The costs and time it takes to get new animal and plant health products approved in the EU and Ireland, is stifling productivity, costing significant numbers of jobs and forcing the relocation of important research and development, the Animal and Plant Health Association (APHA) has claimed.
APHA, which represents prominent manufacturers and distributors of veterinary medicines and plant protection/agrochemical products in the Republic, said Irish consumers could be assured of the safety of such products because the industry is highly regulated by the Irish Medicines Board. The sector employs 700 people in skilled manufacturing.
APHA director, Mr Declan O'Brien, said current regulations, however, "are overly conservative, and can be modified to allow the industry develop further, while still guaranteeing food safety and animal welfare".
Europe, he added, was at a major disadvantage compared to the US in new product development due to the stringency of its regulations. Important R & D was being relocated to more favourable economies.
"In the past five years, the time it takes to licence a new product in Europe has increased by 2 1/2 years, bringing the total period to nine years. In comparison, it takes 6 1/2 years in the US."
This discrepancy reflected the amount of data sought by European authorities, he said. As a consequence, during the past five years the cost of new product development has increased by 50 per cent in Europe by comparison to 20 per cent in the US.
Mr O'Brien said APHA supported the application of stringent penalties including jail for those who misused medicines. But over regulation did not bring additional benefits to consumers. It only "hampers the ability of the industry to create employment and wealth", he said.
European assessors were looking for "zero risk" and attempting to "legislate risk out of existence", which was a ridiculous proposition in APHA's view. The organisation, nonetheless, accepted food safety and animal welfare were of paramount importance to the industry.
"Consumers are entitled to full disclosure of information on food production from the animal health and plant health industries. It is in our interest, therefore, that the highest standards apply and an independent agency such as the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) exists to monitor consumer health issues."
Excellent monitoring coupled with severe penalties for misusers of products was "the way to go", but one without the other was useless, he said. APHA considered the rigorous controls and stiff penalties applying in the Irish dairy industry an appropriate model for best safety and quality assurance practices for the entire food industry. These ensured total assurance for consumers of milk and dairy products.
To indicate the extent of control within the dairy sector, APHA organised a field trip recently to a small, but highly efficient dairy and mushroom farm in Cavan and to Lakeland Dairies in Killeshandra - the co-op to which farmer Mr Tim Connolly of Ballinagh and his family supplies milk - to underline the symbiotic relationship between supplier and processor, and spell out the extent of controls and co-operation to ensure quality.
Mr O'Brien explained: "There is on-going support and close co-operation at each stage of the production process from the time the farmer purchases veterinary medicines from the co-op, to day-today sampling of milk, co-ordination of quality and ongoing commitment to excellence which ultimately is rewarded by price."
Given the penalties for milk with a high bacterial count or the presence of substances such as antibiotics that combine with strict quality controls, consumers could be totally assured of the safety of animal health products used in the dairy sector.
With the FSAI playing a valuable role by sensibly interpreting complex data on all aspects of food, and the extent of existing controls, Mr O'Brien called for a responsible attitude when health scares arise.
"Scares can be created when partial information is presented or when information is presented in a complex manner without interpretation. APHA is always open to comment and to provide interpretations."
He cited a Cambridge study which found that 76 per cent of people surveyed would call for a ban on water as a dangerous chemical after it was simply called dihydrogen monoxide. "It reveals how we can all too easily be led into unjustified environmental alarm, when faced with information of a scientific nature."
