Government acts after 3 months over dioxins in pork and then after it is found in UK

Mr.Micro

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On some points, I have. You don't seem to have noticed.

I did briefly think of trying to address all that you said, but I found it so loose and imprecise that I categorised it as a rant.

You are clearly unable to debate the facts and the easiest way out for you is to call my arguments a rant.

P. Breathnach

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You are clearly unable to debate the facts and the easiest way out for you is to call my arguments a rant.

I am not willing to debate on a confusion of inaccuracies and opinions.

oscarBravo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You are clearly unable to debate the facts and the easiest way out for you is to call my arguments a rant.

For what it's worth, your posts come across a bit ranty to me.

I'd appreciate if both of you would either engage in debate or refrain from posting, before this turns into a complete handbag-fest.

Vegeta

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am not willing to debate on a confusion of inaccuracies and opinions.

How about posting sources so.

All you are doing is giving opinions

"Our mission is to protect consumers' health and consumers' interests by ensuring that food consumed, distributed, marketed or produced in the state meets the highest standards of food safety and hygiene."

That's straight from the FSAI website.

They have failed in this mission, big time. You can make all the excuses you want but they have failed in this mission.

They are not just the messenger.

Mr.Micro

oscarBravo wrote: »

For what it's worth, your posts come across a bit ranty to me.

A matter of opinion OB, but I will say nothing more on this thread you will be pleased to read. One could be forgiven for becoming a bit emotive over this issue. l lost my eldest son 2 years ago to cancer and I do not want to lose either of my remaining 2 children the same way especially is if it is by eating contaminated food.

P. Breathnach

Vegeta wrote: »

How about posting sources so.

All you are doing is giving opinions...

That is unfair. I have tackled Mr.Micro over basing his posts on unsubstantiated claims, and you challenge me to adduce evidence. Surely a fair process is that he be asked to back up his claims. How am I to supposed to deal with "that's probably a porky" and "when any inspection occurs at a plant it is probably advertized in advance"?

lostexpectations provided a very useful link that gave some useful factual information, especially on the point that the problem was identified here.

P. Breathnach

Mr.Micro wrote: »

... l lost my eldest son 2 years ago to cancer...

I am very sorry about that.

P. Breathnach

Vegeta wrote: »

"Our mission is to protect consumers' health and consumers' interests by ensuring that food consumed, distributed, marketed or produced in the state meets the highest standards of food safety and hygiene."

That's straight from the FSAI website.

They have failed in this mission, big time. You can make all the excuses you want but they have failed in this mission.

They are not just the messenger.

Hmm. I thought they had just identified a problem and dealt with it. Is not that what they are supposed to do?

Mr.Micro

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am very sorry about that.

Thank you, I appreciate your concern.

gandalf

My understanding is that they and the other agencies entrusted with the integrity of our food supply is to ensure that incidences like this do not occur. They have all failed dismally on this occasion. Your defence of them P. Breathnach is like praising the security guard who was charged with guarding a bank vault with informing everyone when its been robbed.

The failure to capture this contamination has so far put at least 2000 employees on protective notice, will probably cost €200 million to buy contaminated product back, ruined our reputation abroad maybe effecting other areas of our valuable food export industry, cause at the very minimum difficulties for farmers who are already under pressure. Now some of our beef herds are effected as well.

Given the BSE problems in recent years and the near destruction of the beef industry in the UK you would expect our authorities to ensure that we maintained our advantage by ensuring our food standards are maintained especially with 4 agencies having responsibility for the same.

Villain

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Hmm. I thought they had just identified a problem and dealt with it. Is not that what they are supposed to do?

Who's responsibility is it to inspect factory's like the source to all this mess?

Vegeta

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Hmm. I thought they had just identified a problem and dealt with it. Is not that what they are supposed to do?

No, there job is to prevent this type of thing from happening.

Can you sit there and say they have achieved this?

P. Breathnach

Vegeta wrote: »

No, there job is to prevent this type of thing from happening.

Can you sit there and say they have achieved this?

No, I don't say that they prevented it happening.

But let's get realistic about this: it is unlikely that anybody can entirely prevent such things from happening without a level of resourcing and interference that would be unacceptable. If the FSAI had an inspector permanently located at every business that was a link in the food chain, there is a good chance (but no absolute certainty) that such things might be stopped. And we would not, as a population, be willing or able to bear the costs.

My core argument is:
- The wrong happened at one feed-producing plant. It might have been human error, but I suspect that it was due to decisions on cost-cutting and profit-maximisation.
- The FSAI discovered it, apparently within three months of bad practices commencing.
- The blame lies with the feed-producing plant.

There is a question to be asked about our culture. There is a tradition of cute-hoorism in Irish business, and we don't seem to be as exercised about that as we are about those whose job is to tackle it.

Villain

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, I don't say that they prevented it happening.

But let's get realistic about this: it is unlikely that anybody can entirely prevent such things from happening without a level of resourcing and interference that would be unacceptable. If the FSAI had an inspector permanently located at every business that was a link in the food chain, there is a good chance (but no absolute certainty) that such things might be stopped. And we would not, as a population, be willing or able to bear the costs.

But SURELY random inspections every 4 or 5 months would help, I mean surely leaving a plant like this un-inspected for a year is wrong?

P. Breathnach

Villain wrote: »

But SURELY random inspections every 4 or 5 months would help, I mean surely leaving a plant like this un-inspected for a year is wrong?

Frankly, I don't know. Devising an inspection and testing regime is not a simple thing, and I am not an expert in that field. And we should bear in mind that the FSAI has to manage with limited resources. It's not just feed plants that are inspected. The feedstuffs on farms are also inspected and analysed. I suspect that you don't actually know the best approach either, but that you are using that popular mechanism of hindsight.

Remember, too, that the problem appears to have existed for about three months, which is less than the 4 or 5 month inspection interval that you suggest.

P. Breathnach

Just in case people have formed the wrong impression about where I stand, I'd like to add to my previous postings on this question that I am upset and angry about what has happened. My participation in this discussion is because I think people's anger is directed at the wrong target.

Villain

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Frankly, I don't know. Devising an inspection and testing regime is not a simple thing, and I am not an expert in that field. And we should bear in mind that the FSAI has to manage with limited resources. It's not just feed plants that are inspected. The feedstuffs on farms are also inspected and analysed. I suspect that you don't actually know the best approach either, but that you are using that popular mechanism of hindsight.

Remember, too, that the problem appears to have existed for about three months, which is less than the 4 or 5 month inspection interval that you suggest.

But it wasn't inspected this year at all, the problem could have been there for a year, and from what I have read and it may well be wrong but it was the Italians thats discovered the problem.

No Inspection for year is wreckless imo and licenses shouldn't be given if there isn't enough resources to monitor and inspect those under the license?

P. Breathnach

Villain wrote: »

...from what I have read and it may well be wrong but it was the Italians thats discovered the problem...

I have heard this too, but I don't know where it came from. At this stage, I am inclined to disbelieve it.

lostexpectation

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Just in case people have formed the wrong impression about where I stand, I'd like to add to my previous postings on this question that I am upset and angry about what has happened. My participation in this discussion is because I think people's anger is directed at the wrong target..

no your the type that comes along every now and then saying, don't discuss on a discussion board.

RDM_83

Was there not a French gelatine plant that noticed the rise (and so removed the option of trying what Belgium did back (not sure on that)

I've a few questions after talking to my brother and looking a bit more at the newspapers its interesting whats happened.
How did the contamination occur, I know its quoted that improper oil was used to dry the feed but the contaminant was not dioxins but "non-dioxin-like PCBs" (polychlorinated biphenyls)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1209/breaking21.htm
Dioxins are formed (wikipedia is great ) "PCDDs through combustion, chlorine bleaching and manufacturing processes" so dioxin contamination could occur from burning improper oil.
But apparently PCB's have been illegal in Ireland since 1979 and the plant did not have appropriate licence to dispose of this material.
"PCBs are very stable compounds and do not degrade readily. They may be destroyed by chemical, thermal, and biochemical processes, though it is extremely difficult to achieve full destruction, and there is the risk of creating extremely toxic dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans through partial oxidation. Because of the high thermodynamic stability of PCBs, all degradation mechanisms are difficult to sustain. Intentional degradation as a treatment of unwanted PCBs generally requires high heat or catalysis. Environmental and metabolic degradation generally proceeds quite slowly relative to most other compounds."
And the level though it only in Parts per million in the flesh could still be thought of as quite high considering it was apparently only they were using the wrong oil in the drier of the feed for a period of a month or what were they burning.
And if it turns out they were disposing of hazardous waste in a food production environment what will happen to them.
Also can't remember who made the point (was in metro I think) that they can't say their won't be any health affects yet because they've only tested a small portion and haven't carried out proper studies.

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote: »

no your the type that comes along every now and then saying, don't discuss on a discussion board.

This falls under my definition of handbaggery. Stop it.

lostexpectation

Belgian authorities said they had noticed increasing levels of PCBs and dioxins in September and French authorities also indicate concern.

Wednesday November 19th : Routine pigmeat samples are taken at an unnamed meat plant. It was a "totally routine" sample, the Department of Agriculture said.

Friday November 28th:

A testing laboratory tells the Department of Agriculture that there is an unusual pattern developing in the sample.

so the belgians did detect it first, trevor sargeant was congratulating himself on q&a when he said other countries spotted the dioxins in september but the irish were first to know the source*clap clap* it was us!, but people are right to say the other countries spotted it first.

from the horses mouths, pb

Macha

mike65 wrote: »

I don't think so, it shows that people crazily expect public health systems to work while a private company can be sued later.

I think it shows that people crazily expect food to be produced at such ridiculously low prices, that the system is cracking under the pressure. Food scares such as this one, BSE, etc are all symptoms of a highly-industrialised food system that aims to produce food as cheaply as possible, regardless of the consequences. Companies are always, always looking for shortcuts.

Perhaps consumers should take some responsibility for preferring cheap food over high-quality food. You get what you pay for.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1208/1228571631043.html

mike65

I did allude to that on the previous page

Still, regardless of food poilicy monitoring should be rigorous.

Macha

mike65 wrote: »

I did allude to that on the previous page

Still, regardless of food poilicy monitoring should be rigorous.

Oh yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you - just adding my 2c.

I have a serious loathing for the "customer is king" mentality.

P. Breathnach

lostexpectation wrote: »

Belgian authorities said they had noticed increasing levels of PCBs and dioxins in September and French authorities also indicate concern... so the belgians did detect it first, trevor sargeant was congratulating himself on q&a when he said other countries spotted the dioxins in september but the irish were first to know the source*clap clap* it was us!, but people are right to say the other countries spotted it first.

from the horses mouths, pb

My understanding (from what I heard on radio, so I cannot give an url) is that higher dioxin levels had been detected in a fat-rendering plant in Belgium. The plant got its raw material from a number of sources in different countries, and they were not able to identify the country of origin.

When our testing procedures revealed what was happening here, the Belgian response was that they now knew the probable source of the problem they had detected, and communicated with our government.

So yes, it was spotted in other countries first (well, at least in Belgium; I haven't heard about what, if anything, was detected in France). But the Belgians did not know where, in the sense of what country, the problem came from.

To me, it all makes sense. Our people, probably Department of Agriculture officials, communicated with their EU counterparts about a problem they saw developing. Their counterparts got back to them to say that this might be what had been showing up in their tests and they had been unable to explain.

I heard Brian Cowen yesterday picking his words carefully about the use of the wrong type of oil in the feedstuff plant, and thought that he was speaking like the lawyer that he is. There seems to have been a reason for it. It could be that they were victims themselves, conned by their oil suppliers. See http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1210/1228849743462.html?via=mr .

lostexpectation

thanks for repeating what i said p breatnach

now if only we didn't have to wait a week for such results to come from the uk

P. Breathnach

lostexpectation wrote: »

thanks for repeating what i said p breatnach

I didn't. And I certainly didn't support the implication you made.

lostexpectation

i quoted trevor seargeant i didn't make any implications.

P. Breathnach

lostexpectation wrote: »

i quoted trevor seargeant i didn't make any implications.

If you say so.

Who applauded?