Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Feb 2009

Vol. 193 No. 9

Report on European Union Scrutiny: Statements.

This report on European Scrutiny, No. 21, Provision of Food Information to Consumers, which is led by the Department of Health and Children, is effectively a review of the entire area of food labelling legislation. Its aim is to modernise and improve European Union food labelling rules, so that consumers have the essential information, presented in a legible and understandable manner, that they need to make informed purchasing choices. I welcome those aspects of the proposals which extend the information available to consumers, who are entitled to full information on the food they purchase.

My Department has a particular interest in the issues of country of origin labelling and substantial transformation — Members will be familiar with the latter from previous debates - which come within the remit of this proposal. In 2007, my Department submitted to the European Commission draft national legislation that would require the country of origin to be indicated on pigmeat, poultrymeat, sheepmeat and food products containing more than 70% of these meats. In the past year, the Department has been in extensive communication with the Commission with a view to justifying and pressing the case for this proposed legislation.

However, the Commission adopted a negative opinion in regard to our proposal on the grounds that it was not consistent with the European Union labelling directive. The Commission's main contention is that only harmonised rules with Union-wide applicability may be applied to food labelling other than in exceptional circumstances. This negative opinion was formally adopted at a meeting of the European Union Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in December 2008.

As part of the process of examining this proposal, my Department, together with the Department of Health and Children, has sought the use of compulsory country of origin labelling for all meats. The proposal states that where the country of origin, as displayed on the label, is different from the country of birth, rearing or slaughter, each country must be displayed on the label. At present, compulsory origin labelling applies only to beef and some poultry products. However, we have received little or no support for this view from other member states other than Italy. The latter has been single-minded in its approach and has subsequently got into trouble. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has been in discussion recently with his British counterpart as there appears to be indications of a change in the United Kingdom position on origin labelling.

The issue of substantial transformation is closely linked to the country of origin issue. Substantial transformation is a concept used in the customs area to determine the origin of goods for the application of taxes and duties. Origin is determined as the last place where a significant process was performed on the goods. This has allowed some operators to carry out relatively simple processes such as adding breadcrumbs to chicken and declaring the finished product as originating in the member state where the last process took place. This can mislead consumers as to the true origin of raw materials. Compulsory country of origin labelling would give full information to consumers. Ireland will, therefore, continue to seek to have compulsory origin labelling included in the new labelling regulations. We are also seeking a clearer definition of the term "substantial transformation".

I will now deal with the other issues that form part of this proposed legislation. As I said at the outset, the Department of Health and Children, being the lead Department, has been representing Ireland's views on these matters. However, I will advise Members of Ireland's position on the other issues involved. The national scheme proposal allows for the development of national schemes aimed at ensuring the application of additional forms and presentation of nutritional declarations. Ireland shares the concerns of a significant number of other member states with regard to these schemes. Our justification for this position is that the provision for such schemes may undermine the proposal's objectives of consistency and harmonisation. It is also possible that the schemes will create a barrier to intra-Union trade, with different member states having different information requirements. The extent of our export dependency makes this a serious consideration. Our view is that the provision for such schemes will increase the burden on business as it may be necessary for food business operators to produce different labels for different markets. In addition, the existence of several different schemes may confuse the consumer, making it somewhat counterproductive.

While Ireland welcomes the proposal on allergen labelling, we have indicated our support for suggestions from other member states that the allergen "be written in characters that can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the text by the font colour or style". It is important to ensure that allergen information, which may be essential to certain consumers, is highlighted in such a way as to ensure it is not overlooked.

In regard to alcohol labelling, Ireland considers that all alcohol products should be treated equally. It is important to ensure that the proposal does not result in any anti-competitive outcomes. Ireland also believes that consideration should be given to bringing alcohol products into the scope of the legislation. Our reasoning for this is that the report of the Irish strategic task force on alcohol in 2004 recommended that the consumer information on labels of alcohol products should contain information on the calorie content and the ingredients of the product.

A Commission informal discussion paper on the EU strategy on alcohol, prepared in March 2006, recommends that information be provided to consumers on ingredients and caloric value of alcoholic beverages. Ireland considers that consumers of alcohol products should be as well-informed regarding nutrients, ingredients etc. as consumers of any other product.

In regard to mandatory nutrition labelling, Ireland supports the retention of the Commission's proposal on the use of "per portion" expression as an alternative to the "per 100 ml/100g" expression in certain cases. With such an expression, Ireland considers that the number of portions per package must be specified and that standard definitions of portion sizes should be developed where required. Our rationale for this support is that there is substantial Irish consumer support for the use of "per portion" expression. Many consumers find "per portion" expression easier to comprehend. For single portion products or for products containing multiple portions, for example, chewing gum, the "per portion" expression is more meaningful.

Ireland does not support the proposal for a minimum font size of 3 mm for display of mandatory particulars. Ireland suggests that other aids to legibility, such as contrasting background, be explored. Account has been taken of Ireland's position and those of other member states and the latest working group meeting on 26 January included a suggestion of a minimum font size of 1.2 mm.

Ireland shares the concerns of some other member states regarding possible flaws in the calculation of reference intakes. It agrees that EFSA should play a role in developing correct reference intakes. Our justification for this position is that incorrect inputs will lead to the consumer being misled.

In regard to significant amounts, this part of the proposal deals with the voluntary nutritional declarations and the definition of the phrase "significant amounts". Ireland believes that a lower "significant amount", possibly 10%, should be stipulated for foods and beverages with low contents of dried matter, for example, milk, fruits and vegetables. Our reasoning for this point of view is that the existing value of 15% of the recommended dairy amount does not consider some natural sources of nutrients. For example, the calcium content of cow's milk is 14.7%. In addition, recent evidence in Ireland suggests that fortification of foods, aimed at reaching the 15% mark, may lead to excessive intakes of certain micronutrients, for example, folic acid.

For foods with large water content, the comparison with other foods is inconsistent. Ireland believes that as well as the energy value, fats, saturates, carbohydrates with specific reference to sugars and salt, the amounts of trans fats, fibre, folic acid, calcium, iron and vitamin D should be included in the mandatory nutrition declaration. We believe that the inclusion of these additional nutrients will help to provide a more complete picture of the composition of the foodstuff. Specifically, trans fats should be included as they increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and may be used as a substitute for saturated fats, thus misleading the consumer. Fibre should be included as surveys indicate there is an inadequate intake of this nutrient across Europe. Folic acid should be included as it is critical for a healthy pregnancy. Calcium, iron and vitamin D should be included as there is an inadequate intake of these micronutrients across Europe.

I understand that small industries will be provided with an extension to the implementation time for this proposal when it is adopted. An Oireachtas joint committee has sought an exemption to some of the proposals for artisan producers. The Department of Health and Children has indicated that further analysis is needed on this issue before a final position can be taken by Ireland. However it pointed out that it would be difficult to justify a case for this sector on the basis of health grounds.

In regard to the traffic light system of labelling, I also understand that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland will conduct a consumer review, mainly targeted at the traffic light system of labelling as against the use of guideline daily amounts, GDAs, and it hopes to commence this early this year. Discussions on these proposals are still ongoing among working groups in Brussels.

I hope I have outlined the main points of the proposal and I look forward to hearing Members' responses to it.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, to the House. He has a deep personal interest in this proposal and in the area of food production and food quality. It is opportune to have this discussion in the Seanad in light of the recent crisis in the pork industry. Apropos same, the Minister of State's role in dealing with the difficulties was much appreciated by everybody involved in the food sector. He took a personal interest in the matter.

Arising from that crisis and the enormous burden that will now have to be placed on the Irish taxpayer, it makes this debate more relevant and imposes on us the obligation to ensure we bring this type of policy to fruition and, in so far as possible, make substantial progress on the country of origin labelling issue. I recognise, as the Minister of State said, that the matter is basically in the hands of the Department of Health and Children but, in regard to food production and food labelling, the argument could be made that the role of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be stronger. I would prefer if the case was being led by the Minister of State and his Department rather than by the Minister for Health and Children and her Department. It would bring a greater degree of relevance to our efforts in this regard.

I recognise what the Minister of State said about the efforts that have been made since 2007 to progress the country of origin labelling issue. He, his officials and our representatives in Brussels have been attempting to make progress on addressing it. However, we must note, with disappointment, the lack of progress made on the matter and ask him and his colleagues to redouble their efforts in this regard.

On the European stage, the Irish agricultural industry has always traded on the quality of our product. The Taoiseach outlined in the other House this afternoon certain responses to the economic crisis. We all recognise that jobs are being lost and that our economy is under huge pressure. We must ensure that native industries such as agriculture, which have always plugged the gap, remain very much centre stage in terms of keeping people in employment and job creation down the line. One of the big problems faced by Irish agriculture, from production and profit perspectives, has been the substantial increase in recent years of imported foodstuffs of a questionable nature.

We have won the debate in relation to food quality and everybody now rightly demands the highest quality of food produced in the most hygienic fashion possible. However, on the other side of the equation, unfortunately, food imports of dubious quality from outside the Union into member states of the Union, including Ireland, are seriously threatening the place of top quality Irish food on the supermarket shelves of Europe. The Minister of State mentioned the bizarre concept of substantial transformation in that respect, which must be addressed. As the Minister of State said, there is no justification for a producer, by putting breadcrumbs on an Irish chicken product, being able to have it relabelled as Irish.

If it was Irish, we would be happy.

The Minister of State understands the point I am making concerning foreign chicken products being rebranded as Irish. The consumer is being fooled and Irish producers are being shortchanged and their future livelihoods are being damaged. The Minister of State and his colleagues must redouble their efforts in addressing this issue. I appreciate that Europe has been rejecting our efforts. I find it difficult to understand how there can be any block on the efforts made by the Minister of State and his colleagues to have clear country of origin labelling introduced in the European Union where, apparently, food quality is at the top of the agenda. During the pig meat crisis, which will cost up to €200 million or more, we saw how labelling in the pork sector, although it complies with current regulations, simply does not work to the same extent as labelling in the beef sector. If a better type of identification system or labelling had been in place in the pork sector, most of the Irish pork industry would have been unaffected by the crisis last December.

The Minister of State is probably aware, because his ministerial colleagues were present at the hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that one of the strong issues that ran through all seven or eight meetings convened was that we must look at the labelling and identification issue from a pig producer's perspective. One hopes that such action, if put in place, will ensure the December 2008 crisis will not be repeated.

Concerning food labelling, I urge the Minister of State to strengthen our argument at EU level for country of origin labelling. I know I am pressing an open door on this issue. The European and Irish consumer would then know exactly where food is being produced. It is unforgivable that such a scheme is not in place. It is extremely disappointing that our EU colleagues are not acceding to our requests. I hope the Minister of State's Department, rather than the Department of Health and Children, will take charge of this debate in so far as it can. From 2007 until now there have been many European Council meetings. Many opportunities may have been lost. We must redouble our efforts in that regard.

The Minister of State also mentioned nutritional labelling. This issue is centre stage as far as the average Irish citizen is concerned. Ten, 15 or 20 years ago, people did not concern themselves with the nutritional side of things as much as perhaps they should have. That situation has been reversed and now most people are very much aware of the importance of nutrition and of the different nutritional values of various foodstuffs. That is why it is important we press for nutritional labelling, of a kind that is clear, transparent and, most important, understandable. The Minister of State referred to labels that overflow with information to such an extent that people cannot understand the information that should be their due. Documents before us from the joint committee also refer to this. I hope we can have straightforward, realistic and accurate nutritional labelling on all foodstuffs in order that our consumers understand exactly what is in the product. People are much more concerned today than heretofore about diet and lifestyle. Nutrition plays a significant role in that equation. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure foodstuffs, especially Irish foodstuffs, of which we are so proud, have a clear labelling system that allows the consumer to know what he or she is consuming, and the nutritional benefit of same.

The Minister of State referred briefly to small producers. Wearing his hat of responsibility for food, he has taken an interest in the organic sector, food markets and small markets. I am sure many of the people he meets on his trips to the different parts of Ireland may be concerned that some of these proposals might impinge too strongly on them. It is commonplace in Ireland that we look for regulations but not that they be applied to us. We all want regulations on labelling, country of origin and nutrition but then we see sectors where this may not seem to be applicable or suitable. I know the position of Europe on this issue but am cognisant that many small producers who produce in limited numbers play a very positive role in developing Irish food and markets for Irish food. They create a certain brand image for Irish food. Their individual businesses may be small but, collectively, they are part of a very fine jigsaw of Irish food production. We must try to be as flexible as we can to ensure administrative challenges or difficulties placed on these small producers are not too severe a burden. It is a question of trying to strike the right balance. With the Minister of State's constituency background and his personal interest in this area, I am sure he will work to ensure that balance will be struck.

This debate, following as it does the report of the joint committee, is worthwhile. It shows how decisions made in Europe can be discussed in the Oireachtas. One hopes we can bring some small degree of influence to bear. My concluding plea to the Minister of State is to ask him to work seriously on the issue of food and country of origin labelling in order that Irish food, undoubtedly the best food in the world, can be stamped with the Irish flag. Any consumer, whether in Dublin or Dubai, when he or she sees the Irish brand on the food product, will then know it is a genuinely produced piece of Irish food worthy of the name of Ireland.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. In welcoming the Minister of State to the House, I commend him personally, his Department and the Department of Health and Children, in so far as it is responsible for food safety, on the work they are doing to ensure the quality of food the consumer gets in Ireland is first class. I take a leaf from Senator Bradford's book. He mentioned that it might be a useful exercise to examine whether we should have the duplication of agencies which deal with this matter. I, too, would feel more reassured if the agrifood sector were to deal with all aspects of our food promotion and ensure health standards. Clearly, it is in the interests of farmers, producers and the Department that everything should be first class in that respect.

I am disappointed to learn from the Minister of State that other European countries do not share our view on the importance of having clear labelling, especially relating to country of origin. It is a compliment to us, as a food producing nation, that we have the confidence to ask for clear labelling of country of origin. We are proud of what we have achieved over recent decades in building the image of Ireland as a producer of high quality foods. Perhaps some of our European counterparts are not quite so proud and may have something to fear from such labelling. Am I reading too much into it?

The question of labelling is very important to the consumer from the point of view of health. Thanks be to God we have left behind the stage where there was a shortage of food in this country. Nobody should be hungry now in Ireland. It is the quality of the food and how healthy it is that concern us now. Labelling will clearly assist the housewife, the purchaser and the consumer in that regard. It is also very important for the economy of the country because we must continue to build on the image of Ireland we have created before the world. It is a considerable participatory element of our total economy and our well-being. We are going through difficult times today. How lucky we are to have such a high profile in the food sector. It is even important in terms of tourism. Many people who come to Ireland think about our green food image as well as about our green scenery. They look forward to eating natural, uncontaminated Irish products.

The recent pig meat scare obviously gave a new focus to the matter. People were shocked to find that one of the most staple foods in Ireland, whether as the Sunday morning fry or as Pat Shortt's breakfast roll, was suspect and under a cloud. Our bacon is central to our diet. I commend the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Brendan Smith, and the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, on the way in which they dealt with that situation. They were upfront with no going behind closed doors. The way it was dealt with was one of the major success stories of this Government and I commend the Minister of State on it.

Modern consumers are becoming more demanding and they are correct and entitled to this. When they purchase something they want to know the primary ingredients and any additional ones. They want to know the nutritional content, including the fat and salt levels and whether there are added vitamins and minerals. The day is gone when one ordered one's vegetables and other food from the local grocer, took what one got and never thought about it unless it repeated on one in some way. Now one must be satisfied before one purchases.

The question of the country of origin is central to this proposed new regulation. Apart from our economy, it is helpful to a consumer to know from what country food emanates. Knowing where it comes from will help consumers make informed judgements on what is in the package. We all probably have preconceived notions and images of other countries but we are entitled to these. If I am concerned, for instance, about hygiene levels in food production, certain countries might appeal to me more than others. One could be aware of how animals are treated in other nations, humanely or otherwise, and that would inform my decision on whether I would purchase a product from there. Consumers can also take into account the carbon footprint involved in such manufacture. We are all different in our priorities but the country of origin is useful information.

Irish farmers have nothing to fear from labelling. The other nations, which seem to be reluctant to come on board with this regulation, obviously have something to fear or hide. We have all seen spurious Irish products which may have one Irish ingredient, or the final Irish ingredient, enabling the other 90% that is sourced outside to be labelled as Irish, and the Minister of State referred to this. These products are often packed in misleading packages with the Ring of Kerry or the Cliffs of Moher on the front. For all we know they could come from Brazil. Some of the multinationals are guilty of this. It is clear to people and is well known that much of the bacon sold here as Irish may have been sliced, vacuum packed or frozen in Ireland but is not Irish bacon. There was real irony during the pig meat crisis when some of these operators, which had been very anxious to claim Irish status for their product, were very anxious, when Irish pig meat came under a cloud, to tell us their product was not Irish, only packed in Ireland, and therefore safe to eat. One cannot have it both ways. In the selling business, point of sale is very important and the Irish handle is a major plus there. We must commend the various State agencies such as Bord Bia, the National Dairy Council, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and all which were involved in that down through the years.

As Senator Bradford said, the Minister of State has been very involved and at the front of promoting the country markets and small artisan producers, and this has been a great success. However some people cheat there also. Will this proposed regulation prevent a person calling a product organic when it is anything but? Will it stop the person who comes into a small town with so-called "home produced" vegetables or fruit when they are anything but? It is impossible to police small operations, and we do not want to police them but support and promote them because they play a major role in Ireland's food image. However I would like to know whether we can use this regulation to do that.

The Minister of State has outlined his views on font size and such matters. I have no intention of going into such detail, except to say common sense is always very important and we must be flexible. The standard must be met but it is very difficult for a small producer to compete on labelling with the multinationals which produce thousands of times the output. In his speech the Minister of State mentioned giving more time to small producers to up the ante and prepare themselves, and I support that.

If one buys a product in Lidl or Aldi there will be some English on the packet but there will also be three to six other languages. It is almost impossible to read it and one needs to make a study of it. Should the language of the country in which the product is sold, whether English or Irish, not be more prominent on the packaging than, for example, German, in the case of those products? Can we extend this to support restaurateurs who clearly identify the source of their meats? Could this regulation be used there?

Last weekend I was in a restaurant, the Horseshoe Bar, in my town of Listowel. I had a fine steak and asked the proprietor how——

We are not advertising properties in Listowel.

The Cathaoirleach will always be welcome there. I told the proprietor that was a great steak and asked him where it came from. He said his brother reared it, his other brother killed it, and he gave me the abattoir number, and he sells it. That is fantastic. A few restaurants in Dublin do something similar and I wonder if we can promote that. How would one label a pint of draught beer? Is that possible and do we want to examine it? I commend the Minister of State. This is very important. This is a good discussion to have because all this fine talk in Europe is often a grey area but we out in our country are teasing out some of its parameters. I commend the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on its work.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus roimh an deá-obair atá ar siúl aige leis an post nua atá aige mar Minister of State with responsibility for food. Táim an-shásta seans a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá mar gheall air. Maidir leis an méid atá ráite ag an Seanadóir Ó Súilleabháin, this week I spoke to my lamb producer and he is allowing one of the lambs to grow into mutton, as I have said here many times before. That will be killed by his brother and delivered to me exactly like that. I make this point because I was the only person in Leinster House who opposed aspects of the Abattoirs Act. I said it would destroy local butcher's shops, and it did. They are coming back again, but it sickens me to walk into a butcher's shop and see a butcher taking meat out a plastic wrapping, something we never saw before 1991. It has made traceability even more impossible because before that one always bought one's meat locally, it grew on the grass locally and one went only to butchers who could provide that. Recently I was in a Chinese restaurant in Portumna and was delighted to see on every page of the menu that all the meat was locally sourced, with names of the suppliers available at the desk. That is very important.

I have real difficulty with the Minister of State's argumentation on the question of national schemes of labelling. There is a tiny town in the middle of England, just off the A1 near Grantham. It would have been in the constituency of the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. It would not be any bigger than Dingle.

Would there be a racecourse near it?

There is a racecourse near it. It is quite near Huntingdon.

Oliver Cromwell's constituency.

It is called Melton Mowbray, which is famous the world over for pork pies. Melton Mowbray pork pies are like Dover sole or Dublin Bay prawns. It is a brand. However, pork pies were being made and sold by Tesco and by all the big distributors as Melton Mowbray pork pies, even though they never saw Melton Mowbray. The people of this small town got together and took a case to Europe. They made the case that the pie was special because it was made without a frame — it stood on its own two feet, if Senators know what I mean — and contained various ingredients. They won the case in Europe and now the Melton Mowbray name can be used only by agreement with them. The Minister of State can check it out.

This weekend I was in a restaurant and I had a bottle of Italian wine. On the label, rather than the appellation d’origine contrôlée, as one gets in France, or the denominazione di origine controllata, as is used in Italy, there was a new classification. I wrote it down, and I am sorry I did not bring it with me as I had forgotten we were to have this debate today. It was labelled as a wine typical of a particular region. I have been following developments in Italy over the last number of years, and this is a new idea which is quite different from other classifications. Why do I say that? I mentioned Dover sole and Dublin Bay prawns a while ago, and I might add Limerick ham to that. They are three examples of brands that have been lost to a particular area. Limerick ham has nothing to do with Limerick, Dublin Bay prawns have nothing whatever to do with Dublin Bay any more, and Dover sole has now been redefined as any sole more than 16 oz. in weight. We should try to get back Limerick ham and Dublin Bay prawns, along with foods such as drisheen and other black puddings from various areas of Ireland, the Kerry mutton pie, and queenie scallops, which I have never seen anywhere except around the Irish Sea. These are foods we should be protecting, but it is not happening.

Tá sé seo ráite agam cúpla uair cheana agus an Aire Stáit i láthair. Nuair a théann duine isteach in ollmhargadh sa bhFrainc, mar shampla, chun píosa sicín a cheannach, níl dabht ar bith ann cé acu dos na sicíní a thagann ón bhFrainc. What will be on it is Elevée en France, to make sure one has no doubt about its having been raised in France, whatever else might have happened to it. In case one cannot read, there is a big red cockerel on it, to make absolutely sure. I have watched housewives and others buying there. They know the difference and they buy those products.

This week — I ask the Minister of State to contradict me if I am wrong, but I am almost certain of this — country-of-origin labelling legislation came into operation in the USA. It was introduced on Tuesday of this week or last week. Why was this done? To hear the argument, one could have been listening to an Irish farmer or to somebody from the IFA. The argument is that a particular food could have been raised in South America, but somebody washes it in the USA and it is then branded as having come from the USA. One of the big closures last month, after Waterford Crystal and Dell, was a turkey factory in Monaghan. This was painted as another victim of the recession. However, it was no victim of the recession but a victim of the lack of country-of-origin labelling. It was put to the sword by cheaper imported meat. This is exactly the problem with Brazilian meat. The difficulty is that these pieces of turkey or other meat are coming from countries where food safety legislation does not match our own, water quality is not up to our standards, labour standards are unacceptable from the point of view of Irish agreements, pesticides are not controlled, and growth promoters are still being used. We should be doing something about this. If the Minister of State did nothing else, he should foster a sense of pride in our own food. We should be able to say that something came from Listowel or Balbriggan or Castlebar or anywhere else and it is ours. People locally should get together to do that.

I spoke to a butcher in the midlands last year about this — in the Cathaoirleach's constituency, although not in his town. His butcher's shop was adjoining a well-known hotel. I asked him whether he got much business from the hotel. I asked the question casually, but he was on his guard because he recognised me and he was wondering whether I was setting him up to send in the taxman. It turned out he was doing fine business with the hotel, because he had the best meat. However, it then transpired that the food officers, probably from the Minister of State's Department, discovered he was supplying the hotel and clamped down. Why? It was very simple and logical, but totally daft. He was selling it to the hotel, and the hotel was selling it on to you and me when we came in as customers, which made him a wholesaler. Thus, he no longer had to comply with the regulations pertaining to retail sales — which I agree with — but with the regulations for wholesalers. This point was raised by Senator O'Sullivan earlier. He had to comply with the regulations applying to big wholesalers, even though all he was doing was supplying the hotel next door.

I asked the same man a question about abattoirs. He has an abattoir of his own because his brother is a butcher somewhere else. He tried to get the four or five butchers in the town to agree to build an abattoir, and he got the support of two local vets. However, they could not get agreement as they did not trust each other. That has probably already happened in Kerry, but it happens everywhere apparently. Consequently, they are still bringing the products into town.

I could go on at length about this. I do not think it should happen. I wrote to the Department a year ago, and I am not sure whether the position has changed. The question of whether a person is a wholesaler or a retailer is determined by us, not by Europe. It is determined on the basis of the amount sold in the course of a month or a year. Our threshold is so low that my man supplying the hotel immediately qualified as a wholesaler. Up in Senator O'Brien's constituency, along the Border, hotels can be supplied not by the butcher next door, who would have the same problem, but by a butcher over the Border, because he is not considered a wholesaler under UK legislation, which has a higher threshold.

I can see the Cathaoirleach getting edgy and looking down at me.

The Senator is in his last minute.

I am disappointed the Minister of State did not say something about those appalling stamps called "best before". They should be banned. They are an absolute disgrace. They cause war in my house, because somebody sees that the best before date on a product is two days ago or a month ago and they throw it out because they think it has something to do with health. We need to be told that the best before date is an invention of the manufacturers. The "use by" date is a different thing, which indicates that a product would be dangerous to use after a certain date. I would prefer to hear only if a product would be dangerous if used after a certain date. Best before dates are a marketing ploy which result in much wastage of food and money. Food is dumped out of supermarkets and taken off shelves unnecessarily on a Friday or Saturday evening. The only people who gain are some charitable organisations that hand out food.

I must finish here even though I have a lot more to say. We offer the Minister every support in anything he does to support local foodstuffs and producers as well as local development and processing. He should give these high-profile support and ensure we can all participate. I would certainly travel to any place in this country to help any group in this regard.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am delighted to be here as it is my first time to speak while the Minister is in the House.

The aim of this proposal is to modernise and improve EU food legislation rules so that consumers have all the vital information they need to make an informed choice when they are buying. It also attempts to ensure that all consumers have similar information across all the EU member states.

We must update two directives in labelling legislation: Directive 2000/13/EC, which deals with general labelling, for example, lists of ingredients and use-by date, and Directive 90/496/EEC, which deals with nutrition labelling on food. At present, nutrition labelling is usually optional. The issue of food labelling is very complicated. There are conflicting demands and views from different interest groups. To implement these changes in Ireland, it will be necessary to add this new regulation into Irish law by way of statutory instrument.

Consumer rights have risen in importance. Labelling can allow food manufacturers to pass on to consumers essential information about products, such as use-by dates and safety warnings. This clearly serves the interests of both manufacturers and consumers. Manufacturers of good quality foods can display the benefits of their products when compared to those of their competitors. However, it is clear that consumers must also exercise personal responsibility. They will need proper information about what they eat and drink and this proposal will help them in that regard. I support the proposal.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, and wish him well. He is doing an excellent job with his portfolio. I am from the era when, if we worked in the sugar fields and got hungry, we lit a fire and cooked the rashers and sausages on the spade or the fork. When we went to the bog to cut turf, we also lit a fire to boil water for tea. When we went to football or hurling matches, we brought bottles of tea with us. In some cases people put the bottles in socks to bring them to the match. If a biscuit or a sweet fell on the floor, one picked it up and ate it. If one did not, somebody else would.

Now, we are in the era of boil-in-the-bag and the microwave. Sadly, due to the stringent controls imposed on restaurants, in many cases those establishments have also reverted to boil-in-the-bag and the microwave. As I said in the debate on this matter in the scrutiny committee, I support food labelling. I believe we should consider introducing labelling which states when a product is non-European. When people travel to other countries and look at the labels on food, the country of origin will be stated on the label. I agree with country-of-origin labelling. However, some European countries are outside the EU but the consumer might not realise it. If, throughout the EU, there was labelling for products from outside the EU, people would be more conscious of the EU product label. It would be more obvious that it was an EU product than if a product was labelled as being from, for example, Poland, Lithuania or Greece. This is an important issue.

The stringent controls on some labelling are daft. The Minister mentioned measurements in his speech. The measurement terms with which I grew up were a cup, a spoon or a teaspoon. Now, measurements are given in kilograms, calories and so forth. It is a matter of educating the public on the type of measurement used. If one can make the portion size uniform throughout Europe, rather than having different portion sizes for countries such as Ireland or Spain, it would be a welcome development.

Senator O'Toole mentioned some interesting aspects of food labelling with regard to local issues. There is a disadvantage for small producers. I am in the restaurant business and it is difficult to use produce from local producers. If, for example, the kitchen is not an adequate size, in many cases one cannot use fresh potatoes because of soil cross contamination. One cannot use potatoes produced a mile up the road which are brought into the restaurant with the clay still on them and washed due to cross contamination but one can use potatoes that contain preservatives and additives but which only last two or three days after one opens the bag. That is a disadvantage for local producers. The same is true for producers of cabbage, carrots and so forth.

This is an obstacle for some restaurants who wish to use local produce. For some reason, the health board insists that the premises is not adequate because due to insufficient space, not enough sinks or some other reason there could be a problem with cross contamination. I always thought soil would not damage anybody but it appears there are problems of cross contamination due to whatever micro-organisms are in the soil. This issue should be examined. Every help should be given to small producers. Their produce should be used, whether that is in local markets in the town or in the local restaurants and bars. It should be available to the local shopkeeper who wishes to sell those products. How one goes about labelling the produce is another issue.

The Minister outlined his position on food labelling. It is a complicated issue, when one considers the nutritional values and so forth. It is particularly complicated for a local, small producer if he must comply with the nutrient value requirements for the produce. I wish the Minister well with this. He means well and undoubtedly there is significant support for labelling. However, as Senator Bradford said, we recently had a problem in the pork and bacon industry, despite the controls in place, including the stringent controls on restaurants, supermarkets and other outlets. Logs had to be kept by restaurants, lorry drivers and wholesalers. The whole thing fell apart at the finish. Nobody knew where the controls were, and it all fell down.

I wish the Minister of State well with regard to the Bill. I agree with labelling. The more information available to the public, the better informed they will be.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss this final proposal of the European Parliament and Council on the provision of food information to consumers. Food is becoming an increasingly political issue. As elected representatives, we are all aware of the kind of issues with which we have had to deal in recent years in regard to contamination scares, food labelling, genetic modification of food, which is becoming an increasingly political issue, organic food versus intensively produced food, locally produced food versus food which has travelled long distances, allergies that are clearly diet-related and animal welfare — the list goes on. The Green Party has been always very strong on issues of food safety and security and we are very familiar with and concerned about these issues.

I congratulate the Minister of State, whose brief includes responsibility for horticulture and food, on his activities in terms of raising awareness generally about those issues of food safety and food security which are increasingly of concern to ordinary consumers. The Minister of State was even slightly subversive, if I could use that term, in his activities last year when he used the international year of the potato as an opportunity to send a potato-growing pack to every primary school to encourage young people to become interested in the origins of our food, food growing and food production. There will be many spin-off benefits from this. I hope we see these activities extended to post primary schools because many of our young people could do with a re-education, if one likes, on the importance of food and all the issues that surround its production.

With regard to this final proposal of the European Parliament and Council on the provision of food information to consumers, the EU is obviously responding to the demand of consumers for more and better information on food labels and for clear, simple, comprehensive, standardised and authoritative information. The EU's recent White Paper, "A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight, and Obesity related health issues", also stressed the need for consumers to have access to clear, consistent and evidence-based information. The original labelling information we saw emerging from the EU, and the main political will that motivated it, was to provide rules for the labelling of foods as a tool for the free circulation of foods in the Community. However, over time, the protection of consumers' rights has emerged as a very specific objective of the European Community.

The objectives of this final draft of the regulation are to modernise, simplify and clarify the current food labelling scene within the European Union. Towards this end, the Commission launched an open consultation over the Internet from 13 March to 16 June 2006. It received 175 responses, many of these from industries, but the specific issues which were highlighted in the consultation on the general issue of food labelling were as follows. First, consumers find it difficult to read and understand food labels; second, there are a number of foods from which information on allergens is missing; third, country of origin labelling is a very problematic area, but one in which individual member states want to see the EU responding in a more robust way; and, finally, the legal limbo that concerns ingredient listing of alcohol beverages.

There is also the issue of nutrition labelling. It was believed by the European Commission that the inclusion of nutrition information was an important source of information for the consumer, and this was reflected in the submissions received during the consultation process. However, there was a difference of opinion among consumers, some requiring or preferring a comprehensive overview of the nutrient content of food while others had concerns regarding only the specific nutrient that was of concern to them. However, many consumers and public health and non-governmental organisations wanted mandatory, full-nutrition labelling that was easy to understand.

On the other hand, industry is obviously concerned by what it considers the possibly prescriptive nature of food labelling legislation and the effect it would have on the design of packaging. It has been lobbying, therefore, for a more flexible, voluntary approach. Member states, while aware of the need to reduce barriers in the Internal Market, which would be facilitated by a more harmonised approach to food labelling, are increasing pressure for increased flexibility at a national level, in particular where innovative nutrition labelling systems are being used.

The proposal we are discussing in this debate seeks to update and modernise two main food labelling directives, Directive 2000/13/EC and Directive 90/496/EEC. The issue of consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union has been considered by the Commission in regard to this proposal, and it believes it to be in line with the Commission's Better Regulation policy, the overall Lisbon strategy and the EU's sustainable development strategy. The emphasis in the regulation, we are told, is on simplifying the regulatory process so as to reduce the administrative burden and to improve the competitiveness of the European food industry, while at the same time, and very importantly, ensuring the safety of food, maintaining a high level of public health protection and taking global aspects into consideration.

When the proposal was being considered, a number of basic alternative approaches were considered by the Commission. It considered the possibility of no intervention in the current EU legislative arrangements for food labelling. It felt this would maintain the current situation of scattered legislation and possible negative effects. For example, it was argued that current food labelling rules are piecemeal and confusing and that the proposal might place unjustified burdens on the food business because of outdated, redundant or unclear requirements. In addition, it was felt that labelling has been rather ineffective to date in communicating to consumers and to adapting to changing markets and consumers' legitimate demands.

The issue of improving the situation through national legislation was considered but it was felt that different national rules would impede the Internal Market. It was seen to have a possibility of distorting fair competition and increasing the administrative burden for industry, and being inconsistent in approach and, therefore, inconsistent in the content and availability of information, which would create confusion for consumers.

On the specific features of the proposal, some are to be welcomed, although I would share some of the concerns referred to by the Minister of State in his opening address, particularly in regard to country of origin provisions. It is to be welcomed that the legibility of the information provided on the labelling is to be improved, with a minimum print size for mandatory information being introduced. In addition, the information on allergenic ingredients would be available for non-prepacked foods which are sold through retail and catering outlets.

In regard to the issue of country of origin or place of provenance of the food, what we see in this proposal is that the legislation remains largely the same, which is disappointing because, in other words, such labelling is voluntary. There is a proviso that if the failure to give such information might mislead the consumer, then the labelling becomes mandatory. However, both the mandatory or voluntary indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance of the food as a marketing tool under this regulation should not deceive the consumer and will be based on the harmonised criteria. Criteria have been also introduced for the declaration of country of origin or place of provenance of multi-ingredient products, the labelling of which has become more complex, and the country of origin or place of provenance of meat other than beef and veal, which is welcome. The proposal also clarifies the conditions under which member states may adopt national rules on origin labelling.

The rules on nutrition labelling have been recast, which is another positive element of the proposal. The proposal makes nutrition labelling mandatory in the principal field of vision of a food label. A new aspect of the proposal on nutrition labelling is the mandatory declaration for energy, fat, saturates and carbohydrates, with specific reference to sugars and salts expressed as amounts per 100g, 100 ml, or per portion, in the principal field of vision, that is, on the front of the pack. Nutrients from a defined list may be declared voluntarily. In selecting the mandatory elements, account has been taken of research indicating that consumers can be somewhat overwhelmed by excessive information and the scientific advice concerning the nutrients bearing a relationship to the development of obesity and non-communicable diseases. At the same time, the mandatory elements of the proposal try to avoid an excessive burden on food businesses, especially small and medium sized enterprises.

I welcome the overall thrust of the proposal. However, the measures dealing with mandatory country of origin labelling are disappointing. Recently, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, at which Senator Paddy Burke and I were present, the Green Paper on agriculture products within the European Union was discussed. The possibility of developing an EU food quality symbol was also discussed. The Green Party and I could support this proposal if it were properly made. Consumers are often overwhelmed by the presence of too much information on food labels. However, a quality symbol can often act as shorthand and can provide reassurance to consumers that a certain food product meets a wide range of criteria. We should support an EU-wide food quality symbol. I support the general thrust of the regulation and look forward to the response of the Minister of State.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, to the House. I readily agree with the opening remarks of my fellow county man, Senator Paddy Burke. He referred to what people in County Mayo were obliged to do in the bogs and the hay field. I assure the Minister of State that there was never food cooked or put on a table such as that which we got in the bog. It had a flavour all of its own.

I have childhood memories of Ballyhaunis, so I can relate to it.

I am delighted to hear it. One aspect of the debate, to which Senator O'Toole alluded, was the matter of small abattoirs and the ways they operated throughout the years. They did much good work and still do, but the local authorities and the Department keep raising the bar and have nearly put them out of business. It was very common in my part of the country to have three, four or five butchers in each town. The butchers bought lambs and nice little heifers off the local farmers, killed them and presented them well. We should remember that there was no salmonella nor any talk of it in those days. Meat was advertised as fresh lamb or beef and it certainly was fresh because it was probably only hanging for a couple of days. This was especially the case before the fair. A good kill would have taken place because sales would be good on fair day. Meat was purchased, put on the carrier of the bike and brought home. It might have taken four or five hours to get to the homestead.

I believe there is much to be said for the way in which meat was cooked. At that time most food was boiled, which was a significant factor. There were none of the modern bugs of which we hear at present.

It has not been mentioned previously but I welcome the reference to farmers' markets. They do tremendous work in allowing the local producer to present his or her wares in local towns. I realise the Minister of State is very much in favour of the concept of farmers' markets for small producers. I believe that where the markets are successful, inspectors should not be sent to regulate them excessively and put small producers out of business. There have been many reports in this regard.

The aim of the proposal is to modernise and improve EU food labelling rules. It will allow consumers to have, in a legible and understandable manner, the essential information they need to make informed purchasing choices. It attempts to ensure some uniformity in the presentation of this information throughout the 27 EU member states. The report highlighted the issue of country of origin and a problem has arisen in this regard in recent years. The problem involves meat or fish which have not been farm slaughtered or entirely prepared in Ireland but which can be labelled as Irish. Understandably, people wish to buy Irish beef and expect the meat in the supermarket to hail from Ireland if the label indicates as much.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland produced a report in 2004 which was made public in 2006. It uncovered many cases of foreign produce, such as pork, beef and salmon, being mis-labelled as Irish. Several issues raised in the previous food safety authority report have improved greatly since its publication. However, in a recent survey the authority selected at random 20 Irish honey products sourced from various manufacturers and retail outlets throughout the country. Five were found to be non-Irish, four of which were labelled as Irish, and one of which bore a misleading label of origin. This is terrible for the small producers of honey throughout the country who do a very good job and a great deal of work in producing a quality product to sell to consumers. These are the genuine producers. The statistic emerging from the report was startling. I hope the statistics will be examined, that the people involved will be brought to heel, and that we can ensure anything bought which has an Irish label is of Irish origin.

There is a tremendous market for honey at present. It is advertised as good for people's health and people now put honey into many mixes, which differs from what was done some years ago. The report also highlighted that mandatory country of origin information is required when its absence is likely to mislead. However, a report carried out for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consumer liaison panel indicated that 69% of consumers want specific country of origin information for all meat. I wholly agree with this report. In a country which produces so much fine beef, pork and chicken, it should be possible to guarantee that all Irish meat products of high quality are so labelled.

When one considers that we must export 85% of our produce, it is imperative that our people are guaranteed that what they purchase is of Irish origin. Some butchers still personally buy heifers or lambs and display in their shops the herd number, the name of the beast's owner and that the product is local. This is to be welcomed and I believe Irish consumers are returning to such small butchers, instead of following the more recent practice of shopping in the major multiples. While I hate mentioning any particular organisation by name, I saw packages of beef from Tesco recently on which it was noted that it had been purchased from a farm in County Offaly. It also stocked some chicken that had been purchased from a farmer in County Roscommon. Together with housewives and consumers, I welcome such developments, of which there should be far more. In conclusion, I welcome the proposed measures and again thank the Minister of State for coming into the House.

I wish to comment on the measure before the House today because I have raised this issue a number of times. I am unsure whether anyone has addressed the second side of the labelling issue as most Members have stuck to the issue of food labelling. I must take a contrary view to that expressed by Senator Burke to the effect he did not necessarily wish to know what food contained from a calorific point of view and so on, as I believe it to be central to a debate in this regard.

One of the greatest sports taking place in Ireland at present is that of fad dieting. A range of options can be pursued whereby some people eat only carbohydrates while others do not eat them, some people partake only of celery soup, others try to score points from Weight Watchers or other variations on this theme. All such options are easy when labelling is present but are extremely difficult when it is not. If only for the convenience of those who are trying to participate in the sport of dieting, I welcome this move towards labelling that is more concise and precise than has been the case in the recent past.

This proposal also pertains to a real problem, namely, obesity levels in Ireland. Such levels have spurred many people, as obviously has the post-Christmas period as well, to consider what they eat and to try to get healthy options. I am highly conscious that, for example, in some locations a healthy option sandwich used to be available that permitted one to know how many calories and how much salt, sugar and so on it contained. For some reason, they now have disappeared from some outlets. I challenge both the food and drink industries to develop more products. I challenge restaurants, cafes and school cafes in particular to consider labelling what they produce and to be highly conscientious about providing at least one healthy option on their menus. While one is not obliged to choose such an option, unless it is present one cannot do so. Those people who, like me, constantly battle to do the best they can, need such options. I could make many points about lambs and the support provided by the French to their farmers in this regard. For example, if one scans the label before one buying the product in France, it will display the picture of the farmer that produced the lamb or whatever. More should be done to support farmers in Ireland. The word I get back from sheep farmers is that there is a central buyer in Dublin and the product then goes back out to be processed. Consequently, the support arising from being able to deal with the local butcher is no longer as strong as it once was. This point has been already addressed by Senator O'Toole. The pork crisis was a scandal in that although some companies were selling what they called Irish product, they were not doing so at all. Use of terms such as "packed in Ireland" is not good enough and the proposed measure will address such issues.

I wish to use the few minutes that remain to me to raise another aspect of this issue, which I have raised regularly in the Seanad. I refer to the other side of the fad diet. Everyone can look at and choose food and the major retailers in particular are very good at providing information on what our food contains. However, the point that annoys me is that those involved in the drinks industry are not very good at providing information on what is in our drink. For example, were I to go out for the night intending to drink wine, unless I had done my research I would not know whether one brand had more calories than another or whether white wine was worse than red. This measure, which encompasses both food and drink, should enable me to make more informed decisions.

In this context, I challenge the industry to come up with more ideas and, although I do not like mentioning particular brands, I must do so in order that Members get the idea. In the case of Bulmers Light, the word "light" pertains to being light on calories. However, in the case of Coors Light or Miller Lite, it pertains to being light on alcohol. One must then ask what message consumers get because were they to glance rapidly at something, they would not know whether it was light in calories or in alcohol. I would never think of this, unless I was in the mode I am in at present. Alcohol industry producers, such as Guinness, should seek to create alternative lower calorie drinks and should market them as such. In the case of softdrinks, everyone knows whether a product is light, which in this case usually means light on calories.

It is highly important for people to know what is in their food and drink and that the labelling is sufficiently substantial in every case to enable people to be sure of a product's contents. While I do not know whether this measure will affect the cigarette industry, its products are consumables. When I was a Member of the other House, I was a convener on the Joint Committee on Health and Children, which carried out much research in respect of the tobacco industry. Were people to realise what the average packet of cigarettes contained in respect of the number of carcinogens, the types of poisons and so on, they would not be as addicted to them. The scare they would get from learning the packet's contents probably would overcome the strongly addictive substances contained therein.

I advocate the idea of labelling, which would be to Ireland's advantage. People here continually state that we have both grass-based animals and the best of everything. I believe we can withstand the challenge of being tested in this regard. People will buy the best product, which we believe we have, over the cheapest product if there is a difference in the quality. The French were highly annoyed that we were selling our animals cheaply into France. Because the product was good quality and Irish, French producers were being challenged. From my perspective, if good quality Irish product is available, which is real and not merely packaged as being Irish, and if we can point to those who produced it, consumers will vote with their knives and forks. I reiterate my other point, which is that restaurants and others involved in the food and drink industry should rise to the challenge of supplying the existing market for low-calorie healthy options. Were I to market anything, it would be that which was marketed here tonight.

I welcome the Minister for State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Sargent, to the House. My advice to Senator Keaveney is that were she to stick with the drop of Guinness, she would never go too far wrong as it never is too light or too heavy.

That ends the commercial break.

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to say a few words on this issue. It is a most welcome development and I thank the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny for the publication of its report on the European Union proposal for a regulation on the provision of food information to consumers. In the general interest of all consumers across the European Union, a regulation to modernise and improve EU food labelling rules would be highly welcome. The issue of food labelling is highly complex, as there are varying and often conflicting demands and views from different interest groups. There also is an increasing number of policy areas at EU level in which it is considered that labelling may have a role to play to help achieve their goals.

This report examines a proposal from the European Commission which, if agreed, would change the EU food labelling rules that govern food-related information provided to consumers. From the consumer's point of view, consumers may be interested in getting additional information which, while it may not be regarded as essential from a safety point of view, may be important to the consumer because of other concerns, such as health, concerns with regard to the sustainability of the production of the product and animal welfare concerns. As with operators in the food industry, it must be remembered that there is no single profile of a consumer. Rather, there are multiple consumers.

Acting Chairman

I thank the Minister of State for his great interest in this debate and for his co-operation. Quite a few Senators remain to contribute.

Debate adjourned.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Ag 10.30 maidin amárach.

Sitting suspended at 6.31 p.m. and resumed at 6.37 p.m.
Barr
Roinn