SA accused or protectionism over chicken move

The recent imposition of antidumping duties on chicken products from three European suppliers has seen a resurgence of complaints about the local chicken industry – which was behind the duty move. Ranging from 22%-73%, the duties were aimed at imports of all frozen bone-in chicken portions from Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. But the dumping accusation is aimed primarily at leg quarters in this category, according to Kevin Lovell, CEO of the SA Poultry Association (Sapa) – which brought the application for antidumping duties to the International Trade Administration Commission (Itac). The complaints were wideranging. They started at the bottom end of the supply chain with consumers – who were up in arms about these duties generally pushing up prices at the till. They then ascended up to senior management of food supply companies and chicken importers – even including the department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (Daff). Georg Southey, GM of Merlog Foods, said they were direct indications that SA was trying to curb imports in what could best be described as a “protectionist” mode. “Through tariffs and antidumping duties, we are trying to limit the amount of imports into the country to protect the local industry.” Southey added that SA was a major consumer of chicken feet that had to be imported in large quantities. Yet it was clearly curbing poultry imports from places such as America and Europe. David Wolpert, CEO of the Association of Meat Importers and Exporters (Amie) said that poultry imports represented less than 10% of local poultry consumption, a percentage that was “far too low to have any meaningful negative impact” on local industry. He was also adamant that it was the local industry’s inefficiency that made them unable to compete with import prices. And that they looked on “excessive” duties as a means of maintaining, if not increasing, the till price of chicken portions. Not only that, but the local producers were indulging in the rather insidious habit of “brining” poultry – injecting brine-based mixtures (salt, water, phosphates, flavourants etc) into chicken products. “Water,” said Wolpert, “represents just under 97% of the solution, so brining is obviously merely a system of commercial gain at the consumer’s expense.” That, he added, allowed them to charge for this as “chicken”. And this reached seriously high levels, which he described as “blatant abuse of consumers by excessive brining”. The department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries identified this abuse as a threat to consumer safety and value for money and, as a result, contracted the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) to conduct a research study on brine injection of chicken meat. Its investigation of brining found that an “optimum amount is necessary for quality enhancement”. But, said Daff spokesman, Steve Galane, the research found that, in practice, more was injected, sometimes 30-60% in individual quick frozen (IQF) portions. Daff therefore announced that it intended to cap the brining of IQF portions at a level of 15% and of whole birds at 10% – with intended implementation on September 1. INSERT & CAPTION The local industry looks on “excessive” duties as a means of maintaining, if not increasing, the till price of chicken portions. – David Wolpert