The short statement from the Department of Agriculture and Food on the latest annual report on pesticide residues in Irish food suggests all is well. A careful reading of the report itself, however, does not lie comfortably with the declaration from the Minister of State, Mr Ned O'Keeffe, highlighting "good compliance" among producers. For starters, the department's Pesticide Control Service is monitoring considerably less than the number of pesticides it should be monitoring. Of some 400 chemicals frequently used as pesticides to protect crops, it is monitoring 269. Last year the service had its capacity reduced by a third, at a time when it should have been significantly scaled-up.
It is accepted that its reduced throughput is likely to be a once-off; largely due to a process of ensuring its facilities and their operation match the criteria of independent accreditation. Debacles over contaminated blood and inaccurate evaluation of cervical smear samples have demonstrated the acute need for laboratory standards of the highest order. That said, analysis carried out of just 608 samples during 1998 is worryingly low, given we are a food-producing state on the international stage, and increasingly are importing produce from all over the world. In any event, the need to ensure protection of Irish consumers warrants more extensive and more vigorous checks.
In fairness to those operating the pesticide control service, they have reiterated each year what needs to be done to counteract a lack of personnel and resources. Their monitoring programme results indicate a need to increase significantly the number of pesticides being analysed. It is unacceptable that under stringent - and necessarily so - EU directives the key standard/limit known as an MRL (maximum residue level) has been set for a large number of pesticides and these simply are not yet adopted in Ireland. MRLs need to be set for a range of other chemicals anyway. Moreover, a broader range of products should be analysed and provision made for more detailed checking of water quality.
Mr O'Keeffe, perhaps, should re-phrase his commentary to suggest that based on limited sampling and monitoring there are some indications of good compliance across imported and home-grown fruit, vegetables, cereals and domestically produced food of animal origin. Yes, there was one particularly pleasing finding; Irish vegetables produced by growers who form part of the Bord Glas Quality Programme had a particularly low pesticide content.
It would be foolish to advocate an end to pesticide use. An awesome increase in productivity on farms over the past 50 years would not have been possible without pesticides and fertilisers. This, however, should not hide the reality that when used improperly and sometimes as they are intended, they can endanger human health and harm living things beyond their usual targets. Effective control has become even more pressing with certain pesticides such as organo-phosphates. There is also evidence pointing to the undesirable persistence of chemicals in the environment, whether they be plastic compounds, dioxins, "hormone-disrupters" or pesticides.
Exploiting Ireland's greenness is a mark of our trade, and nowhere more so than with our food. But it is more than an advertising slogan. The buyer or tourist wants to see tangible indication of "living greenness".