Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will not repeat questions that have been already asked. I acknowledge the extensive testing carried out by the FSAI and the role of Department officials in this process. It is a very complex area, as the reports have outlined to us. It is important for us to bear in mind that DNA testing is what brought this to light. This was not brought to State organisations and highlighted by an outside body; it was a State organisation that highlighted it through the testing process. It is important to note this from a consumer confidence perspective.

Farmers, as primary producers, have built a reputation on traceability. There is a significant cost to farmers, who also put in time in respect of paperwork and keeping records in addition to the significant level of examination that happens through cross-compliance and other on-farm measures. How does that level of on-farm inspection compare with the level of investigation of food processors? Does the same level of scrutiny exist further down the line? We talk about traceability from farm to fork and I am happy that from farm to farm gate, our primary producers are pretty impeccable. It is then very frustrating for farmers to see that the actions of processors can damage the reputation of an industry key to their livelihoods. I say this while accepting that this material was not for the Irish market and that DNA testing found minute traces in most instances.

Is the system of risk assessment for secondary processors the industry norm for other countries? Is risk assessment the form of investigation used? I know we have an open market but I would not be overly happy that as the largest exporter of beef in Europe and the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world, processors here are going to Poland to access this material. Is that because it is cheaper or due to quantity? Retailers are putting on the pressure in respect of lower prices in this market but I accept the Minister's point about the forthcoming consumer and competition Bill and welcome the mandatory code of conduct that will be introduced because it will be a key component. It is probably not directly associated with this issue but it is in the mix as well.

The Minister said he raised the matter with meat processors. What kind of interaction has he had with them and what has been their response? Bord Bia initially said it was happy that the market reaction to this was fairly negligible across Europe and anecdotally with consumers in Ireland. Has that changed as the story has developed or is there any sense that there has been an impact here in terms of market reaction?

What struck me about Rangeland and the product coming from Poland was the fact that it was frozen. I know it was in a large block and I heard it said earlier that the testing mechanism involved drilling into that block. Does that product have to be defrosted before it is used to make a burger? Is it then refrozen, and are there issues around that? Could the Minister clarify how that process works?

One thing that struck me when the Silvercrest story broke and we heard about the discovery of 29% horse DNA in one of the burgers was that the specific burger had a meat content of 63%, which is very worrying. I accept the Minister's earlier point that this would not be the norm. He said that many contracts require a minimum meat content. Is that purely a matter for contracts or is it one for law? Is it something we need to look at? If one goes into one's local butcher, the home-made steak burgers one will get at the higher end are probably 97% or 98% beef, with the exception of a bit of parsley and onion or something to make up the difference. At what point does a burger stop being a burger if one is getting down to very low meat content levels? Do we have a threshold below which producers cannot go?

The Minister said last night on television that the Rangeland story was not a huge surprise considering what he found out along the way. Does he expect us to get to the bottom of this fairly soon, so that we can draw a line under it? I accept completely that time has to be taken, this has to be done properly and that we must dot the i's and cross the t's, but the drip, drip effect of news is damaging. We must strike a balance between making sure everything in the investigation is right and making sure it does not drag on any longer.