The Department of Agriculture is moving to introduce new regulations that, from January 2022, will require farmers purchasing antiparasitic drugs (wormers) to obtain a veterinary prescription. The extra layer of regulatory and cost burden being passed on to farmers has been linked to new EU rules on prescribing animal medicines.
The new regulations, which were adopted in 2019, follow ongoing reviews and revisions of legislation introduced in 2004 which required that all veterinary medicine products intended for use in food-producing animals should be subject to veterinary prescription control.
In 2006, this requirement was revised with the introduction of a derogation granting products that did not present risk to human or animal health an exemption from veterinary prescription. At the time, the Department of Agriculture advised that all existing veterinary medicine products that were available without prescription met this criteria – therefore allowing them be sold without prescription through licensed merchants.
On review, it is clear that the exemption criteria from prescription control set out in Article 34 of the new 2019 EU regulations is broadly similar to what has been in place since 2006. This raises the question as to why the Department is now moving to include wormers as a prescription-only medicine (POM) when an existing derogation that exempts them could be carried forward.
The motivation appears to stem from increased reports of anthelmintic resistance in parasites present in cattle and sheep. There is no doubt this presents a real concern to the sector. In this sense, the Department is right to take steps to ensure the appropriate use of wormers in order to protect effectiveness and longevity. But is putting more regulation and cost on to farmers the answer?
Before trying to find solutions, we should look at causes – why is anthelmintic resistance a growing problem? In moving to make wormers POM, clearly the belief within the Department is that farmers are not suitably qualified to decide on the most effective course of parasitic control.
The easy option is to blame the farmer for improper use, therefore providing justification for increased regulation and cost being targeted in this direction. However, attention should also be focused back down the supply chain. Are the proper structures in place to ensure vets and licensed merchants are dispensing products correctly to farmers?
If we look at the business model for a large animal veterinary practice, the three main revenue streams are TB testing, retail sales of medicines and fee-based income linked to the care of the animal. For many practices, this will also be the order of financial importance. There are pros and cons to the model. Undoubtedly the revenue stream from TB testing and retail margins subsidise fee-based income – reflecting the fact that vets are one of the only professions left providing a 24-hour call-out service, often at a price below what it would cost for someone to service a domestic appliance during working hours.
There is potential for conflict in a situation where vets are recommending a course of treatment from which they stand to benefit
However, there is clearly potential for conflict in a situation where vets are recommending a course of treatment from which they stand to benefit commercially. It is a conflict that is recognised in other member states.
Similar to human medicine, some member states have separated the link between prescribing and dispensing while others, perhaps more appropriately, have put mechanisms in place to remove or limit the economic incentive from medicine sales.
In its bid to tackle anthelmintic resistance, the Department should question whether a failure to introduce similar measures in Ireland has contributed to the problem.
Before moving to downgrade farmers as professional keepers of animals, the Department must establish the extent to which the economic incentive to dispense product to farmers by vets and licensed merchants is influencing how these products are used on farm. Part of this must ensure the commercial arrangements that exist between manufacturers and those dispensing products are in keeping with ensuring responsible use.
The proposal to lay blame for anthelmintic resistance at the doorstep of farmers by making wormers POM is taking the easy option. Concentrating the supply base for wormers while ignoring deficiencies in the supply chain model has the potential to make the issue worse while at the same time driving up the cost to farmers. Increased regulation should not be the first port of call. Meanwhile, a wider discussion on the most appropriate revenue model for large animal veterinary practices is needed.
\ Jim Cogan
Forestry: Project Woodland implementation
Two forestry reports have been released detailing the decline of Irish forestry, both of which identify the licence backlog and afforestation collapse as the main challenges.
Jo O’Hara’s Implementation of the Mackinnon Report has been accepted by Minister of State Pippa Hackett, who has established Project Woodland to implement its recommendations. This will be managed by a “project governance structure” including a project board (chaired by Department secretary general Brendan Gleeson with three independent members, including O’Hara), project manager, and four working groups (with independent chairs to provide the impetus and expertise needed). Their findings and recommendations feed in to the minister and her Forestry Policy Group (FPG), which represents farmers, forestry companies, timber processors, nurseries and NGOs.
Most stakeholders have identified the project manager as key to the initiative’s success. The Oireachtas committee, the IFA and other stakeholders contacted by the Irish Farmers Journal strongly maintain that this post should be a full-time external appointment for the duration of the project. It is neither.
Given the workload involved and the transparency required, it might be worthwhile to rethink this appointment. Jo O’Hara, who managed the resurgence of forestry in Scotland as CEO of Scottish Forestry, is surely the most obvious and acceptable choice.
Whiskey: tipple with terroir
The importance of terroir is a huge selling point for the Waterford Whisky brand.
New Teagasc research confirms that the geographical location of a barley crop can affect the flavour of whiskey produced.
The concept of terroir is commonly used in wine and in the case of Teagasc’s research in conjunction with Waterford Distillery, it refers to the ability of the final product to display characteristics of the environment in which the barley was grown. It is a huge selling point for the Waterford Whisky brand, which keeps grain from Irish tillage farms separate from the field to the final bottle.
The research places a value on Irish barley with scientific proof that the taste of Irish barley is unique and highlights the importance of terroir in single-malt whiskey production.
It may be the wake-up call that is needed in the Irish whiskey industry to place an emphasis on Irish barley and reduce grain imports from other countries for its production.
Brexit: renewed effort required on EU-UK trade
As Phelim O’Neill suggests in this week's edition, the Government must engage with the EU and UK to emphasise the need for a veterinary agreement that eliminates the bureaucracy of doing business on plant and animal-origin goods between Britain and the island of Ireland. This will require a veterinary agreement that reflects the EU-UK alignment. The EU speaks of a reset of relations and nowhere better to start than accepting the extension of the grace period for goods coming into NI retail from Britain, paving the way for the UK to reciprocate by delaying border checks in April.
Agri-food strategy: economic sustainability is fundamental
Also this week, Siobhan Walsh has draft details of the environmental suitability chapter of the Agri-food Strategy. Once again we see ambitions and detailed environmental goals – covering biodiversity, water quality and reductions in emissions. With the strategy to be launched in the coming weeks, farmers will expect to see the same detailed goals and targets set within the economic sustainability chapter.
It is recognised in the EU Farm to Fork strategy that an environmental sustainable food system will only be successful if it delivers a sustainable livelihood for the primary producer.
The Department of Agriculture is moving to introduce new regulations that, from January 2022, will require farmers purchasing antiparasitic drugs (wormers) to obtain a veterinary prescription. The extra layer of regulatory and cost burden being passed on to farmers has been linked to new EU rules on prescribing animal medicines.
The new regulations, which were adopted in 2019, follow ongoing reviews and revisions of legislation introduced in 2004 which required that all veterinary medicine products intended for use in food-producing animals should be subject to veterinary prescription control.
In 2006, this requirement was revised with the introduction of a derogation granting products that did not present risk to human or animal health an exemption from veterinary prescription. At the time, the Department of Agriculture advised that all existing veterinary medicine products that were available without prescription met this criteria – therefore allowing them be sold without prescription through licensed merchants.
On review, it is clear that the exemption criteria from prescription control set out in Article 34 of the new 2019 EU regulations is broadly similar to what has been in place since 2006. This raises the question as to why the Department is now moving to include wormers as a prescription-only medicine (POM) when an existing derogation that exempts them could be carried forward.
The motivation appears to stem from increased reports of anthelmintic resistance in parasites present in cattle and sheep. There is no doubt this presents a real concern to the sector. In this sense, the Department is right to take steps to ensure the appropriate use of wormers in order to protect effectiveness and longevity. But is putting more regulation and cost on to farmers the answer?
Before trying to find solutions, we should look at causes – why is anthelmintic resistance a growing problem? In moving to make wormers POM, clearly the belief within the Department is that farmers are not suitably qualified to decide on the most effective course of parasitic control.
The easy option is to blame the farmer for improper use, therefore providing justification for increased regulation and cost being targeted in this direction. However, attention should also be focused back down the supply chain. Are the proper structures in place to ensure vets and licensed merchants are dispensing products correctly to farmers?
If we look at the business model for a large animal veterinary practice, the three main revenue streams are TB testing, retail sales of medicines and fee-based income linked to the care of the animal. For many practices, this will also be the order of financial importance. There are pros and cons to the model. Undoubtedly the revenue stream from TB testing and retail margins subsidise fee-based income – reflecting the fact that vets are one of the only professions left providing a 24-hour call-out service, often at a price below what it would cost for someone to service a domestic appliance during working hours.
There is potential for conflict in a situation where vets are recommending a course of treatment from which they stand to benefit
However, there is clearly potential for conflict in a situation where vets are recommending a course of treatment from which they stand to benefit commercially. It is a conflict that is recognised in other member states.
Similar to human medicine, some member states have separated the link between prescribing and dispensing while others, perhaps more appropriately, have put mechanisms in place to remove or limit the economic incentive from medicine sales.
In its bid to tackle anthelmintic resistance, the Department should question whether a failure to introduce similar measures in Ireland has contributed to the problem.
Before moving to downgrade farmers as professional keepers of animals, the Department must establish the extent to which the economic incentive to dispense product to farmers by vets and licensed merchants is influencing how these products are used on farm. Part of this must ensure the commercial arrangements that exist between manufacturers and those dispensing products are in keeping with ensuring responsible use.
The proposal to lay blame for anthelmintic resistance at the doorstep of farmers by making wormers POM is taking the easy option. Concentrating the supply base for wormers while ignoring deficiencies in the supply chain model has the potential to make the issue worse while at the same time driving up the cost to farmers. Increased regulation should not be the first port of call. Meanwhile, a wider discussion on the most appropriate revenue model for large animal veterinary practices is needed.
\ Jim Cogan
Forestry: Project Woodland implementation
Two forestry reports have been released detailing the decline of Irish forestry, both of which identify the licence backlog and afforestation collapse as the main challenges.
Jo O’Hara’s Implementation of the Mackinnon Report has been accepted by Minister of State Pippa Hackett, who has established Project Woodland to implement its recommendations. This will be managed by a “project governance structure” including a project board (chaired by Department secretary general Brendan Gleeson with three independent members, including O’Hara), project manager, and four working groups (with independent chairs to provide the impetus and expertise needed). Their findings and recommendations feed in to the minister and her Forestry Policy Group (FPG), which represents farmers, forestry companies, timber processors, nurseries and NGOs.
Most stakeholders have identified the project manager as key to the initiative’s success. The Oireachtas committee, the IFA and other stakeholders contacted by the Irish Farmers Journal strongly maintain that this post should be a full-time external appointment for the duration of the project. It is neither.
Given the workload involved and the transparency required, it might be worthwhile to rethink this appointment. Jo O’Hara, who managed the resurgence of forestry in Scotland as CEO of Scottish Forestry, is surely the most obvious and acceptable choice.
Whiskey: tipple with terroir
The importance of terroir is a huge selling point for the Waterford Whisky brand.
New Teagasc research confirms that the geographical location of a barley crop can affect the flavour of whiskey produced.
The concept of terroir is commonly used in wine and in the case of Teagasc’s research in conjunction with Waterford Distillery, it refers to the ability of the final product to display characteristics of the environment in which the barley was grown. It is a huge selling point for the Waterford Whisky brand, which keeps grain from Irish tillage farms separate from the field to the final bottle.
The research places a value on Irish barley with scientific proof that the taste of Irish barley is unique and highlights the importance of terroir in single-malt whiskey production.
It may be the wake-up call that is needed in the Irish whiskey industry to place an emphasis on Irish barley and reduce grain imports from other countries for its production.
Brexit: renewed effort required on EU-UK trade
As Phelim O’Neill suggests in this week's edition, the Government must engage with the EU and UK to emphasise the need for a veterinary agreement that eliminates the bureaucracy of doing business on plant and animal-origin goods between Britain and the island of Ireland. This will require a veterinary agreement that reflects the EU-UK alignment. The EU speaks of a reset of relations and nowhere better to start than accepting the extension of the grace period for goods coming into NI retail from Britain, paving the way for the UK to reciprocate by delaying border checks in April.
Agri-food strategy: economic sustainability is fundamental
Also this week, Siobhan Walsh has draft details of the environmental suitability chapter of the Agri-food Strategy. Once again we see ambitions and detailed environmental goals – covering biodiversity, water quality and reductions in emissions. With the strategy to be launched in the coming weeks, farmers will expect to see the same detailed goals and targets set within the economic sustainability chapter.
It is recognised in the EU Farm to Fork strategy that an environmental sustainable food system will only be successful if it delivers a sustainable livelihood for the primary producer.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: