Introduction of a cost-effective technology in relation to other There may be added cost in the supply chain due to the requirements alternative treatments (hot water, vapour heat treatment, to track, and possibly segregate, irradiated produce to ensure that cold or heat treatment) without some of the inherent quality labelling requirements are met. issues that alternative treatments may cause. Potential cost in ascertaining consumer acceptance of irradiated Reduction in the costs of using pesticides commodities. Consumers Possibly greater year-round availability of these commodities A potential cost to consumers is that irradiated fruits and vegetables in some markets/regions in Australia and New Zealand. may cost more than non-irradiated ones. Additionally, a further additional cost that could be passed on to consumers could arise Possibly better quality fruit and vegetables depending on the due to the mandatory requirement for labelling as required under dose of irradiation, as other treatments (such as heat and clause 6 of Standard 1.5.3. This cost arises from the requirement to cold) can affect fruit and vegetable quality. provide product labels and the provision of signage at the point of sale for unpackaged produce. Produce may be transported for longer periods while maintaining desirable sensory qualities for consumers. Provides choice to consumers wanting to avoid exposure to other treatments such as chemicals and the resulting residues in those foods. Approval of these commodities may increase competition in the marketplace, improve seasonal availability and increase price competition. Option 2: Reject the Application AFFECTED BENEFITS COSTS PARTY Government There are no benefits to Governments in maintaining a No costs were identified, although lack of approval may be regarded prohibition. as unnecessarily trade restrictive.
Introduction of a cost-effective technology in relation to other alternative treatments (hot water, vapour heat treatment, cold or heat treatment) without some of the inherent quality issues that alternative treatments may cause. Reduction in the costs of using pesticides There may be added cost in the supply chain due to the requirements to track, and possibly segregate, irradiated produce to ensure that labelling requirements are met. Potential cost in ascertaining consumer acceptance of irradiated commodities. Consumers Possibly greater year-round availability of these commodities in some markets/regions in Australia and New Zealand. Possibly better quality fruit and vegetables depending on the dose of irradiation, as other treatments (such as heat and cold) can affect fruit and vegetable quality. Produce may be transported for longer periods while maintaining desirable sensory qualities for consumers. Provides choice to consumers wanting to avoid exposure to other treatments such as chemicals and the resulting residues in those foods. Approval of these commodities may increase competition in the marketplace, improve seasonal availability and increase price competition. A potential cost to consumers is that irradiated fruits and vegetables may cost more than non-irradiated ones. Additionally, a further additional cost that could be passed on to consumers could arise due to the mandatory requirement for labelling as required under clause 6 of Standard 1.5.3. This cost arises from the requirement to provide product labels and the provision of signage at the point of sale for unpackaged produce. Option 2: Reject the Application AFFECTED PARTY BENEFITS COSTS Government There are no benefits to Governments in maintaining a prohibition. No costs were identified, although lack of approval may be regarded as unnecessarily trade restrictive.