ANNUAL REPORT ON IRELAND’S NATIONAL CONTROL PLAN

ANNUAL REPORT ON IRELAND’S NATIONAL CONTROL PLAN

for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016

2

Introduction This annual report on Ireland’s national control plan (NCP), covers the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016. It has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI or the Authority) and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM).

Contact point All enquiries regarding the annual reports of Ireland’s National Control Plan should be directed to:

Responsibility for official controls of food

Contact point: Food Safety Authority of Ireland

Address: The Exchange, George’s Dock, IFSC, D01 P2V6, Dublin 1

Email address: [email protected]

Telephone: +353-1-8171320

Fax: +353-1-8171301

About The Annual Report is presented in a tabular form. The section numbers in the left column of the tables refers to COMMISSION DECISION of 24 July 20081 on guidelines to assist Member States in preparing the annual report on the single integrated multiannual national control plan provided for in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The responsibility for enforcement of food legislation is managed through service contracts between FSAI and a number of competent authorities, also known as ‘official agencies’; a section for each official agency is provided in the Report along with sections covering the other elements of the country’s Multi-Annual National Control Plan. 1 http://mancp-riskbasedplanning.wikispaces.com/file/view/Dec_2008_654.pdf

http://www.fsai.ie/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1216

http://mancp-riskbasedplanning.wikispaces.com/file/view/Dec_2008_654.pdf

http://mancp-riskbasedplanning.wikispaces.com/file/view/Dec_2008_654.pdf

3

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland ................................................................................................................ 5

ANNEX: FSAI1 ............................................................................................................................................... 10

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine .................................................................................... 15

ANNEX DAFM1 - Plant Health Control information. ....................................................................................... 65

DAFM6 - Report of Official Controls in the Organic Sector (2016) ................................................................. 69

Health Service Executive (HSE)..................................................................................................................... 74

ANNEX: HSE1 ............................................................................................................................................... 77

Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) .................................................................................................... 81

ANNEX: SFPA1 ............................................................................................................................................. 84

Local Authorities (LA) ..................................................................................................................................... 86

ANNEX: LAVS1.............................................................................................................................................. 89

The Marine Institute (MI) ................................................................................................................................ 92

ANNEX: MI1 - Sampling & Analysis ............................................................................................................... 95

The National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) ....................................................................................... 97

4

Glossary

ABP: Animal By-Products

BIP: Border Inspection Post

DAFM: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

FBO: Food / Feed Business Operator

FSAI: Food Safety Authority of Ireland

HSE: Health Services Executive

LAVS: Local Authority Veterinary Service

MI: Marine Institute

MRL: Maximum Residue Limit

NSAI: National Standards Authority of Ireland

SFPA: Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority

SVSIAG: State Veterinary Service Internal Audit Group

TSE: Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

VPHIS: Veterinary Public Health Inspection Service

5

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland The FSAI is the competent authority with overall responsibility for the enforcement of food legislation in Ireland. The responsibility for enforcement of food legislation is managed through service contracts between FSAI and a number of competent authorities, also known as ‘official agencies.’ There were 33 such official agencies in 2016:

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine;

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority;

The Health Service Executive;

The Marine Institute;

28 Local Authorities (comprising of 27 County Councils and one City Council); and,

The National Standards Authority of Ireland.

These official agencies are subject to audit by the Authority to verify the effectiveness and appropriateness of food controls and to monitor conformance by official agencies with the terms and requirements of their respective service contracts. All Authority audit reports and corrective action plans are published on the Authority’s website (www.fsai.ie). Information on the areas of responsibility for the official agencies can be found in Annex FSAI1 (table FSAI4). The Authority retains some direct enforcement responsibility for specific areas of activity, for example the Authority is the competent authority for irradiated food, genetically modified food and novel foods. The FSAI is also the competent authority for the enforcement of the legislation on food contact materials in businesses that manufacture, import, distribute and retail food packaging and other food contact materials. Inspections of Irish manufacturers and importers of food contact materials are carried out by the National Standards Authority of Ireland, under service contract to the FSAI while inspections of food businesses that use food contact materials are undertaken by the other official agencies operating under their respective service contracts. These inspections include controls on the safe use of food contact materials. The Authority is the national central control point for information and communication relating to food incidents and food alerts. It maintains a ‘24/7/365’ capability to manage incidents and operates in close cooperation with colleagues in other Member States and in Belfast and London. The Authority is also the Irish contact point for the European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. The Authority is also the Administrative Assistance and Cooperation (AAC) national contact point for both the AAC (Food Fraud) and the AAC (General). It is also the Food Fraud contact point with the European Commission’s Food Fraud Network. In relation to food fraud and matters of food authenticity, joint direct action is taken with the Authority’s Official Agencies (competent authorities) as required. Scientific risk assessments are conducted by the Authority in respect of identified hazards found in food. These assessments are used as the basis for risk management decisions. This supports food control activities to ensure that actions are based on science.

6

MANCP Section Title Information

9.1 List Official Control (OC) activity

In total, 12 general PARNUT notifications under previous legislation were received and assessed for safety and compliance using a risk-based selection criterion in 2016.

The FSAI also dealt with 133 food for special medical purposes notifications and 2625 notifications for food supplements.

Of the 2625 notifications for food supplements received, 2619 were checked for compliance with the supplements and nutrition and health claims legislation.

The FSAI works with one of its Official Agencies, the Health Service Executive, to enhance the enforcement of the legislation on food supplements.

In the area of novel foods, there were three full safety assessments completed, seven reviews of safety assessments in other Member States and 30 substantial equivalence opinions issued in 2016.

The assessment reports produced by the FSAI were forwarded to the European Commission for comment by other Member States.

Scientific reports were published on Campylobacter in poultry at retail level and zoonosis patterns in Ireland 2014 whilst new data on perchlorates, brominated flame retardants and salt, were generated in conjunction with official laboratories and shared with the European Commission, as required.

A major technical document was completed on food hygiene in horticulture and this was accepted as a National Code of Hygienic Practice by the European Commission.

In 2016, the Authority handled 553 food incidents (See Annex FSAI1), an increase of 14%, compared with 2015 when there were 485 such incidents. Incidents were categorised as full food incidents, minor food incidents and cross-country food complaints.

257 full food incidents (including 29 food fraud incidents) were investigated in 2016, compared to 239 in 2015.

145 minor incidents (including two relating to food fraud) were investigated in 2016; an increase of 24%, as compared with 2015.

85 cross-country food complaints were handled in 2016, compared with 83 in 2015

The Authority issued 39 Food Alert and 31 RASFF notifications in 2016. Of the Food Alert notifications issued, 34 were for information and 5 were for action.

Of the 31 RASFFs notified by Ireland. 6 were for food of Irish origin.

A total of 108 of the 2941 RASFFs issued by the European Commission related to food distributed in Ireland.

The Authority provided 166 risk assessments to support incident management in 2016.

In 2016, the Authority was involved in the investigation of 34 food fraud cases. The food fraud investigations were varied in nature and included; illegal slaughter and cutting of meat, stolen animals entering the food chain, sale of meat on social media from an unregistered source, breaches of Protected Designation of Origin, mislabelling of meat and poultry, protected disclosure from a food laboratory, fatality from the consumption of methanol, illegal description and sale of wine as Prosecco, misleading sales of craft beers, and counterfeit wine. Outcomes of the investigations resulted in enforcement actions and criminal proceedings being taken against offenders. The National Food Fraud Task Force is chaired by the Authority and consists of representatives from An Garda Síochána, the Health Products Regulatory Authority, the Health Service Executive, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, local authorities, the Food Standards Agency

7

Northern Ireland, Revenue and Customs Service and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. The committee met three times during the year and acts as a communications, coordination and networking group where intelligence and research is shared at national and international level. During the year the FSAI also participated in six roadside checkpoints organised by An Garda Síochána (National Police). The purpose of these checkpoints was to target unmarked food vehicles which were not directly linked to approved or registered food businesses. The FSAI sits on the advisory board of the EU Food Integrity Project and is a project partner in the Authent-Net project. During 2016, there was a notable increase in the number of complaints by consumers to our Advice Line which received 3,202 complaints from consumers relating to food, food premises and food labelling.

The figure represents a total increase of 17% on 2015 (when 2,739 were received), with the number of complaints about food poisoning up considerably at 45%. Poor hygiene standards were the second highest reported, with an increase of 34%, as compared with 2015, while complaints about incorrect information on food labelling were up 15%. The number of complaints about unfit food was up 7%, when compared with 2015.

9.2 Statement of compliance (with this OC)

Overall compliance Overall compliance in those areas for which the Authority has direct responsibility was good.

9.2.2.1 & 9.2.2.2

What proportion of the checks identified non-compliance Information on this specific point is not available.

What were the main types of non-compliance identified

Information on this specific point is not available.

Were the non-compliances clustered or randomly distributed

Randomly distributed.

Categorise these non-compliances into major, moderate and minor and give the proportion/frequency

Information on this specific point is not available.

9.2.2.3 What was/were the root cause/s of the non-compliances identified Information on this specific point is not available.

8

9.4.1

Actions to ensure compliance by Food and Feed Business operators and other relevant business operators with official controls.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act, 1998 grants authorised officers the power to inspect food businesses for compliance with food safety legislation. Under this Act, authorised officers may, if conditions present risks to public health, serve an Improvement Notice (requiring remedial work to be carried out); an Improvement Order (issued by the District Court as a result of non-compliance with an Improvement Notice); a Closure Order (closing a business down) or a Prohibition Order (placing restrictions or prohibitions on the use of food). The Health Service Executive has additional powers under the EC (Official Control of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 2010 (S.I. No. 117 of 2010) to serve Closure Orders or Prohibition Orders for non-compliance with food legislation. Actions taken to deal with non-compliances

In 2016, the FSAI and its official agencies served 369 Enforcement Notices and Orders (See Annex FSAI1).

The majority of notices were served by the Health Service Executive, which supervises the majority of food businesses in Ireland.

94 Closure Orders were served in 2016, up from 90 in the previous year.

The Authority was notified of 11 successful prosecutions in 2016

The Authority’s Audits and Investigations team carried out six audits (three official control and three targeted audits); 34 investigations and supported Santé-F on two missions, including:

Audit of the Controls that Prevent Animal By-products from entering the Food Chain

Audit of Traceability in Food and Food Products of Animal Origin

Audit of Allergen Information on Non-prepacked Food.

9.4.2 Actions to ensure effectiveness of Official Controls (by the CA)

The FSAI operates a Quality Management System certified to the international standard ISO 9001:2008. In 2016, the Quality Management System was subjected to a two day surveillance audit by the National Standards Authority of Ireland. The outcome was successful for the FSAI and resulted in continued certification to ISO 9001:2008.

In 2016 official control audits were carried out by the FSAI in official control audits were carried out in the Health Service Executive (Regulation (EC) No 853/2004), the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Dairy Produce Inspectorate – Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Establishments) and the National Standards Authority of Ireland.

Training is also provided to official agency staff on food safety, food legislation and food control.

In 2016, specialised training was undertaken with Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspectors that have responsibility for official controls in cold stores, as a result of the outcomes of the Authority’s cold stores audit in 2015. The training provided inspectors with specialised tools to enhance official controls performed in this area.

The online learning management system continues to support the professional development of both the Authority’s staff and in the official agencies.

9.5 Statement of Overall compliance within the sector

The Authority considers that overall compliance within the sector during 2016 was satisfactory.

9

Comment on the appropriateness and suitability of the MANCP

Did the programme of OC’s identify any necessary amendment to MANCP No.

10

ANNEX: FSAI1

11

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Full Incidents 162 208 224 239 256

Minor Incidents 167 141 160 117 147

Cross-country Complaints 75 91 87 83 85

Food Fraud 5 19 36 29

Full incident / Food Fraud 3 1 3 2

Minor incident / Food Fraud 1 1 2 2 Supplement Notification

Follow-up 2 2 11

404 449 494 476 532 Table FSAI1: Number of Food Incidents, 2011 – 2016.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Closure order 91 118 96 90 94 Improvement order 3 5 1 0 3 Prohibition order 13 20 16 16 9

Improvement notice 307 322 269 265 263 Total 414 465 382 371 369

Table FSAI2: Enforcements Served, 2011 – 2016

Figure FSAI1: Total Enforcements Served by county - 2016

12

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Service Sector Business 79 89 78 71 76

Retailers 9 19 10 14 12 Manufacturer / Packer 3 5 4 2 2

Distributors / Transporters 0 6 3 1 3 Manufacturer Selling Direct 0 0 1 0 1

Primary 0 0 0 2 0 Total 91 119 96 90 94

Table FSAI3: Closure Orders Served, 2011 – 2016

Figure FSAI2: Closure Orders by county - 2016

13

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Meat Processors 153 154 152 154 146

Egg & Poultry Processors 354 369 399 399 400

Milk Processors 240 231 242 261 276

Total - Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine 747 754 793 814 822

Health Service Executive*

Primary Producers 21 0 0 0 0

Manufacturers and Packers 2534 2956 3139 3218 2263

Distributors & Transporters 1472 1162 1270 1337 1363

Food Service Businesses 30311 28214 28843 29222 28933

Retailers 10978 10972 11259 11370 12950 Manufacturers Selling Primarily on a Retail Basis 695 0 0 0 0

Other 115 39 23

Total – Health Services Executive 46011 43419 44511 45186 45532

*The total number of establishments supervised by the Health Service Executive Environmental Health Service shows a significant drop in 2013 compared to previous years, due to the development of a new IT system for recording establishments and inspections.

Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority

Approved Establishment 189 181 179 195 194 Factory & Freezer Vessels (Approved – Irish) 34 35 45 52 40

Fishing Vessels 2216 2155 2077 2077 2195

Molluscan Production Areas 131 133 137 141 0*** Registered Food Business on Land (including ice plants) 93 87 99 110 95

Cold Stores 0 0 0 16 15

Total – Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority 2663 2591 2537 2591 2539

** Inspection of aquaculture sites transferred to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in 2010. *** No longer a business type submitted in 2016

Local Authorities

Slaughterhouses 211 209 205 205 201

Small Meat Manufacturing Plants 200 205 197 200 204

Poultry Plants 30 32 34 38 40

Cold store (animal origin no exposure) 10 16 24 26 29 Vehicle Operating without a Base Cat. I (raw and cooked meat product) 5 12 15 16 21

Cold store (animal origin exposure) 5 5 5 5 7

Butcher Shop 3 5 7 8 9

Total – Local Authorities 464 484 487 498 511

National Total – Ireland 49885 47248 48328 49089 49404

Table FSAI4: Number and Type of Food Businesses Inspected by Official Agencies, 2011 - 2015

14

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (not including temporary veterinary inspectors engaged in meat inspection).

Inspection Services 445 333 315 319 319

Laboratories 88 89 76a 84 79

Health Service Executive

Environmental Health Service 344 307 305 304 336

Food Microbiology Laboratories 73 71 64 63 62

Public Analyst Laboratories 65 66 64 65 42 Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority 42 41 40 43 42

Local Authorities 85 73 87 90 116

Marine Institute 28 27 29 38 41 National Standards Authority of Ireland 0.1 1.1b 1 b 1 1

Food Safety Authority of Ireland (not including consultancy staff or staff on short-term contract)

74 71 68 72 70

Total 1244.1 1079.1 1049 1079 1108

Table FSAI4a: Number of Staff (Whole Time Equivalent) Working in Official Control

a Excludes the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory which did not provide data for 2014. In 2013, it reported 11.25 whole time equivalent staff working on food

b The National Standards Authority of Ireland increased the number of staff engaged in food safety contact materials from 2012

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 % Change 2012-2016

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Inspections in meat, milk and egg processors).

15618 13733 15021 15011 11985* -23%*

Health Service Executive** 36584 33971 35053 36353 35786 -2% Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority 2386 2114 2035 2015 2228 -7%

Local Authorities 4689 5021 4802 5033 4870 +4%

Total 59277 54839 56911 58412 54869 -7%

Table FSAI4b: Number of Inspections by Official Agencies, 2011 - 2016

* Certain DAFM Meat premises in 2016 are now reported as having a permanent presence (rather than reporting the number of inspections), this would account for the decrease ** Planned inspections only

15

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Official Control Activity (9.12) Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health

Number planned

Number of planned official controls: 1,052 Number of unplanned official controls: 1,483 Total number of official controls carried out: 2,535

Comment The annual operational target was fully achieved and a substantial number of additional controls were carried out for the following reasons:

New approvals for activities in existing plants, or new approvals of new establishments.

Preparation for internal and external audits.

Close out of audits and inspection findings.

A considerable ongoing increase in certification of product to Third Country destinations in general and in certification of dairy product in particular, or pre-export for eventual Third country destinations. This work is demand driven and cannot be assessed at the beginning of each year.

Third Country delegation preparations, visits and close outs.

Ongoing specific checks for Third Country criteria e.g. United States Department of Agriculture equivalence audits.

The method of enumerating, recording and reporting Risk Assessments changed in 2016 to reflect one Risk Assessment for each establishment where the activity judged to carry the highest risk was recorded as opposed to 2015 where each activity was Risk Assessed and individually recorded and enumerated.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls Section 2 of the National Control Plan for Ireland for the period from 1st January 2012 to the 31st December 2016 (MANCP) includes details on the control of pesticide residues in food on the Irish market. These controls are carried out by the Pesticide Controls Division of DAFM with the cooperation of the Pesticide Control Laboratory.

Area controlled Controls applied 2015

% of target programme achieved.

Comments

Sector: Food of plant origin.

Pesticide residues in food of plant origin.

700 planned samples of Fruit & Vegetables (W/R/P).

84% of 2016 plan for fruit & vegetables was achieved.

Delivery is not in line with 2016 programme requirements, but does include the commodities specified in the EU coordinated programme, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 788/2012. The programme was not fully delivered due to a lack of resources which is being addressed. Samples are selected randomly and are traceable to producer/country of origin except in the case of some processed products (which were not traced to the original producer).

16

Area controlled Controls applied 2015


Comments

100 planned samples of cereals (W/P).

50% of plan for cereals was achieved.

Cereal samples were selected randomly and most were traced to producer of domestic origin. Cereals were disproportionately affected as there is no history of breaches in cereals.

Increased controls on certain food commodities of non-animal origin from specific 3rd countries with respect to of pesticide residues as determined by Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009.

All consignments subject to Reg. 669/2009 were sampled at the required sampling frequency.

30 of 333 consignments were sampled (= sampling frequency of 9%)

Total consignments for 2016 = 333, a decrease of 51% on the number of consignments received in 2015

Reactive Programmes

Pesticide residues in food.

20 planned samples (estimated as follow up to breaches and unauthorised uses in 2015).

55% of the reactive programme was achieved.

Delivery based on availability of targeted produce on the market in 2016.

W=wholesale; R=retail; PP=primary processing

Area controlled Controls applied


Comments

Sector: Food of animal origin (FAO)

Pesticide residues in food of animal origin (FAO).

399 planned samples, including kidney fats of bovine, cervine, equine, ovine, porcine, poultry and game, as well as milk, eggs, and honey

101% of the plan was achieved.

FAO samples were analysed using multi-residue methods which cover the organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides, as required in Directive 96/23/EC, and a wide range of other pesticides. The programme includes samples specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 788/2012.

Pesticide residues in infant formula and follow on formula samples.

34 planned samples of infant formula.

91% of the plan was achieved.

Samples analysed as specified in Commission Regulation (EU) No 788/2012 and in accordance with Commission Directive 2006/141/EC. The number taken in 2016 reflected the batch sampling programme implemented by the Dairy Controls and Certification Division. All samples received were analysed.

References to detailed area report

Pesticides Residues in Food

Detailed report outlining the results of the 2016 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Programme will be submitted to the Commission in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 396 of 2005. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/Satellite. The national residue report for 2016 will be uploaded at http://www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie/.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Animal Feedingstuffs Controls Section 5 of the National Control Plan for Ireland for the period from 1st January 2012 to the 31st December 2016 deals with the control of feed on the Irish market. The Feedingstuffs, Fertiliser, Grain & Poultry Division in conjunction with the Crop Policy, Production and Safety Division is responsible for the monitoring, regulation and control of all stages of the animal feed chain. These two bodies combined are known as the Animal Feedingstuffs Control Group (AFCG).

17

In line with the Commission Recommendation 2005/925/EC, results of the coordinated community inspection programme have been forwarded to the Commission.



Comments

Sector: Feedingstuffs

Feed Business Operators

1,124 unannounced inspections.

75 % Delivery broadly in line with 2016 plan requirements for prioritised inspections.

117 audits. 87 % Reduced staff resources has resulted in some audit inspections being carried over into 2017 to allow for completion of programme;

Feed

1,357 samples taken and analysed. 1,290 labels inspected.

76 %

Delivered in line with 2016 plan requirements; higher risk areas prioritised.

Feed Drying

99 samples of dried feed taken and analysed for PCB’s.

100% Grain (Harvest 2016) plus other native feed materials subject to drying e.g. Seaweed meal, Calcium Carbonate.

Reactive Programmes

241 samples of feed materials and compound feeds checked for dioxins.

This is in response to the 2008 dioxin incident.

Reference to detailed area reports

Feed Control In line with Commission recommendation 2005/925/EC specific reports are forwarded to the relevant sections of the Commission

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables) Horticulture & Plant Health Division is responsible for implementing controls relating to fresh fruit and vegetables as well as honey (also see below and Section 2 National Control Plan for Ireland for the period from 1st January 2012 to the 31st December 2016). The controls are required by legislation and relate to general food hygiene in terms of fruit and vegetable production. The following EU legislation is applicable: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No. 208/2013, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 209/2013, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 210/2013 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 211/2013. Area controlled Controls

applied % of target programme achieved.

Comments

Contaminants in horticultural produce as per Regulation 1881/2006 as amended.

191 official samples of potatoes and other vegetables for Cd and Pb analysis (PP/W).

100%

Exceeded target number set in 2016 Plan.

65 samples of lettuce, spinach and rocket for nitrates. (PP/W)

100% Exceeded target number set in 2016 Plan

16 samples of apple juice 100% Achieved target set in 2016.

18



Comments

taken for patulin analysis. (PP/P)

Microbiological contamination of horticultural produce as per Regulation 2073/2005 as amended.

280 Horticultural produce (PP) for Salmonella spp (Food Safety).

100% Delivery in line with 2016 Plan.

275 Horticultural produce (PP) for Listeria monocytogenes (Food Safety).


20 samples of Horticultural produce (PP) for Process Hygiene (E. coli).


150 samples of sprouted seed for VTEC/STEC.


90 samples of water used in PP.

100% Target number of water samples not achieved in 2016.

Hygiene Inspections of horticultural producers per Regulation 852/2004 and/or Reg 178/2002 and associated legislation.

83 hygiene inspections (PP), 73 follow-up inspections,

100% Target number of inspections not achieved in 2016 due to lack of resources in this area.

W=wholesale; R=retail; PP=primary processing Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Plant Health Controls

Section 5 of the National Control Plan for Ireland for the period from 1st January 2012 to the 31st December 2016 covers the control of plant health in Ireland. Detailed reports of the monitoring results, as required under Council Directive 2000/29/EC, are submitted to DG SANTE via the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed ( SCoPAFF).

Official surveys were carried out for the relevant harmful organisms in the Annexes of Council Directive 2000/29/EC. All positive findings were notified and appropriate measures were taken for eradication or containment as necessary. In general Horticulture & Plant Health Division is responsible for implementing plant health controls, however in the case of potatoes, Crop Evaluation and Certification Division are involved in sampling and inspecting seed crops for quarantine organisms.

A summary of plant health controls for 2016 are appended to the report as Annex DAFM1. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Milk & Milk Products Controls Section 2 of the National Control Plan for Ireland outlines details of official controls implemented by DAFM including control of milk and milk products in Ireland. The Dairy Controls and Certification Division is responsible for carrying out official controls in milk processing establishments which include monitoring, audit, inspection and surveillance of these establishments, including official control procedures relating to the composition and labelling of infant formulae and follow-on formulae intended to be placed on the market in a Member State or intended for export to Third Countries. Controls governing milk and milk products are required by Regulation (EC) Nos. 178/2002, 852/2004, 853/2004, 854/2004, 2073/2005 (microbiological criteria) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 1441/2007. The Dairy Controls and Certification Division is also responsible for official sampling of raw milk under the national residue control plan drawn up under Council Directive 96/23/EC.

19

In the infant formula sector controls are implemented in line with Directive 2006/141 (as amended), Directive 92/52 and Directive 1999/21 on dietary foods for special medical purposes. Controls also take into account other cross referenced legislation such as contaminants, additives and purity criteria, food contact materials, labelling, traceability, etc. The Dairy Controls and Certification Division is also responsible for official controls on milk and milk products under Regulation 1069/2009 and Regulation 142/2011 (health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption) in milk processing establishments. Under Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 as amended, the Dairy Science Laboratory in Backweston is the National Reference Laboratory for the following specific parameters; Listeria monocytogenes, Coagulase positive staphylococci, total bacterial count and somatic cell count in raw milk and phosphatase activity in milk. The three Dairy Science Laboratories situated at Backweston, Limerick and Cork are official designated laboratories for testing samples taken during official controls and all three are accredited in accordance with the international standards, EN ISO/IEC 17025.



Comments

Sector: Food of animal origin

Milk and milk products

267 planned official controls of milk processing plants, milk purchasers, collection centres and stores.

72%

283 planned inspections of milk production holdings.

113%

8812 samples (total) taken for food safety, process hygiene, antibiotics and heat treatment verification as per Reg. 2073/2005 (as amended), Reg. 853/2004 and Reg. 2074/2005.

356 samples of water.

Frequency minimum every six months or more frequently as necessary (excluding primary production)

121 controls at infant formula/ follow at formula establishments (80 batches sampled) to verify the requirements of Directive 2006/141/EC, Council Directive 92/52/EEC (European Communities (Infant Formula and Follow On Formula) Regulations 2007 and Regulation 1881/2006 (S.I. No 218/2010)

100%

20



Comments

1272 samples of milk under implementation of the National Residue Monitoring Plan a legal obligation arising from Council Directive 96/23/EC as amended

100%

445 samples taken to monitor the chemical composition of dairy products

n/a

10 planned samples for Dioxins and Dioxin-like PCBs in raw whole milk, cream and vegetable oils & fats - Regulation 1881/2006 ( S.I. No 218/2010).

100%

332 samples of casein/caseinate were taken for food safety to support export certification in line with MOU with US FDA

n/a (MOU relates to memorandum of understanding to carry out testing for salmonella and phosphatase)

Animal By-products (Milk and milk products)

290 samples taken with respect to the requirements of Regulation 1069/2009 and Regulation 142/2011 34 inspection/audits were carried out in total

n/a

Reactive Programmes

Milk & Milk products

484 unplanned Inspection controls of milk processing plants, milk purchasers, collection centres and stores.

These included official controls following the detection of non-compliances during planned inspections, detection of non-compliances following official sampling, inspections relating to export certification, registration/approval inspections, re-import related issues (BIPs), and other official requests, complaints (13), RASSF (5)

89 Follow up inspections of milk production holdings.

Follow-up to planned inspections including other requests as necessary ( including 21 reported as followed up at at the level of the milk purchaser).

5 Investigations in collaboration with the FSAI were carried out at both farm level and at milk processor level in relation to contaminants (lead poisoning of dairy cows

Investigations carried out at milk processor level including traceability exercises determined that there was no risk to the consumer

21

and an NRP herbicide non-compliant result Investigation following an MRL breach in a milk sample.

32 investigation samples were taken and analysed. No detectable residues were present in any of the samples and no further action was deemed necessary.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Organic Controls Details of the Organic Controls carried out in Ireland in 2016 have been submitted via OFIS (the Organic farming Information System) and are included in this report at Annex DAFM2). Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin) Horticulture & Plant Health Division is responsible for implementing controls relating to honey. Details of these controls are outlined in Section 2 of the National Control Plan for Ireland. These controls are required by legislation relating specifically to animal remedies as well as legislation relating to general food hygiene in terms of honey production. The following EU legislation is applicable to the use of animal remedies on bees: Council Directive 96/23/EC, Commission Decision 97/747/EC, Directive 2001/82/EC, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010. In addition, in terms of honey production the following EU legislation sets out requirements in terms of general honey hygiene and safety: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Regulation (EU) No 931/2011.



Comments

Honey production

9 inspections at apiary level 2 inspections at honey packer / distributor level. Figures exclude follow-up inspections.

110% Target was to complete 10 inspections at apiary or honey packer / distributor level.

Residues in honey

110 targeted honey samples. In addition a further 5 samples were taken in response to non-compliances identified in 2015.

110%

100 honey samples were due to be taken under the 2016 National Residue Control Plan.. Samples taken in response to 2015 non-compliances were in addition to the planned sampling under the National Residue Control Plan.

Reactive Programmes Residues in honey

Follow up action arising from 2015 honey non-compliances continued in 2016.

A total of 5 follow-up honey samples were taken in 2016 in response to 2015 non-compliances. All 2016 samples were found to be acceptable and follow-up investigations were deemed closed.

Reference to detailed area reports

Honey residues Information can be found in the report of the National Residue Control Plan already submitted to the EU Commission in accordance with the requirement of Council Directive 96/23/EC.

22

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Eggs The Feedingstuffs, Fertiliser, Grain & Poultry Division in conjunction with Meat Policy Division, are responsible for the regulation and implementation of food hygiene standards of eggs for human consumption. In terms of egg production and egg packing the following EU legislation sets out requirements in terms of general food hygiene and food safety standards: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.



Comments

Hygiene Inspections of Egg Producers and Egg Packing Centres as per Regulation 852/2004 and associated legislation

331 Egg Producer Inspections 99 Egg Packing Centre Inspections.


Residues in Eggs

262 samples of eggs under implementation of the National Residue Monitoring Plan a legal obligation arising from Council Directive 96/23/EC as amended.

100%

Delivery in line with 2016 Plan Information can be found in the report of the National Residue Control Plan already submitted to the EU Commission in accordance with the requirement of Council Directive 96/23/EC.

Dioxin and PCB’s in Eggs

15 samples under Comm Recommend. 2013/711/EU as amended by 2014/663/EU.


Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare Official control area

Description of annual operational targets and/or strategic objectives

Extent to which annual operational targets and/or strategic objectives were achieved

Unplanned official controls

Bovine identification and registration

Ireland carries out checks each year that cover at least 3% of the holdings as part of the inspections carried out under the cross compliance provisions of the Basic Payment Scheme and other EU funded schemes. The holdings are selected for inspection on the basis of risk analysis which take account of the following: (a) the number of animals on the holding,

including details of all the animals present and animals identified on the holding;

(b) public and animal health considerations, in particular previous outbreaks of disease;

(c) significant changes in comparison with the situations in previous years;

(d) results of checks conducted in earlier years, in particular (i) the proper keeping of the holding register; (ii) the

At least 3% of the bovine holdings were inspected during 2016.

There were no significant departures from the planned controls due to unforeseen events during 2016.

23

Official control area




proper keeping of passports of the animals present in the holding; and

(e) proper communication of the data to the competent authority.

Sheep and goat identification and registration

The annual operational target is to inspect at least 3% of holdings and 5% of the animals in the State under the cross compliance provisions of the Basic Payment Scheme and other EU funded schemes. The holdings to be checked are selected on the basis of a risk analysis which takes account of at least the following: (a) the number of animals on the holding;

(b) animal health considerations, in particular the existence of previous outbreaks of animal disease;

(c) significant changes in comparison with the situation in previous annual inspection periods;

(d) the results of checks carried out in previous annual inspection periods, in particular, the proper keeping of the holding register and movement documents; and

(e) proper communication of information to the competent authority.

The targets for 2016 were exceeded in that 7% of the ovine/caprine population and 4% of the holdings were inspected during 2016


Equine identification and registration Equine identification and registration

The strategic objective is to ensure that only equines eligible for the food chain are slaughtered for this purpose, and to ensure that the requirements as regards the methods of identification of equidae are complied with. Compliance is monitored and enforced by authorised officers across the Department's Regional Office network, the Local Authorities, an Garda Síochána and some welfare organisations. Monitoring and enforcement by DAFM is focussed at ports and sales venues, with a view to ensuring that only correctly identified equines are traded and sold. Passport Issuing Organisations must be approved by the Department and inspections are carried out by Department inspectorate staff to ensure that each of these is fulfilling its legal obligations.

Operational targets and strategic objectives were substantially achieved. Authorised officers inspected premises on which equines are kept to ensure that the provisions of CR 262/2015 were being complied with. In conjunction with enforcement of animal welfare legislation, authorised officers also investigate situations where equines appear to be abandoned in either public or private places. The Department works closely with other Government agencies to establish check points at strategic access points to areas where equine and other animal sales are organised. Checks at sales venues and ports indicated a high level of awareness and compliance


Animal welfare

Operational targets were set to at least meet EU legislative requirements in relation to on-farm welfare inspections in respect of bovines (including calves), sheep/goats, pigs, and poultry, and transport inspections (at marts, assembly

Operational targets and strategic objectives were substantially achieved.


24





centre and ports). The number and types of inspections were based on a risk assessment process. Strategic objectives are to use the inspections to raise awareness, detect and highlight risks, and to continue the ongoing improvement in animal welfare standards in Ireland.

Trading premises (markets (‘marts’), dealers and assembly centres)

Livestock markets and stand-alone (i.e. non mart) assembly centres are subject to an annual or biannual inspection focussed on structural and related issues, Unannounced compliance inspections are carried out on sales days in respect of animal identification issues, animal welfare/handling ad hygiene.

Operational targets were substantially achieved. 864 compliance inspections were carried out in respect of cattle sales, and 223 in respect of sheep sales. 10 stand-alone assembly centre annual inspections were carried out.


Contingency planning

Main objective is to ensure that DAFM is sufficiently prepared to deal with an outbreak of a former OIE List A disease. Operational targets for 2016 included: Ongoing review of existing

contingency plans and completion of ASF and Rabies plans.

Reviewing and commenting on draft Irish & EU legislation in relation to contingency planning.

Drafting relevant exotic disease awareness and bio-security information for stakeholders focussing on pertinent disease threats and disseminating it effectively.

Expanding existing contingency measures for killing and disposal of animals.

e) Ensuring that measures are in place to protect human health and safety whilst implementing control measures.

Ensuring staff dealing with exotic diseases has the appropriate level of training, expertise and equipment to deal with suspect or confirmed disease in an effective manner.

Operational targets and strategic objectives were generally well-achieved during 2016. Some targets were not fully met due to a significant quantity of unplanned controls required on foot of the epidemic of Avian Influenza (H5N8) in Europe at the end of 2016.

October 2016 saw the start of an unprecedented epidemic of Avian Influenza (H5N8) in Europe that involved significant work in relation to the development of regulations requiring the confinement of poultry indoors to mitigate the risk of outbreaks of AI; awareness campaigns, enforcement of biosecurity arrangements and follow up of cases of H5N8 in wild birds (12 detected during 2016).

Former OIE List A diseases

The main strategic objectives in relation to former OIE List A diseases are to: Ensure investigations are carried out

into suspected former List A diseases and emerging diseases in accordance with EU and national legislation.

Ensure that any confirmed outbreaks are controlled in accordance with EU and national legislation and within the minimum time periods.

Monitor the incidence of former OIE List A diseases worldwide and take appropriate action in the event of new or heightened risk.

Strategic objectives were achieved during 2016.

25





Co-ordinate DAFM's input into the review of the OIE Terrestrial Code and ensure that DAFM's views are taken on board at EU level.

Imports of animals and animal products

The principal strategic objectives were as follows: All imported consignments subjected

to veterinary controls at Border Inspection Posts (BIPS).

Physical checks carried out at frequency set by the Commission.

All pets transported from third countries are checked upon arrival.

Strategic objectives were achieved during 2016. 2,416 consignments of products of animal origin and 347 consignments of live animals (equidae) were checked.


TSEs Targets in 2016: To test all fallen, casualty and

emergency slaughter bovine animals over 48 months of age

To test all fallen bovine animals born in Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria over 24 months

To test all casualty and emergency slaughter animals born in Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria over 30 months of age.

To test all clinical suspects, both ovine and bovine

To test 10,000 fallen ovines To test 10,000 healthy slaughter

ovines

59,508 BSE tests and 21,219 scrapie tests were carried out during 2016 as follows: 59,491 fallen, casualty and

emergency slaughter bovine animals over 48 months of age

17 suspects 10,544 fallen ovines 10,675 healthy slaughter

ovines

There were no significant departures from the national control plan due to unforeseen events during 2015.

ABPs

All ABP operators are registered or approved in accordance with EU Regulations and are inspected on a risk basis as part of a centrally organised annual inspection programme. Targets for the 2016 programme were as follows: 557 inspections for existing ABP

operators were centrally assigned on a risk basis

All new operations applying for approval to be inspected., for the following

Additional inspections carried out when deemed necessary (non-compliance suspected etc).

536 inspections were completed (96% of all ABP inspections assigned).

There were no significant departures from the national control plan due to unforeseen events during 2016.

Monitoring of residues of veterinary medicines and contaminants

The operational targets for 2016 are described in the National Residue Control Plan for 2016, copy attached.

NationalResidueControlPlan2016240117 (1).doc

The operational targets were exceeded with a total of 19,250 samples tested.

There were no significant departures from the National Residue plan due to unforeseen events during 2016.

26

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Quality Schemes The Food Industry Development Division is responsible for implementing controls relating to protected designations of origin (PDOs), protected geographical indication (PGIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as set out in: Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Regulation (EU) No 664/2014, Regulation (EU) No 668/2014. Food Industry Development Division is responsible for implementing controls relating to labelling, presentation as set out in: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, SI 556 of 2014, Council Directive 2011/91/EU, SI 110 of 1992. Area

controlled Controls applied


Comments

Quality Schemes

Inspection of Irish GI Products related to protected designations of origin (PDOs), protected geographical indication (PGIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

3 Inspections carried out: (a) Imokilly Regato (PDO) carried out by DAFM Dairy Division; (b) Connemara Hill Lamb (PGI) carried out by DAFM Ag Inspectorate. (c) Waterford Blaa (PGI) carried out by the HSE

100% No Non-Compliances identified.

Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives

Labelling, presentation and Advertising of Foodstuffs European Regulation 1169/2011 (SI 556 of 2014) and Council Directive 2011/91/EU (SI 110/1992) on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs.

Retail Inspections 100% No Non-Compliances identified.

27

Statement of Compliance (9.2) Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health How compliance is measured Compliance is measured through a range of different activities. DAFM approved plants are under the supervision of designated DAFM Veterinary Inspectors (VI) who, with the assistance of DAFM Technical Agricultural Officers (TAOs), monitor compliance using a variety of tools including inspections, audits, interviews with business operators and their staff and checks of operator instructions, including HACCP, and records. In relation to establishments where permanent presence is not required, DAFM carries out an annual risk assessment for each of these establishments to determine the range and extent of official controls required in that year. The risk assessment establishes a risk score for each establishment. Based on the outcome of the official controls, the establishment’s risk score may be reassessed and the frequency of inspections amended. Monitoring of the effectiveness of official controls is carried out by DAFM Regional Superintending Veterinary Inspectors (RSVI) and DAFM HQ veterinary staff. RSVIS are assigned responsibility for all establishments within particular regions. Each establishment VI produces a quarterly report for their establishments and sends it to their RSVI. The RSVI produces a quarterly report, based on the VI returns, for each region and sends it to HQ. The RSVI also carry out audits on an annual basis of the establishments that are in their area. Reports of these audits are sent to HQ. When other duties permit, HQ SVIs and Senior Superintending Veterinary Inspectors (SSVIs) visit establishments and verify the effectiveness of official controls. In additions, audits are carried out by DAFM’s internal audit units by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and DG SANTE. In 2016, the following audits were carried out:

1. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI): Targeted audit of Veterinary Public Health Inspection Service, Ready to Eat (RTE) Approved establishments

2. FSAI: Traceability in Food and Food Products of Animal Origin

3. DAFM Veterinary Internal Audit Unit (VIAU): evaluation of certain control measures concerning BSE; evaluation of the official controls on food safety and process hygiene microbiological criteria; evaluation of animal welfare controls in place in slaughterhouses for the protection of ruminant animals at the time of killing and related operations.

Non-compliances are grouped into three categories:

Risk Category 1: Non-Compliances where the Veterinary Inspector considers that there is a serious and immediate risk to human or animal health. Such issues are referred to the Regional Superintending Veterinary Inspector (RSVI) and the Head Quarters Senior Superintending Veterinary Inspector (SSVI) for consideration.

Risk Category 2: Non-Compliances where there is a potential threat to human or animal health.

Risk Category 3: Non-compliances that are considered to be technical breaches of the legislation. Such non-compliances are not reported to HQ and are dealt with by the Official Veterinarian in charge of the establishment

Frequency and assessment of non-compliance in 2016 The overall compliance of the Food Business Operators was generally satisfactory, and where it is not, effective, dissuasive and proportionate action was taken by the staff responsible. In total, 8 Risk Category 1 non-compliances and 17 Risk Category 2 non-compliances were reported in 2016. This compares to 3 Risk Category 1 non-compliances and 23 Risk Category 2 non-compliances in 2015. The Risk Category 1 and 2 non-compliances related primarily to:

Operational hygiene A breach of SRM rules – unsatisfactory control of tonsillar tissue harvesting Insufficient capacity in offal area to deal with the level of plant throughput

In general the non-compliances were randomly distributed amongst the approved DAFM plants. In general, the underlying causes of non-compliances related to:

Lack of adequate specific training of operatives Lack of familiarity with obligation as an FBO

28

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls

Sector Area controlled Statement of compliance

Food of plant origin

Pesticide residues in/on food (fruit & vegetables) on the Irish market.

Food of plant origin (fruit and vegetables) on the Irish market is generally compliant with pesticide legislative requirements. There is a high level of compliance at 96.2% in fruit and vegetables available to the public sampled in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

Pesticide residues in/on food (cereal) on the Irish market.

Food of plant origin (cereal) on the Irish market is compliant with pesticide legislative requirements. The samples taken are 100% compliant with Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

Food of animal origin

Pesticide residues in/on food on the Irish market (kidney fats, milks, eggs, honey and butter).

The monitoring programme indicates that food of animal origin on the Irish market is 99.75% compliant with Directive 96/23/EC and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for pesticide residues.

Milk and Milk products.

High level of compliance demonstrated in the sector.

Honey.

Analytical results indicate that honey is fully compliant with residues legislation. Honey producers in general and some honey packers / distributors need to improve their level of compliance with the hygiene legislation requirements. In some cases honey producers also need to improve their compliance with animal remedies legislation. While overall the non-compliances detected pose a very low risk for consumers, compliance levels need to be improved.

Egg Producers and Egg Packing Centres

There was a high level of non-compliance with hygiene legislation by egg producers due to a lack of knowledge of the requirements and a lack of awareness of the risks among producers. However, the majority of non-compliances found were minor and were easily rectified and did not represent a risk to public health, e.g., not updating and maintaining hygiene records. Egg Packing Centres demonstrated a relatively high level of compliance.

Egg Residues The monitoring programme indicates that Irish produced eggs are compliant with Directive 96/23/EC and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for pesticide residues.

Dioxins and PCB’s in Eggs Shell Eggs were 100% compliant with relevant legislation

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Animal Feedingstuffs Controls


Feedingstuffs Feed Business Operators. A high level of compliance demonstrated.

Feed. All tests relating to feed safety were compliant. Other analytical results were mainly within tolerance

Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directive

Irish GI Producers. No Non-Compliances identified.

Label Inspections No Non-Compliances identified.

29

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables)



Contaminants in horticultural crops as per Reg. 1881/2006 as amended.

Food of plant origin on the Irish market is generally compliant with contaminants/hygiene legislative requirements. There is a high level of compliance with contaminants legislation and samples are generally compliant with maximum levels (ML). All samples of apple juice tested complied with the ML for patulin. All samples of lettuce/ spinach/ rocket complied with the ML for nitrates. All samples of horticultural produce complied with the ML for Pb. There were some exceedances for Cd, but research on mitigation strategies is on-going.

Microbiological contamination as per Reg 2073/2005 as amended.

There were no food safety non-compliances in 2016. There were 2 VTEC presumptive positives in sprouts from one FBO during 2016 but neither were confirmed positive. All Process Hygiene samples were found to be compliant. Water used for irrigation and washing of RTE food was found to be non-compliant in 14 samples. Water non-compliances were reported for samples due to the presence of E coli/ Enterococci. There were eight non-compliances for detection of both E. coli and Enterococci together, five non-compliances for detection of Enterococci and one non-compliance for presence of E. coli alone.

Hygiene Inspections of horticultural primary producers as per Reg 852/2004 and/or Reg 178/2002 and associated legislation.

There is a high level of non-compliance with hygiene legislation by horticultural producers. This is due to a lack of knowledge among producers and lack of awareness of the microbiological, chemical and physical hazards associated with fresh produce. . In 2016 there were 83 full inspections and 73 follow-up inspections, i.e. a total of 156inspections. Of these, 144 were unsatisfactory. However, the majority of non compliances were minor (57). There were 43 significant non compliances and 3 serious non-compliances. Generally, the non-compliances found during inspections can be easily rectified and do not represent a risk to public health. The three serious non-compliances were served legal notices requiring immediate action as the non-compliances identified represented a serious threat to food safety and public health. These three serious non-compliances were due to very poor hygiene controls and resulted in closure notices being issued by DAFM as a result.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Plant Health Controls


Plant Health

Plant passports. Some minor non-compliances were found with the formatting of these documents.

Quarantine Organisms. See details in Appendix DAFM1

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Organic Controls Details of the Organic Controls carried out in Ireland in 2016 have been submitted via OFIS (the Organic farming Information System) and are included in this report at Annex DAFM2.

30

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin)


Food of animal origin Honey.

Analytical results indicate that honey is fully compliant with residues legislation. Honey producers in general and some honey packers / distributors need to improve their level of compliance with the hygiene legislation requirements. In some cases honey producers also need to improve their compliance with animal remedies legislation. While overall the non-compliances detected pose a very low risk for consumers, compliance levels need to be improved.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare Official control area

How compliance was measured

Frequency/type of non-compliance

Analysis of non-compliance

Bovine identification and registration

Some 8% of the bovine population (496,479 of 6,330, 052 bovine population) and 4% of bovine holdings (4,786 out of a population of 114,705) were inspected.

Non compliances were detected in 3,228 cases. Non-compliances were categorised as major, moderate and minor and included:

Animals missing ear-tags and animals > 27 days old not tagged

Database not notified within prescribed time limits and errors in notifications

Passport errors and passport surplus / shortfall

Bovine Herd Register (BHR) not maintained.

68.12% (2,199) of the cases were deemed to be minor non-compliance. 31.88% (1,029) cases were considered more significant and financial sanctions were applied in these cases. .

The non-compliances were distributed randomly. The main cause of non-compliance was lack of attention to detail by herd owners.

Sheep and goat identification

Some 7% of the ovine population (250,897 out of a population of 3,770,287) and 4% of the holdings (1,662 out of a population of 44,868) were inspected.

Non compliances were detected in 686 cases. The main causes of the non-compliances were;

missing tags administrative errors

in relation to movement documents/database, the flock register and the annual census.

173 (25.22%) cases were deemed to be minor non-compliance. Financial sanctions were imposed in 513 (74.78%) cases.

The non-compliances were distributed randomly and the main cause of non-compliance was lack of attention to detail by flock owners.

31





Equine identification and registration

Compliance is measured based on the number of compliant versus non-compliant equines detected during inspections at sales venues, (including fairs), ports, and elsewhere.

The level of non-compliance detected at ports and fixed sales venues was very infrequent. The level of non-compliance at fairs was somewhat higher, though it has improved compared to previous years, as awareness is increasing among the groups of individuals who tend to frequent these types of events. Most non-compliances detected during 2015 related to lower value horses. Some non-compliances related to late registrations (not identifying the animal within the first 12 months of life).

The cause of non-compliance relates to lack of awareness and costs of compliance, particularly among certain sectors of the horse owning population.

Animal welfare A detailed report and analysis of compliance has already been submitted to the Commission, see attached.

2016 Annex IV 170517 FINAL.docx

See the attached report See the attached report

Trading premises (markets (‘marts’), dealers and assembly centres)

Inspections are carried out in accordance with a detailed set of guidelines set out in a circular to relevant staff. A standard inspection form is used for the annual inspection and a separate form for the ongoing compliance inspections. Detailed guidance is provided in relation to assessment of and recording of non-compliances to try as far as possible to standardise the process across all 90 marts.

Major non-compliances detected at annual inspections or compliance inspections are infrequent or very infrequent. Minor non-compliances in certain markets and in respect of certain issues (e.g. selling animals with horns, minor passport issues e.g. lack of signature of current keeper etc) do occur but tend to be low level although repetitive.

Non-compliances tend to be minor in nature with no particular pattern and no major risk to public health or animal health risks arising. In terms of the root cause of non-compliance, lack of effective sanctions in respect of minor non compliances is a factor. Prosecution is available as a sanction in respect of major non-compliances (or in extreme cases removal of mart or assembly centre licence), but for many minor non-compliances a simpler dissuasive sanction, such as a fixed penalty notice would be appropriate.

Contingency planning

No non-compliance recorded

Not applicable Not applicable

Former OIE List A diseases

Stakeholder compliance is measured by their compliance with the legislation governing the notification and control former OIE list A diseases. Ireland has robust legislation in place for all of the former list A diseases, placing a legal obligation on keepers, practitioners, laboratory personnel etc. to notify DAFM if they know or suspect an animal to be infected with such a disease. They are also required under the various pieces of legislation to co-

No non- compliances on behalf of business operators were noted during 2016. Co-operation and awareness in relation to notification of suspect cases was in line with legislative requirements.

Not Applicable

32





operate with DAFM when investigating or controlling the disease and to comply with any restrictions/ prohibitions/ directions served on them in that regard. There were no reports or evidence of any persons not conforming with disease notification/control procedures for exotic diseases during 2016.

Intra-community trade in live animals

Checks on animals presented for export including;

animal identification,

freedom from clinical signs of infectious or contagious disease,

tests or vaccinations required, fulfilment of pre-export movement constraints or quarantine requirements.

Feedback from other Member States, via TRACES, or from non-EU countries via specific communications, and by checks at destination in relation to traded animals. Checks on animals, other than pet animals, imported from other EU Member States with the legal requirements for such trade, including documentary, identity and physical checks.

Overall level of non-compliances in relation to volume of consignments and animals being moved was low in so far as available data allowed interpretation. In terms of bovines, non-compliances are subdivided into 33 non-compliance types. The most frequently occurring non-compliances detected in terms of bovine animals were;

4,644 pre-export movements non-compliances

1,574 instances of required pre-export test out of date or animal not tested

396 instances of rejected animals re-presented

342 instances of underage animals (calves)

292 instances of previous animal movements not correctly documented

In terms of pets, the principle non-compliances detected were

Improper treatment for tapeworm

Incomplete documentation

Original documentation mislaid

Pet preparation sequence non-compliant

In terms of horses, there was good compliance with the

Overall level of non-compliances in relation to volume of consignments and animals being moved was low in so far as available data allowed interpretation. Non-compliances in relation to animals presented for export did not present a risk to human or animal health in that non-compliant animals were not allowed to travel and follow up was carried out with the businesses involved as required. Non-compliances in relation to animals coming into Ireland did not present a risk to human or animal health as measures were taken on a case by case basis to ensure the non-compliances were addressed.

33





requirements of the Tripartate Agreement was good except in respect of completion of DOCOMS. Some TRACES input errors were detected, mainly relating to consignor details and category of animals.

Imports of animals and animal products

Documentary and identity checks are carried out on 100% of consignments of live animals and products of animal origin imported. Physical checks are carried out on all live animals, and at the required frequency on products of animal origin.

Less than 1% of product of animal origin consignments of were rejected due to non-compliance issues. There were 25 instances of non-compliances detected in pets arriving from non-EU countries. 17 consignments out of 2,416 were rejected.

Non-compliance did not present a risk to human or animal health as rejected consignments were either re-exported or destroyed at the importers expense. Documentary and identity failures are frequently administrative in nature due to the variable quality of the systems relied on for certification.

TSEs Compliance with both national and EU requirements relating to TSE's (Regulation EC 999 of 2001and S.I. 532 of 2015), was measured using the numbers of samples taken from all eligible animals.

Less than 1% ( 649 samples) of eligible fallen animals were not capable of being tested for BSE. There was no non-compliance in terms of the reaching the target for scrapie testing in 2016.

56.8% of eligible bovine animals (369 of 649) could not be tested because the carcasses were too decomposed to sample. The risk posed by the failure to sample was very low.

ABPs Compliance with both national and EU requirements relating to ABP's was measured by inspection of the business operator’s premises; interview with operators and their staff, as well as examination of records and other documents.

Non-compliance was detected in 138 of 503 inspections carried out (27%) Non compliances were mainly related to structural deficiencies, record keeping, biosecurity, hygiene, traceability, staining and storage.

Reasons for non-compliance included lack of awareness, perception of weak enforcement, cost.

Monitoring of residues of veterinary medicines and contaminants

How compliance was measured is described in the report of the implementation of the 2016 National Residue Control Plan; see attached.

NationalResidueControlPlan2016240117 (1).doc

0.2% of samples tested were found to be non-compliant. The majority of non-compliances related to the detection of substances in excess of the maximum residue limit. Ten related to the detection of so called prohibited substances. Eight of these related to the detection of thiouracil at levels consistent with dietary exposure.

38% of non-compliances were found in ovine/caprine animals, 30% in bovine samples and 13% in equine samples. Bovines: 50% of the non-compliant samples

related to the detection of analytes that can result from inadvertent dietary exposure.

25% related to the detection of antibacterial substances at levels above the MRL

8% related to the detection of anthelminthics at levels above the MRL.

1 non-compliant sample tested positive for a beta agonists. A follow up investigation was initiated at farm level and restrictions were imposed in accordance with Article 16 & 17 of Directive 96/23EC. Criminal prosecution was initiated and is still ongoing.

34





Ovine/caprines:

11 non-compliances related to the detection of anthelmintics above the MRL.

2 related to the detection of antibacterial substances at levels above the MRL

2 related to the detection of analytes that can result from inadvertent dietary exposure.

Equines:

3 related to the detection of antibacterial substances at levels above the MRL

2 related to the detection of anthelmintics at levels above the MRL.

The remainder of non-compliances were made up of;

farmed fish (2); milk (3); pigs (2) poultry (1).

Non-compliances in these species/commodities related to the detection of;

antibacterial substances at levels above the MRL (pigs ,farmed fish

anthelmintics at levels above the MRL (pigs, milk)

presence of pyrethroids (poultry)

presence of organochlorine compounds including PCB’s (milk)

None of the non-compliances detected presented a significant risk to human or animal health. The majority of non-compliances relating to the presence of unauthorised substances were associated with the detection of analytes that can be naturally found in forages. No evidence of deliberate administration was found on any of the source farms, which were subject to an inspection by a Veterinary Inspector from the local Regional Veterinary Office. All of the detections relating to antibacterial substances at levels above the MRL in bovine animals were detected in animals deemed suspect at ante-mortem inspection. The carcasses of such animals are detained pending the results of residue testing and, in the event of a non-compliant result these carcasses are sent for rendering.

35





In the case of the remainder of the non-compliant results, routine procedures for follow-up of residue non-compliances serve to ensure that the majority of residue non-compliances are single, non-repeated events and as such do not present a significant risk to human health. Apart from the ‘thiouracil’ non compliances’ which were of dietary origin (natural source),the root causes of the non-compliances were lack of attention to detail, in particular failure to maintain the records and in a small number of cases, lack of awareness of the need to strictly adhere to the instructions contained on the prescription.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directive


Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directive


Label Inspections No Non-Compliances identified.

36

What proportion of the checks identified non-compliance (9.2.2.1 & 9.2.2.2) At a high level within each sector, the non-compliances are categorised into major, moderate and minor and the key areas of non-compliance are listed. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health Category 1 non-compliances incorporating the service of an enforcement notice B are all reported to HQ – see 9.2 Category 2 non-compliances incorporating the service of an enforcement notice A are all reported to HQ – see 9.2 Category 3 non-compliances are not reported to HQ, but are collated and managed at local and regional level. Therefore the specific % of the checks that detect any non-compliance is not available. However as the Category 3 non compliances are minor issues, representing technical breaches of the legislation, it can be calculated that the level of checks that detected immediate, serious or potential non-compliance is the total of the Category 1 (8) and the Category 2 (17) non compliances. (2016 - total non-compliances/detections = 25). On that basis, the proportion of checks that identify either Category 1 or Category 2 non-compliances is 25 detections/non compliances leading to the issuing of Legal Notices in the course of 2,535 official controls i.e. 1% of official controls result in a Category 1 or Category 2 non-compliance being detected. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls

Sector Area controlled Non-compliances

Classification of non-

compliances. Comments


Pesticide residues in/on food on the Irish market.

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 non compliances in 24 out of 637 fruit and vegetables/ cereals surveillance sampled. No non-compliance in the 6 fruit and vegetable enforcement samples.

24 (3.6%) minor.

Minor non-compliances relate to samples taken randomly, and where risk assessments indicate no short term concern for all consumer types.

Pesticide residues in/on food destined for the Irish market.

In 2016, no MRL exceedences detected in any of the 30 consignments sampled.

No non-compliances.

No non-compliances detected.


Pesticide residues in/on food of animal origin on the Irish market.

1 (0.25%) samples of food of animal origin contained pesticide residues in excess of an MRL.

Minor – the milk sampled had been processed to products which contained no detectable residues.

One milk sample exceeded the legal limit for 3 substances. On investigation the milk had already been further processed. The processed products were tested and no residues were detected.

Pesticide residues in/on infant formula and follow on formula originated in Ireland.

0 (0.0%) samples of infant formula contained pesticide residues in excess of an MRL.

No non-compliances. No non-compliances detected.

37





Inspections/audits/sampling

Inspections/audits Sampling Total Major 4 13 17 Moderate 73 68 141 Minor 575 n/a 575 Total 652 81 733

See further detail in section 9.2.2. On farm inspections of milk production holdings.

0 major 202 moderate 925 minor

1 chemical non-conformance reported as a result of official sampling of dairy product taken to monitor chemical composition.

Result found to be in breach of the marketing standards set out in Regulation 1308/2013.

13 complaints investigated.

9 related to foreign bodies, 3 labelling and 1 ongoing.

5 RASSF investigated.

All related. to requests from FSAI for follow up.

Milk by-products

6 non-compliant samples in 3 batches from 290 tested.

Product disposed of in approved composting facilities.





Feedingstuffs


371 infringements detected during inspections

0 major

333 moderate 38 minor

Moderate and minor infringements issued during inspections mainly concerned deficient sample storage, deficient HACCP plans, labelling, hygiene issues and traceability.

Feed

And

Feed Complaints

376 cases of analytical results out of tolerance

0 major

10 moderate

366 minor

No major cases of analytical results were out of tolerance in 2016. Moderate cases included: quantity of medication and coccidiostat (Chlortetracycline, Sulphadiazine, Amoxycillin,, Flubendazole, Narasin, Monensin Sodium) in feedstuffs out of tolerance with declared values. Minor cases mainly involved nutritional constituents out of tolerance with declared values e.g. protein and fibre results.

32 cases of label contravention during inspections

32 minor

Non-compliances relate mostly to non-compliance with E.C. Regulation 767 of 2009 i.e. incorrect declaration of trace elements, analytical constituents such as sodium not being declared and feed material names not in compliance with Community Catalogue of Feed Materials.

38

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables) Sector Area controlled Non-

compliances Classification of non-compliances.

Comments


Contaminants in horticultural crops.

Heavy metals.

Minor

Minor non compliances related to ML exceedances for Cd with no consumer risk.

Hygiene Inspections of horticultural primary producers

General hygiene.

Of the 103 non-compliances issued to FBOs, ~ 3% were serious, 42% were significant and 55% were minor.

Minor and moderate non-compliances related to general hygiene infringements with no immediate risk to food safety or public health. Follow-up controls were performed in all cases. Serious non-compliances related to very poor hygiene controls and resulted in closure notices being issued to the three FBOs. Follow-up inspections were performed in all cases.

Microbiological Criteria

15.5% of water samples non-compliant with microbiological criteria. There were no food safety non-compliances in 2016

Non-compliances for water samples related to the presence of E. Coli/ Enterococci in water used for overhead irrigation of RTE crops and/or washing and cleaning. Appropriate control measures were put in place by the FBOs and evidence provided to DAFM of these measures.





Plant Health Plant passports

Some discrepancies noted.

Mostly minor.

Most errors were caused by operator error using incorrect or no Protected Zone or batch codes. Other findings are presented in Appendix 1 below.

Quarantine Organisms

See details in Appendix DAFM1

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Organic Controls Details of the Organic Controls carried out in Ireland in 2016 have been submitted via OFIS (the Organic farming Information System) and are included in this report at Annex DAFM2. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin)




Food of animal origin Honey

Breaches of hygiene legislation identified during inspections of primary producers.

89% of producers inspected had minor non-compliances however none had moderate non-compliances.

Poor traceability and record keeping especially among small-scale operators were the main problems identified.

Breaches of hygiene legislation identified during inspections of

Non-compliances were identified at both FBO’s inspected.

Poor traceability, record keeping and other HACCP related issues were the main problems identified.

39




honey packers / distributors

One of the FBO’s inspected had minor non-compliances while the other had moderate non-compliances

Breaches of animal remedies legislation identified during inspections of primary producers.

44% of producers inspected had minor non-compliances.

Poor record keeping was the main problem identified.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Eggs





Egg Producers 384 Non-compliances

3 Major 142 Moderate 241 Minor

Major: One not a health issue but had potential for one in this case as an illegal substance was used. The other two were Salmonella positive cases in a Duck Egg Flocks where a restriction was imposed on the sale of duck eggs from the premises. Moderate infringements included water sampling out of date, inadequate pest control, and a significant clean up of egg lobby required. Minor infringements included record keeping not up-to-date, terminal hygiene log not completed and inadequate temperature control in egg store.

Egg Packing Centres

50 Non-compliances


Typical moderate infringements included water sampling out-of-date, inadequate pest control and Poor infrastructure cleaning. Minor infringements included cleaning and temperature records not kept or up-to-date, inadequate protective clothing.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare See section 9.2 above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives




Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives


Retail Label Inspections

No Non-Compliances identified.

40

Major e.g. Non-compliance where a RASSF or a National Alert was for food / feed; there was an immediate risk to feed safety, Irish plant health status was seriously compromised or there was a manifest infringement (loss of organic licence). Moderate e.g. Risk assessment indicates a moderate level of risk to consumers or to feed safety (no immediate danger). eg RASSF NOTIFICATION. Plant health status may come under threat. Minor e.g. Risk assessment indicates a low risk to consumers, to feed safety or to Irish plant health status. An organic irregularity leading to a partial loss of organic status.

41

What were the main types of non-compliance identified? Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health See text included under Section 9.2.above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls

Area Controlled


compliances detected

Distribution of non-

compliances

Nature of Risk Comments

Sector: Food of plant origin


Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for all sampling types F/V 24 minor.

MRL exceedances are generally random in their occurrence when sampled under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. No pattern, trend or cluster was detected in the 24 (22 imported and 2 domestic) non-compliances.

Risk assessment indicated no risk to consumers for the breaches detected.

All routine samples.

Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 - 9 minor.

No non-compliances found in targeted samples from selected third countries taken under Regulation (EU) No 669/2009

None


Pesticide residues in food. of animal origin

One non compliant sample of milk - minor

Not applicable – single instance.

Risk assessment indicated no risk to consumers for the breaches detected.

One milk sample exceeded the legal limit for 3 substances. On investigation the milk had already been further processed. The processed products were tested and no residues were detected.


Area Controlled




compliances


Sector: Feedingstuffs


Inspections: 0 major 333 moderate 38 minor

No discernible pattern.

No risk to humans or animals.

FBOs were instructed to take appropriate corrective action.

Feed

Analytical results out of tolerance: 10 moderate 366 minor

No discernible pattern. No discernible patter.

No risk to humans or animals No risk to humans or animals

Analytical results out of tolerance: 10 moderate 366 minor

No discernible pattern. No discernible patter.

No risk to humans or animals No risk to humans or animals

42

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables)

Area Controlled




compliances


Contaminants in horticultural food

Minor.

Non-compliances when produce grown on high soil cadmium sites but no risk to public health.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) in 2016, based on a urinary study carried out in a subset of the population, concluded that “the levels of cadmium in the Irish diet do not present an unacceptable risk to the consumer”

ML exceedances for Cd are mainly due to the underlying impure limestone geology of the horticultural production region. There is no risk to consumers due to the presence of these ML exceedances.


3% of legal notices (CN1) that were issued were for serious non-compliances. 97% of legal notices were for moderate or minor non-compliances.

Widespread.

Immediate risk to food safety and public health in 3% of cases and 97% of cases represent a significant risk to food safety

Non-compliances due to poor controls by primary producers. This is mainly due to a lack of knowledge on behalf of producers.


Area Controlled




compliances


Plant Passports

Mostly minor.

Confusion among operator as to what information is required on plant passports for different species.

Minor risk to the environment as errors deemed mostly typographical for domestic produce.

Operators where discrepancies were noted were informed of correct use of plant passports.

Quarantine Organisms.

See details in Appendix 1 below

Note: In the column “nature of risk” the information provided is meant to indicate the potential impact on humans, animals or plants.

43

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Milk & Milk Products Controls

Area Controlled

Classification of non-compliances detected


compliances



Inspections/audits/sampling of Food Business Operators 17 major 141 moderate 575 minor 733 total

Inspections/audit.

major moderate minor Large 0 20 226 Small – Medium 0 42 297

Milk Purchasers (non-processing)

0 2 30

Collection centres 0 1 0

Stores 4 8 22 Total 4 73 575

Sampling

major moderate minor Large 0 15 n/a Small – Medium

13 53 n/a

Milk Purchasers (non-processing)

0 0 n/a

Collection centres

0 0 n/a

Stores 0 0 n/a Total 13 68 Overall Total

17 141 575

4 major n/c all related to one storage establishment which was damaged in a fire and appropriate actions were taken to eliminate the risk. 11 cases of a pathogen. (Listeria monocytogenes) were detected regarded as a major n/c and appropriate actions taken. 2 phosphatase sample failures considered a major n/c related to pasteurisation failure and appropriate actions taken.

Other non-compliances detected during inspections/audits and laboratory notifications following official sampling were not deemed to be of a major risk.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin)

Area Controlled

Classification of non-compliances

detected


compliances


Honey production

Widespread.

Traceability of produce and record keeping was poor in many cases however low risk to human health.

Small scale producers, in general producing less than 1,000 kg of honey, but improved record keeping is required.

Widespread.

One moderate non-compliance identified

No discernible pattern

Issue related to record keeping and HACCP however low risk to human health

44

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Eggs

Area Controlled


detected


compliances


Egg Producers


2 major non-compliances found in very large duck egg production units. Most moderates/minors are associated with smaller hen egg producers

Very low risk to human health because a restriction order was imposed not allowing eggs for sale form the duck flocks that tested positive

One 3500 duck flock was depopulated, the other flock is still under restriction

Egg Packing Centres


Non-compliances more likely to be found in smaller egg packing centres.

Very low risk to human health.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare See text included under Section 9.2.above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives.

Area Controlled




compliances


Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives.


Not applicable.

45

Were the non-compliances clustered or randomly distributed? Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health In general the non-compliances were randomly distributed amongst the approved DAFM plants.

46

Categorise these non-compliances into major, moderate and minor and give the proportion/frequency Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health See Section 9.2.

47

What was/were the root cause/s of the non-compliances identified? Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health See text included under Section 9.2.above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls Area controlled


Root causes of non-compliances

Comments

Sector: Food of plant origin.

Pesticide Residues in food.

24 minor

Domestic: In the case of 2 MRL breaches for Irish producers, inspections found the following reasons for breaches in vegetables: Potatoes – investigation

concluded that the use of fertilizer containing sulphur contributed to the MRL breach

Swedes – investigation found that the most likely source of contamination was spray drifting from an adjacent field of broccoli


Pesticide Residues in food.

1 minor

Domestic: In the case of MRL breaches in milk sample it was not possible to determine a reason for the non-compliance

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Animal Feedingstuffs Controls Area controlled



Comments


Inspections: 0 major 333 moderate 38 minor

Mainly human/technical error or non-adherence to protocols laid down in quality manuals.

In general the feed industry is very aware of its obligations in relation to feed and food safety and legislative requirements and they have invested heavily in systems to ensure that standards are met.

Feed.

Analytical results out of tolerance. 10 moderate 366 minor.

Quantity of medication and coccidiostat (Chlortetracycline, Sulphadiazine, Amoxycillin, , Flubendazole, Narasin, Monensin Sodium) in feedstuffs out of tolerance with declared values. Mainly nutritional analytes out of tolerance with declared values.

As above.

Label contravention 32 minor

Mainly human/technical error and manufacturers not updating labels in compliance with E.C. Regulation 767/2009.

48

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables) Area controlled



Comments


Inspections of Food Business Operators: 3 Major 43 Significant 57 Minor

Lack of knowledge and poor hygiene controls by FBOs.

A new Fresh Produce Safety Guide was published in 2016 by FSAI in coniunction with DAFM to assist FBOs in identifying and controlling hazards associated with fresh produce. DAFM has also participated in WG to develop EU Guidance for the sector. DAFM has engaged positively with stakeholders to address hygiene issues in the sector.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Plant Health Controls Area controlled



Comments

Plant passports Minor Confusion among operators

Correct passporting of plants is identified across the EU as difficult to understand and is being reviewed.

Note: Root causes are required when there is an apparent pattern to the non-compliances or where there are repeated offences. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Milk & Milk Products Controls Area controlled



Comments

Milk and Milk Products

Inspections/audits/ sampling : 17 major 141 moderate 575 minor

Inspections/Audits The 4 major n/c were all related to a fire which damaged cheese in a storage establishment Further root cause analysis of a sub-section of n/c (n = 419) as follows:

Structural Operational Procedural

Admin/Doc/Records HACCP

Cat 1 25% 75% 0% 0% Cat 2 26% 32% 37% 5% Cat 3 34% 35% 19% 13%

Overall 33% 35% 19% 13% (This is an analysis from AFIT). Major non-compliances following official sampling Listeria monocytogenes (11 major) detected in product was due to either unpasteurised milk, incorrectly pasteurised milk or post pasteurisation contamination. Phosphatase sample non-compliance (2 major) were due to incorrect pasteurisation process. Moderate non-compliances following official sampling There were 68 moderate non compliances identified from official sampling including 4 phosphatase sample non-compliances due to incorrect pasteurisation process on investigation; 15 water sample non compliances were issued where E. coli (3) or Enterococci (5) or both E. coli and Enterococci (7) were discovered in official samples and 49 Process Hygiene sample non compliances were identified due to the presence of one of more of the following in samples: Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, E. coli. Other 1 sample of butter in a large scale establishment found to be non-compliant with the sales description in Regulation 1308/2013 due to moisture found to exceed 16%.

Milk production holdings

Moderate and minor non-compliances widely distributed and all related to

49

Area controlled



Comments

inspections. 0 major 202 moderate 925 minor

poor hygiene or structural non-conformances (further analysis not carried out)

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin) Area controlled



Comments

Honey Minor non-compliances

Hygiene and animal remedies requirements – minor non-compliances largely due to poor awareness of legislative requirements.

DAFM’s website maintained and updated to provide more information to guide beekeepers to improve compliance. In general compliance is acceptable. Where appropriate individual producers / packers need to be informed that their compliance with food hygiene requirements must improve.

Moderate non-compliances

Issues associated with HACCP and general record keeping.

Where appropriate individual producers / packers need to be informed that their compliance with food hygiene requirements must improve.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Eggs Area controlled



Comments

Egg Producers 3 Major 142 Moderate 241 Minor

On the two major duck salmonella cases, poor biosecurity was a main factor. Most moderate and minors due to lack of knowledge of legislative requirements and poor controls by FBO.

Individual producers are informed where their compliance with food hygiene requirements must improve.

Egg Packing Centres


Mainly human/technical errors or non adherence to food safety management prerequisite programs.

In general Egg Packing Centres are very aware of their obligations in relation to food safety legislative requirements and have made substantial investment in systems to meet standards.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare See text included under Section 9.2.above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives Area controlled



Comments

Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives.

No-Non-Compliance identified Not applicable

50

Actions to ensure compliance by Food and Feed Business operators and other relevant business operators with official controls (9.4.1) Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health

Actions to ensure operator/producer compliance

Eight statutory compliance notices were issued in 2016 in response to the detection of 8 Risk Category 1 non-compliances. Twenty-four Trader Notices were issued. Trader Notices are used by the DAFM to inform industry of their obligations under the various pieces of legislation. Thirty-one meetings were held with industry representatives. Such meetings are used to inform industry about their legal obligations.

Actions to ensure effective operation of the official control system

A total of 22 training courses were provided to establishment VIs, RSVIs and TAOs during 2016. Staff also attended other training events such as relevant conferences, BTSF training and general skills courses. Six meetings were held with other agencies including the Food Fraud Network and Administrative Assistance and Co-operation (AAC) Network, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the NMA. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls Sector Area

Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment

Food of Plant Origin


Follow up inspections on domestic growers to identify root cause of non-compliances; warning letters were issued in both instances. No consignments subject to the requirements of Reg. 699/2009 were found to be non-compliant with regard to pesticide residues.

In 2016, two domestic growers were found to be in breach of MRL residue legislation. No risks to the consumer were identified from the consumption of the produce (potatoes and swedes).

Food of Animal Origin

Pesticide residues No action required

Pesticide residues in Infant formula

No action required

51

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Animal Feedingstuffs Controls Sector Area


Feedingstuffs Feed Business Operators and Feed.

Restrictions/Prohibitions on the sale of feed materials/compound feed.

1 case where an Animal Feed Controls Compliance Notice was issued. 2 cases where feed was detained

Animal Feed Controls Compliance Notice issued to an unlicensed manufacturer/retailer of compound feed. Instruction given to take appropriate corrective action which is currently ongoing. (1) Detention of feed due to an unlicensed retailer/manufacturer of compound feed.

(1)

(2) Detention of feed due to an FBO’s own checks that found excess selenium in one of their products. RASFF issued by the UK Authorities - RASFF Notification Number 292701. Product recalled from market and returned to vender.

Trader notices issued. 2 Trader notices issued

(1) Export of animal feedingstuffs to non-European Union countries. (2) Notice of import of feed.

Destruction of feed material consignments. None in 2016

Administrative fines/sanctions. No fines issued in 2016.

Withdrawal or Suspension of Approval/Registration.

No withdrawal or suspension of FBO licences.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables) Area Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment

Contaminants in horticultural crops.

Follow-up inspections and research on mitigation strategies.

Research is on-going to devise mitigation strategies to reduce uptake of Cd by crops. Regular Project meetings were held in 2016.

Hygiene Inspections of horticultural primary producers.

Follow-up inspections to ensure remedial actions carried out Increased official controls. A total of 156 inspections were undertaken in 2016. In addition discretionary inspections were also undertaken.

103 Compliance Notices Issued in 2016.

52

Area Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment

Other State agencies updated on non-compliances.

Teagasc, IFA and Bord Bia were informed of hygiene issues through meetings. DAFM has been working with Bord Bia to ensure that there is alignment of strategies between the two organisations.

Fresh Produce Safety Guide and EU Guidance on microbiological risks in fresh fruits and vegetables .

DAFM collaborated with the FSAI and other stakeholders to produce a guide to assist FBOs comply with hygiene legislative requirements. This guide is being issued to all FBO’s. DAFM also contributed to the new EU Guide on food hygiene.

Trader notices issued to all registered producers to inform them about changes in Pesticide Regulations.

Trader Notice re Sustainable Use Directive issued to all registered horticultural producers (food and non-food producers).

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Plant Health Controls Sector Area


Plant Health Outlined in Annex DAFM1 Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Milk & Milk Products Controls Area Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment


Compliance notice- Category 1 (CN1) Compliance notice-Category 2 (CN2) Compliance notice- Category 3 (CN3) Compliance notice-Withdrawal (CN4) Compliance notice- Processing direction (CN 5) Notification of proposal to suspend/ revoke approval and/or registration (PRO) Notification of decision to suspend/revoke approval and/or registration (DEC) Proposal to Approve or Conditionally Approve or Register (APPR) or Approve additional activities Compliance notice- Category 1 (FCN1) Compliance notice-Category 2 (FCN2) Compliance notice- Category 3 (FCN3) Compliance notice-Withdrawal (FCN4)

Total 682

53

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Organic Controls Details of the Organic Controls carried out in Ireland in 2016 have been submitted via OFIS (the Organic farming Information System) and are included in this report at Annex DAFM2. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin) Area Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment

Where appropriate, notice issued outlining specific action required for each individual producer / packer / distributor to achieve compliance with hygiene / animal remedies requirements.

Written notice allowing reasonable period of time to achieve compliance. Follow-up inspections where appropriate.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Eggs Area Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment


Written notice issued outlining specific action required and timeline for completion for each producer/packer to comply with hygiene requirements. Follow-up Inspections conducted to ensure remedial action carried out. Warning letters issued to FBOs where there is repeated non-compliance.

148 and 16 Non-Compliance Notices issued to Egg Producers and Egg Packing Centres respectively.

Holding Orders are put on eggs for a repeat of a moderate non-compliance. Major non-compliances result in the disposal of eggs out of the food chain.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Quality Schemes & Breakfast Directives. Area Controlled Control actions. Action details. Comment

Food Business Operators and GI Producers.

Notice issued outlining specific action required and timeline for completion for producer to comply with regulation requirements.

Compliance Notices used where necessary. Written notice allowing reasonable period of time to achieve compliance. Follow-up inspections where appropriate.


54

Actions to ensure effectiveness of Official Controls (9.4.2) Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health See text included under Section 9.4.1.above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls Sector Area

Controlled Control actions Action details Comment



Programme reviews yearly and response to RASFF notifications.

Annual revision of control programme. 1x yearly reviews of progress with FSAI. Increase analytical scope to incorporate single residue methods in line with recommendation by the Commission. 1 meeting on EU coordinated plan with MSs and Commission.

Update programme to take account of the most recent monitoring information from current programme and requests by the Commission.

Internal meetings between division and laboratory.

Scope and capacity of laboratory incorporated into plan.

Training programmes. All staff receive regular training including appropriate BTSF courses.

Food of Animal Origin

Pesticide residues. No action required.

Milk and Milk Products.

Programme reviews.

Meetings which took place in 2016: 3 meetings of Inspectors (10 Mar, 22 Apr, 12 Oct) 4 China WG meetings (25 Feb, 9 Mar, 19 Apr, 29 Jun) 2 Business Plan Meetings (13, Jan, 14 Jan) 2 MANCP Board meetings (5 May, 13 Dec) 2 FSAI Liaison meetings (21 Apr, 8 Nov) 1 FSAI Supervisory meeting (5 Dec) 17 Special memoranda issued 2 SOP s updated relating to revised controls for Infant/ follow-on formula and Animal By Products 1 meeting for IF/FOF SOP revision 60 supervisory controls undertaken in to monitor effectiveness of official controls 3 Food Information for Consumer cross agency meetings attended

New guidance documents

New documents are circulated as they become available.

55

Sector Area Controlled

Control actions Action details Comment

Training programmes

Officers attended the following training during 2016: BTSF: HACCP Auditing systems Primary Production Additives

DAFM: Freedom of Information

Level 1 ISO 27001 training Learning and

Development Workshop Legal Matters Training

Course 1 Cross Border Zooneses Training Day DCCD Training - 2 day workshop (multi topic) FSAI Workshop on Shelf-life

Studies EC Guidance on FSMS

PRPs and HACCP based procedures

FSAI & Safety Consultative Council Open Meeting

IDF Parallel Symposia – Ingredients Drying and Cheese SafeFoods: Business Start-up Seminar Food and Fitness - The

Recipe for Performance Teagasc - Milk Quality Workshop UCC: Cheese Science and

Technology Training Course

Thermal Processing Training

E-training modules completed; Food Information for

Consumers Food Information for Pre-

Packed foods Nutrition Information under

FIC (Regulation 1169/2011)

Food Additives Food contact materials Microbiological criteria

56

Sector Area Controlled


Special initiatives

A working group on laboratory related issues remained in place. Progress continued throughout 2016 on introducing an IT system for reporting official controls (AFIT). Working groups continued in the area of contaminants and food information for the consumer (FIC)

Audit findings, etc

Programme reviews took account of any findings of audit reports.

Honey.

Action taken to remedy non compliances detected.

Compliance / written notices issued. Follow-up inspections where appropriate.

Risk based control programme.

Programme regularly updated in light of experience.

Training and supervision of Inspectors

All Inspectors trained in honey sampling, hygiene and animal remedies inspections before commencing work in this area. Supervisory checks implemented to verify quality of work.

Beekeepers informed of requirements

DAFM website maintained and updated to raise awareness.


Risk based control programme

Programme updated and reviewed in light of inspection officer experience, compliance history, size of establishment and new developments.

Liaise with Divisions and Inspection Officers to review and update programme

Liaise with veterinary medicines divisions and local inspection staff as required.

Audit Findings

Inspection Programme and Procedures reviewed to take account of Internal, HFAA Audit Reports.

New or Revised Procedures

Updating Procedures Manuals and Provision of Staff Training

Three days specialised training provided to inspection/technical staff

Action taken to remedy non-compliances

Follow-up inspections, detention of product, disposal of product.

Internal Meetings Staff kept informed of changes and issues of note.

Update and review work programme periodically

Internal meetings with staff based on the latest inspection information available

57

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Animal Feedingstuffs Controls Sector Area

Controlled Control actions Action details Comment

Feedingstuffs Feed Business Operators and Feed

Review annual control programme periodically.

Internal meetings.

Meet with linked Divisions and relevant outside Agencies to review and update work programme.

Liaise with veterinary colleagues on ABPs and Medicated Feed, Pesticides Division, Veterinary Research Laboratory, SFPA, Microscopy Laboratory, the FSAI and the State Laboratory as required.

Action taken to remedy non compliances detected.

Inspections, re-analysis, detention of product.

Risk based control programme. Update risk assessments.

Trade informed of policy and legislative changes.

2 Trader notices issued.

Internal audit Address audit findings.

New legislation Regular contact and meetings with the Feed Trade.

New or Revised Procedures

Update procedures manuals; staff training as Appropriate.

In 2016, there was two days of training provided for inspection / technical staff. The training provided focused on HACCP, labelling, and sampling guidelines.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables) Area Controlled


Hygiene and Contaminants of horticultural produce

Programme reviews.

Annual revision of control programme. 1x yearly reviews of progress with FSAI.

Programme updated by taking account of the most recent monitoring information.

Training programmes.

All staff receive regular training. In addition system of supervisory checks are undertaken to ensure consistency. The majority of staff have attended the BTSF Training course on Primary production for Food of Non-animal origin. Further attendance at this course is scheduled for 2017.

In 2016 a minimum of two training courses attended by all staff. All staff received at least one supervisory check in 2016 where they were accompanied by the officer with overall responsibility for hygiene.

Attend Conferences/Meetings etc.

Contact with other MSs, current research. IUFoST World Congress on Food Science and Technology, Training on Food Shelf Life Studies.

Meet with linked Divisions and relevant outside Agencies to review and update work programme.

Liaise with other DAFM divisions, the FSAI, Teagasc, Bord Bia, HSE and the State Lab as required.

Internal meetings. Staff kept informed of changes. All staff made aware of updates. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Plant Health Controls Area Controlled


Update plant passport information. Liaise with business operators. On-going.

Producers informed of requirements.

Meetings with producers to raise awareness.

58

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Organic Controls Details of the Organic Controls carried out in Ireland in 2016 have been submitted via OFIS (the Organic farming Information System) and are included in this report at Annex DAFM2. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare See text included under Section 9.4.1.above Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Quality Schemes Area Controlled


Quality Schemes Internal audit. Remedy audit findings.

59

Audits carried out as provided for in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 The Irish MANCP is delivered on a sectoral basis with each sector audited as required by Article 4(6) of Regulation 882/2004. Audits of controls implemented by DAFM’s Agricultural Inspectorate are currently carried out by DAFM’s Internal Audit Unit which is completely independent of the inspectorates control activities. A charter and protocol for the conduct of these audits are in place. The audits focus on the areas of the MANCP, which come within the remit of the Agricultural Inspectorate:

Dairy Controls and Certification Division. Dairy Laboratory Division. Feedingstuffs, Fertiliser, Grain and Poultry Division. Pesticide Controls Division. Organic Controls. Pesticides, Plant Health, & Seed Testing Laboratories Division Horticulture and Plant Health Division. Crops Evaluation and Certification Division.

There is a systematic risk based approach taken when developing the annual audit programmes. Commission Decision 2006/677/EC gives guidelines on the conduct of audit under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The following table gives an overview of the outcome of the 2015 audit programme. Sector Audit title Audit

completed Y/N, if N give reason.

Effectiveness/suitability of the Official Controls

Organics

Report of an audit conducted to evaluate the control system for organic production and the labelling of organic produce.

Report issued in July 2016.

DAFM is the Competent Authority responsible for organic controls and has delegated the licensing and control functions relating to organic food, feed and farming to Organic Control Bodies (OCBs). These OCBs are supervised in a number of ways including office visits, witnessed audit and supervisory inspections. A number of deficiencies were identified during the audit which are being addressed. A consolidated S.I. was published on 24 January 2017 and a system of documentary checks on imports is being rolled-out. A catalogues of infringements/irregularity and corresponding sanctions is being improved/finalised for the purpose of providing clear direction to OCBs carrying out controls and DAFM’s own controls are being expanded at retail level.

Plant Health

Report of an audit conducted to evaluate the measures implemented by Horticulture and Plant Health Division in relation to the detection and control of Fireblight.

Report issued in February 2017

HPHD implements a system of official controls aimed at maintaining Ireland’s (excluding Galway City) protected zone status for Fireblight. Measures are provided for in national legislation reflecting plant health requirements set out in Council Directive 2000/29/EC, as amended, and Commission Directive 92/90/EEC. A registration system is in place for operators producing, selling or importing regulated plants or plant material. These operators are subject to official examinations to determine compliance with plant health requirements and related obligations. Detailed procedures outlining the legal basis for official examinations, documentary checks to be conducted, instructions regarding the issuing of holding notices and the destruction of infected host material need to be further developed necessary to ensure consistency of official controls. There were deficiencies in relation to record keeping.

Animal Health/Public Health

Evaluation of certain control measures concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Report issued in 2016

Food Safety

Evaluation of the official controls on food safety and process hygiene microbiological criteria (Commission Regulation No. 2073/2005)


Animal Welfare Evaluation of animal welfare controls in slaughterhouses for the protection of ruminant


60

animals at the time of killing and related operations

Statement on the overall performance The strategic objectives set out in the MANCP are being progressed through co-ordinated and consistent control programmes. In the main the controls in place are effective and broadly reflect legislative requirements. Levels of co-operation and co-ordination both between and within Divisions has improved contributing to the overall achievement of the strategic objectives as set out in the MANCP. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health The overall in performance, both in terms of progress towards achievement of the strategic objectives in the national control plan, as well as in terms of the effectiveness of official controls, is regarded as satisfactory. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Pesticide Controls Sector Area Controlled. Comment

Food of Plant Origin

Pesticide Residues in food

Effectiveness and suitability of MANCP.

Pesticide residues are effectively monitored and controlled though lack of staff resources impacted on achievement of full control programme.

Risk based official controls. Yes. Analysis of results. Acceptable. Suitability of performance indicators.

Programme targets not met for 2016 (82%) due to a lack of staff resources which is being addressed.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Animal Feedingstuffs Controls Area Controlled. Comment

Feed Business Operators and Feed Effectiveness and suitability of MANCP.

Good progress in achieving strategic objectives of the MANCP in respect to all stages of production, processing, storage, distribution and use of feed.

Risk based official controls. Good coordination between CA’s. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Horticulture Controls (Fruit & Vegetables) Area Controlled. Comment

Hygiene Inspections. Contaminants of horticultural produce

Effectiveness and suitability of MANCP Overall programme is effective.

Risk based official controls. New Risk based system has been operating for 3 years.

Analysis of results. Satisfactory. Suitability of performance indicators. Satisfactory.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Plant Health Controls Area Controlled. Comment Suitability of performance

indicators. Programme targets met for 2016

61

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Milk & Milk Products Controls Area Controlled. Comment


Effectiveness and suitability of MANCP

Continued progress made in achieving objectives of MANCP in respect of processing of milk and milk products with on-going programme reviews and revisions of standard operating procedures as necessary. Additional staff and reorganisation of control structure will provide additional efficiency in achieving targets. Approval of new FBOs and storage facilities, market support controls and other investigations impact on delivery of controls.

Risk based official controls. Yes Analysis of results. Yes

Suitability of performance indicators.

Targets require need on-going review to ensure appropriateness and suitability as a quantitative measure of performance

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Organic Controls Details of the Organic Controls carried out in Ireland in 2016 have been submitted via OFIS (the Organic farming Information System) and are included in this report at Annex DAFM2. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Honey (Food of Animal Origin) Area Controlled. Comment

Honey


Satisfactory; the programme is allowing effective monitoring and control in the honey sector.

Risk based official controls. Risk based controls are in operation.

Analysis of results. Analysis of results is effective in identifying areas where honey producers need to improve compliance.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Eggs Area Controlled. Comment Egg Producers and Egg Packing Centres


Satisfactory: the monitoring and control programme is effective.

Risk based official controls Risk based controls are working effectively. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare Official control area Statement on overall performance

Bovine identification and registration The overall performance in relation to bovine identification and registration was good.

Sheep and goat identification and registration

The overall performance in relation to sheep and goat identification was adequate.

Equine identification and registration Overall awareness and compliance levels in relation to equine identification have improved considerably over last 5 years. Some issues remain with lower value and urban horses.

Animal welfare

Overall compliance levels in relation to animal welfare in most sectors was good. The majority of stakeholders are knowledgeable in relation to animal welfare obligations and there is generally good awareness in relation to the importance of animal welfare. National legislation gives good powers of enforcement to authorised officers where enforcement action is required.

Trading premises

Overall compliance levels were good. Markets (‘marts’) and assembly centres are well run and well organised, with good, knowledgeable managers in place. As outlined earlier, arrangements are in place to update the legislation governing the sector during 2017.

Contingency planning The overall performance was satisfactory despite the significant increase in workload created by the avian influenza H5N8 epidemic which occurred between October 2016 and June 2017.

Former OIE List A diseases The overall performance in relation to the implementation of controls and investigation of suspect cases of former OIE list A diseases was satisfactory.

62

Official control area Statement on overall performance

Intracommunity trade in live animals

The overall compliance levels disclosed by official controls applied in respect of intracommunity trade in live animals were good. The controls carried out by DAFM veterinary, technical and administrative staff were generally effective and suitable to detect and prevent non-compliances with national and EU legislation. Use of the Traces Control Module in respect of controls carried out on imports needs to be increased. Data capture on compliance checks, non-compliance detected, enforcement actions taken, and actions to ensure effectiveness of official controls need to be further developed.

Imports of animals and products

The current official control programme in relation to the importation of live animals, products of animal origin and certain products of plant origin from third countries into the European Union at Border Inspection Posts is effective at detecting non-compliance with EU and national legislative requirements, with overall high levels of compliance.

TSEs

The current official control programme in relation to TSEs is effective at detecting non-compliance with EU and national legislative requirements. In general, there is very good compliance by business operators in terms of the critical issues.

ABPs

The current official control programme in relation to ABP's is effective at detecting non-compliance with EU and national legislative requirements. In general, there is very good compliance in terms of the critical issues, with just 3% of all ABP inspections identifying a significant non-compliance.

Residues of veterinary medicines and contaminants

Across all species, Ireland achieved the target set in the 2016 National Residue Control Plan. DAFM has a service contract with the FSAI who assist in ensuring that sampling/analysis and any follow up actions are completed to an acceptable standard. The continued low level of noncompliant results indicates that in general there is very good compliance with EU legislation, as it relates to withdrawal periods. In addition, the safety of food in terms of residue non-compliances and the presence of contaminants is being assured.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - Quality Schemes Area Controlled. Comment Food Business Operators and GI Producers. Risk based official controls. Programme targets met for 2016.

63

Comment on the appropriateness and suitability of the MANCP - Did the programme of OC’s identify any necessary amendment to MANCP No amendments to the parts of the national control plan that relate to the activities covered by this report were made during 2016. No amendments to the parts of the national control plan that relate to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Veterinary Public Health and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine – Animal Health and Welfare were made during 2016.

64

9.6 Amendments to the national control plan Indicate any changes made to the MANCP during the year to which the report relates. The nature and reason for the amendments should be described.

None

65

ANNEX DAFM1 - Plant Health Control information.

66

Harmful Organism Reason for

Survey Survey period

Survey Location

Host Plants Target % Completion

Findings Outcome Comments

Ralstonia solanacearum Brown Rot

EU Survey Council Directive 98/57/EC.

Sept to July. National. Solanaceae spp. Seed and Ware potatoes.

100% 485 samples analysed - no positives found.

Country freedom maintained.

No positives since findings in 2007. In addition 154 samples were taken and analysed from imported potatoes.

Clavibacter michiganensis Ring Rot

EU Survey Council Directive 93/85/EEC

Sept to July. National. Solanaceae spp. Seed and Ware potatoes.

100% 485 samples analysed - no positives found.


In addition 154 samples were taken and analysed from imported potatoes.

Globodera spp Potato Cyst Nematode

EU Survey Council Directive 2007/33/EC.

Oct to August.

National Fields intended for planting and ware survey.

Solanaceae spp. and Narcissus.

All ground intended for potato certification and 0.1% of ware ground.

100% 835 samples analysed. 4 samples non-seed potatoes infested.

On the basis of survey, PCN is present on the Irish territory.

Meloidogyne spp. Root Knot Nematode

EU Survey. November to March.

National. Potatoes. Potato crops. 100% 43 samples analysed - no positives found.


Epitrix sp. Commission Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU

May 16 to June 17

National Solanaceae spp. Seed and ware potatoes

100% 253 ha growing crop visually inspected and 183 visual inspections on ware and seed potatoes

No findings

Bemisia tabaci Tobacco whitefly

Protected Zone (PZ).

Continuous National. Numerous, but high risk species are Euphorbia pulcherrima & Ocimum spp.

Imported plants and nurseries along with wholesale inspections.

100% 1,417 visual inspections, 5 samples submitted to entomologist with 3 findings on imported material.

Appropriate measures taken, eradication of pest at Producer.

Protected Zone maintained.

Leptinotarsa decemlineata Colorado beetle


Spring / Summer.

National Wholesale and retail level as well as growing potato crops.

Potatoes and leafy vegetables.

Potato seed crops and Merchant/wholesaler premises.

100% 1,599 visual inspections and 253 ha growing crop visually inspected - no insects found.



Liriomyza bryoniae Leaf miner


Continuous. National. Numerous Flowers and Plants as this pest is very polyphagous.

100% 1,348 visual inspections. 7 samples submitted to entomologist with 2 findings on imported material.

Appropriate measures taken, eradication of pest at Producer.


Erwinia amylovora Fireblight

Temporary Protected Zone.

June to October.

Registered Nurseries, Garden

Amelanchier spp. Chaenomeles spp. Cotoneaster spp.

All registered nurseries visually inspected along

100% 1,095 samples analysed, 20 positives at 10 sites.

The positive plants and other nearby host plants were

Our temporary Protected Zone was renewed in March

67

Harmful Organism Reason for Survey

Survey period

Survey Location



Centres, Orchards, Public Parks & Private Gardens.

Crataegus spp. Cydonia spp. Eriobotrya spp. Malus spp. Mespilus spp. Photinia davidiana Pyracantha spp. Pyrus spp. Sorbus spp.

with other locations where positives were found in previous years. 1600 samples for laboratory analysis.

either destroyed or are due for destruction.

2016 for two years.

Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus

Protected Zone (PZ)

Nov / Dec. National – Field grown host plants.

Beets. 194 samples for laboratory analysis.

100% 179 samples were submitted to Plant Health Laboratory. No findings of the organism.

No findings. Protected Zone maintained.

Phytophthora ramorum

EU emergency legislation Commission Decision 2002/757/EC as amended.

Dec 1 2014 to Nov 30 2015 continuous.

Registered Nurseries, Garden Centres, Public Parks & Private Gardens.

Wide range of woody plants with ever increasing host range.

All registered producers and locations with previous findings visually inspected twice per year.

100% 247 samples to laboratory with 25 positive sites

Appropriate measures taken at infection sites.

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Red palm weevil

Protected Zone (PZ)

Continuous. Registered Nurseries, Garden centres, Public Parks & Private Gardens.

Palmae spp. Visual inspections of host plants.

100% 47 nurseries/garden centres and 6 public green sites inspected. No findings of organism.

No findings. Temporary Protected Zone statues granted in 2016.

Paysandisia archon (Palm Borer)

Protected Zone. Continuous. Registered Nurseries, Garden centres, Public Parks & Private Gardens

Palmae spp. Visual inspections of host plants.

100% 47 nurseries/garden centres and 6 public green sites inspected. No findings of organism.

No findings. Temporary Protected Zone statues granted in 2016.

Dryocosmus kuriphilus Oriental chestnut gall wasp

EU emergency legislation Commission Decision 2006/464/EC.

Continuous. Registered Nurseries, Garden centres, Public Parks & Private Gardens

Castanea spp. Visual inspections of host plants.

100% 64 Nurseries inspected. No findings.

No findings. Unlikely to cause economic loss here.

Anoplophora chinensis Citrus longhorn beetle

EU emergency legislation. Commission Decision 2012/138/EU as amended.

Ongoing 1 April ‘15 to 31 March ’16.

Registered Nurseries, garden Centres, Public Parks & Private Gardens.

Wide Range of woody plants with ever increasing host range.

All registered premises inspected.

100% 395 nurseries/garden centres and 262 public green areas inspected.

No findings.

Anoplophora glabripennis Citrus longhorn

EU emergency legislation Commission Decision

Ongoing 9 June ‘15 to 31 March ’16.

Registered Nurseries, garden Centres, Public

Wide Range of woody plants with ever increasing host range.

All registered premises inspected.

100% 389 nurseries/garden centres and 261 public green areas inspected. No Findings.

No findings

68

Harmful Organism Reason for Survey

Survey period

Survey Location



beetle 2015/893/EU. Parks & Private Gardens.

Potato spindle tuber viroid

EU emergency legislation Commission Decision 2007/401/EC.

May to November.

Wholesalers, retailers and tomato fruit Producers.

Potatoes, Tomatoes, ornamental solanaceae and Brugmansia spp.

All tomato and ornamental producers inspected as well as tomato inspections at Wholesale retail level

100% No findings.

Guignardia citricarpa & Xanthomonas campestris Citrus black spots

EU emergency legislation Commission Decision 2004/416/EC as amended.

May to Nov. Wholesalers and retailers.

All Citrus fruits, however the legislation requires additional requirements for citrus from South Africa.

Wholesale and retail inspections

100% No findings. As these pests only harm citrus, they will have no impact here.

Ditylenchus dipsaci Stem and bulb eelworm

EU legislation Council Directive 2000/29/EC.

March to April.

Commercial daffodil crops.

Narcissus and Allium.

Suspect material sent for analysis.

100% 31 samples . No finding.

Various EU legislation Council Directive 2008/90/EC.

May to Oct. Producers. Fruit plant propagating material.

All Producers. 100% No adverse findings

Various quarantine pests

EU Council Directive 2000/29/EC.

Continuous. National. As per Annexes of Directive.

Various. Appropriate actions take on any findings.

General plant health inspections for quarantine pests.

Thaumetopoea processionea Oak processionary meth

Protected Zone. Continuous. National. Quercus spp. Nurseries, garden centres, public/private gardens, public greens and hedgerows.

100% 20 visual inspections. No Findings. Protected Zone maintained.

69

DAFM6 - Report of Official Controls in the Organic Sector (2016)

70

Information on controls of operators

Code number of control body or control authority

Number of registererd operators per control body

or control authority

Number of registered operators

Agricultural Producers(*)

Aqua-culture animal production units Processors (**) Importers Exporters Other operators (***)

IE-ORG-03 OT 878 701 11 166 0 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 1189 1074 1 114 0 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 4 3

IE-ORG-05 BDAA 12 11 0 0 1 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 32 29 3

Total 2111 1786 45 286 1 0 0

Code number of control body or control authority Number of annual inspections


Aquaculture animal production units Processors (**) Importers Exporters Other operators (***)

IE-ORG-03 OT 704 11 166 0 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 1074 1 114 0 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 4 3

IE-ORG-05 BDAA 11 0 0 1 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 29 3

Total 1789 45 286 1 0 0

71

Code number of control body or control authority Number of additional risk based visits

Agricultural Producers (*)


IE-ORG-03 OT 76 2 29 0 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 102 0 16 0 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 3 0 IE-ORG-05 BDAA 2 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 3 Total 180 8 45 0 0 0

Code number of control body or control authority Total number of inspections/visits



IE-ORG-03 OT 780 13 195 0 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 1176 1 130 0 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 7 3 IE-ORG-05 BDAA 13 0 0 1 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 32 3 Total 1969 53 331 1 0 0

(*) Agricultural producers include agricultural producers only, producers that are also processors, producers that are also importers, other mixed producers not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.). (**) Processors include processors only, processors that are also importers, other mixed processors n.e.c. (***) Other operators include traders (wholesalers, retailers), other operators n.e.c.

72


Number of samples analysed Number of samples indicating breach of Regulations (EC) no 834/2007 and (EC) No 1235/2008

Agri-cultural

Producers (*)

Aqua-culture animal

production units

Processors (**) Importers Exporters

Other operators

(***) Agri-cultural Producers(*)

Aqua-culture animal

production units


Other operators

(***)

IE-ORG-03 OT 20 2 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 55 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-05 BDAA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 76 12 50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

(*) Agricultural producers include agricultural producers only, producers that are also processors, producers that are also importers, other mixed producers not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.). (**) Processors include processors only, processors that are also importers, other mixed processors n.e.c. (***) Other operators include traders (wholesalers, retailers), other operators n.e.c.


Number of irregularities or infringements found (1)


Aqua-culture animal

production units


Other operators

(***)

IE-ORG-03 OT 0 5 0 1 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 0 16 0 2 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-05 BDAA 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 21 0 3 0 0

73


Number of measures applied on the lot or on the production run (2) Number of measures applied on the operator (3)

Agri-cultural

Producers (*)

Aqua-culture animal

production units


Other operators

(***) Agri-cultural Producers (*)

Aqua-culture animal

production units


Other operators

(***)

IE-ORG-03 OT 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-02 IOFGA 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-01 IMO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-05 BDAA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IE-ORG-04 GTC 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Total 13 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 (*) Agricultural producers include agricultural producers only, producers that are also processors, producers that are also importers, other mixed producers not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.). (**) Processors include processors only, processors that are also importers, other mixed processors n.e.c. (***) Other operators include traders (wholesalers, retailers), other operators n.e.c. (1 ) Only irregularities and infringements which affect the organic status of products and/or have resulted in a measure being applied are included. (2 ) Where an irregularity is found as regards compliance with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, the control authority or control body shall ensure that no reference to the organic production method is made in the labelling and advertising of the entire lot or production run affected by this irregularity, where this would be proportionate to the relevance of the requirement that has been violated and to the nature and particular circumstances of the irregular activities (as referred to in first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007). (3 ) Where a severe infringement or an infringement with prolonged effect is found, the control authority or control body shall prohibit the operator concerned from marketing products which refer to the organic production method in the labelling and advertising for a period to be agreed with the competent authority of the Member State (as referred to in second subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007).

Information on supervision and audits In September (5th to 16th) 2016, DG SANTE carried out an audit to evaluate the controls system for organic production and labelling of organic products in Ireland. A Draft report of audit findings received was received on 15/11/2016: DAFM provided comments on the factual content and other elements of the draft report. DG SANTE will consider the DAFM comments and will finalize its report in early 2017.mn

74

Health Service Executive (HSE) The food safety remit of the Health Service Executive is delivered through a service contract under the FSAI Act 1998 with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The HSE / FSAI service contract details the food safety work to be undertaken by a number of services within the HSE, including:

1. Environmental health services (EHS)

2. Food safety laboratory services (9 Official Laboratories)

3. Public health medical services

The official controls undertaken by the HSE include; inspections, audits, sampling & analysis, disease surveillance, outbreak investigation, rapid alert follow up and complaint investigation. The EHS of the HSE undertakes official controls in the following sectors:

Retail sector establishments (including retail and catering) Manufacturers of food of non-animal origin Certain other food manufacturers/processing establishments Certain wholesale/distribution operations Certain approved establishments Imports of food of non-animal origin

During 2015, the EHS was responsible for the supervision of 45,186 establishments, most (29,222) of which were ‘food service businesses’ (see Annex HSE1 for more information).

MANCP Section

Title Information


FSAI Guidance Note 1 (GN1) sets out proactive inspection frequencies for inspection of food businesses supervised by the Environmental Health Service (EHS) of the HSE. The most recent version of GN1 (Revision 2) has 6 risk categories and outlines the risk categorisation process and inspection frequencies, provides for classification of non-compliances & inspection outcomes and includes a requirement for priority action lists to ensure that effective / timely enforcement action is taken where appropriate. GN1 (Rev 2) has in operation since January 2012 (see Annex HSE1, table HSE3). GN1 (Rev. 2) outlines a process for prioritising other official controls ahead of planned inspections based on risk. The level of priority is determined by the severity and the likelihood of the risk occurring. Accordingly priority is given to each of the following: food outbreaks; food alerts; food complaints where there is a serious risk to consumers; food businesses where enforcement action is current or may be required following inspection; insufficient confidence in management and/or the food safety management systems to ensure food safety; where the inspection outcome is Grade 5 (Unsatisfactory Serious) or where there have been 2 or more consecutive Grade 4 (Unsatisfactory Significant) inspection outcomes; in the case of obstruction. Import controls – All food consignments imported which are subject to additional controls to receive the additional official controls required by legislation. EHS takes samples from food business establishments under their supervision to support inspection activity and verify compliance with legislation. Samples are submitted for analysis to one of the HSE’s six food microbiology laboratories (for microbiological analysis) or the three Public Analyst Laboratories (for chemical analysis). One of the Public Analyst’s Laboratories (Dublin) carries out both chemical and microbiological analysis. Any non-compliance is followed up by the EHS and corrective action taken, where required.

75

Outputs

In 2016 there were 35,786 planned and planned surveillance inspections carried out (see Annex HSE1, Table HSE1).

The HSE is responsible for carrying out checks on food of non-animal origin at point of entry into Ireland. Checks carried out include random checks and mandatory checks required on foot of EU Emergency Decisions or “Safeguard Measure”. All food consignments subject to these additional controls received the required checks in 2016.

Annex HSE1 (Tables HSE7 & HSE7a) shows the total number of samples tested in the last five years for microbiological and chemical/physical parameters.

Since 2009 there has been a significant reduction, which reflects a move

towards more targeted sampling at central manufacturing and distribution points, away from retail level sampling and reflects a move to multi-parameter testing.


Overall compliance The summary data presented in Annex HSE1 (Table HSE8 and Table HSE8a) indicates that 39,567 infringements were detected in 2015 by HSE inspectors a considerable reduction on the previous year. The number of enforcement actions, which relate to serious food safety risks / non-compliances, (see Annex HSE1, Table HSE9) indicates a high level of compliance overall and a reduction in enforcements over the previous year.

9.2.2.1 & 9.2.2.2

What proportion of the checks identified non-compliance See Annex HSE1, Table HSE1

What were the main types of non-compliance identified Infringements observed during inspection

See Annex HSE1, Table HSE8a

Infringements from chemical/microbiological sampling

See Annex HSE1, Tables HSE7 and HSE7a. Typical infringements for the chemical/physical testing of food relate to labelling or compositional requirements; these include for example foodstuffs containing food additives that are not included in the list of ingredients. Non-compliances are followed-up by EHOs, with action proportionate to the nature of the infringement. In cases where sampling indicates that foods presenting a danger to health have been placed on the market, the FSAI is informed. If the food has been exported, the FSAI can issue notices to the country concerned via the Rapid Alerts System for Food and Feed (RASFF).


Randomly distributed


All non-compliances and inspection outcomes must be assessed and classified accordingly. This is documented in FSAI Guidance Note 1 (Rev. 2). Inspections with outcomes Grade 4 (Unsatisfactory Significant) or Grade 5 (Unsatisfactory Serious) will be likely to result in a formal enforcement action being served on the food business. The formal enforcement actions taken in 2016 are in Annex HSE1, Tables HSE9 and HSE9a.

9.2.2.3 What was/were the root cause/s of the non-compliances identified Data is not available centrally on this

9.4.1


Enforcement action was taken where appropriate. The formal enforcement actions taken in 2016 are in Annex HSE1- Tables HSE9 and HSE9a.


Guidance Note 1 (Rev2) places a strong emphasis on taking effective and timely enforcement action where appropriate. This approach is reflected in the in enforcement actions taken in 2016. Effectiveness (which is defined as meeting FSAI HSE Service Contract requirements), is ensured by inclusion of the FSAI HSE Service Contract in operational plan requirements, reviewing whether actions and targets are achieved and

76

taking corrective action, carrying out file reviews and joint inspections of establishments were necessary, being subject to audit by the FSAI and following up on corrective actions. The EHS is developing an internal audit function.

9.5

Statement of Overall compliance within the sector

Overall the level of compliance of Food Business Operators supervised by the HSE is generally satisfactory, and where it is not, effective, dissuasive and proportionate action can be / is taken by the EHS.


Did the programme of OC’s identify any necessary amendment to MANCP? No

77

ANNEX: HSE1

78

2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Establishments 43419 44511 45186 45532 Number of full and surveillance programmed Inspections 31855 31070 36405 35786

Number of Infringements 7093 3366 39567 70808 Table HSE1: No. of establishments, inspections and No. of establishments committing infringements 2012 to 2015

2013 2014 2015 2016

Retailers 10,972 11259 11362 12950

Service Sector 28214 28843 29222 28933

Transporter 64 80 105 123

Importer/Exporter 73 79 57

Manufacturers 2,864 3039 3110 2109

Not Assigned 42 39 23

Manufacturers & Packers 92 100 108 117

Wholesalers/Distributors 1,098 1111 1183 1138

Total 43419 44511 45186 45532 Table HSE2: No. of establishments (by food chain stage)

2013 2014 2015 2016

1 135 132 127 119

2 2,157 2,141 2,176 2,145

3 13,314 13,450 13,728 13,559

4 13,415 13,652 13,975 14,484

5 11,188 10,506 10,776 10,983

6 1,392 4,144 4,154 3,982

Total 41,601 44,025 44,936 45,272 Table HSE3: No. of establishments (by risk category)

2013 2014 2015 2016

Primary Producers 15

Manufacturers & Packers 2,019

Distributors & Transporters 774 Manufacturers Selling Primarily on a Retail Basis 308

Retailers 7583 7703 9823 11198

Service Sector 23272 24383 30644 30178

Manufacturer 2162 3127 2388

Wholesaler/ Distributors 691 888 906

Packer 67 88 106

Transporter 27 33 36

Importer/ Exporter 20 27 26

Not Assigned 69 15 Total 33971 35053 44699 44877

Table HSE4: Inspections (by food chain stage)

79

2013 2014 2015 2016 1 441 356 339 309

2 4489 4649 4516 4,260

3 20104 19689 20405 19,491

4 10279 11514 12845 13,719

5 4630 4711 6032 6,558

6 240 318 333 386

Total 40183 41237 44470 44,723 Table HSE5: Inspections (by risk category)

Samples Non-Compliant

% with contamination

2011 3331 197 5.91%

2012 3314 226 6.82%

2013 3113 223 7.16%

2014 3354 564 16.82%

2015 3251 282 8.67%

2016 2,877 297 10.32% Table HSE6: Samples (Chemical/ Physical)

Samples Non-

Compliant % with

contamination 2011 8465 733 8.66%

2012 7112 880 12.37%

2013 6441 484 7.51%

2014 6977 386 5.53%

2015 7068 325 4.60%

2016 6,862 315 4.59% Table HSE7a: Samples (Microbiological)

2013 2014 2015 2016 Primary Producers 0

Manufacturers & Packers 282

Distributors & Transporters 89 Manufacturers Selling Primarily on a Retail Basis 94

Retailers 1319 528 9873 15461

Service Sector 5309 2699 34909 51093

Manufacturer 92 2813 3123

Wholesaler/ Distributors 47 704 932

Packer 56 139

Transporter 14 22

Importer/ Exporter 17

Administrative Food Business 13

Total 7093 3366 48390 70808 Table HSE8: Infringements by Food Chain Stage

80

Infringement 2013 2014 2015 2016 Chemical / Physical Contamination 61 104

Microbiological Contamination 250 94

Other Contamination 733 424

General Hygiene 3143 5148 25587 27,599

Labelling & Presentation 404 2232 3194 11,075

Risk Assessment / HACCP 2339 3444 11290 18,249

Traceability 2730 5,061

Training 811 1105

Hygiene Training 4092 7,974

Notification/Approval Notification/Approval

Notification/Approval 472 297

Other 335 109 42 35

Total 7093 12142 48390 70,808 Table HSE8a: Infringements details

Enforcement type 2013 2014 2015 2016 Closure Order 118 95 88 95

Improvement Notice 311 263 257 259

Improvement Order 5 3

Prohibition Order 20 11 11 6

Total 454 369 356 363 Table HSE9: Enforcements

Enforcement type 2013 2014 2015 2016 Service Sector 89 78 71 77

Retailers 19 10 14 12

Primary

Manufacturer Selling Direct 1

Manufacturer/Packer 4 4 2 2

Distributors/Transporters 6 3 1 3

Total 118 95 88 95 Table HSE9a: Closure Orders

81

Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) The SFPA undertakes official controls in the following areas: • Approved Establishments • Other Food Businesses (Excluding Fin-Fish farms, Shellfish Production, Vessels) • Bivalve Shellfish Production • Vessels • Inspection of Fish at Landing or First Sale • Animal By-Product Official Controls During 2016, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority (www.sfpa.ie) was responsible for supervising 2,670 establishments, fishing vessels, ice plants, molluscan production areas and other facilities. On aquaculture sites, fin fish routine inspections are carried out by DAFM veterinary staff with non-compliances investigated by the SFPA. SFPA is responsible for following-up on non-compliant results in samples taken as part of the National Residues Monitoring Programme (NRMP). Over the course of the year, 676 tests and a total of 1,845 determinants were carried out on 128 samples of farmed finfish for a range of residues. All samples were compliant with the exception of two harvest samples from one farm which was found to have sulphadiazine (Group B1- antibacterial substance) present. An on-farm investigation has taken place which included examination of medicines on farm, animal remedies on farm, animal remedies record and feed records. The SFPA committed the equivalent of 30 WTE staffing resources to food safety and official controls in 2016.

http://www.sfpa.ie/

82

MANCP Section Title Information


Number planned The recommended frequency for vessel inspections was once per

vessel per annum with priority to be given to vessels >15m. Factory and Freezer Vessels are required to be approved by the

SFPA; therefore, the inspection frequencies and procedures for approved establishments also apply

Trip Hygiene Inspections (hygiene inspections that focus on fish caught during a given fishing trip) were targeted to be carried out on all vessels including factory and freezer vessels at the following frequency

o Vessels <15m, once per year o Vessels >15m, 4 per year (1 per active quarter)

Fish being landed at Irish ports were targeted for inspection at a minimum frequency of once per active quarter per vessel (pelagic vessels may be active for only 1 or 2 quarters of the year); for 2016, this was applicable to all vessels > 15m. For demersal vessels, it is recommended that 3 species are assessed per inspection

Other Food Businesses (Excluding Finfish farms, Shellfish Production, Vessels) were scheduled to be inspected by SFPOs once or twice per year, depending on the risk presented

Shellfish production areas were scheduled for monthly monitoring

Completed 228 Inspections carried out in 2016. 21% of this inspection effort was focused on high risk food business operators. The SFPA also carried out 440 consignment inspections and issued 6800 health certificates. 4200 food samples were taken by Sea-Fisheries Protection Officers in 2015.


Overall compliance Overall compliance in this sector was generally acceptable

9.2.2.1 & 9.2.2.2

What proportion of the checks identified non-compliance

A detailed inspection report is written up following each inspection identifying any non-compliances found during the course of the inspection, where necessary enforcements were issued. During 2016, 27 enforcements were served by the SFPA as a result of non-compliances found in contravention of EU food legislation.


Non compliances included structural deficiencies, inadequate food safety management systems, and deficiencies in hygiene, non-compliant microbiological product results, inadequate documentation and traceability.

Were the non-compliances clustered or randomly distributed Non-compliances were randomly distributed


Non compliances found which resulted in enforcements being served were major and moderate, 80% and 20% respectively.

9.2.2.3 What was/were the root cause/s of the non-compliances identified

Where appropriate, non-compliant FBOs received verbal or written warnings for minor non-compliances. More serious contraventions were dealt with through more formal means such as the service of compliance notices to remedy issues. Where FBOs required further training, advice or technical assistance they were referred to Bord Iascaigh Mhara (the Seafisheries Board) or the FSAI’s advice line.

83

9.4.1


Describe, giving the number of the various types of enforcement action deployed such as verbal warning, written notice, fixed penalty notice, restriction, premises closure, seizure/detention of animals or product, prosecution Actions taken to deal with non-compliances

19 Compliance Notices served 1 FSAI Act Prohibition Orders put in place 1 FSAI Act Improvement Notice served 6 Fixed Charge Penalty Notices issued


The SFPA on its own initiative and with the assistance of other agencies provides training to its staff to support their professional development and skills in the area of food safety and official controls. In 2016, 77 SFPA staff spent a total of 200 training days spread across 15 different training courses or events. The SFPA also committed 76 staff-days to other food safety related engagement activities. The SFPA also spent 20 staff days in internal audits and 5.5 staff days preparing for and participating in 1 external audit.

9.5

Statement of Overall compliance within the sector Overall compliance within the sector is good


Did the programme of OC’s identify any necessary amendment to MANCP No

84

ANNEX: SFPA1

85

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Primary Producers 2381 2323 2259 2270 2388

Manufacturers & Packers 189 181 179 213 181

Distributors / Transporters 93 87 99 108 4

Total 2663 2591 2537 2591 2573 Table SFPA1: SFPA Establishments under Supervision by Food Chain Stage, 2012 – 2016.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Not Stated 1951 2092 110 95 0

High RTE 766 703 307

Low RTE 3 251

Medium RTE 279 33 582

High Non-RTE 35 54 160

Medium Non-RTE 207 243 582

Low Non-RTE 638 584 395

High 221 0

Medium 113 2

Low 95 20

Unassigned Risk 6 0

Total 2386 2114 2035 2015 2277 Table SFPA2: Number of inspections by risk category, 2012 – 2016.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Processing Plant 1133 878 1362

Fresh Fishery Products Plant 341 469

Purification Plant 215 300

Dispatch Centre 150 211 564

Molluscan Production Areas 1,724 1,522 79 45 100

Factory & Freezer Vessels 15 22 49 36 83

Fishing Vessels 206 140 35 16 37

Shellfish Farmer 9 22 30

Importers 3 10 25

Auction Halls 5 6 6

Cold Store (Fishery) 6 4 6

Ice Plants 6 2 6 3 Cold Store (animal origin no exposure) 4 1 14

Food Stall: fish 1 1

Land Based Est 420 402

Registered FBOs on Land 15 26

Not stated 13

Total 2,386 2,114 2035 2015 2228 Table SFPA3: Number of Inspections by business type, 2012 – 2016.

86

Local Authorities (LA) The local authorities are responsible for official controls in the following areas:

Low throughput slaughterhouses Food businesses engaged in the slaughter of low volumes of poultry Small meat manufacturing plants (SMMP’s) producing small quantities of fresh meat, minced

meat, meat preparations and/or meat products Cold stores/distribution centres Meat transport vehicles at, or associated with inspected establishments Wholesaling butcher shops subject to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004.

During 2016, the local authorities were responsible for carrying out official controls in 498 establishments as follows:

201 Slaughterhouses 204 Small Meat Manufacturing Plant 40 Poultry Plants 29 Cold store (animal origin no exposure) 21 Vehicles Operating without a Base Cat. I (raw and cooked meat product) 7 Cold store (animal origin exposure) 9 Butcher shops (retailers)

A total of 108 establishments were rated as ‘high’ risk; 251 as ‘medium’ risk; and, 124 as ‘low’ risk. The remainder were unrated or had yet to be assigned a rating at the end of the year. A total of 4870 inspections were carried out in these establishments over the course of the year. In most cases, the local authority has one County Veterinary Officer (CVO), supported by temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) engaged for meat inspections in slaughterhouses.

87


Number planned

The local authorities use a standard operating procedure (SOP D25) to determine the required inspection frequency for each establishment based on risk assessment. The following considerations are taken into account in this SOP:

Public health risks

Animal health risks

Animal welfare aspects where applicable

Type of processes carried out in the establishment

Throughput of the establishment

FBO’s past record of compliance with food law and the reliability of the FBO’s own checks.

The type of processes undertaken in an establishment and the nature and intended uses of its products determine to a large extent the risk to public health from consumption of those products. These factors therefore primarily determine the level of risk associated with the establishment. After the initial risk assessment of an establishment a re-assessment is carried out on an annual basis.

It is recommended that inspections of establishments should be carried out within the following range of frequencies, where the frequency is proportionate to the risk categorisation, based on the professional judgement of the CVO:

Low Risk: Between once every three months and once per month

Medium Risk: Between once every two months and twice per month

High Risk: Between once per month and four times per month

Very High Risk: At discretion of the county veterinary officer (CVO).

Completed

In 2016 there were 4870 hygiene inspections carried out by local authority veterinary inspectors. The majority (52%) of inspections were in slaughterhouses, which account for 39% of all establishments under local authority supervision. The number of inspections per type of establishment are as follows:

Slaughterhouses 2527

SMMPs 1918

Poultry Plants 202

Cold store (animal origin no exposure) 122

Butcher Shop 61

Vehicle Operating without a Base Cat. I 40

Comment

In addition to the above, local authority veterinary inspectors carry out sampling of food and related items as part of official control programmes linked to the production of foods of animal origin. This annual ‘National Sampling Plan’ covers all local authorities, one of which (Cork County Council through its Veterinary Food Safety Laboratory) acts in a co-ordination role.

Local authorities also participate in the national residue monitoring programme organised by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

88


Overall compliance

Overall compliance in this sector was generally acceptable

9.2.2.1 & 9.2.2.2


During 2016 LAs took 1593 formal actions as a result of non-compliances detected during inspections.


Non-compliances included: FBO engaged in activity outside the scope for which establishment had

been approved

Deficiencies in structural and hygiene requirements

Non compliances in relation to pest proofing, pest control and cleaning and sanitation of an establishment

Bovine animal slaughtered without veterinary ante mortem inspection


Non-compliances were randomly distributed.


Non compliances found which resulted in enforcements being served were major and moderate, 80% and 20% respectively.

9.2.2.3

What was/were the root cause/s of the non-compliances identified

No data available for this.

9.4.1


Actions taken to deal with non-compliances LAs took 1593 legal actions against FBOs under their supervision in 2015, including:

Approval number revocation 1

Improvement Notices 3

Compliance Notices 11

9.4.2

Actions to ensure effectiveness of Official Controls (by the CA)

In order to comply with Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 all official controls must be carried out in accordance with documented procedures. The local authority veterinary inspectorate has an established standardisation working group which has developed a number of operating procedures which inspectors use while carrying out official controls. The working group meets on a regular basis to update/amend/develop operating procedures as required. Local authorities implemented an internal audit programme relating to official controls whereby one local authority is audited by another local authority (cross-county auditing).

9.5


Overall compliance within the sector is good.



89

ANNEX: LAVS1

90

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Slaughterhouses 211 209 205 205 201

Small Meat Manufacturing Plant 200 205 197 201 204

Poultry Plants 30 32 34 38 40 Cold store (animal origin no exposure) 10 16 24 27 29

Vehicle Operating without a Base Cat. I (raw and cooked meat product)

5 12 15 16 21

Cold store (animal origin exposure) 5 5 5 7 7

Butcher Shop 3 5 7 5 9

Total 464 484 487 499 511 Table LAVS1: No. of establishments (by food chain stage)

Risk

Category 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Slaughterhouses High 20 20 21 21 22

Medium 133 135 135 135 132

Low 32 33 33 35 33

Small Meat Manufacturing Plant High 69 73 77 79 80

Medium 67 71 74 82 84

Low 39 40 34 33 33

Poultry Plants High 3 4 4 2 2

Medium 11 11 12 29 28

Low 5 5 5 6 9

Cold store (animal origin no exposure)

High 0 0 0 0

Medium 1 2 2 3 1

Low 9 14 20 22 27

Vehicle Operating without a Base Cat. I (raw and cooked meat product)

High 0 0

Medium 0 1 1 0 2

Low 4 8 12 12 16

Cold store (animal origin exposure)

High 1 1 1 1 1

Medium 1 1 1 0 0

Low 2 2 2 2 5

Butcher Shop High 0 1 2 2 3

Medium 2 2 3 4 4

Low 0 1 1 1

Not Stated 65 54 37 29 28 Total 399 430 487 498 511

Table LAVS2: No. of establishments (by risk category)

91

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Slaughterhouse 2593 2665 2508 2608 2527

Small Meat Manufacturing Plant 1908 2076 1989 2010 1918

Poultry Plant 110 161 146 193 202 Cold store (animal origin no exposure) 37 51 80 105 122

Butcher Shop 3 22 30 68 61 Vehicle Operating without a Base Cat. I (raw and cooked meat product)

13 30 33 25 40

Cold store (animal origin exposure) 25 16 16 24

Total 4689 5021 4802 5033 4870 Table LAVS3: No. of inspections (by establishment type)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 High 1258 1497 1474 1469 1752

Medium 2377 2538 2472 2703 2560

Low 483 523 496 546 492

Not Stated 571 462 330 289 66

Total 4689 5021 4802 5033 4870 Table LAVS4: No. of inspections (by risk category)

92

The Marine Institute (MI) The Marine Institute (MI) (www.marine.ie) is Ireland’s national agency responsible for marine research, technology development and innovation. Its role is “to undertake, to co-ordinate, to promote and to assist in marine research and development and to provide such services related to research and development that, in the opinion of the Institute, will promote economic development and create employment and protect the marine environment.” Under its service contract with the FSAI, the MI is responsible for a limited range of official controls relating primarily to the sampling and analysis of shellfish and finfish. It is the Official Agency charged with providing scientific advice to the Authority and its official agencies on marine biotoxins and related issues, and in relation to the microbiological and virological safety and quality of shellfish and shellfish growing waters, and on related matters.

In accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004, the MI is Ireland’s National Reference Laboratory for:

monitoring for Marine Biotoxins in Live Bivalve Molluscs monitoring for Bacteriological and Viral Contamination in Live Bivalve Molluscs monitoring of Certain Substances and Residues thereof insofar as they apply to finfish

aquaculture

The MI participated in relevant CRL organised inter-comparisons, as required.

The MI has also been designated as the competent authority and NRL “for the purposes of EU Directive 2006/88/EC in addition to conducting fish health and marine environment monitoring. These activities do not come under the scope of the Service Contract with the FSAI.

The MI is accredited to standard ISO17025. The Schedule of Accreditation applicable to the MI can be found at http://www.inab.ie/Directory-of-Accredited-Bodies/Laboratory-Accreditation/Testing/The-Marine-Institute.html.

In 2016, the MI had 29.3 WTE staff allocated to delivering activities in the support of the Service Contract in place with the FSAI.

http://www.inab.ie/Directory-of-Accredited-Bodies/Laboratory-Accreditation/Testing/The-Marine-Institute.html

http://www.inab.ie/Directory-of-Accredited-Bodies/Laboratory-Accreditation/Testing/The-Marine-Institute.html

93

MANCP Section

Title Information


Shellfish sampling

o Shellfish Chemistry

o Shellfish Residues (BIPs)

o Biotoxin Chemistry

o Microbiology of Shellfish (E. coli analysis)

Finfish

o Residues

o Chemistry: Port

Phytoplankton Sampling

Completed A detailed breakdown of the sampling completed by the MI is included in Annex MI1 Comment The MI also tests shellfish for the presence of Norovirus.


Overall compliance The Marine Institute carries out official control activity in a limited number of food business operators. The results of this activity are reported to other competent authorities, such as the SFPA, who may use it to assess compliance in the aforementioned food businesses.

9.2.2.1 & 9.2.2.2


The Marine Institute carries out official control activity in a limited number of food business operators. The results of this activity are reported to other competent authorities, such as the SFPA, who may use it to assess compliance in the aforementioned food businesses.







9.2.2.3 What was/were the root cause/s of the non-compliances identified

Actions taken to ensure improved compliance by Food Business Operators (FBOs) during 2015 The Marine Institute is not involved in assessing compliance among FBOs

94

9.4.1


Describe, giving the number of the various types of enforcement action deployed such as verbal warning, written notice, fixed penalty notice, restriction, premises closure, seizure/detention of animals or product, prosecution Actions taken to deal with non-compliances The Marine Institute carries out official control activity in a limited number of food business operators. The results of this activity are reported to other competent authorities, such as the SFPA, who may use it to assess compliance in the aforementioned food businesses.


The MI completed 92 staff days of training under the Service Contract. This was spread between 7 different events of varying duration. A further 98 staff days were committed to prepare, participate and follow-up on audits. The MI staff participated in 39 internal audits, and 1 external audit.

9.5





95

ANNEX: MI1 - Sampling & Analysis

96

Sampling & Analysis activity - Shellfish

Analysis Type No. of Samples Taken

No. of Samples Analysed No Of Results

No. of Compliant Samples

No. of Non-compliant Samples

Routine

Shellfish Chemistry 55 55 3025 55 0

Biotoxin Chemistry 2757 2757 13466 2706 51

Microbiology Shellfish

Microbiology Shellfish (E. coli analysis including sub

contract testing)

1692 (E.coli testing including

subcontact testing)

1692 1692 Classification controls based on E.coli levels

Virology Shellfish

Norovirus 844 844 832 832

Non Routine

Shellfish Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0

Biotoxin Chemistry 370 370 1927 364 6

Virology Shellfish

Norovirus 365 365 356 356

Sampling & Analysis - Finfish

Analysis Type

No. of Samples Taken

No. of Samples Analysed

No. of Tests No. of

Compliant Samples


Routine

Residues 141 141 2250 141 0 Chemistry: Port 56 56 1084 56 0

Non Routine

Residues 24 24 6 24 0 Chemistry: Port 10 10 1 10 0

Sampling & Analysis - Water

Analysis Type No. of

Samples Taken

No. of Tests No. of

Compliant Samples


Phytoplankton Routine 3372 3367 3367 2031 Non Routine 48 48 48 46

97

The National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) The National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) is Ireland’s official standards body. It operates under the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act 1996 and provides a certification service to enable businesses to demonstrate that Irish goods and services conform to applicable standards. NSAI is also an official agency of the FSAI. The NSAI has a focused role in official controls of food, reporting the use of just 0.8 whole-time equivalent of inspector resource devoted to the service contract activities in 2015. NSAI inspects and certifies suppliers of natural mineral water (NMW), of which there were four in Ireland operating five boreholes. The NSAI operates a quality management system certified to ISO 17021. Each supplier is inspected as part of this programme, with 9, 11,10, 5 and 3 inspections in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. In 2016, the NSAI recorded 9 infringements (compared to 4 in 2015) against the requirements of 2009/54/EC, 2003/40/EC and NSAI issued Conditions for Exploitation against the requirements of S.I. 225 of 2007. Four samples were taken for microbiological analysis, with no infringement detected. Four samples were also taken for chemical analysis, with no infringements detected. No complaints were received. The NSAI also carried out 69 Food Contact Material (FCM) Inspections in 2015.

Documents

ANNUAL REPORT ON IRELAND’S NATIONAL CONTROL PLAN