I gave notice that on the adjournment I would raise the question of the alleged adulteration of Irish butter, and the failure of the Department of Lands and Agriculture to institute legal proceedings against the offenders.
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - ALLEGED ADULTERATION OF BUTTER.
took the Chair.
I raise this question with a certain amount of hesitation, as I recognise, in making any suggestion or allegation against the conduct of a trade whose exports are value for something like £4,000,000 annually, I may be committing a very serious offence against the producers and those connected with the trade, particularly should the consumers of Irish butter on the English side believe or have any suspicion that there was any ground for this statement. An article appeared in one of the local papers in the county I come from last week, and statements were made in it which I feel could not be passed over. After consideration I felt that it was my duty to raise the matter publicly here. I am only able to give the statements as they appeared in the newspaper. I am not able to produce any evidence in support of the statements, but I want to have the matter cleared up in the interests of those concerned and the good name of the country.
When I read this article I recognised that if the conditions were as there stated, they were very serious indeed. I felt that to come to the Dáil and make a statement without being able to advance evidence was rather difficult for me. I also felt that if the statements could be supported by evidence, for instance, that some Irish creamery butter had been found to contain a considerable amount of margarine, and that the Department of Agriculture know about it, the question was: "What are they going to do about it?" I felt that if that statement was true, the negligence of the Department in the matter was something that could not be passed over. I also read in the article that creameries are putting in margarine. I should say right off that, for my own experience of creameries in my own county, I am confident the article could not have any reference whatever to them. I know the men managing the business in my county, and I felt that they have too much respect for their good name, and for the reputation of their concerns, to give any countenance whatever to a policy that would hold within it such dangers for their future trade. I have not sufficient knowledge of the conditions elsewhere, but I have hope that the men managing the dairying industry in the country, and particularly those responsible for the manufacture of our creamery butter, are really concerned for the improvement and progress of the industry as a whole, as well as having a concern to raise the standard of the article to the highest possible pitch. I felt that they have so much concern for their own reputation, and are so keen on the good name of the country, and doing honest business with people who would be honest with them, that they would hardly be so stupid as to act in the manner indicated. I hope these are the conditions existing, and that that is the outlook of our people. On the other hand, I recognised that when an article like this is written responsible men would only write with a knowledge of the facts, and I felt I should probe this matter to the foundation.
The charge was made not alone against those engaged in the trade but against the Department of Agriculture.
Unless the Minister for Agriculture in his responsible position, answering for the administration of his Department, is able to produce evidence to this House which will clear this matter up and contradict these statements I feel that in the minds of the people who have read this article, not alone in my county but in other counties, and in the minds of people who might read it outside this country, it might have serious consequences for our Irish butter trade this year and for some time to come. Accordingly, although, as I said in opening, I raised the matter with a great deal of hesitation because I am not in a position to produce proof, I thought it my duty to raise the matter in order that it might be cleared up and that we should know whether the statement could be supported by facts. If the Department is negligent why so, and if it is we should consider what judgment we are to pass upon the management of this branch of our business, which is such a big thing for the country.
I do not see this paper, as a rule, and it was Deputy Baxter who drew my attention to this article. It was in that way that it came under my notice. I will quote from the article:
"Just at present many small farmers who send milk in dirty cans to the creameries are being prosecuted and fined heavily for their neglect, but there seems to be a hesitancy with Mr. Hogan's Department about dealing with the creameries which are importing foreign margarine and injuring the character of our Irish butter by putting this stuff into it, nor is it the creameries alone that are to blame. There is an enormous amount of this margarine reaching the Free State in small consignments. It is coming to thousands of people, and practically every ounce of it is being mixed with butter on the farms."
That is a gross libel from start to finish.
Is the charge that margarine is being mixed with butter in creameries?
Mr. HOGAN
In the creameries and on the farms. That is a gross libel. I would not have seen the paper but for the fact that Deputy Baxter drew my attention to it. If I were to view the matter from the point of view of the authority of the writer, I would take no notice of the article. But outsiders are not in a position to judge the authority of any writer, and what appears in a paper is very often taken as accurate. The best thing I can do is to give figures of samples taken of creamery butter in creameries, and farmers' butter in shops, together with the number found adulterated and the cause of the adulteration. The total number of samples taken by the Department's inspectors in 1926 was 624. Of these, the number of samples of creamery butter was 315. The total number found adulterated was 77. Of these 77, the creamery butter cases were 14. Of the 77 adulterated cases, excess water was the fault in 73; added fats was the fault in four. Of the four added-fats cases, creameries were at fault in one. Deputies will agree that inspection is pretty stringent and very widespread. In fact, I do not think we should increase either the number of our inspectors or the amount of inspection done. We are doing inspection constantly, and any further increase would almost amount to interference. Out of 624 cases inspected last year, there was only one case in which there was a conviction for added fats in creamery butter, and there were only four cases of added fats in the whole country, three of them being in respect of butter sold in the shops. These are the facts which I put side by side with that statement.
I will not comment further on that statement except to say that it amounts to a gross libel on the whole creamery and butter making industry of the country. I would pay no attention to it whatever if it were a question of the authority of the writer, but even provincial papers are quoted outside and this quotation might be used and might be taken to be authentic. The last time I heard of the gentleman who edits this paper was under the following circumstances: There was an article written in his paper over a year ago, the implication of which was that there was foot-and-mouth disease in this country. I can quote that incident now, when everybody knows that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in this country and when even our most virulent enemies in England and elsewhere would not make the suggestion. There was an article written in this paper dealing with the incompetence of the Department of Agriculture and particularly of the veterinary branch. It was written in such a way that it was copied into the English "Veterinary Record" as complete evidence of the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. On the strength of that article, the Canadian Government refused to admit a pedigree bull that was being exported from this country. I did not take the slightest notice of the matter myself. There is practically no import of cattle to Canada from here. But it just happened that that year one bull was going to Canada and the Canadian Government, professedly acting on this article, which appeared first in the "Anglo-Celt" and which was afterwards quoted in the "Veterinary Record," refused to admit the bull, which had been exported from Northern Ireland. The implication in the article here is about as true as the implication that was made in the "Veterinary Record" when they quoted this article from the "Anglo-Celt." There has not been foot-and-mouth disease in this country for the last three years, and one statement is just as true as the other.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until Tuesday, March 1.