Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an tAire Stáit. As my party colleague, Deputy Ferris, stated in respect of the current crisis, the priority now must be to limit the extent of the damage done to the sector and to protect the many livelihoods and jobs that have been affected. I spent the past couple of hours in my office trying to deal with pig farmers from County Donegal whose animals could not be slaughtered today and other individuals who have either lost their jobs or been laid off on a temporary basis as a result of this crisis. The scale of the losses incurred by individual pig farmers and suppliers is massive and this issue must be addressed. Large-scale temporary lay-offs have taken place and it is likely that matters will get worse if corrective measures are not put in place. That is why it is vital that the processing and supply of product to shops begin again immediately.

The crisis relating to contaminated produce could not have come at a worse time, particularly as farmers have already been obliged to cope with steep falls in the prices paid to them by factories in recent months. Unfortunately, this can be attributed to some degree to the lack of domestic consumer demand for Irish pork. The position in this regard will not be helped by current events and it is all the more important, therefore, that the correct measures are taken quickly to ensure that the sector gets back on track. This also highlights the need to address various issues relating to the marketing and labelling of Irish pork.

We must consider whether the ban on the slaughter of pigs and the withdrawal of produce from retailers was an over-reaction to the discovery of the contamination. Professor James Heffron of University College Cork, a leading expert in this field, stated that if the data collated by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland prove that the levels of dioxins were within the acceptable limit, there was no reason the order to withdraw pork products from sale was made. Professor Heffron stated:

... these dioxins are in the atmosphere anyway and if the amounts likely to have been consumed in the small number of products that were sold were similar then no harm will have been done. Indeed from the very moment the measures were announced people were being advised that there was no need for anyone to be overly concerned and no need for anyone to seek medical advice. So there was and is no real threat to public health.

The Food Safety Authority themselves have said that, based on previous studies into dioxin contamination both from food and from the chemical plant explosion in Seveso, the health risks involved are minimal and will remain minimal even for any person who has consumed contaminated produce.

The question must be posed as to whether the withdrawal of all pigmeat products was necessary or, perhaps, a public health warning might have been more appropriate. People could have been told the facts as known on Sunday morning and the level of risk entailed and advised it was up to them whether to consume the products affected. While, undoubtedly, this would still have had a major impact on the sector with presumably a significant number of consumers opting not to consume pigmeat, it would have lasted only until current stocks had expired and been replaced. We could then have avoided the massive shock to the sector which we are currently experiencing and, in the process, prevented the laying off of so many workers in the run-up to Christmas and the loss to the farmers, butcher shops and suppliers affected.

An issue arises in respect of traceability. Was there a failure in the system that prevented the determination of which farms and animals had been contaminated and in tracing the supply line to the processors involved thus affecting the entire sector? Ought it not to be possible once it was known which farms had used the feed to then determine exactly where the processing of contaminated animals took place, what products were affected and to which retailers or exporters such products had been sent? In that way the remainder of the sector, which is free from contamination, could have been ring-fenced. Were officials able to establish this and, if not, why not? If they were able to trace where the feed went and where the contaminated animals had been slaughtered, why then was it not possible for them to impose more limited restrictions in this regard?

Another issue that needs to be considered——