I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to attend and welcome the opportunity to update them on the events and actions surrounding the feed contamination incident and subsequent recall of pork and bacon products. In making this presentation and addressing their queries I am joined by Mr. Dermot Ryan, senior inspector at the Department; Mr. Martin Heraghty, assistant secretary general; Mr. Jim Beecher, assistant secretary general; and Mr. Martin O'Sullivan, deputy chief veterinary officer.
The committee requested information on four specific areas, namely, the effectiveness of the traceability system in place; the procedures involved in monitoring licensed premises; the proportionality of the response in dealing with the original contamination; and the way forward for the industry, domestically and globally. In the initial presentation given by the Secretary General of my Department, Mr. Tom Moran, the committee was provided with background information on the food safety organisational arrangements, the legislative framework in which we operated and a detailed chronology of events. I propose, therefore, to confine my comments to the specific questions raised by the committee. With the agreement of members, I will respond to a number of issues that have arisen during the course of the committee's proceedings to date.
I welcome the committee's inquiry into the dioxin contamination incident and compliment members on the work they are doing. This was a major event by any standards and it is important that the Oireachtas be directly involved in considering the many aspects of the incident. As indicated in the initial presentation from my Department, there will be a comprehensive review involving it, the Department of Health and Children and relevant State agencies, including the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI. The objective of the review will be to make recommendations on whatever adjustments of controls are necessary in the light of the experience gained in dealing with what was obviously a new challenge. This is consistent with the approach adopted by my Department in the aftermath of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 when it carried out a comprehensive review to update and revise its contingency plan. I am pleased that Professor Pat Wall has agreed to chair our review. The review, in formulating whatever adjustments are necessary, will take on board the views and recommendations of the committee.
I must reiterate that the traceability system we have in place for pigs at farm level allowed my Department to rapidly trace back from positive samples of pork fat taken at slaughter to the farm of origin and onto the feed supplier and to all the customers of the feed supplier in question. It is fair to say this tracing exercise was carried out promptly and efficiently. This was a real example of how the traceability systems in place worked to our benefit.
As there has been much comment about traceability, I should provide some background information. Identification and traceability of animals were introduced in the context of dealing with animal health, disease control and eradication and to allow animals deemed unfit to enter the food chain be traced back to the farm of origin. The relevant systems are primarily designed to trace diseased or potentially diseased animals backwards and forwards between farms, regions and countries. Traceability of cattle gained major momentum in the mid-1990s as a result of the emergence of BSE and labelling and other elements were introduced later in respect of beef.
More limited identification and traceability were introduced for pigs in the late 1990s. Again, this was primarily in the context of tracing animal movements for disease control and the eradication of, for example, Aujeszky's disease. We introduced identification for sheep in the aftermath of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 arising from issues identified during that outbreak. In the case of pigs, the traceability system after slaughter, as operated by food business operators, is based on production batches. The legal responsibility on the food business operator is to be able to trace one step forward and one step back. Improvement to the traceability system for pigmeat would essentially entail a tightening of the batch system, either to shorter periods of production or by restricting the number of suppliers to be included in a batch. This would obviously have cost implications for pigmeat processing. Members will appreciate that this matter would have to be carefully considered in the context of the very tight margins in the industry.
The pig sector is dramatically different from the beef sector in terms of intensity, numbers and the nature of the products produced. There are some 500 pig producers in the country. To a great extent, however, these are large, intensive and integrated units. They supply large quantities of pigs to large processors on the same day; therefore, they have different systems.
As pointed out previously, approximately 8% of the pig population was involved in the dioxin contamination incident and some 90% of slaughtering capacity was involved in the process. I am not convinced that it would be feasible to simply transfer the system in place for cattle to pigs because of the different processes involved in producing the end product. As stated, the sector operates within tight profit margins and a system such as that used in the beef sector would inevitably incur additional costs. The review group I have established will make recommendations on the measures necessary to adapt and improve the traceability system for pigmeat in the context of considering how the industry can minimise the impact in the, I hope unlikely, event of any product recall in the future.
In dealing with the issue of monitoring of licensed premises, which I take it refers to feed premises, the national feed inspection programme and the national residue monitoring programme are integral parts of the national control plan for Ireland. I reiterate that the dioxin contamination was discovered under the residue monitoring element of the control plan. The national residue programme involves a risk-based sampling regime, under which upwards of 30,000 samples are taken from across the food chain and tested for over 200 possible contaminants.
The national feed inspection programme covers a range of areas, including imports, mills, mineral mixture plants, suppliers of surplus food for recycling and recycling plants, wholesalers and retailers of animal feed and farms. There is a dedicated feed inspection unit within my Department, with staff trained specifically for this work. I reiterate that, in addition to the 2,400 inspections per annum throughout the feed chain, some 1,800 samples are taken per annum from the complete range of feed material and compound feed. These, in turn, undergo 7,000 laboratory analyses for composition, the absence of meat and bone meal, undesirable and banned substances. The level of inspections and sample-taking carried out complied with the requirements of EU legislation. Ireland is fully compliant with EU requirements in its level of testing for PCBs and dioxins. The feed inspection programme is operated also in accordance with the requirements of the hygiene regulations which cover both food and feed. The underlying philosophy of the legislation is that both food and feed business operators bear full responsibility for the safety of the food and feed they produce, process, transport or any other procedure along the chain. Under the legislation, there is a requirement on feed operators to put in place a hazard analysis and critical control point, HACCP, system. In other words, they must have in place an "own checks" control system to meet the specific requirements of their operation.
As is the norm with risk assessment practice, the experience of the dioxin incident will result in changes in the risk assessment for the 2009 feed inspection programme. The Department has identified a number of areas requiring additional attention. These include ensuring feed business operators fulfil their legal obligations to guarantee feed safety, with particular reference to the diligence with which they implement, evaluate and amend their HACCP programme. Notwithstanding whatever further actions will be recommended on foot of our review, we have taken a number of actions. These include communication with other Departments and agencies, as well as the Northern Ireland authorities, on relevant oil issues; instructing feed business operators involved in drying grain and feed to incorporate details of oil used into their HACCP and quality controls; reviewing the risk assessment of the national feed inspection programme for 2009 to take cognisance of the dioxin event; and communication with other member states and the European Commission in monitoring the use of oil for drying feed material. In this regard, the European Commission recently indicated it would consider bringing forward proposals aimed at improving the regulation of feed drying systems across member states. I am satisfied that the Department has actively enforced the legislation in place but further consideration will be given to this process during the review of this incident.
I have also been asked by the committee to address the proportionality of the response in dealing with the original contamination. There has been no dispute that the correct decision was made in ordering a product recall. As the committee was informed, the 27 Heads of Government at the European Council formally expressed their support "for Ireland's efforts to deal with the situation relating to pigmeat and its prompt precautionary action". The EU Commissioner for Health also expressed appreciation to me for the prompt and swift action taken to restore consumer confidence. Professor Wall also acknowledged in his presentation to the committee that the decisive action taken had helped to allay fears of consumers and international purchasers of Irish pork products.
The committee has been informed about the manner in which the decision was taken following receipt of positive results for dioxins in Irish pork and feed on Saturday, 6 December. The decision was not taken lightly but, clearly, consumer health had to be the overriding factor. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland's recommendation and ultimate decision were made with the purpose of limiting consumer exposure to contaminated products to the shortest possible time period. The fact that pigmeat products were back on the market and in demand within one week is clear evidence that the approach was correct.
Mr. Alan Reilly gave a very clear explanation to the committee about the maximum legal limits of dioxins allowed and the impact dioxins have on a body over a period of time. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland also took account of the fact that it was not possible to distinguish between contaminated and uncontaminated products in approximately 98% of the national throughput of pork. Its view, with which I concur, was that the longer contaminated products remained on the market, the greater the risk would be to public health. As Mr. Reilly said, this point was endorsed by the European Food Safety Authority in its 90-day exposure study. Given all the circumstances at that stage and the fact that the product was back on the market so quickly, I am convinced that the correct action was taken and that, by doing so, consumer confidence has been maintained in the controls in place in Ireland to ensure the food consumers eat is safe. It also demonstrates beyond doubt the absolute priority the Government affords to food safety and that we will not allow any question about the safety of Irish food products.
The other issue I was asked to address was the way forward for the industry, both domestically and globally. A number of priorities guided our actions: protection of consumer health, to which I have referred; restoration of consumer confidence; securing the future of the industry and maintenance of markets. In the immediate aftermath of the recall we turned our attention to the future of industry and there were intensive discussions with the pig processors to facilitate the resumption of slaughter. Financial assistance of up to €180 million was made available through a pigmeat recall scheme by the Government. Interim payments amounting to more than €35 million have been made to date under the scheme and I am hopeful a further interim payment can be made shortly. We also obtained state aid approval and co-funding from the European Commission in respect of elements of the scheme, as well as towards the cost of depopulating affected herds.
With regard to minimising market impact, the Department, in conjunction with Bord Bia, took the necessary steps to inform customers, both at home and abroad, as to the actions being taken to preclude any possible health risk. Our diplomatic missions assisted in this task and played a very proactive role. We have been open and frank in our dealings with customer countries and this will stand us in good stead as we attempt to regain market share. As Bord Bia pointed out in its presentation to the committee last week, the immediate priority is to secure the industry's market position in the near term and the year ahead. In the case of the home market, the fact that product was back on the shelves within one week was extremely helpful. Consumers responded positively and Bord Bia will build on this with a promotional campaign that will be launched in February. The campaign will focus on product that bears the Bord Bia quality mark, which communicates origin as well as quality. Despite the encouraging consumer reaction, problems may still arise on the home market. Our export markets may take longer to recover and this would result in oversupply on the domestic market. The EU-funded aid to private storage which we negotiated with the Commission should help if this is the case. It allows up to 30,000 tonnes of product to be temporarily stored for up to six months and has a potential value of €15 million.
The Department and Bord Bia will continue to work assiduously with a view to resolving any market access issues and rebuilding our market share. I have made it clear that I am prepared to visit relevant markets if that seems appropriate. I am glad the recent trade mission to Japan was successful in the context of continued access to that important market. At trade level in our export markets, Bord Bia reports some reluctance among customers to take Irish pigmeat products in the short term. This may be partly attributable to a desire to await the full destruction of product affected by the recall. In that regard, my Department is working with the industry to ensure the early destruction of product in situ. Where that is either not feasible or not allowed by the competent authorities, the return of product for its destruction in Ireland will be pursued. Another reason for customer reticence may be lingering concerns about the dioxin issue. Bord Bia has in place a market recovery and reassurance campaign which underlines the safety, quality and capabilities of the Irish pigmeat sector and the integrity of the Irish food safety controls to allay these concerns. My Department will work closely with Bord Bia to ensure the success of the campaign and the restoration of markets.
The question of the source of the contaminated oil is subject to ongoing investigations by the Garda with the assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency and the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland. Because of this I cannot comment further on this specific aspect.
The issues of country of origin labelling and "substantial transformation" have been raised on a number of occasions during the committee's deliberations. As members will be aware from discussions in the Dáil and elsewhere, this is a matter about which I have serious concerns, as had my predecessors in this post. In 2007 the Department submitted to the European Commission draft national legislation that would require the country of origin to be indicated on pigmeat, poultrymeat and sheepmeat and food products containing more than 70% of these meats. During the past year the Department has been in extensive communication with the Commission with a view to justifying and pressing the case for the proposed legislation. The Commission, however, adopted a negative opinion regarding our proposal on the grounds that it was not consistent with the ED labelling directive. Its main contention is that only harmonised rules with EU-wide applicability may be applied to food labelling other than in exceptional circumstances. This negative opinion was formally adopted at a meeting of the EU standing committee on the food chain and animal health in December 2008. The Commission is reviewing food labelling legislation and, as part of that process, the Department, together with the Department of Health and Children, the lead Department for the legislation, has sought the use of compulsory country of origin labelling for meat. In this context, I have been in discussions with my UK counterpart about the matter, as there appears to be a change in the British position. We will continue to pursue the question of labelling at EU level. Products carrying the Bord Bia quality assurance label provide consumers with assurance on product origin.
This incident demonstrated the advantages of an independent food safety authority. Both the FSAI and Dr. Wall have referred to the fact that the FSAI was the first such agency in Europe and has served as a model agency for other member states. It is also fair to say the Department and the FSAI worked well together in their respective roles throughout the incident. I note that Mr. Reilly has acknowledged the very professional relationship between the two organisations. I note also that there were suggestions a single agency should be introduced to cover all aspects of food safety from the very beginning of the line right through to the consumer. I am satisfied that the current regime works well, but organisational arrangements are a topic that will be considered in detail in the review. The service contract between the Department and the FSAI is due for renewal on 1 January 2010 and, as is normal, all food safety related matters will be considered.
The question of the ability of our laboratories in Backweston to test for dioxins was raised. There are two distinct sets of laboratories in Backweston, those belonging to the Department and the separate State Laboratory. I reiterate that there was not an inordinate delay in testing for PCBs in the Backweston laboratory. In addition, that we did not have dioxin testing facilities caused no appreciable delay in the confirmation of the initial dioxin contamination as the sample that was positive for marker PCBs was brought by hand by an official of the Department to the laboratory in York. I can confirm that the State Laboratory expects to be in a position to undertake dioxin testing from next month.
It is clear there are many aspects to the dioxin contamination incident and that there remains much work to be completed in dealing with the consequences of the incident. Clearly, lessons are also to be learned from the event, both by ourselves and at European level. As I indicated, we will be commencing a comprehensive review shortly, as part of which we will consider all of the views and recommendations of the joint committee. I thank the Chairman and committee members for their co-operation and help when we discussed the issue in the Dáil in December. I also thank the Opposition parties for their co-operation in ensuring the Supplementary Estimate was passed before the Dáil rose.
