JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Thursday, 30 Sep 2004

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

The main purpose of today's meeting is to consider EU document COM (2004) 193 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified animal feed. To that end, the joint committee has requested that officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government meet with it today. I welcome Mr. Tom O'Mahony and his colleagues, along with representatives from both the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Before Mr. O'Mahony begins his presentation, I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. 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 any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Tom O’Mahony

The Chairman mentioned other members of my team. As on previous occasions when I have appeared before the committee, I would like to make a brief opening presentation and then deal with questions as best we can on the basis that as the different members of the team have different relevant expertise, they will informally come in and answer questions depending on the area on which the questions are posed. The short presentation I will make has been circulated for the assistance and reference of members of the committee. I want to place document COM (2004) 193 in the context of the process from which it emerged and to update the committee on developments since its publication because, essentially, that document has been overtaken by events.

An EU directive sets out the procedures for dealing with any application to place on the market a product consisting of, or containing, GMOs. It is an inclusive process, involving all member states. A company wishing to market a GM product submits a notification to the competent authority of the member state in which it proposes to market it. That lead competent authority examines the notification for completeness and summary information on the notification is made available to all other competent authorities in the European Union and the European Commission.

Following detailed assessment of the notification, the lead competent authority can conclude that the product is either unfit or fit for marketing. If the conclusion is that the product is unfit, the process is completed and the application is refused. However, if the lead competent authority considers the product fit for marketing, the process moves forward to obtain a detailed, Community-wide view. To achieve this, the full notification and the lead competent authority's assessment of it are made available to all competent authorities and the Commission for their consideration.

It is then open to each competent authority and the Commission to seek further information or to indicate objections. In this process, it is open to all parties to discuss and possibly resolve outstanding issues. At this stage the public can also participate in the process through the Commission sponsored website, which contains summary information on each notification. The website address is in the documentation I have circulated.

At the end of this process, if any competent authority remains dissatisfied as to the appropriateness of the conclusion drawn by the lead competent authority that the product is fit to place on the market, the notification is referred by the Commission to the regulatory committee of all member states, which was established for the purposes of the directive. Before the regulatory committee considers the notification, the Commission obtains an opinion on the notification and the objections raised by competent authorities from the European Food Safety Authority. The opinion of the European Food Safety Authority is, therefore, also available to the regulatory committee.

In dealing with a notification, the regulatory committee operates on the basis of qualified majority voting. If a qualified majority is obtained either to reject or approve the proposal, the process is finalised. However, if no qualified majority emerges from the committee, the Commission must then refer the proposal to a meeting of the Council. The Council also operates on the basis of qualified majority voting. If a qualified majority does not emerge from the Council, under the terms of the directive, responsibility for approving the proposal reverts to the Commission. The sequence I have just described is what happened in this case.

The case to which the document refers is a proposal to import and market a particular line of maize, maize line NK 603, for industrial and animal feed use, but not for cultivation. This proposal was originally made to the Spanish competent authority. The maize in question is genetically modified to provide resistance to a particular herbicide.

The Environmental Protection Agency, as competent authority here for the purposes of the directive, raised no objection to the proposal having consulted with the Departments of Health and Children and Agriculture and Food, Teagasc; and the GMO and novel foods sub-committee under the scientific committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. However, in other countries, objections were maintained by their competent authorities. Those countries were Austria, Denmark, Italy, France and Germany.

Accordingly, the notification came before the regulatory committee, attended by officials from my Department on Ireland's behalf on 18 February 2004. At that time, before the accession of the ten new member states, 87 votes were shared between the then 15 member states with Ireland having three votes. To achieve a qualified majority, 62 votes would have been required. The product in question received 53 votes in favour. In the document I circulated I have listed the countries that voted in favour. Some 24 votes were cast against the proposal from Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, while Germany abstained.

As the proposal failed to get a qualified majority, under the next stage of the process I have outlined, it was brought by the Commission before the Council of Environment Ministers on 28 June 2004. That is where this document comes into place. This was the document prepared by the Commission for consideration by the Council of Ministers at that meeting. The Environment Council, which now comprises the 25 member states, did not reach a qualified majority on the proposal. In accordance with the procedure I have outlined, responsibility for approving or rejecting the proposal reverted to the Commission, which approved the notification on 19 July 2004.

The Commission approval of the product, NK 603, cannot take effect until an equivalent authorisation has been granted for food use. A separate decision under the Novel Foods Regulation, which is overseen in Ireland by the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, is being considered by the Commission because that proposal had been considered at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in July again without reaching a qualified majority.

In summary, the document before the committee today has been overtaken by events. It was a document prepared for the Council of Ministers, which failed to reach a majority on it. Therefore, the process moved on beyond the document and, as I said, the Commission approved the proposal on 19 July. Notwithstanding this, I hope that the information I have given to the committee on how the approval process works and how this particular product went through that process is of some assistance.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Mahony. We will now take questions from members of the committee.

Deputy Allen

I thank Mr. O'Mahony and his team for appearing before the committee. Mr. O'Mahony stated in his presentation that the maize in question is genetically modified to provide resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Why would the maize require resistance to the herbicide? Since the Environmental Protection Agency raised no objection to the proposal, what research material was used to satisfy the agency that no GM modified NK 603 would progress into the food chain? What was the nature of the consultations with research institutions and the Department of Health and Children which allowed the Department to raise no objection to the use of this product by the Spanish authorities?

Objections were raised by other countries, namely Austria, Denmark, Italy, France and Germany. What were the areas of concern that moved these countries to oppose the use of NK 603? What factors influenced the Commission to overrule decisions made by the other bodies at its meeting of 19 July 2004?

The joint committee is facing a fait accompli in that the Commission appears to have ignored the concerns of a number of countries. We did not have an opportunity to consider the matter before receiving notification of the decision this week. We will continue to whistle in the dark until we hear from the Environmental Protection Agency on the factors which enabled it to accept the proposal.

Regarding the separate decision under the regulations approved by the Commission on 19 July, Mr. O'Mahony stated:

The Commission approval of the product, NK 603, cannot take effect until an equivalent authorisation has been granted for food use. A separate decision under the Novel Foods Regulation .... is being considered by the Commission because that proposal had been considered at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in July again without reaching a qualified majority.

What was the response of the Department to the proposal? As I stated, the matter appears to be a fait accompli given that the Commission overruled the other bodies.

Deputy Sargent

I apologise for my late arrival. This issue arises from our consideration of a number of regulations. It is important not just from a health and environmental point of view, but also from an economically strategic point of view that we investigate this matter to ensure we are in possession of all the facts and all the options available to us.

The animal feed in question has been described to me as a genetically modified Trojan horse. Given that this decision stems from a request by Monsanto, it is clearly a commercially rather than government driven policy made at the behest of a company eager to increase its profit and develop its product range. Let us be clear on that point.

Notwithstanding Mr. O'Mahony's reference to the European Food Safety Authority and so forth, the risks of this product must still be quantified. The authorities are not in a position to take a more longer term view and are taking a calculated risk by not raising concerns. In addition, rather than asking a simple question as to whether the product will kill one in the morning, a more strategic approach is needed which takes account of the strong opposition of consumers. The joint committee shares this responsibility. Has the matter been considered from a strategic point of view?

As Deputy Allen stated, the Commission's decision to reject a more democratic approach, based on the views of member states and the EU regulatory committee, sounds alarm bells because it signals that a force more powerful than democracy is at work. Clearly that force is a commercial one.

Members will be aware that the use of GM feed in the agricultural sector disqualifies organic certification. There is more at stake than quantifying risk when people face the prospect that they will not be able to maintain their livelihoods. Conventional farmers will be caught in the same way.

This decision does not take into account public concern and labelling requirements. I am not aware of any meat product, for example, that is labelled "Fed using GM Feed". We have work to do before this type of animal feed can be imported. Assuming all the barriers and hurdles are jumped by this application, the issue of post-market monitoring, which refers to the monitoring that must take place, will also arise. I am not convinced that post-market monitoring of any significance is in place.

Is the Department in a position to state what are Ireland's strategic options in regard to this product? There will be others because, as I stated, this product is a Trojan horse. Will Ireland be able to acquire special status, such as GM-free status? If so, does the Department regard this as desirable?

We are at a crossroads. Having just returned from the ploughing championships — I am sorry I could not attend today — I am aware that people are highly agitated about this issue. They believe the Government is sleep-walking into joining the GM empire. Ireland needs to take a strategic stand on the matter. Is the Department prepared to do so?

Deputy Gilmore

I welcome the representatives of the Departments and the Environmental Protection Agency. The reason Oireachtas committees scrutinise proposed European directives, regulations and so forth is to give them an opportunity, on behalf of the public, to have an input into the formulation of the Irish position prior to decisions being taken on certain matters. Why was the joint committee not afforded an opportunity to do that on this issue before now? The Irish position was formulated prior to the meeting of the EU regulatory committee in February. Subsequent to that, the Environment Council met in June. At both these meetings, the Irish delegate cast our three votes in favour of approving the measure before us. Why did the matter not come before the joint committee before our position was determined? I appreciate that the committee scrutinising EU documents is at an early stage. The fault may be at committee level or due to Oireachtas procedure, but it in some way it defeats the purpose of the exercise if we are here after the matter has been done and dusted.

I thank Mr. O'Mahony for describing the complicated procedure to us. It is most interesting. The procedure by which the Commission makes the decision almost by default does not seem to be a very democratic way of doing European business. In fact, it appears to open up the possibility that difficult decisions on issues like this will be funked by the Council in the knowledge that the Commission will do what is necessary. I suggest that as part of our consideration of this document, we would ask the Joint Committee on European Affairs to have a look at that procedure. I do not know how regularly it is used. This is the first time this committee has come across it.

Discussion of the decision is probably academic at this stage as the decision is, in effect, made. What is the view of maize producers in Europe on the fact that the Commission has now agreed to import a genetically modified maize product? Irrespective of whether people agree with them, the opinions of the various expert agencies are on record. Deputy Sargent referred to the Trojan horse argument. What will be the impact on maize producers of the permission being given to import a genetically modified maize animal feed product into the European Union? Will maize producers now say that if they have to cope with this genetically modified imported product, they want the right to grow it? Will this lead to knock-on consequences? Those states which voted for or against it appear to be a mixed bag in terms of those who are maize producers and those who are not. I would be interested to hear what is the line from maize producers and those states that have significant maize production.

Chairman

The joint committee was informed of the proposal at the end of June. The committee was not informed that a final decision at EU level was imminent. Without this knowledge, the committee proceeded with other matters in July. That is what happened there.

Before other members put their questions we will ask for replies to the questions of the party spokespersons.

Mr. O’Mahony

The questions cover a range of topics and I will ask the different experts to come in on their areas of expertise.

I will pick up on a couple of points in terms of an overview of policy and procedure. I am not an expert on the scrutiny process as applied by the committees, although I have tried to understand it in preparation for this meeting in examining at least one presentation to a committee by another Department on a similar issue. In general, it appears to be the case that a measure needs to be under discussion at political level at Council before it comes before a committee for scrutiny. I do not know if this is in Standing Orders or is an interpretation of the legislation. I am not an expert in it so I do not fully understand it. It seems to be the case that if something is being dealt with at a technical committee level then it would not come for scrutiny, perhaps on the basis that a Minister does not have an input into it unless it comes to a Council. It was only in the context of the Environment Council at the end of June that a notification would have come in on this. Once the document effectively lapsed because the Council did not take a decision on it, it would appear to have fallen out of the loop of committee scrutiny. Perhaps there are issues which could be looked at across the committee structure as a whole but, as I said, I am not an expert and admit to being a bit confused by this.

Regarding the way in which this operates, the power that the Commission has in the event that a decision is not taken at political level was set down in the directive agreed at political level. Regardless of one's views or whether one likes it, that power was given to the Commission. I fully appreciate Deputy Gilmore's point about the potential that can give at a political level to avoid a difficult decision. Although, looking at what happened in this case, it would appear that a small number of countries stuck to a position of opposition to this for reasons that I will ask Mr. Devlin to go through in a minute. They persisted in that position through the process, so on that particular occasion it probably was not a question of people trying to avoid the decision but a case whereby the power given to the Commission by that directive enabled their position to be ultimately overcome.

On the strategic question of whether we might take a position that Ireland will be a GM-free zone, there are really two responses I can give to that one. The first is that I do not think we could legally do so under EU regulations and in regard to the Single Market. If a product is ultimately approved at EU level I do not think it is open to Ireland to secure the blocking of the product from Ireland. Even from a policy point of view, a public consultation process was organised four or five years ago through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which led to a policy statement in 1999 on GMOs and the environment. An interdepartmental committee on biotechnology then reported in 2000. The basic policy that emerged from those exercises was described as positive but precautionary. In other words, Ireland was not taking a position and perhaps this reflects, among other things, that from an industrial development point of view, biotechnology has become an extremely important part of the Irish economy. The Irish position has been not to oppose GMOs per se, but to be cautious taking due account of environmental and consumer concerns.

Environmental and consumer concerns touch directly on some of the questions put by members. I will ask Dr. McLoughlin from the EPA and Mr. Downey from the Department of Agriculture and Food to come in on some of those. If it is okay, we will go to the EPA first to reply to some of the technical questions asked, particularly about the process that the EPA went through and the consultations and research it went through before coming to its conclusion on the product.

Dr. Tom McLoughlin

I am a senior inspector with the Environmental Protection Agency in Wexford. I worked for 20 years in research and development in the area of genetics and genetic engineering. For the past ten years I have worked with the EPA in regulatory control. We are the competent authority in Ireland for both the contained use of GMOs and the deliberate release into the environment.

Case 603 refers to GM maize which is tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. This can be achieved through traditional plant breeding, which has been practised for hundreds of years, whereby a plant can be selected for its particular tolerance to a particular herbicide or chemical. However, in this case it has been selected using genetic engineering techniques or GMO technology which is more than 30 years old. To date, no adverse effect has been caused to human health or the environment from using this technology. There have been a great many theories in the public domain as well as scare-mongering, which issues I want to address.

Monsanto is the notifier in this case, although any applicant can go through this process with a university, for example, as of right. It has selected cells which are tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, which it produces. This may have advantages for Irish agriculture. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide which is approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food and has a good record of use for many years. It is a very safe herbicide, although some people argue it is not.

The herbicide tolerant trait in the plant means farmers can spray the herbicide at any time during its life cycle, thus perhaps giving them advantages. Up to now, farmers might have had to use cocktails of herbicides, some of which can be toxic to human health and the environment, a well-known example of which is DDT. Roundup is generally regarded as safe to human health and the environment.

Another benefit of this technology is that farmers can grow the plant and wait for the weeds to grow before spraying them. The plant can survive because it is tolerant while the weeds are killed. This may have many advantages, for example, in the new tillage systems used by farmers whereby there is no need to till the land and instead the seeds are planted and sprayed with a herbicide like Roundup which kills all the weeds. One can only do this if one uses a GM seed. Therefore, there is a potential advantage.

The EPA is the competent authority in Ireland, although the lead competent authority in this case was Spain. After we receive notification, we have 60 days in which to raise an objection or seek further information and clarification and we review the information we receive. In this case, it was known that this particular GM seed was planted and tested not only in the US, Japan and Canada since 1999 but in France and a number of other European countries also. Competent authorities akin to our own in those states would have examined this GM seed in small-scale field trials. This is referred to as a "part B" release, as opposed to a "part C" release, which is placing it on the market. Those competent authorities have concluded that the risk to the environment is low.

The scope of this dossier covers the importation of the seed which would be grown in the US and imported into the EU. For example, in 2002, approximately 630 tonnes of maize was imported into Ireland, mainly for animal feed. Once this is approved at EU level, some of this GM seed could potentially be mixed with non-GM seed. At least 50% of the crops grown in the US, for example, soy and corn, are GM varieties.

In order to come to a decision, we consult widely. We consulted with Teagasc, which is under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture and Food. We also consulted with the Food Safety Authority sub-committee of which I am a member and which comprises 15 experts in fields such as allergenicity, plant breeding and genetics. The sub-committee examines this dossier, looking at research carried out in other member states, by the company itself and perhaps by universities as well. We also consulted with the Department of Health and Children. We considered the fact that this would not be cultivated in Ireland or the EU. This technology is regulated——

Chairman

I apologise but we must suspend the sitting because there is a vote in the Dáil. Unfortunately, I cannot return as Chairman after the vote. Can I have a nomination for a temporary chairman to continue the meeting?

A Member

I propose Deputy Cregan.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 1 p.m.

Deputy Cregan took the Chair.

Dr. McLoughlin

To complete the story, the EPA, the competent authority, consulted widely with the sub-committee made up of the FSAI, Teagasc and the Department of Agriculture and Food and there were no objections raised to this product under article 15 of the regulation. That was during the 60 day period and we informed the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government of our decision. A number of member states then raised further questions or objections and there was a further 45 day period to resolve them but they were not resolved for various reasons. We believe, as the competent authority, the risk to human health and the environment from this product is very low. The crop would be imported into Ireland, not cultivated, so that is not a concern.

As a scientist, it is my opinion that this directive, 2001/18, is rigorous in the assessment of GM crops because it looks at toxicology and requires information on animal feeding studies and molecular data, as opposed to the processes for conventional crops, such as the humble potato. If that went through this process it would be rejected at EU level because it contains toxic compounds.

The risk to human health and the environment is low, that is why we did not object. This was borne out by the European Food Safety Authority Scientific Committee, which also said it was safe for human health and the environment. The risks are very low. The tobacco plant is the most toxic known plant and causes untold damage to human health through cancer deaths worldwide every year. GM technology and the rigorous legislative requirements in the EU, probably the most rigorous in the world, are very important. Competent authorities must also be vigilant, although for the last 30 years, less than the lifespan of this technology, there have been no reported cases of adverse effects to human health and environment.

Deputy Allen

Arising from Dr. McLoughlin's comments about the issue of co-existence of conventional agriculture and GM, which has not been resolved at EU level, how could unequivocal support be given to the introduction of this maize? What does the Department of Agriculture and Food think about the question of conventional organic farming versus farming with GM substances? How are we pre-empting that issue by giving the go-ahead to this maize? Why was that factor not taken into consideration when, for example, the Austrians have opposed it for that reason among others? That is the core issue. There is no EU policy on the co-existence of the two types of farming. Why is Ireland compromising its stance by supporting the use of this maize?

I also asked what guarantees there are that this type of maize used for animal feed and industry will not enter the food chain. To what type of industrial use will it be put? These questions have not been answered, even though the issue is academic because it has been passed by a decision of the Commission which overruled several member states. The Irish position seems to be unequivocal support for an issue that has not been sorted out nationally or at EU level.

Mr. O’Mahony

Mr. Downey from the Department might deal best with some of these issues. Dr. McLoughlin will deal with his supplementary questions and we will then move on to the agricultural aspects.

Dr. McLoughlin

Co-existence is not an issue for this product because it will be cultivated in the United States and imported into the European Union. The GM crop is grown in the United States and the seed is the filial 2, or F2, population which will be imported into the European Union. It is well known that farmers will not use that seed because it would depress yield. The decision covers everything except cultivation. Three dossiers on GM maize crops were approved under the old directive, and if they were grown here, the main environmental concern would be the potential of the gene that contains the herbicide tolerant trait to hop to weed species. There are no related weed species for maize in Ireland or the European Union so the risk would be effectively zero. There is a risk that the pollen containing the gene would hop into a farmer's field. My colleague from the Department of Agriculture and Food will deal with that under the co-existence measures which the Department is drawing up.

Deputy Allen

I did not mention cultivation but agriculture. Surely the feeding of GM maize to livestock is introducing a GM Trojan horse into European agriculture. The question about the food chain has not been answered.

Dr. McLoughlin

I beg the Deputy's pardon. The scope of this decision was importation into the European Union for animal feed and for other uses, excluding human food consumption. The Food Safety Authority is the competent authority. Under regulation No. 18 of 2001 it can be used as an animal feed. This GMO has been subject to extensive testing to show that it is equivalent to its non-GM counterpart. The gene inserted came from a soil bacterium, was put into the GM plant and conferred tolerance to the herbicide. That would never happen through plant breeding techniques. People argue that this technology is more precise.

The gene that confers tolerance to the herbicide produces a protein that confers this tolerance but that protein is already found in lettuce that people frequently eat. The risks to human health from eating such a GM crop are vanishingly low but there is no such thing as zero risk. Every day people eat chicken infected with salmonella, which is far worse, and as I said, people smoke tobacco. While people may refer to this technology as a Trojan horse, the EPA, the FSA and the Department of Agriculture and Food and other relevant Departments take their task seriously in this regard. The scientific evidence is that the risks are vanishingly low. However, we must assess them on a case-by-case basis and one or two GMOs have been turned down at EU level because of concerns that they might be toxic to human health. We must be careful and vigilant at all times.

Deputy Allen

Will Dr. McLoughlin comment on the absence of EU legislation covering traceability and labelling of food and feed? The Austrian Government is concerned about this. It may be more relevant to the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Deputy Morgan

Part of my question was answered. I apologise for leaving earlier on but I had an appointment that was fixed before I received notice of this meeting. Is there any risk of contamination to non-GM products in an adjoining field where animals are fed at the boundary? If so there would be consequences for human health.

Mr. O’Mahony

We could be talking about two different things. One form of contamination would occur if the GM product in some way started to grow or affect another product. From a horticultural point of view that cannot happen but we could confirm that.

Deputy Morgan

If a GM product was left to rot and found its way into the soil, could it then contaminate the seed of non-GM crops?

Dr. McLoughlin

The risk would be very low. In most cases, imported seeds may be mixed with non-GM seed coming in from the US, Mexico or Argentina. Once it is approved for use at EU level, farmers can use it and no doubt are using it. In 2003, 50% of the soya bean crop in the US was genetically modified. Much of the soya bean that Ireland imports comes from GM sources. In many instances, the seed could be denatured meaning the gene material could not be transferred if it rotted. The seed would not be grown in Ireland. This particular grain would be coming into Ireland as bulk, imported by IAWS or R& H Halls in Waterford and going to farmers' granaries. A neighbouring farmer may borrow some feed and it can be fed to animals. If it were not safe for animal feed, it would not be approved for use at EU level.

Mr. O’Mahony

This is the fundamental point. Irrespective of whether there was a possibility that it could inadvertently get into other feed, the bottom-line is that if scientists from the EPA, the Food Safety Authority and Teagasc are satisfied that it is safe——

Deputy Morgan

For years, scientists claimed that smoking was safe. I admit I am being provocative.

Mr. O’Mahony

I know and the only answer I can give the Deputy is that, as Dr. McLoughlin said, ultimately there is no such thing as zero risk. As regulators and policymakers, our responsibility is to ensure that the structures are in place to have the best scientific assessment that is possible. As in medicines and other areas, a balance is drawn up of the benefits of a product. The main benefit of this particular product is that it avoids the use of a whole range of herbicides that have potential side effects. The balance that has been drawn up by scientists is that one is better off having this product.

Mr. John Downey

On the food and feed issue, approval of this proposal is conditional on the same proposal in the food area. Obviously if consignments of this maize come into the EU, they can be used as either food or feed. The majority goes for feed. However, it would not be credible to have control on one side. The food element must be approved for this product before it can be used as food or feed to avoid any crossover being approved and the unintentional use of feed as food. Much of this approval system stopped in 1998 when the moratorium was put in place. Much work has been done in the intervening periods in putting legislation into place at the Commission, Parliament and Council. A good rigorous suite of legislation is now in place and the approval system is starting again within which we must work.

One major deficiency was that there was no requirement for the labelling of animal feed. There were requirements on food and the cultivation of GM crops and deliberate release. Under the new system, animal feeds will be labelled by regulation. It only came into play on 18 April 2004 but it will significantly help in allowing people to identify clearly whether the feed is GM. This has become part of our analysis process on the feedstuff side where we take samples of feed coming in, particularly those not labelled as GM, to check their veracity.

While much of it is now labelled, there has been no major distortion in the markets. However, on the poultry side, there will be greater demand for material not labelled GM. Labelling of feedstuffs is a major step forward on the consumer side. While it is only five months in action, a full year of the regulations will see more consumer choice. This is important because in the intervening period much of the feed coming in from the United States had the potential for GM content.

Co-existence is the last area on the legislative side within the EU to be addressed. Each member state is required to sort out its own co-existence guidelines and take account of local conditions. The Department of Agriculture and Food and various bodies are represented in an interdepartmental group for drawing up co-existence measures. It is accepted that measures can be put in place to allow the cultivation of GM crops and non-GM crops, while taking into account the organic industry. These are particularly relevant in the co-existence guidelines that have been presented to us. The responsibility firmly rests on the farmer who introduces the new enterprise into an area for covering all liabilities that may arise and to ensure no disruption to existing farming practices. If a farmer wishes to cultivate GM crops, all areas of responsibility lie with him. While there is no push for the cultivation of GM crops in Ireland, the procedures, rules and measures must be put in place.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cregan)

I thank Mr. O'Mahony and his colleagues for their informative presentation to the group.

Deputy Allen

Decisions have already been made on this issue before the committee had an opportunity to discuss them. Can we communicate with the Committee on European Affairs to clear up this grey area to ensure there will be no repeats?

Acting Chairman

Our exercise was quite academic in one sense and the committee should write to the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny to advise it that these issues should be flagged in adequate time to discuss them before they become a fait accompli. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O’Mahony

May I repeat a point I made earlier? I am not sure whether this is just a question of timing or if it is a question of what comes before the committee under Standing Orders.

Acting Chairman

It was timing in this instance.

Mr. O’Mahony

There may be decisions of this type in the future which will not go to the Council because there may be a qualified majority at the initial regulatory committee. It is not clear if these fall within the scope of EU scrutiny.

Deputy Allen

I do not understand why this came to us so late. There was disagreement at a number of stages at European level. Ireland took a particular stand as a result of recommendations from the EPA, the Department of Agriculture and Food, and other agencies, and was among a group of countries which failed to get a majority by the weighted voting. There was adequate time. It went from them to the Commission, then back to the Council of Ministers and, after the lack of agreement there, back to the Commission.

Mr. O’Mahony

That is my point. I am not certain, based on the understanding I have regarding how scrutiny works, that it comes within the Oireachtas EU scrutiny unless it is actually going to the Council. If there is agreement among member states, it will not go to the Council. It would only have been when it failed to get a qualified majority at this regulatory committee back in February or whenever it was, that it then moved to the stage where the Commission would prepare a formal proposal to the Council. If it is the case that it is only at that stage that it might come within Oireachtas scrutiny, it becomes more than just a timing issue.

Acting Chairman

Is there any other business?

Senator Brennan

Would it be in order to invite the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the committee, particularly with regard to the implementation of waste management plans and the concerns expressed over how the Minister will have the final say in finalising those plans, taking decisions from the hands of elected Members?

Acting Chairman

Yes, absolutely.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 13 October, 2004.