SA’s recent scramble to lift its blanket poultry ban on Brazil due to a bird flu outbreak has revealed a vulnerability in our national approach to managing food imports.
While the June 19 decision announced by agriculture minister John Steenhuisen to resume poultry product imports from all but one affected region in Brazil is welcome, the process that led to it, while relatively fast by government standards, still took several weeks. This intervening period was costly, not just economically, but also nutritionally, for millions of South Africans.
This episode has made it clear that we must move beyond reactive crisis management and develop a proactive, science-based trade framework for dealing with all meat imports that provide affordable, essential protein.
SA needs a self-standing, pre-agreed meat import mechanism, such as the one it already has with the US, and a binding international standard for managing meat trade during disease outbreaks.
In May Brazil, which supplies up to 80% of SA’s poultry imports, reported a case of avian influenza on a single farm in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Despite Brazil’s rapid containment and transparent communication with global authorities, SA was forced to respond within the current regulatory framework and implement a blanket ban on chicken imports from Brazil, though the bird flu outbreak was contained in the affected state.
The import suspension halted the flow of key products such as mechanically deboned meat and chicken livers, staples for low-income households and school feeding programmes.
Bottleneck
Brazil supplies 95% of SA’s mechanically deboned meat, a product of which the local industry does not produce large quantities but is used in polony and viennas. SA thus lost about 100-million meals a week while food insecurity remains one of the country’s biggest challenges.
The agreement in principle by the department to partially lift the ban is a welcome and necessary development, but the devil is in the details. For trade to fully resume Brazil’s veterinary health certificates must be amended by officials at the SA agriculture department to reflect the revised import conditions. This administrative step, though seemingly minor, has become another bottleneck in an already strained process.
This underscores the need for a more nimble, pre-agreed mechanism with the agriculture department; one that includes pre-authorised wording for commercial import documentation. Without this, even rational, science-backed policy decisions can be delayed by paperwork, defeating the urgency required during food supply shocks.
There is a better way to manage these risks, and SA already has proof of concept. The US and SA have put in place a poultry trade agreement that regionalises disease responses, meaning only states affected by outbreaks are excluded from exporting chicken. This model is based on trust, shared standards and scientific integrity, and ensures food security and trade stability can coexist. This approach kept US poultry on SA shelves and avoided the lengthy red tape and paperwork seen with the Brazilian blanket ban.
What SA should focus on now is a broader policy shift that formalises the kind of science-driven, responsive trade framework we already apply to the US.
Brazil has equally robust surveillance systems and transparent governance, but it does not benefit from a similar framework. The absence of an agreement means every step lifting the ban must be negotiated from scratch. These include the exchange and review of disease data, internal risk assessments and the updating of veterinary health certificates — a process now taking weeks to finalise at the detriment of food security.
None of Brazil’s other trade partners applied such restrictive and measures as SA has. This ad hoc, country-by-country response system to inevitable disease outbreaks is inefficient and outdated. What SA should focus on now is a broader policy shift that formalises the kind of science-driven, responsive trade framework we already apply to the US.
We should extend this progressive approach to all trusted meat export partners, including Brazil, Argentina, Canada and the EU. These countries already meet our health and safety standards and have the institutional capacity to manage regional outbreaks without jeopardising public health.
We must also look beyond national solutions and advocate for global reform. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) provides guidance on regionalised disease responses, but its standards remain voluntary and inconsistently applied. SA, with other member states, should push for a binding, enforceable international protocol for managing meat imports and exports during animal disease outbreaks.
The WOAH codes on animal disease are only adopted after having been considered and adopted by the 183 member countries and having been tested by the world’s leading veterinary officials.
Food security should be treated as an integral part of our public health and trade strategy. The goal must be to develop a policy environment that responds to legitimate animal health risks with speed and efficiency, never importing disease and always keeping food security front of mind.
The agriculture department and Steenhuisen deserve credit for pushing to lift the Brazil ban based on credible scientific data. But the policy framework must now evolve beyond crisis management. We need pre-agreed bilateral arrangements with trusted partners and a commitment to global standard-setting via WOAH.
• Southey is manager of poultry and meat product importer and distributor Merlog Foods.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.