ANALYSIS:Some in the industry are wondering whether the State overreacted with its response, writes Ruadhán MacCormaic
IF THE risk to public health from the contamination of pigmeat was extremely low, then just why was it necessary to withdraw every scrap of pork from shops, restaurants and households at such enormous cost?
And if contaminated feed in 10 pig farms can lead to the recall of all pork products and bring the industry to a halt, where stands the much-touted concept of traceability?
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland reiterated yesterday its view that the scientific data did not support concerns about health effects for people exposed to dioxins at a high level over a short period of time.
Considering the evidence of the contamination and the international data on exposure to such dioxins, deputy chief executive Alan Reilly said: "There is a low-level risk of ill health - and that means for today, tomorrow or 10, 20 years from now. There is no scientific robust evidence to support any other viewpoint in our opinion."
But could the authorities not have traced the contaminated meat and isolated that small percentage of farms where the tainted feed was used?
According to one source working in the industry, the public health authorities' reassurance invites the question of whether the State overreacted in its response.
"The health experts are saying there is no risk, really, to anyone, so if they've only been in the chain in a very small percentage of cases since September, you'd wonder why they didn't just decide to restrict the farms where the feed ingredient [was used]", she said.
"Things can't be done within minutes, but it is traceable. A lot of the retailers I've been speaking to are telling me that as far as they're concerned, the meat they have is fully traceable and that they're very busy working to prove that they're traceable.
"When the pigs leave Irish farms, they're fully traceable. That's what farmers are finding so heartbreaking - they know exactly where their pigs go," she added.
But others argue that tracing small cuts back to source can be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Reilly estimated that products from the 10 affected farms - which would equate to up to 10 per cent of the total pork supply - would have been mixed with up to 80 per cent of the non-contaminated products. Once carcasses entered a particular cutting hall, he said, they ceased to be identified by their source and were sold simply as the product of the cutting plant.
"So not being able to trace the whole lot, we thought it better just to take everything off the market. Why did we take everything off the market? Because they're illegal.
"We know that they don't pose a major risk to public health, but you cannot leave products like that on the market because you're increasing the exposure to dioxins if you do," he said.
The decision to recall all products was taken at the weekend by the food safety authority. Asked whether it ever considered leaving pork products on the market, considering the immense economic cost of the recall, Reilly responded emphatically. "Who would want to buy them? Some of this is exported, and we would be exporting essentially illegal products. They mightn't be unsafe, but they're illegal. But if you're to eat these things every day of your life for the next 40 years, they would be dangerous.
"If you take a capsule of cyanide, you'll drop down dead. If you did the same with a sausage, you're not going to. But if you're eating sausages every day of your life with these levels of dioxins, you might end up in very poor health."
And presumably the reputation of the Irish meat industry was of some importance too? "Now you're talking," Reilly responded.