Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 162: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she is taking to investigate the background to a case (details supplied) in County Waterford; when she intends to conclude the investigation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21775/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is probably aware, this event occurred during July 2002, almost three years ago, and involved the slaughter on-farm by the herdowner of some 4,000 pigs over a five-day period. A five-minute video, reportedly commissioned by the herdowner, was brought to the attention of the Department by the media. The Department on Friday last requested a copy of the video from the journalist who had shown it to officials, so far no copy has been received.

Following the discovery by Department veterinary inspectors of quantities of carbadox on the farm and an admission by the herdowner that he had spread the substance on the floors of pig pens, the movement of any animals from this herd — except under specific licence from the Department — had been prohibited by the Department in the period preceding slaughter in order to protect public health. Carbadox is a carcinogen — cancer-causing substance — which is banned by the EU and deemed to be unsafe at any level. Prosecutions have since been issued against the herdowner, alleging a range of offences relating to the use of this feed additive and other matters, including the illegal movement of pigs from the farm. The herdowner has issued proceedings against the Department under two headings.

While there was no question of permitting the pigs to be slaughtered for human consumption, the Department wrote to the herdowner's solicitors on 7 May 2002 explicitly stating its willingness to allow him to pursue the option of his making arrangements, acceptable to the Department, with a dedicated plant for their slaughter. However, he elected not to pursue this option. Instead, he sought permission to slaughter the pigs himself on his farm on welfare grounds. He had discussed this approach with Department veterinary inspectors and they are satisfied that he understood fully what would be involved and that he displayed both the competence and confidence to undertake the task.

During the five-day period, two veterinary inspectors, including an animal welfare expert, from the Department visited the farm on numerous occasions in order to assess the ongoing slaughter operation. At no stage did he express concerns or disquiet on animal welfare grounds with regard to the slaughter method or seek to suspend operations on grounds of professed animal welfare concerns. A non-veterinary official of the Department was present on the farm during the five-day period in question, whose primary function was ensuring proper disposal of the carcases, that is, to ensure they did not enter the human food chain.

The circumstances in this case were highly unusual. On-farm slaughter of animals in any number is an exception rather than the rule and occurs only in extreme circumstances, for example, the FMD outbreak in Cooley, where it is not possible to move the animals to a dedicated slaughter plant or where there are compelling reasons, for example, fear of disease spread, for not attempting to so do. In this particular case, the herdowner had decided to slaughter his animals on farm and the Department considered at the time that it could not legally have forced him to have the operation conducted in a slaughter plant. The approach which the Department generally employs in circumstances in which it proves necessary to have numbers of animals slaughtered — for example, cattle, where BSE is detected — is to have slaughter carried out in a dedicated slaughter plant.