Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Dec 2007

Imports of Brazilian Beef: Discussion with IFA.

DEPUTY JOHNNY BRADY IN THE CHAIR.

I welcome everyone to this meeting, the purpose of which is to discuss the importation of Brazilian beef and its failure to meet EU standards. Members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. 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 House or an official by name or in such a way to make him or her identifiable. I would like to thank Mr. Pádraig Walshe and the Irish Farmers Association for meeting the committee, and for treating us so well at a beautiful lunch in Brussels on Tuesday. On behalf of the committee, I thank him and his delegation for their courtesy to the committee.

Mr. Pádraig Walshe

I thank the Chairman for his invitation to address the committee and for his kind words. My only regret is that Mr. Berkery and I did not make it ourselves. We hope our people looked after the committee members quite well. I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address your committee on this important topic of Brazil and EU standards for beef imports. I wish the Chairman and his new committee every success. His record of debating and dealing with the important issues on the agricultural agenda during the previous Dáil is second to none. On behalf of Irish farmers, I thank him for this and request that he keep up this positive work with his new committee.

The item on the agenda today is about Brazilian beef imports and their failure to meet EU standards. Claims are being made that this is an anti-Brazil issue or a trade issue. This is about equivalence of standards and nothing else. We operate the highest standards for our own farmers within the EU, and rightly so. The European consumer deserves the highest standards. At the same time within the EU we operate the lowest standards in the world for imports into the Community. No other trading bloc in the West operates standards for imports as low as the EU.

I was in New Zealand last week and on entering the country, I had to inform the authorities whether I had been on a farm in the previous three months. I had to explain the type of farm I was on and any footwear that was used on the farm had to be disinfected. Every piece of my luggage had to be put through a special monitor on entering the country, which is similar to those monitors we use when leaving Ireland. This was done to ensure we were not bringing in any foodstuff or plant material with us. People had small pots of jam confiscated at the airport in Auckland as I arrived. That is how high the standards are in the New Zealand economy. In real value terms, agriculture is not worth any more to the New Zealand economy than it is to the Irish economy.

The IFA visited Brazil in 2006 and again in May 2007 and was led by Mr. John Bryan and included our livestock director, Mr. Kevin Kinsella, and Mr. Justin McCarthy from the Irish Farmers’ Journal. The findings of the missions are well documented. There was evidence of non-existent or unreliable cattle traceability; illegal removal and cutting out of tags, including official SISBOV tags, which are part of the official Brazilian identification system; inadequate movement and border controls; ineffective foot and mouth disease controls; and the use of hormone growth promoters and antibiotics which are banned in the EU.

The latest European Commission Food and Veterinary Office report on Brazil published in early November after a delay of eight months contains irrefutable evidence that Brazilian beef imports fail to meet EU standards on the critical animal health and consumer issues of foot and mouth disease and traceability. The FVO report fully vindicates the IFA's own findings and our insistence that there should be a total ban on all Brazilian beef imports into Europe. If the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food found the Brazilian failures on an Irish farm, the animals would have to be destroyed and removed from the food chain while the farmer could face court proceedings and a possible jail sentence.

In the European Parliament in October, the health and consumer protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou stated that if the situation in Brazil did not improve, the EU would take the necessary action, including the implementation of a ban on beef imports by the end of this year. Commissioner Kyprianou now has the detailed evidence from his own veterinary experts of serious deficiencies in Brazilian controls. He cannot continue to expose the EU to unnecessary risks. Brazil is an accident waiting to happen. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has repeatedly stated that Brazil must meet EU standards. With the publication of the FVO report, she clearly has no option but to press for a total ban on Brazilian beef at European level.

Let us look closely at what the EU vets found. Brazil's first line of defence against foot and mouth disease is meant to be vaccination. The FVO report stated that the absence of a programme to monitor the efficacy of vaccination in 2007 jeopardises the future certification of beef. It added that the shortcomings identified in 2006 have not been satisfactorily addressed and warned that it cannot be excluded that such outbreaks of foot and mouth disease are under-reported. The report highlighted that the recommended vaccination scheme was not followed. This all verifies the reports of the IFA.

A key concern for EU consumers is traceability for all animals destined for the European market. At several holdings visited by the FVO in Brazil, for which three months' notice was given, unlike the on-the-spot inspections by the Department on Irish farms, more animals were registered in the official SISBOV database than were present on the holdings. The quality of ear tags was inadequate, individual identification was illegible and a high percentage of ear tags was lost. Clearly, Brazil does not provide the assurances European consumers expect.

Regionalisation in Brazil is central to the controls on which the EU depends to prevent foot and mouth disease-infected meat entering Europe. The Food and Veterinary Office found that animals from a non-EU approved, foot and mouth disease-infected state went to a farm in an EU-approved state and were then sent for slaughter without respecting the EU's 90-day residency requirement. In addition, the FVO found "meat from an animal declared non-EU eligible formed part of a consignment exported to the EU".

In Brazil, the EU only requires animals to be present in an EU-approved state for 90 days and on the farm of dispatch for 40 days prior to slaughter, whereas in Europe, the EU accepts nothing less than full traceability from birth to slaughter. The deficiencies found in the traceability and movement controls in Brazil led the FVO to "call into question the reliability of the 40 days residence of all cattle on those holdings and 90 days residency in EU approved areas". This is an alarming finding and makes a mockery of the EU's so-called regionalisation policy.

The FVO has just completed another inspection in Brazil. While no official report of its findings is available at this stage, there are reports that the situation it found on foot and mouth disease and traceability was so bad that the Brazilians were offering to scrap regionalisation altogether. In other words, the situation in Brazil has not improved and clearly it fails to meet EU standards. Commissioner Kyprianou has no option but to impose a ban on Brazilian imports at this time.

Assessing the risk posed by Brazilian beef imports, the eminent academic and consultant veterinary surgeon, Dr. Kevin Dodd, stated:

The EU Commission's assessment of the risks involved in the importation of Brazilian beef is flawed and inadequate ... The importation of meat from Brazil involves unnecessary risk and should be discontinued.

The EU's exposure to foot and mouth disease literally came home to Commissioner Kyprianou in recent weeks with an outbreak of the highly infectious virus in his native Cyprus.

Europe's policy is out of line with best practice in other developed countries. The United States has not had a foot and mouth disease outbreak since 1929. This is precisely because the US adopts a much stricter bio-security approach and refuses to accept high-risk fresh beef imports from Brazil. A number of countries including Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea insist on these high standards. The reality is that the EU has dropped its defences and this is placing the European livestock sector and the economies of member states at unnecessary risk. The 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in Britain originated in imported meat and cost the UK alone €13 billion.

The social and environmental damage associated with Brazilian beef production is ignored by those promoting this trade, including retailers, but it is clearly documented. The UN Commission on Human Rights has reported on the worker exploitation and slave labour problem on Brazilian ranches. Environmentalists have linked the five-fold increase in beef exports from Brazil in recent years with the rapid destruction of the rain forests in the Pantanal and Amazon regions that is a major cause of global climate change. On the day of what is being termed our first green budget, this is an important issue.

Brazilian beef fails to meet EU standards. It fails to meet the standards demanded and expected by European consumers. It exposes Europe to the unnecessary risk of foot and mouth disease. The evidence for this is irrefutable. There is no equivalence in standards. The EU consumer deserves better and assumes that when a product is placed on a shelf or a plate, it is produced to the same high standard to which they know a European product is produced. I would appreciate the support of the committee in calling for a ban on imports to the EU.

I thank Mr. Walshe. He has always had and will always have the full support of this committee. I thank him for his earlier comments. I call Mr. Bryan.

Mr. John Bryan

I join the president of the IFA, Mr. Walshe, in his thanks to the committee for inviting us to the meeting and for all the support it has given us. The previous joint committee was always very supportive of agriculture and has been supportive of our campaigns on live exports, the beef premium overshoot and the suckler cow welfare scheme. Last year, when we addressed the committee on our return from Brazil, we appreciated the strong support it gave us in calling for a ban on Brazilian beef.

The IFA has made two trips to Brazil. When we returned from the first trip, we were called liars and it was debated whether we had been to Brazil at all. We visited the European Commission on Monday and Tuesday of this week with the beef advisory group. The attitude in Europe has changed. The United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain are now backing us in a call for a ban on Brazilian beef because it has become accepted that the facts we put on the table in the past two years have been substantially verified, in particular given the findings of the FVO report on the March visit this year. I find a total change in the Commission. It is not that people there are saying they agree with us but they are no longer willing to dispute the facts proven by our two visits. I welcome the support we have received from the committee.

The first of the two IFA trips to Brazil took place in 2006, when we concentrated on three southern Brazilian states where foot and mouth disease is endemic: Mato Grosso do Sul, São Paulo and Paraná, where a substantial number of the cattle coming to Europe originated. In 2005, 350,000 tonnes of beef was imported into the European Union from Brazil and 330,000 tonnes was imported last year, with approximately 10,000 tonnes coming to Ireland. Following pressure by Ireland and other countries, there was a partial ban on these three regions due to foot and mouth disease. We were led to believe no cattle were coming from these areas but, unfortunately, the facts are very different.

In 2007, when we visited Brazil for the second time, we travelled substantially further than on our first trip and also visited the state of Mato Grosso do Sul. This state is cleared for imports to Europe but one of the amazing points was the number of cattle travelling from this state to other states. We visited the regions with foot and mouth disease restrictions as well as several farms that export to Europe. We visited 11 farms in 2006 and approximately 40 in 2007, including a second visit to the 11 farms we had visited the previous year. Our report and DVD have been circulated to many committee members. Mr. Kinsella also has more extensive footage than that contained in the DVD, including interviews conducted on several farms that export to Europe, on which there was no tagging of cows or cattle apart from the tagging of some cattle a few days before they went for slaughter.

No. 5 of the pictures circulated to the committee shows boxes of cut-out tags which are the official SISBOV tags used in Brazil. On the few farms where we found some level of tagging of cattle that were definitely destined for slaughter, we found boxes of these tags which were being cut out to re-identify the cattle. Unlike in the EU, where if a tag is lost, the animal must be accounted for, there is no central database in Brazil or any way of cross-checking. The tags can go anywhere and cattle can vanish.

In Ireland, we have a fallen cattle policy that costs a great deal of money. Every animal must be brought to the knackery, tested for BSE and so on. In Brazil the fallen animal policy is that the birds eat them in the fields. I hope they wait until the cattle are dead. We visited farms where we saw bones on the ground and carcasses being eaten. There is no level of accountability.

The EU's best current estimate of the number of the cattle in Brazil is 200 million whereas the Brazilian ambassador claims that perhaps 10 million of them are tagged. If, in his admission, 190 million cattle are not tagged, the level of traceability that exists can be clearly understood. There is no central database to monitor the tags so even if they are put on cattle, no one follows up on how they are used.

We made some amazing discoveries. Unfortunately, some of the pictures are not clear. Picture No. 4 shows an animal with the tags pulled out. The same can be seen in picture No. 3.

I ask Mr. Bryan to refrain from showing us the pictures. He should simply refer to the picture in question.

Mr. John Bryan

I understand. I do not wish to waste the committee's time.

Mr. Bryan is not wasting time but there is a format to which we must adhere.

Mr. John Bryan

Yes. Picture No. 2 shows a typical herd with none of the calves tagged. Picture No. 3 shows an animal with the tag removed, and picture No. 4 shows an animal with both tags missing. These were not isolated incidents. We made the same discovery on several farms that SISBOV tags had been removed and we brought some samples back for the Commission. Picture No. 6 shows a farm in Mato Grosso do Sul where the farmer was pleased to inform us that he exports cattle to Europe.

Picture No. 8 shows an internal border in Brazil. For the regionalisation policy to work, as it worked in the Chairman's part of the country in Louth in 2001 or as it is currently working in Britain, no cattle should move from one area to another. However, thousands of cattle are being moved across regions every day in Brazil and the Brazilian authorities are doing nothing about it. The president referred to the 40-day and 90-day residency rules, which the Commission informs us offer protection. We are assured that the regionalisation policy is being implemented with movement controls of 40 and 90 days, vaccination procedures, and deboning and maturation requirements.

None of those pillars stands up to scrutiny. The first pillar collapses because there is no identification system and so movement controls cannot be implemented. I hope members have seen the FBO report. This report was based on inspections of specially selected farms whose owners were given three months' notice, unlike in Ireland where farms are selected at random. Nine farms were visited and on three of those the farmers could not account for the origin of the cattle. Tagging and traceability were shown to have broken down in several instances. The Commission's estimation was that it could no longer verify that the 40-day and 90-day residency regulations were being adhered to on those farms. If procedures were shown to have collapsed on 30% of the preselected farms, one can only imagine what the results would be for a random sample.

During our visits in 2006 and 2007, we spoke to Professor Augusto Pinto who is an expert on foot and mouth disease. He studied in Pirbright which, although it may not be flavour of the month, is seen as the world leader in terms of foot and mouth disease research. I refer members to picture No. 13. Professor Pinto put on record in 2006 many issues that have been verified only now by the FBO report, including improper vaccination, vaccination dumping, failure to undertake adequate seriological testing and widespread under-reporting of foot and mouth disease.

Our report on the March visit verifies all these failings. Seriological testing is showing up O types and A types in areas in which different vaccines are used, but these are still not being called outbreaks. More seriological testing is finally being undertaken but that only serves to highlight, as verified in the report, that foot and mouth disease is still widespread in Mato Grosso do Sul, from where substantial numbers of cattle are being exported to Europe. The major issue highlighted in this report, which we have been emphasising for almost three years, is that there is significant underreporting of foot and mouth disease in Brazil. This is a serious problem. If the Brazilian authorities are not communicating the truth to the European Commission, what can we believe? This has been verified in the FBO report.

Pictures Nos. 10 and 11 show examples of hormones we found on farms. If we could make these discoveries through random checking, one can assume the practice of using hormones must be widespread. However, hormones have been banned in Europe for several years.

EU policy on Brazilian beef exports is based on two basic principles. The first is equivalence of standards with the EU and the second is regionalisation. Equivalence does not stand up in any way. There is no adequate tagging and traceability system, no effective border controls, widespread smuggling of cattle from Bolivia and Uruguay and some degree of smuggling from Argentina. In other words, smuggling is taking place across international borders, even apart from internal movements. No animal welfare regulations are enforced such as those we have in regard to transportation, housing and so on.

We saw cattle that were being transported 3,000 km or 4,000 km non-stop in intense heat to their destination plants and moving in and out of regions known to be infected with foot and mouth disease. No record was kept of the movement of these cattle from one region to another. The rigorous cross-compliance to which every farmer in the EU must adhere, whether in Germany, France or Ireland, encompasses traceability from birth to death, animal welfare, environmental standards, nitrates restrictions and so on.

In the southern states of Brazil, sugar cane, ethanol, wheat, maize or soya production is far more profitable than beef. The cattle are being displaced from the southern states and moved into Mato Grosso do Sul, Rôndonia and other areas, which were all under rain forest some years ago. On some of the ranches we visited we could still see the stumps of trees where the rain-forest had recently been burned. Not only is European production being undermined by inferior products from Brazil, serious damage is being done to the environment. The further north the cattle are moved, the greater the environmental damage. These are the areas where foot and mouth disease is endemic, with 3 million infected wild buffalo mixing with cattle.

It is a joke to speak about any level of equivalence with EU standards. Farmers in Brazil use organophosphates and other drugs that are banned in the EU but can be bought over the counter there. The EU imposes a six-week withdrawal period for organophosphates. One of the pictures shows a sample of an organophosphate we found for which there is an 82-day withdrawal period in the EU but no withdrawal period in Brazil. These drugs are in widespread use in Brazil and are entering the food chain in Europe. Anybody who claims there is equivalence is attempting to con his or her audience.

The second pillar of the EU's policy on Brazilian beef is the regionalisation policy to deal with foot and mouth disease. There are three states coloured in pink on the first page of the presentation, Mato Grosso do Sul, São Paulo and Paraná. I travelled across those borders several times during both visits. We spent three weeks in all in Brazil travelling between the different states and there was no border control. The Chairman has seen the DVD we made which shows countless truckloads of cattle moving from one state to another.

It is a common practice for ranchers to put the tags in the truck with them when they are travelling, as they told us themselves, or to tag the cattle themselves in their own crush the day before. This makes a joke of the theoretical 40-day and 90-day residency rules. This is verified in the FBO report. Indications we received from Brussels earlier this week and again today are that the discoveries made during the November visit were even worse. Anybody who does not wish to find something will ensure nothing is found and vice versa. The inspectors went further north on this occasion, which is a welcome development, concentrating on Rôndonia and other northern states. What can be seen there is shocking, whether it is slave labour, environmental damage or otherwise. Traceability simply does not exist.

The March report makes frightening reading. If we made such claims, nobody would believe us. However, it has all been verified by the FBO, an independent body. All the indications are that the November visit produced even more shocking discoveries. On several of the EU-approved holdings, inspectors found that traceability and movement controls had broken down. There was no way to verify where the cattle had come from.

The approach taken by countries such as the United States, Japan and New Zealand is the one the EU should follow. The Brazilian authorities cannot be trusted to comply with regionalisation regulations. If it wishes to offer European consumers, farmers and taxpayers any level of protection, the only choice for the EU is to follow the example of the United States and ban all imports from Brazil.

I thank Mr. Bryan for a thorough presentation. Does Mr. Berkery wish to say a few words?

Mr. Michael Berkery

Like the president, Mr. Pádraig Walshe, I wish the joint committee and the Chairman every success for the term of this Dáil. I thank members for the opportunity to attend.

Something occurred to me as the president and Mr. John Bryan were making their presentations. Is there a social benefit to this trade? Is this a reason we may be somewhat sensitive about it? We have done much research on this issue and our information is that a wealthy elite benefits from this trade. We are sure of our footing in this regard. This elite also has much political influence in that country. It occurred to me as the case was being made that the question arises whether there is a developmental benefit for Brazil. We can elaborate further in this regard, if necessary. However, our research shows that a very small number of very wealthy landowners benefit from this trade.

I welcome the IFA delegation and its president and thank it for its submission. Little new can be said about this issue. It is now a question of making a decision on the matter as the facts are available and speak clearly for themselves. The buzzword now entering into the debate is "equivalence". A simple point comes to mind in this respect. Within six hours of a single outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, the entire European Union could move in unity to close down its agricultural industry to protect consumers and primary producers. However, the obverse of that coin is that in a country in which there is far more than one case of foot and mouth disease, the European Union is prepared to turn a blind eye. This is a classic case in which primary producers and consumers can forge an alliance that is in their mutual interest. While this has not always been the case in respect of agripolitics, in this instance, the best interests and objectives of consumers and primary producers are the same.

When significant players such as Dr. Patrick Wall, the former head of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland who at present chairs the board of the European Food Safety Authority, states unequivocally that the lack of a level playing pitch on this matter is to the detriment of Irish primary producers, people must take note. This is not a sectional interest making a sectional observation nor is it a vested interest group. It is a paid official of the European Union using his professional judgment on this matter. This speaks volumes about the case because this is a multi-billion euro issue. Irish beef producers can compete with the best in the world if they have a level playing pitch. They have both hands tied behind their backs, however, when competing with beef that is produced to a different standard. I refer to issues of traceability, animal welfare, environmental matters, animal remedies, hormones, withdrawal periods for the use of antibiotics and so on. These are not the standards that consumers in this country expect and, consequently, this puts in jeopardy the Irish and European beef industries. This must be considered in the wider context as it is not simply an Irish issue.

The Minister has made great play of equivalence. I refer to the recent EU Food and Veterinary Office report, which refers to a visit in March 2007 and was published nine months later. A point has been well made in respect of the advance notice provided relative to what is given to primary producers in Ireland at present by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors. Another visit has just been completed by the Food and Veterinary Office. Are we to wait another six or nine months before its publication while more primary producers in Ireland are squeezed out of business? Effectively, this is what is happening. It is less the volume of meat that is being imported than the significance it plays with multiples in establishing prices on supermarket shelves across the European Union, which constitute our best markets. Those shelves are the prime markets in which Irish produce must compete.

The Minister can no longer sit on the fence on this issue. The point was made about equivalence and the best interests of primary producers and consumers were recognised in the context of a single outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom. Consequently, the same criteria must apply in respect of beef from a country in which foot and mouth disease is rampant and where, to judge from the EU Food and Veterinary Office report, it is clear the regionalisation and other standards have not been met. Moreover, the Brazilian authorities have been given very significant notice of their obligations to meet such standards. Only one course of action would be comparable to that which was taken on foot of a single outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom and which would constitute true equivalence.

I recognise the politics involved in respect of the European Union and its decision-making process. The industry in Ireland, however, now requires the Minister to get off the fence and state she recognises, albeit belatedly, the issues that are at stake in this regard, that she sides with the consumer and the primary producer and that she will campaign within the European Union's decision-making process to bring to an end this inconsistency. Anything else makes a mockery of equivalence and the decisions that were taken on the basis of equivalence in respect of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom.

As I noted at the outset, this is not simply an issue pertaining to primary producers, although it is of major significance to them. It also is an issue for consumers who have a right to be protected and to information on the production systems in place for the beef they consume. Consumers presume that beef that can get onto supermarket shelves within the European Union has an equivalent standard. The issue, however, is that this simply is not the case.

I wish to ask one question of the witnesses that is critical. How far is the IFA prepared to take this issue? The association is a highly significant partner within the social partnership process. Members should not dance on the head of a pin and should acknowledge that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the player who must be brought on side. What progress has the IFA been able to make with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? In simple terms, is she with it or against it? On the basis of equivalence, the Minister can no longer sit on the fence. If she is not with it, what steps is the IFA prepared to take next in its continued participation in social partnership? High stakes are being played for, namely, the effective survival of many primary producers in Ireland. What is the IFA's breaking point on this issue? Is it prepared, for example, to state that it wants a decision on this matter and the Minister to come off the fence by May Day or else? Alternatively, is it a case that it simply intends to talk the talk but that ultimately it will stay in the process because there is more to be gained on the inside than on the outside? How serious an issue is this for the IFA?

I have been in constant contact with the Minister, as have some of my colleagues, regarding this problem. She has been in regular contact with Commissioner Kyprianou who has assured her that the Commission will not hesitate to take action. I have great confidence in the Minister, as do the IFA and the witnesses. They have nothing to worry about in that regard. We are all working together on this issue. We must all work together. I am sure that is what the IFA wants us to do.

I welcome the delegation and compliment the IFA leadership and membership on the committed work they are doing on behalf of rural Ireland and, in particular, on behalf of the people they represent. Would the FVO report have come about had the IFA not taken the initiative and gone to Brazil in 2005 and 2006? While many rubbished and poured scorn on what the IFA said when it came back, what it has said certainly has been borne out by the FVO report. I compliment the IFA on that and for taking an initiative on behalf of an industry in this country that is under severe pressure. I compliment the association on taking this initiative for the right reasons, namely, the health and safety of the people who consume beef throughout Europe and elsewhere.

The big word here is "standards". In his remarks, Mr. Walshe referred to standards for beef from outside the EU and standards we demand of producers in this country and throughout the EU. While we all welcome the standards in place because they are in everyone's interests, it is only fair that the same standards apply to any other produce coming into the EU. It is essential that this continues to be the case.

The report, which I read, makes very damning reading in respect of the system operating in Brazil. The facts related to traceability, foot and mouth disease and the chilling process applicable in Brazil, which involves the temperature fluctuating between -12° and -20° and which I do not believe was touched on in any of the delegation's reports. Related to this are what such temperature fluctuations do, the consistency, getting the temperature right and what these do for produce transported from Brazil to the European market. This makes very alarming reading from a health and safety point of view and is probably one of the most important aspects of this report.

In respect of traceability, one sees that more cattle are registered in the centralised database of the Brazilian system of identification and certification of origin for bovine and buffalo, SISBOV, than are on the farms. What does that tell one? The point has been made quite eloquently that when cattle die, they are buried. No one knows what they died of. They are buried and lost, one does not know which disease was responsible for their death and one does not have that traceability. One looks at the stringent measures imposed upon our farmers where accountability is in place practically from conception right through to slaughter. That is not the case with Brazilian beef.

I strongly believe in a collective approach, both politically and within interest groups. For the life of me, I cannot understand why one has a situation where the US, Canada, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia will not allow Brazilian beef into their countries, yet the EU and our Government on behalf of our people allow such imports to this region. I have been informed that there is fear of a legal challenge. Is the legal challenge not applicable to the other countries imposing this ban? It is hypocrisy. Perhaps I have a suspicious mind but is a vested interest at work in this?

The price beef producers in this country are being paid is driving them out of the industry. The knock-on effect is that the volume of beef produced in this country will be reduced. Who will replace it? The suckler producer is being hit again. If the number of cattle continues to decrease, it will open up another market for the importation of produce. Is a vested interest at work in this? I do not know but I have a suspicious mind and it certainly concerns me.

The report is quite damning. If the second report is issued and supports the initial report and the outcome is still the same, what will the Minister do? I have asked the Minister about this in written questions, which I am sure the IFA has downloaded from the database, but I cannot get a definitive answer. She said there are measures that can be taken, including a ban. Without having seen the report, the US has banned the importation of Brazilian beef because of its own findings and intelligence on the matter.

Every effort must be made to try to force the EU and all the countries associated with it to impose a ban. This should be a collective effort. There should be no points scoring, of which I am not in favour. I am here to work together with everybody in this committee. I can honestly say that since I was elected to the Dáil in 2002, the part of it I like best is working in committees and collectively with everybody in the best interests of the people we represent. Farming organisations throughout the EU and people involved in health and safety and all aspects of political and social society should work collectively to that end and bring pressure to bear on the people who should be taking the lead from their constituents and people and not from what may be a vested interest.

I thank the delegation and applaud it for the work it has done in bringing this matter into the open. It has done a tremendous service to the people it represents, beef producers in Europe and the people of this island.

I welcome the president of the IFA, Mr. Walshe, and his team. They have outlined the situation very well. Coming from a farming background, I understand the importance of the beef industry to this country. I have never been too far away from it. The local branch of the IFA has always kept me up to speed on it and will not let me forget it when matters such as this arise. From that perspective, I am well acquainted with what is happening.

We apply very high standards, be they in the beef, dairy or fishing industries, yet we do not seem to have the same standards where other countries are involved. We do not lay down the laws the way we should, apply the very same standards and have a level playing field for everybody. It costs the beef industry a great deal of money to keep to these standards and get everything in order to be up there with the best. I have no hesitation in saying that what is taking place according to this report is very damaging to the industry and it must be addressed.

That said, we are fortunate to have a Minister such as Deputy Mary Coughlan who has a very good understanding of the industry. From my discussions with her, I have no doubt she will take every step possible to ensure this matter is rectified. We all agree that there is a serious problem. How do we go about rectifying it? If we work together towards that aim, we will do a good day's work. I am confident this will happen.

Like other speakers, I welcome the IFA delegation and, as a beef producer, thank it for the campaign it has carried forward on the issue of Brazilian beef.

I wish to mention a neighbour, Mr. John O'Brien, who has fought tooth and nail on this matter and who I met several times during the general election in May. He has brought the Brazilian beef issue to the fore at every opportunity.

I will ask three questions without going through everything. Foot and mouth disease is prevalent in Brazil. The meat is processed, packaged and sent to this country, but can the disease survive in frozen meat? Brazilian authorities have fought back in respect of the control of BSE, claiming there is no instance of BSE in their country whereas Europe has problems, especially in Ireland. It is a counterattack. Will our guests comment?

I went to Brussels with a delegation. I thank the IFA for hosting a dinner on Monday, as it treated us well. The restaurant in question showed us cuts of meat from different countries. A kilogram of Irish meat cost €32 while the cheapest cut was from Holland at €16. Will our guests comment?

I have been in constant contact with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, as has the committee's group of Fianna Fáil members. She has always insisted on her great concern about the Brazilian beef situation and she has reverted to the Commission several times. It is through her urging that the independent FVO group was sent to Brazil to confirm what the IFA has been saying for years. She has her foot on the pedal and will not allow the situation to continue unless something is done about the standard of Brazilian beef.

I congratulate the IFA on its work and I welcome this meeting. I want to ask two or three brief questions.

To take the reverse situation, how often has Irish beef been banned from third countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya? In many cases, it took years and considerable effort by the IFA, the Department and the Government to restore trade. Our beef seems to have been banned often on relatively slight grounds. If Brazil was in Ireland's geographical situation and a member of the European Union, how long would it take for its beef to be banned? Would it be 24 hours?

At a restaurant in Berlin some years ago I noticed something labelled as Latin American beef on the menu. Are there similar problems with other Latin American countries? For example, Argentina is an exporter of beef. Would there be a case for Europe to insist on country or continent labelling so that people could know what they have chosen to eat? In an interview, possibly with the Irish Farmers’ Journal, the Brazilian ambassador stated that he was not in favour of labelling Brazilian beef.

There is a glaring gap in the rigour applied within the European Union and that applied in Brazil. It is my theory that it has to do with non-agricultural sectors. People in places like London have notions that they will be able to sell financial services. People in high places in the Commission have Brazilian connections of one kind or another. I apologise, as I must attend another meeting. I will ask after the delegation's answers.

I am delighted to see such a high-powered IFA representation at this meeting. I am proud to have been a fully paid-up member of the IFA since its commencement. I proudly display my card when I am at official functions that relate to the farming community. I own a 30-acre mountain farm, but I cannot make money from it.

Mr. Pádraig Walshe and Mr. John Bryan made a comprehensive presentation that is worth studying and considering. The bare fact of the situation is that the EU wants cheap meat, which it gets from Brazil. A committee delegation went to Brussels this week and posed a question about the price of Irish beef there. It retails at €31 per kilogram, but Brazilian beef retails at €15 per kilogram. Therein lies the cause of the trouble. The EU wants cheap meat only because a combination of groups in Europe want cheap meat for consumers with no respect for the quality of the beef produced.

Every butcher's shop and outlet at which Irish beef is sold in Ireland has a traceability record, namely, from where the beef has come, the herd number and so on but, lo and behold, there is no such regulation in the vast country of Brazil. Brazilian authorities claim that the Amazonian administrative area is 550 million hectares covering nine Brazilian states. That is larger than the entire 27-member EU. The authorities admit that, as the vast area in question is difficult to police, illegal occupation by clandestine loggers and farmers occurs. If the Brazilians are admitting that they cannot manage their territory and Brazilian beef is banned by other nations, how can the EU accept it? The US will not allow one kilogram of Brazilian beef to be imported, but it is filtering into Ireland from Europe and being sold here labelled as Irish beef despite there being no traceability records or the like. If it is cheap, Irish housewives will buy it instead of the genuine product.

The time for talk is over and action speaks louder than words. I have great respect for the Minister, Deputy Coughlan. Her eminent predecessor, Joe Walsh, played a heroic part in keeping foot and mouth disease out of the country. The steps he took were correct and credit must be given where it is due. He was on the opposite side of the House but I had great regard for him.

They were never too far apart.

Deputy Coughlan is a good Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and is trying her best but needs some help. The Taoiseach should come in behind her and lobby counterparts in the EU, telling them in no uncertain terms that we will not stand for this racket unless the European authorities adhere to our request. Ireland was banned from exporting Irish beef for a year and a half because of the threat of foot and mouth disease. We saw the devastating effects this had on the market for Irish beef. The high standards that apply to Irish beef should apply to any other part of the globe. The buck stops with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The high-powered delegation, along with the Fine Gael spokesman, Deputy Creed, should ensure steps are taken to curb these serious effects. They must impress on Commissioner Kyprianou the need for a complete ban on Brazilian beef until it complies with EU standards. Unless we do so we will not survive.

I was in Brussels for 72 hours but gathered that the policy there is influenced by considerable pressure from lobby groups to ensure the cheapest beef in the world is available, irrespective of traceability. It does not matter to a certain element. If the Minister and the Taoiseach can convince European leaders, who are French, Italian, German and Spanish, and lobby enough support in Europe they can put an end to the import of Brazilian beef.

I will try not to be repetitive. I welcome the delegation. I hold Dr. Pat Wall in high esteem and he states that there is no equivalence, that it is not safe and that the report defines the shortcomings and it is not unreasonable to call for a full ban. He is highly regarded in his field worldwide.

In Brussels the discrepancy between the price of Irish and Brazilian beef was raised. In my former life I was a small butcher. We had an abattoir and killed our own beef. Irish beef in Brussels is highly priced - the restaurateur in question was well rubbed by his supplier - because of regulation in this country. The cost of regulation here is unbelievable, with post mortem, ante mortem and the capital cost of updating the abattoir every few years. Previously we used to kill animals on Tuesdays, now one must spend half the day on the computer before one can start killing. Regulation is the reason Irish beef is expensive, but it is top quality.

We visited Brussels for the CAP health check and we raised the question of Brazilian beef with a director of the Directorate General, Mr. Smith. The buzzword, and one of the Minister's favourite words, is "equivalence". When I raised this word with him, his answer summed up the Brussels attitude to Brazilian beef. He stated that Brazil does not have a nitrates problem. That said a lot and I could not take the matter any further with him.

What age are the cattle that they are killing in Brazil? In Ireland one can only kill cattle under 24 months and it is of excellent quality. The journal Farmers Weekly reacted to the latest Commission report on health and safety standards of Brazilian beef by suggesting it could do better but was not so bad that there is anything much to worry about. That is where the problem lies and we must row the boat together and ban Brazilian beef in Ireland. We must do so at European level.

Accountability is important. Brazilian beef imported here is strip loin beef and is being sold in Irish restaurants as Irish beef. Restaurateurs have told Bord Bia to hump off and that they will not use the Bord Bia emblem. Anyone who goes for a meal would quickly make a choice if they had traceability on the menu and could choose between 8 oz Brazilian strip loin or 8 oz Irish Angus.

I welcome the IFA delegation and thank them for their work. We continue to work hard to sort out this problem with the Minister and the Commission. I will work to bring this shoddy practice to an end. The increased exports from Brazil are staggering. Bord Bia must be more accountable and improve its approach to enforcing standards of traceability and accountability in restaurants and food outlets.

I also welcome the IFA and thank it for its presentation and its comprehensive work on this issue. At a north Cork IFA social event, the chairman, Mr. John Coughlan, introduced Mr. Justin McCarthy, one of the co-authors of the report. Though he was speaking on the night to farmers and those interested in farming, people listened in awe because they could not believe what he was reporting. It made a deep impact on us.

This discussion is about Brazilian beef. Ironically, the Seanad is debating the merits of farmers' markets and local food production at present. This is quite a contrast as one of the Houses is discussing local food production and food miles and here we speak about bringing food thousands of miles. We know which is the preferred option.

The role of this committee is to defend Irish agriculture in every possible way and to support it to the maximum extent. Our beef industry is under severe pressure and perhaps under threat. During the Seanad debate, the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, referred to the comments of Mr. von Braun who co-authored the world food situation report. I also read about this in the media in recent days. This report contains extremely frightening statistics with regard to world food production. It points out the world has been consuming more than it produces for the past five years. Mr. von Braun writes about the risk of food riots which will surge during the next two years.

We have now moved so far from the time of the so-called "food mountains" and over-supply in Europe that we have gone from one extreme to the other. We must be careful to ensure the continent of Europe produces enough food for its consumers. We must start at home by ensuring the Irish beef industry survives. Fully supporting and defending Irish agriculture and the Irish beef industry must be among the prime responsibilities of the committee.

The work put into the report speaks for itself. It is comprehensive and cannot be challenged. What the IFA is asking us to do is straightforward, namely, that with the publication of the FVO report the Minister has no option but to press for a total ban on Brazilian beef at European level. This is what the meeting is about and it is the one issue before us. Our job is to ensure the Minister will press for a total ban at European level.

I join other colleagues in welcoming the delegation. The IFA has done a great deal of work on this issue and its efforts in lobbying here to bring the issue of the lack of safety of Brazilian beef to public debate is welcome. I recognise the tremendous efforts made by the IFA in Europe.

I was part of a Joint Committee on European Affairs delegation to Brussels earlier this week. We met with a number of commissioners and other interested parties. We also met with the chairman of the agricultural committee of the European Parliament, somebody with Irish roots. He was extremely understanding of the issue, as were many of the people we met. In my mind, this is in no small measure due to the efforts of the president of the IFA and his team and the background work they have done in posing a serious question about the authenticity of the traceability of Brazilian beef.

Certain people we met attempted to downplay the debate for reasons already outlined. An issue is raised with regard to the supply of cheap food and vested interests in other countries will use this to diminish the issue of food safety. Food safety should be a central part of this rather than merely ensuring we have a market for our beef.

I compliment the efforts made by the IFA not only here but also in Europe. It takes a great deal of effort by any organisation to bring a campaign such as this to fruition and the IFA has done it well and in a way which does not seek to be divisive or overly political. It has taken the correct approach in attempting to have a unified campaign behind the debate and the presentation today makes it clear the IFA wishes to continue to take this approach.

I fully support the efforts of the IFA and have done so for some time. I am not a member of this committee but I and other colleagues meet the Minister regularly and we will continue to the best of our ability to try to bring about a satisfactory resolution to this. It will also have an impact on WTO discussions and this debate is tied in with that.

I also welcome the IFA delegation. Despite being almost ridiculed and pilloried for what they set out to do during their two visits, they now seem to be proved correct. Stiff rebuttal information from Mr. Metcalfe, director of the Brazilian Beef Information Service, was circulated to us. It is telling that he is based in London. We know the UK has, and always has had, a cheap food policy and importing New Zealand lamb is an example. Peter Mandelson has also proved that this is the policy. What is at play here are pawns in WTO trading.

Part of Mr. Metcalfe's submission states Brazilian beef is good for consumer choice and helps to make good quality beef affordable. He also informs us that Brazil has supplied the UK with beef for more than 75 years during which time no issues were raised with regard to product safety or animal or human health. An issue referred to but not honed in on is the 40 day restriction period on a registered farm. Mr. John Bryan showed us evidence of hormones, which I understand have a 65 day withdrawal period. It has not been established that this beef is not a threat to human health. The hormones were banned even though the EU had a 60 day withdrawal period because it was proved they led to birth problems such as malformation of babies.

Mr. Metcalfe rejects what is stated in another document which deals with labelling, country of origin and points of sale. This is the greatest indictment of the issue. He states labelling would be used pejoratively to dissuade purchase and this would be unfair. He states that when calm - whatever that is - returns his organisation will advance plans to campaign positively for the promotion of Brazilian beef through retail food service chains.

Deputy Tom Sheahan made a point about going into a restaurant and ordering a steak. Restaurateurs are against any clear country of origin labelling being imposed on a menu because they know they cannot charge an Irish price for a Brazilian product. If it were on the menu it would put it up to the restaurateurs.

The Minister seems to be asking us to wait for the next report. I still have a suckler herd and people would state I am foolish. For a certain number of years, those selling weanlings have done all right. However, they cannot go back to the well too often and people in finishing beef are financed by bank managers. Another winter will pass and we will see cattle being killed out of sheds next spring. Mr. Patrick Wall and others stated it was not unreasonable to recommend a total ban on Brazilian beef. However, the EU is ignoring this, whatever is its agenda.

We must keep pressure up on this and not allow the matter to die. It has been brushed under the table pending another report. How many bloody reports do they need? It is clear. The manner of the defence of the Brazilian Beef Information Service is to ignore the critical points. It claims Brazil's herd traceability is the envy of many other countries and new plants are in place. This is not the documentary evidence or the evidence of the EU Food Safety Authority or the IFA and the Irish Farmers’ Journal. We cannot keep ignoring this and we must face up to the facts. We are subjected to random on-the-spot checks. More money is given to people to protect the partridge and if they do not do so, they are penalised in their REPS plan. Documentary evidence has been produced on cut tags and holes in ears. If farmers acted in a similar way in this country, their animals would be removed from the food chain and they would lose their entitlements and, possibly, herd numbers. There is not a level playing pitch.

It is nonsense to claim that we are being asked to produce under these stringent conditions because of BSE. The conditions obtain because the consumer needs to know what he or she is eating. The ongoing debate in the Seanad on local food markets demonstrates the demand for locally produced food in order that customers can be confident about safety from farm to plate. People walk into restaurants and certain butchers without knowing what they are buying. It is not appropriate, therefore, that the Brazilian beef industry representative does not want country of origin information to be required.

I will be brief because most of my comments were anticipated by other members. I welcome the IFA delegation and watched its DVD which is, undeniably, frightening. There is no comparison between the regulations imposed on Irish farmers and the conditions obtaining in Brazil. Meat from that country is probably imported at a similar price to the €15 per kilo charged in Brussels but is certainly sold in restaurants for the same price as Irish beef. The Food Safety Authority should conduct DNA testing in restaurants because, by taking two or three cases to court, restaurateurs would be made aware that they should not sell Brazilian beef as Irish.

I am glad we have another former butcher on the committee because, in the context of local food markets, it is important we provide grants to get small butchers and abattoirs up and running again. They were forced out of business by regulation. I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries with responsibility for food and horticulture is considering measures in that regard. I also ask for the support of the IFA in the matter. People who have lambs killed for their freezers have to go to meat factories but they do not know what they are getting. The Minister is fully aware of this issue. There should be a total ban on Brazilian beef imports.

I would like the IFA representatives to comment on the practice of repackaging Brazilian beef as Irish.

Mr. Pádraig Walshe

I thank committee members for their contributions. Clearly, there is a lot of support from members for the points of view we expressed and they are well informed on the issues involved.

Deputies Scanlon and Sheahan referred to the legislation on abattoirs. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, will follow through on his commitments because the lack of equivalence in the sector is a small part of the bigger picture.

It is ironic that the representative of the Brazilian industry is based in London, given the history of Britain's cheap food policies. I was reminded of the regular outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in that country prior to its accession to the EEC in 1973. The first outbreak I recall occured in 1966 but there were also earlier incidents. The cause of these outbreaks was beef imports from Argentina and elsewhere in South America and the effect on the Irish market was significant. Word would be passed around the markets when a load of beef arrived at Liverpool because the price of cattle went up if a ship was delayed on the high seas for a few weeks, only to decrease again when the ship docked. Once Britain joined the EEC, it received its supplies from within the Community and imports from South America ceased. It was only in the late 1990s that we resumed importing from the Continent, since which time the Community has experienced three outbreaks of foot and mouth disease.

The USA has not experienced any outbreaks of the disease since 1929 because the Commission has adopted a lower risk policy than its US counterpart. The same applies to New Zealand, Australia, Korea, Japan and Canada. When we speak to our counterparts in these countries, they ask us why, for example, we ban US beef because of hormones. We were told that European consumers did not want beef containing hormones. We accepted this. I can say with confidence that no hormones have been used in Irish beef production for many years. If that is what European consumers want, that is what they will get.

A number of members referred to the cost of beef in Brussels. That good restaurateur, Stefan, always shows us his price list when we visit him, although we cannot afford to eat at his establishment regularly. He is committed to using Irish beef and we try to support him whenever we can. The difference in price is one matter but the cost of compliance is another. Irish farmers have invested in compliance measures. Doing away with hormones cost us money because we could have produced more beef at a lower cost if we were allowed to use them. The same applies to antibiotics which we cannot use to cure sick animals or prevent illness. Veterinary expenses are associated with these regulations. Deputy Sheahan spoke about having to kill all his animals on a Tuesday because of the requirement that small abattoirs have veterinarians present to supervise the slaughter. These regulations involve compliance costs.

Reference was made to Mr. Bensted Smith's claims in respect of the absence of a nitrates problem in Brazil. How does he know when that country's nitrate use has never been measured? I assure the committee that Brazil has a significant nitrates problem. Does anyone think the 24 million who live in São Paolo do not give rise to nitrates problems? I have seen for myself that the city's treatment works are not adequate, given the size of its population. Some 200 million cattle are concentrated in feedlots. If the price of grain remains high for several years, Brazilian farmers will be encouraged to use much more nitrogen fertilizer. Similarly, testing for BSE is not conducted in Brazil. Therefore, how can we know there is no BSE problem there? Feed is used in the feedlots and the age of the animals is impossible to determine when there is no traceability.

Who knows how old an animal is when there is no traceability? If there are 200 million cattle in the country and we do a calculation based on the number of tonnes processed each year we come up with an average age of approximately five years. However we do not know for certain. There is no question that the average age of an animal in Brazil is anything like in Ireland. A local Irish butcher cannot kill an animal over 24 months and every animal over 30 months must be tested for BSE. Still they do not test in Brazil.

There have been many good points, one of which is the cost of compliance. Irish farmers are investing in farm waste management with the help of a good grant available through the Exchequer with the support of this committee. Farmers are also investing more than €1 billion of their own money in complying with the nitrates directive. I should say they are investing money they have borrowed from the banks and of which they have the use for a while in the hope that they will be able to pay it back. The nitrates directive is only one of the 18 cross-compliance measures that are being checked through on-the-spot farm inspections. We have a high compliance rate. Last year the compliance rate was so high that the European Commission is questioning it. However, that compliance comes at a high cost for farmers.

We must return to and continually highlight the lack of equivalence in standards. This is all about equivalence in standards, and there is none. We have 15 representatives of our livestock committee from around the country here. I am sure they have been in contact with the committee regularly over the last number of months and will continue to be in contact until we get a satisfactory resolution to this issue.

On several occasions, including at the agriculture committee of the European Parliament last July, the representatives of DG SANKO accused our people who had been in Brazil of visiting farms that do not send product to Europe and tried in every way possible to undermine our report. I have not heard a word of criticism from DG SANKO since the FVO report was published, when, as Mr. Bryan pointed out, they visited only nine farms that probably knew months in advance that they were coming. They still found major problems on three of them. I compliment the people in the FVO who did the report. It took them a long time to produce it, but they had presented their report to DG SANKO a long time before DG SANKO released it. The people who visited Brazil last month are presenting a preliminary report to their DG SANKO officials in Brussels and in the last few weeks we have heard that matters have not improved.

It is crucial that we apply as much pressure as possible over the next few weeks because EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr. Markos Kyprianou, stated in the European Parliament that if matters had not improved by the end of the year he would have to take action. The end of the year is only a few weeks away. It is crucial that we put on as much pressure as possible and that is why we sought to meet this committee as early as possible.

The professionals who produced the FVO report suggest FMD is underreported in Brazil. In their previous report they made certain recommendations on vaccination. In the report they state that the wrong vaccine is being used for the wrong strain of FMD. How is that a protection against FMD? It cannot be. Regionalisation was ridiculed by people who criticised our stance on this. Deputy Sheehan referred earlier to the role of former Deputy Joe Walsh, then Minister for Agriculture and Food, on dealing with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. To compare what is happening in Brazil with the regionalisation policy County Louth in 2001, or to what is happening in the UK is an insult to Mr. Walsh, the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Defence Forces and the farmers who implemented that policy. As we know, the regionalisation was so tight that not even a cat or mouse crossed that border in that period. Brazilian farmers admitted to our people that animals freely cross the borders without any checks. Not only national borders within Brazil but international borders between Brazil and Paraguay and Bolivia, countries where the EU and DG SANKO admit foot and mouth disease is endemic.

The Brazilian ambassador publicly admitted Brazil will never eliminate foot and mouth disease. All it can do is hope to control it through vaccination. Brazilian farmers can get a certificate saying their animals have been vaccinated against the disease the day the buy the vaccine. Would that not be a great system? As a farmer I would not like such a system to operate in this country because I would not be confident that some cowboy would not let us all down. A farmer with 10,000 animals who buys the vaccine and receives the certificate faces a few days of work with a lot of people to get them vaccinated. Do the committee members think all those animals would be vaccinated? In the video the members saw the makeshift timber corrals they use for handling the animals. If some cattle break out of the corrals, do the members imagine the farmers will go after them and get them in again or that they will know which ones have been vaccinated and which ones have not? It does not work and cannot work.

Until there is some equivalence in the standard I would be negligent in my responsibility to my members if we did not continue to highlight these issues, and we will do so. At a recent meeting of the social partners at Farmleigh I spoke on this topic and asked the Taoiseach to speak to European Commission President José Manuel Durão Barroso on it. I highlighted the issue there as I am doing today. The IFA has been a member of the partnership process since it began in 1987. It has worked well for this country and we will continue to be members and will highlight our issues at every opportunity. However, there is a crucial period in the next few weeks during which pressure can be applied and the issue can be highlighted to Mr. Kyprianou and DG SANKO. The issue should not arise next May but if it does we will deal with it. We will use the partnership process to the best of our ability to highlight issues at every opportunity.

Some technical questions were raised on frozen meat and other issues. I will ask Mr. Kinsella to answer those.

Mr. Kevin Kinsella

I thank the Chairman and the committee for their support on our campaign on Brazil. We have given a similar presentation in Brussels to the agricultural committee, chaired by Neil Parish, an MEP from the UK. It fully endorsed our campaign and called for a total ban on Brazilian beef. The work we are doing today is very important in that context.

A couple of technical questions arose. Deputy Aylward raised the issue of BSE, which is a significant matter that the Brazilians continue to raise all the time with European member states. When there was a significant problem with BSE here, in the UK and across Europe, the European Commission and the European Union as a whole dealt with it thoroughly. It is expensive and there is much regulation. Deputies Sheahan and Scanlon, as well as others involved in the meat sector, would know that from BSE testing to the removal of specific risk material, there is significant cost to the industry here.

The issue was approached and dealt with from a consumer safety perspective, which is what should be done in this case. The risk was measured before eliminating it as much as possible.

Deputy Aylward asked about BSE incidence in Brazil. We do not know this as the country has no fallen animal policy. John Bryan referred to how they deal with fallen animals in Brazil but they do not test for BSE. We are not making any allegations on the matter as we have kept the issues raised in Brazil to facts and the evidence we sought. This evidence indicates the country has no fallen animal policy and does not test for BSE. We will not go further than that.

Deputy Aylward raised a question regarding frozen versus fresh chilled produce. Of the 330,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef coming into the Community, approximately 40% is fresh chilled. Another significant volume is frozen and a smaller volume would be regarded as processed. Some of the processed product would be regarded as having gone through a cooked process.

No later than this morning I consulted with Dr. Kevin Dodd from UCD on this issue. He is the most eminent expert on foot and mouth disease, FMD, in the country. I asked him what the risk was, from an FMD perspective, with regard to fresh and frozen product, and he told me it was exactly the same. Freezing the product does not reduce the FMD risk.

The Brazilians claim they reduce the pH of the product with packing, which reduces the risk. We can show the committee a report from Dr. Kevin Dodd which makes it very clear that is a natural phenomenon which may or may not occur in meat. That is, the pH may or may not come down and it is too variable a process to be relied on to reduce FMD risk of exposure.

Dr. Dodd made it very clear to me this morning in conversation that there can be no half measures with this issue. If a country is exposed to beef from Brazil, the European Union is being exposed to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. He made it clear that foot and mouth disease will continue in Europe while we continue to import Brazilian beef.

Deputy Doyle raised the matter of what is happening in the UK and the response of the Brazilian meat exporters association. Recently, the IFA national livestock chairman and I had the opportunity to meet representatives of Sainsbury's, the supermarket chain that would probably import more Irish beef than any other UK supermarket. The chief meat buyer in Sainsbury's told us very clearly that Brazil does not match equivalent standards and the supermarket would not put the product on its shelves while that is the case. The chief buyers in the McDonald's group in Europe have described Brazilian meat as an accident waiting to happen.

Dr. Mansergh raised an issue regarding Argentina. Although today's discussion concerns Brazil rather than Argentina, the biggest risk to Argentinean beef production is its close proximity to Brazil. When Brazil had an outbreak in October 2005, there was an immediate outbreak in Corrientes state in Argentina, which is adjacent to Brazil. The exposure Argentina, and to some degree Brazil, experiences is predominantly from Paraguay and Bolivia.

In Brazil one can drive across the border to Paraguay, which I did. There are no checks, controls or bio-security. A guy on the border will just wave people on as people come the other way. The farms straddle the border as there is no physical separation, such as a river or forest, between Paraguay, Brazil and parts of Argentina.

We have made our case today on the Brazilian issue and we are not making a case on Argentina. To answer Dr. Mansergh's question, there is exposure with Argentina as well. I will conclude and I thank the Chairman.

What about repackaging before selling the product on? There has been much talk about that.

Mr. Kevin Kinsella

The Chairman raised that matter and there has been much discussion on it. We have considered the matter as closely as possible but it is very difficult to get precise facts and information, and there is much unsubstantiated detail. We undertake DNA testing, as Deputy Scanlon mentioned, and we have undertaken a fairly comprehensive level of such testing.

With regard to Irish retailers, that product is absolutely properly labelled Irish beef and no Brazilian imports go into that market, as far as we can ascertain. It is a different case with restaurants, hotels and catering outlets. The committee knows it is the responsibility of the Food Safety Authority to implement the labelling laws in that regard and it has failed to do so. I have spoken to the Chairman about this and the joint committee might consider the matter again. The authority has failed to implement the laws in that area and we will continue to raise the issue with it.

From DNA testing we have undertaken, there are no problems in the retail sector in this country. With regard to exports, we have no information other than hearsay that emerges from time to time. We cannot produce facts that can be backed up. We were very careful in our report on Brazil, and in anything else we did, that any information put forward could be substantiated. We have shown this evidence to the joint committee and the committee in Brussels.

Many people tried to discredit this evidence and some in Brussels even suggested that some of the pictures we took of hormone bottles were not taken in Brazil. We could show that the writing on some of the bottles was Portuguese, which is spoken in Brazil. Some of the actions of people were farcical in that regard.

Any allegations we have made have been substantiated and we are continuing with this approach. The facts will ultimately emerge on this issue and the truth will win out.

Mr. Kinsella has stated he has no facts to back up allegations on the repackaging issue but it is widely known and said that certain companies in Ireland have imported Brazilian beef and repackaged it as Irish. I have no proof of this either but it has been widely said for years. Do the representatives believe this to be true?

One can go into any supermarket in Ireland and pick up a tin of John West corned beef. The label will indicate that it is produced in Brazil. It is coming in and I have seen it in supermarkets in west Cork. We all have it.

Mr. Michael Berkery

The cooked product technically falls into a different category because of heat treatment and the absence of bone. In response to the question raised by the Chairman on repackaging, we must take at face value what we find in that every export plant has a designated licence or EU reference number. There is also a permanent Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food staff presence in those outlets. We are uncomfortable with products mixing in those plants, as we believe any plant with a certified export licence and EU number and a permanent Department staff presence should not be permitted to take in any other products. There will be a temptation in such circumstances for something untoward to happen out of hours. As of now there is a Department staff presence in every plant with an export licence number. Therefore, while absence of proof is an issue, we must rely on this presence.

Mr. John Bryan

I thank members of the committee for their support. Several members highlighted vested interests and the issue of trade versus food safety. These are problems facing the Commission. As there are standards applying to European production, why should we accept any less? The committee must reject vested interests and examine the issue of trade versus food safety because, as Mr. Kinsella said, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament and the Irish MEPs support us on this ban. However, something is radically wrong when the Food and Veterinary Office carries out many visits and highlights serious problems without action being taken.

I want to make a final contribution on this matter as this debate has been most useful. Regarding Mr. Bryan's last point, the Minister, regrettably, is on the record as stating this is a trade rather than an equivalence issue. I am paraphrasing her but, at least, we are beginning to address the issue of equivalence. To bring this matter to a successful conclusion and move it forward, it would be useful for the committee to pass a motion calling on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to support the campaign to ban Brazilian beef. Regarding equivalence, it has been proven beyond doubt that the playing pitch is not level. Therefore, we should conclude the meeting with something constructive.

I second Deputy Creed's proposal because the time for talk is over. Action is needed.

I propose that everyone, including the Minister, her officials, the committee and farming organisations, work together as a unit to solve this problem in the best interests of Irish and European agriculture. If a ban is necessary, so be it. Is that agreed?

I would like to put it to the committee that we pass a motion.

I do not want to get into votes.

I do not think it would need a vote because every member who has spoken seems to be in agreement. A motion would assist the Minister rather than be counterproductive. If we do not pass one, the views expressed by members will count for nothing. We must bring a successful conclusion to what has been debated today and the contributions we have heard can only lead to the conclusion that members of the committee are unanimous in their views. A ban is the only logical way to proceed.

I would not like to see politics come into this matter. If we are to pass a motion, many members who had to attend other committee meetings should be here. We should also discuss it when members of the IFA are not present. If we are in agreement, we should pass a motion at the next meeting when all committee members can attend

I agree with the Chairman's suggestion that we should highlight for the Minister the fact that the committee is unanimous in its view on this matter.

I have said on numerous occasions, as have others, that the Minister is fully supportive of what we have discussed today.

We should pass on a unanimous message from the committee.

I am sure the Irish Farmers Association knows the Minister supports us.

Can we invite her to come here? If she comes before us soon, we can convey our feelings regarding this subject.

The Deputy need not worry as the clerk to the committee will inform the Minister of every issue raised here and the actions we wish her and the Department to take. That has always been the case and always will be as long as I am Chairman of the committee.

Should I take it that the general opinion is that the committee should not reach any conclusion today? This is what the Chairman and Government members of the committee seem to be suggesting.

That is wrong. The members of the IFA are here to discuss a matter and bring related issues to our attention, as they have in the past. We have never brought politics into these matters, as we are here to work together.

Mr. Pádraig Walshe

I thank the Chairman for the time he has afforded us. Perhaps we should now withdraw and let the committee conclude.

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Mr. Walshe, Mr. Berkery, Mr. Bryan and Mr. Kinsella. I guarantee they have the full support of the committee, as in the past, and I am confident this will continue. I compliment the representatives on the fine work they have done and assure them that we will work with the Minister, her officials and our European counterparts for the best interests of Irish agriculture. As has been stated here on numerous occasions, we cannot allow Irish farmers to be walked on. In co-operation with the IFA, the committee will not allow this to happen.

We need to go into private session. Is that agreed?

I propose that we stay in public session, although I will not insist on dividing the committee.

We never stayed in public session in the past.

The contribution of every member of the committee to the debate was in support of the IFA's campaign to ban Brazilian beef. Perhaps as a compromise, the committee could write to the Minister stating it was the view of all contributing members that--

That always happens. It always happened in the past and will happen in the future. The member's suggestion is unnecessary, as we always write to the Minister with concerns raised relating to issues. The clerk to the committee will inform the Minister and her officials of our concerns, with the agreement of the committee.

I suggest that it be conveyed to the Minister that it was the view of every member who spoke today that the IFA's campaign to ban Brazilian beef should be supported.

In the light of today's presentation, the moment we receive the second FVO report we should reconvene. If the report upholds the previous one and the IFA's two reports, we should ask the Minister to use her influence to have Brazilian beef banned. The reply I received from her indicates she has this course of action in mind. If the second report substantiates the first one, the onus will be on us to instruct the Minister to use her influence to have Brazilian beef banned.

Is that agreed?

The only observation I can make is that the report on the March visit was only published in October. The current report may not be published until next May. Are we to wait that long?

I have no problem with putting a motion to the Minister if we can agree on the wording. That is all I want. We all have concerns about Brazilian beef, but the Minister must go to Brussels--

I honestly believe it would help.

Tying her hands and saying she must call for a ban on Brazilian beef is not the way to do it. She must negotiate in Brussels. We cannot do this on our own.

She is strengthened by the committee.

The EU agriculture committee has endorsed this position. We should support the position of the committee which is to demand honest answers and to obtain a ban on Brazilian beef if the allegations against it are proven, as they have been. The least we should do is endorse the position of the EU agriculture committee. I do not see why we cannot do that. Are we endorsing its position on the record?

We have no problem endorsing it. It was my suggestion that we all work together, here and in Europe, to resolve this problem in the best interests of Irish and European agriculture, especially beef producers, although the consumer is even more important. Is that agreed?

What are we agreeing?

That the Minister, the officials, this committee, the farming organisations, and our counterparts in Europe all work together to resolve this issue.

I find it difficult to accept that as an outcome of the meeting. We all want to work in the interests of the Irish people but some elements in Europe are not working with us. We need to work with the Minister, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the European agriculture committee which has endorsed the position as outlined by the IFA. The question is whether we endorse that position as well.

We are fully supportive of the IFA's position on issues which it has brought to our attention today and in the past.

If it is the conclusion of the committee that we support the IFA campaign, I support that.

The Minister has stated that in written form addressed to me.

Is it the conclusion that we support the IFA campaign?

We are getting bogged down over nothing. We are all in the same boat and rowing in the same direction. It is just a matter of the form of words. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Ferris. It is a long time until next May. That is too long to wait. We should put words of support to the Minister in her representations to the EU to try to obtain a ban on Brazilian beef if it is not up to the required standards. Asking her to go to Europe and call for a ban immediately is not the right way to go.

We cannot do that.

The Chairman has indicated that the Department is advised of developments following all meetings of this committee. We should write to the Minister to say that the committee has met the IFA and is supportive of its position. At a minimum, this should be put on record in a letter to the Minister.

We will invite the Minister and her officials to attend a meeting of the committee to discuss this issue as soon as possible, as we have in the past and will in the future, although it probably will not be before Christmas.

Can we state that the committee unanimously supports the position of the IFA and calls for action on this issue?

That is agreed. Our next meeting will be a meeting of the select committee to discuss the Supplementary Estimates, followed by a meeting of the joint committee with officials from the Department to discuss the so-called health check of the Common Agricultural Policy reform.

When will the Minister attend a meeting of the committee? There are many proposals that may have an impact on Irish agriculture. There is a proposal for a 2% reduction as part of CAP reform, although it is only at debating stage.

We will have her attend as soon as possible.

It is important that the Minister attends the committee so that she may hear our views on this.

She will be present for the Estimates in a couple of weeks.

We should put on the work schedule a discussion of the forthcoming EU directive on the use of pesticides, fungicides and chemical sprays. I do not know whether this has been raised already.

Senator Callanan raised that matter. We will bring in officials to discuss it.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.15 p.m. until 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 December 2007.
Barr
Roinn