Vol. 576 No. 2
53 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if milk or meat from animals on a farm (details supplied) in County Tipperary were subjected to safety or toxicity testing; if animal feeding trials were carried out; if such tests were requested by his Department; if so, if the tests were carried out; the results which are available for such tests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29353/03]
A number of public agencies had investigated different aspects of complaints from the Ballydine area of County Tipperary when, on 25 March 1983, the then Government decided that the Minister for Labour should co-ordinate with the Ministers for Health, Industry and Energy, Agriculture and the Environment in consideration of certain questions of factory safety and the environment in relation to a pharmaceutical plant at Ballydine. An interdepartmental group was established to this end. This resulted in the submission of a report to the Cabinet by the then Minister for Labour in July 1983.
The investigation of the problems on the farm in question by the Department of Agriculture encountered reluctance on the part of the farmer to provide either veterinary details of farm animals or full access to the farm animals and samples, even though the Department repeatedly requested this access. The farmer eventually invited the Department and his own experts onto his farm in September 1983 to take samples, jointly with his own experts, from animals that he was slaughtering on his farm on that day. Samples were obtained for biochemical, toxicological, serological and haematological examination. The necropsy findings were common animal diseases, for example, reinfection hoose (parasitism), chronic pericarditis, abscessation and traumatic reticulitis, that is, a piece of swallowed metal had punctured a stomach.
Examinations of the appropriate sample of serum, fat and other tissues failed to reveal any significant toxic inorganic agent such as mercury, cadmium, fluoride or bromide, or mycotoxins. Organic toxic agents were either absent or at background levels.
Samples of milk from the farm were analysed for a range of contaminants. Of these compounds only trace amounts, 0.1 parts per millilitre, of – I will need Dr. Upton's help for this substance – octachloro dibenzodioxins, a contaminant in a common wood preservative, probably creosote, were detected.
In the absence of any obvious toxic agents in samples from the farm, it was deemed to be inappropriate for the Department to carry out any animal feeding trials. Furthermore, there was no information to hand suggesting that any produce from this farm was of unacceptable quality or unsafe for human consumption. As the Deputy will be aware, the position in the 1980s was that farm produce was generally subject to food hygiene controls at the processing intake points such as creameries, slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. This remains the case.
On occasion I regret being a scientist because I am expected to have wonderful scientific knowledge and I would like to be removed from that role sometimes.
What criteria would prompt the Department to be concerned about human and animal health? Under what circumstances would it be considered appropriate to take produce to be consumed by humans and investigate it in animal feeding trials by feeding it to experimental animals such as rats or mice, observing the effects of that feeding over a period of generations on those animals and correlating them with the implications for human health?
I understood the Minister to say that no samples were taken for such testing and that no such tests were required. Can the Minister confirm my understanding?
This episode occurred 20 years ago. Detailed tests were carried out and only very common diseases, such as hoose, were found to exist. Following discussions with local processors the Department concluded that there was no evidence to link emissions from the Merck Sharpe & Dohme plant to the reported animal health problems on the farm. There was considerable evidence that other reported problems on the farm arose from ordinary animal husbandry neglect.
The Supreme Court found against Merck Sharpe & Dohme in this case. There must, therefore, have been some considerable concerns. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court would have found in favour of the farmer and against the pharmaceutical company unless there was substantial evidence to support that finding.
Against that background and following recent events in Askeaton, I put my question again. Why were no animal feeding trials carried out on produce? Human health must be a priority and it must first be established whether or not animal produce had a role in causing human illness. The question is not one of hygiene or of whether test results were positive or negative. The question is what tests were not done or not sought. In the case of the Ballydine incident, were the tests sought, were they carried out and are results available?
This matter was thoroughly examined under the chairmanship of the then Minister for Labour, who co-ordinated investigations by the Departments of Health, Agriculture, Industry and Energy and the Environment. Over a period of 18 months the Department of Agriculture veterinary research laboratory examined a wide range of specimens from the farm. This was followed by an extensive investigation by the Department's pesticide unit which included an evaluation of the earlier studies commissioned by Tipperary South Riding County Council and carried out by An Foras Forbartha, an Foras Talúntais and Trinity College. Neither the laboratory nor the unit's report of October 1982 found a link with operations at the chemical plant although the possibility of yet unidentified and undetected emissions causing the problem was not ruled out. The possibility was raised that factors internal to the farm, that is, management practices and animal husbandry, might be the major cause of the difficulties.
