Vol. 574 No. 2
180 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his Department requested or carried out tests on milk or meat from farms (details supplied) to establish the levels of aluminium or fluoride in those commodities; if samples of milk or meat were collected for the purposes of feeding trials on laboratory animals; if feeding trials were carried out; if results are available for such tests, if carried out. [26885/03]
The reported historical animal health problems in the Askeaton area were the subject of a multiagency investigation, in which the EPA, Teagasc, the Mid-Western Health Board and the Department of Agriculture and Food participated. The investigation was co-ordinated by the EPA.
In the course of the investigation the EPA published a number of interim reports and the final report of this most comprehensive and in-depth investigation was published by the EPA in August 2001. The investigation was based on scientific evidence and specialist expertise from various quarters was brought to bear on analyses of animal health, human health and environmental issues in the Askeaton area. The details of all the relevant animal health studies and laboratory tests are presented in chapter 3 of the main report of the investigations of animal health problems in that area, which constitutes part of the final report.
The EPA examined the aluminium and fluoride concentrations in milk samples from certain farms in the area and the results of these examinations are contained in the interim report published in 1995. Bone is the main repository for accumulation of these elements and consequently meat samples were not examined in this regard. The Department of Agriculture and Food looked at aluminium and fluoride concentrations in bones of animals from Askeaton farms and the results, the values of which were within acceptable ranges, are contained in chapter three of the final report. It should also be noted that the EPA and Teagasc looked at the aluminium and fluoride concentrations in a range of vegetables from the area and results were also within acceptable ranges.
As indicated previously the overall conclusion of the study, as published in the final report, was that there was no evidence that animal health or production on any of the participating farms were subject to unusual adverse influences during the periods of observation. The incidence of disease was generally within acceptable limits and no serious disease outbreaks were encountered. These results, together with those of the other studies that comprised the Askeaton investigations, provide no evidence to suggest that animal health problems in the Askeaton area were significantly different to those of other comparable farming areas in Ireland.
Question No. 181 withdrawn.
