The Leader of the House on item No. 12. What is the allocation of time?
Quality of Food: Motion.
Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders there will be an overall time limit of one and a half hours for this debate. The speech of the proposer of the motion shall not exceed 20 minutes and the speech of any other Senator shall not exceed ten minutes.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to introduce legislation to —
(1) protect consumers from food poisoning, the improper use of additives, the dangers arising from the contamination of food with hormones, pesticides-herbicides and the illegal use of chemicals such as beta agonists or angel dust in animal production; and
(2) ensure that foods and food products are adequately labelled so that consumers can be aware of the nutrients-additives contained therein and whether or not the foods have been subjected to ionising radiation.
I thank the Minister for coming in to listen to the debate this evening and I congratulate him, somewhat belatedly, on his elevation to the position of Minister of State. At this stage I am sure he is well consolidated in his new post. He is a political neighbour of mine to the extent that he works in the constituency adjacent to the one I have been in for the last number of years.
There are two reasons the Labour Party put down this motion. We are concerned about the health aspect of the foods which our people consume and we are concerned about the degree to which the consumer gets value for money when he or she purchases food. Another reason why we introduced this motion is that we are very anxious that the image of Irish foods on the European markets as wholesome, pure, healthy and green should be protected. We should make every effort to ensure that European consumers have no reason to doubt that image.
I am pleased that there does not appear to be any opposition to the motion. It seems as if it is acceptable to all. That is very encouraging. It does not come as any great surprise because it is fair to say that the Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, is on record as saying that many of the food laws date from Victorian times and need to be simplified and, presumably, updated.
There are many anomalies in food legislation at present. For example, health boards, State Departments and institutions such as prisons, are exempt from food hygiene regulations. They are not obliged to comply with the food hygiene regulations. Anybody is entitled to start up, own and run a business dealing with the manufacture, production and distribution of food without the slightest training in food hygiene, food science or anything else. There is nothing to stop them doing that. There are further anomalies and difficulties in the law. In many cases, people found to be distributing and producing food using unhygienic practices can continue to do so by the use of the appeals system. I know the appeals system is important and fundamental in law but, at the same time, it creates difficulties in such cases.
There are a number of specific areas in relation to food production that concern me. The first is the problem of food poisoning. Food poisoning is a continuing problem in this and in many other countries as well. It is fair to say that the number of days lost through illness arising from food poisoning in the workforce is considerably greater than the number of days which are lost due to strikes. United Kingdom data would indicate that is clearly the case. There might be three to four times as many days lost due to illness arising from food poisoning as there are arising from industrial disputes.
Food poisoning and its impact on industry, to take one aspect of it, receives much less attention than industrial relations. That in many ways is a strange commentary on our perspective of these matters. Usually what happens when there is an outbreak of food poisoning is that we have banner headlines, a great deal of commotion, people become very hot and bothered about it and generally it receives a lot of attention. Then it all fizzles away and is forgotten about until some time later when there is another food poisoning scare and the process is repeated.
The extent of the problem can be gauged from the fact that in August 1990 it was estimated that 1,000 cases of salmonella food poisoning occurred in this country, not to mention all the other different types of food poisoning that also occur. There are many reasons for that, for example, ignorance of the correct temperature of fridges and the need to keep them below certain basic temperatures so as to ensure that these pathogenic organisms do not spread. There are the risks of food poisoning posed by self-service salad bars and so on. In many cases, one could say that this is a form of self-service salmonella. These outlets can pose great hazards for the consumer. They do not have established codes of practice; for example, there is nothing to stop somebody going in in overalls and purchasing food from a food salad bar. There is nothing to stop somebody coughing and sneezing on top of the food in these salad bars. There is nothing to stop people picking up food with their hands. I do not think in most cases there is anybody monitoring how such places operate.
Cooked chilled products are a source of great worry. There are no clear guidelines laid down as to how they are to be prepared and reheated. There is no timespan to indicate their shelf life. There is no obligation on the people who produce these items to adhere to any standards. Anybody can go into this business if they have the necessary financial resources. There is no obligation on them to have any expertise or knowledge of food hygiene or food science.
Part of the solution to this problem would be increased consumer education on the maintenance, storage and utilisation of these products and on the principles of food hygiene and so on. I accept there was the "Clean Watch" campaign. I welcome it as a step in the right direction but I do not think that it had much impact. The incidence of food poisoning last summer speaks loud and clear about its ineffectiveness. There is need for better manufacturing and distribution practices and better reporting of the outbreaks of food poisoning. This is an area which is within the Minister's terms of reference. I accept that, to some extent, what we are talking about is the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. As regards the reporting of food poisoning, I would be pleased if the Minister would consider what could be done in the area so as to improve the effectiveness of reporting such cases.
If anybody doubts that we do not have considerable cause for concern in relation to the standard of food produced in this country, they have only to read a document such as the annual report of the Dublin region public analyst in 1988 where there is some valuable information. For example, two samples of a food product contained faecal pellets of a mouse, another contained the hairs of a mouse, a sample of chicken stew contained 13 dead spiders, a swiss roll contained a carries human molar tooth, gur cake contained rat hairs. The list goes on and on — one dead crane fly in a carton of pickled onions and one dead rovebeetle in a can of orange. For those who like live insects in their food, there was brown rice which contained 15 live rice weevils and lasagne had numerous dead moth larvae. Bread contained the head and thorax of an insect which raises the question, where was the rest of that insect? The report does not tell us. That is a sample of the data available to anybody who wants to read these published documents.
I have already spoken at some length about pesticide residues. There is no published data on the levels of pesticide residues in Irish food. I know the Department of Agriculture have the data but they do not publish it. There is no data on the intake of pesticides by the public or by groups considered to be particularly at risk, for example, women during pregnancy, lactating mothers, the young, or those who have special medical disorders which might be exacerbated by exposure to these products.
There is of the order of 1,000 pesticide products on sale here and the regulations do not preclude their improper use. They can be used at levels greater than those recommended by the manufacturers. There is no obligation on the users of these products to familiarise themselves with what is on the lable or, for that matter, to understand what is on the label prior to use or even to read the label prior to use. Legislation should be introduced which would oblige people who use these products to use them in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. People who use these products should be properly trained in their use so as to protect themselves and the public. The use of these products should be more closely monitored.
There are constant scares about chemicals in food. Some of them are misleading and misplaced but, at the same time, the consumer has reason to be worried. There was the cling film scare last year. There is the ongoing scare about food irradiation and its effect on food. For instance, 15 per cent of consumers say they would not use irradiated food, yet nobody knows for certain whether irradiated food is on the Irish market. Certainly there is no food that I am aware of on the Irish market that is labelled as being irradiated but, of course, that is not to say it has not been irradiated. There is good reason to believe that some spices which make their way onto the Irish food market have been irradiated although I am not in a position to confirm that is the case.
The manner in which food is labelled can be misleading. Claims have been made that certain foods improve fitness and energy and there does not seem to be any legal restriction on the use of such terms. Scientific terms are used in such a way as to create a buzz and a notion that foods which are associated with them have some beneficial value. Terms like "isotonic" are used to create an impression that products have characteristics and capacities which there is no basis for believing they have. What, for example, is meant by "fresh"? What does "fresh" mean when it is used in terms of food? What does "homemade" mean when it is used in terms of food? For example, when one buys "homemade" soup, does that mean the soup was made in the home of the outlet? In other words, a packet of soup was mixed on the premises, or does it mean that fresh raw materials were used and it was made de novo on the premises? The consumer is being ripped off. When does a fresh product cease to be fresh? When does it move into the intermediate phase of being neither fresh nor stale? When does it become stale, spoiled and unacceptable?
It is good practice to read the labels of some of these products and the blurb on them. For example, there are ice-creams described as liqueur ice-creams but in the list of ingredients any reference to liqueurs is conspicuous by its absence. There are terms such as "permitted preservatives". What does that mean? Somebody who is allergic to some "permitted preservatives" will not know which ones are contained in the product. What does "organic" mean? The Department of Agriculture and Food have set up an organic food section. What is organic food and when does food cease to be organic? What are health foods? The use of these terms has a certain value. The consumer is purchasing something over which there is no control. These products are sold by those who are into ripping consumers off. That is not to suggest that all people who use those terms are ripping off consumers. It is important that clear definitions be drawn up so that the public know what these terms mean and get what they think they are getting.
Restaurants should be forced to disclose the contents of their dishes and the origin of the ingredients. That is important in relation to cooked chilled products and so on. There is the question of the nutritional value of foods and its impact on the chronic diseases of western society. Many foods are badly labelled. The consumer has little understanding of what is contained in them or of their fat content.
Legislation is urgently needed to cater for the changes in food production, processing and distribution which have taken place and will continue to take place in the years ahead. Four or five basic points should be considered. Food manufacturing outlets and distribution centres should be licensed so that they can meet certain basic standards in relation to equipment, hygiene standards and so on. Certain basic levels of education and training should be provided and should be essential for all people who work in the food industry. Food production units of any reasonable size should be obliged to employ qualified food scientists to ensure that basic standards are met and maintained.
There is a need to update the labelling regulations so that the public know what they are purchasing and, if they purchase fresh produce, that it conforms to certain standards. The terms "fresh", "homemade", "health foods", "organic foods" and so on, should be clearly defined. Codes of practice should be established in relation to the food industry. They should be implemented and have the force of law. Regulations should be made in relation to minimal micro-biological standards in foods. Provision should be made for the sale of food which is fit for human consumption and the notion of "food which is fit for human consumption" should be defined.
Food producers and distributors should take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of food during its production. Diligence should be exercised by food producers and distributors during the production and distribution of food.
I will not be able to pronounce some of the names the Senator referred to. What Senator Upton said makes us think. British surveys have revealed that restaurant menus contain misinformation and misleading statements about the freshness of food. Senator Upton mentioned that fresh fruit juice was likely to come from a can and homemade soup was likely to be made from processed ingredients. Surveys have been carried out in Ireland so we do not know the position here. The public are entitled to know exactly what the ingredients are and what is contained in food served in restaurants and the origin of the ingredients.
The food industry is given a carte blanche to exploit the public through the use of terms such as “fresh”, “homemade”, “organic” and “health” in relation to food without any obligation to ensure that food so described conforms to any standard whatsoever. These terms are used widely in the catering industry. There is no reason to believe that these terms are anything more than an advertising blurb.
Outbreaks of food poisoning are a regular occurrence and represent more days lost at work each year than do strikes. Despite this, there is no legislation establishing codes of practice for the hygienic production, distribution and sale of food. Anyone can own and run a food business without the slightest training, education or understanding of the most basic principles of hygiene. In the Sunday Independent of 17 March Dr. Tom Barragry, Professor with the Veterinary Pharmacology, Drugs and Residues Faculty at UCD stated:
...only this month there had been a case of alleged food poisoning reported from the Clermont Ferrand region of France where 22 people became infected after eating liver.
This followed another outbreak in Spain last year where 135 people became ill after eating meat contaminated by "angel dust" or clenbuterol. A report on this incident in the medical journal, The Lancet, before Christmas, was the first authoritive report on the subject.
The facts relating to the outbreak were compiled by a scientist at Madrid's National Epidemiology Centre, which blames "angel dust" for the poisoning of the people in two major and six minor outbreaks between March and July.
The common factor was the eating of cooked liver. No deaths were reported.
Dr. Barragry gave credit to the Department of Agriculture for the legislation banning angel dust but added that the earlier banning of hormone implants throughout Europe had indirectly opened the door for the illegal use of angel dust.
One can go into any health food shop and the attendants will inform one of such-and-such a product and what it is good for. They will even go so far as to ask if one has high blood pressure. They are not qualified and are chancing their arm. I have nothing against health food shops. If people think the food from health food shops is good for them, they would be better off eating what Senator Upton described. Food outlets need to be monitored. Legislation is to be introduced in England whereby there will be a system of temperature controls in food chains in order to minimise the opportunities for growth of pathogenic microorganisms such as listeria and salmonella.
The whole food industry needs to be watched. The fact that much technology has been introduced into the industry does not defend the public or the consumer from mishaps in processing because it is outside the marketing area that a lot of the problems begin and much of the sales talk takes off. In conversation with Senator Upton, he told me that the whole question of food legislation sickened him. It seems to be in urgent need of modification, particularly to protect people from cowboys in the food and catering industry and their unhygienic practices and the misleading terms they use to describe their products. I do not know enough about the subject to go into any greater detail.
I am fully in support of Senator Upton's motion and I am satisfied that the consumer in many cases, whether it be in this or any other case, is the one vulnerable person that needs all the protection he can get. Things are so high-flying that people who are out there looking for markets lose all sense of proportion, they go beserk looking for markets. Sometimes it is not their fault; they are being driven that hard and the pressure is on them because the competition that we all adore and believe in. We have to be very careful about people's health. As Senator Upton said, the abuses are very substantial. We appeal to the Minister to ensure that the public know the ingredients and their origins, and that outlets are using the correct titles for the products they are selling.
I do not think anybody could disagree awith this motion which states:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to introduce legislation to —
(1) protect consumers from food poisoning, the improper use of additives, the dangers arising from the contamination of food with hormones, pesticides/herbicides and the illegal use of chemicals such as beta agonists or angel dust in animal products; and
(2) ensure that foods and food products are adequately labelled so that consumers can be aware of the nutrients/additives contained therein and whether or not the foods have been subjected to ionising radiation.
It is a very sensible motion because we are all anxious that the food we eat is good and that it is free of all those additives and so on. The Government are committed to ensuring that the food industry achieves its potential and towards this end it is essential that the wholesomeness and safety of our food supply is guaranteed, and this includes any food consumed in Ireland, whatever its source.
There is a great need for high standards of food hygiene and, indeed, a need to raise the level of public awareness of food hygiene and thereby improve the standards of food hygiene nationwide. In recent years we have seen greater use of additives in food. Those additives help to prolong the life of food but in my opinion they reduce the quality of the food and should be used sparingly. We have the reputation of producing good food and it would be a pity to tarnish that image by the use of additives. In the short term, we might indeed gain but in the long term it is far better to preserve our image as the producers of good, wholesome food. It is important at all times to ensure that food and food porducts are adequately labelled so that consumers can be aware of the nutrients/additives contained in food and whether or not foods have been subject to ionising radiation. Indeed, this proposal is contained in the second part of the motion before us. Consumers should know exactly what they are buying and the legislation should be in place to compel manufacturers and those packing food to display on the labels the nutritients and additives in that food. As part of the process of raising standards of food hygiene, the Minister for Health made new regulations in 1989 amending the food hygiene regulations 1950 to 1971. Under these regulations stricter controls are being exercised over the operation of mobile fast-food vans, ice cream vans and food stalls, such as travelling shops which sell meat or meat products.
The major asset of the new controls is an annual licensing requirement for these type of food stalls. Improved standards will be required of food vehicles used in the transport and delivery of food. As regards the use of hormones or angel dust in cattle production this, of course, is illegal and anybody caught using growth promoters should be prosecuted and, indeed, they are being prosecuted. If consumers in Germany, Holland or France do not want hormone-treated beef then we should not produce it. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has already given an assurance to this House that those engaging in this kind of irresponsible action will be brought to book and we are all in full-support of the Minister and the sentiments he has expressed.
Our beef industry is too important visá-vis our national economy to allow any group or individuals to damage it and indeed no effort should be spared by the Department of Agriculture and Food to ban the use of angle dust and hormones and have those who are using it severely dealt with. I hope the Minister and the Department will make use of the legislation that is there to see that those people are dealt with. I am not aware of how widespread this practice is but the situation should be monitored carefully and spot tests should be made to ascertain how widespread this practice is. This could be very effective if Department officials were allowed to do spot tests on herds throughout the country. It would be a deterrent to stop those people from using angel dust. As I said, I am not sure how widespread it is but if one believes the rumours, and that is all we have to go on, it is fairly widespread and it should be curtailed.
Senator Upton made a very strong case for the banning of pesticides and for the proper labelling of food and so on. This is also very important because it is only right that people should know what is in those foods. We see more and more coming on to supermarket shelves, powdered soup, powdered this and powdered that, and nobody seems to know what is in them, or how long they are there or what the life of those products is. It is important that consumers should know that.
I add my support to this motion and ask that the necessary legislation be brought in to cover these points. I am not sure whether it is necessary to introduce new legislation because there is a volume of legislation there already on the Statute Book to take care of this, but I am afraid a lot of it is not being put into effect. We have many regulations from the EC going back a number of years. Those regulations could be brought into force to ensure that food is presented properly and that the risk of food poisoning, salmonella and all the other dangers are eliminated. For that reason I support the motion.
I too, would like to support this motion but I would qualify it by saying that there is an implication in this motion that meat that has been touched by hormones is dangerous. I will deal with that at a later stage. The late President John F. Kennedy once said the consumer has three rights; the right to be safe, the right to be informed and the right to choose. I do not think we could disagree with that. Certainly the right to be safe is a basic right but in order to be safe one has to be informed as well and if you look at the perception among consumers today — I know this from facts I got from my colleagues in the Faculty of Food Science — it is that 90 per cent of the problems are caused by chemicals.
However, the reality is entirely different. Over 90 per cent of food poisoning problems are caused by biological problems and of the biological problems about 90 per cent are caused by salmonella poisoning. This is where the lack of information comes in. We have seen in our lifetime a change from housewives going out and buying the food each day, having no fridge in the home, and suddenly along comes supermarkets stocking cold food, frozen food and so on and, in the homes there are microwave ovens, rôtisseries for cooking frozen chicken and so on.
What happens now? The family go out to do the shopping perhaps once per week. Having loaded up the car with food from the supermarket shelves they put it in the boot and then proceed to do shopping for clothes, shoes and so on for the children. Meanwhile, all the food that came out of cold cabinets in the supermarket is heating up in the car and the bacteria are having a wonderful time, growing and multiplying. The food is then taken home and put into a fridge or into a freezer that is not working properly, and eventually is taken from there before it is properly thawed and is put on a rôtisserie to be cooked. It is being cooked on the outside, of course, especially in the case of chickens, but not at all cooked on the inside where all the salmonella contamination is located. We have other examples of cooked food being put under uncooked food in the fridge and the drops from chickens or whatever raw food is there can fall down on to the cooked food. This is the kind of information that is absolutely essential for the consumers if they are to avoid biological contamination.
It is salutary thought to remind ourselves that at the height of all the publicity about salmonella in eggs in Britain, more people got salmonella in hospital than went into hospital with salmonella, precisely because of bad practices in the catering establishments in hospitals. Senator Upton has already referred to this problem. It is also a salutary thought that two years after the slaughter of two million hens in Britain because of alleged problems with salmonella in eggs, the incidence of salmonella poisoning in Britain increased by something like 20 per cent to 30 per cent, at least the reported cases. There is a huge problem in informing people about how to handle food, given the modern technology we have with cook, chill and reheat processes, with frozen food being taken home and not thawed properly before it is cooked and so on.
Having said that, we cannot overlook completely the problem of additives and pesticides in food, but we are misdirecting our resources by concerning ourselves unduly with the problem of residues. It is a scientific fact that 99.9 per cent of all pesticides in food are naturally occurring, produced by the plant as its only natural protection against predators. Of course, some plants produce too much of it and are totally poisonous to the human, but all the plants we eat have a level of naturally occurring pesticides and yet we get very concerned about the 0.01 per cent of man-made pesticides. That is not to say we can ignore it. We must be careful that these products are used properly.
The question of hormones and angel dust was raised. My experience of legislators in this area left me confounded by the absolute intellectual dishonesty and the lack of integrity I came across in the European Parliament. We had the five safe hormones banned for political and commercial reasons. We banned them despite a warning from the World Health Organisation which not only approved these substances but actually recommended that they be licensed for sale in order to avoid the very problem we now have on our hands, the problem of a black market. We were told by scientific experts from all over the world that it was not feasible to enforce a ban. We did so in the light of all that knowledge and the Community is suffering ever since from a declining consumption of beef, from a reduced quality of beef, and we in Ireland particularly are suffering because it is our single biggest item of export.
What have we got today? Rumours abound, as Senator Hussey and other Senators said, that there is widespread use of angel dust. Perhaps it is safe for the consumer. I do not know, but certainly it was never tested adequately and what is certain is that the quality of meat, whatever about the safety of it, from this product is inferior. You would almost want to be an Alsatian dog to consume it, it is so tough. This is what is happening now. In desperation, because the safe products which enabled them to make a few pounds on cattle were banned, farmers resorted to getting something from the fellows in the backs of vans in marts and so on. Indeed, it is reported that some meat factories are actually encouraging farmers to use angel dust. This is a disgrace but from the factory's point of view it enables the factory to make more money by selling what appears to be a better quality beef into intervention, the carcase is a grade better. We got ourselves into that sort of trouble — I say we; it is the European Community as a whole — through political pressures, particularly from the Greens in Germany. I am afraid until the matter is resolved by some kind of amendment of the legislation we will never get out of it. But I say here and now to the farmers of Ireland, if the legislation is wrong, amend it. Do not break it. Our beef industry is now sitting on a time bomb as somebody said and I am afraid that time bomb may well go off.
With regard to health food, there is a con job going on here. Let us be honest about it. There is an implication that because these foods are sold as health foods they have some kind of miraculous health-giving properties. The latest results I can find from the British Ministry of Agriculture of Food and Fisheries shows that these health foods have a much higher level of the undesirable residues than the normally produced and normally processed food. We need some kind of official certification with regard to whether foods are organically produced, whether these health foods are what they are supposed to be. The consumer is at the mercy of the racketeers. I am not saying there are not genuine people producing organic food. Of course there are. I am not saying that organic is any better than normally produced food. It is not, and consumers had better be informed about that too, but if they feel they would like to have organically produced food and are prepared to pay a premium price for it, then by all means they must be entitled to get that service but they should not be exploited by people selling conventionally produced food that is being sold at a premium price as organically produced food.
I agree wholeheartedly with labelling. There is a problem with this. There is misinformation as far as labelling is concerned. I can think of a classic example that I raised in the European Parliament some years ago in relation to Irish smoked salmon being sold to continental customers. Of course, it was Pacific salmon, bought cheaply, an inferior quality product, smoked in Ireland and sold as Irish smoked salmon. The message there was that it was Irish smoked salmon but it was not. What did we do about it? I do not think we did enough about it. I doubt if we did anything about it.
Finally, throughout the Community there is a lack of confidence amongst consumers in the regulatory authorities. There is every good reason for this lack of confidence because we have had too much political interference in the matter of authorising the use of products, or supervising the use of products and banning the use of products when they should not have done so. The Community will never get away from the problem until we have an independent, objective body like the Food and Drug Administration in the United States in which more than 70 per cent of the consumers in that country have confidence. What percentage of people in Britain today have confidence in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture? I would think a very, very small percentage. For that matter, how many people have would believe the Department of Agriculture and Food when they say that things are all right? People do not believe this anymore when they see political interference in these matters. I suggest that we press for a centralised, independent authority for dealing with these matters and in that way try to regain consumer confidence.
I welcome the Minister here and find a great deal to commend in this motion from the Labour Senators. It is one that deserves serious discussion. I share the concerns expressed by Senator Upton when he moved the motion in relation to the need to protect the consumer, not just the Irish consumer but the growing number of consumers throughout Europe whom we will be forced to look to for our markets under the proposal for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and, indeed, through the way the market is going to develop over the next ten years or so. I believe there is an interest in the industry. It is in the industry's interest to implement measures like these because by having an industry we can stand over and by having wholesome food which represents Ireland and the image we have for good, wholesome food, that we can hope to penetrate these highly competitive and sophisticated markets on the Continent. These markets are highly demanding, and rightly so. Anything we can do through legislation to improve matters in that respect is to be welcomed. I share the view that the consumer is absolutely entitled to know what is in the food that is being eaten, what it has been treated with and what sort of residues are involved, purely as a guarantee of its wholesomeness. This is something which is going to become increasingly important.
I do not share the view that we can farm without the use and support of pesticides, herbisides and the other chemical agents which are available to the industry. Senator Upton may have inadvertantly supported the use of these substances when he catalogued the bugs that were in the various jars that were analysed.
They were all in their own cases.
It could be contested that they would never have reached the jars had they been treated adequately with the appropriate pesticide in the first place. While having said that there is a need for these substances and that they must be controlled and environmentally friendly, there are opportunities, of course, for organic production. But I do not think that anybody should be under any illusion that organic production can replace conventional production in agriculture. There certainly is a market for organic products but it would be naive for anybody to assume that we are going to be able to feed Europe and the world through organic production. There will be a responsibility on us to feed a world. The population is expected to double before the year 2025. While we have surpluses within the European Community and while those surpluses are indefensible on the basis of what they are costing the taxpayer, or on any other basis, it must be remembered that a huge proportion of the world is starving. It is not the surpluses themselves that are the problem, it is their location. We are going to be faced with increasing pressure to feed a world where the population is expanding. EC surpluses make it difficult to understand that that crisis is facing us, but it is a reality.
The motion infers, willy-nilly, that all food is contaminated with hormones and all sorts of undesirable substances. I reject that suggestion. Some food is contaminated by some substances which are undesirable and we must do what we can to root out those substances. In a different context, when we spoke about the Birmingham Six, Senator Upton made a very good point in relation to science being al lowed to speak the truth, that science was abused in that particular instance. In this much more minor instance, science is frequently not allowed speak the truth. Science is abused for propaganda purposes and to do with things that have no relationship whatever with the quality of the food we are talking about.
In relation to the aspect of the motion that deals with beta-agonists or angel dust or clanbuterol, there was a very disturbing article in The Sunday Times of 2 December last which referred to what was allegedly going on in Ireland in regard to angel dust, how it was being used on about half the cattle being produced in the country. That was extremely damaging to our beef export business. The people who are using these substances ought to be made aware of just how much damage they are doing to the industry on which our economy depends. To my certain knowledge there are prominent people in agriculture using these substances on large numbers of cattle. They consider themselves to be highly respectable, law-abiding people. They need to be made aware of the fact that they are not law-abiding people and that they are damaging the very industry from which they derive their living. In addition to that, there are factories within the industry which are party to the illegality which is going on and which is damaging the industry. I heard of a case in the past week where it was alleged that a factory had an insurance scheme whereby if carcases were detected and rejected because they had angel dust in them, the producers would be compensated for those carcases. If that is the case it is a total outrage.
I welcome the statements made by the Minister in this House and elsewhere that he intends to deal very severely with these matters. There is one very easy way of stamping out this type of activity. If several loads of cattle, at several factories, were sent back or condemned and the people were not paid for them, I can guarantee that very soon they would stop using substances of this nature.
I share some of the reservations expressed by Senator Raftery in relation to the naturally occurring hormones which were banned by the Community. All the scientific evidence produced suggested that these materials were safe. Now we have a situation where we are using much more damaging substances, not only damaging to the animals but damaging to the human beings who are using them. It has been suggested that people with heart conditions have died as a result of angel dust being used on cattle. I do not know if that is true but if it is the case, it is a very serious situation. A doner from one meat factory told me that the moment he puts a knife into a carecase he can tell whether it has been treated with angel dust. The analytical procedures must be refind in order to be able to say whether a crecase was treated with these substances. That comes back to the question of science. Senators Upton, Raftery and I share the same scientific tradition and I notice that at least one of the Department officials has the same scientific tradition.
I realise there is a unit within the Department which monitors agro-chemical matters. There toxicology is gone through in detail so that when they come on the market they can be regarded as being safe. My question relates to the efficacy and use of those materials. To what extent are the Department prepared to intervene to ensure that those materilas are tested under field conditions to establish their efficacy under Irish conditions because sometimes the field trials which are conducted in other countries may not be appropriate to Irish conditions? I support they need for labelling all foods sold over the counter; the consumer is entitled to know how those foods were processed and what is in them.
There is a place for ionising radiation. The fact that the word "radiation" is used is very emotive and people automatically assume that they will develop cancer as a result. In some developing countries it is the only realistic way of providing people with food which is not contaminated by the biological agents which were referred to by other speakers. We have enough scares about salmonella and other illnesses. One week pigs are involved, the next week poultry, BSE and so on, and I wonder how many people are trying to sabotage the industry. However, I realise those motives are not behind this Labour motion.
There is a need for control in relation to vans which are selling burgers outside football pitches and disco clubs as they are causing digestive problems throughout the community.
I support the motion. This is something we all should be concerned about. Over the past 25 years the whole food chain has been damaged. In the agricultural sector corn and beet sprays which are used indiscriminately have not been tested to find out if they pass on any harmful effects to the consumer. DDT was used in the production of beet and other crops and caused serious problems in humans in that it was a cancer-forming agent. It took years to discover that. Its use was continued in this country after it was banned in the United States. I ask the Minister to look at that area urgently because chemicals and sprays are being dumped into this country and used on various products with no regard to the effect on humans who consume products such as chickens, beef, grain or sugar beet. I support the need for urgent action in this area.
Other Senators mentioned the tragedy of angel dust and the irresponsible, greedy attitude of people using that product illegally. The Minister's Department are doing what they can to track down those irresponsible people. That is an important area and anything the Minister can do as speedily as possible would be appreciated by the public.
People are at the stage now where they wonder what simple products such as tomatoes and cabbage are sprayed with. I know people who used liquid DDT until very recently and were producing acres of green crops like cabbages. There should be some way of testing those products. Children get rashes and become ill due to eating such treated products. We are wide open to abuse here more than any other country. In the United Kingdom there is some control over those sprays and chemicals that are being dumped at a great rate. In any of the farmers' papers or journals one reads about remedies for everything but there is no mention of the effect those sprays may have on humans.
This motion should be looked at urgently and steps should be taken to control the use of sprays so that the public may be reassured about our products. We have the name of producing clean products in the food industry and that name should not be damaged. Many young people are very conscious of their health and they do not consume various products such as chicken or beef. They read about what is being used in factory type farms. Not all farmers are that way inclined but are a few greedy producers who destroy the market and create many problems.
At the outset, I want to express my appreciation of Senator Upton for his good wishes to me. We are neighbouring politicians and I wish him success in his own political career presuming, of course, it does not impinge on my objectives.
Food safety is, of course, of paramount importance and fortunately there is now a greater public awareness of the risks associated with unfit or contaminated food and the need to observe proper standards of hygiene at all stages of production and manufacture.
As well as the raising of public awareness, enforcement authorities must have adequate statutory backing to enforce proper standards. The statutory powers under which the Minister for Health and the health boards operate are mainly contained in the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875-1936, the Health Acts, 1947-53 and in regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, to enforce EC rules in relation to food. The Minister for Health also has enabling powers under the Food Standards Act, 1974.
The statutory powers available to the Minister for Health under the Health Acts, 1947-53 are of particular significance. These powers enable the Minister for Health to make regulations to prevent danger to public health arising at any stage of the food chain. However, other Ministers have responsibility for food safety within their own sectors of responsibility. In particular, the Minister for Agriculture and Food safegaurds the food chain in relation to milk and meat production and dairy produce production. An integrated structure of food controls has developed between the various Ministers with food control resposibilities. The broad statutory powers available to the Minister for Health under the 1947-53 Health Acts enable him and the health boards to exercise control in regard to food safety over areas of the food chain not under the specific control of other Ministers and in particular at the point of sale to the consumer.
As regards the protection of the consumer from the risk of food poisoning, the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1950, which were last updated in 1989, lay down the hygiene standards to be observed in food premises and in food transportation and provide health boards with an effective range of powers for the registration of food premises and for dealing with unfit food.
The creation of the Internal Market in 1992 has focused attention on the implications for the safety of the food supply given that control measures currently operable at points of entry into individual member states will no longer apply. This refers to the safety of food supply. This has given rise to the need to ensure a level of equivalence among member states in relation to the control systems in place to ensure safe food supply.
The pricipal initiative in this area was the adoption by the Council of Ministers of EC Directive 89/397 on the Official Control of foodstuffs. In summary, this directive provides for monitoring foodstuffs for the home market and for export within the Community.
Inspections must cover all stages of production, manufacture, import into the Community, processing, distribution and trade. Food premises, plant, transport, machinery and equipment, raw materials, ingredients, food processes, staff hygiene, etc., shall all be subject to inspection.
Each Minister with a food control responsibility is bringing into force within his own sector of responsibility whatever additional measures may be necessary to give full effect to this directive. As far as the Minister for Health's responsibilities go, the EC directive will be implemented through a further amendment of the food hygiene regulations. Details of sampling programmes must be submitted annually to the Commission under the directive and only laboratories designated as "official laboratories" may carry out analyses of foodstuffs for compliance with the law.
These additional food control measures are of considerable importance and will provide significant additional safeguards for the protection of public health.
A series of regulations have been made under the Health Acts, 1947-70 and the European Communities Act, 1972, in regard to colours, preservatives, anti-oxidants, emulsifiers and cyclamates. Regulations are also in place controlling arsenic, lead and mineral hydrocarbons in food. The additives regulations specify the additives permitted for use in food; the types of food and, where appropriate, the maximum levels of use. The regulations are regularly updated to take account of EC directives. The European Commission is putting forward additional proposals for directives covering a comprehensive range of additives which in addition to the foregoing will include sweeteners, flavourings and many other categories.
The Commission's proposals are based on the views of the Scientific Committee for Food, a body of independent experts from each of the member states which examines and monitors the use of food additives.
In advance of decisions at EC level, the use of additives is kept under constant review by an expert advisory body, namely the Food Safety Advisory Committee. In the event of the committee expressing concern about the safety of a particular additive, adequate powers are available to the Minister for Health to take appropriate action in the interest of public health and safety.
The Food Safety Advisory Committee were established jointly by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture and Food in July 1989 for the purpose of advising on matters relating to food and zoonotic diseases referred to it and of making recommendations to both Ministers.
The committee replaced both the Food Advisory Committee and the Joint Services Committee on Zoonoses and now provide a cohesive forum to provide advice on the full spectrum of food issues, ranging from safety to microbiology. The committee represent a broad range of scientific and technical expertise in human and veterinary medicine, toxicology, microbiology, food science, food analysis and environmental health.
To date, the committee have produced reports on the following issues: listeria, BSE, food irradiation, farmhouse cheeses and potassium bromate in flour. The reports have provided a valuable source of information to Ministers and have included important recommendations— in particular in relation to prevention of foodborne diseases — many of which are currently being implemented. For example, in relation to listeria and farmhouse cheeses, the Department of Health and Food have instructed health boards to ensure more efficient monitoring and control systems so as to minimise risk of food contamination. In addition, the health promotion unit of the Department of Health and Food are producing an information leaflet for pregnant women on precautions to take against listeriosis.
Reports on the use of cook chill systems of cooking in hospitals and catering premises, problems associated with the use of cling film for wrapping food and the foodborne diseases, salmonella and campylobacter, are currently being finalised and I am looking forward to receiving reports at an early date.
Since their establishment, the committee have shown themselves to be more than willing to come to grips with complex issues and ultimately to provide the best possible advice on a wide range of complex food safety issues. The public can feel assured that it is being well served by this committee.
With regard to nutritional labelling, proposals made by the European Commission for compulsory nutritional labelling of foodstuffs were recently considered by the Council of Ministers but a majority of the member states were not satisfied as to the need for such a measure at this stage.
However, the Council of the European Communities recently adopted Directive 90/496/EC which makes nutritional labelling compulsory where a nutrition claim is made. The directive also lays down detailed rules as to the information to be included where nutritional labelling is provided.
The general feeling among member states is that it would be prudent to monitor the impact and effect of the directive, when implemented, before taking on board the major implications attaching to a scheme of compulsory nutritional labelling.
The 1980 report of the Food Advisory Committee on Nutritional Labelling and Claims recommended that nutritional labelling of foodstuffs should be encouraged but did not advocate compulsory nutritional labelling as such. Consumers are becoming more conscious of the relationship between diet and health and are demanding additional information on product labels to enable them to make informed choices. The Minister for Health welcomes this move on the part of consumers and points out that the industry has been quick to respond to the demands by voluntarily providing nutritional labelling in many cases. The application of the detailed rules laid down in the aforementioned directive, when adopted amd implemented in the member states, will considerably enhance decision making on the part of the consumer by ensuring that information is given in a standardised format, thereby facilitating comparison between products. The directive provides for the phased implementation of the proposals outlined in the directive over a five-year period up to Octber 1995.
The Minister for Health has established a new nutrition advisory group as a sub-committee of the Advisory Council on Health Promotion. A priority of the Minister is to give effect to a more proactive approach to nutrition, including the education of the general public. The nutrition advisory group will provide expert advice to the Minister, to his Department and to the general public in the area of nutrition, including nutrition policy, surveillance and education.
There is already a Council directive requiring foodstuffs which have been treated with ionizing radiation to bear the indication "irradiated" or "treated with ionizing radiation". Proposals for the labelling of foodstuffs containing ingredients which have been subjected to ionizing radiation are being considered by the Council of European Communities as part of proposals for a Council directive regulating the treatment of food with ionizing radiation. It is important that if the consumer is to be offered food which has been treated with ionizing radiation, or which contains ingredients which have been so treated, he or she should be aware of this so that he or she can exercise choice in the matter.
As I indicated earlier, the Minister for Agriculture and Food safeguards the food chain in relation to meat, milk, eggs and dairy produce. This is done through a series of Acts and EC regulations or directives relating to the individual sectors concerned. All of these lay down hygiene standards for the maintenance and operation of the premises involved. They also contain provisions to ensure that animal diseases and undersirable substances are not transmitted to humans. In particular, this body of legislation includes the Abattoirs' Act, 1988, which was introduced to address any imbalance between the standards prevailing as between home and export plants.
Domestic abattoirs are now subject to a licensing system which provides for minimum standards of facilities and operating procedures to ensure that meat produced in such facilities is of equivalent quality to that produced in export plants. Further regulations providing for equivalent veterinary ante and post mortem inspection of meat destined for the domestic market will shortly be introduced. The introduction of these measures is a further step in assuring domestic consumers of the wholesomeness of the product produced for their consumption.
In so far as the application of EC Directive 89/397 to the foregoing legislation is concerned, the position is that most of this legislation contains inbuilt provisions which will facilitate full implementation of the directive without any additional statutory measures.
For many years, Ireland's unpolluted environment, high animal health status and reputation for methods of livestock production have been a key element in our marketing strategy and access to important export markets. In recent times we have seen a move from traditional animal husbandry to more intensive production and a more widespread availability and use of pharmaceutical substances for therapeutic, prophylactic and yield-enhancing purposes. Used correctly and responsibily, these products make a valuable contribution to animal health and welfare and, through reduction in animal mortality, to the prosperity of the farming community. While recognising the potential benefits of these developments, I can fully appreciate and share the concerns of consumers that they are used correctly and responsibly and, most importantly of all, are not abused for short term gain.
We are all aware of the attention which the use of hormones, antibiotics and particularly the beta-agonists have received of late. Consumers are rightly demanding assurances that the food they purchase does not contain residues of these and other contaminants and has not been derived from animals that have been treated with illegal substances. It is particularly important that a country such as Ireland, which is so dependent on food exports, should be able to give these assurances both to domestic consumers and customers abroad.
In response to these concerns comprehensive measures have been progressively introduced over the past ten years to tighten controls on the availability and use of hormones, antibiotics and other veterinary medicinal products to ensure these substances are used only for authorised purposes, where necessary, and that withdrawal periods are properly observed before taking produce from treated animals for human consumption.
In 1981, the EC adopted directives providing for the assessment of all veterinary medicines on grounds of safety, quality and efficacy. These measures were transposed into national law in 1986 and since 1987 all veterinary medicinal products are required to be assessed by the National Drugs Advisory Board before they can be placed on the market or administered to animals. Prior to the introduction of these measures, legislation introduced in 1981 and 1982 strictly curtailed the range of hormonal products available to farmers and in 1985 legislation placed these substances under veterinary control. In 1986 all antibiotics became prescription only medicines and observation of withdrawal periods following their administration became mandatory. The use of hormones for growth promotion was totally prohibited from 1 January 1987.
In 1988 stringent consolidating measures to control the importation, manufacture, possession, sale and use of hormones were introduced. The measures provide, inter alia, for the condemnation of meat derived from hormone-treated animals, the destruction of illegally treated animals, powers of enforcement for the members of the Garda Síochána and officers of Customs and Excise, and for fines of up to £1,000 and one year's prison sentence. In 1990 these regulations were extended to cover the illegal use of all substances, and these measures are now applicable, for example, to beta-agonists. These national legislative measures are supplemented by an EC residue testing plan which provides for random sampling of meat for residues.
I can assure you that these measures are vigorously enforced. Over 400 officers are authorised to enforce the regulations by checking manufacturing and sales outlets, farms amd slaughtering facilities. Since 1986, 57 persons have been convicted of nearly 200 offences.
In referring to consumer demands, undue emphasis may be placed on consumers abroad. I would like to stress that while these are undoubtedly most important to us, the concerns of home consumers are not forgotten. The legislative measures I have referred to are equally applicable to produce intended for the domestic and export markets.
Pesticides, including herbicides, have proved a huge boon to modern agriculture by controlling diseases and pests of crops and contributing to the production of cheap high-quality foods, thereby reducing the incidence of under-nutrition in developing countries. However, being biologically active products, they are also potentially dangerous to man and the environment. They are intended to be toxic to the unwanted or pest species, without causing damage to treated species, to man or the environment. It is necessary, therefore, that their use be controlled by laws and regulations which have a wide margin of weighting in favour of the safety aspect, This is the position here in Ireland where two bodies of statutory regulations governing the sale and use of pesticides, are administered by the Department of Agriculture and Food.
The first body of regulations is entitled the European Communities (Classification, Packing and Labelling of Pesticides) Regulations, 1985 to 1989. A pesticide may not be sold on the market without getting clearance under these regulations. The regulations came into operation in 1985 and an arrangement was made that products already on the market could continue to be sold provided they met certain conditions of the regulations. These old pesticides are being called up in batches for a more detailed examination before getting final clearance. Any pesticide put on the market for the first time after 1985 has to receive examination and clearance beforehand. In the process of clearing pesticides under the regulations, safety evaluations are made and a pesticide that is regarded as constituting a danger to human health or the environment may be prohibited or have special conditions attached to its clearance. Inspectors of the Department of Agriculture and Food carry out regular inspections at wholesale and retail outlets to ensure that pestcides on sale comply with the regulations. As a result, several seizures were made and a number of instances of court proceedings resulted in successful prosecutions.
The other body of legislation deals with the level of pesticide residues in or on fruit and vegetables, cereals and foodstuffs of animal origin. These regulations, which operate throughout the European Community, lay down maximum residue levels for a wide range of pesticides in designated foodstuffs. The maximum levels are set at a very safe level. Regular samples of all designated foodstuffs, both home-grown and imported, are taken by officers of the Department of Agriculture and Food. To illustrate the effectiveness of these controls, out of 2,187 samples taken in 1989 only six were found to be above the limit. In such cases a warning is issued and special attention is given afterwards to produce from the same source. I would like to assure the House that in no case was a repeat discovered.
A third body of proposed legislation on pesticides is at present being discussed in Brussels. It will impose a tighter control on pesticides by requiring that all acceptable active ingredients are registered and only pesticides manufactured from these ingredients can be put on sale.
Ireland is a relatively small user of pesticides. From my presentation here you will note that the policy and control measures being operated are designed to maintain a high degree of safety for the consumer.
The Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture and Food are satisfied that the statutory powers available are adequate to ensure the protection of public health. The Minister for Health recently indicated to the Food Safety Advisory Committee that he would welcome the views of the committee on the legislative framework under which various Departments exercise food control responsibilities and any recommendations the committee might wish to make for the improvement of this framework and for achieving greater integration and co-ordination in regard to the exercise of controls at central and at local level. The Minister for Agriculture and Food would also welcome the committee's views on these matters.
With regard to a few points which were also raised, I would like to point out that in dealing with angel dust in hormones, sampling takes place both on the farm and at factories. This sampling takes place both on a random, non-suspicious basis and on a suspicious selective basis. With regard to organic production, I understand that directives are currently being formulated. In relation to pesticides, as and from 1990-91, the results of pesticide residue monitoring for all member states will be published by the EC. Hygiene laws in relation to products dealt with by the Department of Agriculture and Food are of recent origin. I refer particularly to the Abattoirs Act, 1988, which applies to meat plants catering for domestic markets and EC directives and regulations covering meat export plants, milk and dairy produce.
With regard to the comments of Senator Dardis on pesticide efficacy, at present clearance to market pesticides is granted where they are on sale, from the point of view of consumers, farm workers and the environment. I would also like to point out that as and from 1993 efficacy will be a further criterion to be considered.
Regarding further comments by Senator Dardis about vanmen, I would like to point out that the officers of the Minister for Agriculture and Food monitor vans selling at marts and calling from farm to farm in regard to veterinary medicines and the distribution of products on an ongoing basis. Prosecutions of vanmen have taken place and Senators will no doubt be aware of such a case within the last five weeks when a vanman was fined over £2,000 for possession of hormones and antibiotics.
With reference to DDT, as raised during the debate, I want to point out that DDT has been banned in Ireland for many years. The reason for the prohibition was its persistence in the environment. DDT has not been shown to be a carcinogen. Its use in tropical countries for the control of vectors of many diseases — malaria, yellow fever, etc. — saves millions of lives.
We have had a very substantial debate here and I want to thank everybody who has contributed. I trust the information I have imparted on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Food and of the Department of Health will be found helpful by Senators.
I just wish to respond to a few points which were made by some Senators, particularly Senator Raftery. He listed three entitlements of consumers as outlined by John F. Kennedy. I would go back a little further than John F. Kennedy and quote the oldest one of them all: the consumer is always right. If the consumer does not like chemicals in food as in additives, hormones and all the rest of it, it just does not matter—the consumer is right, full stop. It does not matter how unreasonable the consumer is by scientific standards, the consumer is still right. Anybody who thinks otherwise is on the road to nowhere in the world of commerce.
Senator Raftery also spoke of the fact that 99 per cent of pesticides in foods were natural. So be it. That does not at all take away from any potential toxic effects the 1 per cent which are added might have. That is what I am concerning myself with.
In relation to safe hormones, I do not know how you can talk in terms of safe hormones. Just think of the power of hormones. Just think of the power of a hormone analogue like clenbuterol— angel dust — and what it can do to animals. It changes the whole composition of the body. Think of the power of the sex hormones and what they can do. The mind boggles when you talk in terms of safe hormones. Talk in terms of the effects of stilbesterol given in America to prevent miscarriages in women. You will find that one generation on their daughters began to show up cancer of the cervix. It boggles the mind when you talk in terms of safety. You just cannot. You can talk in terms of acceptable risk and that is about the size of it. The hormones were indeed banned for political reasons. That is entirely right. That is the function of politicians.
My view of the function of scientists— and I speak as someone who is to some extent still a practising scientist—is that it is to lay out the facts, and that is it. It is the function of politicians to make the decisions. We should all be very careful of scientists, acting as scientists, when they then begin to disguise themselves into the role of advocates. It is fair enough if scientists become advocates. Let it be known clearly that they are acting as advocates in those circumstances, not that they are disguised as scientists so that people are under the impression that they are scientists.
The angel dust is still a matter of great concern to me. We all have to be very alarmed at the fact that in the last few days the Minister has seen fit to call in some of the key executives in the meat factories and issue them with a warning and threaten them in hurling lingo—it must be coming from his old St. Flannan's days — when he told them they would be winded if they did not behave themselves because of the jolt they could expect.
Finally, it seems to me that most of the regulations in relation to food in this country are European-driven now. It is a pity that we are not up there taking the initiative rather than responding to European initiatives to improve our food regulations. We should be grabbing the initiative so that our image as a producer of green, wholesome food is second to none. Again, I thank the Minister and all the Senators who contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.