaysian grown pineapples.
An Import Risk Analysis (IRA) released by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in June last year recommended allowing access to fresh, decrowned Malaysian pineapples. The Australian pineapple industry holds contrasting views.
Australian pineapple cultivation, for one thing, has proven itself able to meet domestic demand and can produce year round. This is not what is giving industry representation body, Growcom, and partners, concerns however; they are more worried about what they say is a serious biosecurity threat posed by imports. Malaysia, unlike Australia, is an unwilling host to the pathogen Erwinia chrysanthemi/Dickeya, that causes bacterial heart rot and fruit collapse.
In their response to DAFF Growcom point to inconsistencies they perceive the IRA to have with the National Pineapple Industry Biosecurity Plan, produced by a collaboration involving both parties in 2008. Of particular note within the plan is the assertion that Dickeya represents one of the top 5 threats facing the sector and that its entry and spread are likely/certain, thus necessitating preventative management steps.
In putting forward the industry's worries over this threat Growcom has highlighted what it says are faults with the IRA. An example of this is the department's discounting of the potential of endemic Australian wildlife to be vectors of the bacteria. Growcom say the Australian species are ruled out on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but point out that, as there is currently no Dickeya in the country, this kind of supporting evidence is impossible.
Lana Baskerville, of Growcom, says DAFF's approach is flowed in that is requires the industry to demonstrate that there is a risk, thus starting from a point where it is assumed that danger is low.
"Given that most research projects take several years to complete and that the industry only becomes aware of the given potential biosecurity threat when an application is made or an IRA process is announced, there is little or no opportunity to conduct the required research before the final IRA is completed.
"The regulators must recognise that industry members are the bearers of risk, not DAFF Biosecurity and not the proposer (of the imported product)."
Despite the concerns Growcom is clear that it is not opposed to the imports altogether, just that there is a need for a more robust evaluation of risk to ensure the industry is protected from genuine biosecurity threats. That said, there are wider concerns for the industry outside of the biosecurity arena. There is a possibility, for example, that imported pineapples may impact on the domestic growers' ability to turn a profit, especially if retailers choose to cash in on the availability of cheaper goods, disregarding quality. Lana says this would not be to the consumers' benefit, either in terms of freshness or, potentially, cost.
"Malaysian imports may not actually result in downward prices of fruit in the shops, though it will likely cause undercutting and result in lower prices for the Australian producers. This could make operations and communities in-viable."
"Australian growers are held to high environmental standards with regards to chemical usage and land and water management and, whilst the benefit of this is shared by all, the cost is typically borne by the farmer," Lana says.
"The Australian pineapple industry is proud to continually be progressing towards more environmentally and socially sustainable practices, though it does make it harder - and sometimes impossible - to compete against imported goods grown without the same standards."
There would possible be some relief from that part of the issue, were Australia able to export its own pineapples, but as David Putland, Policy Manager of Growcom, points out, "The potential to export Australian pineapples is severely constrained by the high Australian dollar at this point."
