Imagine a single disease threatening the livelihoods of Australian farmers and a billion-dollar industry. That’s the stark reality facing Australia’s citrus sector right now, and the core of a heated debate over pomelo imports from Vietnam. Citrus Australia is urgently requesting a pause on these imports, and here’s why it matters to every consumer and taxpayer.
The organization has formally appealed to the Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), asking them to halt the market access application for Vietnamese pomelos. Their primary concern? Biosecurity risks, which they believe haven’t been adequately assessed. Nathan Hancock, Chief Executive Officer of Citrus Australia, emphasizes the industry’s support for fair trade, acknowledging the importance of open, rules-based access to markets. “Trade only works when both countries can be confident that pests and diseases are properly managed,” he states. “In this case, the evidence shows a significant and unmanaged biosecurity risk.”
But here’s where it gets controversial: Citrus Australia claims that citrus canker is widespread – virtually endemic – across the key pomelo-growing areas of Vietnam. Citrus canker is a highly contagious disease affecting citrus plants, and, crucially, packed fruit can act as a carrier, spreading the disease across borders. Historically, Australia has only allowed fruit imports from regions proven to be free of, or with very low prevalence of, citrus canker. This cautious approach has been the bedrock of protecting Australia’s A$1.1 billion citrus industry and the regional communities that depend on it. To put that into perspective, that’s more than the GDP of some small island nations, highlighting the economic significance at stake.
And this is the part most people miss: Citrus Australia asserts that its initial submission in 2024, alongside submissions from other organizations, clearly highlighted these risks. A follow-up submission in 2025 further solidified their concerns. They believe this evidence should have automatically triggered a technical review under established biosecurity protocols. “Despite the strength of evidence presented, our request for a formal technical review was declined,” Hancock explains. This perceived oversight has led them to escalate their concerns directly to the minister, demanding a proper risk assessment.
To ensure a thorough and unbiased evaluation, Citrus Australia is advocating for the creation of a scientific advisory group as part of a full Biosecurity Import Risk Assessment (BIRA). This BIRA would meticulously examine all available scientific data, surveillance information, and real-world pathways through which the disease could spread. “Australia cannot afford to take unnecessary risks with citrus canker,” Hancock warns. “We are confident that a clear, science-based review is the right path forward for both countries. This is not about stopping trade; it is about ensuring trade is safe.” Maintaining strict biosecurity standards at the border is, according to Citrus Australia, vital for preserving the high quality of Australian produce and the profitability of the citrus sector.
Citrus Australia maintains its commitment to working collaboratively with DAFF, other government agencies, and trading partners to achieve robust biosecurity outcomes while simultaneously fostering sustainable export growth. But, is this just protectionism, or a legitimate concern for the health of Australian agriculture? Should Australia prioritize caution, even if it means potentially disrupting trade relations? What level of risk is acceptable when the stakes are so high? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!