Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I thank the Senators concerned for tabling the motion. While I will circulate my script, I will depart from it to respond to the questions raised.

Senator Feargal Quinn commented on the tragic irony of there being an obesity problem and gross waste of food in some parts of the world, while in others 300 children an hour die from malnutrition. There is a great deal we can do in this regard, but we are doing significant work also. Ireland's development aid programme makes a significant impact in the programme countries in which we operate. I was anxious to link my Department to the programme and we have developed a new policy with the development aid section in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which has not yet been announced to put finance in place to support Irish food companies which want to invest in developing food production systems in the developing world. This will help developing countries from a financial point of view. We could make a significant impact in many countries, particularly in Africa, in building capacity to promote the growth, processing and preparation for consumption of protein-based foods, particularly in dairy and meat production. I can forward the details to the Senator.

We are examining other issues which have not received the attention they should receive for various commercial reasons such as the level of discards in the fishing industry. The quota around our coast is approximately 1 million tonnes and this year approximately 400,000 tonnes of fish will be dumped back into the sea because the quota under the Common Fisheries Policy will have been exceeded or the fish are too small to be landed for market. That figure is probably higher, but, conservatively, 40% of the fish caught are dumped, with up to 70% of some species being dumped. There is, therefore, gross wastage of viable food which could and perhaps should feed people who cannot afford to buy it. However, because of the system we have bought into for environmental reasons in the case of the CFP to protect fish stocks, that facility is not allowed, which is ironic. We are trying to address this issue in a genuine way under the CFP. Only last week, for example, I went out on a fishing trawler on the Irish Sea to be shown new technology to separate cod from prawns. We have plenty of healthy prawn stocks, while the cod stock is under severe pressure in the Irish Sea, but fishermen now have the capacity to separate their catch which will I hope lead to the conservation of cod while viable prawn stocks are landed. Mechanisms such as this are needed across a series of sectors.

We also have a crazy milk quota policy which will be in place until April 2015. Ireland has the capacity to dramatically increase the volume of milk it produces, but if we exceed our milk quota, we will be subject to superlevy fines. There is huge demand for the dairy products we have the capacity to process and export. EU and international policies have been put in place for domestic commercial reasons to deliberately limit supply to drive demand and maintain high prices or, in the case of fisheries, in an attempt to conserve stock, but the side effect is to force the industry to dump significant volumes of adult marketable fish which could feed hungry people. We are working on a series of initiatives in the areas referred to by the Senator to reduce waste and focus our policy on using our natural resources more effectively to feed more people. The island of Ireland has a population of 6 million, but we produce enough food for 36 million. By 2020, we will produce enough food for 50 million and, if I have my way, it will be closer to 60 million. I am hugely ambitious for the food industry in producing more for less in a safe, sustainable way that is in sympathy with the environment and the climate. I will refer to this later in discussing our carbon footprint.

We are modernising agriculture and primary food production in Ireland in an impressive way. It is industry-led and strongly supported by the Government. That will have a commercial return but it will also make a significant contribution in terms of our contribution towards feeding populations outside Ireland.

A point I repeatedly make at Council level in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy is that issues globally have changed. We can no longer look at the European Union in a protectionist way to try to create an artificial market for food to keep prices high. Most commodity food prices outside the European Union have caught up because of significant increases in food commodity prices in the past two years due to a shortage of supply. Europe must concentrate on feeding itself and making a contribution to feeding the world as part of the Common Agricultural Policy as opposed to the opposite, which has been the case in the past.

On the motion, I would like to think I am a constructive politician. I do not try to find division unless it is necessary. There are some proposals in the motion I know I cannot deliver. I cannot vote for something to try to keep everyone happy knowing there are some proposals in the motion that legally I cannot deliver, particularly around labelling. I will read the section of my speech on labelling that has been prepared for me because I want to put a number of points on the record but I have bought into the spirit of what the Senator is proposing in terms of trying to address more effectively the issue of food waste.

We have a series of proposals and projects, whether they be in primary schools, through local authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency website or driven by the Department of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, on trying to reduce waste levels in food and also in energy. Some of them are working reasonably well but much more can be done. This motion seeks to drive forward that agenda and force new thinking on finding ways of reducing the almost one third of food that is not consumed and is dumped. This occurs despite all the standards we impose in terms of food production and the mechanisms and structures we have in place across the European Union, not just in Ireland, although we do it better here than any other country in the European Union, to ensure food safety and so on. It is a bit like the crazy statistic on water that indicates we spend €1.2 billion a year treating water for human consumption and nearly half of it leaks through the pipes before it gets to its destination. We have the same problem with food, although the problem is nearly worse because consumers get the product and then throw it away because they leave it in the fridge too long, they do not consume it or whatever. A series of sectors are responsible for that, and the retail sector is part of the chain that is responsible for it.

The Senator makes a good point about the two for one or the five for four offer. The only exception to that is alcohol in that people probably consume all of it because it does not go off. My household is like any other. We have two young daughters. We try to bring a lot of fruit and vegetables into the House and we end up throwing much of it away because of not getting the volumes of shopping right. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has set up a website to help people to measure and target what they should be purchasing each week in a more accurate way to reduce waste and so on, but it has had limited effect.

In terms of the motion, I am happy to sit down with anyone from this House who wants to talk to me about the individual bullet points they propose should be considered. I will take them on board and try to implement them where possible, but my Department is not solely responsible for all these areas. Some of them come under the Department of Health and others under the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Other elements might involve taxation measures that encourage certain behaviour, which comes under the Department of Finance. Some may relate to my Department but I am happy to work with this House in terms of trying to achieve the goals the Senator is proposing. What I will not do, however, is support a motion when I know it contains specifics that are well-meaning but that I cannot deliver, particularly around the labelling elements.

I refer to some of the issues on labelling. Members are aware that responsibility for the enforcement of general food labelling legislation rests with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI. The EU general labelling directive sets out mandatory information that must appear on the packaging of pre-packed food or on an attached label. Last September, the EU adopted new legislation on food information. That sets down additional labelling requirements to help consumers make healthier and better informed choices. The new rules aim to streamline the legislation to ensure better compliance with greater clarity for stakeholders, which is what people have been calling for.

The general labelling directive requires the place of origin of foodstuffs in circulation in the EU to be declared only where failure to provide it would be likely to mislead the consumer. I will refer to that again shortly. Specific country of origin labelling for beef and veal was introduced under Regulation EC No. 1760/2000 originating with the need for traceability arising from BSE. Some other products such as honey, fruit, vegetables and olive oil also require origin labelling under EU legislation.

Ireland has long favoured the extension of mandatory origin labelling to meats other than beef, including where such meats are ingredients in processed products, and has pressed for this at a European level for a number of years. Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and Council extends the current provisions which apply to beef to other meats, namely, pork, poultry, sheep and goat meat.

Country of origin labelling is about providing the consumer with information on the country or countries where food was grown, produced, manufactured or packed. Some product specific legislation requires that origin is indicated on the label and the criteria for determining origin are set out in the relevant legislation. For example, the legislation for beef and beef products requires that the country where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered must be indicated.

Origin labelling was also required under marketing standards regulations for unprocessed poultry meat imported from third countries, that is, outside the European Union. That legislation does not include the detailed traceability requirements provided for beef. For the purposes of international trade, origin is deemed to be the place where the product last underwent a substantial transformation, which is what a number of people have raised and have concerns about in this debate.

Impact assessments will be prepared over the next two years in respect of pig, poultry, sheep and goat meat and other products such as milk and unprocessed foods. These reports will examine issues such as the need for the consumer to be informed, the feasibility of providing the mandatory indication of the country of origin and the potential impact on international trade. Following these impact assessments, the Commission will adopt implementing Acts regarding pork, poultry, sheep and goat meat, and the new requirements will apply from December 2014. Enforcement will be the responsibility of the FSAI.

The European legislative wheels are moving on this issue. The principal decision has been made by the Parliament and the Council to extend country of origin labelling to other meats, including pork and poultry. We are also looking at dairy products, but there must be an assessment of the impact of that decision on the Common Market and on international trade, but it will happen, although it is frustrating that it takes as long as it takes to get it done.

I want to issue a note of caution on one aspect. There is a great deal of talk in Ireland, and rightly so, about encouraging consumers here to buy Irish products. While I support that, we must be careful that we do not promote at EU level the adoption by countries of a protectionist approach towards their own producers, because 85% of all the food we produce has to find a purchaser, a home and a consumer outside of Ireland. We export nearly €3 billion worth of food to the UK each year. If the UK decided to deliberately target Irish food and encourage its consumers not to buy it, it would have a devastating impact on our food industry. Ireland more than any other country in the European Union relies on a common market that is functioning. The approach I take on this is to say to consumers that they have a right to know from where the food comes and that the best quality of food they can buy is likely to come from Ireland because I can stand over the systems we implement here at a farm and processing level and so on. I encourage consumers to buy Irish because of the quality, safety and sustainability that is part of the Irish tag or label, but I do not say buy Irish because we do not like the French or the Belgians and they are also food producers. We need to ensure we do not take a protectionist US approach towards keeping out beef exports in terms of the European Union. Our food industry is based on markets outside of Ireland. Practically all the growth we are aspiring to deliver in terms of the Food Harvest 2020 business plan is based on finding markets, and premium markets at that, for our produce outside Ireland.

That brings me on to an issue I am glad the Senators raised around carbon-footprinting. Sweden is doing some interesting work on carbon-footprinting but it cannot match what Ireland is doing. We are the only country in the world that can put a label on most of our beef to show the consumer the carbon - or methane - footprint associated with that beef production. Some 500 farms a week are being carbon-footprinted through the Bord Bia quality assurance scheme. We have approximately 28,000 beef farms in Ireland that can measure the carbon footprint or emissions that come from their herds while they are growing their beef. We are the first country in the world to do that and we are about to extend it into the dairy area. Within the next 18 months or probably prior to that we will see an equally proactive rollout of carbon footprinting in the dairy area.

We are doing a good deal on carbon-footprinting and for good reason. At a European level the climate change policy being pursued by the European Union is fundamentally at odds with the food security policy being pursued by it - they do not make sense. In essence, our emissions problem in terms of the target we have set ourselves by 2020 means that 40% of our emissions problem comes from the agriculture sector. When the traded sector - the top 106 emitters in Ireland which trade between each other at a European level - is taken out of the equation, 40% of our emissions problem comes from agricultural, from the front and back end of cattle predominantly. There are also emissions from machinery, ploughing of land and so on.

The idea that EU policy would encourage a country like Ireland to reduce its herd size to meet climate change targets when we produce beef at one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world makes no sense when this is a global problem because we would simply transport the problem to somewhere else. In other words, for the EU to meet its targets from an emissions point of view as regards agriculture, we would import from other parts of the world where the carbon footprint is not measured and simply displace the problem. If the European Union was serious about linking food security and food production with climate change, it would encourage countries like Ireland and other countries that can measure the carbon footprint, and know that we represent best practice in terms of reducing emissions from food production, to produce more food and to displace food production from other parts of the world that are not as efficient at doing it. That is the big advantage of Ireland because we have a grass-based system for beef and dairy, which is much more sustainable and is becoming much more price competitive as the cost of meal - which most cattle are fed in most parts of the world both for milk and for beef - has increased; and as grain has got more scarce, the price has gone up by nearly 50% in two years. We are in a competitive place from the point of view of climate change labelling, sustainability, animal husbandry and safety, but we need to do a great deal more work in regard to the waste that happens in the supply chain between the retail sector and the consumer, predominantly in people's homes and businesses, hotels, restaurants and so on. I am happy to work with anyone in this House who would like to meet me on this to try to make an impact.

On the labelling issue, we cannot unilaterally decide that we will change labelling standards in Ireland and expect there to be no consequences from doing that. We operate in a common market, which is essential for Ireland in terms of our growth. Some 41% of our exports go to the UK and 34% of them go to the rest of the European Union. If Members add those two figures they will realise that the vast majority of the food we export goes either to the European Union or to the UK. We need common standards on labelling, standards, controls and enforcement across the Common Market, which has half a billion consumers, to ensure we play on the same pitch as everybody else. If we start changing the rules for ourselves, others will follow, and it is not in our interests to do that. We need to continue to lobby and push aggressively at a European level to get the country of origin labelling result that we want, which is already on the way but is frustratingly slow in coming. We need to raise other standards by getting agreement at an EU level to get a common platform for trade and import and export of food and so that consumers associate buying Irish food with everything that we want them to associate it with around sustainability, quality, safety, animal husbandry, carbon-footprinting issues and so on, whether they buy it in Germany or in Glanmire.