Hanrahan: the epic battle continues

The revival of the memory of heroic battle of the Hanrahan family against Merck Sharpe and Dohme may cause difficulties for the Strategic Infrastructure Bill about to go through the Dáil. By Clare O'Grady WalsheScenes this past week of cows being removed from the Hanrahan farm outside Carrick-on Suir, Co Tipperary by the Department of Agriculture will bring many people back to this epic David and Goliath fight which culminated in 1988 with a Supreme Court judgement in favour of the Hanrahans against chemical/pharmaceutical giant Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Merck was forced to pay €1.01 million in compensation for damages.
The Hanrahan case is regarded as the foremost environmental legal battle ever to have happened in Ireland. All the more important because the Hanrahans won, and their vindication by the Supreme Court heralded the onslaught of much environmental policy and legislation that followed, not least being the setting up of the Irish EPA in 1993. The judgement was groundbreaking in so far as it ruled that Merck Sharpe and Dohme were liable to the Hanrahans on three counts: 1. for damages for offensive smells; 2. for injury to John Hanrahan's health; and 3. for cattle ailments in so far as they were caused by factory emissions, most notably “probable cause”, directed at the on-site incinerator.
The case increased awareness about the need for environmental protection in Ireland, particularly regarding the use, production and disposal of toxic chemicals, most notably, incineration.
Now Hanrahans are back in the news because of unresolved issues relating to their case. Outstanding issues of compensation estimated by accountants in 2004 at  €2.4 million remain as a result of contamination.
The quota system which was introduced in 1983 restricted farmers to specific levels of milk production for a given year. This however was at the height of Hanrahans' problems with emissions from Merck, with as many as 200 cattle already dead due to toxic related illnesses and so their yield was lower than it should have been, and thus so was their quota. Their quota was eventually increased from 150,000 gallons in 1983 to about 227,000 gallons in 1998, but they were  never compensated by the Department of Agriculture for the losses in the intervening years, while they had to lease in excess of half  a million gallons of quota while waiting to get the quota owed to them. This cost them about €1 million.
Meanwhile the Department of Agriculture  advised that Hanrahans milk not be sold for human consumption because of fears of contamination, suggesting instead that it be sold for animal feed (which would still keep it in the food chain which seems contradictory). “That loss meant that our milk went from IR£1.07 to 80 pence per gallon and we were never fully compensated for this either”, according to John Hanrahan, who is suing Maddens Milk, a wholly owned subsidiary of  Kerry Group,  for €1 million in damages.
The Milk Policy Division of the Department of Agriculture certainly were aware for a long time that Hanrahan had been wronged but yet nothing was done about it. Hanrahans livestock has continued to suffer from “herd health stigma” over the years due to the contamination, right up to a livestock auction in June 2005 which was a “total fiasco”.
The dispute is set to escalate in the weeks that follow as some of the Hanrahan heifers are set to calf and the Department having moved them to a non-dairy farm in Waterford is now stating that “the animals are in no fit state to provide milk to their calves and the mothers will be dried off once birth has occurred”. Hanrahan has seven days to appeal this decision.
In the past, culpability was firmly parked at the door of Merck by the highest court in the land, yet the Irish authorities responsible have never fully compensated the Hanrahans and so this family, who have farmed here since 1307  find themselves yet again struggling to function and thrive.
“I cannot afford to feed my animals because I have run out of credit, simple as that”, says Hanrahan. The Department have taken as many as 355 cattle to date to feed them. “We have initiated proceedings against both the Department of Agriculture and Kerry Group because we have been unjustly treated”, says John Hanrahan. “We have since been able to recover documents under Freedom of Information which proves that the authorities knew as far back as 1986 that they had positive findings for dioxins in our milk, and despite our vindication in the Supreme Court the Department and the food industry never compensated us for losses”.
What is happening now is hugely important, not least because the Hanrahan case historically had the potential to undermine if not derail that “no holds barred” style development, “jobs at any cost” culture, so characteristic of the shaping of the “celtic tiger”, but also because it highlights the real dangers of such developments, and  the true value of rigorous public debate and open access to freedom of information regarding these issues.
With a Strategic Infrastructure Bill due to come before the Dáil this year, designed to “fast track planning” for major capital projects, such as incinerators and roads, Hanrahans may yet again find themselves shaping the debate against such moves.
Meanwhile Merck will surely be watching this in the background, and possibly reeling at the sight of Hanrahan in the limelight again. But they have their own worries globally now. Having just shed 60 jobs for the first time since start up in 1976 at their Clonmel plant, there are plans to shed 7,000 jobs worldwide by 2008 as well as closing five of its 31 manufacturing plants worldwide.
To add to this their anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx was withdrawn last year after studies linked the treatment to heart problems. The company has set aside $970million for legal costs vowing to fight the 10,000 suits filed so far against them. They have won two and lost one to date. They will need more than Frank Dunlop, their former PR man batting for them in the days ahead.
Garrett Fitzgerald, when Taoiseach, took interest in the case and his autobiography notes that he found it “disturbing that the farmer won his case partly on grounds of facts... that directly and flatly contradicted what I had been told by the officials whom I had asked to examine the matter”. He was concerned “lest the officials concept of the public interest in relation to industrial promotion and the reputation of our farm exports clouded their judgement of the only real public interest – that of justice”.
The Strategic Infrastructure Bill may find a rougher passage through the Dáil because of a revived interest in the Hanrahan case. Affording a safe passage to environmentally questionable projects may seem less appealing, especially given the relatively toothless Environmental Protection Authority.