Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Nov 1999

Vol. 510 No. 3

Written Answers. - Food Labelling.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

41 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if his attention has been drawn to the fact that cans, described as containing beef in juice produced at plant (details supplied) in Ireland and sold by retail in Clondalkin, County Dublin, at the beginning of October 1999 and marked inspected and passed his Department, did not in fact contain beef but 75 per cent water together with pork and chicken; if this canned substance was originally offered on the Russian market in 1994; if export refunds were paid or claimed on this canned substance; and the reason his Department inspected and passed it when it contained meat of a species other than bovine. [22394/99]

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

Samples of the cans referred to in the Deputy's question were analysed by the State Laboratory at the request of my Department. The analysis shows that the cans contain a total meat content of 46.6 per cent by weight. The laboratory has indicated that because of the method of preparation of this product which involves high pressure and temperature treatment it is not possible for it to determine which type of meat is predominant in the sample nor can it reliably determine the percentage meat by species in this cooked product. While there are other methodologies which can be used in the analysis of heat treated meat products, studies have shown that they cannot be reliably applied to the detection of bovine material in such products.

As to the question of water content in canned meat, additional water beyond that added in the initial process normally arises in the subsequent analysis of the final cooked product. This is due to the presence of water in the individual ingredients used, in particular the meat and fat ingredients.

The company has advised my Department that this product was produced for export to Russia. The production records presented to my Department in the context of its investigation into this matter indicate that in the period 1993-95 production exceeded the quantity that was actually exported to Russia. The company has also informed my Department that the cans located in Clondalkin were part of the production not exported to Russia.

Export refunds were paid to this company in the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 in respect of canned beef and pork products exported to Russia.

The inspections carried out by staff at my Department prior to and during the course of production of the canned product are those provided for under national food safety legislation, the objective of which is to ensure that the product is safe to eat. The product in question was produced in conformity with the relevant food safety requirements. Regulation of matters relating to the labelling, presentation, and advertising of food stuffs are primarily a matter for the office of the Director of Consumer Affairs.