JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 2 Nov 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Arising from the decision at our meeting on 3 October 2005 it was decided to scrutinise further a number of proposals which have been referred to us for consideration by the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. This afternoon it is proposed to scrutinise COM (2005) 304, a proposal for a Council decision on Community strategic guidelines for rural development with a programming period of 2007 to 2013, and COM (2005) 396, a proposal for a Council decision concerning the provisional prohibition in Greece of the marketing of seeds of maize hybrids with the genetic modification MON 810. With regard to the first proposal, COM (2005) 304, I welcome Mr. Mick Cronin, principal officer, and Ms Deirdre Kavanagh, assistant principal officer, of the Department of Agriculture and Food, and Mr. Donal O'Mahony, senior inspector, of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, to the meeting.

Before asking Mr. Cronin to commence his opening statement, I remind the delegation that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Cronin to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Mick Cronin

The background to this proposal is the new rural development regulation, No. 1698/2005, that sets the framework for EU rural development support for the 2007 to 2013 period. The regulation sets out the main priorities — competitiveness, the environment and quality of life-diversification — and possible support measures in regard to each of these. It also emphasises a strategic approach to rural development comprising EU strategic guidelines and national strategy plans. These are to be the basis for national or regional programmes setting out actual support measures.

The strategic guidelines link rural development policy with the main EU priorities — sustainability according to Goteborg and growth and jobs according to the Lisbon Agenda. They set out the areas where support can provide the greatest added value. In addition, they provide consistency with other EU policies and complement the new Common Agricultural Policy. The individual guidelines reflect the composition of the regulation and provide, for example, that support under the competitiveness axis, which is an objective, should contribute to a strong and dynamic agrifood sector. Similarly support under the environment axis should contribute to biodiversity, high nature value farming and forestry, and climate change, and support under the quality of life-diversification axis should contribute to the creation of employment opportunities.

There are also particular guidelines relating to the Leader programme, consistency with EU level strategies and complementarity with EU support mechanisms such as the Regional Fund. The guidelines have been discussed at the Council working party and the special committee of agriculture. In general, the reaction has been favourable. There has, however, been confusion as to the demarcation between mandatory and permissive aspects. The UK Presidency has sought to clarify this in an interim text but there remain areas of doubt. In addition, there have been suggestions on individual guidelines. Many member states consider, for example, that job consolidation in addition to job creation merits mention in the context of the quality of life-diversification axis. The proposal is due to be discussed at this month's Agriculture Council. Its formal adoption will have to await the European Parliament's opinion.

At national level we will have to prepare a national strategy and programme or programmes. In doing so, account will have to be taken of both the EU regulation and the EU strategic guidelines. The process has commenced and, in the context of the necessary consultation, we sought expressions of interest from representative groups by means of press advertisement approximately ten days ago. Those organisations on the CAP rural development plan and Leader monitoring committees will automatically be consulted.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin. I shall now take queries from members.

Deputy Naughten

I thank Mr. Cronin and his colleagues for the presentation. We all accept that rural development will become a more strategic pillar in maintaining many rural communities. There is a certain amount of friction in that rural development appears to be moving to a divergent strand from agriculture. I know from speaking with the farming organisations that there is some concern in regard to that issue. In regard to diversification it is important to maintain rural communities and also try to maintain farm families. It is important to look at it in the context that there are two important strands.

Has any indication been given to the budget? It is fine to speak about guidelines but it is pointless if there is no budget to deliver it. Serious questions were raised on this matter during the UK Presidency and Mr. Cronin might elaborate on what is happening in that respect. He might also elaborate on the Department's plans for modulation funding. How does he envisage such funding will be allocated? Will it be allocated to purely rural development projects? A number of submissions were made to the Department that such funding should be invested in improving the quality of our produce. I would appreciate it if Mr. Cronin would elaborate on those two issues.

I wish to comment on the agrifood sector. Traditionally, much of our rural development was focused on the small end of the agrifood industry, which is important. While assistance is provided to help establish such companies and Leader groups and other organisations, including country enterprise boards, are involved in that process, once such companies develop beyond the ten employee threshold, many of them seem to be left to their own devices. Unless they are exporting at that time, they do not come under the wing of Enterprise Ireland.

Has the Department examined the possibility of developing the necessary structures to support such companies? There is not much point in making a major investment in the start-up of these companies if subsequently they will be virtually abandoned once they develop beyond a certain threshold. They are not sufficiently large to be competitive and survive in the current environment, yet they are too large for some of the agencies to support them. I raise this matter because we have approximately 320 small agrifood companies, yet in New Zealand there are more than 2,000 small agrifood companies. New Zealand seems to have been much more successful at developing and retaining such companies.

As Mr. Cronin said, some member states are exploring the issue of job consolidation as well as job creation. Job consolidation in agriculture will be a challenge in rural areas. Mr. Cronin might elaborate on the Irish position on that proposal from a number of member states. He might also elaborate on the mandatory and permissive aspect on which he touched in his presentation and give us some other examples of the stage at which such consideration is at present.

We must examine agri-industry from a tourism point of view. Much funding has been put in place but a difficulty in the past was that Leader groups were restricted in the type of resources and funding they could invest in tourism projects. Mr. Cronin might advise us what is happening in that respect. Will there be a loosening of the purse strings, so to speak, in terms of Leader groups participating in some agritourism projects?

Deputy Upton

I apologise for arriving a little late. I thank Mr. Cronin for his presentation and bringing us up to speed on this matter.

Regarding multi-functional agriculture — the new terminology we will use from now on — whereby we are moving from intensive agriculture, how does Mr. Cronin envisage that mutli-functional aspect of agriculture impinging generally on rural development and what impact will it have?

My second question relates to the issue of rural transport. Today is probably a good day to mention transport because of the recent deliberations on it, but it will take some time for the full transport system to be up and running, as indicated to us yesterday. At present there are major problems regarding rural transport and there will continue to be in the immediate future.

That brings me to my next point. It impinges on what we describe as food poverty where people living in isolated rural areas have poor access to local services and facilities, including often a good, affordable diet, simply because of where they are located. In terms of rural development, what value and importance would the Mr. Cronin place on this issue?

On food product development and cottage industries, historically we have been quite severe relative to other countries in the standards we have enforced on or demanded from cottage industries. I appreciate there are some new developments in legislation in that area, but many of these small food industries find it very difficult to survive. Does Mr. Cronin believe the Government is a little unfair to them by placing undue legislative burdens on them, as they would view it, relative to other European countries?

Chairman

I support Deputy Upton's point on the provision of rural services. There is a need to provide rural transport services, especially for the elderly and including for people who have retired from agriculture and handed over the reins to the younger generation in rural areas of County Meath. The flexibus service has been very useful but needs to be extended much more. Funding for this service in every county is the main problem with which we are confronted. As Deputy Upton said, it is grand to have trains, stations and free bus passes for the elderly, but some people in rural areas cannot get access to a bus or a station. It would be helpful if the flexibus service were extended to cater for those people to enable them to do their shopping and so on. That service is available in some areas, but it should be extended to all rural areas.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

Where will the rural development agenda interact and interconnect with the planning agenda? It has been my experience in County Kildare that where a farmer comes forward with an alternative farm enterprise or the use of the existing agricultural buildings for an alternative purpose, more likely than not the advice from the local authority will be that it is an unsuitable development for a rural area and that the farmer should go to the local large town and buy a suitably zoned site. There seems to be a breakdown between the desire we all have for genuine rural development and the limited view some planners have of what enterprise is appropriate in a rural area. Mr. Cronin might comment on that point.

Chairman

Mr. Cronin might reply to the points raised and if any of his colleagues wish to contribute, they are more than welcome to do so.

Mr. Cronin

I will deal with the questions in the order in which they were put beginning with Deputy Naughten's questions. On the budget, I am not an expert on financial issues. We all know what happened in Luxembourg in June and the suggestion by the President of the Commission to restart the deliberations. I agree with the Deputy that the finance we will be given will be all-important. The level of finance available depends on two elements, namely, the outcome of the discussions on the financial perspectives and what we get from the Exchequer. We will not be able to finalise our rural development programme until we know the finances that will be available. I hope when we finalise matters in June or July of next year we will be in a position to know this.

On the issue of modulation, the money that will be available next year is already earmarked for compensatory allowances. From 2007 onwards, the modulation money must be accounted for with other EU funds in this area such that it will be part and parcel of the overall funding for rural development. Deputy Naughten was right in his point on modulation in that there were many suggestions about quality schemes etc. Organisations will have the opportunity to make suggestions in the context of the rural development package. Modulation will lose its separate tag from 2007 onwards.

I noted Deputy Naughten's remarks on there being two strands in rural development. We are conscious of this. I am not saying that simply because my colleague from the Department is present but we and officials in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs have worked well together and are conscious that there are very much the two strands. In agriculture, the first axis in the regulation deals with competitiveness. The idea of a competitive agriculture sector is very much to the fore in the regulation.

As regards the agrifood sector, one of the possible support measures under the competitiveness pillar is that we could give support up to medium-sized enterprises. The large multinationals would be excluded but the medium-sized enterprises would be included. There is a menu of measures. It will depend on the outcome of our consultative process and the funding available as to which measures will come into force.

I will leave the issue of job consolidation and job creation to my colleague, Mr. Donal Coleman, because it relates more to the wider rural economy. Obviously, in the context of agriculture, we would see some of the measures being able to consolidate jobs in agriculture. I will also leave the issue of agri-industry to Mr. Coleman.

Deputy Upton inquired about multi-functional agriculture, its future and its impact. One of the reasons member states very much bought into the rural development regulation and the strategic guidelines is that they form a multi-functional approach. We talk about competitiveness, the environment and diversification. There is much under the environmental heading which is possible in the area of Natura 2000, biodiversity, etc. There are also possibilities of contributing to the water directive framework aims. It is broad in the sense of being a multi-functional approach.

I will leave the issue of rural transport to Mr. Coleman. I fully appreciate the point on poverty in isolated rural areas. We will have to ensure our rural development programme gels well with other things which will be going into the new national development plan, for example, that there are no gaps, that it fits in well and that these types of issues are addressed. Again, it is outside my remit but I hope the area of rural poverty will be addressed.

I agree health standards can be daunting for small cottage industries. I think from the rural development approach and the money we would provide under rural development that we would have to insist industries meet the relevant standards. I do not know whether they are the right standards for those industries but we would have to insist that whatever funding we would provide would be to industries which complied fully with the standards.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl asked about alternative enterprises and planning. I have taken note of his question. I know from the result from the advertisement we placed in the newspapers looking for people to express an interest in consultation that we have had many approaches from county development boards, local authorities and so on. It is something we could bear in mind. Again, when we support something, it must comply with the planning law.

Mr. Donal Coleman

As Mr. Cronin pointed out, there is a very good working relationship between the two Departments. I refer to the basket of measures mentioned, including rural transport needs and flexibility in that regard. The issue of isolated communities is extremely important to us and is a priority we have identified within our internal thinking. It is an issue which, to some extent, we have already pursued through the CLÁR programme for disadvantaged areas. Nonetheless, we believe the time is right to broaden it. Many of the issues and needs we have identified within that need to be broadened out into a pan-national situation.

Deputy Naughten asked about job consolidation and micro-enterprises. I understand exactly what he said in that regard. The regulation confines us to a specified or defined mirco-enterprise level. Notwithstanding the validity of the comment he made, it is not only a matter, as he rightly pointed out, of getting these businesses established in the next round. Rather than worrying too much about their size, we would be quite concerned that they would be viable, deep-rooted and genuine. This is from where we will be coming and, I suppose, from where we are coming on job consolidation. We are not only talking about indicators of employment, etc. but about real economic activity within those communities. We are fairly broad and robust in our thinking on that front.

As regards tourism and the Leader programme, as was pointed out, interventions by the Leader programme, by their nature were limited to local areas and clearly there is demarkation between the various tourism interests. Nonetheless, in the priorities and strategy identified, tourism, rural tourism and agritourism in particular are quite strong. Certainly after the consultation we would expect to come up with measures broader than this. An example of what we mean in tourism would be infrastructure around sensitive areas. We regard that as very much within the remit of this local initiative. We intend to broaden and deepen it and make it more meaningful.

Rural transport is an issue in which we are involved to some peripheral extent. I take on board the comments made. As members are probably aware, the Minister is also very conscious of those needs. Therefore, I think we will see them reflected. I will not go into any great detail about isolated communities and their access not only to nutrition but to every basic service. That is a core need of any rural community. The strategy allows that to be addressed within reason. Clearly, a number of State agencies are involved. It will be a matter of finding the natural interface between those areas. We certainly do not want overlap or duplication but they are within our area of interest.

Artisan foods were mentioned. We cannot say we can make life any easier in the way mentioned. Legislation is outside our remit but we can be conscious to ensure we provide an environment in which that type of industry and craft grows and that we support it vigorously in terms of infrastructure. Lastly, I echo Mr. Cronin's words about Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's comments on the appropriate planning of activities in rural areas. While planning is outside my remit, we would be very conscious of supporting appropriate local initiatives within an area and within the context of current legislation.

Deputy Upton

I was not really suggesting we should relax the legislation. I was making the point that it is always brought to our attention that cottage industries in Ireland seem to be at a disadvantage relative to our European counterparts. We constantly hear stories about how easy it is to do things in France and in other European countries in comparison with Ireland. I am not saying we should break the law but we should at least look to Europe to see if there is some way we can fall into line with it or if it can fall into line with us so that we are not disadvantaged in terms of our industries.

Senator Callanan

I was interested in the answers given. We would all like to see the CLÁR programme in our areas and as standard throughout the country. That is not possible at present but it might be in the future. Who is driving this programme in Europe?

I am looking at the present position, with Britain holding the EU Presidency. I am not convinced that the British Presidency is committed to the continuance of food production in Europe. Is the elevation of this programme a substitution for food production in Europe, including Ireland? That is a particular concern of mine. Having read part of the briefing note, one can see subtle changes in the use of the language for definitions and it rings the alarm bells with me. I hope Mr. Cronin will tell me I am wrong but I would need some convincing that I am wrong.

Europe is moving to a future where it will no longer have food-based production for its people, including those in this country. From the point of view of production, it affects us as an exporting country of agricultural produce in a big way. I see it having a serious impact.

Is rural development a substitute for farming activities, for example? Will commercial farming activity be allowed continue as it has been? Farmers, of whom I am one, would state that we are being straight-jacketed in what we can and ought not do. I am concerned about that aspect of it. I am also concerned about forestry development and the range of areas on which it will impact, but my main concern is whether the driving force behind this is a subtle move from agricultural production to rural environmental protection. What is happening to the REP scheme, for example? Will somebody tell us will there be changes and will it be made more difficult to participate in it? Will the REP scheme be discontinued?

Mr. Cronin

On the question of whether it is a substitute for food production, the answer is no. The proposal came from the Commission and it is not a child of the British Presidency. It is the second pillar of the CAP and rural development has been there for some time. It complements the move to the single farm payment and decoupling and is not in conflict with it.

As I stated, the first axis of the regulation deals with competitiveness and it contains, for example, possible measures on farm modernisation and capital investment in farms. It addresses competitiveness as well as the other multifunctional aspects of farming. Senator Callanan is correct that there are certainly environmental matters contained in it but this just acknowledges and supports the public good aspect of farming. I would not regard it as diminishing the food production aspect. Others in the Department are well aware of this and are defending it. It is regarded by the Commission as a complement rather than as a substitute.

REPS is designed to support farmers who go further than the mandatory standards that are already laid down for the single farm payment. Therefore, one will need to go further. I agree this involves an element of added value.

Senator Callanan

And difficulties.

Mr. Cronin

If one looks at REPS 3, we have already made the move of going further. We have become proactive on issues such as biodiversity rather than merely maintaining the status quo. I think we are prepared. As Senator Callanan probably knows, there is separate consultation taking place on REPS that will feed in to the overall rural development consultation and I think we can be reasonably confident.

Senator Callanan

I have no conflict with Mr. Cronin and the Department, but I remain to be convinced that we are not destabilising agriculture. Through the world trade talks and what is happening with the EU Presidency, we are on the route to destabilising agriculture. Agriculture will not be the same again.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin and his colleagues for attending and responding to a variety of questions from the members here today. This concludes our scrutiny of COM (2005) 304. The clerk to the committee will prepare a draft report on our discussions today for the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On the second EU legislative proposal, COM (2005) 396, I welcome Mr. Jarlath Coleman, principal officer, Mr. John Downey, assistant principal officer, and Dr. Barry O'Reilly, agricultural inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Food. I also welcome Mr. Ronnie Devlin, assistant principal officer at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dr. Patrick O'Mahony of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and Dr. Tom McLoughlin of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I draw the attention of the delegation to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Coleman to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Jarlath Coleman

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today to discuss the European Commission proposal. This proposal is for a Council decision concerning the provisional prohibition in Greece of the marketing of seeds of maize hybrids with the genetic modification MON 810 inscribed in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, pursuant to Directive 2002/53/EC.

I am accompanied by Dr. Tom McLoughlin from the EPA, Dr. Pat O'Mahony from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Mr. John Downey, assistant principal officer in the Department of Agriculture and Food and Dr. Barry O'Reilly, an agricultural inspector. My colleagues from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the EPA have been invited here today to deal with environmental or health queries of the committee on the GM seed variety MON 810 which is the subject of this proposal.

Ireland's position on GMOs was officially set out in the report of the interdepartmental group on modern biotechnology, which was published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in October 2000. This report recommended that, "Ireland's general stance at EU level and at international fora should be positive but precautionary". This position was based on the undoubted potential that biotechnology offers in the fields of medicine, health, agriculture and other areas while, at the same time, recognising that caution must be exercised to ensure food safety and the environment are protected.

Coupled with this position is the comprehensive GM legislation, which has been adopted by the European Parliament and Council in the past four years under the co-decision procedure. This new legislation, which is binding on all member states, governs the assessment and approval procedures for GM crops, food and feed and ensures that the highest standards are in place to protect the citizens of the Community from a food safety and environmental safety aspect. New legislation on labelling and traceability for all GM food and feed, which came into force last year, ensures consumers can continue to have choice and full confidence in the food supply chain. The establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, in 2002 has provided further safeguards in that it provides the citizens of the European Union with an independent scientific body with responsibility for the assessment, advice and communication of any risk associated with GMs and all matters relating to food safety.

While GM legislation is binding in all member states, subsidiarity is permitted in regard to coexistence between GM crops and non-GM crops. Applications to cultivate or market a GM product within the European Union are evaluated under strict authorisation procedures backed up by legislation and the independent scientific expertise of EFSA. Each application submitted is evaluated on a case by case basis. If an application for first time cultivation of a GM crop within the European Union is made in Ireland then the evaluation is dealt with by the EPA and the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government under the detailed authorisation procedures, involving all member states and the EFSA. Likewise, applications for approval to market foods containing GM product are dealt with under an equally strict set of procedures operated in Ireland by the FSAI and the Department of Health and Children.

The Department of Agriculture and Food is the competent authority in Ireland for GM legislation relating to seeds, the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops and animal feed. When the Department is assessing a GM application that comes within its remit its initial approach is to establish there are no health or environmental concerns relating to the proposal. Once that has been confirmed by the relevant authorities. the Department takes a decision on the proposal in line with the recommended Irish position. I have outlined the above by way of general background and context.

I refer specifically to the proposal before the committee. In simple terms the proposal refers to the Commission seeking the authority of the Council to stop the Greek authorities from prohibiting the cultivation of GM crops containing the approved GM MON 810 in their country. The proposal had initially been considered at the standing committee on seeds and plant propagating material where a qualified majority for or against the proposal was not achieved. The proposal was then submitted to Council and was on the agenda for last weeks Council of Agriculture Ministers, where again a qualified majority for or against the proposal was not achieved. Ireland abstained at the meeting and the proposal reverts back to the Commission for a decision.

I propose to give the committee background information specific to the proposal and explain the basis for the decision taken by Council. There is within the EU seed sector a mechanism whereby seeds of all agricultural plants intended for marketing within the Union must be listed on the common catalogue of approved plant varieties as provided for in EU Directive 2002/53/EC. The common catalogue compiles seed varieties which have fulfilled certain criteria in stability, distinctiveness, usefulness as well as environment and health safety. The catalogue comprises approximately 30,000 plant varieties. Seed of varieties listed in the common catalogue can be cultivated and marketed throughout the entire Union.

In September 2004 the first GM varieties were added to the common catalogue. A total of 17 varieties of maize which were modified with MON 810. The specific genetic modification relates to resistance to certain lepidopteran insect pests such as the larvae of the European corn borer. The impact of adding the GM varieties to the common catalogue was that, for the first time, certain GM crops could be cultivated anywhere within the European Union. Heretofore, these varieties could only be cultivated and marketed in Spain and France because they had been included in the national catalogues of those countries a number of years earlier. Under Article 18 of the aforementioned EU Directive 2002/53/EC, a derogation is provided in that a member state may, upon application to the Commission, prohibit the marketing of the seed or propagating material of a GM variety included in the EU common catalogue if it is established that its cultivation could be harmful from a plant health aspect or present a risk to the environment or human health.

In April 2005, the Greek authorities notified the Commission that they had introduced a national ban, for the growing seasons of 2005 and 2006, prohibiting the cultivation of these GM MON 810 maize varieties in their country in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC. While the Greek authorities originally cited scientific reasons for the introduction of the ban they subsequently stated at the standing committee meeting that the absence of coexistence measures in their country and the economic effect cultivation of GM crops would have on their rural areas as the main reasons they were imposing the ban.

The Commission responded by stating that: genetically modified varieties are only accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue after a full assessment has been carried out to determine any potential risks for human health and the environment of genetically modified organisms; EU legislation determines that, other than in cases where EU approved derogations are granted, all varieties listed in the common catalogue are permitted to be cultivated within the European Union, subject to whatever coexistence measures may be in place locally; Greece did not supply information supporting its ban which could have been referred to EFSA for a risk assessment as regards human health or the environment of these genetically modified varieties; and, following a request from the Commission for clarification on the possible effects of the marketing of the above mentioned seeds on the rural environment, the Greek authorities replied that the adverse effects caused to the rural environment by the seeds of those 17 genetically modified varieties are of an economic nature and do not concern the environment in general or human health. The Greek response also accepted that MON 810 has been assessed as safe for the environment and human health. Consequently, the Commission took the view that the specific provisions of Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC were not applicable in this case and an authorisation for a prohibition should not be granted.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, when determining her position on this proposal, established that the seed variety GM maize MON 810 had been assessed as being safe from an environment and health point of view and had been approved for cultivation within the European Union. This position was confirmed by the Departments of Health and Children and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Having satisfied herself on these issues, the Minister then considered the proposal in the context of the coexistence of GM crops alongside non-GM crops.

While the EU legislation on GMOs is binding on all member states, subsidiarity is permitted in the context of coexistence between GM crops and non-GM crops. Member states are allowed to draw up their own coexistence rules on the basis of Commission guidelines. Coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to choose between conventional, organic and GM crop production, in compliance with the relevant legislation on labelling rules for GM food and feed and/or purity standards. According to the Commission, none of these different types of agriculture should be excluded in the European Union. However the possibility of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops cannot be dismissed, and can result in economic implications for the farmers whose crops are affected. Consequently, suitable measures during cultivation, harvest, transport, storage, and processing are necessary to ensure proper co-existence. Creating conditions for coexistence means to make it possible for conventional and organic farmers to keep the adventitious presence of GMOs in their crops below the labelling thresholds established in Community law, while ensuring farmers who want to grow authorised GM crops have a reasonable opportunity to do so. It should also be noted that coexistence is not about environmental or health risks. Such risks are addressed by Community legislation, mainly by Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, and by Regulation No.1829/2003 on GM food and feed. According to the procedure laid down in Community legislation, the authorisation to release GMOs into the environment is subject to a comprehensive health and environmental risk assessment. Since only GM crops that have been found safe for the environment and for human health in the authorisation procedure can be cultivated in the European Union, coexistence does not concern environmental or health risks. Dr. McLoughlin and Dr. O'Mahony will answer any specific questions the committee may have on environmental and health issues related to GM MON 810.

The main issues to be addressed in the context of coexistence are the potential economic impact of the admixture of GM and non-GM crops, the identification and implementation of workable management measures to minimise admixture and arrangements for dealing with situations where adventitious contamination with GM crops might take place.

In 2004 the Minister for Agriculture and Food established an interdepartmental group, which comprised of representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Teagasc and the EPA, to examine these issues and draw up rules for coexistence arrangements in Ireland. The group has recently submitted its report and recommendations to the Minister. The Minister will publish the report shortly and will invite observations on the recommendations in the report.

In drawing up the recommendations in the report the interdepartmental group took on board the full range of factors surrounding the GM issue: the principles laid down in the Commission guidelines on GM coexistence; government policy on GMOs; scientific issues; new developments in GM technology; the Irish crop production system and farm infrastructure; and liability. The group recommended that a combination of mandatory and voluntary measures were best to meet the objective of implementing coexistence, that mandatory measures be given legal status and that the voluntary measures would be specified in a code of good farming practice. My colleague, Dr. Barry O'Reilly who was a member of the group, as were Mr. John Downey and Dr. Tom McLoughlin, can provide further details on the specific mandatory and voluntary measures recommended by the working group.

The recommendations also include the establishment of a fund to compensate for economic loss as a result of GM cultivation should this be necessary. It is recommended that this fund would initially be established by the State on a cost recovery basis and be administered by an independent body. It is also recommended that additional research, particularly in relation to GM oilseed rape, be undertaken. In adopting her position at last week's Agriculture Council meeting on this proposal which is the subject of scrutiny today, the Minister was satisfied that there were no safety implications in this case, either from a human health or environment viewpoint. However, she considered it appropriate that GM cultivation should take place in a manner that is guided by agreed coexistence measures in each member state. Given that Greece did not have coexistence measures in place, it was considered that its position in relation to non-approval of the product was not unjustified in the circumstances and for this reason, Ireland believed it would be reasonable to avoid forcing the issue at this time.

I hope I have outlined for the committee the general GMO context in which this proposal was considered; the specific details of the proposal and the rationale behind the position taken by the Minister at last week's Council meeting.

Deputy Naughten

I thank Mr. Coleman for his comprehensive presentation on GM crops and the situation in Greece. Has Ireland sought to prohibit the distribution of any particular seed? I am aware the Greeks have arranged it by not having coexistence arrangements in place. Has Ireland sought a similar agreement from the Council of Ministers and the Commission in respect of the importation and use of any other seed?

Proper guidelines for coexistence and the deliberate release of GM crops is a burning issue in many parts of the country. Ireland has approved the use of GM crops and deliberate release while the report on coexistence measures will only be published in the next few weeks. This is putting the cart before the horse; the protective measures will be put in place after the deliberate release has been permitted.

I ask Dr. O'Reilly to comment on voluntary measures. Small indigenous food companies and also the agricultural community must comply with a large number of rules and regulations on a daily basis. Some statutory measures will be applied to the deliberate release of GM crops but voluntary measures have also to be considered. The issue of GM crops has created much public concern. If the Department is of the view that these measures should be put in place, why are they not being put in place on a mandatory basis instead of on a voluntary basis?

Will the delegation enlighten the committee on the current status of GM oilseed rape and GM sugar beet, the crops which are receiving much attention? Members of this committee have received a great deal of correspondence on this issue.

The GM issue needs to be treated with great care. I am aware that Ireland has not objected to the policy of deliberate release of GM crops or else has abstained from voting on many occasions when this matter has been raised at the Council of Ministers. What will happen when Monsanto and its colleagues in this industry control all the commercial seed used within the European Union? They have been facilitated by us and many other countries by means of the banning of farm-saved seed. This ensures they have a stranglehold on arable producers throughout the European Union and can dictate the price of seed. What are the implications for agriculture when a small number of multinational companies will dictate the price of seed, the farmer's margin and what price the customer will pay for the final product. This is a key issue that needs to be debated.

I ask Dr. McLoughlin to comment on the issue of jumping genes which are jumping all over the European Union and all over this country and this is the reason there are issues about coexistence. I understand scientific research on this issue has been published recently in Nature and this states that the jumping genes should not be a matter for concern because the probability is minuscule with more chance of a gene jumping from some other ordinary crop than there is from a GM crop. I ask Dr. McLoughlin to elaborate on this research.

Deputy Upton

I thank Mr. Coleman and his colleagues for the presentation. My first question relates to the origins of the demand for GM crops and GM food and from where the push for this demand is coming. We would have started out with fairly high-minded ideals that these crops would help feed the starving millions and protect the foods of the world, etc.If we are to be realistic, those who stand to gain most from this are the multinational companies which will control the process, the seeds and the product. Ultimately, they could in theory have control of a significant proportion of the world's food supply, depending on their particular ambition or targets. We must examine carefully the actual demand.

In regard to this particular issue, it appears lepidoptera is the problem because this GM crop will be resistant. Are there alternatives in terms of the management of the crop and the elimination or controlling of lepidoptera in terms of crop spoilage? We must balance the economic consequences of not having in place a GM crop versus the consequences of dealing with the lepidoptera. In so far as current research goes, it is acknowledged that there are no health issues and there are no clearly identifiable risks. I am certainly not aware of any health issue.

However, the public would have a completely different perception and would be concerned about the matter. There may be a perception factor which has not been dealt with. There is an education and information gap that needs to be filled. I do not think this justifies our progress along the GM route because we need to have good environmental reasons and good crop production reasons for it. It is a very new technology. While it is probably 20 or 25 years old, our traditional methods of crop production are thousands of years old and have served us well. Why is there a rush in regard to the development of GM foods?

There are strong marketing arguments to be made in favour of Ireland having a policy that does not favour the production of GM crops. That would extend to animal feed. We are conscious of promoting our clean green image. We want to be environmentally friendly and we want to have quality and safe products. If we can say to consumers, as a marketing tool, that we have a product that is GM free, including the animal feed, and therefore the animals that are grown on that feed are GM free, it could be a very important marketing tool.

It is an interesting observation in regard to the labelling thresholds that any risk of cross-contamination should be at a level whereby the adventitious presence of GMOs and their crops are to be kept below the labelling thresholds established in Community law. The significance of this appears to mean that there is a risk of contamination but that it is below the threshold of detection. There are issues from a consumer point of view because, regardless of what the scientists say in regard to safety, environmental friendliness and so on, consumers do not want a crop that is in any way contaminated with any level of genetically modified products. I accept the scientific analysis to date. There have not been any issues around that, but there is a perception. Consumers would not be too happy with the term "below the labelling threshold". I realise that threshold is at a very low level, but consumers want GM-free products.

My final question goes back to the point I raised at the beginning, which is who stands to gain and what is the economic need for this? As I read it, the large multinationals will control the production of the seed, which is an important factor for the future development of food programmes.

Senator Callanan

I welcome the delegation and I am pleased the debate is taking place. The Chairman and members will be conscious that I have been raising issues of this nature for a considerable time. I am equally pleased that my two colleagues, Deputies Upton and Naughten, have decided to take a more than keen interest in the issue.

Deputy Upton

We have always taken a keen interest in the matter.

Senator Callanan

I am pleased about that. I am not a scientist; I am a farmer who produces food. I object to GM seeds. No one has yet convinced me that it is safe or that my land, my neighbour's land or the land of Ireland, which may be used for growing GM crops, will not become corrupted ten, 20 or 30 years down the road. We can talk about it from a food safety and personal health point of view. I beg to differ with science because science has been known to be wrong.

Monsanto, a chemical producer, was referred to. It has taken virtual monopoly control of seed production in the United States. It is spreading into Europe and other parts of the world. It talks about cheaper food for the poorer people of the world. I do not believe one word of this. The bottom line for that company is to make a profit. It has a near monopoly in this regard. It is the company that introduced the terminator gene for the purpose of profit. It did not do so for the advantage of food production or consumers but for profit for the company. Hence, I challenge, without any scientific knowledge, the use of GM food and food produced from GMOs.

The question of food safety has been set out in great detail. I would like to hear about land and soil safety. Can anyone present honestly tell me that soils used for growing GM crops will be safe into the future. I recall DDT. Do I need to mention other products? This is where I am coming from. Science has not always been proved correct. I question with sincerity this aspect. As Deputy Upton said, as an island nation we have a wonderful opportunity to remain green, clean and free. If GM crops corrupt the soil, one will not be able to get rid of them. There is no product known to mankind or science that will remove it from the soil if it pollutes the land.

I take this matter seriously, as do the farmers and consumers of Ireland. The populations of Europe may yet regret that this type of production was ever allowed to take place. I consider the example in the Irish Farmers Journal last week. I was unhappy that tremendous promotion was given to a certain article by a certain gentleman who sat here a few months ago and who was sponsored by Monsanto to involve himself in crop production. Naturally he would sell the Monsanto product, but why does it have to be sponsored if it is that good? I do not expect people to recognise what I am talking about. Beet seed is now being pushed on us. We are told that there may be advantages for making additional profit if we go down that road. I may be wrong in this regard, but I will take a lot of convincing.

Mr. J. Coleman

I thank members for their questions. Deputy Naughten asked whether Ireland had sought to prohibit the distribution of GM seed here. As stated, legislation relating to deliberate release and food and feed, which is binding on all member states, has been introduced in recent years. The issues of coexistence and the growing of crops are left to individual member states to decide on a subsidiarity approach. This is based on Commission guidelines published in 2003. Member states were given two years to draw up a method for implementing coexistence. The report produced by the working group sets out recommendations on how to move forward on the issue. My colleague, Dr. O'Reilly, will comment on the voluntary and mandatory measures about which the Deputy inquired.

To grow a crop, it must first be on the common catalogue of varieties. This GM maize, GM MON 810, which is the first and only one on the common catalogue, was introduced in September 2004. It was developed for its resistance to the corn borer, which is not a problem in this country. It would be of no economic value in Ireland. No grower would plant it here. In any event, we have no application. No GM seed has been imported. When we have the coexistence measures in place, procedures will need to be followed.

I will now ask Dr. O'Reilly to comment on the measures after which I will respond to the other questions.

Dr. Barry O’Reilly

I have been a member of the working group on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. I would like to give a short résumé of the working group's main proposals and recommendations. In developing its overall strategy for national best practice for coexistence, the working group identified and evaluated all the relevant issues. Many broad-ranging factors needed to be considered. The working group examined the agricultural crops of relevance to Ireland for which there is a potential for GM varieties of these crops to become commercially available and be authorised for cultivation in the European Union in the short to medium term. The crops examined were cereals, beet, maize, potato and oilseed rape.

The working group has made a series of comprehensive recommendations on the most appropriate crop management measures necessary to minimise the admixture of GM crops in non-GM crops of these species and to be within minimum tolerance thresholds should GM crops be grown alongside or adjacent to non-GM crops. The crop management measures are science-based and take into consideration the characteristics of the crop and particularly the reproductive characteristics of the crop. They also take into consideration the production systems currently practised in Ireland. They are primarily derived from scientific publications specific to individual crops and also the existing knowledge base we have built up here during the years in preserving purity in seed crops in the multiplication of seed under the seed certification scheme.

The implementation of crop management measures is central to achieving coexistence. No implementation policy is recommended by the European Union. However, following an analysis of all the issues, the working group recommended that a combined voluntary and mandatory approach for coexistence measures best meets the objectives and requirements for coexistence. Such an arrangement requires that crop management measures be underpinned by a series of procedural requirements, and the provision and exchange of information among all parties involved. Mandatory measures are also required to be given legal status.

The working group has recommended that if a farmer wants to grow a GM crop here, it will be a mandatory requirement for the grower to obtain approval from the Department of Agriculture and Food prior to cultivation. An application, supplying all the necessary information regarding the location of the crop, the specific trait, type of crop, etc., will need to be lodged with the Department of Agriculture and Food 60 days prior to the planned date of sowing.

A fundamental requirement for coexistence is the development of training and education courses for all those involved. It is recommended that it be a mandatory requirement for growers of GM crops to attend such a training course on coexistence specific to the particular crop the grower wishes to cultivate. It will also be a mandatory requirement to maintain minimum separation distances between GM crops and non-GM crops of the same species. In the event that a GM crop grower needs part of his or her neighbour's land to satisfy the appropriate separation distance set down for that crop, that GM crop grower will need to get signed written agreement with his or her neighbour before cultivation can commence.

I will address the separation distance required for oilseed rape. Oilseed rape presents more of a challenge for coexistence than cereals, potatoes and maize. There is a divergence of research data in scientific literature with respect to pollen flow from oilseed rape. Isolation distances have not been set down for oilseed rape until further research data, preferably that gathered in an Irish context, becomes available. The working group has recommended that work be carried out on this matter. Much research is being carried out across the EU on pollen flow from oilseed rape. The information, which is constantly evolving, will provide the basis for a more informed decision on the most appropriate separation distances between conventional or organic oilseed rape and GM oilseed rape.

Record-keeping on all aspects of the crops grown will also be a mandatory requirement for the growers of GM crops for a minimum period of five years. Growers will also be required to adhere to a code of good farming practice regarding other crop management measures with respect to minimum time intervals between GM crops and non-GM crops, the control of volunteers and the control of related wild species.

An important mechanism of admixture from GM crops to non-GM crops is mechanical dispersal of seed. To prevent mechanical dispersal of seed, growers will be required to adhere to a code of good farming practice regarding the thorough cleaning of machinery and equipment and also for the secure transport and storage of GM material. GM crop growers should also notify the contiguous neighbours in writing of their intention to sow a GM crop.

The proper functioning of coexistence will also depend on the Department of Agriculture and Food carrying out a number of key functions: compliance inspections where non-compliance with mandatory measures should incur sanctions; the establishment of data management systems to effectively manage coexistence; monitoring coexistence measures to verify their effectiveness; and periodic review. The Department of Agriculture and Food will also be required to keep a register of all those approved for GM crop cultivation detailing the location and type of crop. It will make this information available to the public via a dedicated website.

If a non-GM crop grower suffers an economic loss as a result of admixture of GM in his or her crop, the questions arise as to who is responsible and who will pay. It is the view of the working group that a non-GM crop grower who suffers a verifiable and quantifiable economic loss should be compensated. The working group has examined a number of options on how best to address this issue and has made a series of recommendations on the most effective means of dealing with economic loss, including specific arrangements for a compensation fund.

Mr. J. Coleman

Deputy Naughten asked a number of other questions. The broader question he raised relates to the future position with regard to multinational companies. I will address that issue and a question raised by Deputy Upton after Dr. McLoughlin comments on the issue of jumping genes.

Dr. Tom McLoughlin

The Environmental Protection Agency is the competent authority for implementing the contained use regulations pertaining to GMOs, which refers to containment in laboratories and major multinational companies such as Wyeth Biopharma in Grangecastle, a company using GMOs to produce medicines. The agency currently has more than 200 users on its GMO register, which is available at EPA headquarters in Wexford. While there is little public concern regarding the use of GMOs in contained use facilities, greater concern has arisen regarding deliberate release into the environment, particularly as regards use of GMOs in the food chain.

I was asked what are the alternatives to, say, GM MON 810, which is tolerant to a specific pest, the European corn borer. This pest is not found in Irish soils but is found in other European countries, including France and Spain, where GM MON 810 has been grown since 1998 following its approval for use by the European Union. I attended several meetings recently at which the Spanish authorities and scientists from France and Spain provided updates on the issue. They noted that the gene originally came from a naturally occurring soil bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis. For more than 50 years this gene has been used throughout the world as a biological agent to control plant pests. In the early 1980s, scientists were able to take the gene from the soil bacterium and insert it in the maize plant which can now be made tolerant to pests. This process is an alternative to using the biological agent itself. The other alternative method employed by farmers for many years has been the use of chemicals. The Spanish and French scientists claim farmers in their countries like this technology because it controls not only the European corn borer but also the introduction of a fungus, fusarium, into the roots of the corn plants. This fusarium produces micro-toxins which can be highly dangerous to human health.

The directive on deliberate release into the environment envisages two-step releases. For Part B releases, of which we had a number several years ago with Monsanto's GM sugar beet trials, the EPA is the competent authority. These experiments were small-scale field trials completed in 2000. The EPA carried out numerous site inspections and audits on them and nothing untoward was found. Sugar beets grow on cultivated land and do not grow at the edge of lakes, on top of mountains and so forth. Many plants in Ireland, for example, rhododendrons, are species which have been introduced from elsewhere. A non-GM plant, the gunnera plant, also known as wild rhubarb, was introduced to my part of west Mayo a few years ago and farmers in the west have difficulty controlling it.

For the first time, the legislation on GMOs includes provisions for post-market monitoring of plants, which must be carried out by the notifiers and audited by the competent authorities, in our case the EPA. These measures are known as case specific monitoring and general surveillance. It is unlikely GM MON 810 will ever be used here because Ireland does not have the relevant pest in our soil and, as such, farmers have no reason to use it. It is possible, however, that GM oilseed rape will be used here as a crop to produce oil. A GM variety of rape, approved for use at European Union level, is available and can produce 25% more seed and oil than conventional oilseed rape. With biodiesels a major topic of discussion, GM oilseed rape could become a crop for the future. If this transpires, legislation requires that its use must be audited and checked over time to ensure that it does not take over an ecosystem or affect biodiversity.

On the question of gene hopping, this issue must be examined on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the GM MON 810 crop was planted here, the risk to the environment would be vanishingly low because we do not have any related species of corn either here or in the rest of Europe. While it could potentially be transferred to other maize crops, maize is only as a forage crop here rather than to seed. The risk of gene hopping would, therefore, be extremely low.

With regard to oilseed rape, however, many related wheat species are grown. As a result, the gene conferring, for example, tolerance to fungicide could confer tolerance to the wheat. There are seven or eight different related wheat species — first cousins — of oilseed rape, although it could be argued that if this occurred, it would only confer advantage to the wheat in question if it was being sprayed with a specific herbicide, as has happened in Canada, albeit at a low level. As regulators, we must be vigilant to ensure nothing untoward happens to the environment over time. This is the reason the legislation foresees the use of post-market monitoring plans.

As a scientist with 20 years experience working in research and development in a similar area — replacing chemicals in agriculture — I could argue that, over time, the use of chemicals in agriculture and the change from hay making to silage making affected biodiversity. I refer, for example, to the case of the corn crake. A significant number of rules and regulations are in place for GM technology.

Scientists in Teagasc and elsewhere have developed a potato which is tolerant of late potato blight fungus. This development could have significant economic implications, given that planting such a crop here would eliminate the need for farmers to spray. This could be beneficial to the environment and to human health.

GM technologies must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The legislation, rules, regulations and competent authorities are in place. My colleague from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland will provide further detail.

Dr. Patrick O’Mahony

Deputy Naughten asked about jumping genes, an interesting use of terminology given that all our genes contain a little piece of DNA called the transposon which jumps as cells replicate. I believe the Deputy was alluding to the fact that, as Dr. McLoughlin stated, genes can transfer from a target, for example, a maize, to a wild related species. Another perceived problem is the possibility of antibiotic resistance transferring from a GM product such as maize to the bacteria of the human gut, thus conferring resistance on the bacteria. While this is a theoretical possibility, it has never been observed and probably never will be because everything would have to go right.

Mr. J. Coleman

I thank Dr. O'Mahony. On Deputy Upton's question regarding the origin of the demand for genetically modified crops and food, we require approximately 3.5 million tonnes of animal feed per year. We do not produce all our own feed and, therefore, import approximately 2.5 million tonnes of it. There is a demand for this feed. The pressures on farming, its competitive nature and the need to maximise profits are factors in the utilisation of any new technology, including that relating to genetic modification. In the United States, the growth in the production of maize, soybean and canola has been considerable in the past ten years. We have maize in Ireland also. The only country producing genetically modified crops in Europe is Spain. Perhaps my colleagues will take me up on that point.

An issue arises concerning the freedom to farm. Labelling legislation introduced in recent years is in place to ensure food made from genetically modified crops is labelled as such, thus giving the consumer a choice.

On the growing of genetically modified crops, the issue of coexistence arises. As Dr. O'Reilly indicated, there will be very stringent conditions laid down regarding cropping distances and other matters. It may occur that coexistence will not be allowed in certain circumstances.

I will ask Mr. Downey to contribute on the issue of labelling thresholds. He is in charge of the co-ordination of GM policy in the Department and deals with all the other Departments regarding this matter to ensure we have a cohesive approach.

Mr. John Downey

In the past five or six years the legislation on genetically modified crops has been significantly strengthened. While people have concerns about genetically modified food, the legislative position in Europe is one of the strongest in the world in terms of administration regarding GM technology and activity. When the EU regulation on genetically modified foods and feed came into operation in April 2004, it strengthened the existing labelling requirements concerning genetically modified foods and, for the first time, forced importers of animal feed to label it in such a way that people would know whether it contained genetically modified ingredients. In the preceding period, some of the animal feed being imported into many European countries, including Ireland, contained genetically modified ingredients. The new labelling requirements are such that farmers will know whether imported feed contains such material. Each individual ingredient within the feed compound must be labelled accordingly if more than 0.9% thereof is genetically modified.

This creates its own problems in that many are asking whether they can obtain feed free of genetically modified ingredients. There is an atmosphere for the development of a market for such feed because genetically modified feed must be labelled as such. Under the coexistence rules, we must ensure that 0.9% of any admixture of any crop is not genetically modified. The legislation will evolve but the imposition of the labelling requirements pertaining to genetically modified feed is significant, as are the requirements concerning the exposure of genetically modified feed entering the country.

Mr. J. Coleman

On Deputy Upton's question on alternatives to the use of the gene that is resistant to Lepidoptera, the corn borer, in maize, it is obvious that pesticides would have to be used. Perhaps Dr. O'Reilly will be able to comment further on this.

Dr. O’Reilly

The European corn borer is quite a difficult pest to control. It produces a couple of generations each year, feeds entirely on the plant and, therefore, requires a lot of pesticide to control it. The use of less pesticide obviously has beneficial effects on the environment. On the question of the Monsanto varieties, the European corn borer is not an issue with which we have to contend and is, therefore, unlikely to be of interest to Irish farmers.

Mr. J. Coleman

I will address Senator Callanan's comments on the total objection to genetically modified seeds. The legislation is in place and the Council of Ministers and European Parliament have adopted quite a suite of legislation in recent years to address public concerns and ensure the food and environment are safe. As I indicated, we do not really have much choice in that the only area in which we have subsidiarity, whereby we can decide to draw up our own rules, is in the growing of crops in this country. This is where the coexistence measures come into play.

A question was asked by the Deputy on land and soil safety, to which Dr. McLoughlin referred.

Dr. McLoughlin

Over 200 million acres of genetically modified crops were planted worldwide last year, mainly in North America. In Canada, for example, most of the oilseed rape is of a genetically modified variety and in the United States probably 70% of it is such. We can, therefore, glean much information from those jurisdictions, in addition to Australia and South America.

The risks are low. As I said, however, the regulatory authorities must be vigilant at all times to ensure that nothing untoward happens. It is clear that there is no such thing as zero risk. Certainly, the relevant legislation is in place. The post-market monitoring plans are also in place to ensure that the environment is protected. The risks associated with genetic modification technology are much lower than those associated with the use of chemicals. DDT was mentioned in this regard. Most scientists throughout the world would be in agreement with this although there are people who disagree with them.

Ultimately, the Environmental Protection Agency is not for or against the technology. It is a question of giving the farmer or consumer a choice through labelling. If they do not want to buy a genetically modified product and want to buy an organic product or one produced by conventional means, it is their right to do so. This right is important.

Mr. J. Coleman

The wider issue of genetically modified products and the control of seed on the part of multinationals has been debated at length in many fora, including the European Commission and the Council. There is control over seeds in respect of many plants. For example, Irish Potato Marketing receives royalties for the Rooster variety. Most varieties of cereals are protected and only those who pay the royalties can use them. There is nothing new in this area. It could be a concern if one became totally dependent on one variety which might be resistant to glyphosate or the corn borer. That issue needs to be addressed.

Genetic modification has advantages for food supply in third countries because crops can be developed to grow in arid conditions or in difficult soils. My colleague, Dr. O'Reilly, who has some expertise in this area might comment.

Dr. O’Reilly

The crops available for marketing and cultivation in the European Union are not relevant to Irish growers. Future GM crop development has the potential to offer more options for the development of agronomic trades to the farmer and consumer, with crops better suited to growing under Irish conditions. For example herbicide tolerant sugar beet, blight resistant potato, and septoria resistant wheat. Teagasc did some preliminary work on this and showed that these traits offer an economic benefit. Future GM crop technology has the potential to offer benefits to consumers in the production of more nutritional and hypoallergenic crops.

GM crops have the potential to increase food supply in third countries too, for example, crops that are drought tolerant, withstand extremes of heat or are insect resistant would improve the crop yields and quality in those areas.

Mr. J. Coleman

I think we have answered most of the questions.

Chairman

We will ask some short supplementary questions.

Deputy Naughten

The idea behind GM crops is to feed the world. Supposedly these crops will do wonderful things for the Third World. If that is so, why are the drugs developed in the First World not made available to countries such as South Africa to treat AIDS and other diseases? The reality is that Monsanto and other companies are not in this business to feed the Third World. They want to control the licences and make money. As long as they retain control they are not interested in feeding the Third World. That should not be used as an argument for GM crops.

Can Dr. O'Reilly say when we will see genetically engineered food products that actually benefit the consumer? We have not seen these yet and few of the multinational companies show any commercial interest in these foods. The interest seems to be purely economic.

I was told recently that unless someone can guarantee there is no GM ingredient in a food product it cannot be labelled GM free. Most food products here are GM free but that label can only be used if every stage of the process can be certified.

The 0.9% threshold seems very high to define a GM feed product. Will Mr. Downey elaborate on that and the threshold in respect of consumer food products?

Under the recommendations to the Government and the Minister, we are introducing a State-sponsored insurance scheme for any farmer who decides to take on a GM crop. If there is cross-pollination with a conventional crop the State will pay for it. Should the State be carrying the can in this instance? The Germans have taken the very strong view that the landowner and farmer, not the State, should take the ultimate responsibility in respect of liability.

Deputy Upton

It is important to acknowledge the positive aspects of biotechnology in respect of the great strides in health and medicine. One can easily identify the advantages to the individual of genetically engineered insulin or some such product. It is more difficult to identify the positive aspects of genetically engineered crops. However, we should keep fully abreast of the technology and scientific developments and it would be wrong not to include them in our broad research programmes.

I am curious about the 0.9% threshold. At what level can detection be assured? Is it lower that 0.9% or is it possible only at that level? Is there a risk of missing it if one goes below that level?

If genetically monitored and organic crops are grown side by side what level of monitoring will be carried out to detect whether some of the genetically modified seed has contaminated the neighbouring crop? Who will decide what kind of sampling plan is used? It is a technical question but I do not need absolute figures, only the broad approach to that plan.

There are pests which have developed a resistance to pesticides and herbicides etc., as bugs have to antibiotics. Is there a danger that down the line enterprising pests will be able to overcome the technology of the genetically modified crop rendering the crop sensitive to that pest?

Mr. Coleman referred to the control and licensing of seeds in regard to Rooster potatoes but the potential is more profound for a small number of multinationals to have international control for a vast number of seeds. As roosters are a relatively small part of potato production in Ireland, that is not a fair comparison. There is a risk of much more global control should the multinationals take that route. We do not need to be reminded of the risk of famine as regards potato crops and absolute dependence on one outlet. That issue should be addressed globally as well as locally.

Senator Callanan

I thank the delegation for its forthrightness and honesty, even though I cannot agree with the members' views. The document itself, read to us by the delegation, clearly suggests doubt.

Nature has its own way of cross-pollination. We do not need a new system. Regarding co-existence, pollination can be airborne, carried by birds or bees. It is impossible to determine a line where one can say one can coexist. It is defying logic to say otherwise. Pollination can result from seeds being carried by birds or bees, animals or insects. It can be airborne. One does not know the distance travelled. Coexistence, therefore, is a non-issue and cannot be supported. It could of course be supported in law. That would provide a field day for the solicitors and courts. They will have a wonderful time, God bless them.

What is our current certified seed purity? Is it 92%? We are talking of any certified seed we buy, wheat, oats or barley. I remember buying such seed at 96% purity, but we graded it down in this country to reach EU levels. The standard went down rather than up. Regardless of inspections, sterile brome persists. I am sure the delegation knows what I am talking about. One can kill off wild oats from year to year but one cannot wipe out the sterile brome. Where is it coming from? I had it in my barley seed last year at a level of 18%. Luckily we copped it in the first bag. Some 30 years ago, I brought in sterile brome in wild oats as a result of buying PureLine seed from a high-quality producer. It is still in my land.

Who gives me guarantees? What good are the bloody guarantees? Let us face reality. There are no absolute guarantees. Science gave us BSE?

Dr. McLoughlin made a good attempt at answering the question but as he said, the chances of keeping crops pure are small. In effect he is saying that to remain safe, I should not go out on the road any more. That is the situation we have reached. Why go down the road when there is an indeterminable risk? Nobody can answer the real questions. I genuinely thank Dr. O'Reilly for his great forthrightness. He was clear and concise.

Mr. J. Coleman

One of the first points raised by Deputy Naughten related to food products genetically engineered for the benefit of the consumer. Dr. O'Mahony may respond.

Dr. O’Mahony

Senator Callanan expressed doubt that GM foods were quite safe. They are not. No food or beverage is totally safe and anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or inaccurate. Even water has a risk involved. GM food is no different from any other food in that it is not absolutely safe. Nothing is.

The clothes we are wearing today probably contain GM cotton. As Deputy Upton noted, any diabetic here today is using GM insulin. Any cheese eaten is probably GM cheese because some 90% of the rennet used in Ireland, and in most countries, is GM rennet. There are substances like riboflavin in many of our foods today which are GM. In our surveys over the past few years we have detected GM soil and GM maize, in low doses and so far in authorised versions, in a range of foods. GM is, therefore, with us, and as far as we can detect has been with us for a number of years.

Deputy Upton made the interesting point that organic food is a virtual category in respect of food law because it is the product of a farming practice. In other words, organic food is treated by the Food Safety Authority as food, and in that respect is allowed by us to have 0.9% GM. That would not be allowed by the organic dealers. Therefore, whenever we find it in an organic product we notify them, and they immediately remove the product from the shelves. That is something of an anomaly.

The 0.9% GM threshold is completely non-scientific. The threshold previously was 1%. It did not apply to feed at that time, but if one had a food with more than 1% of GM, soya for example, it had to be so labelled. During the negotiations for the most recent legislation, a bartering process ensued, and the threshold went from 1% to 0.9%. Even the 1% level had no scientific credibility. It was not because more than 1% was dangerous, or less than 1% was less dangerous. Nothing but barter was involved.

Deputy Upton asked about the detection limit. A PCR or polymerase chain reaction is the method most used. The generally agreed limit of detection with that process is 0.1% but that would depend on the food matrix, how the integrity of the DNA is maintained during the processing and preparation. It can vary, but that 0.1% is a very low level.

Deputy Naughten mentioned GM-free food. I have been following this issue for the past few years. We noticed a lot of GM-free labels appearing on foods. At first glance one would say these foods were kosher GM-free products. However, a small bottle of food supplement appeared which was colloidal silver. It was 99% water and 1% silver, or perhaps 0.1% silver. There was no biological matter at all in it, yet it was labelled "non-GM".

In our survey last year we checked to see what labels one could stand by. The industry has clearly realised there is something of a furore regarding GM, so it attaches non-GM labels. There is a very strict piece of labelling legislation which states one cannot assign a characteristic to a food which all other foods have. For example, one could not label a product as "GM-free milk" because all milk is GM-free. As yet there are no GM cows. If one puts a GM-free label on a product, there must be an equivalent GM product. That is what the law states.

We differ from the United Kingdom, and are similar to the other EU states, in wanting no GM material in a food which has a GM-free label. The United Kingdom is anxious to have a limit, perhaps 0.5%, below which one can attach a GM-free or GM label. We are looking at the matter from the consumer's point of view. If a product is labelled non-GM or GM-free, the average consumer will presume it contains no GM material. There might be a case to be made for another viewpoint but that is how we look at it.

Mr. J. Coleman

Will Mr. Downey comment on the insurance scheme?

Mr. Downey

This too came from the working group. The German case was mentioned. In the proposals the Germans put forward, all liability would rest with the GM farmer, irrespective of how compliant he or she would have been with any rules or regulations set down. There is a requirement in the guidelines to be proportionate, meaning that the rules should not be directed in favour of anyone, in particular. The parties were compliant with whatever regulations were set down, both the GM farmer and the non-GM farmer. Despite all that compliance, adventitious contamination occurred, and an economic loss was suffered by the non-GM farmer, who would obviously be entitled to some sort of compensation. To avoid the situation about which Senator Callanan spoke, getting the entire legal system involved, there was general agreement in principle that the economic loss should be returned to the non-GM farmer as quickly as possible. Even where liability may have fallen on the GM farmer, it might still be prudent to get the economic loss issue divided up quickly. The alternative would be for the non-GM farmer to go through the courts system to secure redress if it had been identified that the GM farmer was at fault.

The problem regarding how one might pay that money was to establish and prime a fund. We examined various options, the obvious one being to say that the biotechnology companies and the GM farmers should fund it. However, the level of activity in the area would be so low initially that there would not be any fund to speak of. A recommendation was put forward that perhaps some sort of State contribution on a cost-recovery basis could act as the initial primer of that fund. There would be general confidence if the limits on everything were set at such a level that use of the fund would be very low. The guidelines are meant to minimise or eliminate the possibility of adventitious contamination. In the context of securing redress for the non-GM farmer without his or her having to resort to a court case, an independent fund was identified as the best way, with an initial priming source. With the other options, it was not thought that money would come in any great volume, and so the recommendation was that there should be some State involvement.

Mr. J. Coleman

Perhaps I might add to that. This is a set of recommendations, and the Minister will be publishing the report shortly, on which submissions will be sought. Ultimately, decisions will be taken in the light of all the issues being examined.

Another question on this was the level of monitoring of cross-contamination in a case of coexistence, a matter raised by Deputy Upton. Perhaps Dr. O'Reilly might comment on this.

Dr. O’Reilly

This is a very important point, and one of the key principles set out in the Commission recommendation of July 2003 was that all coexistence measures be monitored to verify their effectiveness. The working group has recommended that, during initial cultivation of GM crops, intensive monitoring take place. A programme is set out for monitoring in the report, based on compliance inspections and crop sampling and analysis. Resulting from information coming from that monitoring, the coexistence measures may need to be updated or reviewed, if necessary. It is envisaged that there will be very intensive monitoring of coexistence measures during the initial cultivation of GM crops.

Mr. J. Coleman

On a question raised by Senator Callanan about the document and the doubt in the report, it is a statement of the current situation — the legislation in place, how we are going about implementing EU law, and our plans for coexistence. It is a mandatory requirement under EU legislation. Nothing can be guaranteed, and what we have regarding GM is risk analysis. Perhaps on that point I might ask one of my colleagues to comment. What are the risks? Senator Callanan mentioned BSE and asked who gave it to us, but we know that it came from animal protein. One could not really compare GM with that. Perhaps Dr. O'Mahony might comment.

Dr. O’Mahony

To be honest, Senator Callanan is right. Scientists are often wrong, but the negatives are few and far between. One can pick out BSE and several other things. When a decision comes down from Brussels on a new GM, they do not say that it is absolutely safe but as safe as its non-GM counterpart. They take as many scientific data as they can on the non-GM version and compare it with the GM one. They conduct toxicity and allergenicity studies and feeding trials with animals. They do everything humanly possible and say that, as far as they are concerned, it is as safe as its non-GM counterpart. That is not to say that, somewhere down the road, something will not appear. However, we are now ten years down the road, and in most cases nothing has happened.

Having said that, there are other GM plants at a research and development stage, and in some cases they are being grown and sold in America. They are putting in more ingredients than currently — vaccines, medicines and chemical polymers. They are using plants as factories. From a food perspective, that is something of a worry for us, since it is all right to have contamination, which is now known as admixture, since the other traits are relatively inert. However, it is different when it comes to one of us eating food that contains a vaccine, medicine or chemical polymer, something that may happen in future. We are forever being told that it will not happen, since they will be kept separate; we will have to wait and see. All that we can do on the scientific side of things is say that it is as safe as what we have in non-GM.

Mr. J. Coleman

We have attempted to answer most of the questions asked. If not, perhaps the Deputies and Senator Callanan might contact us.

Senator Callanan

The delegates forgot about——

Chairman

Please, Senator.

On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr.Coleman and his colleagues for attending and responding to the questions raised by the members. This concludes our scrutiny of COM (2005) 396. The clerk to the committee will prepare a draft report on our discussions for the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will now suspend for a few moments to allow the delegation to leave and the next group of delegates to enter.

Sitting suspended at 5.07 p.m and resumed at 5.10 p.m.