BRAZIL UNCOVERED
REPORT OF A MISSION
CARRIED OUT IN BRAZIL
FROM 12TH MAY TO 19TH 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: 00353-1-4500266 Fax: 00353-1-4551043
Website: www.ifa.ie Email: [email protected]
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
8
5.1
TAGGING, TRACEABILITY AND MOVEMENT CONTROLS
8
5.2
MOVEMENT AND BORDER CONTROLS, AND BIO-SECURITY
9
5.3
ANIMAL MEDICINES AND ILLEGAL GROWTH HORMONES
10
5.4
INADEQUATE FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE CONTROLS
11
5.5
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
12
5.6
SOCIAL ISSUES
13
2
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
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
2.
3.
INTRODUCTION
•
The IFA visited Brazil from May 12th to May 19th 2007. 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
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 2006.
The farms ranged in herd size from slaughtering 200 – 300 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
−
−
•
4.
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.”
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 2003.
•
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 2006.
•
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
2003.
•
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
−
−
−
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 4th to May 11th) 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
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
10 - 15 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
•
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
•
•
•
•
•
5.5
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.
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
•
•
•
5.6
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.
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 2007
13