I move:
That Dáil Éireann–
recognising:
–the importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy both in terms of sustaining farm families and in contributing very significantly to the Irish export market;
–the need to continue the expansion and development of this key sector;
–the health benefits associated with grass fed Irish beef if included in a balanced diet;
noting:
–that BSE in animals has been conclusively linked to vCJD in humans;
–that the number of cases of BSE in Ireland continues to rise;
–that the safety of food for human consumption is a priority;
–that there is a lack of adequate facilities for disposal of BSE-infected animals;
calls on the Government to protect the integrity of Irish beef production and to ensure that instances of BSE and vCJD are minimised by implementing the following:
–compensate families of victims of vCJD;
–establish a trust for any future victims;
–introduce legislation to prevent the feeding of animal ruminant protein to any animals, including non-ruminants;
–undertake testing of all cattle intended for slaughter, for BSE;
–provide adequate and appropriate disposal facilities of BSE-infected animals;
–ensure that research into vCJD is adequately funded;
–carry out research to establish if sheep with scrapie-like symptoms are harbouring BSE;
–provide adequate education and training programmes for farmers, veterinarians, slaughter-house workers and butchers;
–undertake the communication of risk to the public and to assist in the interpretation of any information given.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Gilmore.
The importance of the beef industry to the economy cannot be understated. Beef accounts for well over 50% of our agricultural output and makes up 90% of total agricultural exports. Nowhere else in Europe does beef production form such a vital element of agricultural activity. The fact that Irish beef is accepted throughout the world is a testament to the quality of our produce. No other beef producing nation in the world has the optimum conditions which exist for rearing quality, grass fed beef. The naturally suitable environment which exists here for beef production gives Irish producers a special place in the beef market. The low fat and high nutritional content of Irish beef, which was recently vindicated by Teagasc following its research work at Grange, is something of which the farming community can be proud.
However, in the past two weeks since BSE re-entered the headlines throughout Europe, Irish beef has been served a blow. In less than 14 days, cattle prices have fallen by over 10p a lb. The IFA estimates that already £500 million has been wiped off the Irish cattle herd. In the interest of cattle farmers, Ireland must lead the way in terms of minimising the risk of BSE contamination in our beef.
The decision by the Government to table an amendment to the motion tabled by the Labour Party is disappointing. The Government's amendment fails to address all the issues around BSE and vCJD. The amendment is vague. It does little to ensure consumer confidence in our beef and it excludes some crucial matters, such as the disposal of infected cattle. It is my view that the House should not have to vote on a proposal to support "the policy of keeping the matter under review in light of the scientific developments". Developments in BSE should be kept under review as a matter of course in the Department. It should not take a motion to ensure this happens.
A culture of secrecy and paternalism has dominated much of Irish politics. This culture is manifested again in the manner of the release of the figures on BSE cases in cattle in Ireland. Initially, figures were released on a daily basis as cases of BSE came to the fore. Subsequently, as the number of cases increased, it became standard practice for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to release these figures on the last Friday of every month. However, suddenly and without any explanation, the new release date has been changed.
I expected to have the latest figures on BSE for this debate, but I have just learned that the figures will not be put into the public domain until next Friday. Whatever the reason, in a week that BSE has been in the headlines in almost every country in Europe, it is a bad call to alter the publication date of the number of BSE cases. This culture of secrecy and paternalism has bred the fear and suspicion that we now suffer from as far as BSE is concerned. Whatever the figures for the month of November, we know for sure that the numbers so far this year are the highest recorded to date.
Lord Phillips, who chaired the BSE inquiry in the UK, said:
Ministers, officials and scientific advisory committees alike were all apprehensive that the public would react irrationally to BSE. As each additional piece of data became available, the fear was that it would cause disproportionate alarm, would be seized upon by the media and by dissident scientists as demonstrating that BSE was a danger to humans, and would lead to a food scare.
With hindsight, a monster had been created by the culture of secrecy and paternalism. People do not need facile reassurances; they need information and the chance to make up their own minds based on facts. This requires that governments and the public alike become comfortable with the concept of risk and uncertainty. It also presupposes that the delivery of the information is not couched in unintelligible scientific jargon. What is needed is the confidence to debate and to agree or disagree. Politicians must be confident enough to say we do not know; these are the facts that we have at present.
The stakeholders, that is, the consumer and the industry, require openness and transparency. The public must be able to see and, if necessary, participate in the decision making process. This can be done by, for example, inviting consumers to join advisory committees. It should no longer be acceptable to have the token consumer representative. After all, the consumer is by far the most important, as well as numerically the most significant, stakeholder in the food safety business. Advisory committees can no longer be stuffed with the believer – scientific or political. The layman, the doubting layman and the sceptical scientist must be allowed to participate in a meaningful way.
Experts from outside the country, free of any local baggage or interests, must be appointed to relevant committees. Authorities charged with responsibility for ensuring food safety should make their committee meetings open to the public. If the public can attend a county council meeting or sit in the Visitors Gallery in Dáil Éireann, why can they not attend a meeting where decisions are made in relation to food safety? People should be allowed to see how we do our business and the process through which decisions are reached.
The implications of the BSE scare are enormous for food safety and agriculture not only in Ireland but in every country where BSE is known to occur. In the UK to date, it has taken 16 volumes, two and a half years and £27 million to assess the BSE scandal. This figure does not include the cost to the economy of approximately £4 billion in cattle loss or the ongoing cost of cases of vCJD. The whole drama of BSE in the UK had a cast of hundreds of civil servants, poli ticians and scientists. It wove its turgid way through many twists and turns of a decade of the most extraordinary policy making. The report is vast but there is one simple message from it – that the culture of secrecy and paternalism makes bad government, bad science and destroys confidence and credibility. Restoring that credibility is the task ahead for governments and scientists everywhere.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in cattle manifests itself as a disease in humans known as vCJD. In cattle, BSE is a progressive and invariably fatal degeneration of the central nervous system. In vCJD, the typical symptoms are early onset. Behavioural disturbances are common and they are followed by difficulty with balance and walking within weeks or months. Finally, dementia sets in, leading to profound confusion, disorientation and memory loss. The average survival time is approximately 18 months. The disease in humans is horrific and the loss to the beef industry is huge. As far as we know, all this results from the feeding of ruminant meat and bone meal to cattle.
Central to the argument on BSE is the importance of meat and bone meal in the spread of the disease. Scientists have warned that BSE transmission through feed is a complex, poorly understood subject. Some animals can eat large amounts of suspect feed and not catch the disease. Others might succumb to exposure to tiny amounts of infected feed. If the meat and bone theory is correct, as is believed by most scientists, there should be a decline in the number of cases of BSE over the next few years. If, however, BSE begins to appear in animals under three years old, there is a major problem.
It is the most widely accepted theory that meat and bone meal was the vehicle for the transmission of the infective prion that caused BSE in cattle. The ease with which BSE infects other species has varied greatly but it is known beyond doubt that BSE can cross the species barrier. It is astounding, therefore, that meat and bone meal is still permitted in this country as feed for pigs. While there is no official ban on its use in poultry meal, that industry has introduced and agreed a voluntary ban. However, it is still permitted for pig feed and 18 people have obtained licences for its use.
The compelling evidence that meat and bone meal was the vehicle for BSE in the first place, combined with the fact that avoidance of cross-contamination of ration intended for ruminants is difficult to avoid, is more than enough to insist on an immediate ban on the use of any animal material as animal feed. Permitting the use of meat and bone meal in pig feed is an invitation to fraudulent or accidental cross-over use by farmers. Public health must take precedence over economic considerations in this case. There is no margin for error in dealing with BSE or new variant CJD.
The Phillips report in the UK noted there were delays in taking decisions and, more importantly, a lack of rigour in implementing them, specifically that the monitoring and regulation of slaughterhouses and rendering firms was considered to be lax. Based on this kind of acknowledgement, it is extremely important that the continuing use of meat and bonemeal in any animal feed is recognised for the potential risk it poses. It would be extremely arrogant and cavalier to ignore the lessons of the UK, as far as BSE is concerned.
The pigmeat quality assurance scheme of Bord Bia requires that, among other conditions, the pig producer must, "purchase feed free of meat and bonemeal and with full traceability and declaration of ingredients, as per the Marketing of Foodstuffs (Amendment) Regulations, SI No. 261 of 1993".
For quality to have any meaning in this context, we should be certain that all pig products with this quality mark are derived from animals guaranteed to have been fed on a diet free of meat and bonemeal. At present 18 pig farmers are licensed to hold meat and bonemeal on their premises. Our major export market in the UK requires that pigmeat for sale there is derived from animals fed on a diet free of meat and bonemeal.
The pigmeat quality assurance scheme operated by Bord Bia should not apply to any pig farms that have a licence to feed meat and bonemeal. Furthermore, any Irish meat factories that wish to use the quality assurance label on their produce must be able to prove they do not source pigs from farms that have a licence for meat and bonemeal.
In France, there is mounting evidence that the reason for the increase in the number of cases of BSE lies with the government's refusal to impose a ban on the use of cattle remains in all kinds of animal feed. The French have now banned meat and bonemeal in pig feed, but they have pointed out that the ban is pointless if meat and bonemeal pig meat from other countries is allowed into the country from other sources. In the UK, the pig industry is equally concerned that only pigmeat from animals that can be shown to be free of meat and bonemeal diets will be acceptable.
Banning meat and bonemeal in one European country is pointless unless the ban extends across all countries because of the way in which pigs may be traded across national boundaries. To assure the consumer and the industry, a Europe-wide ban on meat and bonemeal in any animal feed should be introduced.
Experimental results available in 1990 showed that just half a gram of infected meat and bonemeal could cause BSE in a cow. Cross contamination should have been recognised as a problem at that stage. The Phillips report in the UK states that a cow can become infected with BSE as a result of eating an amount of infectious tissue as small as a peppercorn. Cross contamination in feed mills resulted in the continued infection of thousands of cattle.
Despite detailed licensing recommendations here, it is difficult to take on board that the type of controls that are outlined could be effectively enforced. Apart from any other consideration, the policing of the process is next to impossible.
However, a quote from the advisory committee established in 1996 might help to give a perspective on it. In the understated way of committees, it was noted that, "In view of the emergence of BSE, it would be wise to assess the risk to both animals and humans of recycling of mammalian derived protein between species". That was the view of the advisory committee, reporting to the Minister, in 1999. I await the implementation of that understated recommendation for the protection of the consumer, to prevent cross-over contamination to cattle feed and to protect the pig industry.
Power struggles and turf wars between different Departments and their officials must not be allowed to influence the process of ensuring safety. It is neither reasonable nor sensible that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should have any responsibility for food safety. Responsibility for food safety should become the preserve of the Department of Health and Children. Where trade interests and safety are controlled, however tenuously, within the same Department, it puts an impossible burden on that Department to be impartial. Whatever changes are necessary should be introduced to ensure there are no loopholes whereby the health of the population can be put at risk because of interdepartmental power struggles.
The human form of BSE, that is, new variant CJD, is complex and poorly understood. The average incubation periods for both BSE and CJD are unknown, but most scientific findings point to an average of ten years. It has been suggested that people may develop new variant CJD up to 40 years after eating infected meat. Further research on a similar disease indicates that the mean incubation period in people is 30 years or more. If the numbers of new variant CJD double for just a few years in the UK, then the numbers could be in the thousands.
Against this background, any compensation packages in place must be considered very carefully. So far, this country has recorded one case of new variant CJD. However, the reality is that it is almost inevitable that more cases will emerge with time. We know that BSE is present in the animal population. We are also told that one animal could potentially contaminate 400,000 people. In that case, it is almost sure that more cases of new variant CJD will be diagnosed.
It was originally assumed that new variant CJD affected young persons only. The recent incident in the UK, where a 74 year old man died of new variant CJD, has introduced a new dimension to the risks associated with BSE.
I have asked that compensation for victims of CJD be made available. It is impossible to predict the numbers of CJD cases that might emerge over time but, whatever those numbers, there should be compensation arrangements for the families of victims. Furthermore, there should be a trust set up to guard against large numbers of CJD cases emerging over a number of years, so that the families of those people who are unfortunate enough to become victims have the reassurance, at least, of some financial support.
In recent days, a number of proposals and restrictions have been introduced to monitor cattle for the development of BSE. Up to now, it was only those cattle that displayed the obvious symptoms that were tested. It is now proposed at EU level that random testing of all cattle over 30 months should take place.
This does not go far enough. Assuring the safety of our food is the first consideration. From a trading point of view, it should also be included as a protection for purposes of our export market. A full testing programme would help to restore confidence in the cattle industry and reassure importing countries that best practice was being enforced for Irish beef.
While no test is 100% reliable, the ENFER test that is available is validated by the EU. It would introduce a level of confidence for both the consumer and the producer. The ENFER test is now widely used in many countries. It will detect BSE in cattle where the typical spongiform symptoms have not yet appeared. It provides the best current assurances in relation to the safety of beef, as far as BSE is concerned. I welcome the support by the IFA for a full testing programme. I was pleased to see that yesterday the Minister recommended full testing, which I proposed last week during an adjournment debate.
It is amazing there should be any resistance to the concept of full testing for BSE. It is standard practice to carry out thousands of tests daily on meat samples for the presence of a large number of bacteria, for example. Many of these tests are very expensive and time consuming to carry out, but they are now routine and provide a level of assurance about the safety of the product. The ENFER test provides a result within 24 hours, thus giving the best available assurances to the consumer in relation to BSE.
It is important, however, to be conscious that increased testing will almost inevitably lead to the detection of more positive cases of BSE. It is better that we should know the real situation and not continue to live in cloud cuckoo land, pretending that we have BSE free cattle when we are not doing the test to find out their status.
Testing of all animals is very welcome. I endorse the Minister's support of that yesterday. Commissioner Byrne, however, was quite correct when he stated that no country can guarantee their meat is free of BSE. The natural limitations of any test preclude such conclusions.
The lessons of the UK should act as a reminder to us that making such assertions is highly dangerous. The British minister for agriculture stated in 1990 that British beef was perfectly safe. Certain actions were taken in the UK, following from which the minister stated that "These actions fully protect the public from what is a remote and theoretical risk". In this case, the overt message of certainty went beyond the scientific evidence.
Against that background, this country should endeavour to put in place the most rigorous tests and controls available, but should acknowledge that absolute safety can never be guaranteed and that one can never prove a negative. To date there is no satisfactory disposal method for carcasses that are infected with BSE. The report of the advisory committee on BSE, which was established under the last Administration to consider the then BSE crisis, advised against burying carcasses. Nevertheless, this became common practice and would most likely have continued but for the recent incident where a carcass was discovered and removed from the burial site. The alternative arrangements now in place are unsatisfactory as the carcasses remain in cold storage. This cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. It does not get rid of the material but stores it to be dealt with later. While there is resistance to incineration in this country, the Minister must look to the best available technology for the safe and satisfactory disposal of the carcasses.
There is a theoretical possibility that BSE is present in sheep, although it has not been found occurring naturally. Current research to look for BSE in sheep is costly and slow. There is, therefore, a need to develop a rapid test so that large numbers of sheep can be tested to reduce the uncertainty of whether or not BSE occurs
It is feared that scrapie might mask the symptoms of BSE in sheep. Unlike in cattle, BSE in sheep is not confined to specific organs and tissue, such as the brain and spinal cord. Sheep with BSE would have to be destroyed and no part of their carcasses allowed into the food chain. At present, the potentially most infective tissues are removed and not used.
Perhaps more than any other area of food safety, BSE is characterised by scientific uncertainty. This uncertainty means that current risk management options for protecting the health of the public are precautionary in nature and are aimed at risk reduction in the light of current knowledge, recognising that risks may not be totally eliminated. For this reason alone, this country must not be stingy in the funding of research into BSE. There are many areas in need of research, including the development of a method to detect people incubating the new variant CJD; the risk, if any, from blood transfusions; further studies on sub-clinical forms of BSE to determine if apparently healthy animals may be harbouring the infection; development of a diagnostic kit for screening of live animals; rapid differentiation of BSE and scrapie strains and tests to determine the risk, if any, from milk.
The cattle trade in Ireland must be protected and our export market must, as far as possible, be supported. So many people depend on agriculture for a living that it is crucial that all efforts are made to retain the confidence of the importing countries. Equal care and consider ation must be given to the home market and to our imports.
For reasons of protecting the health of the Irish consumer, the most rigid controls must be in place to ensure the safety and integrity of any foods imported into Ireland. Has it been clarified, for example, that all beef imports from the UK over the past ten years have originated there? What controls are in place and what auditing procedures exist to guarantee the safety of imports? Recent figures from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development show that Ireland imported 34,500 tonnes of beef from the UK in 1995. Do all of these products show the country of origin, so that we know that the product came from a country where BSE had not been reported as required?
Will the Minister outline the tests are carried out, the audits available and the documented evidence to ensure that all imports have met the required standard? In the absence of a declaration of the country of origin on the packaging, it is asking consumers to make a great act of faith if they are to trust imported products for the future. In light of what we now know about developments in Germany, for example, it is important that we pay more attention to our imports. Up to very recently, Germany did not have a ban on SRM, or specified risk material, in foods for human consumption.
In the light of an EU report on Border inspection posts in Ireland, published in February of this year, it is clear there are many gaps and loopholes in the way business is conducted in this country as far as food safety is concerned. The report highlighted an alarming number of deficiencies in the regulation of imports at Border inspection posts. More recently, the detection in Northern Ireland of spinal cord in beef carcasses originating in Ireland, provided evidence of serious breaches of the legal controls.
A number of key questions remain unanswered in relation to BSE and CJD. It is not clear why CJD attacks predominantly young people. One explanation is that they eat disproportionately more beefburgers, some of which may have contained high risk material. It is possible that because young people suffer more frequently from illness such as tonsillitis, they are more prone to transmission through broken skin or mucous membranes. Estimates of the size of the epidemic in the UK, for example, have shown that it is impossible to gauge the extent of the problem. Not enough is known about dose, route of exposure, incubation period, genetic susceptibility, and scale of species barrier between cattle and humans.
The origins of BSE remain a mystery. We may never know how it first developed. The best guess is that a sporadic form of the disease probably occurred in the 1970s through some kind of freak genetic dysfunction. These and many other questions remain to be answered about BSE and the human new variant CJD form.
It must be recognised that a number of the decisions taken in relation to the management of BSE in Ireland were good. Slaughtering an entire herd where one infected animal was detected was a very positive move and it may have helped to contain the development of the disease. Introducing the 30 month rule was also a positive move.
However, among the recommendations made by the advisory committee that reported in 1999 were that burial of BSE animals on farms should cease; effective incineration facilities for carcasses of BSE suspects should be provided as a matter of priority; the efficient removal of tissues designated as SRMs from the animal food chain is essential; effective controls should be in place and proof of implementation should be available and constantly reviewed and a full-time epidemiologist with appropriate support staff should be appointed to evaluate all aspects of the epidemiology of BSE in Ireland. Some at least of these recommendations are not in place. I call on the Minister to ensure the full implementation of these and other recommendations made by the committee.
With the advent of and the escalation of BSE many of the old certainties about food safety have been demolished. Survival of an infective agent under extreme conditions, infectivity by an agent devoid of any genetic material and crossing of the species barrier by the infective agent are just some of the new facts that we have had to come to terms with. More significantly, perhaps, is the fact that the concept of risk and uncertainty are part and parcel of food safety and that this must be communicated to the farmer, meat processor and consumer alike. Most significant of all is the fact that public health is more important than any short-term economic considerations.
In 1988 a middle ranking civil servant in the Ministry of Agriculture in the UK noted:
We do not know where this disease came from, we do not know how it is spread, and we do not know whether it can be passed to humans. The last point seems to me to be the most worrying. There is no evidence that people can be infected but we cannot say that there is no risk.
However, for the next eight years expert committees, UK Ministers and civil servants, including two chief medical officers, reassured the public that there was no risk in eating beef. There was an enormous sense of betrayal once it became obvious that they had all got it wrong.
There are many costly lessons to be learned from the disaster in the UK. Ireland has been remarkably lucky in many ways but our luck will run out unless we are significantly more proactive and open in addressing the BSE problem. Whatever actions are needed to protect public health must be taken, regardless of the economic cost.
