Food figures overcooked

WHAT'S the world coming to? The latest is that Australia has become a net importer of food. We're told that last financial year, our imports of food and groceries exceeded exports by $1.8 billion, a dramatic turnaround from our $4.5 billion surplus five years earlier. This alarming news comes from a report by accounting firm KPMG for the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

According to the council's chief executive, Kate Carnell, the industry ''is still a major exporter but imports are rising fast, eroding the trade surplus historically enjoyed by the industry … We really are facing a scenario where Australia really won't manufacture much at all in this space. The majority of products will come from overseas.'' Carnell says the costs of power, staff, transport, government regulation and the drought have put pressure on manufacturers. ''To protect Australia's food supply and overcome this challenge, there must be a 'whole-of-government' national strategy to ensure food and grocery manufacturing's long-term growth, increase export earnings and boost competitiveness,'' she says.

There's just one problem with all this. It's nonsense. Australia, a net importer of food? Yeah, sure. If you fell for it your bulldust detector has seriously failed you.

And in these days of he-said-she-said journalism, you need your detector working as never before. Increasingly, the media are used by interest groups - whether governments, oppositions, businesses or lobby groups - to push their own barrows. And increasingly the media happily pass on the most dubious claims, provided they're sufficiently novel, alarming or combative.

Often the vested interests are waving some ''modelling'' or ''independent report'' they've bought from some seemingly reputable source. Only if you find the report and read its fine print do you discover that the reputable source is covering its backside with disclaimers.

Consider this from KPMG's report for the food and grocery council: ''No opinions or conclusions intended to convey assurance have been expressed. The report has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this report without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report.'' Translation: if your bulldust detector isn't working, that's your look out.

According to figures compiled by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, last year we had total exports of food of $25.4 billion and total food imports of $11 billion, leaving us with a surplus of $14.4 billion. Even if we ignore unprocessed and look only at processed food, we still had a trade surplus of $5.8 billion.

So how did the food and grocery council get exports of $21.5 billion and imports of $23.3 billion for 2009-10, giving that deficit of $1.8 billion? By using its own definition of ''food and groceries''. We're not talking about farmers here, but the people who take their produce and process it for supermarkets.

So the council's figures exclude all our unprocessed food exports, including wheat (worth $4.8 billion in 2009), other grains and live animals. On the other hand, they include ''grocery manufacturing products'' such as medicines and pharmaceuticals, plastic bags and film, paper products and detergents.

That's food? It turns out that our exports of ''groceries'' totalled $4.9 billion in 2009-10, whereas our imports totalled $12.9 billion, leaving us a ''grocery'' trade deficit of $8 billion. This is hardly surprising. Since when was Australia big in the manufacture of medicines? If you leave out groceries, the report's figures show we had exports of processed food and beverages worth $15.9 billion, compared with imports of $9.9 billion, plus exports of fresh produce worth $700 million against imports of less than $500 million.