Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and Professor Reilly for coming in today to address the committee. I have a number of questions, some of which are for Professor Reilly and some for the Minister. In his contribution, Professor Reilly stated that the survey was carried out against the background of increasing prices of raw materials using food and feed manufacture and the global sourcing of ingredients, which can lead to a temptation to cut corners and substitute cheaper raw materials for higher-priced ingredients. In the previous paragraph, he said that the decision to test for DNA in the meat products was guided by a combination of scientific risk assessment and common sense. Did the FSAI have any prior knowledge in advance of initiating the testing programme given the explanation in that paragraph and the scientific risk assessment? Given the amount of beef, pork and sheepmeat processed in this country, why did the FSAI not test for sheepmeat when it was testing for the DNA and why did it select horsemeat instead of sheepmeat? I would have thought that if there was cross-contamination, it would be quite possible for it to involve sheep.

In respect of lessons to be learned, the final page of Professor Reilly's presentation stated that a key lesson for the food industry is that there should be robust supplier control and verification of supply, that when purchasing raw materials for inclusion in processed meat products, it is necessary to ensure that all ingredients are lawfully declared, and that knowledge of primary and secondary suppliers is essential. I would have thought this would have been standard in the food processing sector in this country. I wonder why Professor Reilly felt it necessary to include that as a lesson to be learned given the size of Silvercrest. One would imagine that it would have had robust procedures in place and would have been required by its customers to have those procedures.

The Minister has been quoted in newspapers on 2 February 2013 talking about the very poor management at the Silvercrest facility and how he was going to work hard to win back the contracts that have been lost. Is the intention to win back the contracts under Silvercrest, given that its facility is very modern, as the Minister stated? How could he have faith in ABP to put in place management that would be responsible in that facility? Is it appropriate for the Minister to work to get contracts for a facility and management that have shown such a breach of trust?

The Minister outlined in his contribution the number of infections that take place. I previously worked in a meat factory where one would regularly see vets inspecting the product. There were over 7,000 infections in 2011 in the meat sector. How robust is the auditing process given that the management at the Silvercrest plant was so poor and deficient? I understand the vets would look at the ingredient processes and whether ingredients were being sourced and used in the proper way. Is one of the lessons to come out of this that the auditing process needs to be looked at and revamped?

Why does the Minister now feel it necessary to involve the special investigations unit and the Garda? What has changed in the past few days to make him think he needs to involve them in the investigation?