BRAZIL UNCOVERED. June 2007

Transcription

1 BRAZIL UNCOVERED REPORT OF A MISSION CARRIED OUT IN BRAZIL FROM 12 TH MAY TO 19 TH MAY 2007 TO EXAMINE PRODUCTION STANDARDS, TAGGING, TRACEABILITY AND MOVEMENT CONTROLS, MOVEMENT AND BORDER CONTROLS AND BIO-SECURITY, ANIMAL MEDICINE CONTROLS AND FMD CONTROLS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES. June 2007 Irish Farmers Association, Irish Farm Centre, Bluebell, Dublin 12. Telephone: Fax: Website: postmaster@ifa.ie

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY REPORT 3 2. INTRODUCTION 5 3. OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION 5 4. BACKGROUND 6 5. MISSION OUTCOME FROM THE 2007 MISSION TAGGING, TRACEABILITY AND MOVEMENT CONTROLS MOVEMENT AND BORDER CONTROLS, AND BIO-SECURITY ANIMAL MEDICINES AND ILLEGAL GROWTH HORMONES INADEQUATE FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE CONTROLS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SOCIAL ISSUES 13 2

3 1. SUMMARY REPORT An IFA/Farmers Journal investigative mission undertaken in Brazil during May 2007 has produced extensive factual evidence which proves the unacceptable lack of effective controls and standards in the Brazilian beef sector. The IFA Mission found evidence of non existent or unreliable cattle traceability, widespread illegal removal and cutting out of tags, totally inadequate movement and border controls, ineffective FMD controls and the use of hormone growth promoters. Based on the evidence found, the EU Commission must immediately impose a total ban on all Brazilian beef imports into Europe. There are severe social and environmental consequences associated with Brazilian beef exports into Europe related to worker exploitation and slave labour issues and the continuing destruction of the rainforests in the Pantanal and Amazon regions. There is no effective traceability system in Brazil. There is no cattle tagging whatsoever on the majority of farms. On the few farms where there were tags, the IFA found routine and widespread removal and cutting out of the official SISBOV tags in order to facilitate illegal movements, practices which totally compromise the traceability system. The IFA witnessed cattle destined for export with split ears and holes in the ears from the removal of original tags in order to change their identity and origin, and make them acceptable at export plants. It is reasonable to conclude that the movement of cattle from FMD restricted states into unrestricted clear states is widespread. This conclusion is supported by the fact that despite restrictions on states which accounted for over 60% of EU imports before the FMD crisis in 2005, actual imports into the EU have fallen by only 2%. Large scale cattle movement across state borders was witnessed, driven by higher prices in the unrestricted states. The lack of effective tagging, traceability and movement controls totally discredits the EU FMD regionalisation policy in dividing Brazil into restricted and unrestricted states. Without a proper system of tagging, traceability and movement controls, the EU regionalisation policy can not work in Brazil. In addition, the widespread movement of cattle across state boundaries and international borders makes regionalisation in Brazil totally ineffective. On one of the farms visited, the IFA found evidence of the use of growth promoting hormones banned in Europe. Antibiotics and insecticides to kill parasites are widely used and readily available over the counter in farm stores in all rural towns. Records of animal medicines are not kept and withdrawal periods are routinely ignored. A Brazilian FMD expert, Professor Augusto Pinto, told the IFA that further outbreaks of FMD are imminent in Brazil. He said there is a real risk of an FMD outbreak going undetected and of being covered up when detected. 3

4 Professor Pinto said the Government has adopted a don t want to know policy on the control of FMD. They have made a new Minister for Agriculture who has no interest in FMD and has ignored best scientific practice. There is still no programme to control FMD. Because cattle prices are significantly higher in Brazil, cattle smuggling from the high-risk FMD countries of Paraguay and Bolivia which share a 3,000km land border with Brazil is reported to be widespread. Irish & European farmers operate to the highest international standards of food safety, animal identification and traceability with strict controls on animal medicines and residue testing. European consumers expect that all beef on sale in the EU meets these standards. Producers and consumers rely on the EU Commission to uphold European standards across the board and particularly in respect of imports. In view of the failure of the Brazilian livestock sector to meet EU standards, European supermarkets, retail outlets and food service providers can no longer pretend to their customers that Brazilian beef imports come anywhere near satisfying EU standards and consumer expectations. By accepting Brazilian beef imports, which clearly fail to meet European standards, the EU Commission are failing in their duty to European consumers and undermining European producers. The EU Commission must immediately impose a total ban on all Brazilian beef imports into Europe. 4

5 2. INTRODUCTION The IFA visited Brazil from May 12 th to May 19 th The Mission team included, John Bryan Chairman IFA National Livestock Committee and member of the EU Beef Advisory Committee, Kevin Kinsella, IFA Director of Livestock and Justin McCarthy, Livestock Editor Irish Farmers Journal. The main focus of the investigative mission was on the following key food safety and animal health areas. Tagging, traceability and movement controls - Movement and border controls and bio-security - Animal medicine controls - FMD controls - Environmental issues - Social issues 3. OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION The objective of the Mission was to examine the production standards and controls that operate at farm level in livestock production in Brazil and to ascertain if they are in compliance with or equivalent to EU standards as required by the European Union for beef imports. In pursuit of these objectives, the following visits were undertaken. In a journey involving 3,200km, the Mission team travelled extensively through the States of Parana, Mato Grosso Do Sul and Mato Gross. The team visited and held in-depth interviews and discussions on 15 farms where the primary focus was on tagging, traceability and movement controls, and veterinary medicine usage and controls. A number of the farms visited were the same farms visited on an IFA Mission to Brazil in May The farms ranged in herd size from slaughtering cattle per annum to farmers slaughtering 2,500 cattle. The farms were a combination of suckler to beef farms and farms buying in young cattle and finishing them through to beef. The Mission team also visited a number of farms located on the border between Paraguay and Brazil. In total the team observed farming practices on 42 farms throughout the 7 day visit. Permission was sought and obtained from either the farm owner or farm manager before entering all of the farms. The Mission team crossed two internal state borders (Parana to Mato Grosso Do Sul and Mato Grosso Do Sul to Mato Grosso) and one international border (Brazil to Paraguay) and examined the controls and bio-security. 5

6 The Mission team visited 2 stores selling veterinary medicines to the farming community/public. The team also conducted a detailed meeting with Professor Augusto Pinto regarding the ongoing problems with the lack of FMD controls in Brazil. The Mission Statement of The EU Commission DG For Health And Consumer Affairs states To assure effective control systems and evaluate compliance with EU standards in the food safety and quality, animal health, animal welfare, animal nutrition and plant health sectors within the EU and in third countries in relation to their exports to the EU. 4. BACKGROUND Brazilian beef imports into the European Union totalled 331,436 tonnes in 2006 and accounted for 66.8% of all EU beef imports according to DG Agri and Rural Development European Commission. Imports of beef from Brazil have grown in recent years, increasing by 20% since Despite an EU imposed regionalisation ban, due to the FMD outbreaks, on the States of Sao Paulo, Parana and Mato Gross Do Sul, which accounted for over 60% of EU imports prior to the October 2005/Januaray 2006 FMD outbreaks, total exports to Europe have only fallen by 2% in The USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea do not accept fresh beef imports from Brazil because the FMD risks are too high. The IFA has been very concerned for a long period of time regarding the failure of fresh Brazilian beef imports to meet EU standards and the associated high risk to EU consumers and the European livestock sector from such imports. The ongoing failure to meet EU standards and the risks involved, particularly in respect of foot and mouth disease, are well documented in a number of EU Food and Veterinary Office Reports since In a number of reports on Brazil the FVO has highlighted the following; On the control of exports to the EU, the FVO concluded that a number of deficiencies identified in respect of animal identification and movement control undermine the possibility to trace back to the farm of origin and the quality of the certification. About 16.5m animals are registered out of an estimated total of 200m. The brand system is still the basis for the identification of the vast majority of animals. In relation to the system of identification of certification of origin of cattle (SISBOV), the supervision was found to be very limited and ineffective to prevent serious deficiencies detected by the FVO. 6

7 The present system of residue and veterinary medicine control is not adequate and cannot be judged to offer guarantees equivalent to those provided by the EU. The control of residues in live animals and animal products cannot be considered as complying with or being equivalent to the EU standards. The continued free availability of the majority of veterinary medicine, the absence of any requirement for maintenance of medicine records on farms, the absence of official controls on farm in this respect and a lack of testing of residues of many veterinary medicines which are unauthorised for use in food producing animals in the EU but are freely available in Brazil, individually and cumulatively undermine confidence in the residue status of several commodities exported to the EU. Following the outbreaks of FMD in Brazil in October 2005 and early 2006, the IFA visited Brazil in May 2006 (May 4 th to May 11 th ) to examine and observe at first hand the livestock sector and particularly production standards, Foot and Mouth Disease controls, traceability, movement controls and tagging. During this visit the IFA also examined and observed the situation in Brazil regarding the environmental and social issues surrounding livestock production. The key findings from the IFA visit to Brazil in May 2006 can be summarised as follows: Standards and practices at farm level fall very short of what would be acceptable to the EU. Brazil fails to meet EU standards. FMD controls were totally inadequate and border controls ineffective. Traceability was non-existent with the vast majority of cattle not tagged. There was widespread environmental degradation. Social exploitation was a major problem. From this visit, the IFA concluded the absence of tagging, traceability and movement controls and the serious deficiencies in the FMD controls, completely undermines the EU regionalisation policy in Brazil and the credibility of the certification of beef exports being accepted by the EU. 7

8 5. MISSION OUTCOME FROM THE 2007 MISSION 5.1 TAGGING, TRACEABILITY AND MOVEMENT CONTROLS Following the mission to Brazil in 2006, the IFA reported that the vast majority of farms visited had no system of tagging or traceability. Branding or ear notching was the main form of identification. One year on, nothing has changed. Of the 15 farms subject to in-depth observations, none of them had a full traceability system in place. 11 of the farms had no tags in any of the livestock on the farms. On 7 farms, there was clear evidence of official SISBOV tags having been removed or cut out. On these farms, cut out or removed SISBOV tags were littered around the cattle handling facilities. On a number of farms the IFA observed boxes and bags of tags, many of them SISBOV tags which were cut out or removed from animals. On almost all of the trading farms visited, particularly in the States of Parana and Mato Grosso, the IFA found boxes and bags of cut out and removed tags, including official SISBOV tags. In addition, the IFA observed many cattle on farms with holes in their ears and split ears as a result of tag removal. From discussions with a number of farmers, it is clear that the practice of tag removal is driven by the regionalisation export ban on beef from the States of Parana and Mato Grosso Do Sul. A number of observers alleged the movement of both young cattle and beef cattle from Parana, a state currently banned from export to the EU, into the state of Rio Grande Do Sul, a state eligible for export. Farmers in Parana alleged that processors in Rio Grande Do Sul, who have EU export licences, were renting facilities in Parana to facilitate the supply of beef to their export customers as supplies were becoming very tight in Rio Grande Do Sul. The practice of tag removal and movement of cattle between the state of Mato Grosso Do Sul (banned from EU) and Mato Grosso (open to EU) was also alleged. Based on animals observed and discussions with farm owners and managers, in Brazil traceability or tracking is seen as a practice of simply tagging cattle a few days or weeks before slaughter. This practice allows farmers to sell cattle as tracked and claim a price premium equivalent to per animal. In all of the farm visits and discussions, no farmer made any reference to a farm register of the animals on the farm, to any system of effective movement controls or to any form of inspection or control of tagging or traceability by any authority. Based on the farms visited and discussions held, it is clear the Brazilian livestock sector has not bought into the concept or importance of cattle tagging, traceability or movement controls. 8

9 Conclusions There is no proper system of tagging or identification of cattle in Brazil Traceability is either non-existent or meaningless. Where tagging was observed, there is widespread illegal removal and cutting out of official SISBOV tags. The tagging and traceability situation has not improved at all in the last year. Due to the widespread practice of tag removal and cutting out, the situation has deteriorated. Widespread illegal movement of cattle was discussed and alleged by many observers. The Brazilian livestock sector has not bought into the concept or importance of cattle tagging, traceability or movement controls and farmers do not take the monitoring of the system seriously. The EU policy of regionalisation as applied in Brazil cannot work in the absence of an effective tagging, traceability and movement control system. The failure of Brazil to apply and operate an effective system completely undermines the credibility of the EU regionalisation policy and certification process for beef exports to Europe. The failure of Brazil on tagging, traceability and movement controls demonstrate that the EU s claim that standards in Brazil are equivalent to those applied in the EU, does not stand up to scrutiny. The facts based on the evidence at farm level are that standards in Brazil are not equivalent to those applied in the EU, and the EU Commission cannot assure imports based on existing deficiencies. 5.2 MOVEMENT AND BORDER CONTROLS, AND BIO-SECURITY Without a proper system of tagging and traceability, it is impossible to control or monitor the movement of animals in Brazil. The movement control on animals between states in Brazil is proving impossible. The totally inadequate cattle tagging and traceability system is simply not capable of monitoring movement controls. The IFA observed massive movement of cattle on a daily basis in Brazil across state boundaries with convoys of trucks constantly on the roads. With no effective traceability, the origin or destination of these animals cannot be established. At state border checkpoints on the main routes, the controls were very limited and focused on taxation verification with no livestock traceability or movement controls. Many farmers farm on both sides of the State border. In addition, the network of dirt tracks and unofficial roads are impossible to patrol, leaving any form of movement control impossible in practice. Bio-security at state border crossings, even from FMD restricted states (Parana and Mato Grosso Do Sul) to unrestricted states (Mato Grosso) is non-existent in Brazil. 9

10 There was no bio-security controls crossing from Parana to Mato Grosso Do Sul, or from Mato Grosso Do Sul (restricted) into Mato Grosso (unrestricted). In 2006, there was some small level of bio-security at official state border crossings. However this year, all bio-security controls have been completely removed. A high threat to the animal health status of the Brazilian livestock herd is the uncontrolled land border of over 3,000km with Paraguay and Bolivia, where FMD is reported to be a major problem and uncontrolled. With cattle prices significantly higher in Brazil compared to Paraguay, cattle smuggling between the two countries is alleged to be widespread. This problem is further compounded by the fact that many Brazilian farmers own farms on both sides of the international border and move cattle from one country to the other. In addition, the vast majority of the border is a land border and no official border controls exist in practice. In crossing at the official border control point into Paraguay, there was no bio-security controls. Bio-security was non-existent. Conclusions Livestock movement controls in Brazil are impossible because of no effective tagging or traceability. There is widespread movement of cattle between states (restricted and unrestricted states). Bio-security between states (restricted and unrestricted states) was non-existent on our visit. Without movement controls and bio-security, the policy of regionalisation cannot work in Brazil. Cattle smuggling between Brazil and Paraguay is alleged to be widespread. There were no bio-security controls observed between Brazil and Paraguay, a high risk FMD region. Without effective international border controls and bio-security from high-risk FMD countries like Paraguay and Bolivia, Brazil will remain a high risk FMD country and further outbreaks of FMD are inevitable. 5.3 ANIMAL MEDICINES AND ILLEGAL GROWTH HORMONES On one of the farms, the Mission team found growth hormones which are illegal in the European Union. A bottle of Synovex S which contains two pure steroid hormones, progesterone and estradiol benzolite together with a pump action syringe gun were found on the cattle handling facilities on this farm. The label on the Synovex S growth hormone bottle states this formulation provides a complementary amount of each hormone for maximum growth stimulation. There was no expiry date or lot number marked on the bottle. It was clear from the location of the find, that this product was being used on the animals on the holding. Controls on the use of antibiotics are non-existent in Brazil. 10

11 A wide range of antibiotics are available for sale in supply stores in all large rural towns without control. The sale and use of insecticides without control is widespread. Insecticides are either applied by spray or can be fed with salt or minerals. When fed with salt, which is a widespread practice, they were being offered right up to point of slaughter. There was no system of recording the use of any drugs or monitoring withdrawal dates on any farm. FMD vaccine dumping is alleged to be widespread in Brazil. This involves the practice of obtaining a certificate for vaccination usage when purchasing the vaccine but dumping the product and not administrating it to the livestock. Conclusions Growth promoting hormones which are illegal in the EU are being used in livestock production in Brazil. There are no controls on the purchase or use of antibiotics and insecticides in livestock production in Brazil. There is no system of recording drug use or observing withdrawal dates in livestock production in Brazil. FMD vaccine dumping is practiced and alleged to be widespread in Brazil. These practices are a clear breach of EU standards and confirm the failure of Brazil to meet or come close to being equivalent to EU standards. 5.4 INADEQUATE FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE CONTROLS In 2006, the IFA met with Professor Augusto Pinto who raised serious concerns regarding the diagnosis of FMD infected animals and the inadequacies of the controls methods adopted by the Brazilian authorities. IFA scheduled another meeting with Professor Pinto in May 2007 to establish if the FMD control situation had improved in Brazil. Professor Pinto has over 30 years experience in FMD controls, is a former advisor to the Brazilian Agricultural Minister and conducted part of his research work on FMD at Pirbright in the UK. Professor Pinto told the IFA that the inadequate controls on FMD and the failure of the Agricultural Ministry to provide sufficient funding to control the disease was increasing the risk of more outbreaks of FMD in Brazil. The Professor said he has real concerns about further outbreaks from control failures involving cattle movement across borders, vaccine dumping and disease cover ups. He said there is a risk of an outbreak going undetected in Mato Grosso Do Sul and when detected being covered up. Professor Pinto condemned the practice of vaccine dumping which he said was widespread. This involves the purchase of the vaccine to get a certificate only and with no verification or proof that the vaccine was actually administered. 11

12 He said a vaccine programme without full tagging and traceability was not controlling FMD and was only suppressing the problem. This ineffective method of vaccination was reducing the immunity of the national cattle herd to FMD. Professor Pinto said in his opinion the national cattle herd in Brazil will never be fully tagged and traceable. He said it would be impossible to implement a traceability system any further north than Mato Gross Do Sul. Professor Pinto said Brazil had learned no lessons on how to control FMD from the 2005 outbreaks. He said the Government adopt a don t want to know policy on FMD and the new Minister for Agriculture has no interest in FMD and ignored best scientific advice. Professor Pinto said Brazil will never get control of FMD until there is a change from the current policy and a new programme is implemented involving the following key points: o Building a new control laboratory similar to Pirbright in the UK to allow widespread serological testing as opposed to the current system of using inadequate test kits. o Veterinary surgeons must be given the resources and responsibility to properly control vaccine administration at farm level in order to avoid vaccine dumping. o The problem of inadequate border controls between Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia and between states in Brazil must be resolved. o The lack of bio-security and illegal cattle movements are major problems. o Impossible to control FMD in Brazil until all animals are tagged and fully traceable and this has proved impossible. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Travelling extensively throughout Mato Grosso Do Sul and Mato Grosso it is clear that serious environmental issues are emerging in the livestock production sector. These issues are predominately related to the destruction of the rainforests to make way for increased livestock production. There is clear evidence of a forest fight back with large shrubs and bushes starting to take over grassland on many farms in these States. There is a very serious problem of termites on many of the farms in Mato Grosso Do Sul and Mato Grosso. The termites, which used to feed on decaying timber, have now turned to feeding on soil with large honey comb structures littered throughout the landscape. The termites impact on the soil structure is devastating and they are proving extremely difficult to control. The ongoing rainforest destruction or the slash and burn policy which is driving the continuing increase in Brazilian beef exports is coming at a very high price in terms of the destruction of the Amazon rainforests. There is a very clear link between the five-fold increase in beef exports from Brazil in recent years and the rapid destruction of the rainforests. 12

13 It is estimated about one-fifth of the Brazilian Amazon s 1.6 million square miles of natural cover has been stripped. About 75% of the deforested areas of the Amazon are occupied by cattle ranching. Between 2000 and 2005 it is estimated Brazil lost more than 50,000sq miles of rainforest or an area almost one and a half times the size of Ireland. 5.6 SOCIAL ISSUES In 2006, the IFA highlighted the true costs of beef imports from Brazil in terms of the social and environmental impact. In Brazil, 1% of the population own half of the agricultural lands. With beef production for export coming from the larger ranches, land ownership and structure is such that globalisation is only serving to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Travelling in rural Brazil, long stretches of roadside are littered with plastic covered wooden shacks which house the homeless people. These people once were farmers and farm workers in the rural community. Through a combination of large companies buying up lands and mechanisation, these peasant farmers have now been forced off the land and are living in appalling poverty. Some work in the sugarcane plantations, which are becoming ever more popular on the back of the ethanol and biofuel revolution, in close to slave like labour conditions. It has been shown that the average working life expectancy of labourers on the sugarcane plantations is just 12 years. The Irish Farmers Association June