Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 44: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food further to Parliamentary Question No. 124 of 4 October 2005, the steps she intends to take in that regard; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12059/06]

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 105: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food further to Parliamentary Question No. 162 of 23 June 2005, the steps she intends to take on the issue; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12060/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 44 and 105 together.

In reply to Parliamentary Question No. 124 of 4 October 2005, I outlined in detail the unusual circumstances surrounding this case. Consequently, I do not propose to repeat all of the detail. The background to the incident is that the case involved the slaughter on-farm by the herdowner of 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 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.

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, such as fear of disease spread, for not attempting to so do. In this particular case, the herdowner had himself 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. I understand the matter will be before the courts in the near future.