Táimid thar a bheith buíoch díobh as an cuireadh teacht thar n-ais anseo inniu. Tá bhúr tacaíocht fíor-thábhachtach dúinn, go mór mór do gnótháí beaga timpeall na tíre.
We are delighted to be invited back so soon to make a presentation. Our members were very taken by the level of commitment and understanding among legislators regarding the problems that face our sector, particularly in the area of artisan food, when we previously appeared before the committee. It gave us a good understanding of the processes of the House and the support we have in the Legislature. That was particularly interesting for our members and we are grateful for that. I am accompanied by Ms Eileen Bentley of Bord Bia and Mr. Raymond O'Rourke, a colleague on the Taste Council.
The council was set up by the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr. Joe Walsh, as a representative body for the artisan food sector. Our organisation has for the past three to four years influenced Bord Bia's strategy and it has represented many small businesses while examining barriers to the growth of such businesses. The value of the artisan and specialty food sector is estimated at €475 million. It comprises 300 firms and 3,000 people are employed. Teagasc produced a report for the food industry recently, which projected that 700 small food companies will be established by 2030. On the basis of my knowledge on the ground, the number will be greater than that. With the committee's help, it will be even greater if sustainability is to be achieved in rural Ireland, in particular.
It is important in considering legislation that nothing is permitted to impinge on the growth of the industry. The council would like to introduce a collaborative and co-operative approach with regulatory bodies on the issue of regulation. We want to be seen as a resource base on this. Article 7 states food labelling should be accurate, clear and easy to understand for the consumer. We fully agree with that but I will comment on aspects of the proposed regulation, particularly country of origin. Under Article 35.2, country of origin will only be voluntary, which is interesting. Beef origin labelling is mandatory in the EU under specific regulations, which did not make it mandatory to label the origin of beef in the restaurant sector. The former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, introduced national rules demanding the country of origin of beef be outlined in restaurants. The area of Irish national rules is very important to us because it provides room and flexibility for us to introduce Irish national rules in the area of legislation or regulation for small food businesses. We want this committee, as legislators, to introduce specific Irish national rules, which I will suggest later.
While the former Minister dealt effectively with the beef issue, there is a serious issue relating to the bacon industry. People are compliant with the national nitrates directive and with the Bord Bia quality assured schemes, but they still face huge competition from imported frozen pork and bacon products from the southern hemisphere which are introduced as bacon products on the Irish breakfast menu. The issue is whether they are Irish. How much processing does it take to make a piece of Chilean pork into an Irish rasher and are we happy to call it an Irish rasher?
I have a particular interest in the area of tourism where the "full Irish breakfast" is considered an Irish institution in terms of an Irish breakfast for 8 million visitors per annum. At a recent discussion we discussed the question of how much Irish produce is in the "full Irish breakfast". This is something we need to examine. The sausage and rasher are part of what was a great industry here, but they, particularly the rasher, are challenged by cheap proteins from the southern hemisphere. These cheap products challenge Irish farmers who are compliant with good practice throughout the industry.
The Taste Council would like to highlight some concerns it has with the wording of Article 35.3. We are concerned that this article only refers to one of the primary ingredients, rather than the issue that the ingredients may undergo substantial transformation, whereby the practice may continue that foreign beef and chicken could get Irish provenance. The issue of chicken is interesting. Recently, I heard a senior member of the IFA address a forum in Kilkenny where he said that Irish cages that were decommissioned in the agricultural industry were finding their way to Thailand and being reused there to rear chickens in a manner not acceptable to members of the European Union under our legislation and that those chickens were making their way back into the market here. We need to take a serious look at this and ask the committee to give us clarification on the issue.
The Taste Council has no issue with Article 35.4, as it is in line with specific EU beef labelling rules mentioned previously. However, we have an issue with regard to farmers' markets and the sale of loose products. Article 41 seems reasonably clear with regard to non-packaged food and the council has no problem with that, but it would encourage the Department of Health and Children, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to establish national rules in this area.
Why do we need national rules in this area? Farmers' markets and small businesses, such as restaurants, that produce foods for sale as a consumer item to be sold in short runs - whether apple tarts, jams or salsa dips - are the basis of a fledgling artisan industry. If we eliminate this through regulation at an early stage, we will not give people the opportunity to develop prototypes, which would be a serious issue. We cannot ask a small producer of apple tarts to put a quantitative list of ingredients on them. We are happy with the idea of an ingredient list that says: apples, flour, butter, etc.
Our attitude is that in the small food industry of making biscuits and cakes we are not Mr. Kipling's. We are on hand at farmers' markets and in small shops. Producers are on hand to give consumers information at the point of sale. Therefore, we do not need this legislation to be applied exactly to the letter of the law the same way as it is for large factories. The environmental health officer, EHO, might say, for example, that a person must wrap an apple tart for sale, but if one does that, one enters a whole new area of packaged foods. We suggest that unwrapped apple tarts and information at point of sale on a blackboard are a simple solution and that no quantitative ingredients declaration, QUID, is required. We hope national rules will apply in this area.
We are conscious of the need to ensure our labelling does not mislead the consumer. We want consumers to have maximum information. We can provide maximum information to consumers where there is a degree of flexibility provided by national rules.
We would hate to win the apple tart debate and lose the jam debate. There are 40 items of legislation covering food labelling. Flexibility must be extended across all of that legislation, not just the specific items we are discussing today. We ask that the flexible clauses that exist in the legislation be used in the spirit in which they were written and that a one-rule-fits-all system is not applied to the industry. There are different sets of needs in the industry. We must develop the industry and any legislative process that could be a barrier to that development could have a serious impact on its future. We ask that a flexible approach be adopted and that the flexibility clauses being used by our European counterparts be used at national level also.
