Trevor Sargent
Question:313 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the extent to which soya or maize ingredients in food sold in Ireland are sourced from genetically altered plants; and the proportion in this regard. [9179/98]
Written Answers. - Food Safety.
My Department has no information on the extent to which food sold in Ireland is sourced from ingredients derived from genetically modified soya or maize. The relevant regulations covering novel foods and food ingredients are the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children.
Trevor Sargent
Question:314 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his attention has been drawn to the two recent decisions of the World Trade Organisation forcing the EU to admit US beef containing growth hormones. [9180/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:315 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when the first beef containing growth hormones will hit Irish supermarket shelves. [9181/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:316 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the financial penalties, if any, which the EU and this country will suffer if they persist in banning growth hormone beef. [9182/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 314 to 316, inclusive, together.
I am aware of the ongoing proceedings, within the WTO, between the European Union and the United States and Canada, arising from the former's long standing general ban on administration of hormones to farm animals. A WTO panel finding against the EU ban emerged in August 1997, which was appealed by the Union. The WTO appellate body, which adjudicated on this appeal, issued its findings in January 1998.
The report of the panel was amended substantially by the appellate body. It contains a range of important and complex rulings affecting both the hormone issue itself and also certain aspects of WTO disciplines generally. On the central issue, the EU has formally sought a reasonable period of time to comply with its obligations in this matter. During this period of time, it would be the intention that the Union would conduct a risk assessment, taking account of the findings of the appellate body, in this regard, with a view to justifying the continuation of the hormone ban. Since the Union has been unable to reach agreement with the US and Canada, the period of time will be fixed by an arbitrator, as provided for in WTO rules.
It must be borne in mind that these proceedings are limited to imported beef originating in Third Countries and so there is no potential implication for domestically produced beef. The existing EU ban on import of hormone-produced beef remains in place and will continue at least for the period of the completion of the risk assessment. The EU Commission's current view is that such a risk assessment would require in the region of two years to complete and could well form the basis for a continuation of the ban. From an Irish perspective, consumers can be assured that our policy of rigorous enforcement of legislation in this area, will continue.
As regards potential penalties, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism provides that if the appellate body findings are not implemented within the period designated, there is access to temporary measures such as compensation and the suspension of concessions or obligations under agreements covered by the WTO. Compensation is voluntary and is negotiated between the parties, if requested by the complainant. In the absence of agreement between the parties on compensation, the parties could then request authorisation from the dispute settlement body to suspend concessions or other obligations to the EU.