August  2003   VOLUME 56: Number 8 Veterinary Ireland Journal Page CONTENTS Peer review articles are available in full as  Acrobat PDF files You will need to download the Acrobat reader    which can be got free at this web site

EDITORIAL   

Top of page

What price food safety?

Over the past weeks rumours have abounded about changes in the way meat inspection is to be carried out in abattoirs and factories in the future. At this stage it is true to say that there is some basis for these rumours. It has come to light that Department of Agriculture and Food officials have been in contact with abattoir and factory owners about “privatising” the operation of the meat inspection service. The initial driving force for this is the cutback in funding of the service by the government. The allocation is €17m this year as distinct from €20m in 2002. While there have been efficiencies since the announcement at the beginning of the year, nevertheless the money allocated seemingly will not be sufficient. It has even been suggested that people from abroad be brought in to carry out meat inspection duties in our country. This is a really sad reflection on the thinking within our Department of Agriculture and on the part of the owners of factories and abattoirs.

Veterinary practitioners have been doing meat inspection work for several decades, providing an excellent service from which consumers at home and in our export markets have benefited. As in any commercial activity, there has to be a seller and a buyer. In the case of meat, proper inspection leads to the sale of a certified product, which in turn adds value to the product from the seller’s point of view and ensures a safe product for buyers and consumers. Ireland is unique insofar as nine out of every ten animals that come to market go for export and only one is consumed at home. Given this scenario it is essential that our customers have confidence in the inspection system and it is true to say that the present inspection system has served us very well. Our own Minister for Agriculture and Food, Joe Walsh, has described it as a "very credible system". The independence of the inspectorate is of vital importance. If the inspectorate were in the employment of the factory and abattoir owners then their independence inevitably would be compromised and this independence is an absolute requirement under EU rules.

Veterinary practitioners doing this work on a part-time basis provide a huge level of flexibility insofar as, if a factory closes for some months at a slack time of the year, then they are not paid, neither have they any of the ordinary rights accorded to employees: for example, no pay for leave or bank holidays, no sick benefit, no superannuation scheme, no mileage allowance and no redundancy. They turn up for work when required to do so, be it for one or two shifts a week, or for a regular everyday slot. Indeed much of the work is carried out at unsocial hours in the early morning or late evening for which they do not get paid overtime.

Remuneration over the years has been on the basis of a three-hour shift worked on the line, with a further half-hour for preparation and clean down. Huge efficiencies can be attained if factories would only organise their production a bit better. Many factories have this down to a fine art whereby their production is tailored to, say, three or four days a week, but regrettably there are others whose production is haphazard and this certainly leads to inefficient use of the inspection service (e.g., when veterinarians are called for a shift and there is only an hour of production.

Veterinarians are uniquely suitable for this work because they have a knowledge of bacteriology, pathology, parasitology, etc. They are also educated in animal welfare and have more training than any other profession in the recognition and control of zoonotic diseases. With this knowledge, they are in a position to make informed decisions on matters of food safety in accordance with the science involved. To train people to this level of competence to do the same job would probably involve a four-year course in some third-level institution, and such employees would not provide the flexibilities currently available.

Veterinary practice nowadays is much more limited than in the past; rural practitioners are now very busy providing a service to their farmer clients for about four months annually; this busy period encompasses the calving-lambing-foaling season and the period of the year when the young animals are most prone to disease. At this time of year veterinary practices need as much veterinary personnel as possible in order to provide the level of service that their farmer clients require; however, as the year progresses, practice gets much quieter. In order to survive the quiet times practitioners have, over the years, taken on meat inspection work and it is now part and parcel of general practice. Without this work practices would not be able to sustain the level of personnel necessary to provide the level of service required during the busy time of the year, which would eventually result in a much poorer veterinary service.

Again, because of the importance of this work, veterinarians attended refresher courses over the years in meat hygiene and related subjects in order to be able to give it the professionalism it deserved. In the UK it was a veterinarian in an abattoir who first spotted foot-and-mouth disease there, and, at this side of the water it is estimated that had it not been for the excellent way the disease was handled it could have cost our economy €6bn.

With the reform of the CAP, one can expect that there will be fewer cattle and sheep in Europe in a few years time. At present, we are exporting to only six third countries and our exports to Britain are to the catering trade. If we are to gain access to other third countries and to the higher levels of the British market and other EU markets then we will have to have high standards of assurance. We should be aiming not only to maintain our current high standards but also to raise those standards by producing top quality beef and lamb to the highest certifiable veterinary standards.

As things stand at present, the Department of Agriculture and Food has indicated that, despite the considerable efficiencies already achieved this year, given the 20% drop in funding, money for meat inspection will run out in the autumn. This could lead to a situation where factories would have to close at what is traditionally the busiest time of the year, leaving farmers with unsold cattle which are fast approaching the dreaded 30 months. A short time ago, the Government spent hundreds of millions buying up cattle over 30 months in order to prop up farmers’ incomes. Is the same Government going to undo all that good work by pulling the plug in the autumn? This would be an intolerable situation for our farmer clients and cannot be allowed to happen. The total cost is minimal compared with likely legal expenses for people who were less than cooperative with the Flood tribunal. The extra funding required to maintain last year’s level of service to the industry is a tiny price to pay to avoid the catastrophic consequences which could result from this cutback.

Veterinary Ireland is acutely aware of all of the facts and will keep members fully informed of events as they happen. It will also seek members’ views through regional meetings throughout the country. This is the biggest threat to our profession that we have been faced with over a long period. It is Veterinary Ireland’s intention to confront this threat and engage in talks with the parties involved in order to shape the outcome as benignly as possible for our profession and for the industry and clients we serve. This is a time for the closing of ranks within our profession and I would ask people to get fully behind Veterinary Ireland in this vitally important task. As the old saying goes, "united we stand, divided we fall". In the end, I hope that common sense will prevail.

A message from Fintan Graham, President of Veterinary Ireland.

X-rays: iatrogenic damage by stealth?

The paper entitled "Radiation protection in large animal radiography" delivers a timely reminder that those who practise radiography in the field are obliged to comply with the provisions of the revised code of practice issued by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. In those circumstances, the onus is on the veterinary surgeon to assess the risks of radiation injury and to take appropriate steps to protect man and beast from the hazards of the "low-dose radiation" emitted by the x-ray tube. At the cellular level the energy of absorbed photons generates clusters of free radicals (known as reactive oxygen species) that damage cellular constituents, including DNA; thus, any dose, no matter how small, introduces some risk of genetic and carcinogenic consequences. For exposures encountered by prudent individuals in custom-built premises, those risks are considered to be very low; when x-rays are used in the field, procedures and precautions are more haphazard, and there are more opportunities for human error, carelessness, voluntary risks.

In terms of risk management, perhaps the most fundamental problem is that the x-rays do not have immediately observable effects on their victims. In the short term, the most biologically significant type of cellular damage, breakages in the double-strand of DNA, is not manifest phenotypically. Furthermore, the received wisdom has been that the damage is efficiently repaired or the damaged cells are quietly eliminated; so, it may be thought, no harm done when the photons are discharged under the open sky. Recent experimental evidence has given the lie to such unwarranted complacency. An in vitro study seemed to indicate that the biological effects of low-dose radiation are considerably more complex than we had thought, most notably in that the repair of damage to DNA is delayed longer, is slower and is less efficient after low doses than after high doses. Individually, each exposure may appear to be of little consequence but, collectively and over time, they may have an enormous cumulative effect.

During their years in College, veterinary students are taught to use radiographic equipment to the highest standards of efficiency and safety and they are expected to conform to those standards when they graduate into practice. O'Grady and Hone recount the story of the assistant at a stud farm who received a radiation dose of 15.9mSv, purportedly from a veterinary x-ray unit. On the evidence adduced, a Scottish court would have returned a verdict of "not proven". Nevertheless, the episode is a cause of deep concern and the authors rightly use it as an exemplary anecdote to hammer home the message that the code of practice must be implemented in full whenever and wherever radiography is practised. If, through thoughtlessness or venality, one or two practitioners disdain the standards of which their colleagues are justly proud, we have one or two mavericks too many.

Top of page