JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Monday, 8 Sep 2003

Vol. 1 No. 19

EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection: Presentation.

Chairman

I apologise for the slight delay in commencing the meeting. I welcome members of the committee, non-members, the various delegations and those representing certain organisations and the press. It is my privilege to also welcome Mr. David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. We are pleased that he has accepted our invitation to address the committee on different aspects of his remit, particularly in the areas of food safety and consumer protection. In recent months the joint committee has had to scrutinise a number of European Union proposals in the important areas of food safety and hygiene.

I welcome the Commissioner. Since our invitation was sent to him other issues important to Ireland have come to the fore, none more important than the abolition of staging posts and the restrictions on the export of live cattle from this country. The Commissioner knows how important this trade is to Ireland and Irish agriculture. I know these are only proposals at this stage, but I am sure I speak for every committee member when I stress the importance of this issue. All we wish to do is emphasise that importance and hope the Commissioner and his officials will examine the concerns we in this country have regarding these proposals. I call on Commissioner Byrne to address the meeting.

Mr. David Byrne

It is a pleasure for me to be here. The invitation was issued some time ago and, as the Chairman indicated, we were not able to get our diaries together until today and other events have since come on stream for discussion. In many respects it is probably just as well that there was this delay because we have an opportunity to discuss issues that I know are very important to committee members and Ireland.

I am pleased that I am a regular visitor to this House and involved in understanding the work undertaken by Members in their respective committees. Regular contact between the European Commission and national parliaments in member states is essential. This is for two reasons: for the Commission to explain at first hand its policies, proposals and views, and to gain a greater appreciation of the views of national parliamentarians on specific issues as they affect the public. I greatly value this type of dynamic dialogue, and I hope that members can gain some benefit from my appearance, as I expect to gain from the dialogue we will have during the course of our meeting.

By way of some opening remarks I would like to look back over the achievements of the past four years in the field of food safety. I will then touch on a few specific issues which I know are of common concern in Ireland, not least that to which the Chairman referred.

Members will recall the difficult days of the late 1990s when the image of food safety was perhaps at its lowest ebb and trust in the industry to deliver safe food to consumers dipped to an all-time low. Perhaps it was not the ideal time to take up office as the European Commissioner with responsibility for food safety, especially with the dioxin crisis at its peak in Belgium. However, the way forward was very clear to me. The time was ripe to crystallise a new vision aimed firmly and squarely at putting the consumer first and regaining consumer confidence. That vision was set out in my White Paper on Food Safety of January 2000, which provided a list of actions to establish a new system fit for the new millennium.

Three years and nine months later I am pleased to be able to report that we are well on course to complete this ambitious task. The landmark regulation laying down the general principles of food law, encompassing the farm to fork approach, and providing for the creation of the European Food Safety Authority came into force in January of last year. The European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, is now up and running, gathering pace and set to take on the full range of its responsibilities later this year.

One key feature of the EFSA is that it has at its core the very best scientific advice available to the European Union on food safety. It is completely independent, and we must therefore heed its advice. The food safety authorities of each member state are represented in the advisory forum of the EFSA. This will ensure that the EFSA does not become distant from the practical realities throughout the member states in the European Union. Rather, it will have available a huge network of expertise and experience in food safety matters, all in the interest of our consumers and citizens.

In addition to the general food law, new carefully targeted legislation is in force or coming into force soon covering a range of food safety issues. Measures on TSEs, animal by-products, labelling of feed, undesirable substances in feed, pesticides, food supplements and the withdrawal of antibiotics have been introduced. A number of important proposals are before the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament which I hope will be agreed later this year.

We have reached agreement in the Council on genetically modified food and feed, which paves the way for a rigorous procedure to ensure the safety of GM products and comprehensive labelling rules to enable consumers to choose whether to buy such products.

We are moving towards the latter legislative stages of the food hygiene package which will merge, harmonise and simplify EU hygiene legislation covered in 17 different and separate directives. This package will lay down the fundamental standards of safety to serve as a basis from which quality and excellence can flow and thrive.

Feed hygiene is another live issue. It should be remembered that feed contamination was at the root of all the recent food crises. The feed hygiene proposal will replace existing legislation on the approval and registration of establishments and intermediaries in the animal feed sector to ensure proper feed hygiene is applied at all stages of production and use, including primary production, thus improving traceability.

This proposal is of major importance as no specific hygiene rules exist for feed production. Its importance is obvious given the past and recent food scares originating from the feed sector, for example, MPA, nitrofen and nitrofurans. These food scares serve as a sharp reminder that we still have some distance to go before we have a regime that can gain full consumer confidence in our food supply.

This leads me to official controls, which are essential to complement the body of food legislation. Our systems of monitoring, control and alert have improved significantly in recent years, but there is certainly room for further improvement. The new proposal is designed to put matters on a sound footing for the next decade and beyond. It will improve the efficiency of member state control services through the better definition of tasks, harmonisation of the role of control services, and integration of controls across the entire food and feed chain. The proposal will improve the effectiveness of the Commission's control services through a more transparent, strategic and integrated approach to controls. It will also define enforcement measures, including sanctions, to address cases of non-compliance with food and feed laws to add much-needed bite to the current system. The adoption of this proposal will improve significantly our ability to manage the food chain, making it possible to ensure ever-safer food for European consumers.

The control system will also cover imports of food and feed from third countries, including the provision of assistance to developing countries to help them to meet our exacting standards. The aim is simply to ensure that the same standards of food safety apply to all products regardless of origin, to protect the integrity of our food safety system as a whole, and give consumers what they should expect - safe food.

With the broad food safety framework nearing completion, we are turning our attention to the information that consumers are given about the food they buy. In July the Commission adopted a proposal on the use of nutritional and health claims. The fundamental point is that consumers should be able to make choices based on clear and accurate information. Nutritional claims, such as "high fibre", "low-fat" or "sugar-free", will be standardised by defining what they mean and including that definition in the legislation. In short, nutritional claims must be justifiable. Inverted claims will not be permitted. For example, claims such as "90% fat free" might be technically correct but are nevertheless misleading, as they imply a low fat content, whereas 10% fat is actually rather high.

Health claims are those that state or imply a health benefit to the consumer in respect of that food. Within three years of the regulation coming into force we will draw up a list of well-established claims that will be permitted, for example, "calcium is good for teeth and bones." That is well established. More novel claims will require scientific justification by the EFSA and pre-marketing approval before they can be used. Other restrictions will apply, for example to slimming or weight control claims, references to health professionals and to claims on alcoholic drinks.

Future plans include a proposal on the fortification of foods with vitamins and minerals, for example, and a review of the EU rules on labelling. For instance, the issue of mandatory nutritional labelling is something we are currently looking at and I hope to bring forward legislation on this matter next spring.

The Chairman referred to animal transport and I know this is an issue of some controversy and is being watched by all sides - farmers, the transport sector and consumers. The adoption of the Commission's proposal in July followed an extensive consultation process, conducted in the autumn of last year, which sought the views of a wide range of stakeholders, from major organisations to individual citizens. The result of this consultation was very strong backing for the Commission's desire to see the protection of animals during transport substantially improved, and this is precisely what the proposal is designed to deliver. A vast majority demanded better regulation on space allowances and standards of transportation, as well as expressing deep concerns about maximum travelling times. The proposal includes much stricter rules for journeys longer than nine hours, regardless of whether these movements are cross-border or within the borders of a member state.

It also identifies all those involved in animal transport and defines who is responsible for what. This will enable more effective enforcement of the new rules; enforcement has been a problem under the existing rules. One issue in particular has attracted a great deal of attention, that of travelling times. Our proposal would replace the current rules with an across the board maximum of nine hours for all species, to be followed by a minimum of 12 hours rest if the journey is to continue. It is no accident that these times coincide with the travel and rest rules applicable to drivers since 1985, hence enforcement should be much more straightforward.

The proposed new rules are largely modelled on existing best practice within the industry and they draw heavily on the independent advice of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare. The aim is quite simply to bring all animal transport up to similarly high standards. Improved animal welfare lies at the heart of the proposal but care has also been taken to ensure that the new measure fits in as far as possible with existing industry practices.

I appreciate that concerns have been expressed in Ireland and other member states concerning the impact the proposal could have on the transport of live animals, especially over long distances. The situation applying to the peripheral regions of Europe has been carefully taken into account, particularly in relation to the maritime transport of animals. Specific measures in the proposal concern the requirements for transport by roll-on-roll-off vehicles, which clearly is of particular relevance to Ireland. Time spent on roll-on-roll-off vessels will be considered as resting time for the animals concerned, not travelling time. That is a considerable concession from the point of view of those involved in that industry in Ireland.

Frankly, there is a large body of opinion in member states and in the European Parliament in favour of restricting animal transport to a maximum of eight hours. If such a proposal were to be adopted in European legislation, it would have devastating consequences, not just for Ireland but for trade from many other European countries. That said, the Commission's ideas are now on the tables of the Council of Ministers for decision and the European Parliament for its advice. Essentially it is now up to the Ministers from the member states to make their voices heard. Based on the last full discussion we had in the Council, almost exactly a year ago, this will be no easy task. Views fell mainly into two camps: 50% demanded an eight hour maximum travel time for animals, with some saying that ideally we should have no live animal transport at all. The other camp said eight hours is too restrictive and that we should be more liberal and flexible on the matter. From my discussions in Council since then, even informally, it seems these two camps are firmly entrenched in their views and it will be extremely difficult to get a consensus on the way forward on this issue. One group is keen to raise the standards of animal welfare, while the other takes the view that if we enforce the existing legislation properly then everything will be fine.

I get more e-mails on this one issue than any other and that has been the case for a couple of years. There are strong forces of influence which take a radically different view from those expressed by the industry in Ireland. Perhaps the views expressed in other member states have not had the prominence in Ireland they have had elsewhere, so we have tended to hear the debate from the industry's side. Of course it is legitimate for that sector to make its arguments; I have listened to those arguments and they will also be made to the Council of Ministers when it comes to its final decision. It seems likely that there will be adjustments or amendments, which is often the case with legislation brought forward by the Commission for presentation to the Council or Parliament. In any case we are embarking on this public debate. It is an issue of some controversy on both sides of the argument in most member states and it will be difficult to achieve a conclusion.

I will listen very carefully to Members views on this and any other issue they may wish to raise. I will reflect carefully on such views with my advisers and take them fully into account as my proposals advance through the legislative process. I hope I have been able to give a broad flavour of the work being done and I would now be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman

Thank you, Commissioner. I apologise to Mr. Martin Territt that I did not mention him in my introduction.

Deputy Timmins

I thank the Chairman for organising the Commissioner's attendance here today, as I know he is very busy. I compliment him on the work he has done. It is a varied and difficult portfolio and much of his work does not necessarily hit the headlines. I know he is in a continuous battle with many strong vested interests, particularly in the food labelling area.

I have three issues to cover. One is the debate on food labelling, which has taken off recently in Ireland. I agree with the Commissioner that most people do not understand the implications of food labelling. Many labels are deceptive, despite what the advertising industry claims. Does the Commissioner have any views on the growing level of obesity and how it is to be tackled? Would changes in food labelling laws he has mentioned make people more aware? Will the changes be simple enough so that when someone goes into a store he will be able to tell what will happen to him if he eats a particular product? At the moment people do not know this.

The Commissioner mentioned in his submission that one of his responsibilities is the importation of food from third countries. I am loath to single out a particular country but he will be aware of the question of Brazilian beef coming into this country. The EU imports approximately 475,000 tonnes of beef. In Ireland we import approximately 17,000 tonnes. In the last couple of years we have imported between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes of beef. Many people who are eating Brazilian beef think it is Irish beef.

I am not opposed to the importation of beef. We export 90% of our produce and we cannot, therefore, complain about imports. However, people should know what they are eating and whether it is non-EU product or not. This is an extension of the Commissioner's call for clear labelling. Brazilian beef is being passed off as Irish beef.

I have raised this matter with the Department of Agriculture and Food in the past year and I have always been assured that imported beef is subject to the same standard of inspection as Irish beef. However, I received a copy from the food and veterinary office of a report of a visit to Brazil in March of this year, with which I am sure the Commissioner is familiar. Many aspects of the report are very worrying. The inspection team went to Brazil as part of a routine inspection and at the request of the Brazilian government because four new states were seeking qualification for export to the EU. One of the comments of the inspection team was that the veterinarian certifying export consignments does not receive sufficient information from the internal transfer certificate to support some of the statements contained in the export certificates. My understanding is that the veterinarian certifying meat for export in some cases is not in a position to do so, based on the information in front of him.

The report also states that problems identified in previous missions by the food and veterinary office still existed, particularly in respect of animal identification. A veterinary unit visited by the team in one of the new states did not come up to scratch. However, when the team asked to visit another unit the home country refused inspection rights. I have also seen a report of a visit to Argentina in November 2002 which has similar aspects.

These comments do not concur with the information I have received from the Department of Agriculture and Food, which was a very bland statement that everything is fine. I simply want people to know what they are eating, that whatever beef we import into the EU, excluding our tariff system, is subject to the same production controls as EU and Irish beef and that cost inputs are similar so that there is a level playing pitch. There is a perception that Irish farmers must meet certain requirements which are not necessarily met by farmers in other countries. I looked at a report of the disease eradication scheme in the Irish industry. The food and veterinary office commented that in some cases we went over and above what was required by the EU. Does the Commissioner have a comment on these aspects, which are very worrying?

Most of us here today are concerned with live exports. The Commissioner is aware of the economic implications for Ireland. We are an island nation and it is important that there is competition for factories in the meat industry. Perhaps we should, as an exercise, travel with a truck load of animals and see the line it follows. It strikes me that having staging posts where the animals could be let out would not be more advantageous than keeping them on the vehicles during rest periods. I find it difficult to see that this would be a better system. I assume the Commissioner bases his comments on some scientific research. We have received a submission from the IFA, which I am sure the Commissioner has seen, which says long distance transport has no adverse impact on animal welfare. The submission also claims that reducing stocking densities adds no animal welfare benefits.

I am sure these points have been put to the Commissioner in the past. On what basis does he make this proposal, which is to go to the Council of Ministers during the Presidency of the EU? Where did the information come from? Did it come from the European Food Safety Authority? What about the other information put in front of the Commissioner, which he does not appear to have considered? I would like to hear the Commissioner's view on this matter.

Is this the Commissioner's final proposal or is there a possibility of changing it? I will be urging the Minister for Agriculture and Food to reject this proposal in its present form. The Commissioner rightly points out that we may hear only one aspect of the debate here in Ireland and that different aspects may be articulated elsewhere. I do not say this to be populist but it strikes me that we are going overboard.

I am reminded of a book I am reading at the moment which tells of the time when the National Farmers Association went to the Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Tom Walsh, to discuss the question of myxomatosis in rabbits. The disease was in England and it was said that the Department was more interested in conservationists than in farmers. I know the Commissioner has a role in food safety but it is important that he look at these issues. They are particularly important for our beef industry, which has suffered in recent years. The live cattle trade is the only outlet apart from meat factories. If the proposals remain in their current form that trade might come to an end.

Deputy Upton

I thank the Commissioner for giving us this opportunity to put questions to him and to hear his views on wholefood safety and animal welfare issues.

In this country we have a Department of Agriculture and Food while at European level these would be two separate areas. I am interested in the Commissioner's views on this and on how effectively it works at European level. My view on the matter is widely known. I believe food should be separate from agriculture. The Commissioner mentioned the need for emphasis on consumer protection. I support that emphasis. It is another argument in favour of the separation of these Departments.

There is considerable concern among small food producers regarding the bureaucracy that surrounds the introduction of new legislation. Could the Commissioner comment briefly on that? How does he think the standards we expect from the food industry can be sustained without compromise so that the highest standard is maintained while taking account of the legitimate concerns of the smaller food producers? This is an issue of some considerable concern.

Food labelling is a huge area and I welcome the development of clearer labelling showing nutritional information and the composition of food. There is a need for a major education and information campaign for consumers. It is also very difficult to track into labelling because responsibility for it is spread across a number of Departments. For that reason it can be extremely difficult to measure exactly what is happening in different food labelling areas at any one time. There is a strong argument for ensuring that it is all under one banner.

I am concerned about the abolition of staging points for animals being transported. The Commissioner makes reference in his document to the impact of loading and unloading on animals and to the fact that it is considered more stressful than leaving them on the transport vehicle. There is also concern about the spread of infectious diseases. Leaving aside that question, have comparative studies been published in relation to loading and unloading versus retaining the animals on the transport lorry over a period of time? I do not have a detailed knowledge of the scientific background to this but leaving animals on a transporter for a long time must surely bring its own particular and specific difficulties. I would like to hear the Commissioner's views.

Deputy Timmins mentioned the Teagasc publication by Dr. Bernadette Earley. It would appear from that document that there is no significant advantage to be gained from an animal welfare point of view so that a staging point would seem to offer some benefits in that area.

Deputy Ferris

I, too, welcome the Commissioner and thank him for his presentation. Much that I wanted to say has already been said by the two previous speakers. I will focus on the traceability requirements imposed on member states within the EU compared with member states outside the EU. I refer primarily to individual traceability. I know about herd traceability but this comes down to individual traceability. Not having individual traceability leaves us wide open from a food safety and hygiene point of view.

On staging posts and the transport of animals, this country, being an island, is dependent upon its exports which amount to approximately €200 million per annum on more than 200,000 head of cattle each year. There is a proposal in relation to the abolition of staging posts and the reduction of stock density, travel times and rest etc. It is the producers who are being penalised in this regard. I have no doubt this will result in a significant increase in travel costs to the producer. Whatever profit is being made will be greatly reduced. Farmers and those dependent upon this market are the ones who will suffer at the end of the day. The argument in regard to the abolition of staging posts and keeping cattle on board a lorry for a 12 hour rest period compared to having them removed, watered and their bedding changed etc. does not hold up.

The Commissioner said there is a very strong lobby within the EU for an eight hour maximum rest period. The introduction of such a proposal would mean nobody in the west of Ireland could take their cattle out of the country. That is the lunacy of pushing this agenda. It is a penalisation of those who are most dependent on the export of their cattle.

Deputies Timmins and Upton mentioned the detailed scientific research undertaken by Teagasc which indicates the current system has no adverse impact on animal welfare and that it is quite happy with the current stock density within the trucks. Perhaps the Commissioner will outline what scientific proof he has in regard to staging posts and stock density.

Everybody here wholeheartedly supports food labelling. I would like this committee to forward a motion to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Commissioner to the effect that staging points, stock density and travelling rest times be maintained as they are.

Deputy Hayes

I join other members in welcoming the Commissioner and in thanking him for taking time out from his very busy schedule to meet us.

Historically, the live export of cattle has been the backbone of industry in Ireland for many years. The Commissioner is aware of that. Things are no different today from many years ago when we exported only to England. The market has grown somewhat but the issue remains a big one. Livestock exporters fear devastating consequences for the farmers of Ireland.

Nobody in the Commission realises the importance of the export industry to Ireland. I will give an example. If young female animals were not being exported to Spain and Italy there would be a glut in the market causing enormous hardship to an already depressed sector. The change in regulations from the EU would result in the male animal being in the same situation next year. Hence we have a problem. We need live exports now more than ever. Those involved in the export industry will say our uniqueness has never been understood at EU level. I ask the Commissioner, as an Irishman, to take that message to Europe.

The issue of lairage is important. Anyone travelling by boat or over land with these animals can get out of the vehicle to change their clothes or take a rest. Animals should also be given a chance to breathe. It is most important that we are allowed to use the lairage in France. Another matter with which I take issue is the loading and unloading of animals. Modern transport conditions mean there is no pressure in regard to loading and unloading. This issue is being hyped up out of all proportions. I understand the Commissioner has a difficult task in getting people to understand our side of the story. Such people do not understand the modern ways of animal transport.

The Commissioner should bring back to Europe the message that Ireland is now more dependent on animal exports than ever before. We are depending on him to fight the case for the farmers and producers of Ireland. If not, there will be no need to put in place Leader programmes as there will be no one left in rural Ireland.

Chairman

I ask Deputies to be brief because the Commissioner is under pressure of time and I hope to give every member the chance of putting a question to him.

Deputy Carty

I, too, welcome the Commissioner here today. I fully support what other speakers have said. In a former role I have spent time in the supervision of the export of livestock. I know from practical and personal experience the amount of work undertaken by the veterinary staff of the Department of Agriculture and Food and by veterinary people from the companies exporting. The regulations were stringent. Under the new proposals how can we expect stock to be kept on the side of the road and looked after in a proper fashion for a rest period of a number of hours? It would be far better to take them off the truck and to have the truck properly cleaned and disinfected. We are an island nation and stock have spent 24 hours cooped up before they get off in Europe. It is important that we examine that aspect and that some derogation is given for livestock being exported from this country. In my opinion, and that of the industry and the farming community, it would be detrimental to the whole industry if the regulations were tightened or if the proposals cause further restrictions.

Dr. Bernadette Earley of Teagasc has produced a fine document. Is there any qualified research from people bent on bringing in this proposal which opposes her research?

I fully support food labelling. I am unhappy regarding an incident which happened in my constituency recently. At a local festival sandwiches being sold were kept in a fridge which was examined by two people from the health authority who found it was not at a low enough temperature. They stopped the sale of the sandwiches. I was in Europe recently where I saw food cooked in the open at a marina and there was no problem with its sale. Although there were flies and everything around, nobody restricted the sellers. Is there a standard set across Europe?

Senator Coonan

I welcome the Commissioner and thank him for his address. I agree with others that he has been doing a good job with a difficult portfolio. Many in the farming community, and I declare my interest, are disappointed that it is an Irish Commissioner who is introducing these proposals in regard to animal transport. The farming community is anything but happy with these proposals and it has valid reasons for concern regarding their impact on the industry.

Most people accept that animals only rest when they feel like it, when they are tired. Anybody with a knowledge of agriculture knows that and that there is not a particular hour of the day when they are resting. I do not know how this restriction on transport was arrived at but there are serious anomalies concerning it. For example, does the Commissioner not think it is ridiculous that a truck might have to pull up at the side of the road and rest the cattle for 12 hours when it is within two hours of its destination?

Many European countries are denying access to their ports to Irish farmers and shippers. Does the Commissioner not think the Commission should address this so that exporters can take the shortest journey to the Continent? A positive proof of present conditions for stock is continental customers' satisfaction with the condition of our animals when they arrive. They accept them and are anxious to get more Irish stock.

If the Commission is so concerned about the well being of animals, should it not address the problem of factory farming on the Continent? On factory farms animals are locked up from the day they are born to the day they are slaughtered. They never see daylight and are fed with cheap products imported from South America and elsewhere.

Another serious problem relates to the animal medicines Bill. The Commission and the Government are now saying that farmers are not capable of administering intramammaries. Things have gone overboard. While I accept that we must have rules and regulations, we have gone from one extreme to the other.

There are serious problems concerning labelling. In supermarkets we can get full details of traceability of Irish produce yet beside it we can have imported products which provide no information to the customer as to their origin. We have the same situation in regard to the sale of Irish beef to customers in hotels and guesthouses where there is no requirement for it to be labelled as to origin. These issues should be addressed.

Proposed stocking densities on lorries are crazy. What research has gone into these proposals? If animals travel loosely in a lorry they are more likely to be battered or tossed around, particularly on rough seas or bad road conditions. The general consensus is that proposals in this area have gone overboard. It has gone from the extreme where too many travelled on a lorry to where there are too few.

Irish farming is already under threat from Europe and these proposals will only add to the difficulties. The importance of this will be seen in a few weeks at the end of the grazing season, the peak season for slaughtering. Coincidentally, the factories will quote the same price on Monday morning each week and we will still be told there is not a cartel in operation. This is another issue the Commissioner should address.

I know the Commissioner is in a hurry but it would be remiss of me, since he is also Commissioner with responsibility for health, not to ask his opinion on the proposed smoking ban. Does he think we should have the same proposals in Ireland as in the rest of Europe? What is his reaction to the proposals here?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome Commissioner Byrne and his assistant. As a Deputy from the largest inland county in the country, Tipperary, I must state that farmers there, along with their colleagues throughout the country, have taken pride in the quality of our live exports. However, they have been distraught since the recent proposals were announced by the Commissioner in July in regard to greater restrictions on animal transport. We are glad to have this opportunity to discuss it with the Commissioner.

I will be brief as many of my points have been mentioned already. The staging posts are essential for the animal trade from Ireland. We are conscious, and ask the Commissioner to be also, that we are different from any other country in Europe. We are the most westerly island in Europe and rely hugely on the regulations to be user-friendly for us as islanders. The 14 hour regulation is in operation at the moment and we ask that it be retained. The staging posts have proven to be user-friendly and to promote good animal welfare practice. I cannot understand how people working in the interests of animal welfare could promote the idea of the 12 hour rest period on the same vehicle for animals. The current practice is more animal friendly and I ask the Commissioner, as an Irishman, to look again at the proposal. He should remember that animals already travel long distances before they reach our ports. We are asking that the longer travelling period be retained.

As Deputy Carty said in regard to the larger space allowance for animals travelling long distances, Teagasc scientific research has proven that reduced animal space allowance is in no way adverse to animal welfare. The current density is acceptable, as the scientists have proven. This should be borne in mind and given serious consideration.

I support all my colleagues around the table in asking that the staging posts and the long 14-hour period remain - in other words the status quo. The Commissioner, as an Irishman representing us, working on our behalf and doing a very good job to date, should get this message clearly.

Senator Callanan

Like my colleagues I extend a special welcome to Mr. David Byrne, our Commissioner. I would like to get in my commercial at the start as I might forget it at the end. As someone from Cork, I am glad the Commissioner went there on his holidays and I hope he had a good time.

Mr. Byrne

I did.

Senator Callanan

I believe we are all singing from the same hymn sheet even though there are eight or nine counties represented here today. Our task is to impress on the Commissioner that the proposals coming from his office do not suit Ireland and its farming conditions. As he knows, Ireland is an island nation. The study was done from the point of view of the northern European states, which have no concept of what it is like to try to get live exports out to the European market.

It is easy to have an expert opinion. The country, Europe and the world are full of them. However, expert fact is a different issue. In her statement, Dr. Bernadette Earley said there is no sustainable case to support the imposition as now proposed. I am glad the Commissioner recognises there is room for compromise and has said today that there will be amendments. I recognise the difficulties he has with a divided Commission and Council of Ministers. I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, and his officials do not accept the proposals as presented.

Our function today is to impress on the Commissioner that what is being proposed does not suit us in getting product to the marketplace. It is fair to assume that the Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne, does not want to disrupt, interfere or introduce a practice that would adversely impact agriculture in this country.

I am glad the Commissioner referred to food safety factors. Heretofore all of us have made comment on the practice of non-EU meat and other food coming in without proper branding or labelling. It is essential to have a level playing field so that consumers can make the choice they want to make. This is only possible through having proper information. It is equally important to introduce all the regulations now. Bringing them in gradually will not level the playing field quickly enough.

We know what is happening in this country. For some time we have been saying that meat and food generally are arriving in Europe and this country. I have seen this in the supermarkets. "Irish smoked bacon" is a misleading description. Other labels are equally misleading and I am glad the Commissioner is picking up on these. While I would not expect him to do otherwise, I compliment him on this. It is essential that the standards of food quality the Irish producer is required to supply to the consumer must be met by food produced in Europe or imported into Europe.

The export of cattle is critical for fair trade and we must recognise that the island of Ireland is at a disadvantage in getting product to the marketplace. I am one of many farmers around this table. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is better from an animal welfare point of view for live cattle to stay in the truck than to be taken out and put back in 12 hours later. The so-called experts claim to know about everything, but know about nothing. There are a few in this House - a small minority. They exist in greater numbers in the European Parliament. The Commissioner is sufficiently streetwise and has an understanding of what it is to be an island nation. Given that he has an understanding of practicalities, we will rely on him to accept what has been said here and what the Minister for Agriculture and Food and his officials have said.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am glad to see the Commissioner, Mr. Byrne, here today. I credit him for his innovation since his appointment as Commissioner, which has been good for the whole food industry and agriculture generally.

The issues we are discussing today are very simple. The first issue is the animal welfare relating to live exports. There is a tradition of live exports to the UK going back over 300 years and this became part of the great success of Lemass in the 1960s. That trade has now dried up and we are dependent on the continental market. This is about competition, without which farmers will not be able to survive. Agriculture in this country is going through a very difficult period. The Commissioner must allow live exports to continue for Irish farmers. We have a huge weanling trade to countries like Spain.

Alongside that we will soon see decoupling. Now farmers are questioning whether to destroy calves after calving, particularly the Friesian bull calf, which has little or no value, but is ideal for feeding on in the Continent for veal production. We have had a huge export of calves in recent years and I would like to see that continue. That trade could dry up if difficulties arise, as values will be reduced. I appeal to the Commissioner to do something.

While I realise the importance of welfare I also realise the importance of the trade. There must be a middle ground where the issue can be resolved between the producer and exporters, and the Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Food. If this is not done farmers will suffer. Agriculture is going through a very difficult period with farmers leaving the land at a rate I have never before seen.

It is important that food labelling contains details of the country of origin. We have traceability and quality, but we do not know the source. While I am not trying to promote Marks and Spencer, last week nectarines were on special offer in its Grafton Street store. The label on the nectarines stated the country of origin was France. I thought they were a South American or Caribbean fruit. What are the legal implications of inserting country of origin for European product also?

The poultry industry in this country is practically dead, as almost all the poultry sold here is imported from the Far East and other parts of the world. About 50,000 tonnes of bacon are imported each year, which is almost equal to that produced by the domestic market. Almost 20,000 tonnes of beef are imported. A great deal of this meat is imported through the EU and is labelled as European after it has passed through Germany, Holland or elsewhere. The fact that we are taking more than our fair share of EU imports is a real problem.

Various companies are being established to provide packaging facilities. The beef in a single package may contain two thirds Brazilian beef and one third Irish beef for flavour. I accept that there are some very fine brands of pork and bacon in this country. I do not want to name the brands in question, but it seems that it is almost time to "name and shame", as we do in relation to taxation matters. As a producer, I am aware that imported products are being placed in Irish packets and sold as Irish produce. This cannot continue, as it is damaging the quality, flavour and image of Irish agriculture and Irish farmers. If this problem is not tackled, we will have little or nothing in this country. Some farmers are very conscious of the fact that we have some good products and processors in Ireland, but they are being challenged. They are forced to import in order to level the playing field and to get their profit margins in order.

I notice that a new EU feed hygiene directive, or part of an existing directive, is being introduced. It has come into this country's legislation by order of the Department of Agriculture and Food. The people of Ireland have been very good Europeans and the agriculture industry has benefited enormously from our membership of the European Union. If we continue to impose various directives, regulations and other legislation on Irish farmers, farming will become intolerable for them. It is difficult for many people to farm because they do not have the capital and the wherewithal to put in place the various systems needed to comply with the regulations being imposed. While the feed hygiene directive may be important, I am interested in the structures of Irish farmyards and the availability of buildings. The new directive refers to contamination and various other issues, but I feel that the new rules should be structured in a way that does not necessitate huge capital expenditure on the part of the farming community. Many farmers will not be able to meet the requirements of the new system.

Senator McCarthy

Like other speakers, I welcome the Commissioner, Mr. Byrne, and Mr.Territt, two men who have taken time from their busy schedules to attend this meeting. As I am conscious of the Commissioner's time constraints, I will be very brief. I agree broadly with what the previous speakers said. Most of us, particularly those of us from rural constituencies, are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I wish to speak about the issue of transportation, particularly live exports. It is not fair to assess this matter from a single viewpoint. Consumers do not want damaged goods, such as beef that has been damaged as a result of the transportation of cattle in conditions that promote such damage. We have to be cognisant of this fact. It is important in the overall context to be mindful of good animal welfare practice when introducing rules and regulations to govern the transport of beef.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Upton, who has said there should be a stand-alone Department to deal with domestic food matters. The fact that the areas of agriculture and food are represented by two different Commissioners demonstrates that there is a need for two separate Departments in this country. We are moving closer to the day when circumstances will demand that the two portfolios be separated. Such a separation works very well in the European context and I believe it would work just as well in the Irish context.

Given that Mr. Byrne is nearing the end of his term as Commissioner, can he give the committee a clue as to the identity of his successor at EU level?

Deputy Hayes

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is a good candidate for the position.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I was thinking about Deputy Hayes as a possible candidate.

Senator Scanlon

I will be brief, as I am conscious of the committee's time constraints. I come from the north-west, an area that depends to a great extent on the export of live animals. Any changes made to the numbers of cattle allowed on trucks will have a serious effect on farmers in my part of the country. It is likely that farmers will have to pay for any changes that are made. I would not like to see any changes in that regard.

I cannot see how cattle left on a lorry for 12 hours will be able to rest. The process of rest should involve some form of exercise, which cattle will not get if they are left on lorries for 12 hours. I do not agree with the proposals in that regard.

I return to Senator Coonan's point. If cattle are travelling for seven hours and are three hours away from their destination, it would be crazy for them to be held up. There should be flexibility to allow animals that are close to their destination to continue to that place.

Chairman

I would like to make a few quick points. Those transporting animals from this country are at a disadvantage because they have to travel for 24 hours before they arrive in mainland Europe. If there is a problem with staging posts or points, from a disease point of view, would the Commission consider, in light of this country's unique circumstances, providing for staging posts specifically to cater for the Irish perspective? Such a measure could solve many of the problems caused by the distance exporters have to travel before they reach mainland Europe. I hope the fact that the live export trade has become more important to this country, as a result of the decoupling agreement reached as part of the Fischler CAP reforms, will be taken into consideration as well.

Other speakers have referred to the 12-hour suggestion in relation to travelling rest times. I do not wish to delay the delegation by discussing this matter at length, as I have related the committee's concerns in this regard to the Commissioner. Teagasc has conducted scientific research into live exports. I am acquainted with Dr. Earley and the staff at Teagasc's research centre at Grange, County Meath. They have put an enormous amount of effort into this area.

I am sure the Commissioner will consider the views of all speakers on this matter. There are other very important issues, such as labelling and the importation of beef from other countries, but the implementation of the live exports proposal to which I have referred would be detrimental to Irish agriculture. I know the Commissioner and his officials and I am sure the Minister, Deputy Walsh, will fight tooth and nail on behalf of this country. I am confident the Commissioner will work in the best interests of Ireland to retain the status quo, which the farming organisations and I believe is in the best interests of animals. I ask the Commissioner to respond to the concerns that have been raised.

Mr. Byrne

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the detailed questions that have been asked. Most of the questions relate to my portfolio, although some of them relate to the proposal of my colleague. Mr. Fischler. I thank the committee for the pleasant, friendly and courteous manner in which they asked these important questions. I appreciate the questions that have been raised and I will try to deal with them all, although we are running a little short on time. I will do my best to answer them.

Deputy Timmins expressed concern about the deceptive nature of food labelling, the pressure coming from the advertising industry and the relationship between these issues and the increase in obesity. He was absolutely right to state that these are matters of concern. Obesity is increasing - the World Health Organisation recently described it as a global epidemic. Much of what we are doing in this area - legislation, health claims, nutrition claims, fortification of food, managing, nutrition labelling, etc. - is aimed in the direction of counteracting that problem. We also need an educational campaign, as obesity results from an imbalance between an individual's calorie intake and energy output.

Exercise needs to be considered as part of this issue. This problem does not only relate to the ingestion of food, but also to the modern, western lifestyle, which is more associated with relaxation than with exercise. It is probable that we all need to take this message on board and to ensure that we get enough exercise. This is not a problem for the farmers of Ireland, by and large, as they get enough exercise from the work they do. We are not all farmers, however, and those of us whose lifestyle is more sedentary must take that into account to ensure we get the balance right.

A number of committee members mentioned imports from third countries and those from Brazil in particular. Beef imports from Brazil represent one seventh of 1% of all agricultural imports to the European Union and 0.25% of agricultural imports to Ireland. These are not huge figures though I acknowledge it is an issue in people's minds and I will attempt to disentangle some of the questions involved. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe asked a very important question seeking the identification of the law in this regard. While the matter comes under Commissioner Fischler's portfolio, I am closely associated with it. There is a legal obligation to label beef identifying place of birth, rearing and slaughter in respect of the sale of beef except in the case of the catering trade. Therefore, we are talking now of the catering trade only. The issue is whether legislation should be put in place to require the labelling of beef in the catering trade, principally by restaurants and hotels. While there is an argument to be advanced in that regard, there is also an argument to be advanced against it. The argument for is that such a practice would provide consumers with a great deal of information on which to base a choice. That is a principle by which I have abided in many other aspects of the work I do. It seems to be fundamental. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, is also concerned about this matter. He has written to me on the subject and he will be taking it up with Commissioner Fischler in the forthcoming review of labelling.

There are a number of options including EU and non-EU labelling or provisions which would identify beef as Irish. As part of the outcome of last year's dispute with regard to the refusal by France to import British beef, France has moved forward with a proposal whereby the catering trade there would identify French beef as such. That is one way forward. Another way forward would be to label beef as being of EU origin. If there is any move in the direction of labelling beef as being from Ireland, the practice would obviously apply in other countries if they were to require the same practice. It should be considered that beef which is exported to England, France or Germany might end up having to be identified as Irish beef.

The quality of the beef being imported from Brazil to the European Union was raised and Deputy Timmins made a point in relation to the FAO reports. The mission he referred to took place in March, though I visited Brazil some time before that at which time I had discussions. I was concerned about beef and poultry, particularly about nitrofurans in the latter. The situation has improved considerably as a result of the imposition of 100% testing in respect of the importation of poultry from Brazil. The FAO report that emanated from the mission in March came through in July and my officials are now examining it. A number of issues were identified by the FAO inspectors which require careful examination and consideration. We will be contacting the Brazilian authorities for their comments and there will ultimately be a final report from the Commission as to what, if anything, should be done. While the debate is not over, the Brazilian authorities have improved things. Brazil and Argentina are provisionally approved for exporting to the European Union, which means the matter is kept under constant review. This will continue to be the case, particularly in view of the FAO report.

I am perfectly well aware of the importance of the live export trade to Ireland. I grew up in a rural area and I am not divorced from the concerns of Irish farmers. I have said something on the issue, but I will try to pick up on some of the points which were raised. The staging posts issue has been identified as a problem for a number of reasons. There is an animal health consideration involved first of all. The foot and mouth disease outbreak in the Netherlands, which was the second largest after the UK and in which many animals were destroyed, resulted from the transmission of the disease at a staging post in France. This had a huge impact in Europe. There are significant concerns about the capacity to transmit disease in such circumstances. The Ministers for Agriculture in the Council of Europe are determined to do away with staging posts. Much of the motivation for moving in this direction is the result of the determination of Ministers for Agriculture to put animal health first due to the destruction of animals as a result of foot and mouth. The inevitable conclusion is that animals must stay on board the vehicles in which they are transported and that such vehicles must be of a standard and a type which have facilities for the proper treatment of animals. There should be automatic water and cleaning.

We have looked at the issue of stocking densities. I am advised on all of these issues by my scientific advisory committee and we have held stakeholder meetings in relation to them. These measures are the result of such considerations. I am happy to say that my officials and I have had the benefit of a consultation with Dr. Earley of Teagasc, an acknowledged expert on this subject. As a result of the interaction with Dr. Earley, stocking densities were changed in line with what Ireland would regard as being appropriate.

To answer the question of whether the proposal is final, it has come from the Commission having taken into account and balanced the various factors involved. Inevitably, all legislation that comes from the Commission goes to the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. In those circumstances, debate takes place as to what adjustments and amendments can be made. Most if not all legislative proposals are amended in some way and I expect this legislation will also be amended in some manner. In the legislative process to be undertaken to pass these proposals into law the interests committee members represent and the message they have so ably articulated this afternoon will be clearly conveyed to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Amendments can then be suggested and a proposal which comes through may meet the case.

The Chairman asked the relevant question of whether a proposal or amendment can be brought forward which would affect Irish circumstances given our island status and the particular difficulties that entails. It takes 24 hours to sail to the continent of Europe. While my answer may be somewhat technical, one cannot make legislation which is applicable to one member state only. The Chairman is really asking me about the separate Irish conditions which exist. It may be possible in certain circumstances to examine the matter to ascertain what adjustments can be made. There are not many member states which send live animals abroad and of those that do I cannot think of one which uses roll-on-roll-off ferries. Therefore, there may be a special case to be made. These issues should be addressed in the context of the political process.

Certainly there will be extra costs involved in this proposal for animal transport. Those who take a different view from members of the committee believe them to be appropriate and consumers will be asked to pay them. My people informed me that transport costs would rise and I asked them to translate this rise into the extra cost of the beef in question in the supermarket once it reaches Spain, Italy or wherever else. I am told the increase will be between 1% and 1.5%. The steak from an animal transported from Ireland to Spain will, therefore, cost between 1% and 1.5% more.

The message I am getting from consumers in Europe is that they require higher standards in animal welfare. They are correct to do so as current standards are not high enough and enforcement in member states is not sufficient. For example, how often does one hear of a transporter being prosecuted in the courts, whether here or elsewhere, for animal transport infringements? I do not hear of such cases and I am not convinced member states are doing enough in respect of current legislation on animal transport.

Time and again, television throughout Europe features programmes about animals being ill, treated badly, dying or being injured with broken limbs etc. These programmes inflame opinion among consumers and citizens throughout Europe, although I do not believe Irish citizens have been exposed to them because, as I stated earlier, I think we tend to hear more from the other side of the argument. I assure the committee that such television programmes have been shown in a number of member states over the past 12 months where they have seriously inflamed public opinion. The consequence of this is driving political opinion in other member states to do something enforceable in respect of animal welfare. If this is true and the e-mails I receive on the issue reflect widespread public opinion, ultimately consumers will have to pay the cost of the proposals. If this is between 1% and 1.5%, it will not be excessive or unreasonable, particularly when one bears in mind that in 2002 the variation in price for beef was between 10% and 45%. Against these figures, the figure of 1% to 1.5% is neither here nor there. These are the figures given to me by my experts. They are significant and if correct, which I accept they are, relevant to the debate. While transporters will have to pay more to transport animals, if they pass the additional cost on to the consumer, who is asking for these measures, it is legitimate that the consumer pay for them.

That is where the larger debate lies. We have to come up with some kind of solution at European Union level which creates a level playing pitch and applies to everybody, while at the same time acknowledging the interests of consumers and producers such as farmers. The live trade in Ireland, which is, as a member pointed out, so critically important for factories, must continue. We must also, however, take into account the interests of those who - correctly - feel passionately about animal welfare. Many people in Ireland have also written to me regarding animal welfare considerations. I ask members of the committee, farmers, transporters and so forth to take this into account when considering the issue.

One must also always bear in mind that adjustments and amendments can take place in this process. If members of the committee believe the proposals need amendment, it is up to them, as legislators, working with their constituents who feel so strongly about the issue, to come up with good, rational, workable amendments which can be introduced to the system to achieve a good legislative outcome.

As the Commissioner responsible for, among other issues, animal welfare and consumer protection in the European Union, I am by no means an ideologue on this issue. Nor am I doctrinaire or inflexible but we have to come up with something workable. I have put the Commission proposal on the table. While some feel I have not gone far enough, others feel I have gone too far. Let the debate now continue and let us see what we come up with.

Deputy Upton asked me about the separation of agriculture from food in Government ministries. The approach to this issue differs in member states. In Germany, Denmark and several other countries, the food and agriculture responsibilities are in the same Department. However, the name has been changed. For example, in Germany the word "agriculture" has been removed from the title of the relevant Minister, although that Minister is still responsible for agriculture. I emphasise that the importance of food and food safety has been brought up the agenda in many states. In Denmark, the relevant ministry is described as the Ministry for Food and Agriculture with food mentioned first. I understand the same applies in the United Kingdom where the Department is called the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister in question also has responsibility for agriculture. Various member states take a different approach, but one overriding aspect is that food now gets much greater prominence than in the past.

I wish to return briefly to the issue of small producers on which I touched. We have done considerable work on this issue recently, for example with regard to hygiene regulations in respect of traditional foods. The current legislation, which dates back to 1992, deals with cheeses and other traditional foods. To allow traditional methods of production to continue, flexibility is provided for in the milk directive regarding, for example, the nature of the equipment etc. Considerable work is included in this legislation. More recently, I requested Commissioner Fishler, who is responsible for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, to include in his provisions on funding support for small food processors throughout the European Union. He agreed to this request and included such support in his provisions relating to food producers with ten or fewer employers for the kinds of reasons members of the committee would support.

I have discussed this issue with representatives of small food producers on a number of occasions and I am happy to have received good feedback from them on the proposals I am bringing forward. I will address their conference, the Eurotoque conference in Kinsale, in around ten days. I believe what I have done on this issue in response to the submissions they have made has been well received by them.

Deputy Ferris asked about traceability. The same rules apply in third countries as in the European Union. While the enforceability of rules in relation to traceability is obviously easier in the European Union than in third countries, none the less the same rules apply. We have a level playing pitch and are determined to ensure public health and consumers are protected, food is safe and the rules applicable in the European Union also apply to third countries, as is evidenced by the fact, as I stated in answer to another question, that the EU Food and Veterinary Office conducts visits to a number of third countries to ensure these standards are applied. We are upgrading all our controls and we will require each country with which we do business to establish a control plan which must show how it carries out its controls. If the plan is not up to scratch we will not import food into the European Union from the country in question.

This is an ongoing business. We are raising our standards all the time, filling in gaps here and there and making sure we make better progress. Members of the committee should remember that the Directorate General of which I am in charge did not exist before the beginning of my mandate. In addition, we have also experienced many problems in the area of food safety, including BSE, a dioxin scandal and many others. We have made significant progress in implementing nearly all the measures I set out in the White Paper on food safety published in January 2000, most of which have been implemented already or will be introduced by the end of my mandate. We have made considerable progress and continue to make progress in relation to third countries.

In answer to Deputy Carty's question on whether standards are the same across Europe, they most certainly are. Senator Coonan asked me about cartels. This is a matter for the Competition Authority. If a concern arises in this area, the matter can be investigated under current competition law. The Senator also stated farmers were disappointed by the actions of an Irish Commissioner. I acknowledge that they may not be too happy about this, but it must be stressed that they are very happy about some of the other things I did. Therefore, things balance out in some respects. The measure is also capable of refinement.

I am in agreement with regard to the smoking ban and my remarks are on record. DeputyHoctor said that the status quo should remain, but it will not. She should forget about it. We will see change in the area of animal welfare. One has to ascertain what one believes is acceptable in the Irish context and what change is likely to be accepted by the other side of the debate.

I have probably touched on most of the issues the Deputies have asked me about. I apologise if I have missed anything. I thank the committee for the invitation, its questions and courtesy. I hope that what I have said has been of some value to the members in formulating their views on what they believe is the correct response for the Irish situation. After all, they are legislators in the Irish system and their responsibility is to Ireland alone. I am sure they will not forget that my responsibility is to Europe as a whole, but I am not forgetting what they have just said.

Chairman

We have no time for supplementary questions because Mr. Byrne is under pressure, but I will refer to a couple of points. He stated that there has been no infringement of the law nor has anyone been brought to court. I believe the reason for this in Ireland is because of good animal welfare practice by the State and by the exporters, who are a very good group of people.

The issue of consumers paying is acceptable in Europe but the big problem is that it is not attractive to import cattle from this country. That is the big danger. The consumer might pay for his own animals but because of the extra costs involved in importing from Ireland, I am concerned, as is every other member.

It is very important that meetings with members of the Commission provide an opportunity for an exchange of views by Irish parliamentarians. I wish the Commissioner well in the future and thank him for the great work he has done. I know there are many concerns and I hope they will be resolved in the best interests of the country. The Commissioner's term of office is coming to an end and, as Senator Coonan stated, I hope he will be our next Commissioner because we are very proud of the work he has done. On behalf of the committee, I thank him for attending and for the very interesting remarks he has made.

We will adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow, at which time we will meet Dr. Tom O'Dwyer and Jim Flanagan, chairman and director of Teagasc, respectively.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.43 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 September 2003.