Dáil debates

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

7:00 pm

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

Why, within hours of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease involving a single animal on one farm in the UK, did the Minister and her EU colleagues move immediately to ban UK exports of beef to other member states when no such action is deemed necessary in respect of Brazil, where the disease is epidemic? If the UK decided in the immediate future to vaccinate its national herd against foot and mouth disease, why, under the current European Commission regime to protect consumers, should its beef exports be banned for six months when all Brazilian beef is so vaccinated and is allowed free entry to the EU? The Minister and her colleagues at the Council of Ministers and the Commission are dangerously undermining public confidence in the European Union and its institutions. This is happening at a critical time in the context of an impending referendum on the new European Union treaty in Ireland in 2008.

Brazilian beef is used by the large multiples to benchmark the price to primary producers. It is putting Irish farmers out of business. Brazilian beef threatens our biosecurity and those who produce it use angel dust, also known as clenbuterol, and other growth promoters. In terms of beef production, Brazil has been found wanting by the European Union Food and Veterinary Office in the areas of the testing of chemicals used in parasite control; the authorisation, distribution and control of veterinary medicines; the lack of international accreditation of its laboratories; and the use of angel dust, which has significant effects on consumers.

Brazilian beef is dangerous for Irish consumers. Why is the Minister aiding and abetting the European Union Commission in a cover-up of the unacceptable standards and dangerous practices — these would not be tolerated in the EU — associated with the production of Brazilian beef? In so doing, why is she undermining the commitment of Irish beef farmers to produce a high-quality, traceable and safe product? Her actions are nothing short of national sabotage.

Many independent and highly regarded commentators recognise the predicament faced by Irish food producers. Recently, Dr. Patrick Wall, of the European Food Safety Authority — formerly of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI — commented on the lack of a level playing pitch. His successor at the FSAI, Dr. John O'Brien, stated in today's newspapers, "It is unacceptable that consumers may be purchasing foodstuffs where the labelling is incorrect, lacking clarity or is simply portraying the product as something it is not". Need I say more about the shambolic labelling regime that is currently in place? Add into the mix substantial transformation and one has the proverbial coach and four being driven through the regime. When one asks where consumers come into play in all of this, one realises that they do not do so. Brazilian beef, chickens from China, pork from Phuket can all, through the waving of the magic wand that is substantial transformation, be legally passed off as Irish. This practice must end and clear country-of-origin labelling of Irish meat is essential.

The "Green Ireland" label has been Fine Gael policy for a long period and if the Minister wishes to run with it, we will back her all the way. Consumers need clarity on this issue. At present, many Irish brand names are passing off cheap imports as Irish produce and abusing their position of trust with their loyal customers. This is nothing new. As long ago as 2002, the then Department of Agriculture and Food's food labelling group called for an end to this behaviour, as well as extending country of origin labelling to sheep, pig and poultry meats. Needless to say, nothing has happened in respect of these matters in the interim. The only thing that did happen is that farmers went out of business as a result of the Department's inaction and consumers were exposed to unnecessary risks.

The beef labelling regime, which applies to 43,000 retail premises, is, as currently constructed, a joke, with only five auditors attached to the scheme and a 2004 report indicating widespread evasion of responsibility by the sector. I understand that 42% of the 90 samples taken during the compilation of the report to which I refer were shown to be in breach of the regulations.

I acknowledge the role of the Department of Health and Children in introducing new legislative changes in this area. However, five years is too long to wait for relatively straightforward changes. Lessons need to be learned from the current shambles and they also need to be learned in the area of enforcement. Is it too much to ask, in the interest of consumers and a multi-billion euro industry, that a single authority be vested with enforcement powers, rather than, as is the case under the current regime, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local authorities, the National Consumer Agency and the Department of Transport all having a role? The latter is a recipe for disaster. We could take lessons from the introduction of the smoking ban, when 80 additional environmental enforcement officers were recruited. Surely the agrifood industry is of such significance and magnitude that it deserves a similar response in the context of enforcement.

As the Minister is no doubt aware, the price of compound feed, which is a critical input in the beef, pig and poultry sectors, has increased dramatically in the second half of 2007. There are many reasons for this including a global drop in production as a result of drought in Australia and a switch from food to fuel in the United States and South America in particular. These developments have driven prices upwards.

Irish farmers need access to 3.1 million tonnes of imported cereals. A major obstacle to sourcing this feed is the absence of a streamlined approvals regime among the Food and Drugs Administration regime in the United States of America, the European Food Safety Authority and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in respect of new varieties of genetically modified, GM, grains. We invest countless millions in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the European Food Safety Authority and it is remiss of us to not accept their scientific findings.

As I told the Minister of State during Question Time, we adopt a flat earth approach if we do not accept the scientific findings of these authorities. This problem reached farcical proportions this year with the attempts to import the Herculex maize strain. With conflicting signals coming from different corners of Agriculture House, the Department finally abdicated its responsibility on two critical votes at EU level and, in so doing, damaged our credibility for the future, delayed access to Herculex for feed importers and farmers and contributed to the increased costs farmers have had to pay for food.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.