Chairperson, with regard especially to the international standards that have to be maintained and the general common economic market in South Africa, we have to maintain essential national standards, and that is why we are here before the members.
Consumer protection is the main aim, as I was saying. In terms of section 27 of the Constitution of South Africa, everyone has the right to have access to ``sufficient food''. ``Sufficient food'' is definitely more than enough food, because it includes enough food. However, ``sufficient food'' also has a qualitative aspect to it. Mostly that is about the objects for which the food is being used, and that is for human health. In that regard, we have a constitutional imperative to see to it, from the side of the state, that this right to safe food is being exercised. Throughout much of the world, an increasing number of consumers and most governments are becoming aware of food quality and safety issues, and are realising the need to be selective about the foods people eat. It is now common for consumers to demand that governments take legislative action to ensure that only safe food of acceptable quality is sold, and that the risk of food- borne health hazards is minimised.
In other words, no one can deny that food is a very important item on political agendas all over the world. It is there - an entity on the political agendas. In fact, governments are extremely conscious of the political consequences which they may expect if they fail to heed consumers' concerns regarding the food they eat. In other words, universally, there is an acknowledgement of the right that people have of expecting that the food they eat is safe, and is of a good quality and suitable for consumption. In actual fact, in terms of the United Nations guidelines of 1985 on consumer protection, governments should take into account the needs of all consumers for food security.
We all know how bad it becomes when something goes wrong with food. For example, I have recently had experience of this because I was involved in the decision on whether to lift the ban on imports of British beef to South Africa. If one thinks about what happened in Britain, where almost 90 people died and millions of pounds worth of cattle had to be destroyed, people all over the world are asking the question: What goes into the animal whose meat we are going to eat?
I must say that with the recent incidence of foot-and-mouth disease, which we are still experiencing, there were some averments which cannot be proven because it is extremely difficult to do so. But there were some deductions made to the effect that foot-and-mouth disease occurred in this country in KwaZulu-Natal because of some swill, that is, products left over from food and other refuse which came from ships and was fed to pigs. Whether that is true or not, the point of concern is this: Something was perhaps eaten by the pigs. People are very concerned, because this creates the public fear of whether they are really safe from what goes into the animals whose meat they are going to eat.
I must say I am convinced that in South Africa we must look at this position carefully. It does not help to say that we are a developing country, therefore we can let go. That is actually a racist statement because one is then saying that only people who are rich can afford safe food, by ensuring that they buy from an important place. I think we have a duty to look after the safety of all our people's food, especially meat. The main thing is that we have to investigate what is happening. We have to look at, for example, growth hormones. They are not allowed in Europe and there is a big battle going on about them in America. Some antibiotics are used quite explicitly for accelerated growth and to prevent diseases.
Members will see, in the fine print of the Bill, that we talk about residues when we discuss meat safety. Those residues actually refer to what is left over. For example, if one has given medicine to an animal, the residue can be tested, and that will also play a role in the Bill.
In general, this whole subject of meat safety is only part of food health. I can tell the hon delegates that in South Africa we have to work towards a general national food safety agency. Regarding a food safety agency, we have mechanisms at present and this issue is being dealt with by the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture. I must say there is good co-operation between the two departments. However, if one really wants to see that nothing goes wrong - and things can go terribly wrong if they go wrong, for example, are we really sure that milk is safe in this country and can our municipalities handle this - then we must start looking at the matter.
I am saying that, pertaining to consumers' concerns regarding food and in this case meat safety, we think we can do something in close co-operation with provinces because this is an intergovernmental system. The provinces will implement the necessary steps through the very good system of intergovernmental relations created by this Bill. I think that we are going to have a system in which the consumers' concerns will be addressed.
What has happened in the world is that more and more information about food- related matters has become available. There was a time when people were only concerned about the visibles, such as whether food is underweight, whether the contents are correct, size variations, misleading labelling and poor quality. But now the consumers are concerned about the invisibles: the health hazards that cannot be seen, smelt or tasted, such as micro- organisms, pesticide residues, environmental contaminants and food additives.
Both nationally and internationally there is growing pressure on governments to protect all our communities from poor-quality and hazardous foods. I think that what this Meat Safety Bill is going to do is to make it impossible for people who live in impoverished areas to be mistreated through some hazardous meat being off-loaded in their areas. I feel very strongly about this. There is no way that people can regard some areas as places where one can get rid of meat in an uncontrolled fashion.
When we embarked on the deregulation of agriculture in South Africa, it went very quickly. Some people have the impression that the deregulation of the market is now a situation of lawlessness. That is a completely wrong impression. We must send the message that that is not going to happen in South Africa. There is no way that the state's role and duty of care for controlling what must be controlled, regulating what must be regulated, will not be done. It is true that we are under budgetary constraints. But the day that one cannot export ostrich meat any more because one does not have enough veterinarians to check every ostrich that is slaughtered, one will be losing money by not putting money there. Sometimes one must spend money to make money. That is the way we are going to do it. We must build a lot.
We are not going to allow people to bring in things, for example swill from a ship, where one must have a permit from the Department of Agriculture and when such an item should have been destroyed in terms of environmental legislation. We are not going to allow that type of a thing. I want to send a strong message about that. The state is going to do its duty, as far as we are capable of doing it. We are going to strengthen veterinary science and veterinary practices in this country. We have to do that. We cannot allow things to just go down.
Because it is late in the evening, I will, perhaps, go into more detail about the Bill after the members have spoken and given an indication of what areas of the Bill are of special concern to them. [Applause.]