Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 2007

EU GMO Approval System: Discussion with Irish Grain and Feed Association.

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Ms Deirdre Webb, Mr. Ronan Hughes, Mr. Seamus Power and Dr. Pat Shiels from the Irish Grain and Feed Association. The purpose of the meeting today is to brief members on EU approval of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, and the effects on Ireland.

I want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members 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.

Ms Deirdre Webb

The Irish Grain and Feed Association, IFGA, is the representative body of the grain and feed industry in Ireland. Our members utilise 1.3 million tonnes of the Irish cereal crop, we import 2 million tonnes of feed ingredients and we manufacture 3.5 million tonnes of compound feed. Farmers spend approximately €1 billion a year on compound feed and that represent 35% of their total input costs. Feed is still the major input cost in Irish agriculture.

We are very grateful for the invitation to appear before the committee and we would like to avail of this opportunity to highlight two very important issues that are coming down the track very fact, first, the serious deficiencies in the current EU approach to the approval of genetically modified cereals and protein crops and, second, the consequences of these deficiencies for the competitiveness of Irish farming and food production.

Ireland is more reliant on imports of compound feed ingredients than any other country in the EU. More than 50% of our feed ingredients are imported. By comparison, less than 40% of ingredients are imported in the UK. In mainland Europe, France and Germany import less than 30% of their ingredients. The problem for Ireland is that these imports are sourced almost exclusively in countries that are experiencing significant increases in the planting of GM crops. Therefore, any shortcomings in the EU system of approving GM varieties have a much greater impact on the Irish feed industry than on our neighbours.

Worldwide there are now more than 250 million acres of GM crops grown. Between 2005 and 2006, the year-on-year increase in acreage was more than 30 million acres. In the four major exporting nations, the USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina, GM varieties now account for 90% of the soya crop and 60% of the maize and rape crops. As this trend continues, Ireland must rely to an ever-increasing extent on GM varieties in order to meet its feed ingredient needs.

It can take between two and a half and ten years for the EU to approve a GM variety. In fact, the standing committee in the EU has never approved a GM variety, it has always gone through by default and the Commission had to sign the varieties off. If one compares GM approval rates in Ireland with Japan — and consumer reports show Japan as even more GM phobic than Ireland — the approval of a new variety in Japan can take less than one year. Both approval systems adhere to the same robust internationally agreed standards which are aimed at ensuring consumer safety while at the same time protecting free trade and international competitiveness. The ever-increasing disconnect between the global growth in GM crops and the tardiness of the EU approval system is now causing serious damage to the Irish livestock industry. Unless corrective action is taken, long term damage will be done to the Irish livestock industry, to farm incomes and to our food exports.

All GM materials approved for use in the EU are rigorously and independently assessed by the GMO panel of the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. The delays in approval are not just caused by EFSA but by the refusal of the political and administrative systems in the member states to accept scientific opinion coming from EFSA. Since June, this now includes Ireland. As well as creating problems for the supply of essential feed ingredients, this also has a detrimental effect on the consumer, as we are sending conflicting messages to them and, therefore, further confusing them about GM technology.

Feed materials are what we call bulk traded commodities. The zero tolerance policy for non-approved EU GM varieties within our legislation creates serious problems for the trade. This means in effect that no trace of an unapproved EU variety can be found in our imported consignments. With the massive increase in GM varieties, this operates as a virtual trade block. The delay in EU approvals exacerbates this problem. The problem is now reaching crisis proportions. Imports of essential GM feed ingredients will slow down or halt if the situation is not improved. The new generation of soya going on commercial release to farmers will give them between a 7% to 11% yield advantage. At today's soya prices, this is a differential of over $28 per acre when compared with conventional soya. At the present rate of approvals, we will not be ready for this switch to Roundup Ready 2. Soya imports will halt, Irish livestock production will be displaced by third-country imports fed on these same GM materials. Ireland must take a lead in ensuring that approvals of GM varieties are based on scientific facts.

The Government was a willing signatory to the Lisbon Agenda. This committed us to the protection and improvement of the competitiveness of all our industries. Current practices within the EU approval system for GM crops are not in harmony with the Lisbon Agenda. The Irish Grain and Feed Association would welcome the support of this committee in confronting what is now a major problem for Irish farming and food production. I have brought with me Dr. Pat Shiels from the mill and two of the importers. I urge committee members to address the issue of how they are trying to deal with pricing and providing nutritional rations for the future.

I thank Ms Webb for her presentation.

I welcome the delegation today and with millers and importers present I believe we will get a balanced presentation on the adverse impact this problem has on Irish agriculture. There has been a tendency to paint this as an issue that has just affected pig and poultry producers, but it also has significance for the dairy and the livestock sector. It has an impact on how people will remain in business, both at the farm gate and for those involved in the grain and feed industry.

Does Ms Webb have any information about the additional cost added to Irish agriculture arising from the Herculex debacle earlier this year? There will be knock-on job losses beyond the farm gate if those industries close down, because they may well bring down many jobs involved in milling and the importing sector as well. What is the quantifiable cost of the failure to get our hands on the Herculex variety of maize earlier?

This has caused additional urgency. My information is that the Department's official attending an EU meeting tomorrow has been instructed to abstain on the process to approve a new GM variety that is currently being harvested in Argentina. I also have information that there are large quantities of this in storage in Spain waiting to enter into the European Union. It is very alarming if we are again to sit on the fence. We damaged our credibility in the decision-making process significantly following the Herculex debacle. Having lined everybody up behind us, we then fell out and everybody fell out in the approval mechanism for Herculex.

We are quite enthused by the outcome of the Bali global warming debate. We were asked by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to read the science and go with it on the consequences of doing nothing about global warming, and of the need to take remedial action. Likewise, we should take notice of the science in this issue. We invest a lot of money in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. At a European level, our taxpayers have funded the European Food Safety Authority. We are very fortunate that this body is currently headed up by Dr. Patrick Wall, who previously headed up the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. In the US, there is huge consumer credibility invested in the FDA, not just because of dollar investment in that authority, but because of its long track record of putting consumer interests to the fore. If we are to learn lessons, we need to improve significantly the approval mechanism in the EU. Regrettably, our gripe is not with the European Food Safety Authority because the scientists working there are well ahead of the posse in the administrative and political decision-making process.

Will the delegation comment on the consequences of that further abstention? How will it impact on the capacity of the Irish Grain and Feed Association to forward-buy products? I also read that Professor Burke from Teagasc said that within ten years, there would not be a GM alternative available. This is completely at variance with what is coming from certain political quarters in the Department. That feeds in with the information given by Ms Webb about the acceleration of acreage globally under GM crops.

There is no issue more significant than this at present. It is about the future of Irish agriculture in every aspect, including dairy, beef production, sheep, pig meat and poultry. For every day we delay in our approval mechanism an additional cost is added to these enterprises.

I welcome the submission made by Ms Webb. It is based on a rational approach to this problem. The issue of GM foods and the importation of grain and feedstuffs should be based on a rational, scientific approach. The Irish position has fallen victim to the French position within the EU Council on this issue. At the meeting taking place today or tomorrow, it appears that the French position at the Council of Ministers will be vital to this. I wonder to what extent the Irish position has hitched its wagon to the French caravan. If the scientific evidence clearly put forward by the standing committee is one which allows for GA21 to be imported, I do not see why it should not be brought forward. I do not see why Ireland should not take a common-sense approach.

The question is whether this committee has any competence in influencing the Minister's position. If that is not the case then perhaps we are talking here in a vacuum. The Minister needs to take a very clear approach, one way or the other. I would advocate that the Minister propose that this would be imported, but also that the timeframe under which the standing committee operates be shortened. It is not affecting the competitiveness of Irish agriculture, but it is affecting EU terms of trade on a global basis. The Japanese can do it within a 12-month timeframe and the FDA in the US can also do it much quicker than here. We need to catch up with the science on this, but the politics also needs to be addressed. The nub of the matter is whether the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take a strong position, endorse the position the IGFA is advocating and, ultimately, whether she will move to benefit Irish agriculture.

I welcome the representatives of the IGFA. I am not certain that the scientific analyses can work either way in view of the motivation behind them. While the IGFA presentation supports one side of the argument, other organisations may come before the committee with other scientific analysis that would rebut or challenge the position taken.

I come from a farming background. Like every rural Deputy I have serious concerns for Irish farming, in particular with regard to the soaring costs of feedstuffs for cattle, pigs and so forth. That being the case, extra pressure is put on opening up the GM aspect in this country. My key concerns on the production and growing of GM produce relate to the companies behind it, such as Monsanto. I am concerned they are attempting to take over the world food market and have a vested interest in holding people to ransom.

Given where I come from, I fully appreciate the soaring costs in the agriculture sector, where farmers are trying to make a living or just survive. The margin of profit is so small that many are going under.

The committee will correspond with groups of different persuasions which will make their arguments. I will not lie to the representatives of the IGFA and tell them I will support them, because that would not be the right thing to do until I have heard both sides of the argument. I have principled concerns in this regard. The IGFA has made a strong argument, to which I have listened. I will listen to the other side before I make up my mind. I have a very jaundiced view of the way scientific analysis can be used to substantiate an argument one way or the other.

I thank the IGFA for the presentation, which was very well delivered.

I welcome the IGFA delegation and thank it for its presentation. Coming from a farming background, I know this issue is causing serious problems, particularly for pig and poultry producers. We are all aware that those two industries are on their knees. Were it not for the grain producers and compounders, many pig and poultry producers would be gone to the wall, so I thank them in that regard.

I am not fully up to speed on this issue so I can not yet come down on one side or the other. Like Deputy Ferris, I am prepared to listen to the arguments. The most immediate point is that it is a life or death issue for many producers, which is the bottom line. If I were to be put to the test, I would have to come down on the side of the compounders and the people trying to import grain. We have gone as far as we can go. I have spoken to the Minister, who is aware of this issue. From the perspective of those I represent, I will be putting all the pressure I can on the Minister to go a step further in this regard.

I welcome the IGFA deputation to this worthwhile meeting. The future of Irish farming production is in the balance — let nobody cod themselves — but certain elements in Europe are trying to further their own private enterprises. Irish farming producers would be wiped off the map if we were to continue down the path of not allowing GM products into the country. It is clear such products are being imported into Europe at an alarming rate, which jeopardises Irish farming.

Ireland is more reliant on imports of compound feed ingredients than any other country in the EU. We do have not enough land to grow enough grain and we are not far enough south to grow maize in the required manner. The time has come to realise that if there is to be a future for our farming industry, it will be because of the application of common sense, which must prevail. If it does not, we will see the decimation of the Irish farming industry.

Over 50% of feed ingredients are imported into Ireland whereas 40% are imported into the United Kingdom and just 30% into France and Germany. Therein lies the kernel of the problem. France, Germany and Great Britain do not see fit to allow this import of GM maize into Europe and our producers are being squeezed out of production.

We face an alarming situation. The fishing industry has collapsed. Will we witness a similar collapse of farming because Brussels bureaucrats have failed to understand what is needed to keep the farming industry going in Ireland? How can Irish pig and poultry and beef producers keep going when their counterparts in Europe are allowed to produce finished products at a comparatively cheaper rate than Irish farmers because of the lack of GM imports?

Some tolerance should be allowed to Ireland by Europe. We are one of the smallest nations in Europe and are not blessed with a large acreage of feed-growing land. If our producers are to be treated so that they vanish in the next decade, the sooner we throw in the towel, the better. We must concentrate our efforts to get the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to market clear in Europe the point that the farming community cannot survive unless it is put on a level playing field with European producers. I fully support the IGFA delegation but believe we should go further. We should be unanimous in asking the Minister to simplify matters to the best of her ability in Europe.

I wish the Minister the best of luck at the meeting tomorrow. The joint committee should back her unanimously in her efforts to get this matter dealt with satisfactorily once and for all.

I was a butcher in my former life and used 200 tonnes of rations per annum. From my perspective, Ireland imports meat and food produce that has been fed on genetically modified organisms. Neither the Government nor consumers appear to have a problem in this regard. All those who feed livestock, be they beef, pig or poultry producers are trying to compete on the European market with the imports. However, there is no equivalence in this regard, which is needed because everyone should be on a level playing pitch. I am familiar with the issue from my experience of trying to feed beef and make money from it. I was lucky to have found a different job because it was not paying.

I refer to the point made by Deputy Sheahan. The illusion that no GM food is on sale in Europe must be shattered. The market has accepted such food regardless of whether it is aware it has done so. I do not believe it matters. Were a counter measure in the form of an initiative or policy to promote the alternative in place, the EU's current position of sitting on the fence would be more acceptable, but no such policies exist at present. No initiative of any standard is being taken. I attended a conference in Belfield a couple of weeks ago at which a grain farmer who farms extensively here but who also farms in Argentina stated that he can sow a genetically modified crop that will give him an increase in yield of up to 27%. As it only requires two pesticides a year and minimal cultivation, he saves on fuel and consequently on carbon emissions. However, he is not allowed to grow the crop on the 2,000 acres that he farms in Ireland. He cannot compete. His product in Argentina can reach Europe more cheaply than he can produce it in Ireland at the millers' doorstep.

The international patent laws must be examined. Probably this would be seen as a measure that would put to the test the degree to which the major companies are genuine in this regard. The international patent laws should be reviewed because of the genuine fear expressed by Deputy Ferris regarding the entire regime of ownership of food plants, cross-contamination in the wind or whatever. This issue must be addressed and the other extreme has been highlighted over the years.

With regard to the European Food Safety Authority, while I may be wrong, the focus appears to be on two to three additional varieties of crop per year. It should be relatively easy to go with the science and the individual European states that appear to be holding up matters should agree to that. Such states should go with the science, as we are always being told we should, once it is seen to be impartial. This is the bottom line. In respect of protein crops, I still am a beef producer who is on the wrong end of a feed bill from suppliers and I have seen a dramatic increase in price this year of 150%.

The authorities must concentrate on the two or three new products that appear annually. We must keep pace with the United States and other countries because otherwise we will be placed at a complete disadvantage. This has already happened this year when all the Herculex crop was bought up before it was approved here. This is the reason that pig producers in particular, as well, presumably, as poultry producers, were vocal on the subject earlier in the year than the other producers, whose needs are only seasonal. This issue should be considered in the context of two or three varieties a year, as well as of the patent laws.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their continued work and their efforts to sustain the vital pig industry in particular, which is under severe pressure. I cannot understand the reason genetically modified organisms can be imported in food forms but cannot be imported in feedstuffs. I raised this issue with the Minister a number of times and intend to raise it again this evening at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting, possibly with the support of my colleagues because this issue must be put to bed once and for all. At this stage, weeks rather than months are vital and this subject has my full support.

I apologise for my late attendance. I missed the presentation because I was attending a function in Kilkenny and have just arrived in Leinster House. As a producer I have found that grain costs are increasing and the cost of food to fatten my animals now is unbelievable. Profit margins are diminishing every year and the price one is paid at the factory does not reflect the cost of the raw materials used to feed one's animals to bring them to that stage. I sympathise with the IGFA. Its members incur costs when importing grain, on which Ireland depends as we must import 50% of our needs.

A happy medium in this regard is required. Having missed the presentation, I am trying to catch up by listening and reading the submission. However, it is clear there is foot-dragging at European level. I have raised this matter with the Minister several times. It is known that grain and feed cannot be sourced unless genetically modified food, cereal or protein crops are made available. This is the only way to access them. It is time to take our heads from the sand, admit this fact and accept we will take such crops.

I understand that non-EU approved GM foods must be tested. One cannot simply open up the market and leave it open to everyone to come in and throw in every kind of stuff. Doing so would be bad for the overall finished product as one must set and apply standards. However, the waiting time for EU approval of GM foods is two and a half to four years, while other countries can carry it out within a year or 18 months. Consequently, there is something wrong with our system at EU level. Members must get across this message. In addition, members must get across the message to Irish officials and to the Minister that this cannot continue. While I accept the principle of EU approval of GM food products, it must be fast-tracked. Millers in Ireland must think two years ahead to source grain and imports and improvements must be made in this regard. I will do my best to urge the Minister to bring to EU level the message that something should be done. In particular, I refer to the issue whereby EFSA-approved products cannot gain approval at political level, which must be addressed.

Ms Webb or any other witness who wishes to respond is more than welcome to so do.

Ms Deirdre Webb

If I had as many questions as this at my next feed committee meeting, I would quit. I thank members for their support. I will ask the mill representative to address the question of cost because members have focused on the costs for the sectors. Perhaps the importer representative will focus in particular on the costs associated with the loss of maize. While I will comment on the maize variety GA21, it is not within our remit to comment on international property law or patent law although I realise it is an issue. If Deputy Ferris wishes, we will comment briefly on the EFSA.

Dr. Pat Shiels

On the issue of costs, one of the first questions was whether the impact is limited to the pig and poultry sectors and it is not. Of the 3.5 million tonnes of feed produced in the country, approximately 2.3 million tonnes are used by the cattle sector. The dairy and beef sectors use approximately 1 million and 1.3 million tonnes, respectively. In terms of cost, the year-on-year cost increase to the farming sector this year is approximately €150 million to €160 million. Of that increase approximately €60 million is directly due to the Herculex issue. Mr. Ronan Hughes may provide more detail in this regard. At farm level, it works out that every cow that produces milk consumes approximately one tonne of feed. That has increased to €65 or €70 per tonne, maybe a little more. Every beef animal sent out of the country gets probably three quarters of a tonne of feed. That includes the summer and winter season. The average cost for the beef producer is probably about €55 per tonne. The amount can be €50, €55 or €60, depending on where one is.

That is the sort of cost for this season in an industry that probably, at best, broke even last year. From our point of view, which is that of somebody in the middle of the chain, basically costs are passed on so ultimately, it is the farming community that is paying for this. Even at this point, we are somewhat protected. Contracts exist for maize distillers and maize gluten that were in place before the Herculex issue arose. They are about to run out. The stocks and contracts will run out. We cannot secure forward contracts. We are looking at alternatives. For those types of products, we are looking at cereals. We must import cereals because we are an active cereal deficit area. We must import more cereals.

That is creating a demand for protein. We must import more protein and more soya. At present, it is a matter of increasing prices. In 2009, if soya is not available, it is not a question of increasing prices, rather, it is a question of unavailability of feed, particularly for the pig and poultry sectors and the ruminant sector who cannot do without soya bean meal. We are dealing with issues with maize derivatives that can be replaced to some extent at a cost. However, in 2009, when the soya bean issue comes up, it will not be about replacement but unavailability. That is when the major problems will come up. Farmers will contact their mill looking for a pig ration to do a job and the miller will tell them that he or she cannot give it to them because there are no other protein sources. That is a doomsday scenario but with the way things look at the moment, it could well happen. I am saying this based on a cost perspective and on what is coming down the tracks. Mr. Hughes might have more information about the specifics of Herculex for this season.

Mr. Ronan Hughes

I do not want to repeat some of what Dr. Shiels has said. We are in a very enviable situation within the EU. We are high-quality producers of agri-food products. This is borne out by the fact that we export produce worth €8 billion. As Deputy Sheehan pointed out, we do not have enough land to be self-sufficient so we are reliant on our imports of cereals and proteins.

Traditionally, we import around 800,000 tonnes of corn by-products to support the production of our compound feed. The €60 million alluded to by Dr. Shiels is borne out by the fact that this is being replaced by a combination of cereals at a premium of about €40 to €50 per tonne and by soya or other non-grain feed ingredients at premiums ranging between €100 and €150 per tonne. The loss of those 800,000 tonnes is where we have calculated the €60 million cost.

Deputy Creed mentioned forward buying. The compounders we supply forward buy quite a bit. I suppose they are using that to maximise the benefit of their buying. We are now looking at a situation where in 2009, soya could disappear. A total of 35 million tonnes of soya are imported into the EU. Our compounders are on to us to buy soya contracts forward. That is a huge issue in both Ireland and Europe. Next year, we will see bigger pain for farmers. Compounders would have bought considerably better 12 or 18 months ago than they do today because prices have increased dramatically.

Does Mr. Power wish to comment?

Mr. Seamus Power

I will follow up on some points mentioned by Mr. Hughes. I wish to highlight the tardiness in approving the Herculex issue. The dossier on this was first presented to the EU in January 2005. It was approved by EFSA in April 2007 and was not passed until October 2007. That is how long it has taken to deal with that particular issue.

As Mr. Hughes already mentioned, part of the ability of compounders and importers is to maximise the opportunities in terms of the right time to buy the raw material. In many cases, that means buying goods a year or more forward. Right through the first half of last year, we were completely unable to procure the maize by-product. This is 800,000 tonnes of raw material that was previously bought a year in advance at very good levels. Hence we were able to provide a saving to the farmer in terms of the compound feed we produced. We were denied that in the first half of last year. By the time it was approved in October, there was so little material left that all we had were the dregs of the previous year's crop to take in.

Ms Webb has alluded to the soya bean situation. The soya bean we are currently importing is approved by the EU. We are now going into the second phase of GM events, namely, Roundup Ready 2. If it takes as long to approve that as it has taken to approve Herculex, what Dr. Shiels and others have said about soya bean meal not being available if it is not approved by 2009 will happen. This is a huge loss. It is an impossible situation to work with.

I will now take supplementary questions.

Can I ask the importers to deal with the issue of contamination and how that compromises them in dealing with their suppliers? I am sure this is an additional cost. It raises the issue of whether their suppliers want to get involved in the business, given the dangers it poses.

Mr. Seamus Power

Our suppliers do not want to get involved. Prior to last year, we had a situation where the producers in the US tried to keep the GM events that were unapproved in Europe out of the system and supply us with product from approved sources. It became very difficult to do this and a zero tolerance approach was applied. It became so difficult and expensive for them to do it that this year, they decided not to channel the goods. They have found export markets all over the world and have no interest in coming to Europe. The risks for them were so great because of the zero tolerance approach that they were not prepared to take these risks and send some of the material to Europe. They were able to send it to Turkey, Tunisia and all the north African countries at no disadvantage, so why take it to Europe and run the risk that it would be either destroyed or sent back because of the zero tolerance approach?

It is clearly evident that the final paragraph of Ms Webb's presentation is the most important one before us. It states:

Ireland must take a lead position in ensuring that approvals of GM varieties are based on scientific facts. The Government was a willing signatory to the Lisbon Agenda, which committed the EU to the protection and improvement of competitiveness of industry across the community. Current practices in the EU approval system for GM crops are not in harmony with the Lisbon Agenda.

The Lisbon Agenda was vehemently supported by this country and I can see no reason why our Minister cannot go cap in hand back to Europe and say "Look here, you have let us down". Europe has let us down in this respect. The Minister should keep that in mind and nail her colours to the mast as far as getting the EU to recognise its responsibilities in respect of the Lisbon Agenda. We must back her to the last and try to get this matter rectified soon.

In respect of the rationale, and one always likes to take a rational view of these things, we have been genetically modifying crops and grains since Adam was a boy. The discovery by monks of how to brew beer was a process of genetic modification. Much of the scaremongering needs to be tackled. That normally feeds into the political process and I believe it is feeding into the current political process as we see it within the Council of Ministers.

Given the climactic chaos that is occurring globally, the EU must take a firm line on this. Climactic incidents throughout the world and global food shortages mean science must deliver seeds and grain to ensure food security. I call on the Government to think ahead about the permutations for Irish agriculture's position at EU level. To be frank, the Government has been sitting on the fence. I call on Fianna Fáil members to press the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which I will do in my capacity as an Opposition spokesperson, to adopt a rational approach to the issue. The future of Irish agriculture depends on it.

What percentage of GMO foodstuffs on the market has not been approved by the European Union? Perhaps this matter has been discussed, but I was late in arriving. Do new GMO foodstuffs not approved by the European Union come on stream every year? Why does the Union take its time when the European Food Safety Authority approves them? Is it for political reasons or because of a struggle within and between countries for commercial purposes? Why is there a hold-up between ESFA approval and there being the political will to accept it? Perhaps our guests have already explained and I am repeating questions.

Ms Deirdre Webb

That is the question we are asking. Scientific approval has a stop-the-clock mechanism. Countries with particularly strong anti-GM policies such as Austria will stop the clock slowing the ESFA. An independent body tries to secure approval, but there is this stop-the-clock mechanism in place.

Regarding the political process, countries with anti-GM policies or a policy of not accepting ESFA approval such as Austria and Ireland will not vote at standing committee level, slowing the process constantly as a result. Deputy Aylward missed the presentation, but the standing committee has never approved a variety. Rather, varieties have been approved by default. If a variety goes through the process, reaches Council level and does not gain qualified majority approval, the Commission must sign and approve it by default. The process has got caught up in politics. No other trading bloc has this political element to its approval system; we have written it in. Unfortunately, the political element has come in the way of science and overtaken the process. I agree with the Deputy that we must step back to try to balance the issue and set checks, whereby a country's scientific question must be sound and reasonable instead of just being a stalling mechanism.

From where do anti-GM countries source their raw material if it is not on the market?

Ms Deirdre Webb

A country such as Austria would not have an agricultural industry the size of Ireland's. It can source from within central Europe, whereas we cannot. We import 52% of our material. Am I answering the Deputy's question?

Yes. What percentage of foodstuffs on the world's markets is non-GM?

Ms Deirdre Webb

We are discussing feed. Does the Deputy want to know the percentage in that respect? Across Europe we estimate that 85% of compound feed is GM, with approved GM varieties. The rest is non-GM.

Approximately 15%.

Ms Deirdre Webb

These figures have been backed by the UK Soil Association, a recent survey of which agrees with Feed Facts Quarterly. Some 85% of feed across Europe includes approved GM materials, but unapproved varieties are being planted faster. With the ESFA, we are slowing down. The responsibility lies with member states, not Brussels.

I suggest the clerk to the committee inform the Minister about this discussion and the opinions expressed by members. Officials will discuss the issue with the committee in January. Is that agreed?

There is urgency as regards the maize G821 variety and the decision-making process, part of which will kick in tomorrow. I understand the departmental official who will attend the meeting at the Minister's bidding has been instructed to abstain. The decision-making process could be further delayed by this matter. We can afford no more own goals to the value of €160 million, as referred to by Dr. Pat Shiels, €60 million of which was specifically related to the Herculex issue. The industry cannot take such hits. The committee should communicate with the Minister and ask her official not to abstain tomorrow.

The clerk will do so this evening. Is that agreed? Agreed. The Minister is in Brussels.

We can communicate with the Secretary General.

It would be no problem to get the information through. On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Ms Webb, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Power and Dr. Shiels. I welcome our other guest, my friend from Kells, County Meath, Mr. Michael Ellis. Our guests know the opinions of the committee and that we will not be found wanting in that regard.

I wish members, staff and guests a happy Christmas and the best of health and happiness in the new year.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.40 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share