Vol. 534 No. 1
34 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children if his attention has been drawn to a British Food Standards Agency report which claims that the risk of eating BSE contaminated meat is 220 times greater in Ireland compared to Britain based on a study conducted in 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9886/01]
I am aware of the UK Food Standards Agency report to which the Deputy refers. The FSAI has examined the study. The authority advises me that the study covers the period 1986 to 2000 and the conclusion from the study is that both Irish and British beef is safe and consumers should, therefore, be reassured. The study does not claim that the risk of eating BSE contaminated meat is greater in Ireland than in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. It states that while the relative likelihood for Ireland compared to Great Britain of cattle incubating BSE was 220 in 2000, this is not a direct indicator of risk to consumer health.
The report states that red meat is safe and that any possible BSE infectivity is confined to specified risk material, SRM, infective tissue such as the brain and spinal cord. The report notes that the consumer had been and remains protected by the Irish SRM rules which have been in place since 1996. These tissues are removed from all animals aged over 12 months in Ireland and excluded from the human food chain.
The FSAI's scientific advisory committee has concluded that Irish consumers need to be reassured as to the safety of beef. The European Union, in its geographically based risk assessment, concluded that BSE controls in Ireland were optimally stable from 1 January 1998. The FSAI's scientific advisory committee has concluded that animals born after that date pose no risk to consumer health, as these animals would not have had access to contaminated meat and bone meal, and, therefore, could not be incubating BSE.
Why am I reminded of the former British Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, feeding his daughter a hamburger? Is the Minister of State aware that the British Food Standards Agency report states that the reason the British—
The Deputy cannot quote at Question Time. He must confine himself to questions.
Is the Minister of State aware that the study claims that there was a greater incidence of BSE in the Irish herd because more infected cattle were slaughtered in Ireland and rules to prevent older animals from entering the food chain were only applied last year? Does the Minister of State agree that it is time to restore confidence in food safety? It is not restored by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development seeking to intimidate the chief executive of the FSAI. Does the Minister of State agree that it is time to remove any responsibility for food safety and marketing from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development? Does he further agree that responsibility should be placed firmly in the hands of the Minister of State with responsibility for consumer affairs and the Minister for Health and Children, perhaps with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for food safety being a Minister of State at both Departments? It is time that the consumer was put in the driving seat. That is the only way confidence in the industry will be fully restored, which will, in turn, benefit farmers.
I agree that we must put the food safety agenda at the forefront. However, there is a degree of misapprehension about what is happening. The Food Safety Authority is independent of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and that fact is not always known. In the UK there were 900,000 cases of BSE compared with a maximum of 600 in Ireland. The study extrapolates a certain amount of material in regard to the potentiality of BSE cases in Ireland. However, when one takes into consideration the introduction of the 30 month rule, there would be no more than two cases per annum in Ireland while Great Britain might have one. That does not take account of the fact that we remove the SRM materials, the brain, spinal cord, tongue, tonsils, intestine and so forth. That reduces the risk to zero, as far as we are concerned, for cattle under 30 months of age.
Does the Minister agree that the British study indicated that a total of 159 animals estimated to have been within 12 months of developing clinical symptoms of BSE entered the food chain in this country in 2000? The equivalent figures for France and Great Britain were 52 and one, respectively. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, he has responsibility for food safety. Does he not agree that a report of this nature being published, without being counteracted or challenged, is not conducive to restoring confidence to the public? The Minister must take responsibility for protection of food safety and divorce it completely from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
It is divorced from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The authority is a stand alone body and has no links to that Department. That can be seen in what it is doing. With regard to the figure of 159, some of the figures in the report might be disputed. They are not up to date. University College, Dublin was not contacted and neither was University College, Cork or the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. They are currently examining the exact figures and they believe the correct figure might be in the region of 70 to 80 rather than the 159 figure quoted by the Deputy.
