Dr. J.G. Beechinor:

I will take that question. I qualified as a vet in 1982. The reason I bring it up is that the principles we learned at the time were quite different from what is in place now. Basically, back then our goal was a parasite-free animal or a parasite-free herd. The idea was to blanket treat the cohort of animals with an effective product and nuke the parasites. Unfortunately, the parasites have become resistant. Nuking the parasites only give the fellas that are resistant an open field, so that is no longer the rule book. The difficulty is that science evolves and we are now looking at a goal for sustainable parasite control based on diluting the effects of resistant parasites with bio-security, quarantine, new treatment protocols for purchased animals and building resilience into the animals, possibly through genetic programmes and building resilience into the animals by gradually exposing them to parasite challenge so it is not an overwhelming challenge. This is what the science says. As a veterinarian there are probably others who are more expert than I to speak about how to treat. Those people, and maybe the Veterinary Council of Ireland or Teagasc, might want to add comment to that. My point is that the science is changing. I would agree with the Deputy that licensed merchants are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is parasite resistance. We must preserve the efficacy of these products into the future. As I said earlier, my colleague Dr. Murphy, who is involved in the EU committee, can speak from experience but we are not seeing new products coming around the corner every five or ten years. The lack of new compounds is a problem, and not just with anti-parasitic products but also with antibiotics. Perhaps Dr. Murphy will join in on that please.