Apologies have been received from Senator Collins, for whom Senator McCormack is substituting, and Senator Boyhan.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make any charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the members having their online access removed. All the members participating are present in the meeting room. There is nobody online at the moment.

On the agenda for today's meeting is food labelling. The witnesses from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland are: Mr. Greg Dempsey, CEO; Dr. Michelle Minihan, director of audits, incidents and investigations; Mr. Micheál O'Mahony, chief specialist, veterinary public health; and Ms Clodagh Crehan, regulatory affairs manager. Cuirim fáilte rompu ar fad.

From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I welcome Mr. Ultan Waldron, principal officer, Mr. Michael Gleason, assistant principal officer in the meat and milk policy division, and Dr. Gerard Murray, senior superintending veterinary inspector; and from Bord Bia, Ms Deirdre Ryan, director sustainability and quality assurance, and Ms Christine Farrell, strategic project manager.

Their opening statements have been circulated to members so I will allow five minutes for witnesses to read them and then we will proceed to questions and answers. We will start with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

I thank the Chair and members for the invitation to discuss food labelling, in particular labelling of beef products. I am joined by colleagues from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, Dr. Michelle Minihan, Dr. Micheál O'Mahony and Ms Clodagh Crehan. In this opening statement, I will give a summary of the legislative requirements for labelling, the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved and how compliance is monitored. I will put particular emphasis on arrangements for beef.

At the outset, it is important to emphasise that under EU and national legislation, food businesses are responsible for the provision of accurate food information. The main relevant legislation for labelling is EU Regulation 1169/2001, which sets out the information to be provided to consumers. Its purpose is to ensure a high level of consumer protection, ensuring consumers are not misled and supporting them to make informed choices about the food they eat. Mandatory information that must be shown includes the name of the food, a list of ingredients, allergen information and the date of minimum durability. It applies to all food businesses at all stages of the food chain, to any material accompanying the food, and to food that is marketed online.

In addition, three other specific areas of legislation apply to beef. The first is EU labelling rules in place since 2000, which impose certain requirements, including a declaration to consumers of the origin of beef. This legislation requires food businesses to label beef with specific information at all stages of the process, from slaughterhouse to the point of sale to the consumer. This information must be declared on the label of pre-packaged cuts of beef but where the beef is not pre-packaged, for example in a butcher shop, the mandatory information is required to be provided in a written and visible form to the consumer at the point of sale. Beef imported into the EU, for which not all the information referred to above is available, must be labelled with the words "origin: non- EU" and the country of slaughter named. Second, in Ireland national legislation applies to the catering and food service sector, requiring restaurants and other catering establishments to communicate information on the country of origin of cooked or prepared beef to the consumer, at the point of advertising, presenting, sale and supply. The third area where the origin of beef may be required is when beef is used as an ingredient in a food. An origin indication will be required for beef, where the origin of the food is declared and it differs from the origin of the beef.

Moving to official controls, the FSAI is responsible for overseeing the national system of official controls and enforcement that verifies food businesses' compliance with their legal obligations, including obligations related to labelling, within the overall food control system. Much of the front-line work is undertaken by highly skilled and trained staff, including inspectors such as vets and environmental health officers, EHOs, under service contracts - in this case with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the HSE - in more than 53,000 Irish food premises. The Department is responsible under its service contract for conducting labelling checks in its ongoing official controls of establishments producing or distributing meat in Ireland, such as slaughterhouses, cutting plants, processing plants or cold stores. It is also responsible for official controls of meat at Irish border control posts when entering the EU from a third country, including documentary, identity, and physical checks, which can include labelling checks and official sampling. The HSE national environmental health service, NEHS, under its service contract, conducts official controls in food businesses such as retail premises including butchers, wholesalers, food stalls, food vehicles, restaurants, catering establishments, public houses, hotels and some manufacturers.

The official control system is risk-based, with inspections prioritised based on criteria such as food safety risk, the compliance history of the premises and the risk of consumers being misled. This means that not every batch of meat produced or imported, or every piece of packaging, is inspected. Instead, official resources are targeted towards areas of greatest potential for risk of non-compliance. Where non-compliance is identified, proportionate enforcement responses are implemented to bring about compliance and deter recurrence.

The FSAI provides independent oversight of Ireland’s foodcontrol system. In the past three years, including a meat labelling and traceability audit completed in 2021, the FSAI has completed five audit projects involving 103 food business operators, with labelling and traceability included in the wider audit scope. During this period, 11 enforcement actions were taken, five of which involved breaches that included, but were not limited to, labelling and traceability requirements. Over the same period, the FSAI managed 701 investigations and jointly lead on 55 cases, 31 of which involved labelling and other foodlaw breaches, resulting in enforcement action in 17 cases. Subsequently, corrective actions taken by food business operators to address the breaches involved were verified by the relevant official agencies.

The FSAI also has a role in fostering compliance in the food industry for the purpose of raising standards in food safety and authenticity. We deliver this role in several different ways, including through the provision of comprehensive guidance, training, and information.

I hope-----

I thank Mr. Dempsey. The remainder of the opening statement will be published on the committee website. We will move on to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

I thank the Chair and committee members for the opportunity to address them on this important topic. As indicated in the introductions, I am head of meat and milk policy. I am joined by my colleagues from the Department, Dr. Gerard Murray, who is head of veterinary public health policy, and Mr. Michael Gleeson, who is an assistant principal officer in my division. It is important to note that the Department of Health has lead responsibility for food labelling so I will concentrate my statement on my Department’s remit, which includes policy formulation and the implementation of official controls on beef labelling.

Food law establishes the rights of consumers to safe food and accurate and honest information. Importantly, it also places legal obligations on food business operators to provide clear and accurate labelling information on their products. EU labelling rules enable citizens to get reliable information about the content and composition of food products. Beef labelling is subject to comprehensive regulations concerning cattle identification and the labelling of their meat. These provisions were introduced to provide a robust traceability system across the beef supply chain. They also serve to underpin consumer confidence in the integrity of the supply chain. The Department is the competent authority for the purposes of implementing regulations on the labelling of beef and beef products. Under EU Regulation No. 1760 of 2000 and SI 435/ 2000, operators and organisations involved in the marketing of beef must label it so as to provide consumers with the following information: a reference number or code permitting the identification of the animal or group of animals from which the beef was derived; the approval number and country – either EU or non-EU – of the slaughterhouse, and, if appropriate, the de-boning hall; and the EU or non-EU country in which the bovine was born, fattened and slaughtered. These regulations also provide for voluntary beef labelling provisions for operators wishing to provide supplementary information, for example breed claims or other characteristics, on their product labels.

Further regulations introduced in 2006 extended beef labelling law to the restaurant and catering sectors. Responsibility for the enforcement of those regulations rests with the FSAI. Traceability in the food chain is provided for in Regulation No. 178/2002 which requires that all EU food and feed businesses implement a traceability system based on their responsibility to maintain records of one step forward and one step back. This obligation ensures they can identify immediate suppliers and customers and is applicable to all stages of production, with some exceptions. The primary responsibility for maintaining traceability records rests with the food business operator and these records must be made available on demand to authorised officers who verify compliance.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is responsible for the performance of official controls under Regulation 625/2017, which includes, inter alia, the verification and enforcement of compliance with meat labelling regulations in slaughterhouses, meat cutting plants, meat processing plants, cold stores and at Ireland's four border control posts, BCPs, under service contract to the FSAI. There are two aspects to these official controls. First, responsibility for auditing compliance with traceability recording and labelling legislation requirements in meat establishments is under the Department's supervision. The frequency of these controls is determined on a risk basis. Second, recording of consignments of meat imports into Ireland is maintained on the EU's TRACES database and is supervised in Ireland by the Department.

Regarding the first function, audits and labelling checks, including beef labelling checks, are carried out in all Department-approved meat plants following a standard operating procedure on labelling and traceability. Department officials must carry out a labelling audit of plants under their supervision at least annually. The audit may be carried out more frequently depending on identified risks, for example, history of compliance, throughput and consistency regarding the labelling of product for all customers. In 2023, 2024 and the first three quarters of 2025, a total of 545 such audits were undertaken by the Department, across establishments producing meat and meat products of various species. Through the audit process, the Department ensures the food business operator has included traceability within its food safety management system and must be satisfied that the labelling and traceability provided by the operator are adequate, implemented and supported by the operator's own checks in addition to official checks performed as part of the audit.

Additional labelling checks are routinely conducted by the Department as part of other general inspections in slaughterhouses and stand-alone meat plants. These involve documentary checks, including trace-back and trace-forward checks, as required; identification checks inspecting the labelling and comparing this to the accompanying documentation; and physical checks to examine the product and its compliance with the documentation and labelling accompanying it. These checks are performed at all stages, from slaughter to the cutting room and onward to dispatch or intake and storage. Labelling audits and other labelling checks are carried out on beef destined to final consumers or mass caterers and on beef for wholesale, that is, business-to-business beef sales. When conducting these labelling checks, the relevant beef labelling checklists are used. This procedural documentation provides detailed instructions to officials carrying out the checks.

Similar checks, which are legislatively prescribed in Regulation 2019/2130, are carried out on imported beef from non-EU countries at our BCPs. Imported beef is subject to 100% documentary and identification checks with a frequency of physical checks as prescribed under EU legislation, which varies depending on the country concerned. These prescribed frequencies are subject to change, and frequently do change, depending on findings in BCPs across the EU. During 2024 and 2025, eight consignments of beef were rejected at Irish BCPs, of which only one was associated with identification non-compliances. The origin of that consignment was the UK.

Thank you, Mr. Waldron. The remainder of the opening statement will be available on the committee website. We move on to Bord Bia.

I think the Chair and members for the invitation to address them. I welcome the opportunity to discuss food labelling, in particular beef labelling, with members of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Christine Farrell, strategic projects manager.

I will outline the role of Bord Bia and provide detail on the operation and development of our sustainability and quality assurance programmes on behalf of the agrifood industry. I will focus on the beef labelling and traceability aspects of these initiatives.

Operating out of 14 offices globally, Bord Bia’s mandate is to promote Irish food and drink worldwide. Our purpose is to bring Ireland’s outstanding food and drink to the world, thus enabling the growth and sustainability of the agrifood sector. Ireland exports €19 billion worth of product to 140 countries every year, underpinned by quality assurance, traceability and sustainability. Central to this are the efforts of farmers and food companies in Origin Green, now in its 14th year of operation as Ireland’s national food and drink sustainability programme. The Origin Green programme evolved out of long-established quality assurance programmes to meet the increasing challenges of the climate crisis and develop our competitive advantage in all sectors of the marketplace. This umbrella national sustainability programme provides independently verified sustainability assurance to multinational customers.

For the purpose of today's discussion, it is important to note the Origin Green logo is strictly a businesstobusiness sustainability mark, meaning it has never been, is not and cannot be used on consumerfacing product packaging. This ensures the logo is not interpreted as a product certification mark or a guarantee of productlevel sustainability performance, unlike the Bord Bia quality assurance mark, which is a consumer-facing mark and can be used on pack. Origin Green has a membership of 370 companies, driving their sustainability performance through independent verification.

I will focus on the supply chain controls for the Bord Bia quality assurance logo on beef products. Farmers' participation in Origin Green is through Bord Bia’s sustainability and quality assurance schemes. The schemes are built on best practice, legislation, relevant international standards and customer requirements in relation to food safety, quality, traceability and animal welfare. The scale of the sustainable beef and lamb assurance scheme, SBLAS, is significant, with more than 58,000 beef farmers now engaged, collectively accounting for over 95% of all finished cattle annually. Each farm is visited every 18 months, with more than 50,000 audits completed every year across Bord Bia's farm programmes.

The next stage in assurance for a beef product is in the processing plant, in this instance a meat processing plant. The processing companies which wish to bring a Bord Bia-assured product to market must adhere to the Bord Bia food processor standard. Processors undergo an annual audit of their management practices in relation to food safety, quality and traceability, with unannounced inspections to verify compliance. At intake, farmers' cattle are received, at which point their quality assurance status is checked through the Bord Bia database. No farmer information is exchanged in this process. The system provides a true or false response as to whether the individual animal is quality assured or not. To enable full traceability of quality-assured meat, comprehensive documents and product checks take place. As part of the food processor audit, auditors complete a traceability and segregation reconciliation assessment and can request production records from any point since the plant's initial certification.

In terms of labelling, the Bord Bia quality assurance mark with the Origin Ireland logo may only be used on beef from animals that are born, raised and slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland, and only when processed by certified members of the food processor scheme to ensure traceability across the supply chain. To demonstrate our commitment to the integrity of our systems, Bord Bia has maintained accreditation and certification with the Irish National Accreditation Board, INAB, and the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI. Bord Bia is responsible for ensuring proper use of the logo and enforces clear policies and corrective action. It also conducts quarterly retail audits across Ireland’s major retailers to assess compliance. These audits focus on product sampling and assess approximately 3,000 products per audit to ensure requirements are met.

What does this mean for consumer confidence? The Bord Bia quality assurance mark delivers extremely high, unrivalled consumer confidence in Ireland. Research indicates that the mark enjoys 94% prompted awareness and 73% unprompted awareness among Irish consumers. Outside of Ireland, our quality assurance is equally important. Quality-assured beef is central to our export customer proposition and has enabled Ireland to secure and retain significant customer listings in multiple competitive markets. Consequently, Irish beef has the enviable position in key markets of being the second choice to local product.

Thank you, Ms Ryan. The remainder of the statement will be published on the committee website. We have two hours. There has been a request for a five-minute pause. That will be at 4.50 p.m. It means we have ten minutes per member. When the time is up, I will call on the member to give way to the next member. Because time is so tight, I ask members not to go past ten minutes, if possible.

It is really important for consumers to be able to make an informed choice of the food they are consuming. We have seen questions come up in various areas.

There are concerns about what might be in it, how much of is in it and maybe even mixed messaging on branding in the sense of whether breaded Irish chicken is chicken breaded in Ireland or if the chicken is Irish. We want to try to tease out as much as possible with the witnesses about the various concerns of consumers. Deputy Aird is the first speaker. He has ten minutes.

The witnesses are all very welcome. My questions will be easy to answer. I only have whatever amount of time to ask them. How do the FSAI and the Department ensure consistent compliance with EU and national beef labelling regulations across the various stages of the supply chain, including prepacked, non-prepacked, catering and wholesale products?

I might start, and my colleagues in the Department might want to come in. The legislation sets out the requirements. The obligation is on each food business to be compliant with the obligations at each stage. There is a process whereby officials go in and inspect compliance with labelling of origin and so forth.

Given that the official controls are risk based, how are high-risk areas identified and what measures are in place to address non-compliance with beef labelling across slaughterhouses, processing plants and retail premises?

Do the departmental officials want to take that?

If it is too hard to answer, I will move on to the next one.

Would the Deputy mind just repeating the question, please?

Given that the official controls are risk based, how are high-risk areas identified and what measures are in place to address non-compliance with beef labelling across slaughterhouses, processing plants and retail premises?

The risk-based compliance is based on experience of previous compliance throughput. A lot of things feed into the determination of risk in the food chain. Much of it will be determined by previous compliance or a lack of it. As mentioned in our opening statement, every food business is subjected to an audit at least once annually. The frequency of that can be increased in food business operations where we feel that there is a higher risk.

What procedures exist to verify the accuracy of traceability records maintained by food business operators and how are discrepancies addressed to maintain supply chain integrity?

In terms of the procedures to ensure the accuracy of the records, the responsibility for the accuracy of traceability lies with the food business operator in the first instance. That is prescribed in the legislation. In addition, we have a series of inspections and audits of the food business to determine its compliance with the labelling requirements and traceability. The food business operator is also required to have a standard operating procedure, SOP, for how it will maintain its traceability. This SOP is also inspected. As I mentioned, it is audited annually at a minimum frequency.

How does the Department monitor labelling compliance for imported beef at border control posts? What steps are taken when non-compliant consignments are identified?

I will again take that one. Imported beef is subjected to documentary checks in the first instance at a border control post before it arrives. That is at 100% level. All consignments are subjected to those checks. There are also 100% identification checks which examine the labelling.

The frequency of physical checks is set out in legislation. There are three options when non-compliance is identified. That is again set out in legislation. They are return to the point of origin, destruction – it would not happen with labelling - or consignments can be subjected to special treatment, but that is not relevant here.

I will show Dr. Murray examples afterwards and he can tell me what was done as a result.

Is the current legislative framework sufficient to support the integrity and enforceability of mandatory and voluntary labelling and sustainability claims? Are any updates to strengthen consumer protection under consideration? I am talking about something off the shelf.

There is a substantial body of legislation covering labelling. We tend to refer to it as food information for consumers rather than labelling because it extends beyond just the label.

Yes, but the consumer would be looking at the label and the origin. That is what they want.

Yes, but I am just saying that it extends beyond that. In some premises it might be on a chalkboard or whatever else. There are the general requirements regarding ingredients in food businesses and so forth.

Yes, but what I am trying to find out is what happens when we see something with an Irish emblem on it – I will show Mr. Dempsey what I am talking about in a second – and that turns out not to be accurate?

There are rules in particular in respect of beef where the product suggests an origin but where it might be different. That would require that the actual origin would be given to the consumer. Through our inspectors, we monitor compliance with the legislation. The obligation is on the food business itself but we do monitor it. We take it very seriously and we expect food businesses to take this very seriously. Where there is non-compliance, a range of enforcement action is taken. It depends on how serious the non-compliance is.

How can the Government, Bord Bia and regulatory agencies co-operate to enhance oversight, co-ordination and compliance across farms, processors, retailers and exporters to maintain high domestic and international confidence in the Irish beef label?

The Food Safety Authority works with food businesses to ensure that they are aware of the obligations. This is a complex area. We provide guidance on our website and other forms of support to make sure people are aware. We also engage continuously with our parent Department, the Department of Health, to let it know what is happening and vice versa.

There are three examples of food that came in. The witnesses can see that one is labelled as Tesco Irish tomatoes on the vine that are brought in from Spain. SuperValu has a Thai mix of Irish herbs. The issue was brought up by somebody last week. That came in from Spain as well. Broccoli florets were brought in from Kenya but Ireland is also on the label. Would that produce pass a Bord Bia audit? Could I get a yes-no answer?

I might have to hand that question to Bord Bia.

Can Bord Bia answer "Yes" or "No" on that? I showed the products to the witnesses. I called them out. It is all there.

If I am given the opportunity, I will happily answer the Deputy's question in an appropriate manner. The products the Deputy is talking about-----

Has Ms Ryan seen the products?

I called out details of them.

Bord Bia has not had a chance to conduct an investigation into them.

That is all right. I will rephrase the question. Tesco advertised Irish tomatoes on the vine. There are colour photos of the farmers over it. They is in every market. The tomatoes were brought in from Spain. What happens in that situation?

I will happily answer the question. I know the products the Deputy is talking about. I will happily answer the herb one because that was a Bord Bia quality assured product that he mentioned. I can respond to that because it is within my remit. For context, there are 1 billion Bord Bia quality assured products sold in Irish retail outlets.

I will go on to the next question. I just wanted a yes-no answer.

I would like to answer the question. A Chathaoirligh, I have not answered the question yet.

I just wanted to hear "Yes" or "No". That is all. The next question I want to ask is-----

Could the Deputy let Ms Ryan answer?

Hold on now lads. I only asked for a "Yes" or a "No".

The data is available to the Deputy.

Yes, everything is. Would it pass the test?

That particular product was recalled because it had a Bord Bia label on it. The product was mislabelled and was recalled. Appropriate measures and sanctions will be put in place. The Spanish tomatoes the Deputy referred to were not Bord Bia quality assured, nor were the others.

So they would not pass. The answer is "No". How often does the FSAI conduct-----

Mr. Dempsey wants to contribute as well.

If he does not mind, I do not want him to. I got an answer. That will do me. I am happy with the answer.

How often does the FSAI conduct checks of retailers and on what percentage of their products does it conduct them?

I do not have the information in the way the Deputy asks, but I will give him a sense of it. In 2025, we undertook more than 7,000 checks in respect of labelling in retail products.

That is grand. I am very sorry to Irish consumers for what is happening at the moment. I saw all these pictures. I am a food producer. I can see all the lovely Irish people working hard in the fields. People are busy when they are shopping and it is only when they go home that they realise what has happened. I ask the Food Safety Authority to up its game on that.

Just to say-----

My time is up.

The Deputy's time is up. Before I go to Deputy Cleere, I want to ask about one area. If HIQA conducts an inspection of a hospital, it publishes its reports online, and if a whole-school evaluation is conducted on a local school, that report is available too. When the Food Safety Authority inspects a site, does it make its findings available to the public? Where would people go to get that information?

We do not make the inspection results available. We are precluded from giving the information. We publish where we-----

Why would the FSAI be-----

If we can tell people in a nursing home how the nursing home behaves, why is the FSAI precluded?

In order to undertake the official controls, we have to engage with businesses. They have to open their books to us and share a lot of information. In order to ensure that the system works properly, there has to be confidence in both parties, so under the official controls legislation, the information we gather during an inspection cannot be made public.

Would it not be any different from a nursing home or hospital? Surely the food people consume is important to the public? It is of similar importance to how their families are cared for or their children are educated. They should be able to access the information.

Where there are findings of an urgent or imminent threat to public health, we do publish. The committee will see our monthly reports. The FSAI undertakes regular audits of the inspections being done and we publish those. Information is available on the level of control that is being undertaken.

Every year, the FSAI undertakes a risk-based programme of audits which looks at how official controls are delivered by the official agencies such as the Department of agriculture or the HSE, or targeted audits to determine food business operator compliance with particular aspects of food law. The outputs of those audit reports are published on our website when those audits are completed and there are a number of them there. The most recent one published was the audit of official controls of ambient storage facilities, which is on our website. Every year, we undertake audits of both official controls and food business operators to assess compliance with particular aspects of food law.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss food labelling and beef labelling with the Food Safety Authority, the Department, and Bord Bia officials. I thank them for coming in. I have information from a parliamentary question I asked. This question is for the Food Safety Authority. The reply stated that on 11 November 2025, the European Commission informed member states that during an audit mission to Brazil, EU officials were advised by Brazilian authorities that carcases from animals treated with oestradiol had been mixed into consignments of beef for the EU market. These consignments were exported to the Netherlands, Italy and Spain and subsequently distributed onwards within the EU. The Commission made clear that the affected consignments were to be traced and withdrawn from the EU market or recalled from consumers, where necessary. On 12 December, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland was notified by the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland that a consignment of approximately 128 kg of beef with an expiry date of 31 October, originating from animals treated with oestradiol, had been distributed from Northern Ireland to three food businesses in Ireland in September 2025. The Department of Health said that the FSAI and HSE took the appropriate risk management actions, including full traceability checks on the implicated beef. Environmental officers from the HSE visited the relevant food businesses and verified that none of the implicated meat remained on the Irish market. The incident is now closed, as is standard practice in closed food safety investigations where no product remains available and no ongoing enforcement action is required.

That is the response I got from the HSE. The Department of agriculture referred it to the HSE. What is meant by none of the implicated meat remaining in the Irish market? Had it been exported? Was it consumed? Was it destroyed?

We sent out environmental health officers to visit the three premises that had received the beef and discuss with the owners of those. The assessment was that the beef was gone at that stage, more than likely consumed.

When Mr. Dempsey says gone, was it exported or likely consumed?

Our judgment was that it had been sold and consumed.

It was consumed. Okay. Why did it take a full month for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to be notified by the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland of the presence of the beef in the Irish market, from 11 November to 12 December?

I will pass that one to Dr. Minihan.

The rapid alert notification that came was from the Netherlands. The Netherlands notified on 20 November that some of the implicated beef had gone to Germany. It had moved from Germany to Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland authorities became aware that the implicated beef had gone there on 20 November.

Was that from the Commission or the Netherlands?

It was from the various competent authorities. The Netherlands got the consignment. Part of it moved to Germany. From Germany, it moved to Northern Ireland, and on 20 November, the Northern Ireland authorities were notified by the Commission that they had received the implicated consignment. Subsequently, on the afternoon of 12 December, the Food Safety Authority was notified that some of the consignment had come to the Republic. That was when we initiated our actions here.

I thank Dr. Minihan. What process is in place for communication between the EU and Northern Ireland in cases such as these? Is there a formal process? Is there regularised communication? What way does it work?

Because the UK has now left the EU, Northern Ireland authorities do not sit formally within the rapid alert system for food and feed. However, when a notification concerns Northern Ireland, the Commission will tell the Northern Ireland authorities that they are affected and they will be informed of the relevant details to allow them to take the follow-up action. That is what happened on 20 November.

Moving on from that, how many mislabelling cases are currently being investigated in Ireland?

I do not have the exact figure.

Ballpark.

I have a suspicion it might be zero. In many instances of mislabelling that are being identified during the inspection, the severity of the non-compliance is typically relatively modest and will be dealt with there by the agent at that point.

If none are being investigated, how many were reported in 2025? I understand about mislabelling. For 2024 and 2025, what are the figures for reported mislabelling?

I will speak on beef. We did just under 7,000 checks, with partners, but the number of non-compliances in total was just over 1,000. That includes non-compliances which would be relatively modest, for example, the board in a shop not being prominent. It ranges from there. Our understanding is that the majority are minor.

One thousand out of 7,000 would be a significant number of, in Mr. Dempsey's words, non-compliances, albeit very different.

The majority would be on the minor side.

How many would be on the major side and what is the difference between major and minor?

The difference, as we considered it, would be where there are wilful attempts to deceive customers, but I do not have that split.

I will move to Origin Green and Bord Bia. What are the future goals for the Origin Green programme, especially in terms of expanding its reach and effectiveness?

There are a variety of targets. We have certain actions that are set out in Food Vision 2030, which is the strategy for the sector that was co-created with the industry. These are around increasing membership, emissions reductions and supporting farmers to reduce emissions. We have a carbon AgNav project where we are supporting farmers to understand and reduce their emissions. There is a variety across the board. I could continue on. Equally, we are working with international customers and supporting supply chain sustainability in a lot of partnerships we are engaged in. One of the bigger projects we are involved in is the new producer standard, which we have been developing for the last number of years, to update farm standards and the charter itself. There are a lot of projects ongoing.

How does Origin Green measure the impact of its sustainability efforts on the environment and local communities? Is there a measurement that is used?

We track emissions reductions for each of the companies at a company level. We have farm level and company level, as I outlined in my opening statement. On a company level, companies are tracking emissions reductions, energy reductions and water reductions, as is appropriate for their company. We monitor those reductions. The overall aim for the industry is a 30% reduction in emissions and, from an agricultural perspective, the 25% reduction target is what the industry is pulling towards together.

Are any changes in labelling practices expected in the near future, particularly in relation to sustainability and health? Are the organisations looking at any changes in labelling practices or are they happy with it as it is?

The legislation is under the Department of Health. It will legislate for any changes. We checked in with it yesterday and there are no plans in the near future to make changes but it said that as the environment changes or external circumstances change-----

Is the FSAI happy with labelling practices that are currently in place in Ireland? Is it comfortable with and confident in it?

We are operating and enforcing the legislation that exists. It provides a lot of information for consumers generally-----

I understand.

-----and specifically.

There are no immediate plans to change.

As I understand from the Department of Health, there are no immediate plans for new legislation.

I am conscious of time and I thank the witnesses very much for their patience with me. Are there any studies showing a correlation between sustainable labelling and increased sales of these products? Huge work goes into the labelling but is there any data out there to show that it equals increased sales?

We do a lot of research into consumer and customer insights around sustainability. It is challenging to correlate them completely from a consumer perspective. For our large multinational customers, sustainability is now a requirement. When we talk about Ireland Inc exporting €19 billion, sustainability is absolutely a requirement for those customers. Looking at it from a consumer perspective, however, it is about the intersection of sustainability and health. Healthy for me and healthy for the environment is where we encourage our companies to work towards in terms of that premiumisation.

I thank all for witnesses for being here. When we look at the important factors for people when they buy food, cost is the biggest one - that comes from a Eurobarometer survey last year - food safety comes in at 46% and origin comes in at 42%. Do the witnesses feel we could do more to educate the consumer? This is slightly linked to Deputy Cleere's question, and there is a lot of EU and national regulation in this regard, but are any legislative changes necessary to make food labelling clearer and more accessible and more of a factor for the consumer? One thing we have seen in the past few weeks when we look at Mercosur and investigations into Brazilian beef, is there is almost consumer disbelief that these products were on the market here. I know this has been happening for years but there was a feeling that consumers were not aware of that. As it seems origin and food safety are relatively low factors for the consumer, how do we change that cycle? Is education or legislation the answer? What is the most effective way to do that?

The FSAI website has pages devoted to providing information to consumers to help them understand what labelling means and how to navigate through the labelling because it can be complex. As I said, additional legislation would be for the Department. We do engage with the Department and we exchange information on what we are seeing as regulators and what it is seeing.

On educating consumers in quality, sustainability and so forth, we have the Bord Bia quality mark campaigns currently. The make your mark campaign is about talking about the provenance, traceability, quality and sustainability elements of the produce we produce here. There is quite a significant spend in that regard.

On that, I know we are looking at beef, but the food and drinks industry was mentioned in the opening statement provided by Bord Bia. An area of agriculture we speak about but definitely not enough, because they are in dire straits, is our tillage farmers and our grain growers. On Bord Bia's quality assurance and Origin Green, why do we not have a quality mark for farmers who are in Bord Bia quality assurance and are making an effort to buy local grain? This argument is not being put out there strongly enough. Also, when it comes to Origin Green and the Irish drinks industry and Spirit of Ireland, a very strong argument being put out there is that the most Irish thing about a lot of Irish drinks is the water going into them. We are looking at imported malt. In certain circumstances, we are looking at imported maize. Why is this not being called out? Why is Bord Bia not doing more for this? This is about quality and is important to consumers. As I said, if people are buying a product marked as Origin Green, be it alcohol or an animal that is being fed on foreign grain, or alcohol being produced from foreign grain, why are we not in some way trying to address this? Why are we not putting a quality mark in place for farmers who are making an effort to feed their animals with Irish grain?

We have not had a quality assurance programme for tillage. It was not in our remit but we have outlined, for many years now, that we are very willing and open to it and would love to have a tillage quality assurance programme. There is an action in the food vision strategy to have a pilot programme, which we are running at the moment. We hope the industry will take up on that so we could develop that quality assurance programme further. I reassure the Senator and the committee that there is a pilot programme. We are absolutely open and willing to do that. On other work we are doing on tillage, for the AgNav project I mentioned, we are working with Teagasc and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, on developing a farm platform for calculating emissions and scenario action planning around sustainability. We have launched a tillage programme for that, which has been ongoing for maybe a year now, or in the last year anyway.

In terms of alcohol and drinks, we have about 56 drinks companies in the Origin Green programme. As part of that programme, a company will set out its sourcing strategy, as well as their emissions and energy strategies and social sustainability. It will develop targets in those areas, which will be assessed annually by auditors and verified. Part of a company's sourcing strategy will look at where products are coming from. We request companies to develop sourcing from assured sources. We are a State agency and cannot require Irish sourcing under state aid rules, but we can ask for sustainability and assurance. We would love to have an Irish quality assurance programme to address that. Those companies are working on many other sustainability aspects of their operations, including emissions reductions, as I said, with biodiversity targets set out and what is material and appropriate for the company once the assessment is done.

Could I have further clarity on the Bord Bia food processor standard? I understand that beef cannot have the Origin Ireland logo unless it is fed and slaughtered here and then goes through the Bord Bia food processor standard. To get quality assurance under the Bord Bia food processor standard, does the original product have to originate in Ireland?

Absolutely. I thank the Senator for asking this question because it is very important. There has been significant misinformation in recent weeks and I wish to categorically say that any product carrying the Origin Ireland Bord Bia quality assured logo is from an animal that has been born, raised and slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland and has been processed in a facility that is Bord Bia assured under the food processor standard.

You cannot receive that quality assurance under the food processor standard without having Origin Ireland recognition.

You cannot have a product that is non-quality assured with the Bord Bia quality assurance logo.

I thank Ms Ryan.

Turning to the Department, I spoke earlier about whether we needed further regulation when looking at consumer awareness when it comes to the origin of beef and safety behind beef. However, there are many regulations. As regards the audit and factory inspections carried out by the Department, I note that there were 545 audits carried out in the past two and a half years. The witnesses mentioned some breaches last year. How many breaches have we seen out of that 545 audits and what processes are involved in dealing with those breaches?

The figure of 545 refers to specific audits undertaken. On top of those, a large number of inspections undertaken as part of other inspections are also ongoing in these plants.

With many of the instances of non-compliance that are found, a corrective action plan is put in place with the food business operator and the plan is subsequently closed out. That is something the veterinary inspector or technical agricultural officer in the plant would oversee. They would ensure it was closed out in a timely manner.

How many breaches have we found through those audits?

We would not have that data collated together, unfortunately.

Sustainability was mentioned. When we are looking at our farming generally and our food production, sustainability and its importance can never be underestimated. How do we better communicate the importance of sustainably produced food, including the sustainability performance at product level, more directly to consumers?

I might pass that question to Ms Ryan, if possible.

Sustainability labelling is a challenging area. It is a hard topic to talk about because it covers such a variety of areas, from biodiversity and emissions to health and nutrition. Sometimes, having an on-pack logo is challenging. The Origin Green logo is not on pack, but as regards the Bord Bia quality assurance logo, we signal sustainability in our customer messaging and communicate across various other platforms, be it social media or store elements, rather than specifically on packaging. From a business-to-business customer perspective, it is a little easier. We can talk to our global multinational customers about all the initiatives taking place. We do that day in, day out in our global markets across the world.

I thank the witnesses.

Before I go to Deputy Lawless, I want to follow up on a very quick point that was raised regarding tillage farmers, the use of grain in feed and the possibility of a pilot. Is there not already a very successful scheme operating with organics whereby for livestock to be considered organic, they have to be fed on certified organic grain? Why would something similar not be applied elsewhere and why would a pilot need to be done when there is already a very successful status with organics?

From a feed perspective, one of the big challenges is volume. We are not self-sufficient in grain to feed the sector here, so that can be one of the challenges for grain throughout the supply chain in Ireland. There is the Irish grain assurance scheme, IGAS, for grain growers. We we will be working with those stakeholders to develop that scheme to an accreditation level that could be brought into the Bord Bia suite of standards, which would have that same level of assurance.

I welcome everyone here to talk about this very important topic. I want to bring the group through some of the products that are on shelves at present in Ireland. The first one is broccoli from Tesco. There is no reference code. It states the origin is Ireland and Spain. The second item is carrots, with the origin being Scotland. On the packaging and the shelf, it says "SuperValu Irish carrots". The next item advertises in bold "Irish flavour" and is tomato ketchup. It says its ingredients are from the EU and outside the EU. The next one is a picture of Aldi with a big Irish flag saying, "Proudly supporting Irish farmers", and none of the produce underneath that particular flag are Irish. Next we have celery with the origin being Spain, and on the shelf we have "Irish celery". We have honey here. I am a beekeeper myself, so I know how difficult it is to produce honey. The honey is about €3 and it says it is a blend of EU and non-EU honey. The most egregious is just off the shelves. It is a SuperValu Irish herbs Thai-style curry. It proudly pictures an Irish farmer from north Dublin, Mr. Flynn, with a lovely smile on his face. You look at the origin and it says Kenya and Spain. This is just a very quick scan of what is happening today. My time is very short, but there is a litany of food labelling abuse happening. Let us call it what it is.

This question is for all of the witnesses. How is this happening and what sanctions are in place for these retailers? What is the level of inspection and what is the level of penalties that are happening? It is totally unfair to allow mislabelling to happen for, on the one hand, busy consumers who do not have time to scrutinise labelling and, on the other hand, Irish farmers who are subject to very tight regulation and are doing things by the book and to Bord Bia standards in some cases or under Irish regulation and in line with departmental inspection standards in others. You bring in a product and essentially allow it to be mislabelled when it would never satisfy any Irish regulation. How can it happen and what are we doing wrong? We are doing something wrong. There is an issue with legislation and enforcement. I want this committee to get to the bottom of it today. What are the witnesses' thoughts? How do we address this?

I thank Deputy Lawless. There were quite a few examples there and all different examples. Some of them, from what I heard there, suggested non-compliance. Others might not be non-compliant. We would have to go through each of them. We will follow up on them, but it might be useful for Dr. Minihan to talk through how we would follow up on those examples. The Deputy mentioned honey specifically. If we have time, Mr. O'Mahony can speak to that.

That is fine and I am happy to follow up with the witnesses on the individual cases.

In general, though, how many inspections are happening? How many enforcement orders have been issued? How many cases of mislabelling has the FSAI discovered in the past year, two years and three years? What are the penalties for a first offence, second offence and third offence?

I will let Dr. Minihan talk through that, including the numbers and the follow-up.

We have already said we do not have figures with us today for the number of cases that are being investigated at this time. We have outlined that approximately 6,500 to 7,000 labelling checks were done by the national environmental health service, NEHS, of the HSE last year and approximately 1,000 of those were found to be non-compliant. We have discussed how the action taken in response to that non-compliance depends on the level of the non-compliance. Usually, these labelling checks may be done as part of other wider inspections that inspectors are undertaking at the time.

In most inspections, depending on the level of non-compliance, food business operators will be given an opportunity to remedy the non-compliance within a very short period of time. There may not be a need for formal enforcement action on the day or they may be revisited by the inspector within a short period of time to verify that they have come into compliance.

Is there a penalty for retailers?

There may be penalties, depending on the severity of the non-compliance and the breach.

Can Dr. Minihan outline that for us today? I appreciate that the FSAI gives them a chance to remedy. The following week, the FSAI comes back and finds other products mislabelled. I merely want to get a sense of that procedure. What are the penalty structures in place?

There are offences set down in law under the various statutory instruments that are enforced by both the NEHS and the Department of agriculture.

How many enforcement orders have issued in the last three years?

We will check those figures and get them to the Deputy before we finish speaking.

Is it 50? Is it 100?

I do not have the figures here right now but I will say that those labelling non-compliances that are referred to are generally followed up on the spot. They are brought to the attention of the food business operator, whose job it is to remedy the non-compliance. They are usually of lower significance than other breaches of legislation on food safety and the food business operator is given a chance to come into compliance.

Regarding the specific examples the Deputy raises about where the sign above says one thing and the shelf ticker says something else in relation to origin, the retailer is responsible for its displays. We have a retail forum where we can raise issues like this with the retailers.

To be honest, I am very disappointed by Dr. Minihan's answer. The FSAI is the authority that is responsible for this. There are farmers across Ireland who are looking at what is happening. The fact that it appears there are no significant repercussions or it is not even a slap on the wrist but a case of the retailers being told to sort it out and away they go is very concerning.

I would like to know whether the farmer who had his picture on the package was compensated. Did he get an apology from Bord Bia? What was the outcome there?

If I might respond-----

May I go on? The following question is primarily for the Department. Will the Department guarantee that meat sold as Irish is genuinely Irish and that TRACES is not being used, or potentially abused, to pass off imported animals as Irish? There were 3.7 million live sheep imported into Ireland over the past nine years. We only exported 200,000 live sheep during that period. What became of the other 3.5 million sheep or lambs? It would not have been possible to consume all of the meat ourselves. We also know that well over €500,000 worth of sheep has been exported from Ireland since 2015, all of which was categorised as Irish. It was exported to other EU countries and China. There is clearly an anomaly. Is it the case that meat is being imported but then exported as Irish meat?

I thank the Deputy. He asked a number of different questions. We are in today to discuss beef labelling in particular. I will talk the Deputy through what is required and then ask Dr. Murray to comment on what we inspect on.

What you are required to place on the package of origin is the member state or third country of birth, the member states or third countries where fattening took place, or the member state or third country where slaughter took place. If the beef is derived from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the same member state, the indication may be given as "origin: member state". The same applies to third countries, where it would be "origin: third country". In this case, we will say "non-EU markets".

On the data the Deputy referred to on sheep, he asked about the anomaly in the figures. I am not getting what the anomaly is the Deputy is referring to. The Deputy might outline that in more detail for me, please.

We are tight on time. Can the Deputy the forward the details?

Yes. In a general sense, though, can the Department guarantee that Irish-----

Is the Deputy asking about sheepmeat?

Sheepmeat and beef. Can the Department guarantee that Irish meat is genuinely Irish from origin and that TRACES is not being used or abused in relation to that?

The European and Irish regulations require you to list the information I have just read out to the Deputy.

I have not asked Mr. Waldron about the regulations. I am asking Mr. Waldron whether the Department can-----

I am answering the question for the Deputy. You are required to state that identity on the label. The figures the Deputy is referring to are probably the figures from the Central Statistics Office.

They are following on from a parliamentary question that I submitted last week.

Those figures record the data that I have just outlined to the Deputy.

If the Deputy forwards Mr. Waldron the detail, we can get it in a written format after. I need to move on to Deputy Fitzmaurice.

The witnesses might answer fairly quickly because I only have ten minutes.

Following Deputy Fitzmaurice, we will suspend for five minutes.

The Cathaoirleach is talking in my time.

I am.

First of all, how many people has the FSAI out on the ground checking labelling? Quick, quick, quick.

We have none specifically.

None.

It is all done through the HSE's environmental health service-----

How many has it out?

-----and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Has the HSE health inspectors?

Yes.

How many-----

There are approximately 300 or 350 environmental health officers-----

-----in the whole country?

-----who cover a range of activities, including food safety.

How many deal with labelling?

Environmental health officers, EHOs, cover a wide variety of activities. Food safety is part of their work.

Needle in a haystack, to be quite frank about it.

Can I have a Bord Bia emblem on my product even if my stuff is not Origin Green?

The Origin Green Bord Bia quality assured-----

Can I have a Bord Bia emblem on my product if it is not Origin Green?

So-----

Yes or no?

Can I answer the question, please?

It is simple because I saw it on it.

The Bord Bia quality assured logo is only on a product, as I said, that is born, raised and slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland.

Can I have a Bord Bia logo on the product if it is not Origin Green?

Origin Green does not go on a pack. A Bord Bia quality assurance logo goes on a pack and it can only go on a pack if the product is born, raised and slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland.

No other thing brought in from any country can have any emblem of Bord Bia on it.

Absolutely not.

That is fair.

Under TRACES, the Department maintains records of all products of animal origin imported from third countries on common health entry document for products, CHED-P, documentation. These record the third country supplier, the importer and the first consignee where the product is going when it arrives in Ireland. Does Part III of the CHED-P record indicate where a consignment goes after that in the food chain?

Sorry, Deputy. I was not able to hear the last piece of the question.

Mr. Waldron will be used to TRACES. I am wasting time at this now. The Department maintains records of all products of animal origin imported from third countries on CHED-P documentation. These record the third country, the importer and the first consignee where the product is going when it arrives in Ireland. My question is on whether Part III of the CHED-P record indicates where a consignment goes after that into the food chain. It is a simple question.

No, it is the first consignee.

And nothing after that.

Thereafter, it still has to have the traceability requirements of all-----

There are no records of it, is that correct?

We have a record of where it has come from and that it has met our SPS requirements.

We have no record after that. Border security was discussed. What border security is there between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland in traceability?

Each food business operator is required to maintain traceability one step back and one step forward.

I am talking to the Department. I have talked about traceability and border security.

The same rules apply.

I am asking, if a lorry comes in through the North, what border security is there to check the consignments?

It has entered into the Common Market so there is free movement.

Is that if it comes from a third country?

If it has entered into the third country it has to come in through a border control post.

It comes in through Northern Ireland. Is Northern Ireland an EU country, if it came from the UK?

It has to come in through a border control post if it has come in from a third country.

If it comes in through the North, where is the border control between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland?

It is allowed to freely move once it is passed through the Northern Ireland border control post.

They deal with the English stuff. Of imports processed under CHED-P, how many were subject to physical checks or border controls last year?

Physical checks vary by country. It is prescribed in the legislation and depends on the product-----

In Ireland, how many were there?

It will vary. For example, meat is inspected with a physical check rate of about 30% for minced meat and 15% for other meat. It might be higher depending on the country of origin.

Under that documentation of beef brought in from a third country, in relation to the beef that turned up with hormones, does the public have the right - no more than if my animals or those of one of the guys here are killed in Ireland and our name is up in some SuperValu or butcher shop or whatever - to see all that documentation relating to that meat that had hormones in it? Is it possible to give us that information?

That information is subject to official controls and confidentiality.

Can I get it as a citizen?

The Deputy could request it under freedom of information. The information he spoke about is subject to confidentiality requirements.

Why, if any of us here have an animal and our name is up in a shop, is whoever sent in or brought in that beef subject to confidentiality? Is it two different stories for two different people? If we have to be traceable in every bit of our meat, why is anyone who wants to know that information not given it? Should we not know the person who brought that in and who distributed it? Once it was gone - eaten by someone probably - does that person know? Have they been contacted? If it was my bullock or heifer, I would be contacted if there was something wrong. Why are there two different standards?

It might be helpful to outline the timeline.

I do not care about timelines. I am asking about traceability.

The timeline is helpful. The meat came into the Netherlands-----

Someone brought it in.

That is certainly true.

Does the FSAI know who brought it in?

It came in to three-----

Should we not know that as people?

It came into three food business operators in Ireland in early September.

We know all that.

By the time we were informed of it on 12 December and checks were undertaken in those premises, the meat had already been sold on, there was none left and it was out of date.

I asked a question - has someone eaten that meat?

In all likelihood someone has, yes.

Did the FSAI go to those people or trace them to see who had eaten it?

The food business-----

Should they be eating such meat?

The food businesses concerned were retailers. They do not have to maintain traceability to the final consumer.

Every farmer in Ireland has their name up in a shop or a butcher shop, rightly so - we have no problem with it - but if someone brings in beef we do not know who brought it in or who distributed it from a third country.

The business knows one step back who it got it from.

Let us get clear on this. Does the consumer not have the right to know? If they have the right to know about my animal, do they not have the right to know about the bullock that came from Brazil?

There is legislation in place to allow consumers to be informed in the choices they make-----

Am I as a consumer allowed to know if there was any risk I ate that beef? If I ask who brought it in, do I have a right to know the track right along, no more than if it was an Irish company or meat processor?

If you are a consumer in a retail premises purchasing meat, you are entitled to the information on who produced it, the food businesses and the traceability of that meat whether it was Irish----

As an Irish consumer who would be concerned, if I have a worry can I send the FSAI a question as to who brought this meat in, where it went and what shop it was in in case I went into that shop? I drive 100 miles or 200 miles every day. Can it tell me that?

We are precluded from giving that particular information.

But if it is Michael below in the west of Ireland or someone in the east of Ireland we have to come out and say.

The same rule applies.

It does not because your name is up on the shelf. I did not see any Brazilian guy's name up on a shelf in any SuperValu or shop around Ireland even though there is plenty of beef coming in.

There is an equivalency in terms of when you are buying the meat, you are entitled to the information on where that meat came from whether Brazil or Ireland. If there is a problem-----

Just to be clear, we have a right to know what we are eating. If I produce an animal here, I have to go through every hoop as a farmer. What has been said is that beef was brought through the labelling and traceability system and none of us have a right to know.

We are due to suspend for a break and there is a vote.

I can keep going.

We are due to finish.

Will you give me minutes again?

We are due to suspend after Deputy Fitzmaurice. We will suspend for five minutes.

Between everything I have been held up two or three minutes.

Before we move to the next speaker, I ask for proposals for somebody to take the Chair.

I propose Senator Eileen Lynch.

I call Senator Daly.

I welcome the witnesses. I will make a small statement. There will be a few questions incorporated into it. The witnesses can decide themselves who will respond. I have no slideshows, photographs or anything like that. At this stage, I do not even have an audience. To a small extent, we are going around in circles. The Chair made a statement at the very outset. I will start with that. While it is not a label of certification or anything, we all know the famous story of the Irish breaded chicken, where the chicken reputedly came from Thailand.

Who polices that? While the label was not a label of certification or of origin, it was probably the producer who put it on, being smart, because it can read into any way you like. It is a matter of the interpretation of the wording. The consumer would probably have said it was Irish chicken. Maybe it was only a myth but the story was always that the chicken was only breaded in Ireland. Who polices that?

I heard everything said by the Bord Bia representatives but seek clarification. Are there any reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland for scenarios where an animal is reared in the Republic, slaughtered in the North and processed in the Republic, maybe where the slaughtering plant or abattoir in the North is owned by a company with a similar facility in the South? We try to have all-island arrangements when it suits and then regard ourselves as two different countries when it suits. The representatives might comment on that.

At border control posts, there are visual checks and document checks. If a container of hanging beef carcases arrives at a port and someone confirms it is from where the paperwork says it comes from, such as Brazil, is that it? Do we take it that it is what it says on the tin? Do we do any spot checks on the likes of the food with the hormones that got through? I presume there would have to be laboratory checks to verify its origin. I was informed, or read somewhere, that where a whistleblower or someone who has been tipped off takes a sample and sends it to a laboratory, the container is allowed to go on, meaning the food may be consumed before the result comes back. If the result is positive, the sampler has almost knowingly allowed contaminated food into the food chain. Is that true? If so, is there a plan to change the policy?

I am from Kilbeggan, where Irish whiskey is produced. At this stage, Irish whiskey carrying the green flag should contain more than Irish water. The same applies to corn-fed free range chicken. The free range chicken is from Ireland but the corn comes from a Mercosur country and is probably genetically modified. Do we have a plan? Since the Mercosur debate started, there has been a lot of focus on labelling, food importation, food identification and the correct classification of food. Based on some of what was highlighted in the debate, have heads been banged together to make changes or improvements, or to have a plan of action?

I will start with the first question on chicken. It is a matter of providing information for consumers and ensuring that they are not misled. On the question on the nature of a chicken nugget, if it is suggested that it is made in Ireland, although a proportion of the chicken is from another country, the relevant information is required.

I am going to ask Ms Crehan-----

I am sorry for interrupting. It is a conundrum in that the label can be read in two ways. Who is the judge and jury to say we are being misled, or that the chicken is actually Irish and the manufacturer is not being smart at all?

Ms Crehan will give a little more colour on that.

After the general food labelling legislation in 2018, more legislation, accounting for the primary ingredient, was introduced at European level. It covers the types of labels in question. I agree that when a label refers to Irish breaded chicken, it can be read as meaning one thing or the other. There is no requirement to put anything in addition on the label if the chicken is Irish and breaded here. However, there are specific rules in place stipulating that if the chicken used in the Irish breaded chicken is not Irish, it must be on the label.

I am sorry for stopping Ms Crehan, but I want clarification. Is there any specification as to how a label is made? If I pull a quick one and state that chicken I have brought in from Thailand is Irish breaded chicken but the FSAI then tells me I have to state it is from Thailand, can I put it in almost unreadable print and thereby be covered?

No, the Senator could not do that. The legislation is very clear about the legibility. It specifies the font size. This goes back to the general food labelling legislation, which is very clear that the information has to be presented using a specific font size. The consumer should be able to find the information very easily. The concept is known as the same field of vision as the name of the product. Generally on the front label, the name may be in bigger font. On the back, the name will be repeated, but for all those products with meat that is not Irish but whose label indicates Irishness, the information has to be given in a clearly legible font along with the name of the food. The consumer should be fully informed at the time of purchase.

I thank the witnesses.

On first question regarding where there is processing in Northern Ireland, the answer is "Absolutely". We have a specific logo that includes the words "produced and processed". It is different from the logo I referred to earlier. In the food processor scheme, we have 137 members that undergo the auditing and the maintenance of the food processor standard. There are nine processors in Northern Ireland that would have the same checks and balances and that would adhere to the same standards. They would use a different logo, but the animal is from the Republic of Ireland. It is processed in the North. A number of our member companies would have facilities in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. I hope that answers the question.

The second question was on whiskey. Eighty members of Origin Green are whiskey companies. They do not have the Origin Green logo on their packs, but they are working on their sustainability programmes and initiatives, including on everything from sourcing to emissions to social sustainability. Protected geographical indication, PGI, status is for whiskey aged in Ireland for three years. We are asking companies to examine their sourcing strategies and are working with them in that regard.

Where the chicken in breaded chicken has come from anywhere outside Ireland, it would not be quality assured and would not carry the Bord Bia quality assurance logo. There are strict controls in relation to that.

My final question is for the Department. Has it any input into border control posts at Belfast?

No.

So, with regard to produce that comes in there, we are dependent on the goodwill of another jurisdiction. Once it is in, it is in.

The border control posts throughout the EU operate according to the same EU legislation. We are reliant on the operation of the border control posts throughout the Union for products that enter it, just as other countries rely on the proper operation of ours. The border control posts across the EU are subject to the same legislation and operate in the same manner.

I asked a question on the waiting time for laboratory results.

The Senator asked whether what he described can happen. The answer is that sometimes it can and sometimes it cannot. There are two different-----

Where you have a suspicion and take a sample to the laboratory to test for impurities, hormones or whatever, the produce is let into the food chain while waiting for the result to come back.

There are two different scenarios.

Does Mr. O'Mahony not think that is wrong?

There are two different scenarios. The Senator started his sentence with "Where you have suspicion". Let us start with that. Where you have a suspicion, the answer is that the consignment cannot be moved on. If you have a suspicion or reasonable grounds, you will take a sample and hold the consignment. That is one scenario. There is another that involves baseline sampling. Member states are obliged to have baseline samples and a monitoring plan for produce on the way in. For example, 7% of meat consignments have to be sampled as a matter of course. It is targeted but is not about suspicion. It would involve a lower order of risk-based sampling. It is not a matter of suspicion. In those instances, EU law explicitly allows the product to keep on going before the lab result comes back.

I have a quick question for the Department. Under TRACES and CHED-D, are meat processors bringing third-country meat into Ireland?

I am not sure. I presume they are.

Can Dr. Murray come back and answer it?

I presume there is.