Vol. 517 No. 3
11 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if testing procedures can distinguish between hormones which naturally occur in beef cattle and the same hormones which can be produced synthetically. [9604/00]
Each year, my Department implements a national residue plan for the purpose of detecting a range of illegal residues, including hormones. The laboratory methods used to test samples for the presence of hormones are capable of distinguishing between synthetic and natural hormones. Of 16,233 tests conducted in 1998 and 1999 specifically for hormones, 12, or 0.07%, were positive. Of these positives, five showed a presence of synthetic hormones while natural hormonal substances were indicated in the case of the remainder.
I have no doubt the degree of testing here is far superior to elsewhere in the European Union. Given that Ireland imports a considerable amount of beef from the United States, Australia and South America, particularly Argentina, is the Minister happy that the testing of beef from those countries is done in accordance with the degree of certainty here?
What the Deputy has outlined is of considerable concern. The European Union is actively engaged in scientifically evaluating the testing procedures in various third countries. The WTO finding was that the EU hormone ban, so far as it relates to third country imports of hormone treated meat, did not fully conform to the WTO requirements on scientific risk assessment. Following that finding the EU is engaged in a number of scientific studies. While the results of the bulk of these studies are not yet available, the results of work done so far, which were released last year, have raised serious questions about one particular hormone, oestradiol. In the meantime certain EU exports to the US continue to be subject to—
That is a very alarming state of affairs. Will the Minister agree that the accuracy of the testing where imported beef into the European Union is concerned should be as accurate as the testing at home? It is clear our farmers are victimised and that the countries mentioned are getting the benefit of a lax system. That is not acceptable. I am surprised the farming organisations and the meat processors here have not kicked up about this long ago. It is obvious this has been happening ever since the ban was introduced.
A sampling exercise conducted by the EU on imports from the US on hormone free beef and veal revealed a 12% positive level of synthetic hormones. As a result, the EU imposed a mandatory 100% sampling regime on all meat imported from the US and third countries. There is considerable concern about it.
Argentina and Australia are probably much worse.
I do not have details of those countries but the matter the Deputy has raised is one of considerable concern in the EU, and rightly so. We have regimes here for quality beef and yet some is coming in from third countries which do not have the same degree of control.
I am surprised at the Minister's amazement. The Opposition put this matter to him on several occasions during the debate on the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill. At that time the Minister appeared to think the controls which were in place outside the beef assurance scheme were sufficient. Today he agrees with Deputy Deasy, as we all do, that what is happening is hugely important and most unfair to Irish producers and consumers. The Minister's new found awareness of this problem surprises me.
I am fully aware of the concerns of consumers. They want safe food and are entitled to every assurance, scientific and otherwise. It is a matter for the producers, the industry, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and now the Food Safety Authority under Dr. Wall, to give consumers the assurance to which they are entitled.
