JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 13

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

At our meeting of 7 May it was decided to scrutinise further a number of proposals that had been referred to us for consideration by the sub-committee on EU scrutiny. It is proposed to scrutinise the proposals for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food control and the proposals of the European Parliament and Council on national levels of pesticides in products of plant and animal origin. In this regard, I welcome the officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

Before asking Mr. Coleman and Ms Regan to make a short opening statement on these issues, I draw their attention to the fact that while members of this committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to them. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way that would make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Jarlath Coleman

The proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official food and feed controls, COM 2003/52, was adopted by the EU Commission on 5 February 2003 and was presented by Commissioner Byrne to Ministers at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting of 20 February 2003. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, represented Ireland at that meeting. As is required under Oireachtas scrutiny provisions, the proposed regulation, along with an information note, was submitted to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. This was done on 13 March and within the time period set. This must be submitted within four weeks of the publication of the regulation in the official journal. My colleague, Ms Joan Regan, from the Department of Health and Children will outline in greater detail the measures set out in the proposal.

This proposal flows from the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety published in January 2000. The White Paper outlined over 80 actions that the Commission wanted to have implemented over the next few years. These actions or measures would enable food safety to be organised in a more co-ordinated and integrated manner with a view to achieving the highest possible level of health protection. Most of the measures in the White Paper are now in place or are in the pipeline.

Two of the key measures proposed were the establishment of a European food safety authority and a regulation on general food law. These were legislated for in the early part of 2002 and combined under the EU regulation 2002/178 that was adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. In laying down the general principles and requirements of food and feed and law, the regulation established the basic principles relating to the responsibilities of authorities in members states and food businesses themselves. Article 17 of the regulation sets out those responsibilities.

The proposed regulation before the committee on official food and feed controls is the fourth measure on the list of action points in the White Paper. Among other things, it describes in detail how these basic principles of food law shall be interpreted and implemented. The overall thrust of the proposal is to have a comprehensive integrated approach to food safety controls - the so-called "farm to fork" approach. It establishes a Community framework covering all food and feed, including animal health and welfare. It aims to eliminate discrepancies between the different parts of existing Community legislation and to fill loopholes in certain areas, thereby resulting in harmonisation across all sections of the food chain and affording greater transparency for all concerned. One of the key principles underpinning this proposal is that feed and food business operators, including producers, have primary responsibility for feed and food safety and that feed and food safety policy must be risk based.

In summary, the regulation aims to improve the efficiency of the control services in each member states through the introduction of performance criteria for the competent authorities, a better definition of tasks, harmonisation of the role of control services and the integration of services across the entire food chain; to improve the efficiency of the Commission control services by developing a more transparent, strategic and integrated approach to controls; to define enforcement measures, including sanctions, to be imposed in the case of non-compliance with food and feed law; and to harmonise imports with the requirements of EU law. There are also other issues which will be covered in my colleague's presentation.

In progressing the negotiations on this proposal, an official control co-ordination group has been established involving officials of the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority to ensure that there is effective co-ordination and communication on all the issues covered by the proposal. Consultation with other Government bodies will also be required on specific issues in the proposal, in particular those relating to criminal sanctions and customs controls. Other bodies including the State Laboratory, which comes under the Department of Finance, and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will also be part of that consultation process.

An effective co-ordinating mechanism already exists between the relevant Government Departments and agencies for all cross-cutting food safety issues at national and EU level while in the area of food safety enforcement the Department of Agriculture and Food operates under a service contract to the Food Safety Authority. All the agencies, health boards and other bodies effectively work under contract to the Food Safety Authority. In relation to this proposal the Food Safety Authority of Ireland will also request public comments and these will be fed into the co-ordination group and will inform our deliberations in these negotiations.

The proposal is still at a very early stage in the negotiations in Brussels and must be navigated through the Council and the European Parliament before it becomes law. Issues regarding the implications and the implementation of the regulation will evolve in the course of the negotiations and will be addressed in due course. There was one Council working group meeting on 10 April, which was attended by officials of the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority. We are awaiting information on future meetings on the proposal under the Greek Presidency and the plans from the incoming Presidency in regard to its progression through the Council in the second half of this year. The proposed implementation date for the regulation is 1 January 2005.

As evidence of how far reaching this proposal is, I point out that the other two proposals which are also up for discussion this evening, the regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides in products of plant and animal origin and the regulation laying down requirements for feed hygiene, COM 180, are linked to the proposal on official controls in food and feed in that all official controls in the latter two proposals are governed by the main proposal which I have outlined.

Ms Joan Regan

Following on from my colleague's presentation, I will outline the main elements of the proposal. However, as it is very much a work in progress, it is important to emphasise that some of the elements which I will describe may not make it into the final regulation, following what promises to be a long process of negotiation and consensus building.

The proposed regulation places a general obligation on member states to have in place a control system to enforce feed and food law and to monitor and verify that feed and food business operators fulfil their legal requirements. The proposal requires that controls be undertaken, on a regular basis, at any stage of production, processing and distribution. The frequency of control measures will be based on proportionality - taking account of identified risks, experience and knowledge from previous controls, the reliability of controls carried out by the business and any suspicion of possible non-compliance.

Member states must meet a number of operational criteria to ensure the efficiency, effectiveness and impartiality of their control systems. In particular, they must have access to a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff and must implement documented control procedures. Staff performing official controls will be kept up to date on all issues in their area of competence and will receive additional training as necessary. In addition, member states may delegate specific control tasks such as laboratory analysis of samples to non-governmental agencies. These bodies must have the necessary expertise, equipment and infrastructure to undertake these tasks. Also, they must be impartial and have relevant accreditation.

The proposal provides for the establishment of a national, multi-annual control plan which sets out the national control system and activities in a global and comprehensive way. This plan will be developed in accordance with guidelines to be set by the Commission, in consultation with member states, and must be prepared within six months of the eventual regulation coming into force. Member states must also report annually on progress in implementing their control plan. The control activities of each member state will be audited by the Commission.

The proposal introduces an obligation on member states to ensure the effective management of feed and food emergencies through the establishment of contingency plans. These plans will set out measures to be taken where there is a serious risk to human or animal health. The plans will be kept under review and staff will be properly trained to implement them.

The proposed regulation provides for a more systematic and harmonised approach to control on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin from third countries. Provision is also made for drawing up a list of food products of non-animal origin which are known to pose particular and serious risks to human health. These products will be subject to a more stringent level of scrutiny and checking at the point of import which may include restricting import to a list of approved border inspection posts. These provisions, by filling a gap in the current legislation, will help to achieve a greater degree of consumer protection.

The proposal provides for administrative assistance and co-operation between member states where controls require action by more than one member state. To facilitate this, member states will designate a single liaison body as the contact point. The Commission will co-ordinate action in cases of particular interest at Community level.

The proposal requires that the methods of sampling used should be recognised by international organisations. It also introduces requirements for laboratories to implement, where they are available, methods of analysis that are validated under international protocols. The laboratories designated to analyse official samples must be accredited to the relevant international standards.

The proposal places a general obligation on member states to ensure that adequate financial resources are available for official controls. There is a general requirement to levy fees on businesses where non-compliance leads to control activities in excess of normal activity and the criteria for setting the level of fees are laid down. However, the proposal recognises the need for flexibility to take account of the position of small businesses. Current fees for import controls levied on certain products are to be extended so as to ensure their uniform application and to avoid trade distortions.

The regulation proposes a new approach by the Commission to monitoring the implementation of relevant EU legislation and identifies actions to support this new approach. Currently, the Commission has three main instruments at its disposal to ensure that EU law is properly implemented and enforced. It verifies the transposition of EU legislation into national law, analyses reports from member states and third countries on the application of the legislation and it carries out inspections to check the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation by the competent authorities in member states and in third countries.

At present, these controls are largely organised on a sectoral basis. The draft regulation proposes a new approach to the way in which the Commission, and in particular the Food and Veterinary Office, will monitor these new controls. The national control plans will provide the basis for regular, general audits by the Commission of the control activities of members states and third countries. These audits of overall control systems, supplemented by inspections of specific sectors, or particular control points as considered appropriate, will largely replace the existing sectoral approach in member states and third countries. Implementation of these actions is designed to enable food safety to be organised in a more co-ordinated and integrated manner, with a view to greater emphasis on consumer protection and a better functioning of the internal market. To ensure that these controls are carried out in a uniform way and to promote a harmonised approach, the proposal provides for the community to organise training courses for control officials. Training opportunities will also be provided to control officials from third countries and, in particular, those from developing countries. The proposal provides for penalties for infringing food and feed law and stipulates that such penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

The proposal sets out a general common set of serious offences, committed intentionally or through gross negligence, for which member states are required to impose criminal sanctions. The list of such criminal offences includes, for example, the illegal handling and placing on the market of specified risk material. The Commission may also take enforcement measures when there is proof that a member state's control system is inadequate. These measures may include the suspension of the placing on the market of certain feed or foodstuffs or the taking of any other interim measure required to ensure protection of human health, animal health or animal welfare.

The proposal is welcome because it will streamline and reinforce our existing feed and food control systems and will strengthen consumer protection. In addition, by addressing recognised weaknesses in the legislation, it will improve the efficiencies of the control services performed by member states and the Commission. This will create a more comprehensive, consistent and integrated farm to fork approach for control systems in feed, food and veterinary sectors. We have anticipated this proposal for some time and it was clearly flagged in the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety in 2000. Good foundations therefore already exist and many of the elements of the proposal are in place in the official food and feed control services in Ireland. While this proposal will bring transparency and ensure that we have the best risk-based official control system possible, it is important to recognise that feed and food law enforcement is only one of the tools available to ensure compliance. The need to foster voluntary compliance by raising awareness and through education of feed and food business operators will continue to be a fundamental requirement.

Deputy Upton

I welcome the officials and thank them for this overview and summary. Sometimes we get snowed under with technicalities and it is useful to have a concise summary such as this. I welcome the proposal because, as Ms Regan identified, it will better co-ordinate food safety.

Is there need for a much greater resource to go into things like accreditation of laboratories and training arising from these proposals? Will there be a higher level of demand and tighter regulation in relation to the operation of laboratory systems or could one say we are already competent in that regard and that this will merely be a transfer of certain activities?

One of the issues raised with public representatives time and again is traceability. I am particularly interested in it in relation to animal feed. To take it a step further up that chain, traceability of products from third countries was raised with me this afternoon by a group I met. We raise this with officials every time they are before the committee and it may sound like a broken record, but it is important for the farming community and food businesses. Can the officials assure us that traceability from third countries is of the same standard as that demanded here? The particular issue raised this afternoon related to the tagging of animals. It has been reported recently that there are photographs available of animals slaughtered in non-European countries which are not tagged. If there is no tagging system in place, how can traceability be confirmed? Will the officials comment on that, if there is a reason for it and if there is an alternative method of tagging?

I subscribe to the traceability of animal feed because we know the consequences of getting it wrong in the case of BSE. What goes into the animal as feed comes out as animal food. Do the officials foresee any difficulties in the traceability of feedstuff? This may be difficult for people in the feedstuff industry, therefore, do the officials foresee any problems with the implementation of the proposal? What level of training might be required in order to get people up to speed to take account of those requirements?

In relation to inspection at border posts, arising from the WTO, there may be a greater level of imports coming from non-European countries. Is there a need for enhanced resources at our border inspection posts arising from that or is what we have adequate?

Deputy Ferris

I compliment the presentation, which was informative. Much of what I intended asking has been asked by Deputy Upton.

The presentation refers to harmonising imports with the requirements of EU law. There is a great deal of meat coming into the EU from outside and the regulations for its country of origin do not allow individual traceability. How can one harmonise something when there are regulations in the EU which are not applicable, particularly in South America?

I welcome the integrated approach. It is probably the best way of dealing with the intentions.

The proposal states:

Member states may delegate specific control tasks such as laboratory analysis or samples to non-governmental bodies. These bodies must have the necessary experience, equipment and infrastructure to undertake these tasks and must be impartial and have the relevant accreditation.

What mechanism is in place to determine that? Does a recommendation come from these non-governmental bodies which recommends them? Is there a procedure they must undergo in order to become an accredited body to do what is intended? In situations like this, unless there are fine guidelines concerning an accreditation which has been determined, it is open to abuse.

Senator Coonan

I welcome the delegation. Anything that strengthens consumer protection must be welcomed. We must therefore welcome these proposals. As the submission states, many of the elements of the proposals are already in place in the official food and feed control service in Ireland. Some of the issues have been dealt with so I will not go back over them.

Are the officials satisfied that controls at airports are sufficient? I witnessed an incident at an airport recently in which an Asian person who had gone through the controls had an accident, resulting in us being able to see that what he was carrying contained many worms or insects. They seem to use these for energy purposes as part of their diet. One wonders what would happen if what we saw at Dublin Airport was happening on a large scale. I admire the official who spotted it and dealt with it. Is Mr. Coleman happy with the controls at airports, along with the border posts that have been mentioned?

Mr. Coleman dealt extensively with foodstuffs of non-animal origin. Perhaps he could give us some examples of that as I am not sure what he is talking about. He did not seem to dwell so much on food of animal origin. Traceability has been mentioned, along with quality. Beef, for example, from outside Europe appears on shelves side by side with the best of Irish products. The Irish product can be traced back to the farmer who produced it, whereas the beef alongside it is of unknown origin. We know the country from which it comes and that is it. We have no idea of its quality or safety, for example the hormones and so on used in its production, not to mention animal feeds. Perhaps Mr. Coleman could allay our fears in that regard. The farming community is particularly concerned about this because it seems to be heavily penalised. We are anxious to produce a product of high quality, which farmers do, but they then have to compete on the open market with food brought in from other countries. Hotels, for example, do not have to account for where their food comes from to the same extent as the open market. Unless one asks, one cannot know where it comes from, or its quality. At the end of the day, the consumer will be the best judge, because he or she will not eat food that is not of high quality.

In the last few days we found out about a practice whereby food is imported from Asian countries - a large amount of chicken is brought in from China, for example - reprocessed in Europe and distributed as a European product. There were problems in this regard in Belgium, the Netherlands and other countries some months ago, but in the UK over the last few days it has been revealed that chicken was brought in and pumped up with water and animal waste products. This is of serious concern. Does Mr. Coleman feel that the controls are adequate in this regard?

Mr. Coleman mentioned contingency plans. How effective are these proposals currently, with the public health officials and doctors on strike, to the detriment of public safety? To what extent can these controls deal with a contingency such as this, in which groups of people go on strike for valid reasons? It puts the whole issue of safety in question.

Senator Callanan

Like everybody else, I welcome the presentations. We are pleased that so many people saw fit to attend. Many of the points I wanted to raise have been raised already, but I still have one or two I would like to mention. The final paragraph of Mr. Coleman's document refers to regulation of maximum residue levels of pesticide in products of plant and animal origin. What about herbicides and fungicides? What is Mr. Coleman talking about when he mentions fungicides? We use some of those and I am somewhat acquainted with the dangers of overuse.

Chairman

We will come to that next.

Senator Callanan

Am I correct in saying Mr. Coleman referred to the matter in his statement?

Chairman

That is all right. Mr. Coleman is happy with that.

Mr. Coleman

That is a separate question. I am told this proposal will be scrutinised by this committee. We have a prepared statement and we can answer questions, but if the Senator wants us to——

Senator Callanan

No, I just mentioned that paragraph. I do not want to labour the point, but I am specifically asking why Mr. Coleman mentions residue levels of pesticides. What levels is he talking about? What about herbicides and fungicides? He mentioned crop controls - the CCC loan and so on. I would like Mr. Coleman's comments on this. I welcome the setting up of the European Food Safety Authority, which is something we should have had a long time ago.

Like my colleagues, I am concerned about importation from outside the EU over which we have no direct controls. How does the EU propose to exercise control and how do we do so as a nation? I refer, for example, to genetically modified plants. What scientific knowledge do we have about the use of genetically modified food? Monsanto, for example, has taken the "terminator" gene off the market. As someone who knows nothing about this issue, I would hate to eat the food that was produced from it, but I would expect informed commentary on the issue. In my opinion, there is higher risk involved in the use of genetically modified food which may include terminator genes.

Mr. Coleman referred to the importation of meat and bone, specifically controls by manufacturers and scrutiny by others. I do not know whether I dare to say this, but I consider the use of meat and bonemeal to be against the laws of nature. We allowed ruminant animals, who are not flesh-eating animals, to become flesh-eating animals. That came from the people who exercise control. I am sorry to be saying this so clearly, but that is a fact of life. A ruminant animal is not a flesh-eating animal by nature. The use of meat and bone in feed for these animals is against the laws of nature. I have difficulty in accepting that this was ever allowed. I am sorry to have to say that the meat and bone that was imported here lacked supervisory controls in its manufacture.

The primary user of animal feed - generally, we are talking about farmers - ought to know what it contains. In the days of the old committee on agriculture, I asked the Department to exercise that control, but it never did. I am disappointed about this and I would like to hear Mr. Coleman's comments on it. Page 1 of the document states that certain flexibilities will be allowed, particularly in the case of small firms. What is the intent of this? I know we have not begun to discuss this document; if the Chairman says I must wait I will wait, but if I can ask the question now I will do so.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

I do not want to detain the meeting, so I will be quick. I thank Mr. Coleman and Ms Regan for their clear and concise presentations. Our understanding of the proposed regulation is enormously better now than it was some weeks ago when we first considered it. Deputy Upton raised my questions about laboratories and third country inspections. Since the presentation placed some emphasis on this, perhaps Mr. Coleman would outline to us, as requested by other speakers, the extent to which there is inspection of products being imported from third countries.

What does Mr. Coleman see happening on the ground? What is the practical effect of implementation in the State in terms of resources and action we will have to take which we may not be taking at present?

Chairman

Will Mr. Coleman state the content of document COM (2003) 180?

Mr. Coleman

This is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down requirements for feed hygiene.

Chairman

Are there any questions on that?

Deputy Upton

I have already raised some questions on animal feed. Maybe I will return to the issue later.

Chairman

Does Mr. Coleman want to respond to the questions?

Mr. Coleman

Will I come back to the statement on feed hygiene later? Is that the procedure?

Chairman

You may read it now.

Mr. Coleman

This proposal was adopted by the European Commission on 14 April 2003. It has not yet been presented at the Agriculture Council. As is required under the Oireachtas scrutiny provisions, the proposed regulation, with an information note, was submitted to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on 13 May, which was within the set period.

The main purpose of this proposal is to strengthen and expand the areas currently covered under EU Directive 95/69/EC, which sets down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector. The current directive is designed to ensure that establishments and intermediaries involved in the manufacture or putting into circulation of certain additives, premixtures and compound feeding stuffs are approved or registered by competent authorities verifying compliance with the technical specifications.

The new proposal represents the last major legislative action on animal feed, as proposed by the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety, Action Point 25. It complements both Regulation 178/2002 on the general principles of food law and the provisions contained in the Commission's proposal on controls on feed and food, COM (2003) 52, of which we have been speaking.

This new proposal on feed hygiene provides for the strengthening and expansion of Directive 95/69/EC in the following manner: to legislate by means of a regulation rather than a directive to ensure uniform application of the controls throughout the Single Market; extend the provisions of the current directive to provide for the compulsory registration of all feed businesses, including those outside the scope of the existing directive; bring animal nutrition legislation into line with existing Codex Alimentarius principles on food hygiene through the introduction of the HACCP system into the food business, which will be mandatory for all businesses except primary producers; extend to the feed industry the principle currently in food law that responsibility for compliance rests with the business; oblige feed businesses to provide financial guarantees to cover risks related to their operations, which could include cost of recall, treatment or disposal; the hygiene rules will also apply at farm level, thereby ensuring consistency with the farm-to-table food and feed safety policy approach - these rules will be applied by means of a code of good farming practice; feed imported into the Community will have to meet the conditions being set down in the proposals on official controls in feed and food, which are under discussion; the official controls governing the implementation of this proposed regulation will be in accordance with the proposals on official controls in feed and food, COM (2003) 52; there will be some flexibility in these rules in cases of small firms, particularly those in difficult regions of the Community.

Chairman

Have the members any questions?

Senator Coonan

In his submission, Mr. Coleman alluded to many regulations or orders, but he did not mention the issue of finance. He said that the new proposal obliges feed businesses to provide financial guarantees to cover risk related to their operations, including the cost of recall, treatment or disposal. This presents a problem in terms of the disposal of carcases of animals. There was only one outlet in the country and it passed on charges to the farming community, which rendered their businesses uneconomical. Will the delegates state who will provide the finance? It is not fair to expect the primary producer to cover the costs of a manufacturer. The manufacturer should be obliged to cover the costs rather than passing them on to the farmer, who produces the animal in the first instance.

BSE now seems to be appearing in animals which are outside the age parameters in which it was believed to appear. There must be a scientific reason this is occurring independent to the use of meat and bonemeal. Is there a danger of something else manifesting itself in foodstuffs? Will this issue be covered by the delegates' proposals?

Deputy Upton

I welcome this legislation because it will take account of the gaps that exist in the current legislation. This is very positive. Primary producers are excluded and I can understand the difficulty in engaging with them. Will there be legislation or a process whereby the production of the raw material by the primary producer will be accounted for? How can one trace back to the original raw material? It is implied in Mr. Coleman's statements that this is not taken into account.

Mr. Coleman

Many questions have been raised. Deputy Upton referred to the accreditation of laboratories, the traceability of products from third countries and the difficulties pertaining thereto and the fact that untagged animals are entering the Community from some countries. Senator Coonan raised the issue of the controls in third countries and airports. The following issues were also raised: the traceability of beef from third countries, which dovetails with what Deputy Upton stated on the traceability of products from third countries; Thai chicken entering and being sold in the EU - a subject which has received much coverage - and the contingency plans in this regard; the maximum residue levels in feed, mentioned by Senator Callanan; importations from outside the EU; genetically modified organisms; importation of meat and bonemeal; labelling of animal feeds; and the flexibility of small firms.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl mentioned the inspection of products being imported and the practical effect this will have on resources. These include feed hygiene, the issue of guarantees and the financing of measures that are proposed in this regulation. In terms of BSE, it appears in young animals and can be spread by means other than meat and bonemeal.

On the question of animal feed, again there is the issue of the traceability of border inspection posts. Deputy Ferris asked how we can harmonise our imports with the requirements of EU food law. I will consider the issue of laboratories first in the context of the question raised. With me is my colleague from the pesticides laboratory, Dr. Dan O'Sullivan. He is in charge of issues relating to the residue of pesticides. Before I pass the question to him, the resource implications will obviously have to be addressed in the context of the negotiations. Indeed, any of the other issues raised by the proposal will have to be addressed. Our current position is that we have a co-ordinated approach to it and have set up a co-ordinating group involving all the agencies to ensure that what will be put in place at the end of the day will be the most effective and efficient option available and will guarantee the highest standards of food safety and health.

In the area of laboratories, the establishment of a complex system is currently under way, involving the State laboratory and the Department laboratories. These will be state-of-the-art laboratories. We should be in a position to have the highest standards of accredited laboratories in place. I shall pass over now to Dr. O'Sullivan to develop this point.

Dr. Dan O’Sullivan

With regard to Deputy Upton's question on the accreditation of laboratories, our experience is that about 25% to 30% of additional resources are needed, depending on the size of the laboratory, to go from a non-accredited to accredited status. Laboratories are supposed to have been accredited from about 1998 so I imagine that we are well developed in terms of the extent to which our laboratories have been accredited. There is a number of laboratories in the control area that the public analyst sees have an accredited status but for those laboratories that are not accredited yet, the Deputy can take it that a 25% to 30% increase in resources will be required.

To move on to Deputy Ferris's question on who issues the standard, the standard of accreditation is controlled by an organisation called the National Accreditation Board. It is an independent body. An application is made to the accreditation board, which then assesses the laboratory. Depending on the standards in place, it decides whether to give an accreditation. It is not at the discretion of a laboratory itself to make a proposal, it has to be assessed. It is audited thereafter on an annual basis. If it does not meet the standard that it is accredited, it loses its accreditation status. Whether it is an independent or Government laboratory, it will be audited by an independent body to check that it meets the required standard.

Mr. Coleman

The traceability of products coming from third countries was raised by Deputies and Senators. Imports are controlled by the Food and Veterinary Office and imports must come from approved abattoirs and processing operations which meet the highest standards. My colleague, Dr. Paula Barry-Walsh, might develop this further. On traceability, the beef labelling regulations apply equally to third country imports and domestic imports. The animals must be identified and must come from farms where no hormones are fed to the animals so the standards that apply to imports are high.

Traceability is applied, as I said, in the beef area. In relation to other products, there is a difficulty because one does not have to state the country of origin of products sold in retail operations other than where its absence could mislead the consumer. Perhaps Dr. Reilly from the Food Safety Authority will elaborate further on that.

Dr. Alan Reilly

I would like to first make a point about the accreditation of laboratories. Legislation exists necessitating official food control laboratories to be accredited. Some of the agencies that work under the service contract mechanism for the Food Safety Authority are already accredited. For instance, the health board laboratories have a series of food microbiology laboratories that received additional resources three or four years ago, when the Food Safety Authority was set up, to become accredited. Some of the public analyst laboratories are also accredited. The standard for accreditation is an international standard and there is also a European standard for accreditation. This is laid down in article 12 of the document we are discussing so this is a system of harmonisation of accreditation of laboratories across the European Union.

The document we are talking about refers to foods of non-animal origin because the controls are already in place in other legislation to cover foods of animal origin. Foods of non-animal origin include fruit and vegetables such as, say, grapes coming in from Chile. We get fruit from South Africa, beans from Kenya and Uganda and so on. Most of that food comes in via other EU countries. Very little food comes into Ireland directly from third countries. Having said that, some does, and there is no legislation that says that such foods have to be inspected at border inspection posts. That food is eventually picked up by our control system once it enters into trade. In some cases consignments are examined by our environmental health service. Once it leaves a port and enters a warehouse it can be sampled.

There is other legislation that refers to specific foods of non-animal origin. Examples are star anis or maybe something like specific toxins in peanuts. Legislation exists to enable food authorities to examine those foods once they come into the country. We have a memorandum of understanding with Customs whereby if it finds problems with foods coming into the country, it will notify us and we will take appropriate action. I hope that covers the questions.

Mr. Coleman

I would like to ask my colleague, Dr. Paula Barry-Walsh, to comment on those imports and other related issues, including BSE and the veterinary area.

Dr. Paula Barry-Walsh

I will start with the point about tagging. All food of animal origin coming into the EU comes from approved abbattoirs. The Commission holds the approval list and the food and veterinary office also has that list. All those plants are open to audit in the same way as every meat plant in the EU may be audited. With regard to the criteria set for imports from third countries, they do not necessarily have to abide by the specific EU legislation but they must meet equivalent criteria. In other words, the same food safety objective must be met, meaning that the same consumer guarantees are given. However, they are not required to do this in an identical manner. For instance, with regard to the tagging issue that was mentioned, I cannot speculate on what that video was about but I am aware that in Australia microchips are used. There are plants in Australia whose products are approved for importation into the European Union because their microchipping system gives an equivalent guarantee of traceability. The United States Department of Agriculture is either considering microchipping or probably already using it. The point is that third countries would have approved plants. They might have some unapproved plants and their domestic cattle slaughter may allow untagged animals - I cannot comment on that. Anything coming into the EU is from an approved plant and each box of meat is identified with a health mark which bears a number issued by the EU.

I will move on to the importation point. With all third country imports of meat there must be a border inspection point. Much of the importation into the EU, however, goes through Rotterdam which is the largest port clearing all types of meat and other food products for the EU. When any third country meat consignment is brought in it is inspected. The minimum inspection is a documentary check. All meat imports are accompanied by an original veterinary certificate from the third country. That is one of the criteria set out by the food and veterinary office. In addition, a number of the consignments undergo further, generally physical, checks. In other words, inspectors open the load, look at the boxes, examine them and see that they compare with what has been entered on the documentation. If for any reason the two do not match there are powers for action to be taken on imports, to detain, sample, condemn, and return. When that consignment is cleared, subject to meeting the criteria, it will travel within the EU without the original veterinary certification because it could be broken and sent in a hundred different directions. At that point it will trade freely within the EU because it has passed the import controls.

With regard to chicken, which all members mentioned, I understand that the criterion for sampling levels is running as high as 50%. The sampling levels are set on a risk basis so, for instance, if residues are positive on routine sampling, the Commission, as I understand it, can issue another decree which will increase the sampling and if it again proves positive it can ban the product. I have been at Commission meetings where there has been reference to countries from which particular food items were banned because the results were bad. Then 100% testing of each consignment is required before the product is allowed in again.

I will move on to the BSE issue. The point raised was the age of cattle that have tested positive. I do not work in the BSE section but if the committee wants further information I can get it. Over the past year the incidence of BSE on a rolling continuum has been down by 30%. The scientific thinking has been that meat and bonemeal originally led to the problem and, to my knowledge, there is no further scientific information to conclude otherwise. In so far as some of the younger cattle have been found positive, there was one case on a farm that might have had a feed mill licence. Perhaps my colleague from the animal feed area will comment further on that.

Deputy Ferris

On the question of identification, Dr. Barry-Walsh mentioned in her response that Australia ensures by microchip or tagging that there is individual identification or traceability. My understanding is that the South American situation is entirely different in that in Brazil and Argentina there is herd traceability but not individual traceability. Equally my understanding is that there is a vaccination programme to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. We know full well the impact it made here and in England in recent years. Is there an accurate way of determining whether hormones have been used, through the veterinary inspection at the abattoir, before they come in here on the second inspection? In other words, is there an anomaly between EU regulations imposed on EU suppliers as against suppliers coming from third countries?

Dr. Barry-Walsh

With regard to herd traceability I do not know all the systems that exist but with the plants that are allowed to slaughter animals eligible for the EU, the SCO audits them. Plants that are approved sometimes have to put in particular criteria to meet the standards of EU importation. That would not be unusual because the local domestic markets may not enjoy the same level of consumer protection as that imposed when a plant goes for EU approval. With regard to the residue programme, our programme is under 96/23. I cannot comment on the specifics but I know that the countries are obliged when audited to show that they have residue sampling programmes in place. I understand that equivalence is the aim. The programme is not exactly the same. There may be different risks identified in different countries and they may be more important than the risks identified in the EU but there would be an equivalence to give the guarantee to the European Union so that it can approve the plant. I am not talking about countries that are approved for importation but specified plants within countries, if they achieve and maintain the standards required.

With regard to foot and mouth disease, I did not catch the point.

Deputy Ferris

I asked about the procedure of prevention and containment that is adopted here compared to the one in other countries, particularly Brazil and Argentina. In those countries there is a vaccination programme as against the culling programme here.

Dr. Barry-Walsh

During the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease, Holland used vaccinations. Each country would have had to go to the European Commission in Brussels to get permission to do so and put particular criteria in place, and Holland did so. It can be and was allowed. It was accommodated due to the systems they had put in place. There was particular emphasis on non-importation. All vaccinated animals had to go to the local market. There is flexibility and we can do that.

Dr. Reilly

With regard to traceability, in the presentation by my colleague Mr. Coleman, he mentioned EU regulation 178/2002 on the traceability for foods which came in last year. Everybody involved in the food chain must keep a record of who they bought food from and who they sold it to. There have been weaknesses with regard to traceability in the past, but because of this new regulation, traceability should be easier to carry out by food control authorities.

Mr. Coleman

Numerous questions were raised with regard to animal feed, MRLs and GMOs. On the animal feed issue, Dr. Reilly has referred to the traceability requirements and it is been reinforced in the regulation on food hygiene. There is also the issue of the importation of MPN and the feeding to animals. Mr. Tony Gargan, head of our feeding stuff division, will comment on some of the points that have been raised.

Mr. Tony Gargan

A question was raised on the traceability of feeds, in particular feeds from third countries. In this area we already operate a directive on good manufacturing practice that dates back five or seven years. Under that directive, we have a good traceability system within Ireland. However, one of the deficiencies identified was in regard of the materials coming in from third countries. EU law was deficient in that area, but that issue has been addressed in the regulation on feed hygiene. A list of third countries that are deemed by the EU to have a controlled system more or less equivalent to the EU control system will be compiled. Those listed countries will be required to keep lists of establishments that they deem have systems in place equivalent to the EU ones. This is how the matter will be approached. It has been identified as a deficient area. I expect the vetting of that system will be through the food and veterinary office, by experts from member states inspecting systems in third countries.

For a number of years since the 1990s meat and bonemeal has been banned in ruminant feeds in this country. However, since 2000, for all farmed animals throughout the EU meat and bonemeal and all animal protein meals have been banned. There is no feeding of animal carcasses to animals intended for food production.

Senator Coonan

With regard to what has been said, if there has been a ban on meat and bonemeal for so long, why are young cattle getting BSE now? They should not be fed meat and bonemeal so where is it coming from?

Mr. Coleman

My colleague Dr. Barry-Walsh referred to one or two cases of BSE. Since 1990 there has been a ban on meat and bonemeal to ruminants. It was extended to all animals in the mid-1990s. In 1996, we brought in tight controls on meat and bonemeal. No meat and bonemeal is allowed into Ireland and what we produce is produced under the most stringent conditions. Every ounce of meat and bonemeal is accounted for. Its disposal is an issue that has been raised. It is being exported for incineration. However, no meat and bonemeal is getting into the food chain. There have been one or two cases in which animals born after the 1996 period and the introduction of stringent controls got BSE and these cases are still under investigation. Perhaps there was some residual contamination of meat and bonemeal in the farms on which these animals were reared. That may account for it. However, the investigations in these cases are thorough and are still ongoing.

As far as we are concerned, the measures are in place to ensure that meat and bonemeal does not enter the food chain. With regard to imports, we have stringent measures in place. All imports from third countries are sampled for the presence of even minute bone spicule. Any product that contains a bone spicule of an alien origin is destroyed. This is part of the food hygiene regulations and it brings us to the question raised about the guarantee and who pays for it. The importers who have contaminated material pay for it. It could be difficult to put that cost back on the farmer. It is a relatively free market in the animal feed area.

On the question of MRLs, GMOs and contingency plans, we have a contingency plan in place for animal feed and for foot and mouth disease, which the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, announced recently. That has been in place since the 2001 outbreak. We have fine-tuned our operations on that experience. There is also a contingency plan in place for foodstuffs.

Dr. Reilly

I will comment on contingency plans. We have in place the bones of a crisis management plan, what we call a food instant management plan. If there is a food emergency, we have a system to deal with it. There are 47 different agencies working under service contract with the Food Safety Authority. These agencies are responsible for the enforcement of food legislation. With this service contract process, we have an instant management team which kicks into place as soon as we have some form of food emergency, such as an outbreak of a food borne illness or a food on the market that could cause a grave and immediate danger to public health. We have a system in place for recalling such food. Our food incidents management plan is circulated to the 47 agencies that work under service contracts with us. You will see for example in the emergency plan of county councils that on a one-page sheet from the Food Safety Authority the names are given of those to contact in the authority in the event of a problem. We have thatsystem in place for dealing with foodincidents.

We operate an emergency line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We can deal with emergencies, though all depends on their extent. We also have a national contact point for the rapid food alert system for food and feed. We work closely with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and Food in operating that system. If we come across a food that is likely to cause a problem to human health, or indeed feeds on the market within the EU likely to cause such a problem, we can report to Brussels, and Brussels reports back problems from other memberstates. This new proposal will strengthen thecontingency plans for dealing with food emergencies.

Mr. Coleman

There are two other items, GMOs and MRLs. Regarding GMOs, genetically modified organisms, there are procedures in place to grow them in the EU, but effectively they have been subject to a moratorium for a number of years. This is an issue which has been raised by the United States, which has referred it to the WTO.

There are proposals currently going through the Council of Ministers on the labelling of GMOs for food and feed. There is also the issue of pesticide release into the environment. It is a topical issue, but as of now the amount of GMO production in the EU is very small.

I will ask my colleague John Downey, who also deals with this subject in the crop production and safety division, to comment on some of the issues raised.

Mr. John Downey

Between ourselves and the Department of the Environment and Local Government, our policy on GMOs is positive with regard to recognising the benefits of genetic modification, but takes full cognisance of the precautionary principles. There has been a lot of activity since last October when EU directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment within the EU came into law. The other directive refers, as Mr. Coleman said, to labelling and traceability and the transboundary movement on GMOs. The provisions passed through the Council of Ministers recently and are now with the European Parliament.

In a very short space of time the legislative landscape on GMOs has thus changed significantly. For that reason, the American and Canadian authorities and some others are putting severe pressure on the EU to lift what was a de facto moratorium, there since 1998, on authorising GM varieties within the EU. They have taken it to the extent of putting forward a case under the WTO trade rules. That is in the very early stages and it will probably be simply a catalyst for negotiations between both organisations.

Mr. Coleman

The other issue raised by Senator Callanan was in relation to maximum residue levels in pesticides.

Chairman

We agreed that was a separate issue and we will conclude business on the other two issues first.

Mr. Coleman

We have covered the issues of food and feed controls and feed hygiene. There was a question regarding the resource implications. This is an issue which will obviously face us down the road. An interdepartmental group is looking at all these issues and attending meetings in Brussels. The implications and implementation are for another day.

Dr. Reilly

On the GM food issue, I think Senator Callanan asked what scientific background we have for approving GM foods. At the last meeting of the advisory forum of the European Food Safety Authority, a decision was taken to produce new guidelines for safety assessment of GM foods. Currently, the rules relating to safety assessment of GM foods are drawn up separately by member states, and one of the first jobs of the European Food Safety Authority is to look at those guidelines and harmonise them. There are only two GM foods approved for sale on the Irish market. One comes from a genetically modified soya, lecithin, and the other is a maize starch from a genetically modified maize. These are pure starch and pure lecithin. All the scientific work done to date suggests there is no difference between the chemicals that come from the genetically modified crop and the non-genetically modified crop. They are pure chemicals. The scientific guidance will come from the European Food Safety Authority to harmonise how member states do their assessments on GM foods.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Coleman will read into the record the third proposal relating to pesticides.

Mr. Coleman

This proposal was adopted by the EU Commission on 14 March 2003. As is required under the Oireachtas scrutiny provisions, the proposed regulation, with an information notebook, was submitted to the Joint Committee on European Affairs on 14 April. There has been one working party meeting to date, held on 8 May 2003, to discuss the proposal.

The primary objectives of this proposal are to consolidate and simplify the existing legislation in relation to setting maximum residue levels of pesticides in food and to define the roles of the various bodies, particularly that of the European Food Safety Authority, and of the Commission, in the process. The proposal places four existing Council directives on maximum residue levels, or MRLs as they are commonly known, for plant protection products.

The consequence of the proposal can be summarised as follows. All MRLs for plant protection products will be harmonised after a transitional phase-in period; there will no longer be provisions for setting of national MRLs which in certain cases are used as a trade barrier; the European Food Safety Authority will act as a scientific adviser to the Commission and will carry out risk assessment for each of the MRLs being established; a legal basis will be provided for member states to charge fees for work associated with the setting of MRLs; the work of the pesticide residue area will be integrated with the requirements of the proposed regulation for official feed and food controls; and a legal basis will be established for the Commission to fund certain activities which are associated with and which support the pesticide residue monitoring work. We welcome this initiative and are at present developing an Irish position. A number of areas require clarification and those points will be raised at upcoming Council working group meetings.

Deputy Upton

I was one of those very interested in getting you in to talk about this matter, though not in any detail, because I see it as highly technical, meaning that we would have to defer to technical expertise and advice. It is important that we are aware of its background in that context. I welcome the fact that you are spelling it out for us very clearly and summarising it for us. I realise that there are enormous implications from a health and safety point of view regarding setting the correct residue level. The second point you have highlighted here related to trade barriers and that maximum residue levels might well be set artificially by a company as such a barrier. I have no questions, just that comment.

Dr. O’Sullivan

Senator Callanan's question relates to whether spongicides and herbicides are covered in the legislation. When we use the word "pesticides", that covers all those types of agents, including insecticides, spongicides and herbicides. It is a global term. The technical levels set relate to approved use of the product. In other words, if a product is approved for use on a crop and it is used correctly, one will be left with a particular level. That has been developed from scientific trials. The standard of the maximum residue limit is based on the results of those trials. There are specific levels, probably varying for each crop and each application being made. Before those levels are set or established in law, they must be shown to be safe for the consumer so a range of other tests are carried out to verify that they are safe.

Senator Callanan

Perhaps you will tell me whether chemical or pharmaceutical companies are involved in the drafting, or is it done totally independently of any testing that has been carried out? Are they complementary to the testing or is it totally independent?

Dr. O’Sullivan

The chemical companies have to carry out the trial work and submit it, under present rules, to two member states, which discuss it and bring the information to Brussels, where it is discussed by all the member states. They decide on the standard set. The chemical companies carry out such trials, which must be performed again to a good manufacturing practice standard. The accuracy of that standard is verified by a body such as the National Accreditation Board in this country, which must carry out audits to ensure that the companies carrying out such tests work to the correct standards. The companies carry out the tests and submit the results, which are assessed by member states at working groups in Brussels under the chairmanship of the Commission, which then decides on the most suitable standard at which to set the maximum residue level.

Senator Callanan

Why can those tests not be carried out in this country?

Dr. O’Sullivan

They are unfortunately not carried out in this country.

Senator Callanan

I was afraid you would give me that answer. I would be grateful for that response to be forwarded to me.

Chairman

Are members satisfied the three proposals have been scrutinised? Agreed. The Clerk to the committee will prepare the report which will be circulated before our next meeting. If the reports are adopted, they will be laid in the Library of the House in accordance with the Orders of Reference of the committee. I thank the officials from the Department for coming here today. They have been very helpful and forthcoming in their answers to members' questions. This meeting has been very fruitful and I thank Deputy Upton, who proposed at an earlier meeting that you be brought here. Perhaps we should have more such meetings in future.

The next meeting of the joint committee would, in the normal course of events, be held on Wednesday, 4 June 2003, but the House will not sit that week. With agreement, we will meet the following week. However, we will meet on Tuesday, 10 June at 3 p.m. to hear presentations from the Associated Craft Butchers of Ireland, the Racing Club of Ireland and the Animal Welfare Trust - the last two are concerned with the export of horses.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

Is it possible to get the submissions from those groups before the meeting?

Chairman

The Clerk will request them.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 June 2003.