Poll results: Do you believe PGI status for Irish grass-fed beef will benefit farmers?

60% of people don’t think that Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status for Irish grass-fed beef will benefit farmers in the long-run.

AgriLand carried out an impromptu survey over two days this week to gauge readers’ feelings about the application for PGI status which has been developed by Bord Bia.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine launched a national opposition procedure in relation to the application on August 14.

PGI status is a type of intellectual property right, protecting food product names which are linked to a particular territory or to a particular production method, e.g. Connemara Hill Lamb.

22 statements of opposition to the PGI application have been lodged as part of the national oppositions procedure.

Opinion poll results

AgriLand asked readers the question: ‘Do you believe that Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) for Irish grass-fed beef will benefit farmers in the long-run?‘

The results show that almost 60% do not believe it will benefit farmers in the long-run while 40% do believe it will benefit farmers.

The online poll, which was open to everybody, involved more than 1,000 respondents. However, each reader (i.e. each user / IP address) could only vote once.

The PGI application has provoked criticism from several farming groups with the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) describing the controversy as ‘a great pity’ and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA) saying it ‘opposes the one-size-fits-all application’.

Where to from here?

The next step will be mean the application is submitted to the European Commission for further scrutiny.

If the commission is satisfied with the application, other EU member states and countries outside the EU will have an opportunity to give their views.

The PGI was discussed at a meeting of the Beef Market Taskforce yesterday (Wednesday September 23).

Following that meeting the IFA has said that it acknowledges that “some important changes have been proposed in the document” but more is needed.