
Organic grain miller Kialla Foods has urged the government to support the proposed Organic Standards Bill. Photo: Kialla Foods
AUSTRALIAN organic food producers and retailers have backed the proposed National Organic Standard Bill 2024, asserting that the legislation would help boost exports, as well as providing integrity and uniformity for the domestic market.
It has attracted some criticism from industry bodies and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), citing the gaps in how the legislation will be regulated and who will pay the costs involved.
The bill, introduced by National Party Senator Bridget McKenzie on November 19, seeks to create a legislative framework that outlines the requirements organic goods must meet when they are sold in Australia or imported into Australia.
It was referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by January 31.
In a submission to the inquiry, Queensland-based organic grain miller Kialla Foods’ managing director Quentin Kennedy said the bill would provide the framework needed to substantially grow the company’s export sales to key markets.
Kialla currently exports its products milled from organic cereal grains to Asian markets including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia.
Mr Kennedy said with no domestic regulation, Kialla had to certify its products under the requirements of overseas markets, which was time-consuming and costly.
“All the additional administration takes more time and increases the costs of organic compliance for both farmers and processors, thus impacting efficiencies in the food chain,” Mr Kennedy said in the submission.
“It also limits our access to new markets such as China, which require certification for each step in the supply chain due to lack of Export Equivalence.”
He said the bill would be the “necessary first step” needed to create an export equivalence with overseas markets.
“We urge you to support Domestic Regulation of Organic products in Australia due to the enormous benefit it will have for the exporters of organic products, as well as for the flow-on benefits it will have through providing Australian consumers with confidence that they can fully trust any organic claims.”
One of Australia’s largest certified organic operators, PureHarvest, has also backed the bill due to its potential flow-on benefits for exporters.
Based in Drouin in the West Gippsland region of Victoria, PureHarvest manufactures and sells a range of plant milks, mueslis, rice cakes, fruit juices, and sauces.
In the company’s submission, PureHarvest said the lack of domestic regulation had “curtailed the ability of our business to made inroads into the key export markets of China, the USA, and South Korea, despite significant demand and investment over a number of years”.
“While our business exports products around the world there are a number of key markets we have been unable to access, and many where access has been hindered or where we have been forced to pull out, due to the lack of recognition of our Australian certification,” the submission said.
PureHarvest estimated changes brought about by the bill could create value of around $2 million per year at least from the Chinese market, plus another $1M from exporting to South Korea, and the US market could open up further “multi-million dollar sales” and “massive growth”.
Unanswered questions
Despite general support for the bill and its overarching principles in the submissions to the inquiry, several organisations questioned how it would operate in practice, and if it was a cost-effective measure over the current system.
In its submission, DAFF pointed out that the absence of this framework “does not prevent international trade in organic goods” and currently “the organic industry is able to export to that market through conformity arrangements between certain Australian certifiers and foreign governments”.
DAFF also cited significant analysis and consultation conducted in 2020-22 that “found there was no certification option that had a net benefit over 10 years”.
Its submission questioned how the term “organic” would be defined, where “adequate resourcing and data” would come from to support the annual inspections and audits of organic operations, and possible World Trade Organisation implications of the legislation.
Plant-science sector peak body CropLife raised concerns with possible labelling of products under the system.
It called for the legislation to prohibit businesses from making inappropriate “non-GM claims” on products as well as making “scientifically incorrect” claims eluding to the idea that “organic systems are safer or more environmentally friendly” than those using chemicals.
Despite these comments, CropLife was broadly supportive of the legislation, and the prospect of parliament passing it with amendments.
Grain Central: Get our free news straight to your inbox – Click here
HAVE YOUR SAY