asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will initiate a public information service to ensure that consumers are fully informed of the situation in view of his public statement of 5 December l997 advising that beef on the bone should be withdrawn from sale following concerns about a possible link between bone marrow and nerve tissue and a new variant of CJD; the basis on which he offered his advice to the consumer; if he will initiate new research into this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Consumption of Beef on the Bone.
asked the Minister for Health and Children the scientific evidence, if any, he had prior to his statement in relation to the banning of the sale of beef on the bone; if so, if this evidence was of such a significant nature as to call into question the production and sale of this product in this country and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Health and Children the scientific basis upon which he recommended that consumers do not purchase and that butchers do not sell Irish beef on the bone; with whom he consulted prior to making this public recommendation; the degree of risk to consumers of contracting the new variant of CJD from Irish beef on the bone; and the approach it is intended to take on behalf of this State to this issue at the European Commission's Scientific Steering Committee meeting taking place this week.
asked the Minister for Health and Children the measures, if any, he will take to clarify the risk factor for consumers in view of his recent warning about beef sold on the bone; if he will lay down clear safety guidelines for producers and processors in this regard; whether he took advice from the Food Safety Authority in advance of his recent decision; if he will introduce the new Enfer BSE test as a matter of urgency in all beef processing plants; when he will place the Food Safety Authority on a statutory basis, as promised in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to reply to all four questions together.
On Wednesday last, 3 December, the United Kingdom Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — MAFF — received new advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee — SEAC — based on the findings of continuing research into BSE.
An experiment designed to re-check which parts of cattle may contain BSE infectivity has detected infectivity in nervous tissue called the dorsal root ganglia which lie within the bones of the spinal column and which would be left with the bone when meat is cut off the spine. The dorsal root ganglia are not currently covered by the specified bovine restriction — SRM — which ensures that all tissue in which infectivity is detected is removed from the human food chain.
Further new findings, still being evaluated, indicate that infectivity may also be found in bone marrow in cattle which are at a very late stage of the disease and are already showing clinical symptoms. Although, in its advice, SEAC emphasised that the risk to the consumer is very small, the United Kingdom Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decided to opt for the deboning of all beef, whether from home suppliers or imported, before sale to the consumer. He also decided that the bones should not be sold, given to consumers or used in the preparation of food.
As Minister for Health and Children, my primary concern and first priority in relation to food is to ensure that all food on sale to the consumer is of the highest standard of safety and is fit in all respects for human consumption.
Following the announcement of the United Kingdom measures in this area, I immediately sought independent advice to ascertain what implications, if any, this new information might have for Irish consumers. The scientific advice available to me as Minister for Health and Children includes that of the CJD Advisory Group, the Food Safety Advisory Board and the Interim Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The CJD Advisory Group was established in l996 to advise the Minister for Health on CJD-related matters including its surveillance, research strategies and international developments generally in this area. The group comprises experts in disciplines relevant to this subject, that is, neurology, neuro-pathology, public health, veterinary medicine and microbiology.
Having examined the information available in relation to the latest United Kingdom research, the CJD group made a number of recommendations to me which included agreement with the SEAC advice in relation to dorsal root ganglia and a recommendation that immediate arrangements be put in place to ensure that no meat with the backbone (vertebrae) be sold to the consumer; that the most practical way of ensuring this is to require it to be carried out at the retail level, for example, by butchers; that bones removed in this way should be disposed of as not fit for human consumption; that the issue be raised at Community level as a matter of urgency and that there is a need for further information, notably in relation to the findings on bone marrow, to allow more detailed consideration of this issue.
The microbiology sub-committee of the Food Safety Advisory Board will meet on Thursday next to examine the issue and I look forward to receiving its advice. The Food Safety Authority will also consider the matter.
The European Union Scientific Steering Committee, which met in Brussels yesterday, referred the new British evidence to a specialist sub-committee for consideration, whose deliberations will be closely monitored.
On the matter of the provision of public information, my Department operates a sophisticated food alert system which, as appropriate, rapidly disseminates information to health boards, producers, retailers and consumer organisations. I am satisfied that this system, which is part of an integrated EU-wide alert system, operates efficiently.
The Enfer BSE test is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food and I am sure my ministerial colleague, Deputy Joe Walsh, will give the matter due consideration.
Over the coming days and weeks I shall consider all the scientific advice available to me and review the position in the light of such.
I emphasise that my primary duty as Minister for Health and Children is the protection of public health and my main concern in dealing with this issue is to ensure that consumers are kept informed of any risk, however small, to food safety.
Would the Minister not agree that the fact that he made his statement to consumers and butchers in a very inadequate manner was not helpful and that since then there have been alternative opinions expressed by highly reputable experts? For example, would he not agree that Mr. McNulty or Miss Darina Allen have made statements which, if not casting doubt on the Minister's position, would certainly present a different view to the consumer and that this should lead him to consider that he needs to do more; that it is incumbent on him to undertake further examination rather than simply resort to existing structures and that it would be advisable for him to explain to our consumers precisely his reason for issuing that advice? What means are available to him of communicating with the public to ensure that the small risks involved are sufficiently explained? Would he elaborate for the benefit of the House on the actual position here and how it varies from the British experience? Does he agree that this type of information is the type our consumers are entitled to have available to them, rather than travel to the supermarket on a Friday evening——
Would Deputy McManus please bring her question to a conclusion?
Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether he was in a position on Friday evening last to go to the supermarket and discover that a normal part of the Irish diet was suddenly taken away and that our consumers were not given adequate information for the reason that was being done.
I shop locally in small grocery shops all over my constituency.
How often?
Often. I might be permitted to make a couple of comments in relation to this issue. I issued a press statement on Friday last, which comprised clear and simple precautionary advice. Deputy McManus has suggested that that statement was inadequate in some way. In my statement I pointed to the fact that the position here was totally different from that in the United Kingdom. I spoke about the much greater control mechanisms that obtain here, the banning of meat and bonemeal and the fact that we have a very low incidence of CJD compared with the United Kingdom. Any suggestion that I was in any way equating our position with that in the United Kingdom is wrong.
The second line of criticism was that I slavishly followed the UK position. It seemed to come as news to some of the people making this criticism that we have our own CJD expert group which advises me on these matters. Those two criticisms, therefore, simply do not stand up to scrutiny. The question of adequacy or inadequacy is a subjective test. My press statement is more than adequate. It sets out the position precisely in simple terms.
My primary responsibility is to public health matters and, as Minister for Health and Children, it is my duty to inform. We have come through an extremely traumatic experience in relation to a public health failure involving the blood system precisely because there was failure to inform. I believe in the commonsense of the public. My statement was measured, reasonable and rational. It was to the effect that if we can take any practical step to eliminate a potential risk, however small, we should take that step particularly — and this would not be a primary consideration as Minister for Health — when it does not involve any major inconvenience to the retail trade which is already selling meat in a boneless state to the tune of 95 per cent of its product. Those are the facts.
On risk assessment, it is true the risk in this case is extremely low. I never suggested otherwise, and any attempt to inject hype into this situation will not serve the interests of producers or consumers. I have simply given precautionary advice as a result of expert advice available to me. I have a duty to inform the public. I believe in the commonsense of the public and the public will react accordingly.
The Minister said he took advice and did not slavishly accept the view of the British scientists, but the expert advice available to him was only based on the information this body received by fax from the British. No animal in this State under five years of age has been found to have BSE, and the meat normally sold in butchers' shops is from animals under two years of age. Is it not true, therefore, that the expert group is not properly informed? British buyers of beef today refused to buy any more beef on the bone from this country and, as a result, the majority of factories are not killing cattle today. The industry is on its knees as a result of what the Minister said last Friday.
Can I answer the Deputy before he does any more harm?
I spoke to a number of factory owners today who informed me of this; I am telling the Minister what they said. Will the Minister inform the public that beef on the bone is safe to eat because all of the beef sold in Irish butcher shops is from animals under two years of age? Finally, in reply to Deputy McManus the Minister informed us the Minister for Agriculture and Food will deal with the new proposals concerning a BSE test. At its meeting today, did the Cabinet decide to take action on this and direct the Minister for Agriculture and Food to employ this test in factories around the country? Action must be taken because the industry is on its knees as a result of what the Minister said last Friday.
It is unfortunate when people are too predictable. I know Deputy Farrelly would like to put himself forward as the sole defender of farming interests. I represent farmers as much as the Deputy. I also recognise the importance they attach to the integrity of their product and the number of steps they are prepared to take, more than any other producers in the EU, to ensure the integrity of that product is maintained and upheld.
Deputy Farrelly made a statement, which is totally wrong, which suggests exports to Britain have been put at risk as a result of a precautionary advice I gave. He also made a mistake in suggesting the majority of beef exported to Britain is on the bone.
I did not.
He said factory owners are not killing cattle today because of what I said and that beef on the bone cannot be exported to the UK. Ninety five per cent of beef exported to the UK is boneless. I do not know where the Deputy is getting his information from but it is totally at variance with the facts. Deputy Farrelly also made the point that I should not mention this because the scientific finding was made in the UK. I remind the Deputy that the establishment of scientific fact is location neutral. When the apple fell on Isaac Newton, it did not matter whether it fell in Navan, County Meath or in Kent. The principle was the same; gravity was discovered.
Is the Minister happy now? This is a serious issue.
I am treating this matter with the same degree of seriousness Deputy Farrelly has obviously given it and am meeting it head on.
The Minister would know what it was like to be irresponsible in this House.
A master of the art.
The Minister, without interruption.
Despite the fact that it is only experimental evidence, the scientific basis for this issue confirms that infectivity can be lodged outside the spinal cord and within the vertebral column. That is a scientific fact which has become available as a result of this evidence. Regardless of whether that information came from China, the UK or Ireland, it is a matter that I, as a defender of public health, must take into account.
I went to these experts Deputy Farrelly regards as having no expertise. These people are neuro-pathologists, neurologists and public health experts who have some degree of expertise in CJD. One member of that committee is highly acclaimed world-wide for her knowledge of the emerging facts on this problem. I remind the Deputy that we are talking about a fatal disease. When such information becomes available, commonsense must prevail. We have simply given precautionary advice which does not attack the integrity of the beef product. The purpose of precautionary advice is to enhance the integrity of the beef product. Given that the level of inconvenience to the trade in meeting that precautionary advice is minimal, I do not understand the hoo-ha the Deputy is trying to create. The consumers are treating this matter with the degree of discernment one would expect from reasonable, rational people, unlike Deputy Farrelly.
It is a pity the Minister did not answer some of the questions I asked.
In accepting the Minister is right to approach the issue from the consumers' perspective and any health dangers involved, will he also acknowledge he has an obligation to make considered decisions and announcements on issues of food safety? In the context of the risk that is alleged to exist, will the Minister accept the statistic that there is a one in 600 million possibility of someone contracting new variant CJD through this suggested risk? If that is not the case, is the Minister in a position to indicate the extent of the risk in the context of providing consumers with the full comprehensive information to which they are entitled? Will he agree that simply saying there is a risk, but a small one, is not the appropriate way of dealing with the matter? Will the Minister accept one should not deal with a matter such as this by creating alarm and then trying to talk it down? Will the Minister clarify in simple terms if he is saying it is safe for people today to eat T-bone steaks or is he saying they are at risk? Will he agree he cannot sound a warning and then rubbish it by giving an interview to a newspaper during which he announces he would be quite happy to buy a T-bone steak? In the context of providing the information to which people are entitled, will the Minister clarify the nature of the risk and the degree to which consumers should take his pronouncement seriously when shopping for their families?
Yes, I believe the consumer should be informed. Irrespective of how minimal is the risk I have a duty to inform the public of it.
How minimal is it?
I am seeking to answer the Deputy's question. It is my view that it is not for me to be prescriptive as to what people should and should not know. If a matter, such as this, comes into the public domain, people have a right to know about it. That is the first principle. One can either dilute that principle or abide by it. Is the Deputy telling me that is a principle by which I should abide? He complimented me on it, but then he decided there are situations where perhaps I should not say anything and not cause alarm. He claimed the risk is 600 million to one.
The Minister should answer the question.
The Minister created a scare and he has some job to do now.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
What is the extent of the risk?
Deputy Shatter should allow the Minister to answer the question.
Deputy Shatter will not accept his logic from me. I gave the information because I believed it was relevant to the public and the consumer. I did not seek to cause alarm. The purpose of my precautionary advice was to do the exact opposite; it was to give the information so that people could assimilate it. The risk assessment made by the public confirms there is no cause for alarm, but when Deputy Shatter asks me to say what is the risk assessment I remind him that even experts in this field are learning about this disease and the possible transmission of BSE to CJD on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.
The Minister has access to all the experts.
Scientific knowledge is not complete on this matter, but the experts told me, based on what they knew and what had emerged, that was what they considered should be done. An expert committee advised me on that and, knowing what I do, I am prepared to back, to use Deputy Shatter's words, "a 600 million to one chance" by having a T-bone steak. My father was a butcher, I was virtually reared in a butcher's shop and I know all about it.
(Interruptions.)
As Minister for Health and Children I have responsibility to tell the public about this and they will make up their own minds on it. The risk is infinitesimal.
The Minister is the risk.
Thank you Deputy. We have a one man, Fine Gael, CJD expert committee on our hands.
The Minister is an expert on everything.
(Interruptions.)
What is the risk?
It is not in the interests of consumers or producers to make a political football out of this issue and we should resist the temptation to do that. Will the Minister clarify the role and responsibility of various State agencies on advising the consumer of the extent of the risk involved? Will he also clarify what measures he has put in place to ensure that information is given in an informed and calm manner to consumers? What is the role of the consumer liaison group in the Department of Agriculture and Food, appointed by the previous Government last March, in this regard? What is the role of the Food Safety Authority on advising people on this matter?
Regarding the Minister's advice to butchers to debone beef before offering it for sale, is he aware that several butchers continue to sell beef on the bone in spite of his advice? What measures does he intend to take to ensure there is proper monitoring and enforcement of his deboning advice? Why did the Minister choose to advise butchers rather than putting in place a system of close supervision of deboning in retail outlets or in meat plants?
I thank Deputy Shortall for her responsible approach, unlike others, to this matter. The reason this is precautionary advice is to take into account the risk assessment factors articulated by other Deputies as to what is the real danger. There is no imminent danger in so far as one can advise that, but one must make a specific point of view clear. I said, given that the potential risk is so low, I would advise as a precaution the practical step of taking out the bone, which would eliminate the risk, however small. That is practical advice that should be given, which need not and does not cause a major inconvenience and would deal with the matter on the basis of the knowledge we have at present. That is the reason I gave that advice. It would have been easy for me to do nothing about it.
It would have been the wisest thing for the Minister to do.
That is a matter of opinion, Deputy.
That is the Fine Gael position.
That type of approach has created public health disasters that we do not wish to revisit. The advice given was practical and precautionary. The monitoring that will take place will be carried out by the industry and the Department in the normal manner. I have not sought to be prescriptive at this stage in terms of, for example, amending food hygiene regulations. I do not believe the information available requires us to take that step, but the EU steering committee is examining this and we are seeking a harmonious approach to this on an EU wide level so that everybody will be in agreement as to what the approach should be. In the meantime I felt it incumbent on me to discharge my duty by doing what I did, which was not earth-shattering in any way, but was the least I should do in terms of informing the public.
The CJD expert committee advises me specifically on this area. The Food Safety Authority is another body that is meeting next week and will consider this matter. I take advice from those quarters as it emerges, but I felt, given that a scientific issue has been established in this matter, that apart from the brain and the spinal cord there is a prospect of infectivity in the vertebral column, that should be made known to the people, while understanding that the risk assessment was very low.
I will take three brief supplementary questions from Deputies Gormley, Finucane and Coveney and a final reply from the Minister.
I would like to ask a brief supplementary.
No, Deputy, we have spent 30 minutes on these Private Notice Questions.
I tabled one of the questions and I wish to ask a brief supplementary question.
If one of the Deputy's colleagues wishes to give way to him, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Coveney
I will give way to Deputy Shatter.
The Minister in his reply stated the need to take practical steps to protect public health. I agree that in his role as Minister for Health and Children that is something he should do, but is he aware that an Irish company has developed a test for BSE? Will he agree that there is a sense or urgency about this matter and that test must be introduced as soon as possible? Does the Minister share my concern that the Food Safety Authority has not been set up despite its establishment being announced 15 months ago?
Mr. Coveney
I want to press the Minister to clarify the position. I know this is a difficult matter. At the weekend I detected a different thrust in the approach of An Bord Bia from that of the Minister. Today I listened to a programme on RTE in which a vet from Wales, an Irish farmer and a representative from the Department of Agriculture and Food participated. The Welsh vet said that if Irish beef is so good and if BSE is such a very remote possibility why has the Irish Minister for Health seen fit to issue advice to Irish consumers not to eat Irish beef on the bone
I did not advise that.
The Welsh vet is not Fine Gael.
He is a first cousin; he is a Tory.
Will the Deputy please put a question to the Minister?
Mr. Coveney
I am simply trying to convey the fact that the Minister's actions have been used to create a perception in the UK that something is wrong with Irish beef when that is not the case. I would like the Minister to be more specific in the definition of the risk which exists which I believe to be infinitesimal.
I call on Deputy Finucane.
On a point of order, this is an issue on which various Members of the House validly wish to raise supplementary questions. I am not aware that there is a precedent in this House where a series of questions are taken to which the Minister subsequently responds. This is a matter of order and the normal approach is that a question is put to the Minister to which he responds and the next question raises a question. Otherwise, the Minister can pick and choose the nature of the answer he will give and which questions he will reply to. This is a matter of some seriousness and one which is of concern to many people outside of the House.
This is a new precedent and one which should not be allowed.
The Minister was offering to reply to Deputy Coveney's question and he should be allowed to do so.
I accept the seriousness of the question and for that reason I have allowed it to go on for more than half an hour in order to facilitate as many Deputies as possible. There have been precedents for this in the House during the past week; I have invited Members to ask questions and the relevant Minister to answer them.
It was never done when Fine Gael was in office.
The Minister should be entitled to respond to Deputy Coveney's question.
Deputy Gormley also asked a question. I will take Deputy Finucane's question now and the Minister will then respond.
When was it decided that a person who asks a private notice question is not called upon a second time to ask supplementaries?
Deputy Farrelly asked four supplementary questions. It is a question of time.
I was called upon twice. Three weeks ago in this House, individual Members were called upon to ask supplementary questions on three occasions.
We have spent some 35 minutes on the question and the matter is now at the discretion of the Chair. I call on Deputy Finucane.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister explained he was obliged to notify the public of this matter. Does he agree that the matter has been sensationalised? I heard a spokesman for the butchers' federation say there is serious alarm among the public. Surely the Minister was obliged to explain the overall context in which he was raising the matter.
As previous speakers pointed out Mr. John Pattison, chairman of the SEAC, said there was a "risk" involved in eating beef on the bone. If we are talking about risks, should we impose a ban on fish in case someone might swallow a bone and choke? Should people stop using cars or crossing the road because there is a risk involved? Should people not travel to Egypt or Sri Lanka? I believe that, as a result of the Minister's actions, this matter has been dramatised out of all proportions.
I could become comatose and join Fine Gael.
(Interruptions.)
There must have been a lot of bully beef in the Minister's father's butcher shop.
It was an attempt at humour.
It was a poor one.
The Minister certainly succeeded in deboning the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
Deputies, please allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
Has Deputy Flanagan concluded?
I always give way to a constituency colleague.
Deputy Coveney is not a naive politician. A Welsh vet misquoted me by saying that I was banning beef, which I am certainly not——
Mr. Coveney
Beef on the bone?
Quite clearly there are commercial interests involved in any criticisms which come from certain quarters. Let us not be naive about those who would attempt to sow confusion and let us not attempt to do likewise in this House.
On Deputy Gormley's comments about a test for BSE, that may have possibilities based on what I have heard. The test has been validated and discussions are continuing on it. It is a commercial issue for that company or group of persons to come forward with a test which would hopefully render this kind of discussion irrelevant. If we could get an absolute guarantee that the beef coming out of our processing factories was BSE-free, it would enjoy a premium price in many European markets. Clearly it is something we would like to encourage and see come to fruition if possible.
That concludes Question Time.
I have one brief supplementary question.
We must have order in the House. I refused Deputy Farrelly permission to ask a supplementary question. We must move on.
The Minister did not reply to the section of my question which asked what measures he intended to put in place to ensure that butchers complied with his advice. Does he intend to monitor that?
It will be monitored in the usual way. I do not intend at this stage, based on the information available to me, to seek to amend the food hygiene regulations which would require this to be done in all cases. I am advising butchers that we believe meat should be deboned. Butchers will be monitored in the usual way by the Department of Agriculture and Food. That is not the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children.