Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2009

Food Labelling: Discussion with Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I sincerely welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith. He will be aware that we are to travel to Brussels next week regarding this issue; he is fully au fait with the background position. We know the Minister’s view and wish to strengthen the position on issues he has, no doubt, also raised.

Before we begin, I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, as has the Minister, 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 Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. At this stage the Minister has heard that introduction ad nauseam, so I ask him for his contribution.

I thank the Chairman and the committee members for the invitation to make a short presentation. The Minister for Health and Children has overall responsibility for food labelling legislation.

Under the general labelling directive, the place of origin of the foodstuff must be given only if its absence could mislead the consumer to a material degree. The European Commission is currently undertaking a major review of all food labelling legislation and in this context it has prepared draft revised labelling regulations that are being discussed at Council working party level in Brussels. These draft regulations will be submitted to the EU Council of Health Ministers in the course of this year.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the current review of origin labelling, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken steps to introduce origin labelling for meats other than beef, which has been subject to specific legislation since September 2000. Regarding poultry, EU regulations provide for the labelling of unprocessed poultry meat at retail level. The regulations require such poultry meat to be labelled with information on class, price, condition, the registered number, slaughterhouse or cutting plant used and, where imported from a third country, an indication of country of origin.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children, drafted regulations that would require the country of origin to be indicated on pigmeat, poultry and sheepmeat. This was notified to the European Commission in December 2007, as required by legislation. However, the Commission was not prepared to adopt the draft regulations in their current format on the grounds that the proposed legislation was not in compliance with EU food labelling regulations. Its main contention is that only harmonised rules with EU-wide applicability may be applied to food labelling, other than in exceptional circumstances.

In March 2008 the European Commission delivered a negative opinion on the regulations but afforded Ireland an opportunity to provide further information in support of them. In the meantime, the Department provided additional details, including the current misleading labelling practices and evidence of consumers' desire for country of origin labelling. However, the EU standing committee on the food chain and animal health formally adopted the negative opinion in December 2008. This is very disappointing but, unfortunately, there was little support for our position from other member states, with the exception of Italy.

There is also an issue, whereby a primary product can enter Ireland and be processed in some way, allowing it to be branded as an Irish product. This is known as "substantial transformation". This terminology originates in WTO codex and EU legislation governing the EU customs code and can therefore only be amended at EU level. I have been concerned that this arrangement could in certain circumstances be used to mislead consumers as to the origin of the raw materials used in certain products. This was one of the principal points made to the European Commission in the context of our requests for its approval of our proposed national arrangements. We will continue to pursue this issue, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children, at EU level in the context of the current review.

As I said, the only support for mandatory labelling of meat and meat products within these discussions came from Ireland and Italy. However, I met recently the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mr. Hilary Benn, and discussed the issue with him at length. A view is developing within Britain that it should also support obligatory labelling of country of origin for meat and meat products. This is a welcome development and represents a big change in attitude in Britain. In the meantime, products carrying the Bord Bia quality assurance label provide consumers with assurance on product origin.

I wish the Chairman and the committee well in their discussions with Commissioner Kuneva on this very important issue.

I thank the Minister for a comprehensive outline of the current position.

I am delighted the Minister is present. Is it true that Italy has gone it alone in providing country of origin information on its products? I understand it has done so, which explains why it supports us.

The phrase "substantial transformation" is nonsense. We have heard about putting breadcrumbs on top of a chicken and calling it Irish. Often, a leprechaun is put on the label or a little Celtic script but it may come from the Phillippines or South-East Asia. This is to the detriment of Irish producers who are trying to sell quality food produced on a clean, green food island. In tough times and a time of recession we want to support farmers in selling their products in farmers' markets with local origin labels.

Will we be successful in our desire to have country of origin labelling? Has Italy told the European Union where to go in this regard and gone its own way?

Italy went its own way but the case is before the European Court of Justice. I served as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food some years ago and returned to the Department last May. Having attended Council of Minister meetings I detect a gradual movement towards recognising the need for proper identification of products and country of origin labelling. The movement towards labelling does not seem to have gathered great momentum but the fact that the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mr. Hilary Benn, has spoken of the need for the consumer to have adequate knowledge of where a product originates is very welcome. Historically, Britain and Ireland did not share many views on agricultural issues at meetings of the Council of Ministers. Mr. Benn spoke at a conference in Oxford just after Christmas and outlined his view that the consumer deserved more knowledge. I sought a meeting with him subsequently and we had a detailed discussion on the issue. It is one I will pursue, as it is very important.

Deputy O'Keeffe has spoken at length about the deficiency within the term "substantial transformation" at other committee meetings, particularly those of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This area is within the remit of Commissioners Kuneva and Vassiliou, of whom the latter is responsible for health. It is also dealt with by the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Mariann Fischer Boel, whose directorate recently presented a Green Paper on the wider issue of food quality in the European Union. Part of the paper deals with production requirements and poses questions to stimulate debate. One of the questions is whether it is possible to make disclosure of the origin of a primary product mandatory, whether it comes from the European Union or outside. I hope the Green Paper will move the debate in the direction we would like it to take. It is important that the agriculture directorate has put it forward.

I acknowledge that the Minister is working very hard on this issue. We have learned a lot in this country since the pigmeat dioxin incident. It was surprising that secondary processors had no stock on the day of the announcement but had loads the following day. There is a multiplicity of secondary processors in the country and they are the problem because they are totally opposed to country of origin labelling. They are encouraged by Enterprise Ireland because they create a lot of jobs. They are major importers and remain to be convinced about the benefits of such a requirement. One of the great weaknesses in pork production is that there is no on-site packing, as takes place in Denmark and North America. We only slaughter but the packing is carried out at secondary processing level. We cannot guarantee a genuine pork and bacon product to many of our consumers, which is a disadvantage. I blame Enterprise Ireland for what happened in my area.

Deputy White spoke about the labelling of chicken coming into Ireland but Irish stuffing is the only Irish product one will find in a chicken nowadays. Bord Bia does an excellent job. Its staff worked overnight during the dioxin incident and it is a wonderful organisation, despite the fact it is short of finance. More money would enable it to do even better work.

We heard a very interesting presentation last week by Mr. Aidan Cotter on the dairy industry. That group wanted to introduce voluntary country of origin information via a bar code but it was met with massive resistance from secondary processors. It was met with massive resistance from secondary processors. Even though there may be a shamrock and a country of origin label on the pack, I am suspicious when I hear that secondary processors will not allow bar coding. It is an uphill battle.

Can the Deputy be brief?

There is a vote in the Dáil.

We will win it. Country of origin labelling is vital for success. I have no problem with competition as long as there is choice, about which this is about. We are not trying to stop anyone else. This is a big job of work and I welcome the Department's efforts in this regard.

I am disappointed there has been no progress on the matter. Over a long period different Governments have failed to solve the issue. We need precise labelling in order that people will know exactly what they are buying. Apart from blaming the European Union for blocking this, is there anything else we can do to move matters forward, given that it seems the issue will be stuck in the European Union for a while? Prior to the pork scare many did not realise what was really going on. Now they realise that some of the well known brands are not Irish produced products. Are there other ways to get the message across? This is a serious matter which puts our producers at a major disadvantage. People are being sold a pup in the shops if they do not know what exactly they are buying.

Deputy O'Keeffe has mentioned the great work Bord Bia does. The quality assurance label denotes product origin and is very worthwhile. We have been expanding the initiative. Within the Single Market we must abide by the trade rules. However, Ireland, with Italy, has highlighted the need for the customer to be given proper information without having to search for it. It should be visible and transparent. I compliment the Deputy on his efforts in going to meet the Commissioner also. This is one issue I will continuously pursue.

Which countries are the main culprits in blocking this measure?

Who are the opposition?

We have very little support in Europe for our proposals.

We do not want a European label either.

No. We want country of origin labelling.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. They have given us some useful information.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.55 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.
Barr
Roinn