Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Nov 1999

Vol. 510 No. 3

Written Answers. - Pig and Poultry Production.

Deirdre Clune

Ceist:

175 Ms Clune asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the tests, if any, his Department use to ensure antibiotics used in the production of chicken and pork are correctly adhered to; the frequency and range of the tests; if he has satisfied himself that the necessary regulations are being adhered to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22455/99]

Deirdre Clune

Ceist:

176 Ms Clune asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the regulations controlling the use of antibiotics in the production of chicken and pigmeat; if these regulations allow for the presence of antibiotics in the meat available in shops; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22456/99]

Deirdre Clune

Ceist:

177 Ms Clune asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if his attention has been drawn to a study by the Western Health Board which claims that one in seven pork pieces and over a quarter of chicken on sale in shops could contain antibiotics; his views on whether this situation is satisfactory; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22457/99]

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Mr. Walsh)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 175 to 177, inclusive, together.

The use of antibiotics in pigs and poultry is regulated under EU and national legislation. Use for growth promotion purposes, which is provided for under EU Council Directive 70/524, is regulated in Ireland under the European Communities (Additives in Feedingstuffs) Regulations 1989-1997. Therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals is governed at EU level by a body of legislation, in particular, Council Directive 81/851 and Council Regulation 2377/90, which are transposed into Irish legislation by means of the Animal Remedies Regulations, 1996, and the Control of Animal Remedies and their Residues Regulations, 1998.

There is a legal obligation on those selling animals for slaughter to ensure they do not contain illegal residues, including illegal residues of antibiotics. My Department operates an extensive national residue monitoring programme, covering all food-producing species and 16 residue groups, which involves testing approximately 100,000 samples, taken at primary processing plants, for illegal residues. The programme for 1999, which more than meets the sampling levels required by the EU legislation and is approved by the European Commission, includes provision for testing 16,000 porcine and 250 poultry samples for the presence of inhibitory substances, using the relevant testing procedure. In addition, under a special programme in conjunction with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, an additional 3,700 poultry samples are being tested for inhibitory substances over the next 12 months, as well as for the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

I am fully aware of the Western Health Board – WHB – study referred to, which relates to a sampling exercise undertaken by that body at retail level and which is outside the scope of my Department's controls. The results of the WHB study were, however, notified to my Department by the board. The Department was very concerned at the picture presented by the WHB figures, which was at variance with that presented by the Department's ongoing monitoring programmes. Over the past two years, the Department's testing programmes have not detected any antibiotic positives in the poultry sector and very low levels of positives, of less than 1% and declining, in the pig sector. In that context and so as to further establish the position at processing level in so far as poultry was concerned, my Department's proper and appropriate response to receipt of the WHB retail test results was to commission special, additional sampling, with the samples being tested at an independent, commercial laboratory. The results confirmed the Department's earlier findings that there was no evidence of an antibiotic residue problem as far as poultry slaughtered in Irish poultry slaughter plants were concerned. As part of its follow-up to receipt of the WHB figures, my Department facilitated exchange of technical information between the laboratories concerned and also participated in a collaborative study organised by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. These exercises have not definitively established the reasons for the differences in results as between the laboratories involved in the testing of the retail samples. It should be said, however, that my Department remains confident of the veracity of its sampling and testing procedures at processing level and will continue to maintain, as it has done for some time, comprehensive monitoring programmes at this level, the results of which are published as a matter of routine.

Great care must be taken when comparing results of samples sourced at different points of the production, distribution and retail chain and account should be taken of the fact that testing downstream in the chain is by definition more vulnerable to the effects of a greater range of extraneous influences than closer to or at the point of initial processing. It is not, for example, valid to represent the results of testing of retail samples as indicative of a particular situation at processing or production levels unless one has first identified and then eliminated the various possibilities for contamination of samples between the point of processing and when the product is displayed at retail level. Even where this is done, it will be self-evident that it is also necessary at the very outset to establish that all the sampled product was of Irish origin before any valid inferences about the state of the Irish poultry or pig sectors could be drawn from the results of tests carried out on retail samples.