MICHAEL Noonan has been handed something of a poisoned chalice where food safety is concerned.
The Minister for Health had barely drawn breath, following his public drubbing over the hepatitis C scandal, when his Cabinet colleagues decided he was the man to take responsibility for the new Food Safety Board. Enthusiasm didn't enter into it. But the job had to be done.
The Limerick TD is a tough battler. But he can recognise the political downside as quickly as any of his opponents. Mr Noonan was in a no win situation. If the new board was successful, its statutory independence would prevent the feel good factor from rubbing off on its political boss. And, if it failed, blame would inevitably rebound on him.
The consumer has little interest in such political considerations. All that concerns her/him is that the food on sale in our shops is reasonably priced, wholesome and safe to eat. The rest is a matter of taste.
But the Government has larger concerns. As a strongly agricultural country, we rely heavily on food exports and on employment in the producing and processing sectors. Such exports are worth 18 per cent of our GNP. The industry is huge. And that is why consumer confidence at home, and especially abroad, is so important.
The Food Safety Board has been established on the basis that existing regulatory systems in the Departments of Agriculture, Health, Environment and Enterprise and Employment were inadequate and inefficient. At his press conference yesterday, Mr Noonan admitted: "of course it was . . .a criticism of people who were supposed to be doing the work".
So how can a virtuous cycle be created out of the present shambles? Mr Noonan suggests the new body will have a double edged effect. Its creation as a policing agency will force all statutory bodies to improve standards of control for fear of investigation and its random tests and investigations will address specific problems.
The Minister was less sure footed when he spoke about sanctions. "Outing" the offending agency or food processing business appeared to be the main weapon in the armoury of the new body, although sub standard food could be seized and destroyed and fines imposed. Publication of its findings and reports would be mandatory but, even there, Departments and local authorities would have a right of reply.
In spite of such limitations, consumer power is strongly reflected in the audit/supervisory role of the new agency. Membership of the new board underpins this view. For the first time ever, farmers and processor are not directly represented on a food board, and four of the nine members are women.
Danny O'Hare, of Dublin City University, has been appointed chairman. A scientist, he is president of DCU and chairman of Beaumont Hospital.
By coincidence, Beaumont Hospital has been chosen as one of two places where autopsies relating to CJD disease will be held. And while the reported incidence of the disease has been well below the 1980, the Minister "considering" whether to make CJD a notifiable cause of death.
Caroline Gill, director of the Consumers Association, is a high profile public representative. The presence of Darina Allen, the food writer and television presenter, is obviously designed to reassure, as is the appointment of Cecily Kelleher, who is professor of Health Promotion at UCG, and William Fagan, the director of Consumer Affairs. James Kennedy, of Waterford, is a successful businessman.
The powerful veterinary profession is represented by Ann Scanlon, president of the IVU, while the broader food area is reflected through the appointment of John Hannan, retired dean of veterinary medicine at UCD, and Fergus Hill, of the Food Advisory Board.
Selecting a board to generate public confidence was an important first step. But the most crucial position is likely to be that of chief executive. Advertising for that post will start within a few, weeks. A required knowledge of the food industry and of public administration would suggest the appointment of a poacher turned gamekeeper.
The change in official attitudes on the issue of food safety has been phenomenal over recent months. The Department of Agriculture is now in continuous breast beating mode. And the IFA has taken to expelling members who are found guilty of using illegal growth promoters.
The new board will decide on its programme of work over the next few months. It would be unfortunate if it was to confine its attention to the food processing industry. The feedstuffs, the chemicals, antibiotics and pesticides used in the production of food should" be carefully monitored and regulated. And a new regime in the labelling and content of food should be introduced.
There can be no more short cuts. No more turning of blind eyes "in the national interest". Greedy and unscrupulous producers and processors must be weeded out. With billions of pounds in exports on the hazard, the country deserves no less.