Vol. 471 No. 2
14 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Health the arrangements, if any, in his Department for monitoring the public health implications of meat for human consumption and, in particular, the effect on humans of excessive levels of antibiotic residue in pork; the outcome of the recent inquest in Belfast on a CJD victim whose disease may have been related to the consumption of beef; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20656/96]
(Limerick East): The veterinary services of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and, where appropriate, the veterinary services operated by local authorities under the Abattoirs Act, 1988, are responsible for animal health controls as well as the pre and post mortem inspection of animals in slaughter houses. These inspections are concerned with both general animal health and welfare as well as meat inspection and the testing of meat for the presence of antibiotics, growth promoters and other prohibited substances.
My Department, through the health boards, controls the sale of meat at retail level under the food hygiene regulations. In addition, the health boards enforce a wide range of regulations on my behalf in respect of food additives and contaminants.
My Department is, of course, concerned about the reports of antibiotic residues in meat. This concern is twofold. Such residues can induce reactions in some people but, more particularly, they can have the effect of increasing resistance to medicines administered to human for human illnesses.
The Deputy will be aware of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry's statement of 1 November 1996 in which it was stated that the pigmeat producers and processors were once again told that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is committed to the total elimination of antibiotic residues in order to ensure both full compliance with legal requirements and to allay the concerns of consumers. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry will rigorously apply the tighter controls in this area which were introduced in recent months and will prosecute those who fail to observe the relevant requirements, of which both producers and processors are by now well aware.
While my Department does not currently have any direct function in relation to the control of antibiotic residues, this is exactly the type of issue which will come within the remit of the new Food Safety Board of Ireland which the Government has decided to establish and which will operate under my aegis. That board's primary function will be to provide and ensure the necessary health protection for consumers and will have all the necessary powers for that task. It will act independently of all existing food control agencies and will supervise in a very tangible way the operation of these agencies to ensure they are discharging their functions in a proper manner. It will have access to all the necessary data, it will evaluate the effectiveness of control systems, it will be able to enforce compliance with its audit findings and will have the power to prosecute for failures to observe the highest standards available. In particular the board will be obliged to publish its findings in a timely manner.
I am satisfied that the new board will, therefore, meet the needs for consumer protection in this area and that it will play an important role in stamping out unacceptable practices in regard to antibiotics and other substances.
Turning to the recent tragic reports of the inquest in Belfast, I think it is important to point out at the outset that the cause of death was, it seems, the new variant of CJD. I am aware that there is now persuasive, but not yet conclusive, evidence of a link between this new variant of CJD and the consumption of infected beef.
I emphasise that the incidence of CJD in the Republic of Ireland is very low. Twenty cases have been reported since 1980 to date, none of which was of the new variant CJD. Since the beginning of the concerns about the public health implications of BSE we in Ireland have adopted strict and prudent animal control measures to protect the public from exposure to the agent of BSE. The Food Safety Advisory Board has considered the question of BSE on a number of occasions.
In September of this year I set up an advisory group on CJD chaired by Professor William Hall, Director of the Virus Reference Laboratory and Professor of Microbiology in University College, Dublin. This advisory group consists of experts in all disciplines relevant to this subject such as neurology, neuropathology, public health, veterinary medicine and microbiology. The brief of this advisory group includes advising me on research strategies in relation to CJD and on international developments generally in this area.
My question relates to serious public concern at the levels of antibiotic residues in pork and the link between CJD and BSE-infected meat. Was the Minister or anybody in his Department made aware of the now famous but unpublished Department of Agriculture report which found that up to 28 per cent of porkmeat contained antibiotic residues which exceeded permitted EU levels in meat for public consumption, which has grave implications for public safety, given that the Minister for Health has said that food safety is primarily a matter of public health?
(Limerick East): I was not informed of any studies carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, but when the Consumers' Association of Ireland participated in the Europe-wide study, which has now become public, I received an advance copy of that from Brussels a couple of days before publication. I knew the publication date was set, but I had only two or three days notice of it.
In light of the Minister's response, does he accept that two Ministers have been deprived of information relevant to their portfolios? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry was not made aware of these important reports, and the Minister for Health was not made aware of a Government report from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. What steps will be taken by the Government in relation to the suppression of important public information?
The Minister says there have been 20 reported deaths from CJD in the State. Given the increase in the incidence of BSE, 162 cases since 1969, 47 cases this year alone and treble last year's incidence, would the Minister not consider making autopsies compulsory in the case of all suspected CJD deaths? Will he consider making CJD a notifiable disease?
(Limerick East): On the question of antibiotics in pork and in particular the fact that a Government Department seemed to have information which was not communicated, my response was to set up an independent food safety board. While that is my immediate response, the genesis of the independent food safety board was the setting up in March of an interdepartmental committee under the second secretary at the Department of Finance. It is to review food safety controls and it recommended, after considering all matters, that we should set up an independent food safety board under the aegis of the Department of Health. The Government's response to my proposal was not only to accept it but to instruct me not to wait until I had the statutory provisions in place but to go ahead and set it up on an interim basis so that work could commence immediately. It is the best guarantee of food safety in the interests of public health that we should have an independent group of specialists who would have the right to go to any agency at any time to ensure they are carrying out their functions under the law, and that the findings of this agency can be put into the public domain. While the genesis of the agency goes back to last March, it is an appropriate response to what the Deputy has identified and to other matters also.
In respect of CJD, I would like to give the House some information. In Europe there is an incidence of about one case of CJD per annum per million of population. In Ireland, between 1980 and 1996, there were 20 cases reported. That is about one per annum, one third of the European incidence. A strengthened surveillance system has been put in place under the aegis of the CJD advisory group to which I referred in my parliamentary reply. In addition, the chief medical officer of my Department has established links with the CJD Surveillance Centre in Edinburgh which is one of the reporting centres for the Biomed Programme under the European Union. As part of the surveillance system two hospitals, Beaumont Hospital and Cork University Hospital, have been designated as national centres for post mortems on the brains of suspected victims of CJD. The procedure is that there would be a post-mortem on all suspected victims of CJD, to be carried out either at University College Hospital, Cork, or at Beaumont Hospital. At present the diagnosis of CJD can only be confirmed by post mortem. In the event of a case being confirmed, arrangements are in place for the two designated hospitals to report to the chief medical officer and the CJD advisory committee. There is a twin-track reporting system from the two hospitals involved, a direct line to the chief medical officer in the Department of Health and a direct line to the group of experts which I have set up to act as an advisory committee on CJD under Professor Hall. No case of new variant CJD has been reported here.
As to whether CJD should be designated as a notifiable disease, normally notifiable diseases are those which are highly infectious and pass quickly from one person to another. Notification is required so that interventions can be made by the health authorities to prevent the spread of an infectious disease. CJD does not come into that category, but I am considering whether CJD should be designated as a notifiable disease. I see merit in that other than the reasons diseases would normally be designated as notifiable diseases. I am considering whether it should be designated and, if so, it would be done under the relevant infectious diseases regulations.
Is it established that two Ministers of this Government were kept in the dark about crucial information with relevance to public health in relation to high levels of antibiotics in pork? Is his only response to set up a body which will deal with the protection and monitoring of food safety? Will he agree that most members of the public would have expected that such information would be passed to the two relevant Ministers? What action, if any, will be taken by the Government to deal with that suppression of information? The Minister's response represents an indecent haste to move on and not to deal with the suppression of vital public information by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry which has an impact on public health. Will the Minister accept that most members of the public would consider it wrong of the Department to suppress this information? What action will he take to discipline those persons who suppressed this information from the Minister?
(Limerick East): It is not correct to state that my response is solely to set up the independent food advisory board, even though that is a strong response. I have explained in detail that this offence did not lead to the setting up of this board, that its genesis is in the report of the interdepartmental committee set up in March. In my reply I said that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry made a statement on 1 November 1996 that the pigmeat producers and processors were once again told by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry that he is committed to the total elimination of antibiotic residues to ensure full compliance with legal requirements and to allay the concerns of consumers. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry will rigorously apply the tighter controls in this area which were introduced in recent months and will prosecute those who fail to observe the relevant requirements, of which both producers and processors are aware.
I remind the House of an analogous situation some years ago when mastitis in milch cows was a major problem and people applied antibiotics, penicillin, in particular, directly to the cows. There was a big problem of antibiotic residues in milk. When the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry cracked down the matter was solved very quickly and was not repeated. Questions of suppression, discipline and so on are pejorative terms. If the Deputy wishes to know the full circumstances of what happened to a report which was compiled in the Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry she should table a question to that Minister. I do not have a remit to deal directly with civil servants in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It is a matter of very grave concern, a public health issue and unacceptable. My first knowledge of the difficulty came from an advance copy of the EU consumers' report which was conducted throughout Europe, in which the consumers' association of Ireland played a part in Ireland. On the day I received it, it was indicated to me it would be published in a matter of days.
We may take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 as ordinary questions.
