Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 May 1991

Vol. 128 No. 12

Adjournment Matter. - Drugs Abuse in Beef Production.

Professor Raftery

I should like to thank the Minister for coming here to address the House on this very important topic. We are witnessing at present a tragedy in our economy. The beef industry which supplies 38 per cent of gross agricultural output and roughly 20 per cent of net national exports is about to self destruct because of the activities of a small number of people pedalling illegal drugs. Some farmers who are in dire straits financially are trying to make ends meet by taking a short term view and making a quick buck by using these drugs. The Minister and myself might disagree on a number of matters about hormones but we are absolutely agreed on the damage that the illegal use of drugs, and particularly "angel dust", is doing to the beef industry.

The confidence of beef consumers, not only in Ireland but across the Community, is dwindling. Beef consumption has reduced until we are almost at the point where we have slightly more than half the consumption per capita that they have of beef in the United States. If we had United States consumption figures we would have a deficit of beef in the Community, not the surplus of nearly 800,000 tonnes we have plus the dumping of Community beef at an enormous cost to the Community taxpayer on world markets. We have a dire situation on our hands. Some countries — and Ireland is making a fair effort at controlling the illegal use of drugs — particularly in southern Europe are making little or no effort.

How did we get into this dire situation? The history is that we had five safe products approved by every scientific body in the world, including approval by the committee set up by the European Commission under Professor Lamming. They were not only approved by the World Health Organisation but actually recommended to be licenced for sale to prevent the use of these illegal or dangerous substances which would arise on the black market. Of course, politicians in the European Parliament and, I regret to say, some kind of political influence in the Commission, totally ignored these warnings and the evidence they got from eminent scientists all over the world. The scientists were unanimous that the five products were safe and that they cut the cost of beef production by somewhere in the region of $150 per head. They were unanimous that the substances reduced the fat in beef and, therefore, made it better quality but, above all, they were unanimous that the ban the Commission were proposing could not be enforced feasibly. One gentleman giving evidence — Professor Karg from Munich — said we would need a policeman on every farm to enforce the ban.

It was admitted by the Commission subsequently that the decision was made for political and commerical reasons and not, as the general public thought, for consumer safety. Indeed, the scientists were absolutely unanimous that the ban was likely to increase the risk for the consumer rather than reduce risks. We alone in the world when every other major beef producer was allowing the use of these substances decided that we would not allow them. We have got ourselves into this mess through our own fault and if damage is now being done, and it is being done, the blame——

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

When the Senator said "we alone" does he mean the European Community?

Professor Raftery

The European Community alone amongst the major producers. I am sure, Minister, if it were left to Ireland we would not have introduced that crazy legislation.

We brought in this ban to satisfy forces, particularly the Greens in Germany, and we got ourselves into this mess. If damage is being done as it is then the fault rests in the first instance with the people who brought in the legislation. If people's health is being damaged, and there is evidence that some farmers have lost their lives as a result of inhaling this substance, then the blame must be laid at the door of the people concerned. I am selecting the Commission in this respect because politicians at least had to be aware of political influences. The civil servants in the Commission should have overlooked that sort of thing.

That leaves us with a hell of a mess and it has resulted in declining consumption, black market activity, severe damage to the beef industry, increased risks to both producers and consumers and, above all, it has made millionaires of the racketeers. Three years ago it was estimated that over 70 per cent of the drugs in Italy were off the black market and it is reckoned that the Mafia are making more money now out of hormones than out of cocaine.

In our country there is clear evidence that the IRA are the chief beneficiaries of this illegal racket. No words of mine could adequatley condemn the proctices now in vogue or the damage that is being done as a consequence but I do not see any easy solution. We are trying to do the impossible. This ban is somewhat similar to the prohibition in the United States and is giving rise to the same results, a black market, gangsters, crime and all that goes with it.

What should we be doing or what should our Minister be doing? He is trying his best by putting resources in but I have to tell him that the task confronting him is virtually an impossible one. One of my criticisms of this ban is that in addition to the damage being done it has deflected scarce resources which could be doing something valuable in the eradication of disease not only here but throuthout the Community. I refer to the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, of trichiniasis, of fowl pest, of rabies, of foot and mouth disease but we have a human made problem now gobbling up resources and thereby preventing us from taking proper action against real problems we have to continuously confront with diseases.

At Community level we have to face facts. It will not be feasible to enforce this ban in its entirely. The hormone directive needs to be amended to allow the use of natural occurring hormones. If the United States has over 90 per cent of their cattle treated with these hormones and have nearly twice the consumption of beef per head, who is to tell us we have better standards than the US or Japan who have a better record in health care than we have in the Community? Consumers who are prepared to pay a premium price for non-treated meat have to be catered for also. In other words, if we have consumers, and I am sure we have, who want non-treated meat, they must be catered for, can be catered for, in the same way as we cater for people who want organically produced food.

Farmers have to play a much more active role in helping the Minister and his agents to stamp out the use of illegal drugs. Farm leaders are making the right noises but I do not think farmers on the ground are as co-operative as they should be. The Minister must do more to help producers. It can hardly come as a surprise to him to hear that beef producers are losing money. The withdrawal of the hormones knocked nearly £100 per animal off their profits and now they are making losses or very little profit. Three years ago it cost the Community £250 for every animal produced, of which the farmer got 13 per cent. Now it costs the Community £500 per animal of which the farmer gets 5 per cent. There is something extraordinarily wrong there and I do not think the Minister is doing enough about it.

There is another aspect we have to look at. Beef farmers who are intensive beef producers are now caught in a trap. They cannot make money because of the loss of the growth promoters and they cannot afford to get out of beef production because of the cost in terms of the tax imposed upon them for de-stocking. In other words the Minister must be more flexible on this. If somebody gets rid of a couple of hundred thousand pounds worth of animals he may have no income at all and yet he could be presented with a huge tax bill. That has to be catered for by the Minister.

The Minister has a great deal of work to do in this area where Ireland more than any other country has a huge problem. We have to be realistic about it. There is no point having legislation that we cannot enforce. There is no point driving our farmers to be criminals. There is no point allowing the Mafia, the IRA and various other gangsters to make a fortune putting the consumers at risk, making paupers of the farmers and destroying the beef industry in the Community.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I welcome the opportunity to reiterate my views on this issue. My views on the illegal use of veterinary medicines are well known and I have outlined them to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a number of occasions. We are all aware of the attention which the use of hormones, antibiotics, and particularly the beta-agonists have received of late. This attention arises in the main from a growing awareness among consumers. They are, rightly in my view, demanding assurances that the food they purchase does not contain residues of these and other contaminants and has not been derived from animals which have been treated with illegal substances. I have said many times that the consumer is the farmers' best friend. In my view the consumer is the farmers' only friend, and what the consumer wants the consumer must get. It is particularly important that a country like Ireland which is so dependent on food exports should be able to give these assurances to both domestic consumers and customers abroad. There may well be arguments that economic pressures force farmers into using these substances or that certain types of hormones are not harmful. However, if the consumer does not want the final produce, then that is the end of the argument.

I have introduced a range of measures to tackle the illegal use of veterinary medicines. In September 1988 I introduced measures of unprecedented severity to prohibit the manufacture, importation, possession, sale or use of hormonal substances. In July 1990 I introduced legislation to extend these provisions to all illegal veterinary medicines. I took this action because I was aware that certain substances could be used as an alternative to hormone growth promoters which had been banned in 1987 by the Council of Ministers on the proposal of the Commission as Senator Raftery, has said — incidentially, before I became a member of the Council — and I inherited a fact that this was now a binding and legal regulation from the Council. On that basis I had no option but to adhere to the law and, if necessary, to make a virtue of it. I wanted to ensure that no apparent loophole of this nature would encourage or facilitate a drift towards the use of illegal substances. I need no convincing on the need to tackle and eliminate the problem or of the risk it poses to our meat industry if it gets out of hand, and I agree with what Senator Raftery said.

The measures I have taken are more comprehensive and stringent than those applicable in any other EC member state.

Professor Raftery

Agreed.

Mr. O'Kennedy

They comply with the views of the European Parliament which passed resolutions calling on the Commission to extend hormone type controls to the use of all illegal growth promoting substances. I agree with Senator Raftery that we are dealing with a much more insidious element than hormone growth promoters. I have called repeatedly at Council of Ministers' meetings for a harmonised approach, and I want other member states to introduce measures as stringent as those I have introduced here. I am glad to put on the record for the first time, that the Commissioner for Agriculture has in recent days indicated that he proposes to take these measures on board in the European Community.

Our legislation now provides the following measures: a total prohibition on the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of prohibited substances; a ban on the use of prohibited substances in farm animals and the sale or processing of meat derived from an animal so treated with prohibited substances; powers for authorised officers to stop any vehicle going into any land or premises and search for or examine or test any animals, meat or meat product or anything believed to be a prohibited substance; search warrants to be obtained by authorised officers; the locking up of herds and meat pending further investigation and surrender of identity cards, and condemnation of meat or meat products containing residues. This is strong legislation by any standards. To ensure observance of the regulations I have stringent enforcement measures in place and over 400 officers are authorised to enforce them. Veterinary inspectors at slaughtering facilities are empowered, on suspicion, to detain and take a sample from any animal or of meat and if the use of illegal substances is confirmed to condemn such animals or meat.

It should be recognised that we have a uniquely comprehensive meat inspection service. Last November I launched an intensive campaign to counteract any drift towards the use of beta-agonists. I assembled a special team of officers to devote their full time attention to this duty and to carry out on-farm inspections. I think I will have the agreement of this House if I ask specifically that we no longer use the euphemism "angel dust". If we are to use any term let us describe it for what it is — demon dust, devil dust, but certainly not angel dust.

So far 100 herds have been tested and results to date have shown that 17 herd owners will be prosecuted. The activities of the squad have been broadened to deal with the use of all illegal growth promoters and to cover vanmen, retail outlets, and other distribution points as well as farmers. To date 26 raids of this kind have taken place. There have been some notable successes in seizures of illegal substances and I believe we are making good progress in disrupting the supply of these substances. This campaign will be continued. At present there is a strong body of legislation and resources are being devoted on the ground to enforcement. Again I agree with Senator Raftery, I wish it were not so and that we could use those resources for more positive effect, but I am determined to go ahead with this measure. Liaison between Customs and Excise officers and the Garda Síochána has been strengthened and is working well. While the legislation is strong, very soon I will introduce further legislation to make all members of the Garda Síochána fully authorised officers and to give them additional powers to investigate suspected breaches of the regulations.

Regulations are also at an advanced stage of preparation to require all sellers of veterinary medicines to be licensed and thus completely outlaw sales by vanmen. I will introduce legislation also to make offences in this area indictable and thereby make penalties even more prohibitive.

It is ironic that this action I have taken has generated adverse reaction in the foreign media particularly and that we do not appear to be getting credit for tackling the problem head on. In other words, our actions are sometimes distorted and misrepresented as evidence that there is a problem here on the ground that does not exist elsewhere, which, of course, is blatantly untrue. The reality is that we have reacted quickly to the appearance of these new substances and tests have been developed and perfected. Laboratory facilities have been made available and I intend to persist with this effort. We are continuously improving our tests and work is in progress on developing further tests.

The fact that we have only found a small number of proven abuses out of specially targeted herds indicates that any problems we have are less than has been suggested in public. Responsibility for this problem should be laid firmly where it belongs. It rests with those unscrupulous people who want to make a quick buck from the importation and distribution of these substances. It rests with those farmers who are so greedy and foolish as to think that somehow these substances will make beef production more profitable. Ultimately, it is their own industry and their own livelihood which they are playing with. There is only so much that any Minister or any Department can do in terms of enforcement and prevention. I am prepared to take my powers to the very limit. However, I need the active support of the beef industry generally in getting on top of this problem and I know that the representative organisations condemn the use of these substances.

In my view it is time for the industry, and the farming community generally, to work more actively against their use. There is no reason why any farmer found to be using these illegal substances should be allowed to retain his membership of any bona fide farming organisation and the same would apply in respect of any sector of the beef industry whose buyers or otherwise were found to be using this. I call upon all sectors of the industry not only to isolate but to ostracise from any contact with the rest people who are using these illegal substances.

There is a myth — I have to say this because Senator Raftery has made this point — that if we allow the use of hormones, though that is against the European law and we have to face the reality, we would not have the problems we face today. This argument must be rejected as nonsense because the European Community directive banning hormones was adopted in response to concern on the part of the public. Senator Raftery can say the Commission should not have reacted to that, but if he listens to the views of the German and Dutch consumers and their Ministers expressed even after the implementation of the ban, he would recognise that other element having regard to the fact that it is necessary for a country such as ours which is dependent on food exports to be in a position to give those assurances.

One of the strongest selling points of our beef is its image as a wholesome, natural food product. It is up to us to capitalise on the fact that we can offer such a product and derive a trading advantage from it. Our ban on the use of hormones is a measure which faces up to the facts of marketing. Those who object and protest are ignoring the reality of the market place, but the problem of illegal use of growth promoters does not need legislation to cure it. It is a problem which can be eliminated overnight if the will is there. If those in the beef industry who would use or advocate the use of these substances would accept that there is only one future for the industry — the path of quality — and have nothing more to do with those substances, then the problem is solved now.

Professor Raftery

This is an important topic and I thank the Minister for his contribution. If the consumer has not got the choice, then the Minister has no way of knowing what the consumer wants. The British Consumers' Association do not agree with the ban. I have a paper, and I can produce a copy of it, to prove the point. The Danish Minister for Agriculture who was in the Council of Ministers at the time said it was a mistake and it should have been changed. The former President of BEUC, Mrs. Spederfeldt, whom I have spoken to, has now changed her mind and said that it is a problem and we will have to deal with it as it is dealt with in the US.

There is one further point which is going to cause problems. Farmers found to be in possession of animals that have been treated may well have bought them not knowing that they had been treated. How are we to deal with that?

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is a matter for the legal process. It is a matter that legal procedures will allow, if a person can clearly demonstrate that he did not know. I am not going to anticipate this. If he was not aware at any time or did not have the necessary mens rea, guilty intent, then I imagine that matter can be dealt with in law. As far as the consumer is concerned, our strongest selling point in the markets when there is a downturn in the consumption of beef is that nobody can produce a grass-based product in a natural process to compete with us. That commands a premium price for our produce in Germany, Holland and other countries. That is the strength we have to play to.

Professor Raftery

Would the Minister give him a choice?

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is not for me. The law is there on a European basis. It is not a valid argument that if one substance is illegal under European law that is somehow an explanation for introducing an even more insidious substance. I could not allow that that should be the standard which would be applied in the most important sector in our economy. There are no orders of illegality. What is illegal is illegal.

Professor Raftery

I know.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If the Commission decide to introduce proposals to change the ban on hormones, then that is an issue we can address at the Council of Ministers. Until such time as that is done, what is illegal is illegal and we must adhere to that. I do not want any notion to get across that that is the only reason farmers or the beef industry are forced to use this insidious drug in the manner in which it is being used.

I look forward to very early and effective action in the legal procedures and I want to assure the House that I will continue to do all possible in the face of what I acknowledge to be a very difficult task. The people who have the answer are those who are promoting it, selling it, using it and encouraging its use. It is not a virus, it is not a BSE; it is a deliberate decision on the part of unscrupulous people who care not a damn for the interests of this industry or for the economy.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.50 p.m. until 12 noon on Friday, 3 May 1991.