Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 124: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to serious public concern at the circumstances of the slaughter of 4,000 pigs in Waterford two years ago, under the supervision of her Department, in circumstances of particular cruelty; if she will consider requesting an independent veterinary expert from abroad to conduct a full investigation into all aspects of the slaughter; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26449/05]

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

I would like to set out the background to this incident. The case involved the slaughter on-farm by the herdowner of some 4,000 pigs over a five day period 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 also been prohibited by the Department in the period preceding slaughter in order to protect public health. Notwithstanding this, some pigs were moved to slaughter plants and products from some of these did in fact enter the food chain. 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 legally 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 did not 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 were 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. 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. At no point during the slaughter process did the herdowner express concerns or disquiet on animal welfare grounds about the slaughter method or seek to suspend operations on grounds of professed animal welfare concerns.

An official of my Department observed the herdowner use a lump-hammer to slaughter a small number of pigs and ordered the practice to cease immediately. The implement was seized and only returned to the farmer when the entire slaughter process was completed. With regard to the attempted suffocation of the pigs, records indeed show that the herdowner was legally instructed to maximise the ventilation capacity of his units in order to minimise the negative welfare impact associated with increased liveweight capacity of the units. Department veterinary staff did not report any attempt to deliberatively deprive the pigs of air.

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. In view of the foregoing, I do not consider it appropriate to conduct the investigation on the lines suggested by the Deputy.