Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1986

Vol. 111 No. 14

Report of Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC—The Use of Hormones as Growth Promoters: Motion.

Mr. Hourigan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of Report No. 22 of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: The Use of Hormones as Growth Promoters.

I would like to compliment the Joint Committee on the production of this report on the use of hormones as growth promoters. As I said earlier, it might be a little out of date but I do not think that is important because the question of hormones is still very topical. We know the situation as it now exists but for a few moments perhaps we could usefully reflect on what has happened.

This report deals with the use as growth promoters of the natural hormones as they occur in nature as distinct from synthetically produced hormones. We talk about oestradiol 17B, testosterone and progesterone and the artificial hormone trunbolone and zeranol. There is, and the report makes it clear, a precise distinction between the two types of hormones, the natural hormones and the synthetic ones. It is true that hormones have had a rather checkered history since 1980. At that time the EC Commission proposed a ban on all hormone substances. However, some member states called for the substances to be authorised and in 1981 a scientific committee or group was established to report on the matter. In the meantime, member states were allowed to retain their existing national measures while waiting on the report of the scientific group. The scientific group reported that the natural hormones would not present any harmful effects to consumer health when used under appropriate conditions and that further investigation was needed on the artificial hormones and strict controls were essential. In other words the scientific group stated positively that the natural hormones would not present any harmful effects to consumer health when used under appropriate conditions but that further investigation was needed with regard to the synthetic or artificially produced products.

In June 1984, based on this scientific evidence, the Commission proposed that the natural hormones be allowed and that the artificial or synthetic hormones or substances be banned pending further information. However, consumer pressure against the use of hormones mounted and in October 1985 the European Parliament passed a resolution that they be banned and on 30 October the Commission, in spite of the evidence of its scientific committees, which it had accepted as valid, reverted to its previous position and proposed a total ban.

Approximately 2.5 million hormones implants are administered each year in this country. They increase the weight of the animal; they improve the fat-lean ratio of the meat and the animals feed efficiency, in other words the animal eats a greater amount of food and utilises that food more efficiently and, therefore, there is a greater output of beef or whatever.

It is now estimated that the value of the implants to the beef industry is approximately £40 million per annum. Some people would suggest that the figure is significantly higher, that it could be as much as double that figure but it is in any event at least £40 million annually. That is a very sizeable and significant slice of any sort of industry's margin. Profits in the beef industry these days are fairly minimal. A more appropriate word to use is a fair slice of the margins that exist and this margin in beef is narrowing very rapidly.

Regardless of the economic or scientific arguments, consumer concern with regard to the use of hormones has grown very substantially in recent times and, indeed, continues to grow. The Joint Committee have put forward the view that a controlled use of natural hormones will be in the best interest of the consumers and fears that a total ban will lead to widespread blackmarketeering as has been the experience of a number of European countries. In other words, if one was to ban hormones in toto, it would lead to a very serious abuse, mischievous and indeed possibly dangerous abuse of the system. With regard to that, the committee welcomed the recent introduction of certain measures that were envisaged in connection with the usage of hormones.

Looking at the whole matter objectively, the Joint Committee feel that as a major beef exporter we have got to take account of the requirements of our customers. We have stated this earlier in the previous discussion which we have had in relation to our processing market generally. The Joint Committee are consistent in putting forward that point of view very positively and firmly in this report.

Therefore, to be objective about it, a total ban is indeed now a very real possibility. It was some time ago a real possibility. It is only the United Kingdom that is opposing the measures in the Council of Ministers.

If and when the ban is introduced there are certain long term advantages which might apply. For example — this is important — Irish meat could build on its present quality image a market for a non-hormone treated product. No beef would be hormone-free. It is important that we turn to our advantage the fact that we do not have the availability of hormones for use and that we make a virtue of the fact that we cannot use hormones and that we sell our product as a non-treated product. Linking this very clearly and closely with the whole concept of green Ireland and "food from Ireland", et cetera we could give a great boost to our promotional efforts not alone in Europe but elsewhere where a consciousness and awareness of this very important subject is very strong.

There is also the situation where a reduced use of hormones throughout the EC would have an effect on supplies and would reduce supplies and would bring a better market balance. Hopefully, this would lead to higher prices for our beef and live animals.

When the ban is introduced, it is vital that it be stringently enforced throughout the community. I do not mean throughout this community of ours in Ireland but throughout the entire EC community. It should apply to imports from third countries. If we do not approach it on that basis we will come badly out of the situation. People could argue and debate this matter interminably but there is evidence which was submitted to the EC by a committee that was asked to investigate the matter that, administered under appropriate conditions, hormones were not injurious. We have to face reality and recognise that the anti-hormone lobby throughout Europe and elsewhere has succeeded in their opposition to the use of hormones. At the same time, we must be aware that there is a very significant amount that must now be made up in some other way to beef producers to counteract the massive losses that there are. Greater efficiency through better breeds, better and greater margins hopefully in the whole industry will be essential because the sort of money that we are talking about, whether it is £40 million or £50 million, is very substantial. There is no way that the beef industry at present can sustain that kind of loss unless there are compensating factors.

It would be remiss of any of us not in the first instance to very warmly congratulate the Joint Committee on such an excellent, in-depth document as they have produced here, and, indeed, also the various contributors to the Joint Committee who were very much appreciated by the committee. The sub-committee had written an oral submission from the ICOS, ACOT the IFA and the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries. Written submissions were received from the Department of Agriculture, the Consumers Association of Ireland and the Irish Organic Farmers' and Growers' Association. There was also a submission from the ICMSA. The committee expressed their appreciation to these bodies.

I would also like to reflect, through the committee, our warm appreciation for the valuable input, which is outlined in the document, from these various organisations. I do not propose to go through them except to mention one or two views of the joint committee which are worthy of reference.

As I said — and the committee state it here in their document — the hormones question has proved a very contentious issue and provoked strong reaction among producers and consumers. In their consideration of this matter the Joint Committee felt that the protection of the consumer must be the first priority. The question arises, however, as to how the interests of the consumer are best served.

Reference is made to the question of natural hormones. The committee could not accept that there was any valid argument for the banning of these substances. In fact, they occurred naturally in the animals and they were produced daily by the human body — as is shown in tables set out in the report — and are consumed daily in a variety of foodstuffs. In fact, it is ironic that consumers in Germany, where the demand has been strong for a total ban on the use of hormones, actually have a higher intake of hormones than have their Irish counterparts. This is explained by the fact that in Germany there is only 2 per cent approximately of the beef animals implanted with hormones. It is mostly bull beef that is consumed in Germany. That explains why the human consumption of hormones is so much higher than it would be in a country like Ireland where we would have treated beef.

Reference is made to appendix 2 which states that unimplanted bull beef, which is mainly consumed in Germany, can actually have a higher level of hormones than implanted steer beef which is the main category of beef eaten in Ireland. Bull beef in Germany has a higher hormonal content than the implanted steer in Ireland. The artificial hormones are a diferent kettle of fish. Reference is made to them by the committee. They say that as regards artificial hormones, An Foras Talúntais have informed the committee that the available toxicological data indicates that they are of equivalent or less toxicity than the naturally occurring steroid hormones. However, as long as the slightest doubt as to their absolute safety remains the joint committee felt that the substances should not be used. This is a very responsible attitude to them. Once the slightest doubt at all is there, they felt that the substances should not be used.

It has been argued that no evidence has been produced to show that the substances, when properly used, are harmful and, therefore, a ban is premature considering the low risk as against the economic benefits which can be obtained. The Joint Committee, however, would agree with the retort to this proposition that, as it is the consumer who takes the risk and the producer who obtains the benefit, it is not acceptable. That is being very logical about it. The committee's view is worthy of further mention. They felt that the question of control is a key to the whole issue. In that regard the committee welcomed the introduction of different regulations with regard to control. There are many other views expressed by the committee, but I do not intend to delay on them.

The committee notwithstanding these various other arguments, points and positions held with regard to hormones, readily accept that in the final analysis the consumer will have the last word. No matter what scientific or economic arguments are advanced, if the consumer demands unimplanted meat, this wish must be catered for. The strength of this consumer demand is obvious when one considers the resolutions which are set out here and the fact that the Commission moved from a position of allowing restricted use of natural hormones in June 1984, to proposing a complete ban on them in October 1985 in spite of the evidence of scientific committees which they had accepted as valid. A total ban is a real possibility in the near future. The committee said that the Minister for Agriculture had stated that he is prepared to accept the ban if that is the wish of his colleagues in the Council. I will quote from a parliamentary reply from the Minister to a question raised in the Dáil on 26 November 1985, Volume 362, which stated:

Ideally, any decision in this matter should be based on a scientific asessment of the effects of the use of the hormones. However, this country as a major beef exporter must also take account of the views and requirements of our customers abroad if we wish to continue to export to them. In this connection it has been recognised that consumers in some member states have become increasingly concerned about the use of hormone implants in livestock production and that certain member states have in fact already prohibited their use. This has serious implications for our trade with those countries even though there is at the present time no scientific evidence that the five types of hormones in use, particularly the three natural ones, have harmful effects on human health.

The only country that stands against that position is the United Kingdom. I believe that all the evidence— and there is another lengthy document prepared by An Foras Talúntais and its Grange Dunsinea Research Centre on the subject under discussion — reiterates and reaffirms much of what I have mentioned and what is contained in the report. Basically, it states that there is a massive amount of gain to the beef producer by the use of hormones. This is very noticeable from the various trials that have been carried out on farms and in research conditions. It also makes the point quite validly and clearly about the human preference. One could speak at great length on the economic advantages of using hormones but it is futile and irrelevant to do so at this time, apart from establishing clearly that producers of beef are going to be at a significant a loss by not being able to resort to hormonal use in the future. There will be certain provision for therapeutic use of hormones and that will have limited value from a beef-producing point of view. The consumers of Ireland, who are very important to us in the beef-producing world and the consumers in Britain and elsewhere, will in the future have beef that is not treated with hormones. Coupling that with the whole environmental aspect of this country and purity of our product, we can be extremely competitive. On the Dublin market, on the London market, on the Tokyo market or any other market one likes to think about, we can justifably say that we have a product that is inferior to none. We would have a very superior product. One has to be responsible and state that the withdrawal of the use of natural hormones will mean a greater proportion of fat to lean in the meat. It is going to change the fat-lean meat ratio. That is the choice and, as a nation, we are correct in giving the consumers what they want. I would envisage a situation where, when society and the market are more enlightened, there could well be a tolerance of the use in the future of natural hormones. It is evident that in the foreseeable future, the consumer wants beef that is not treated with hormones, either natural or synthetic. That is the beef we must supply to those markets.

Mr. T. Hussey

First, I would like to record my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee for the work they did in preparing this excellent report we are discussing here today. I would also like to thank the various agencies who made the submissions, such as the IFA, the ICOS, AFT and all the other people who made submissions to the Joint Committee on the preparation of this very valuable report.

For the past few years the hormones question has been discussed, particularly since 1980 when the commission introduced its initial proposals which provided for a ban on all hormonal substances, both natural and artificial. The European Parliament, in 1981, declared that they were opposed to all hormones. However, member states, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, called for natural hormones to be authorised. Since then, many proposals have been brought forward by the Commission and the European Parliament, recommending the banning of all hormones used for fattening animals, recommending the use of natural hormones under the veterinary control, while banning the artificial substances pending a further report from the scientific committees. In April 1985 these proposals were amended to make it necessary to indicate on meat labelling whether the meat had been treated with hormones. Again, on 30 October 1985, folowing the resolution passed by the European Parliament, the Commission reverted, more or less, to the 1981 position and proposed a complete ban on hormonal substances, the only exception being the use for therapeutic treatment of natural hormones under strict regulation and control.

In Ireland the use of hormones has grown rapidly in recent years. We see, according to the report, that approximately two-and-a-half-million implants are administered annually with artificial substances, accounting for 70 to 80 per cent of this figure. Naturally, the use of hormones has a significant effect on animal performance and, consequently, on profits for the farmer. It is estimated by An Foras Talúntais that the value to the beef industry is in the order of £40 million annually. When one considers this, it is a very sizeable figure in what is going into the Irish economy from the beef industry. The use of hormones also improves the lean to fat ratio. Increased leanness has been the demand from third countries such as the Middle East and North Africa. It is also being demanded on the traditional United Kingdom and Continental markets. A ban on the use of all hormones would certainly have a significant impact on the quality of our beef cattle. If we wish to maintain the present fat-lean ratio of recent years it is likely that animals will have to be slaughtered at a younger age and at a lighter weight. Unless there is a increase in efficiency this will obviously reduce the margin from cattle production, a margin which is slight enough at present.

The greater proportion of our production of beef comes from steers. Since steers are the beef-producing animals which benefit most from the use of hormone implants, Ireland would suffer the greatest economic loss from a total ban. In West Germany only 2 per cent of beef production is derived from steers. Consequently, a ban on hormones will have very little effect there.

However, having said all that, one must take into account the views of the consumer. Here I agree with the joint committee that the protection of the consumer must be the first priority. The Joint Committee cannot accept that natural hormones should be banned. They occur naturally. They are produced daily by the human body and, indeed, are consumed in a variety of foodstuffs.

With regard to artificial hormones, there seems to be a doubt as to their absolute safety. As long as that doubt remains the committee were right to disapprove of their use. Regardless of the economic benefits accruing from their use I still believe that the consumer should not be asked to take that risk.

The question of control will pay a key role in the whole issue. For that reason there is the introduction of four separate regulations to tighten controls on the availability and use of antibiotics and hormones so as to ensure that these substances are used responsibly and to prevent as far as possible any detrimental residues getting into the food chain. The introduction of those regulations is to be welcomed, because I believe that control is a key element in the whole process.

The regulations that have been introduced were the Poisons (Control of Residues in Foods of Animal Origin Regulations), 1985. This is designed to ensure that the veterinary products associated with residue problems are administered properly and that the appropriate withdrawal periods are observed. These regulations declare hormones antibiotics and other anti-bacterial substances to be poisons for the purpose of the regulations and introduce controls on their use in food animals. The second regulation is the Animal Remedies (Control of Sale) Regulations, 1985. Again these regulations control the sale of animal remedies containing hormones, antibiotics and anti-bacterial substances. Their principal effect, in conjunction with section 5 and section 7 of the Animal Remedies Act, 1956, is to restrict the sale of such animal remedies to a registered pharmaceutical chemist, a registered druggist, or a registered dispensing chemist and druggist, in accordance with an individual prescription of a registered veterinary surgeon, or to a registered veterinary surgeon for animals which he is treating. Mail-order sales, the sales from a travelling shop, vehicle or an automatic vending machine and door-to-door collection of orders are prohibited. The third one is the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935. The fourth regulation there is the Agricultural Produce, Fresh Meat, Beef, Pork and Mutton Amendment Regulations, 1985. These regulations amend the schedules of existing regulations to empower veterinary examiners to carry out ante and post-mortem examinations, to take samples, to test for residues or specified substances and to demand certificates or declarations from animal owners and/or their veterinary surgeons to show what substances, if any, had been administered to those animals during a period of time prior to presentation for slaughter, in order to establish if residues of a controlled substance are likely to be present in the edible parts of an animal. A veterinary examiner may reject animals and carcasses where reasonable grounds exist for believing that detrimental residues are present. Those controls are very important. If the regulations are carried out, a lot can be done to check the use of hormones and to make sure their use and administration is properly done, if it is necessary.

As Senator Hourigan has said, we must take account at all times of the demands of the consumer because they are the people who are to be considered. Even though the farmers might like to make a fast few pounds by the use of those hormones in their cattle, nevertheless if we cannot sell our meat or if we get the reputation of having meat for sale in foreign parts that is affected by or injected with those hormones, then the country at large is certainly not going to benefit. We have a great opportunity here. We have a very good reputation abroad as regards our meat. We have established a very good market in Germany, France and many other countries for pre-packed meat. We can still improve on that if we specialise in supplying a type of meat that is free of all those hormones. If we get the name of producing that kind of meat abroad, then it will be to our advantage. We should certainly capitalise on it.

In conclusion, I would again like to thank the Joint Committee for the work they did on this very important subject. I appreciate that we are only glancing over it here because very few of us are experts in this field. It is something that we will have to learn more about in the near future. It is important for the cattle industry. It is important from an economic point of view. It is also very important from the consumers' point of view. We will have to educate ourselves more on this issue.

Mrs. Rogers

I do not pretend to be an expert on agriculture but I do think there is a very important question at stake here for us as consumers and as producers of meat. I would welcome the committee's report because it is very thorough and certainly to a person who is by no means a specialist, it is very clear, simple and easy to follow the lines of argument. Basically, there are, of course, as usual vested interests which are in conflict here. Clearly the farmer would be worried about the impact that a total ban on the use of hormones would have on the production of meat and on the profits of the farmer. The use of hormones helps beef production. It helps the lean-fat ratio. Therefore, it makes the exercise of beef farming more profitable.

There is a discussion in the report of the scientific aspect. One would have to accept that whereas there is not absolute proof of the dangers of the use of hormones, particularly in the use of natural hormones, and there does not seem to be any proof of that, neither is there absolute proof that it is not dangerous. While that remains the case, the reality has got to be faced that people will make up their own minds and people usually tend to take the view that they would rather err on the safe side and, therefore, the effect on the consumer is likely to be that they will shy away from meats which they feel have been produced in this way. Whatever about the interest of the farmer, the interest of the consumer has to be paramount. At the end of the day it would not be much use to us if we had a wealthy farming community at the expense of the health of the community. I hasten to add that there is no definite proof of this, but there is always the fear of it. We would be better to err on the right side. We also have to remember that the wealthy farmers are also consumers? There is an interest to the farmer as a consumer as well as from a farming and a profit point of view.

The general trend worldwide seems now to be towards fresh foods and towards doing away with all types of artificial ways of both growing food and raising livestock. It is likely that the consumer at the end of the day will have the last word. As in all industries, there is not much point in producing things for which there is no demand. The demand is more likely in the future to be for hormone-free beef. Therefore, I think it would be in the interest of the Irish farmer that there should be a concentration, as ACOT has recommended, on marketing Irish beef on the basis of the image of its freshness and naturalness, therefore creating that image for a market which clearly is there. We have to take into account that in Germany and other places in Europe there is an image of Ireland as a green, fresh country where everything is natural. We ought to be capitalising on that market rather than worrying about what may happen and trying to fight the ban.

I note that Ireland and Britain would suffer most from a ban. From reading this report, I come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that there will be a complete ban in the future. If that were to be the case — and since the stronger powers in the EC will not have a lot to lose from that, it makes it even more likely that there will be a ban — we should in the interest of the farmer, leaving aside the interest of the consumer, be proceeding on the basis of marketing an Irish quality product to meet the demand that will be clearly there in the future. At the end of the day the consumer interest has to be the priority.

If there is a question mark over the effect on health of the use of hormones and whilst there is no absolute proof that these are safe, the trend ought to be towards producing less beef but beef for a quality market. That will be in the interest of both the farmer and the consumer. Then the farmer will not suffer from the ban if we have already established that type of image for Irish beef. When the ban comes we will then be able to meet the problem. We ought to recognise the problem which will be presented to farmers in the case of a ban and try to deal with it now rather than try to fight the ban when it is imposed, trying to cope with it at a time when it may be too late. As an inexpert person in the field of agriculture those are my views from reading this excellent report.

Mr. Fitzsimons

My contribution will be very brief. I came into the House without a copy of my report. I read it completely and found it very informative. I would like to join with all the other Members in the House in congratulating the members of the committee.

As Senator Hussey has said, very few of us are experts in this area. I realise that the question of hormones is very important to the farming community and the cattle industry. The report clearly brought out the points made by Senator Hourigan that hormones reduce the fat-meat relationship and the food-meat relationship is improved. This is something which might be taken care of by the breeds of cattle that we have.

The report clearly underlined that natural hormones are not harmful. There are many people who think that drugs, hormones and all medicinal compounds should be administered under strict professional control. I would subscribe to this. Hormones got out of this control. While this may have resulted in savings and lower expense for the farmer, it is something I would not be totally happy about.

The report went to great pains to point out that there is an intake of natural hormones in many situations far in excess of what would be met with in the meat situation. Nevertheless, the hormones are not neutralised by cooking. One of the hormones mentioned, testosterone, was a component used in oral contraceptives and the high concentration of this hormone made it more or less dangerous. There was an element of danger attached to it and it got a lot of publicity some time ago. People might be using contraceptives which would incorporate that hormone and might be using them in the right proportions which would not be dangerous, nevertheless, by using meat which would be subjected to this particular hormone they might bring about a situation where the concentration would be dangerous. The customer is always right, as Members have said. The mass of the people know what is right in spite of the "hype" in the media.

Generally, people are subjected to pressures with regard to their choice as far as meat is concerned. When one goes into a victualler's shop, there is lighting of a particular type which shows the meat to better advantage and makes it altogether more attractive. While we would hope to arrive at a situation where meat would be the result of natural feeding, as Senator Hourigan has said, it is impossible to eliminate all chemical influences, for example, fertilisers, medicinal injections and administrations in all the different ways. The Senator's point was brought out in the report and in the media with regard to clean meat from Ireland which is clean and green. I suppose that while Ireland is still green but not as clean as we would like it — for those of us who go around the country — it is a concept we should keep to.

Other Members mentioned that hormones will be used for therapeutic purposes and for breeding. Members of the Oireachtas received literature from a new firm which has set up in this country to produce hormones. There will be scope for it in those areas.

Finally, I would like to say, like other Members, that what we should do now is to get on the right road and it should not be a short term gain that we will look for but gain in the long term. It is clearly shown that the consumer wants meat which is free from hormones. The point was made in the media by those engaged in farming that it is a pity that at an early stage we did not keep on that road and pride ourselves on it and make the case that we were the one country, or one of these countries, which did not use hormones. We could have made this a great selling point. From the consumers' point of view and also that of the farming community and agriculture as a whole, I think the proper course is to abide by the recommendations of the committee. Once again, I congratulate the committee.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hegarty)

First, I wish to welcome this report by the Joint Committee. The committee are to be congratulated on preparing a detailed, enlightened and well-balanced report on the use and effect of hormones. It is obvious that they have delved deeply into this highly emotive issue which has been so much in the public eye in recent years. The wealth of material and information incorporated in the report and the practical conclusions reached are a credit to all concerned.

As outlined by the committee, hormones and their use for growth promotion have received a lot of attention and publicity since the discovery of harmful residues in babyfood in Italy during 1980. In the light of this discovery the Commission banned those hormones which had been proven to be harmful and allowed the continued use of the three natural hormones and two which are produced artificially. It was to ensure that use of the five authorised substances posed no threat to human health that a scientific committee was set up by the EC to examine their potential effects. After much deliberation the committee concluded that, while it could not give firm assurances on the artificial hormones, responsible use of the three natural substances entailed no danger whatsoever to the consumer and their continued use should be permitted.

Our attitude at Council meetings on the subject was that the recommendations of the scientific committee should be accepted and that the continued use of the natural hormones should be incorporated in Community legislation to be applied equally in all member states. As you are aware however, under considerable — and often ill informed — pressure the subject was approached in a somewhat irrational manner. This resulted in a decision to prohibit the use of all hormones except in an extremely restricted manner for therapeutic use. Much as we may regret this decision, as a country which exports 80 per cent of its beef output, we must accept it on the basis that, whether rightly or wrongly, consumers do not wish to buy meat from animals which have been treated with hormones. After all, there is little point in producing meat, no matter how efficiently, if the consumer refuses to eat it.

We had, of course, been aware for some time of the need to ensure responsible use of hormones and it was with this in mind that we introduced our own national controls in this area. We intended that these controls would protect the consumer while allowing Irish farmers the continued benefit of use of the substances. However, in the light of the council decision, the regulations will be extended to prohibit the use of growth promoting substances.

We think that a number of issues must now be faced because of these developments. Effective measures will have to be enforced to ensure that the ban is implemented in all countries. The consumers, having made their choice, must be given every guarantee that there will be no illegal use of hormones for growth promotion, that the development of a black market in these products will not arise and that, from January 1988 when the Directive becomes effective, the meat which they eat is derived from animals which have never been treated with growth implants. It is in the interest of both consumers and producers alike that the Community controls are effectively applied to this end. I must also make mention of those third countries which export livestock and meat to the EC. While there will, no doubt, be considerable opposition in GATT and elsewhere to any restrictions on imports because of the hormone ban, it is essential that Community producers are not placed at a trade disadvantage and that the same ban should apply equally to those third country imports.

There is an opportunity now for our exporters to develop additional markets abroad for our meat by promoting the image of quality, grass-fed beef produced without the aid of growth hormones. Indeed, I think we have this advantage over at least a number of our competitors: as yet we have not delved too deeply into the Holsteins in this country. I still think we have a big advantage in so far as we have a very high quality animal. We have a very high quality calf, for starters. That will prove certainly to our advantage when it comes to the marketplace. I am almost certain that our competitors using these extreme Holsteins will have great difficulty in converting them into any sort of beef without the use of drug promoters. That in itself makes a great case for our Friesian breeders to look after what they have and not to be delving into the Holsteins which are readily available from overseas countries, but to stick with what basically has been an excellent source of raw material for our beef industry.

The disadvantages accruing from the ban can be well offset also by improved marketing opportunities and this should be reflected back to the producer in better returns in due course. It is also well to remember that our beef industry, as we saw — any of us who had the privilege to visit any of the food fairs abroad — is creaming off the top of the market, thanks to the vigorous people in the meat industry and thanks to the promotion of CBF. Even the CBF emblem is grass and clover. We promote that grass and clover image. It could enhance our product very much if we were to go out tomorrow morning and say: "We are now producing meat that is free of all hormones and indeed of all harmful substances". The consumer is entitled to clean food. Not only must it be clean but it must be seen to be clean. That is equally important. The easiest way to get it across to media people and to anybody else is to be able to do as the vice-president of the IFA was in a position to do recently on a radio programme — to be quite clear and specific. He was in a position to say — and it was wonderful to listen to him that morning, because it dispelled many doubts in the mind of Dublin housewives — that every morning every load of milk entering the Dublin dairies is tested for antibiotics. It was wonderful to be in a position to make that statement and to reassure the housewife that the food she is eating is wholesome and pure. She is entitled to that; God knows she is paying enough for it.

One small point is this: you will not have wealthy farmers at the expense of consumers. We depend entirely on the consumer; and, if they do not buy our product and buy a lot of it, we, too, are out of business. From my own point of view, as somebody who has been farming for many years, I see no great hazards at all about this. Once we are playing on a level pitch with everybody else, as long as nobody else has the advantage over us, we can compete freely in the European market. One thing that does, however, worry me and worry me very much indeed, is the whole question of third countries. I would insist that exactly the same regime prevails in third countries as prevails here. I would insist that the same disciplines would be imposed, so that they would not have a very real advantage over us when it comes to the market place.

Question put and agreed to.