Mr SLIPPER(11.56 a.m.) —When one listens to many of the comments made by my colleagues in this place on the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill, it is obvious that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority is held in fairly high regard, as is the work it has done since it was established in 1995. The aim of this bill is to enable the Food Authority to better manage, plan and prioritise its workload. I suspect that no-one would be opposed to such an idea.

It is important that Australia maintains its reputation for clean food. It is eminently sensible, given the closeness of the relationship between this country and New Zealand, that we have cooperative arrangements such as that set up when the National Food Authority became the Australia New Zealand Food Authority in 1995. That legislation enabled the full participation of New Zealand, with the aim of having common food standards and common food quality between the two countries across the Tasman.

Increasingly, we are becoming a single market. It has been pointed out that it is wise, wherever possible, that common standards exist. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) stressed the need for a national approach and for national standards. Most people would agree that it would be ridiculous to vary standards but, equally, it would be a nonsense to have differing standards in Australia and in New Zealand.

I wish to question, however, the competence of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority in the way in which it seems to be determined to damage the health of Australians by increasing the level of cadmium which is permissible in foods. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority has failed to consult widely with respect to its proposal to increase the level of cadmium from 0.05 milligrams per kilogram to 0.1 milligrams per kilogram.

This approach by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority has concerned me greatly. While I support the principles of this legislation, I am worried that within the legislation we find that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority is able to bring forward proposals which will undermine the productivity and incomes of Australian food producers. In addition, it will be placing in jeopardy the health of Australians of various ages.

I have received numerous representations from around my electorate from people who are extremely concerned at the proposal to increase the acceptable cadmium levels in foods and, in particular, in peanuts. Until recently it was considered gospel that cadmium is extremely dangerous in foods beyond 0.05 milligrams per kilogram. Research has indicated that long-term exposure to cadmium might lead to considerable accumulation in the liver and kidneys, particularly in the renal cortex, resulting in liver damage.

The Australian and New Zealand Food Authority recently decided that cadmium levels could safely be increased to 0.1 milligrams per kilogram without affecting the health of consumers. This appears to run contrary to research done throughout the world which indicates that what we should be doing is seeking to reduce the level of cadmium, rather than increasing it. Yet the Australia New Zealand Food Authority appears to be heading along the direction of increasing the level of cadmium. I see that as being totally unacceptable and I hope that the Food Authority rethinks this proposal.

It ought to be noted also that the main argument advanced by the food authority for increasing the level of cadmium, particularly with respect to peanuts, is that this is a non-tariff barrier excluding the importation of peanuts to this country. The simple fact is that every peanut producing country in the world can meet the Australian standards for cadmium and I have to ask: why should the Australian New Zealand Food Authority seek to expose the Australian public to twice the cadmium level when there is simply no need? At present, there is no restriction on the importation into Australia of peanuts which meet the current guidelines as peanut producing countries throughout the world have no difficulty in meeting the standards which we currently have.

Australian producers, and particularly those in the South Burnett and Kingaroy areas of my electorate, have worked very hard over many years to ensure that their peanuts are as free as possible from cadmium and other residues. Cadmium is a heavy metal that is possibly a major contributor to kidney disease and it can cause bone disorders. High risk groups include young children, pregnant women, vegetarians and smokers. Given the very real concerns and the fact that there has not been adequate consultation, I think it is important that the Australian New Zealand Food Authority re-considers this matter.

There have been some studies done in Sweden and I wish to refer to an article in a publication in August 1996. It says:

. . . exposure to cadmium can give rise to a tubular kidney dysfunction which may proceed to a more generalised renal damage and bone disease if exposure has been high and prolonged. Recent scientific work shows that early renal effects develop at lower levels of exposure than previously anticipated. Previous risk assessments for cadmium were mainly based on studies on healthy male workers. The general population, however, also include particularly susceptible groups such as elderly and individuals with illnesses (e.g. diabetes) that may predispose the cadmium-induced health effects. A significant proportion of the general population displays early signs of toxicity already at urinary cadmium concentrations around 3 mmol creatinine. In addition to early tubular effects, cadmium may exert direct or indirect effects on mineral metabolism and the materialization of the skeleton at relatively low levels of exposure. This may have important health implications as poor and easily fractured bones is a major problem among the elderly in all industrialised countries.

It is interesting to note that in Sweden the cadmium content in wheat has increased during the 20th century, but that concentrations in Swedish food are still much lower than in food from, for example, cadmium polluted areas of Japan. The article says:

Comparisons between the Cd concentration in human kidneys preserved at anatomical museums in Sweden and in kidney samples obtained in recent decades show that the kidney and body burdens of Cd have increased severalfold during the last century.

There is no reason to believe that the situation in Sweden with regard to cadmium pollution is worse than in many other places and clearly cadmium pollution is a global problem. So, in the face of this evidence from Sweden, we find the Australian New Zealand Food Authority is moving to increase the level at which food in this country is able to be riddled with this heavy metal. This is absolutely unacceptable.

It is interesting to note, too, that the National Food Authority had a cadmium workshop in Canberra in 1995 where it was considered that all regulatory bodies should work to put in place a strategy to minimise the exposure of the Australian population to cadmium by reducing cadmium in fertilisers and by maintaining maximum permissible content. Therefore, the activities of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority appear to be running contrary to the recommendations from this particular workshop. I believe that the food authority really has a case to answer. The Food Authority ought to be looked at very closely.

This legislation currently before the House is legislation which is supported broadly by both sides of politics. Clearly, it is important not to force the authority to divert all of its resources to the handling of applications and that, indeed, it ought to get on with its other work. I have no complaint with any of that but my constituents are extremely concerned that the authority seems determined to double the level of cadmium which is deemed to be acceptable in Australia.

There were two proposals to go before the Commonwealth, state, territory and New Zealand ministers for health and these were proposals 148 and 144. Proposal 148 sought to double the permitted levels of cadmium in peanuts from 0.05 milligrams per kilogram to 0.1 and proposal 144 seeks to achieve a general increase in permitted cadmium levels. I have outlined the situation in relation to peanuts and how this could create increased health problems for Australians. It now seems, however, that the Food Authority has said that while it is not going to proceed with proposal 148, which deals with peanuts in isolation, it is going to impose increased cadmium levels on all Australians in relation to all food products. That is clearly unacceptable.

It is interesting to note that a very reputable member of the Queensland community, in fact, the president of the Queensland grain growers association, has opposed strongly what is proposed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. It is very hard to find supporters out there in the community for the proposal of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. I have heard it reported that pressure is being imposed on the ANZ Food Authority because apparently there has been a consignment of condemned peanuts already in the country and the intention is to increase the level of cadmium to permit these condemned peanuts to be inflicted on the Australian community.

I think the Australia New Zealand Food Authority needs to answer some questions here. It is unacceptable that the authority should be acting contrary to the health interests of Australians. All of the evidence, both in Australia and elsewhere, shows that we should be moving towards reduced cadmium levels and yet the Australia New Zealand Food Authority seems hell bent on doubling the maximum permissible levels in Australia. As the Swedish studies indicate, such an action by the authority could well impact on the health of not only young Australians but also older Australians.

However, the government is to be commended for this legislation. It will improve the procedures of the Food Authority. It will enable the authority to concentrate not on applications but rather on the very major projects at which the Food Authority is looking. I ask at this stage that the government, and particularly the minister, look closely at the authority's advocacy of doubling the levels of acceptable cadmium in Australian food with a view to preserving the present levels which I believe is in the interests of reasonable health standards for Australians. I commend the bill to the Committee.