John Ellis
Question:2 Mr. Ellis asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the plans, if any, he has for a new residue test(s) to combat illegal drugs in animals. [4767/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Animal Growth Promoters.
Liz O'Donnell
Question:13 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of samples testing positive for animal growth promoters at meat plants during the past year on a factory by factory analysis; the total number of samples taken at each factory; the number of prosecutions arising from positive tests; and the number of convictions secured. [4693/96]
Liz O'Donnell
Question:53 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of seizures of illegal animal growth promoters that have taken place in each of the past three years; the nature of the substances seized; the number of prosecutions arising from the seizures; and the number of convictions secured. [4692/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 13 and 53 together.
I have no plans to introduce a "new residue test". Laboratories engaged in official residue analysis in Ireland use methods prescribed for such purpose by relevant Council decisions. Analytical methods and techniques are constantly evolving and being improved and these developments are followed by the laboratories engaged in official analysis. In all cases the method and sample matrix chosen are those most likely to yield positive results if the animal has been illegally treated. A recent newspaper report suggested that, by selection of less sensitive methods or matrix, the incidence of proven illegal treatment is reduced. This most certainly is not the case.
Over and above what is required by EU law Ireland has introduced a screening programme using the Enfer test on bile, which enables the rapid testing of a large number of carcasses in meat plants to be carried out. This provides an excellent monitor on substance abuse and important intelligence in relation to suspected abusers, which can be followed up by necessary action at farm level. A total of 75,771 such tests were carried out in 1995.
In addition tests are also carried out in the meat plants in accordance with an EU random sampling programme and a policy of testing suspect carcasses. In this instance the retina — an excellent matrix for detecting clenbuterol — muscle particularly at an injection site — pellets extracted from carcases, or liver are used for testing and a total of 4,412 such tests were carried out in 1995.
A total of 57 seizures of illegal animal growth promoters were made in the last three years, details of which are set out in Table 1, which I am circulating in the Official Report. Arising from these seizures eight persons have been convicted, a further 43 cases are before the courts and the remaining six cases are being prepared for referral to the Chief State Solicitor.
In 1995, a total of 80,183 samples were taken at meat processing plants and tested for the presence of illegal growth promoters. As I have already stated, 75,771 of these were tested under a screening programme, which yielded 1,659 suspect results. A total of 402 samples (0.5 per cent) tested were confirmed positive for beta-agonist or hormonal growth promoters. The numbers of samples taken at each plant are set down in Table 2 which I am circulating. As I publicly indicated on 22 February, I propose to adopt the necessary legal powers to enable me to publish the test results for individual plants.
In the case of the positive findings, the carcases involved are denatured and condemned. Because of the nature of operations in meat plants, there are difficulties in relation to the proving of evidence to the level beyond all reasonable doubt necessary to sustain a successful criminal prosecution. Where the necessary evidence appears to be available, proceedings will be instituted and four of the 1995 cases are currently under investigation with a view to prosecution. The positive findings have yielded valuable intelligence in relation to the uses of growth promoters, have led to on-farm checks and in many cases have resulted in prosecutions for use or possession of illegal substances.
TABLE 1
|
Year |
Number of seizures |
Nature of substances |
|
1993 |
19 |
Hormone cartidges, liquid clenbuterol and hormones, clenbuterol in powder form. |
|
1994 |
19 |
Hormone cartidges, liquid clenbuterol and hormones. |
|
1995 |
19 |
Hormone cartidges, liquid clenbuterol and hormones, clenbuterol in powder form. |
TABLE 2
Samples taken at Meat Plants for Analysis for Growth Promoters, 1995
|
Factory |
Total Tested |
|
Agra Meats, Watergrasshill |
2,826 |
|
AIBP Bandon |
1,958 |
|
AIBP Cahir |
2,657 |
|
AIBP Carrigans |
2,394 |
|
AIBP Dundalk |
3,278 |
|
AIBP Longford |
3,435 |
|
AIBP Nenagh |
3,451 |
|
AIBP Rathkeale |
1,557 |
|
AIBP Waterford |
2,924 |
|
Bergin Meats, Broadford |
67 |
|
Dawn Meats, Midleton |
2,369 |
|
Dawn Meats, Waterford |
4,806 |
|
Eurowest Foods, Sallins |
3,659 |
|
Freshland Foods, Roscrea |
2,714 |
|
Galtee Meats, Charleville |
2,059 |
|
Honeyclover, Freshford |
2,547 |
|
Henshaws, Limerick |
230 |
|
ICM, Ballaghaderreen |
4,007 |
|
ICM, Ballyhaunis |
4,726 |
|
Kepak, Athleague |
4,357 |
|
Kepak, Clonee |
5,305 |
|
Kildare Chilling |
3,198 |
|
Liffey Meats, Ballyjamesduff |
3,838 |
|
Davis Meats, Drumlish |
35 |
|
Master Meats, Clonmel |
1,734 |
|
AIBP, Clones |
2,476 |
|
Meadow Meats, Rathdowney |
4,671 |
|
Slaney Meats, Bunclody |
2,475 |
|
Western Meats, Dromod |
34 |
|
Other |
238 |
|
Grand Total |
80,183 |
The Minister made great play last week of visiting the laboratory where the Enfer test was developed. How much did the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry give to that laboratory by way of grant-aid or in the form of other assistance?
I understand the Secretary of my Department gave that information to the Committee of Public Accounts. I read the transcript of that evidence and I think the figure is of the order of £1 million. The Deputy, however, did not raise this point in his question. Each Enfer test costs between £8 and £9.
I asked how much the Department paid the company. Is the company paid on the basis of each test? Did the Department provide funds for the setting up of this laboratory?
That information is not in my file as it was not requested in the question.
I take it the Minister will try to provide that information.
On the question of tests, is the eyeball test which can be carried out on the spot by veterinary surgeons when they are inspecting carcases not more reliable than the Enfer test? Would the Minister consider introducing the eyeball test on all carcases as the veterinary surgeon can reach a decision there and then?
I do not have plans to introduce further testing. The screening under the Enfer test is the most extensive anywhere in Europe. On the residual criminal ring element involved in using growth promoters, I am advised that the practice is not that widespread and we want to let people who have information give it on a confidential basis. I am introducing legislation that will allow the names of factories which may be used as a conduit for the animals to be published. The screening test results I have seen show a great disparity between factories.
The other problem is that the names of some cattle producers are bogus — Elvis Presley type names or untraceable Paddy Murphy type names are being given. This means that where we detect a positive test we cannot proceed. I am determined to stamp that out. We are introducing new regulations that will make it mandatory on meat factories to provide solid evidence of the source of the animals.
Eyeball to eyeball.
This is probably one of the most serious problems affecting the meat industry and it is important that the Minister should clarify further points. Does the Minister intend to introduce the eyeball test, as it is known, which can be performed on every carcase by the factories' inspecting veterinary surgeons? He said he will publish a list of plants but will the plants be responsible or will responsibility lie with those who supply the meat plants? Would it not be more appropriate to publish the names of those who supply the factories and if the meat plants are found to be involved, publish their name?
By publishing the names of the factories, will mean they will have to put new procedures in place and be a great deal more choosy about the agents and people who supply cattle to them especially where there are fictitious names. They will have to be satisfied they can trace the animals. I met with representatives of the meat industry yesterday on this issue and I made it clear to them that I am not prepared to consider their representations to drop this point because I believe it is the effective way of ensuring that this practice is stamped out.
Is the Minister aware of the eyeball test as a mechanism of finding out the animals that have been treated with residue?
The testing includes the eyeball test of the muscle tissue which is referred for positive analysis to the laboratories.