I welcome Mr. Mick Cronin--
Poultry Meat Marketing Standards: Discussion with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
This is not a meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.
A Member
That is outrageous.
--principal officer at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--
We are entitled to the same crack of the whip and protection under Standing Orders as any member of the committee.
--to discuss a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat. Before calling on Mr. Cronin to make his presentation, I draw to his attention the fact that members of the joint committee shall have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Cronin to make his opening statement and apologise for the delay.
Mr. Mick Cronin
Thank you. I am the principal officer of the meat policy division in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am accompanied by Dermot Ryan, the senior inspector who deals with a range of matters, including poultry, and Marie Hoban who is the assistant principal officer in the poultry section of the Department.
The background to this proposal is that the EU legislation on the marketing standards for poultry meat concerns such matters as labelling, conditions for free range production, water content and quality grading. This legislation currently comprises Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 543/2008 laying down detailed rules as regards marketing standards.
I turn to the main points of the proposal to amend Council Regulation No. 1234/2007 and refer first to antimicrobial treated, AMT, poultry. The aim is that poultry meat will be defined as edible meat of farmed birds, rather than the current definition, which is meat that has not undergone any treatment. The reason for this part of the proposal is that if a decision is taken to allow antimicrobial treated poultry to be sold in the EU, it would be necessary to effect a consequential amendment of the marketing standards regulations in order that AMT poultry could be sold as normal poultry meat. In the event that a decision to permit the sale of AMT poultry is not taken, the Commission has indicated it will withdraw this aspect of the proposal.
In the USA chlorine washing of poultry carcases is normal practice aimed at killing off bacteria, including salmonella. Europe has pursued a policy of hygiene controls throughout the hatching and rearing of the poultry rather than carcase decontamination. The importation and sale of AMT poultry has been prohibited in the EU since 1997. The European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, assessed the four antimicrobial substances used in the USA in March 2008 and found they represented no safety concern within the proposed conditions of use.
While the Commission has proposed lifting the ban on AMT poultry, this has met with considerable opposition. At the June meeting of the standing committee on the food chain and animal health, all member states, except the UK, were opposed to the proposal for a variety of reasons including that it is at odds with the well established EU policy of production chain controls. This subject was also raised at the April and May meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers at which a large majority of Ministers expressed reservations.
The second main point of the proposal concerns the definition of fresh poultry meat. The current definition of fresh poultry meat is meat not stiffened by the cooling process which is to be kept at a temperature not below -2°C and not higher than 4°C at any time. This is being amended to specify that the poultry meat was not stiffened at any time by the cooling process prior to being held at these temperatures. The purpose of this measure is to clarify and strengthen the point that thawed poultry cannot be called "fresh".
The third main point of the proposal is to extend the legislation to poultry products. The current legislation on poultry meat marketing standards only applies to fresh and frozen poultry meat that has not undergone any treatment, such as cooking, or had any ingredients added. It is now proposed to extend the scope of the marketing standards regulations to preparations. This would mean raw poultry with added ingredients, including salted poultry, as well as products, that is, cooked poultry with or without added ingredients. The proposal would require fresh poultry meat preparations to contain only fresh - that is, not previously frozen - meat.
If this proposal to amend Council Regulation No. 1234/2007 is adopted then it will also be necessary to draw up a new Commission regulation, which would contain the full details of what will be required for poultry meat preparations and products. It is only when we see the Commission proposals for the detailed implementing regulation that we can evaluate the full implications of this aspect of the proposal. Clarity is required, for example, as to whether products and preparations containing meat imported from a non-EU country will be required to bear a label indicating the country of origin, as is currently required for unprocessed poultry.
On the AMT issue, Ireland is one of the member states that has expressed reservations on the proposal to admit this type of treatment. We are concerned that this step may undermine current EU policy regarding the reduction of zoonotic pathogens in food. Further thought is required on some technical issues such as bacterial tolerance and the effect of run-off on the environment.
We welcome the strengthening of the view we have always held that thawed poultry cannot be called fresh. We would also favour wider origin labelling requirements for poultry products. The impact on the industry must be taken into account and we have referred the proposal to the trade for its views.
With regard to developments on the proposal, there have been no meetings in Brussels so far. It is not yet clear how and when it will be progressed. The French Presidency has indicated that the proposal is not a priority and currently it has no plans for dealing with it.
Thank you, Mr. Cronin.
I welcome Mr. Cronin and his colleagues. This discussion is opportune, given that we learned this week that Cappoquin Chickens is in considerable difficulty. However, the specific proposal before us may not offer any semblance of a solution to the problems confronting that company.
How long will it be before a revised regulation is finalised at Commission level? What is the general timeframe for this matter? I understand we are making further submissions on the proposal. Is it envisaged that if the Irish concerns about the proposal are taken into account, that would stem the volume of chicken imports from outside the EU or would it merely oblige producers to label their products differently? Does the proposal in any way hold out the promise of country of origin labelling and an amendment of the substantial transformation loophole?
I too welcome the contributors. It would appear there is no major urgency about this proposal under the French Presidency. However, it may be dealt with by the subsequent Presidency. If the ban on AMT poultry has been in place since 1997, why is the Commission now seeking to amend regulations that would allow for a greater percentage of poultry imports from third countries, particularly given the inherent risks of such imports? I do not understand why this proposal is being put before member states. Perhaps I misunderstand the proposal, but my reading of it suggests that it is paving the way for an increase in imports of poultry from third countries. There has been, heretofore, a ban on particular types of poultry products, particularly with regard to AMT.
I have questions which do not relate to this specific proposal but to the wider issue of country of origin labelling. Could Department officials outline to this committee the current EU view on that issue, particularly within the context of this regulation? Is the European Commission considering the whole culture of regulation with regard to country of origin labelling? I do not know whether it is possible for the witnesses to talk about the political nuances of this issue; it may not be. However, certain countries clearly are opposed to any change in the regime, and that may be why the Irish Government is finding it difficult to fight this issue politically at European level. To make a political point, what has occurred in Cappoquin is largely owing to the fact that the current EU regime does not properly police country of origin labelling.
I welcome the presentation to the committee. If we read between the lines, however, it becomes clear there is no political urgency to the proposal and, in any event, there seems to be a blocking minority, or possibly a majority. Perhaps instead we should discuss the issue of country-of-origin labelling and examine what is happening in the areas of food safety, consumer protection and, I am not ashamed to add, the protection of Irish markets.
With regard to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007, my understanding, based on what has been said, is that under the current legislation, frozen poultry being brought into Ireland is now being labelled differently. In addition, chlorine washing by producers in the USA was not allowed under the previous legislation. What was the situation under the old regulations and what exactly are the changes? It is difficult to figure out the difference between what is being brought in and the amendments now being proposed.
Like the previous speaker, I am concerned about labelling and traceability of poultry, especially given what has happened in County Waterford over the past week and the pressures being put on local producers. That is what we should discuss. We want to know about countries of origin, the way in which poultry is reared and the treatment it is given before it comes to this country. We should ensure it is sold with labels tracing it to its country of origin rather than being sold as an Irish product. That is the most important issue and we must follow up on it. Producers in this country are under pressure in producing poultry for the home market and for export because of the strict regulations imposed by our Department's inspectors. It is all there for the reading. That is what we should consider. Why are Irish producers scrutinised so much while products from other countries are not subject to the same regulations on labelling and traceability? That is the main issue.
From how many countries do we import poultry and in what quantities? In addition, with regard to the practice of labelling imported chicken as packed in Ireland and the use of Irish terms, would it would be wrong for me to give some examples?
Yes.
I refer to the practice of using words in Irish on the packaging for the purpose of branding. Will the officials comment on this?
I support the previous speakers. I am concerned about imported poultry which is labelled and sold as Irish produce, especially given our diligence in policing our own producers and the regime by which we must abide. Anywhere one goes one can see the size of the chicken parts being sold and one must wonder what the chickens have been fed and what kinds of stimulants they have been given. This is a serious issue and nowhere more so than in my neighbouring town of Cappoquin. Cappoquin Chickens has been an excellent company for years. It has struggled to keep going while providing employment and supporting its suppliers, and now it finds itself in a terrible situation.
It seems odd that if we are to amend a regulation on marketing standards for poultry meat we do not take labelling into consideration. Was any consideration given to labelling in the remit? The recent USA Farm Bill requires mandatory country of origin labelling for fruit, vegetables and meats. It is odd to have a proposal to introduce another form of poultry, i.e. antimicrobial treated, AMT, poultry, without stating as a minimum that it must be clearly labelled. It seems to be a capitulation to a request from the USA. Everybody here agrees on the challenges facing Irish producers, especially those in poultry and pig meat and we are discussing poultry today. It seems odd that another player is being introduced into the system without the EU putting any recommendation into place to clearly identify this. There are other requirements on labelling of supplements and so on. Why were these not included? I know this is not the responsibility of the delegation, but perhaps it could answer the question.
Mr. Mick Cronin
I will deal with several of the issues and get information from my colleagues as the need arises. The issue of country of origin labelling is something we have pursued for a long time with the Commission. The issue of labelling comes under the food labelling directive which is within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. In the context of pigmeat, poultry and sheepmeat we have been working with that Department over the past 12 months to introduce national legislation to provide for country of origin labelling. There was a consultation process initiated by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, around this time last year. We sent a proposal to the Commission last December which was turned down in March. It gave us a further opportunity to provide information in support of our application which we did in June. We met the Commission in July and it looked for further information which we provided. We expect a definitive response from the Commission by the end of this month. The Commission appreciates the concern and demand here for country of origin labelling which we have impressed on it. We have also given it information surveys carried out on behalf of Bord Bia and the National Farmers' Union in the UK to support the demand for country of origin labelling. We pointed out the instances of misleading information on packages and how this was bad both for the producer and the consumer. The Commission's concerns relate to barriers to trade and it takes the view that we are all part of one market and that we should not demand country of origin labelling unless there is something that makes our poultry, pigmeat or sheepmeat special compared to that of other EU member states. That is where the boundaries in the discussion are at present. We expect a decision by the end of the month on labelling.
In the context of the AMT debate and whether we raised the issue of labelling, the answer is that we did. One of the points we made was that consumers should be aware of different treatment of poultry and this should be clearly marked on the package. We have concerns and several deputies raised the question of why AMT is coming on now. The EFSA is an independent body that deals with food safety and it believes it is safe to allow AMT poultry into the Community. We and a number of member states still harbour considerable doubts about that. We prefer our system where we have good production controls in place from hatching all the way through to sale to the consumer. We prefer that system of control to a particular treatment of a carcass as it leaves a plant. I do not know what will happen in this regard. The proposal with which we are dealing is a supplementary one on marketing standards. The decision on AMT poultry is a matter for a different forum. It is back in the hands of the Commission but given that 26 out of 27 member states were opposed to it, the Commission may think hard before deciding to proceed with this proposal again. The debate as to what will happen on the AMT poultry debate is dormant at the moment.
With regard to misleading information on labelling, we are aware of instances of nice-sounding Irish names appearing on the labelling of poultry meat, which constitutes misleading information. We have talked to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland about this matter and it has taken it up with some of the producers concerned. This underlines the strength of the case for country of origin labelling that we have been pursuing. We have brought examples of such instances to the attention of the Commission.
Deputy Aylward asked about the chlorine washing of poultry meat. He was correct in stating that legislation on this area has been in place since 1997. It defines what is meant by poultry meat, namely, it is meat that has undergone no treatment, etc. If the Commission were to allow for the chlorine washing of poultry meat, such legislation would have been to be amended. The European Food Safety Authority considers that this practice is safe, but 26 member states still have reservations about it. In this respect, we should await what transpires from the AMT poultry debate.
I will ask my colleague, Ms Hoban, to deal with the query regarding the number of countries exporting to us and the quantity of imports.
Ms Marie Hoban
We import poultry meat from 25 countries. The imports from outside the EU are from mainly Thailand and Brazil and the imports from the EU are from, mainly, the UK, Holland and Germany. Last year we imported 83,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which included processed, salted, cooked as well as fresh and frozen produce, which was worth €255 million. We exported 102,000 tonnes of poultry meat worth €233 million. Of the 83,000 tonnes of poultry meat imported, 8,000 tonnes were imported directly from third countries. The remainder was imported from EU member states, some of which would have been imported originally from third countries.
On a point of order, is it possible for those figures to be made available to committee members?
Ms Marie Hoban
Yes, I can forward them to the committee.
Ms Hoban said that 8,000 tonnes of poultry meat was imported from third countries such as Thailand.
Ms Marie Hoban
Yes, such produce was imported directly into Ireland, but some of the 75,000 tonnes of poultry meat imported from Holland, Germany and so on would have been imported originally from Brazil.
According to my information, a great deal of it would have been imported into Holland and we then imported such produce from Holland but essentially it came from Thailand, etc. This raises the traceability question, which is what we are here to deal with.
I have a similar question. Under existing legislation can a producer or importer import poultry from abroad, repackage it, put an Irish label on it and sell it as being Irish produce? Such produce could be imported from Brazil to Germany or Holland and then repackaged and relabelled as being from those countries and sold here as EU produce.
That is what is happening.
If that is the case, we are not achieving anything. That does not amount to traceability. It simply amounts to codding the consumer. We must get our act together and put legislation in place. The label should state that it comes from Brazil or wherever and it should be sold under the Brazilian tag and not under anyone else's label.
The witnesses came in to talk about one issue but they will be sidetracked which is inevitable given the nature of the subject matter. I was interested to hear there was consultation between the Department and the Commission on the food labelling regime, that the proposals put forward by Ireland were turned down by the Commission in May or June, that a new set of proposals were put forward and the Department is now expecting a response to them.
I asked about the political situation vis-à-vis support throughout all member states for a complete overhaul of the regime. A witness stated that certain boundaries had been reached in the discussion and I did not quite follow the thinking on that. We are talking about the importation of foodstuffs, particularly poultry from 25 countries, and we are not exactly sure from where it is all coming. The question is whether there is political will or a will within the Commission to change the regime to ensure every consumer knows exactly what he or she is purchasing and from where the product originated.
When do the witnesses expect the timeframe for that consultation process with the Commission to end? Will there be further consultation or will it give rise to a new Commission proposal?
Has the Commission looked at this in terms of the EU versus the rest? The question of what would distinguish Ireland from other EU countries was asked. At the very least, is there recognition that the EU standard is the only one over which the Commission has full control in terms of the regulations and the production controls in place? Is it the case that restaurants and other establishments which sell food must provide information on country of birth, slaughter and production?
Will Ms Hoban explain how 30,000 extra tonnes is worth €20 million less imported versus exported? I believe that is the figure she gave. We export 113,000 tonnes worth €225 million or €235 million and we import 83,000 tonnes worth €255 million. Will Ms Hoban throw some light on that?
Ms Marie Hoban
The figures I gave relate to all types of poultry processed, including fresh and frozen. We have a big poultry processing industry here, mainly third country poultry. It is made into meals and so on and exported to the UK. That is a much more valuable product. That is why the value of the exports is much more than the value of the imports.
Is it? I thought it was the other way around.
Ms Marie Hoban
Some 83,000 tonnes valued at €255 million are imports and 102,000 tonnes valued at €231 million are exports.
That is less. Is it not?
Ms Marie Hoban
On the fresh and frozen side, which is the other part of the poultry industry apart from the processed side, we export the dark meat, such as the legs and so on. That has very low value. The bulk of the value on the export side is processed.
Is Ms Hoban saying that some of that is carcases imported from third countries and then processed and exported?
Ms Marie Hoban
Exactly.
Mr. Mick Cronin
I believe Deputy Bobby Aylward asked about substantial transformation. A person can import poultry meat into this country, repackage it, cover it in breadcrumbs or whatever but he or she is not entitled to sell it as an Irish product. It is one of the duties of veterinary inspectors at poultry plants to ensure that the latter does not happen.
Is there a requirement to list the country of origin on products of that nature?
Mr. Mick Cronin
No. We discussed this matter earlier in the context of origin labelling and it is one of the reasons we would like such labelling to be introduced. I apologise if what I said earlier was unclear. I will try to outline what the origin labelling directive involves. We are trying to obtain permission regarding the introduction of national legislation in respect of country of origin labelling. We would impose such labelling on everything entering the country. The Commission turned down our original application in March. We have been in consultation, orally and in writing, with it in the interim and we have put forward a revamped case in order to try to obtain approval for such labelling. We are expecting definitive word by the end of September.
In the overall context, there is a proposal to revise the food labelling directive in its entirety. That process could take approximately two years to complete. Provision is not made for straightforward country of origin labelling under the directive. Instead, it provides for origin labelling in certain circumstances. If one could show, for example, that a product purporting to be Parma ham actually originated from there, one could then include origin labelling on the product. In other cases, it is not possible to include such labelling. We are pushing the case in favour of country of origin labelling at that forum. However, it will be a couple of years before the proposal to which I refer goes through.
I was asked if there is political will in respect of labelling. Ireland and Italy have both been seeking origin labelling. Other member states do not seem as keen. From discussing the matter with its representatives, I am of the view that labelling is moving up the agenda because the Commission is becoming more interested in it. However, we have not yet reached the position where we could count on the support of the majority of member states.
I thank Mr. Cronin for his frank reply. Is it fair to ask why there was resistance at Commission level to Ireland introducing domestic legislation relating to country of origin labelling?
Is there a difference as regards restaurants?
Mr. Mick Cronin
The resistance from the Commission is based on the fact that the food labelling directive, which does not provide for standard country of origin labelling, is already in existence. If we were to introduce origin labelling in this country, it would have to be based on specific criteria. The Commission is of the view that we do not meet the requirement for overcoming the desire for free trade and not having a barrier to trade. It was not only the Commission that opposed our proposal; a couple of member states also expressed reservations. I do not want to sound unduly pessimistic regarding what might happen at the end of the month. We are obviously fighting the good fight but that is the position at present.
On the catering sector, there are requirements in place in respect of beef. Information regarding the place of birth and the slaughter and processing of animals must be provided. There is a difference between the beef and other sectors and this came about as a result of the situation that arose in respect of BSE many years ago. In the aftermath of the latter, there emerged a desire to restore consumer confidence in beef and the requirements to which I refer were put in place. We are arguing for the country of origin to be displayed in catering establishments as well. It is part of the debate we are having with the Commission in order that all retail catering establishments are covered.
What is Mr. Cronin's opinion on the standard of meat being imported from third countries over which we have no control? I do not understand the technical language such as zoonotic pathogens in food, which sounds horrible. The EU oversees the most extensively regulated food production environment in the world and that adds cost to production. New animal welfare regulations were introduced in Ireland to end the use of battery cages and so on. The cages were exported to Thailand and China and we imported their chicken, which is produced using animal welfare standards that are illegal in Ireland. Different standards also apply to veterinary medicine. Is this a ticking time-bomb whereby the consumer could be exposed to a product that is substandard and illegal to produce in Ireland?
Mr. Cronin addressed Deputy Aylward's question about substantial transformation. According to the figures supplied by Ms Hoban, on both sides of the argument, we are importing and exporting third country chickens. Chicken appears on supermarkets shelves masquerading as Irish chicken. It may not have the Bord Bia label but it may have a green, white and gold flag or the phrase "sicín blasta" on it. If that is a legal transgression, what is the penalty?
Mr. Mick Cronin
With regard to third country standards, I am not a veterinarian and I will not give a professional opinion. A system is in place for approval of third countries and establishments in such countries. That is overseen by the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission. My understanding is initial approval of both countries and inspections takes place along with follow-up visits. Irish veterinarians are involved sometimes.
Must these establishments meet the standards of production that apply in Ireland?
Mr. Mick Cronin
Yes, they must meet equivalent standards to those that apply in the EU. These are the guidelines the FVO applies but this issue has not been highlighted by the office. There have not been major problems regarding the conditions that have been set. One of the problems faced by our industry is the equivalent industry in the Far East and Brazil involves large operations and economies of scale. They can sell the brown meat on the Asian market and they can sell the white meat quite cheaply into the Community. That issue has more to do with economics than standards. However, I am not a veterinarian and I am not qualified to comment.
The use of misleading information on the packaging of chickens on supermarket shelves is an issue for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to pursue. The authority pursued a case recently involving the use of the green, white and gold flag and this was taken up with the farm concerned. This issue highlights why we have been so anxious and busy over the past year in trying to get the Commission to understand the importance of country of origin labelling. That would get rid of all the misrepresentation.
As there are no further questions, I thank Mr. Cronin and his colleagues for their presentation and answering the questions raised.
Is it agreed that the clerk will relate the committee's views on the proposals discussed today to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny? Agreed.
Would it be appropriate to write to the Minister to ask him to come to the committee to discuss this matter?
I said that at the beginning of the meeting.
Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 1.11 p.m.