The big biosecurity question at the centre of Australia's US beef move

SBS Australia

5 days ago

The federal government has lifted a ban on beef imports from the United States, expanding access to products sourced from Canada and Mexico. It's a move some experts say risks Australia's biosecurity and may be politically motivated. Although the US has been able to send beef to Australia since 2019, any cattle raised in Canada or Mexico before being slaughtered and processed in the US was previously barred due to biosecurity concerns. Now, following a decade-long science-based review, that restriction is gone.
But some question whether Australia's strict biosecurity laws are being used for political gain, with the government facing questions over whether the move was made to appease US President Donald Trump.
Biosecurity concerns One key concern was that Mexico's livestock tracking system could inadvertently allow beef from disease-affected regions to enter Australia. But the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said the new changes follow the introduction of more robust movement controls in the US in late 2024 and early 2025, allowing for better tracing of cattle through the supply chain. Professor Michael Ward, a veterinary public health expert at the University of Sydney, said the decision opens Australia up to more risk because disease traceability in North America is "not quite as strong" as in Europe. Australia allows imports of beef products from a limited number of European countries.
"You can potentially have cattle coming from lower disease status areas caught up in what gets exported, and then trying to work out where it's come from, that becomes really difficult," he said.
"You can't really [separate those markets] in the US because it's such a bigger market and it's integrated … If a cow is moved to the US and it's there for three months, is it then an American cow? "You're basically increasing the pool of potentially risky animals, and that then flows into the risk assessment." The main risks associated with beef imports are the introduction of diseases such as mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease. Both the US and Mexico are free from both diseases. Canada is free of foot and mouth disease, but has had some cases of mad cow disease in the past.
Ward said it's not "reasonable to believe all three countries have the same risk".
"They're different systems, different countries, different raising conditions, different administrations. As you increase the number of countries, you're going to increase the risk." A spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture said the review was the culmination of "a decade of science and risk-based import assessment and evaluation … to make sure Australia's robust biosecurity measures are upheld".
They added that the government would "not compromise on our enviable biosecurity status or our food standards, ever".
Is biosecurity being used as a bargaining tool? Some believe the change could help Australia negotiate a better trade deal with the US — particularly on tariffs. As part of his sweeping global tariffs, Trump introduced a baseline 10 per cent tariff on many Australian goods in April. "[Australians] ban American beef," Trump said at the time. "Yet, we imported [US]$3 billion ($4.5 billion) of Australian beef from them just last year alone … They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers." Nationals leader David Littleproud has accused the Albanese government of using the beef industry to appease Trump as it continues to pursue a broader tariff exemption.
"It looks as though it's [biosecurity] been traded away to appease Donald Trump," Littleproud said on ABC's Radio National on Thursday.
Coalition frontbencher James Paterson called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to "stand up ... and explain" to Australia's beef farmers that the government hasn't "watered down" biosecurity. Ward is also concerned the government is "playing off" biosecurity protections to secure a better deal. "It seems like a trade-driven decision," he said. He warned that the short-term economic gain from lifting tariffs could pale in comparison to the potential cost of a disease outbreak. "It's a huge concern — once you have introduced a disease — foot and mouth disease, for example — years and years and millions of dollars are spent trying to control that," he said.
"That short-term gain — if it is tariff-driven — whether what the benefit of that is compared to a long-term disease scenario, it just doesn't add up. You really have to think about the long-term."
Trade Minister Don Farrell has denied any link between the decision and pressure from the US. "There's nothing suspicious about this," he told Sky News. "If we want to export our beef overseas, then we have to accept that other countries will want to import their beef into Australia."
"We're not going to allow our biosecurity rules to be impacted by the trade issues."
How has the industry responded? Some industry groups say they support science-based decision-making but expressed frustration over the lack of transparency. "Science must remain the cornerstone of technical market access decisions," Australian Meat Industry Council CEO Tim Ryan said in a statement. "This progress on the US's access request demonstrates Australia's consistency in applying internationally recognised standards, which is vital to the long-term sustainability of our sector." The National Farmers Federation (NFF) said the decision needed to come "separate from any tariff negotiations".
"The NFF's been clear that the revised request from the US needed to undergo the standard, science-based assessment to protect our biosecurity, and should be dealt with separate from any tariff negotiations," the organisation said in a statement.
Cattle Australia CEO Will Evans said the announcement came without proper consultation. "There's going to be a lot of people today who feel blindsided by this, there's going to be a lot of people who are going to feel really frustrated and threatened by this," he told ABC radio. 'This science-based process has been, and always should be, conducted completely independently of any international trade negotiations," he added. Ward said that without seeing the final risk assessment, it's hard to judge whether the safeguards are sufficient. "It's a bit surprising," he said. "I would have thought if it's good science, you publicise it." SBS News has contacted Agriculture Minister Julie Collins for comment. With additional reporting from AAP.