The Philippine Association of Meat Processors Inc. has asked the Department of Agriculture to reconsider the ban on poultry imports, including mechanically deboned meat from Brazil.
In a letter to Agriculture Secretary William D. Dar dated August 19, 2020, PAMPI president Felix O. Tiukinhoy Jr. asked for a reconsideration of the department’s decision to include MDM among poultry products that can no longer be imported from Brazil until further notice.
PAMPI was referring to Memorandum Order No. 39 issued by the department on August 14, 2020 which imposed a temporary ban on the importation of poultry meat originating from Brazil, following reports that SARS-COV 2—the causative agent of Covid-19—was detected in a surface sampling conducted in chicken meat imported from Brazil to China.
PAMPI described the blanket ban as both questionable and speculative. “As far as we know, the Duterte administration does not issue policies or regulations that have no basis in law,” PAMPI said in the letter, copies of which were also sent to Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases Chairman Francisco Duque and Trade Secretary Ramon Lopez, Bureau of Animal Industry Director Ronnie Domingo and National Meat Inspection Service Director Reildrin Morales.
“MO No. 39 which imposes a blanket ban on poultry products from Brazil as a ‘precautionary measure’ supposedly under Section 10 of RA 10611—Food Safety Act of 2013—cannot be supported in law and science. Hence, it is deemed invalid and unimplementable,” PAMPI said.
“This is due to the fact that the invocation of precautionary measure cited in MO NO. 39 is not compliant with the qualifying provisions set in the same Section 10 of RA 10 611. In short, it is contrary to law,” the association said.
PAMPI said that the DA, in justifying the issuance of MO No. 39 as a precautionary measure allegedly to protect consumer health, selected only a portion of Section 10 stating that, “In specific circumstances when the available relevant information for use in risk assessment is insufficient to show that a certain type of food or food product does not pose a risk to consumer health, precautionary measures shall be adopted.”
Tiukinhoy said, however, that the order omitted or ignored the qualifying conditions required to impose such precautionary measure. “We do not know the reason for the omission, or whether it was deliberate or not, but usually deliberate omissions are intended to mislead or deceive,” he said.
He said the complete provisions of Section 10 read as follows: “Precaution–In specific circumstances when the available relevant information for use in risk assessment is insufficient to show that a certain type of food or food product does not pose a risk to consumer health, precautionary measures shall be adopted when such precautionary measures are issued, the following rules shall govern [underscoring supplied],” the provision stated.
It also stated that, “[a] The adopted measure shall remain enforced pending the submission of additional scientific information based on the nature of the risk and type of information to clarify the scientific uncertainty; [underscoring supplied] and [b] The measure shall be no more restrictive to trade than required [underscoring supplied] and should be proportionate to the level of protection required for consumers.”
PAMPI said that even a cursory reading of the whole Section 10 will show that the requisite conditions set in paragraphs (a) and (b) which are clear and unambiguous were not complied with because no scientific uncertainty exists on the issue of transmission of Covid-19 virus from food/food packaging to humans.
“As late as last week, the World Health Organization through Executive Director for Health Emergencies Mike Ryan declared during a press conference after the China reports came out that ‘There is no evidence that food or the food chain is participating in transmission of this virus….it is important that we track findings like this, and it’s important that we don’t discount scientific evidence where we find it’,” PAMPI said.
Tiukinhoy said even the Department of Health, the authority on human diseases such as Covid-19, has not issued any warning or advisory on the transmissibility issue that MO No. 39 would like people to believe.
PAMPI warned that MO No. 39 would hurt the economy and result in food shortage. “The blanket ban on poultry imports from Brazil is not only restrictive to bilateral trade but is even more damaging to our economy as it unnecessarily creates a food shortage which adversely affects mainly poor consumers , while simultaneously wreaking havoc on meat manufacturing and food service industries”.
The group noted that four months ago at the height of the pandemic, the DA itself accredited eight poultry plants from Brazil which were said to have been inspected and audited by a DA inspection mission and “found to comply with the Philippine quarantine and meat inspection systems procedures.”
“MO No. 39 now casts doubt on the integrity of the said inspection/audit. In view of the foregoing, we urge you, Mr. Secretary, to review and reconsider the coverage of MO No. 39,” PAMPI said.