asked the Minister for Health the action being taken by his Department to reduce the high levels of antibiotic and hormone residue in milk and meat products consumed in this country; and the exact nature of his Department's responsibilities in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Antibiotic and Hormone Residue in Milk.
6.
The Poisons Regulations, 1982, which came into operation on 1 March 1983, confine the sale of hormones and injectable antibiotics for animal use to pharmacies. Intra-mammary and non-injectable antibiotics may also be sold by certain outlets licensed by health boards, provided the sale is under the direction and control of a named pharmacist or veterinary inspector in the case of each outlet. These controls are supplementary to those operated under legislation administered by the Minister for Agriculture. That Minister has recently announced details of proposals to be introduced shortly for further controls which will, inter alia, restrict the sale of hormones and certain antibiotics to prescription-only sale.
The Food Advisory Committee will be submitting to me in the near future a report on antibiotic residues in food, which will recommend a wide range of further measures. I will have these recommendations examined in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and, where appropriate, they will be implemented as soon as possible.
The Department of Health have a general responsibility for the safety of foodstuffs, including milk and meat products. Sampling is carried out for this purpose by health boards at retail level and includes monitoring of milk for antibiotic residues. The need for further monitoring of milk and meat by health boards additional to arrangements being developed by the Department of Agriculture is being considered.
Arising out of the Minister's reply and the widespread alarm and concern arising from the recent reports about the level of antibiotics in liquid milk, how many individuals in each of the health board areas are involved in either testing or monitoring? Is there any intention of increasing the number of such individuals? What type of testing and monitoring are carried out, and how regularly?
I am reasonably satisfied that the existing arrangements for monitoring and sampling are comprehensive, depending on the resources available to the public authorities. I have not received any complaints that the monitoring system is inadequate. There are many aspects of this problem which I would be prepared to discuss with the Deputy, but this reply does not afford me the opportunity of greater elaboration.
Is the Minister genuinely satisfied that the action which he tells the House has been taken is sufficient to reassure the public about what is becoming an issue of some concern? Is he satisfied that he is doing everything possible, considering all the facts and figures which are available and which have come to before the House on other occasions?
The Food Advisory Committee of the Department were asked some time ago to undertake a very detailed analysis of the problem. They indicated that they would report by the end of the year. I brought considerable pressure on them — I thank them for the work they have done — and their report will be available in a week or so. I can assure the Deputy that there will be no delay. I am concerned that there will be no residues at all, but I am more concerned about hormone residues which can be particularly harmful. The general monitoring and control systems and the statutory powers and regulations available to me are quite extensive and are being implemented.
Would the Minister agree that there are residues in all the areas he mentioned, and that action to date has not managed to eliminate them? Would he comment on a report in a recent newspaper which mentioned that there was a Department of Agriculture report which suggested that the hormone residue in meat being exported could be 9 per cent? Has the Minister any information about that? I am not happy that the action being taken is sufficient to deal with the problem.
The main investigation has centred around the presence of antibiotic residues. I can assure the Deputy that I am keeping in very close touch with the Department of Agriculture on the question of hormone residues. As the Deputy knows, particularly in relation to meat exports, the Department of Agriculture exercise very considerable care and a very high level of inspection is carried out by that Department. The result of an analysis in 1982 and 1983 of the presence of hormones in meat for export indicated that no sample contained residues of hormones. To that extent, the picture is quite good, but domestic meat might be another issue.
If we were to investigate all that has been written about this subject in recent times, we would want a two or three day debate.
The same action should be taken for domestic meat, because our people are entitled to good meat.
Can the Minister explain why there are far greater controls in operation for meat that we export than exist for meat consumed here? Could he say why he does not see fit to afford the Irish consumer the same level of protection as we afford to consumers who buy our meat abroad? Could he further clarify the difference in responsibility in dealing with this area between his Department and the Department of Agriculture? It is my understanding that the Department of Agriculture have control over testing meat and milk products for export——
A question please, Deputy.
——but that the Department of Health have responsibility for domestically consumed meat and milk products? Is the problem of testing in the controls exercised by the Department of Health?
A great deal of concern has arisen because the regional health board public analysts analysed samples of food. They started the microbiological analysis of foodstuffs only during the past two years. Prior to that the work of the analyst was confined to the analysis of food for the presence of chemical additives, such as colouring, and other dangerous substances, such as arsenic and lead. Now, systems to monitor milk and milk products for hormone residues and meat and meat products for hormone and antibiotic residues are being developed by the regional analysts at present. A good deal of information has become available, but I can assure the Deputy that I am keeping a very close eye on the situation. As a former member of the Food Hygiene Advisory Committee I am taking a particular interest in this area, but there are ample statutory powers open to me at present.
Would the Minister agree that we have to depend on the creameries and meat processing plants to keep a careful watch on milk and meat and that it is in their interests to ensure that there is as little residue as possible in the milk and meat? Is it not a fact that the creameries and the meat plants impose very severe penalties on suppliers if their produce does not reach a certain standard? I ask that the Department carry out an in depth investigation into this subject in order to allay the fears of the public, because this type of scare could do a great deal of damage to the dairy industry.
As I indicated in previous questions, there was a high proportion of residues in the samples taken in the Western and Southern Health Board areas in 1982 and the early part of 1983, but there has been a major improvement in the last six months, largely as a result of the action taken by the health boards. There has been an improvement in the last six months, largely as result of the actions taken by the health boards. In the Dublin area, samples and analysts——
I am not going to allow any more questions, even though I indicated that I would.
I have not asked one question.
I am very sorry, Deputy Taylor. I have to use some little discretion here with a view to keeping things on the rails. This question could go on until 6 o'clock this evening if we had that long a Question Time. There are several Deputies asking to contribute. We have got through six questions now in 40 minutes.
Very good questions.
I cannot accept any responsibility for that. I have not asked a single question here.
The Deputy has a Question No. 8 which I would be anxious to get to. If I allow Deputy Taylor to ask a question, I would have to allow somebody else to do so also. Question No. 7.
Surely a Member of this House is entitled to ask one supplementary question when he comes in here?
That could be carried to absurdity. There are 166 Deputies in this House and if each one claimed the right to ask a question, where would the Chair be? I am sorry that Deputy Taylor has got caught on this. I am moving to the next question.
I am sorry that I cannot allow myself to be caught on this. Why should I be penalised when other Deputies coming in here are permitted to ask questions? Some ask very many questions. Am I not to be allowed to ask just one?
I have ruled on it. I am moving on to Question No. 7 now, rightly or wrongly.
I want to protest at the Chair's ruling. I do not see why I should be penalised when other Deputies are allowed to ask questions and supplementaries ad nauseam. I do not know why the Chair decides to penalise me. I have not asked a single question.
If the Deputy had been fortunate enough to get in at the beginning of the queue instead of at the end, he would have fared better.
Is the Ceann Comhairle's ruling to be, then, that those who bustle in and push ahead in a ruthless fashion are rewarded and those who take their turn in the normal manner are not?
That is not a fair description of supplementary questions.
The Deputy has asked his questions.
Not in a ruthless fashion.
While I can understand the Deputy's attitude, I would tell him to think about it and he will see that I am not being so unreasonable. Question No. 7. I am going to insist that questions be questions and not long statements before a question.
This is a very short answer.