The humble potato sparks a public slinging match

DAFF, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and AUSVEG, the national peak body for vegetable and potato growers, have engaged in a public slinging match, with each party issuing media releases criticising the other for its approach to importing New Zealand potatoes for processing, which may harbour zebra chip disease.

DAFF said AUSVEG had “wrongly accused” it of basing its quarantine conditions on outdated information and avoiding accountability. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” DAFF said.

In response, AUSVEG expressed “shock and concern” at DAFF’s defence of its “three-year-old scientific analysis” of the zebra chip disease and the tomato-potato psyllid.

“I’m stunned at the language DAFF is comfortable with using in its releases - claiming that in 2009 it was even possible to do a ‘comprehensive’ risk analysis is frankly misleading,” said AUSVEG Public Affairs Manager William Churchill.

“So much has changed in three years from a scientific perspective,” Churchill continued. “DAFF alleges that in 2009 they were able to comprehensively consider hosts, vectors, suitability of environment and the psyllid’s reproductive strategy. It’s now 2012 and most of that information is still unknown - anything ‘comprehensive’ is just guesswork.”

But DAFF argues that AUSVEG didn’t even choose to comment or make a submission on its 2009 draft report on the analysis, even after DAFF presented its findings at the AUSVEG Zebra Chip Industry Summit.

Any potatoes imported to Australia from New Zealand would be subject to stringent entry conditions and would only ever be processed under quarantine control, DAFF said. “Fresh, whole potatoes from New Zealand will not be available for retail sale,” DAFF stressed in its statement.

AUSVEG claims that new research has emerged since DAFF’s 2009 analysis that shows potato tubers infected with zebra chip disease are in fact capable of sprouting and growing, contrary to DAFF’s findings. The industry body also claims DAFF’s belief that the disease can only be transmitted one way is false, having been proved incorrect since 2009.

AUSVEG also criticised DAFF’s research methodology and its failure to keep abreast of new research developments involving the disease.

“DAFF makes the argument that research needs to be scientifically based and justifiable, but DAFF’s own publications fail to hold to its own standards. There is little to no referencing in their documents and many claims in these reports are completely indistinguishable from opinion,” Churchill said. “Additionally, DAFF use an ‘absence of evidence’ as ‘evidence of absence’ meaning that if no specific studies are available for certain factors to assess risk then DAFF do not need to consider these at all.”

But DAFF claims to be “constantly scanning for new information relevant to biosecurity risks and also invites stakeholders to contact the department at any time with any information that they become aware of”. Not true, says AUSVEG. “The only information post-2009 that DAFF has updated is to change the scientific name of the zebra chip bacteria. I don’t know how DAFF is scanning for new information but it feels like they are getting their information by telex when the rest of the country is using email,” Churchill said.

DAFF continues to maintain that no new information has been uncovered that suggests any sort of biosecurity threat to Australia, but AUSVEG disagrees.

“Currently there is just too much new information coming to light,” Churchill responded. “What DAFF should do is re-examine its entire import risk analysis. Why is it so essential to rush into these new arrangements and risk hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of agricultural production?”