I welcome Mr. Séamus Healy, assistant secretary, Department of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Dermot Ryan, principal officer, and Ms Hazel Sheridan, superintending veterinary inspector, who will update committee members on the proposal to increase the age limit for the testing of steers for BSE. The limit is currently set at 30 months. Before I ask Mr. Healy to make his opening remarks, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Healy to address the committee.
BSE Incidence: Presentation.
As the committee will be aware, the incidence of BSE in Ireland has been declining since 2002. The figures for 2006, to date, indicate that this trend is continuing. There have been 1,580 cases of BSE in Ireland since 1989. However, in the past four years there has been a steady improvement, with the number of cases falling from a high of 333 in 2002 to 182 in 2003, to 126 in 2004, to 69 last year and to 28 cases to date in 2006. The highest number of cases in any one year — 333 — was in 2002, which was the first year of full active surveillance. Since July 2001, all EU member states have been required to test at slaughter plants all animals over 30 months of age intended for human consumption and, usually at knackeries, all casualty and fallen animals over 24 months of age. In total, about 4 million tests have been carried out in Ireland under this regime and, by way of example, more than 10 million tests were undertaken throughout the EU last year, about 8.6 million of which were on slaughtered animals at meat plants.
The necessary legislative basis under which BSE testing is carried out is Regulation EC 999/2001 which lays down the rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain TSEs, including BSE. Under that regulation as it currently stands, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has no discretion to raise the age limit at which bovines destined for human consumption must be tested. However, based on the results of surveillance carried out here, for some time we have been making repeated efforts to have the age thresholds for the various categories of animals changed. The Minister is on record on several occasions as supporting the case for increasing the age limit for testing and, in addition, at meetings of EU chief veterinary officers, the chief veterinary officer has regularly argued in favour of raising the age limit for testing. At various other fora, officials of the Department have continued to push this issue.
At the same time I should stress that, notwithstanding our support for an upward change in the age limit for testing, this view is not shared universally around the Council table. In some countries BSE testing is carried out on healthy slaughtered animals under 30 months and there is some support for making that an EU requirement. In these cases, the member states in question see testing of healthy slaughtered animals at 30 months or younger as an added consumer protection measure and when it comes to the crunch may not support proposals which they would see as weakening this.
It now appears likely that a new regulation amending EU Regulation 999/2001 will be agreed later this year. It is difficult to say at this point what precise effect the new regulation would have on the current testing regime. However, one of the measures in the proposed regulation as it now stands would allow member states to request revisions of their respective annual monitoring programmes based on the improvement of the BSE situation. However, any such revisions could be made only with the approval of the Commission and of the other member states within the framework of the Standing Committee on Animal Health and the Food Chain.
While it is not certain these proposals will be adopted, Ireland will continue to press for a change in the age threshold at every opportunity, as we have consistently done for the past three years. The manner in which the improvement in a country's BSE situation may be measured has yet to be determined. The Commission intends to set up a working group later this year to consider this issue with a view to having the new arrangements in place in time for them to be considered under national surveillance programmes for 2007.
During the course of the various discussions on the TSE roadmap since the end of last year, Ireland has consistently supported the case that surveillance requirements should be reviewed to reflect the declining incidence of BSE, not least because of the significant and continuing improvement in the situation in Ireland. As part of our case for raising the age limit for testing, we can point to the fact that the youngest ever positive BSE case in Ireland was in a 42 month old cow and that the number of cases has fallen significantly in recent years. In addition, the mean age of cases is increasing year on year as the majority of cases are now in animals born before the additional control measures were introduced in 1996 and 1997. If the new regulation provides for a review of our national surveillance programme, we will make proposals to the Commission for a change in the age limit for testing.
I thank Mr. Healy and his colleagues for coming at such short notice to discuss this issue which has a major effect on a relatively small group of farmers. While I appreciate Mr. Healy's emphasis on dealing with it through an EU regulation, the major drop in numbers after an intensive testing regime shows we have a low level of BSE. How many steers over 30 months are affected? Mr. Healy mentioned one aged 42 months which was found but how many under four years of age have been found to have BSE? Does he accept that because we have a grass-based system of production and most of our calves are born to spring calving dairy herds, many more cattle reach 30 months in the glut period, namely, September to November? Slaughtering them before they reach 30 months causes a further glut.
One member of a beef production group with an intensive high calibre business told me that he and other members were liable to lose a significant sum of money per beast. This, in turn, goes back through the chain, starting with a drop of €24 because he would no longer be eligible to receive his bonus of 2c per pound. The second factor is the cost of testing; the third is that the grade is not taken into account, while the fourth is that in a glut period the factories will state animals over 30 months are more difficult to sell. I am not sure whether there is any proof of this or whether they move to a different market. There is certainly a sufficient number under 30 months to fill the markets that demand cattle of that age. For all these reasons, a more aggressive effort should be made to deal with this problem.
At European level one must question the logic of what is being demanded compared with what comes here from Brazil where there is a lax regime and which is allowed unrestricted travel through the European Union. Why is it so difficult to ease the regulations here? Recently the Department eased off on the slaughter regime for BSE herds, a move I had sought for many years. This was the common sense view. It is time to campaign more aggressively to rectify this problem and ensure we do not cause a bigger glut than is necessary at the end of the year by forcing people to sell off cattle when they reach 30 months rather than keep them.
I welcome Mr. Healy's comments. The number of animals contracting BSE is significantly lower. As a result, the European Union's very restrictive import policy is questionable, given its policy on other imports.
I apologise for being late. I thank Mr. Healy and his colleagues for their presentation. The issue of BSE in animals is primarily related to the knock-on effects on human health. As it is such an unpredictable disease in many ways, we must be very cautious. There are also animal health implications, while the impact on trading is also of major importance for the country.
Is it possible to estimate the relative cost savings in the testing regime? I am excluding the trading aspects, the facility to sell and the glut caused by the 30 month rule. If we were to change the testing regime, what would be the relative cost savings? Recently I looked at UK reports on the long-term implications in terms of CJD emerging in the human population, based on the very long incubation period of Kuru.
A key feature is the update on research in testing on live animals. If such an update were available, it would make a great difference. As such, I would like to see more emphasis placed on it. There has been the occasional breakthrough, but we then revert to square one. It would be better if we did not have to wait for an animal to be slaughtered. The delegates may not have the necessary information on this issue today, but we should still look at it.
The delegates stated there might be agreement on an amending EU regulation later this year. Will they outline the implications of such a regulation for Ireland? Could we go it alone? Must we abide by certain restrictions imposed at EU level? What is the likely basis for our decision on the age of testing?
I join my colleagues in welcoming the officials from the Department. It is good to note that the number of animals affected by BSE is decreasing. This is important for our export industry and the country as a whole. The Minister and her officials are applying pressure in the European Union to have the age limit increased. This is important for beef producers because there is a reduction in the price of cattle aged over 30 months, of which the factories are taking advantage. I often wonder what market animals over 30 months go to. It would be interesting to find out because I am sure they are not put into a skip.
The producer or farmer with animals over 30 months is having a hard time. From that perspective, it is important that the Minister and her officials try at European level to have the age limit increased to 36 months because many of the continental beef breeds are difficult to finish at 30 months. They require much feeding and need to be at least 36 months. I ask the Minister and her officials to continue to exert pressure on their colleagues in the European Union to try to have the age limit increased to 36 months.
I concur with previous speakers in welcoming the fact that the number of BSE cases has substantially reduced during the years. In 2002 there were 333 cases, a frightening statistic, but that figure has reduced to just 28 to date this year.
On the age limit, I agree with Deputy Carty. Although I stand to be corrected, I understand the age limit in England has been increased to 40 months. Some cattle are not properly finished at 30 months, in particular heavy bullocks, although I am sure they are entering the food chain just like any other animal. They are certainly entering the steak and striploin trade. In most of the hotels in which one sees striploin on the menu, one usually sees striploin which could only come from heavy cattle. If it is good enough for that trade, it should be good enough for the rest of the market also. The factories are using and abusing it.
I apologise for being late. Many of my questions have been asked. I endorse Deputy Crawford's point.
Following on from Deputy Upton's question about progress later this year on the 30-month threshold, is it possible for us to go it alone? Is there that flexibility? The difficulty in the European Union on many of these proposals is that progress must be made on a Community-wide basis. The youngest animal giving a positive result was a 42-month old cow. While the risk analysis in each member state would be different, surely our risk analysis would indicate that we do not need to test at 30 months. Is there flexibility, based on the risk analysis made in member states, to increase the threshold? Will this be feasible?
I fully support the points made. The committee has been very forthcoming in seeking this extension, although I accept it is a difficult issue. Other countries have different regulations and concerns but I hope the Minister and her officials will do all in their power to try to have the limit increased from 30 to 36 months. This would be beneficial to many farmers because it is very difficult or impossible in some parts of the country to finish an animal in 30 months.
The difference is that we are not allowed to use growth promoters in this country while some of the opposition with which we are dealing use them, which certainly leaves us with an added disadvantage.
I thank the Chairman and the members for their comments. I reiterate that we have consistently looked for a change in the age requirement. From the outset, we took a very cautious approach to BSE, as everyone accepts was necessary. However, we believe that since time has moved on, so should the rules. Several speakers referred to the change we made in the whole herd policy, which is an indication that we are not totally inflexible and will adopt measures as the situation evolves.
In respect of testing, there is an absolute requirement in EU legislation, namely, Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001, that every animal over 30 months destined for the food chain must be tested. It is open to member states to test below that age if they wish and a number of countries have done so. Other countries believe this should be the rule across the EU, although they have not pushed it and the Commission has never proposed it. This relates to member states rather than the Commission. These countries are not in the majority and it is unlikely that we will reach a stage where we test any animal under 30 months.
The amendment to Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 as it stands allows for some flexibility and differentiation between member states. In effect, if the regulation is adopted with this provision in place, it will allow member states effectively to bid for the type of testing regime or surveillance programme they would be required to operate. In that context, it would be open to us to put forward a proposal, based on the age of cases, the reduction in cases and these kind of measures, that the age requirement for Ireland should be above 30 months.
Views differ whether one should opt for 30 months or some other age or, alternatively, opt for a date and mandate that any animal born before a particular date must be tested. There is some merit in taking this route in that one can continue to get more animals out of the testing regime. However, we have some way to go to get to a stage where that amendment will be adopted as EU legislation. We anticipate and hope it will be adopted in the autumn and put in place in time for next year. I do not believe it will happen before that, notwithstanding our best efforts. It must go through the various working groups at EU level and there are other aspects involved in the amendment. We will certainly push for early adoption of the measure, which would include this sort of flexibility, but there are still some hurdles to crossed.
In respect of numbers, we test more than 600,000 animals. This number includes steers and cows. I do not have a breakdown of the age profile of the 600,000 animals but I can obtain it for members if they wish. There would not be very many steers included in this number but I do not have the figures with me at the moment. I am not sure if Ms Sheridan has them but I will ask her to deal with some of the questions that have been raised. If the committee allows it, I will ask Ms Sheridan to deal some of the more technical and research issues.
Ms Hazel Sheridan
I thank the Chairman. I will deal with the technical issues in the order in which they were raised. Deputy Crawford asked about the ages of cases we have encountered over the years and how many cases have been uncovered in animals under four years of age. I do not have precise figures for the years since 1989, but there have been seven or eight cases. This year, our youngest case is 95 months of age. Last year, there was a case involving a 44 month old animal. Rather than an animal slaughtered in a factory, it was a fallen animal that went to a knackery and was tested. In the previous year and 2003, there were no cases under four years of age, but there were two cases under four years of age in 2002. Only a small number of cases have been under 48 months of age and no cases have been under 42 months of age.
While controversial, Brazil is allowed access to the European market without testing its cattle because of its BSE status according to a geographic risk assessment carried out by the European Commission in 2000. The Commission rated the risk of BSE occurring in Brazil as being unlikely because Brazilians do not feed meat and bonemeal or use concentrated feeding. Rather, they finish their animals on grass and do not have a tradition of trading live animals with the UK.
Deputy Upton asked for an update on the research of testing for live animals. Like the Deputy, we also hear of new information being available from time to time. That the BSE agent is limited to the tissues of the central nervous system is beneficial because it means that the specified risk material controls have been effective in protecting public health. However, this factor makes it difficult to devise a live animal test because people have been unsuccessful in finding the agent in the blood, urine or other harvested tissues of live cattle. A distinction must be drawn between BSE and scrapie in sheep. As the scrapie agent is more widely distributed, there appear to be possibilities in respect of the latter. However, fortunately the BSE agent is localised to the brain and spinal cord.
We are not optimistic that a live test will appear and I wonder whether it will solve this problem. The likelihood is that a live animal test will probably be no more sensitive than post mortem testing and will only be able to detect animals at a particular point in the incubation period. Will raising the age threshold help? Unfortunately, the testing regime has become linked to trade and it is likely that markets could seek for animals to be tested if a live animal test became available. I am not sure that having a live animal test will be of significant benefit because it is unlikely to be considerably more sensitive than the post mortem test.
Recently, there was a change in the UK to bring it in line with the rest of the European Union. As Mr. Healy said, the TSE regulation lays down the age threshold for testing healthy slaughtered cattle, that is, 30 months. As the UK destroyed its cattle over that age, it did not need to apply this condition which only applied to cattle for human consumption. Now that the UK's rules have changed and its cattle are for human consumption, it falls under the remit of the regulation and must test all animals above 30 months of age.
Deputy Naughten referred to how the risk analysis indicates that a good case can be made for Ireland to forego testing animals under 42 months of age. We agree and hope the new mechanism available in the TSE regulation will allow us to table a risk analysis case for a decision. The problem is that there was no mechanism in the regulation heretofore, as any change needed to apply to all the European Union. We consider the autumn availability of the provision a move forward. However, there is a great deal of work to be done.
The criteria under which the decision will be made are not clear and the Commission is vague on how it will assess member states' BSE situations. The difficulty lies in that the only population that can be tested is that of animals that are dying or being slaughtered. This is a biased population and does not necessarily give the true picture. The Commission is battling with this not just in this context but also into the context of categorising the European member states and outside countries according to their BSE status, which is another requirement under the TSE regulation. It has been in place since 2001 and they have struggled to do it over the previous six years. This kind of categorisation of countries is a very difficult problem. As Mr. Healy said, we will continue to push for it.
Deputy Upton asked about the relative cost savings. I remind the committee that we, as the Department of Agriculture and Food, do not know what individual farmers or factories are charged for testing. We are responsible for the subvention paid by Europe, which is €7 per test. That is the only part of the cost for which we are responsible at the moment. In the past, the Department of Agriculture and Food footed the bill for testing. That situation has changed. The Department pays only the subvention.
In terms of savings, I am not sure there would be a significant saving to be made. I do not have a breakdown of the numbers but I remember that one year when we did an analysis of the number of animals that would be affected if the threshold were raised to 42 months of age that it was approximately 140,000, a very significant number. We definitely see a peak in animals being slaughtered between 30 months of age and 42 months of age. The cost savings can be worked out in that situation.
It would not be necessary to test 140,000.
Ms Sheridan
It would not be necessary to test 140,000 if the threshold were raised to 42 months of age. I am not quite sure what the position would be if the threshold were only raised to 36 months of age. We could, perhaps, supply more concrete figures. The figures I have given are off the top of my head from something we did at an earlier stage. I would have to check up on them. I think I have answered most of the technical questions.
How much support have we at European level given that countries such as Germany and Holland are involved in intensive beef production rather than extensive production as Ireland is? There are very few other grass producing areas apart from Normandy, Brittany and Ireland within the European context.
Ms Sheridan
It is a point that other member states find it much easier to finish their cattle because they feed them intensively in feed lots and we do not have that regime here. They, perhaps, do not have the same degree of problems we have because it is difficult to finish cattle under 30 months of age if one is trying to finish them mostly on grass as we try to do.
It is quite difficult to measure the support of the different member states. All they have done heretofore is to indicate a note of caution. The fact that the Commission did not bring forward a proposal to change the threshold heretofore indicates that it felt there was not support among the member states. We are not party to what discussions go on between individual member states and members of the Commission. All we know is what has been said at meetings, and certainly member states have indicated caution. Other member states have stayed silent and have given no opinion. However, all the member states and the Commission have made the point that testing provides an addition public health benefit. That is the point they have reiterated.
I am as conscious as anybody else of the need to cover the health issues. My concern is that this meat goes into the market. There may be no genuine need to test it but testing it imposes a cost on farmers of anything from €100 to €200 per beast, depending on the time of the year. That is the issue with which we must deal. With margins as tight as they are at present, we need to try to avoid imposing extra costs.
I am sure it is more difficult for Ireland, given that it is an exporting country. Does Ms Sheridan want to respond?
Ms Sheridan
I am not sure there is anything I can add. Ireland is in a unique situation because we finish our animals on grass. It is of premium importance to us that the age threshold should be raised. Other member states have different priorities and this is probably not a priority for some of them.
I thank the members of the delegation for attending today's meeting and the way in which they have responded to the questions raised by members of the committee.