Joint Committee on European Affairs and Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Harkin and from Avril Doyle, MEP. The first matter on today's agenda is a discussion with interested parties on the authorisation of genetically modified products across member states of the European Union, scrutiny of EU legislative proposals relating to genetically modified foods, COM (2005) 161 to COM (2005) 169, inclusive.

I thank Deputy Haughey, who will attend later, and his committee for their co-operation in hosting this joint hearing. There is obviously a great deal of interest in the subject, in which I am not well versed. However, I know that several members of both committees are extremely interested in it.

The agenda encompasses scrutiny of nine EU legislative proposals referred to the sub-committee for further scrutiny. One relates to the authorisation of a GM product, COM (2005) 163, and there are a further eight proposals concerning national bans in some member states in COM (2005) 161 to COM (2005) 169, inclusive. This is also an opportunity to discuss the broader issues involved. Some members may not stick to the specific regulations with which we are dealing, focusing instead, and perhaps more importantly, on the wider issues. I am sure the witnesses will understand.

While only some of the witnesses will make presentations, those who are not will take questions from members. We are joined by Mr. Tom O'Mahony of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dr. Tom McLoughlin of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Pat O'Mahony, chief specialist in biotechnology for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Mr. Oisín Coghlan, director of Friends of the Earth, and Mr. Michael O'Callaghan of the GM-free Ireland Network.

We will first hear brief presentations from each representative listed, after which we will open the floor for members' questions. We are also joined by Ms Joan Regan, assistant principal officer at the Department of Health and Children, Mr. John Downey, principal officer at the Department of Agriculture and Food, and Mr. John Heney, chairman of the national rural development committee of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, or ICSA.

Before I ask the witnesses to begin, I draw everyone's attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I first invite Mr. Tom O'Mahony from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to give his presentation. I ask him to keep the presentation to ten minutes and those making further presentations to limit them to five minutes. After Mr. Tom O'Mahony, I will ask Mr. McLoughlin, then Mr. Pat O'Mahony, Mr. Coghlan and Mr. O'Callaghan to contribute.

Mr. Tom O’Mahony

I thank the Chairman. There are nine proposals for a Council decision, but eight can be taken together, since they deal with national bans in several member states on individual products approved for marketing on an EU-wide basis in the period from 1996 to 1998. I am sure that they will be dealt with at the Environment Council as a single item, and, with the Chairman's approval, I propose to do the same.

The other matter, with which I propose to deal first, is a proposal for a Council decision to authorise a new product, a genetically modified maize under the code name MON 863, the letters "MON" being for "Monsanto". It might be useful for me to place the proposal in the context of the process from which it emerged. EU Directive 2001/18/EC 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 is first proposed 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 all member states, as well as to the European Commission. Following detailed assessment of the notification, the lead competent authority may conclude that the product is unfit or fit for marketing. If the conclusion is that the product is unfit, that will be the end of the matter, since the process will be complete, and the application refused.

If, however, the lead competent authority considers the product fit for marketing, the process moves forward to obtain a detailed, Community-wide view. To achieve that, the full notification, and the lead competent authority's assessment of it, are made available to all competent authorities and the Commission. It is then open to each competent authority and the Commission to seek further information or indicate objections. It is open to all parties to discuss, and possibly resolve, outstanding issues. The public can also participate in the process through the Commission-sponsored website which contains summary information on each notification.

Should any competent authority remain unsatisfied at the end of the process of 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. 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, EFSA. The opinion of the EFSA is, therefore, also available to the regulatory committee.

The regulatory committee operates on the basis of qualified majority voting. Should a qualified majority be obtained to reject or approve the proposal, the process is finalised. However, if no qualified majority emerges from the committee, the Commission must refer the proposal to a meeting of the Environment Council. The Council also operates on the basis of qualified majority voting. Should a qualified majority not emerge from the Council, responsibility for approving the proposal reverts to the Commission.

This proposal is for the Council to authorise a genetically modified maize product for import into the Community and its subsequent use for animal feed and industrial processing. The proposal does not include cultivation. The product is a maize that has been genetically modified for resistance to the corn rootworm. In this case, the competent authority was Germany, which gave a positive assessment of the notification. The proposal was considered by each national competent authority, which in Ireland's case was the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA, following consultations with other relevant bodies, including the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health and Children, Teagasc, and the GMO and novel foods sub-committee under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's scientific committee, raised no objection to the proposal. However, several competent authorities in other member states expressed and maintained reservations. Therefore, in accordance with the directive's requirements, the proposal was brought before a meeting of the regulatory committee around the middle of last year. In advance of the regulatory committee's meeting the Commission sought the advice of the European Food Safety Authority which concluded that MON863 "is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human health and the environment in the context of its proposed use" and that the "nutritional properties of MON863 are no different from those of conventional maize".

Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority did not find against the product, even though it includes an antibiotic resistant marker gene. EFSA held the view that the antibiotics concerned were among a group of antibiotics which are already widely distributed among soil and enteric bacteria and "have minor therapeutic relevance in human medicine" and "restricted use in defined areas of veterinary medicine".

I also draw the committee's attention to the fact that the regulatory committee was due to make a decision on MON 863 at its meeting on Monday, 20 September 2004. The Friday before the meeting took place, a paper by Dr. Árpád Pusztai querying aspects of the rat feeding study carried out on the product was circulated. Some member states, including Ireland, called for a deferral of the vote to allow the paper to be fully considered by competent authorities. On this basis, a decision was deferred to 29 November 2004.

Before the meeting on 29 November, Dr. Pusztai's paper was considered by the EPA which saw no valid reason to object to the product. In addition, the Commission referred the paper to EFSA which similarly saw no reason to change its previously expressed positive opinion on MON863.

The Minister mandated Ireland to abstain in the vote at regulatory committee on 29 November. As members can see from COM (2005) 163, the proposal did not achieve a qualified majority vote in that arena and, looking at the numbers, there is little likelihood of a qualified majority at Council. The Minister intends to finalise the Irish position on the proposal nearer to Council. I will ensure that the joint committee's views are brought to his attention so that he can take them into account.

Documents COM (2005) 161,162 and 164 to 169 relate to national bans on genetically modified maize T25 by Austria; maize MON810 by Austria; maize Bt176 by Austria, Luxembourg and Germany; swede rape Topas 19/2 by Greece and France and swede rape M1BnXRF1Bn by France. These products were originally approved on an EU-wide basis under Directive 90/220/EC in the period 1996 to 1998. As the principles underlying these documents are essentially similar, I intend to deal with them as a single item.

Directive 90/220 and its successor, Directive 2001/18, enable member states to invoke national bans on individual approved GMO products in case of emergency or where new detailed information which has environmental or health implication emerges. However, the directives also recognise the reality of the single market and the need to treat all citizens of the Union equally. Accordingly, the directives provide for examination of national bans on an EU-wide basis with the aim of ensuring that if the fears which underlie a national ban are valid, the product can be withdrawn from the market across the Community. On the other hand, single market considerations dictate that if the grounds on which a national ban was introduced are unproven, the ban should not remain in force.

As I said earlier, the products concerned were approved in the period 1996 to 1998 and the national bans were invoked in the period 1997 to 2000. The European Commission waited until the enhanced EU-wide GMO regulatory framework, which includes Directive 2001/18 on deliberate release and Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, was operational before examining the rationale for the bans. In coming to its view, the Commission sought the advice of the European Food Safety Authority. The authority, which is independent of the Commission, found that there was no scientific evidence available to support the continuation of the bans.

However, the Commission's proposals to overturn the national bans also raised wider issues, including some of a political nature, for all member states, including Ireland. These included the standing legal requirement for the authorisations for the products concerned to be reviewed, starting in October 2006; Ireland's wider relationship with the member states whose decisions the Commission seeks to overturn; the need to maintain consistency in implementing the Government's "positive but precautionary" approach to the issue of GMOs and the desirability of implementing the directive both in accordance with its legal requirements and with its spirit.

Considering the matter in the round, it was decided that Ireland should abstain on each vote at the regulatory committee in relation to the bans. The outcome of the votes in the regulatory committee on the Commission's proposals to require revocation of the national bans makes it clear that a sizeable majority of member states do not wish to see a fellow member state's decision on a national ban being overturned, at least at present.

I hope my outline of the considerations the Minister will take into account in determining Ireland's voting strategy in advance of the Environment Council meeting has been helpful. I assure the joint committees that I will bring any views members have on the matter to the Minister's attention.

Mr. Tom McLoughlin

The EPA is the competent authority in Ireland for the implementation of GMO regulations on the contained use and the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs. The agency was nominated as the competent authority to administer the regulations in Ireland from 1 January 1995. In practice, anybody who wants to use a GMO in a contained way in a laboratory or for a field trial or to place a product on the market must send notification to the EPA, which will assess the notification and license that applicant.

GMOs are defined as bacteria, viruses, fungi, plants and animal cells capable of replication or of transferring genetic material in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination. In the past 30 years the development and the use of genetic engineering technology has brought many useful applications in health care in the form of new pharmaceuticals, vaccines and new methods of diagnosing diseases. The technology is also making a major impact on the investigation of crime, in waste treatment, in environmental clean-up and other areas.

The agency as one of the regulatory authorities in Ireland is neither for nor against this technology. Its role is to ensure that its use is safe so that no adverse effects are caused to human health or the environment. By June this year, there were over 197 entries on the GMO register of users in Ireland, in accordance with the legislation, and the vast majority of those, 95%, are for contained uses, i.e. in laboratories. Most of the activities in contained use facilities are carried out in third level institutions. There are approximately ten industrial users in Ireland, inc. as Schering-Plough in Brinny and Wyeth in Grange Castle, which use GM cell-lines or GM bacteria to produce medicinal products.

The agency also has the remit for deliberate release into the environment, concerning which EU Directive 2001/18, repealing 90/220, was transposed into Irish law in November 2003. This directive strengthens the previous directive especially with respect to more detailed pre-market scientific evaluation of GMOs, mandatory post-market monitoring plans, mandatory labelling of all GMOs, phasing out of antibiotic-resistant marker genes and improved transparency throughout the different stages of the authorisation procedure and subsequent handling of GMOs.

There are two types of deliberate releases: part b relates to small-scale field release of which we have had thirteen in Ireland, such as the Monsanto field trials which many people will be familiar with and which occurred from 1997 to 2000; part c involves the placing of products on the market, as mentioned by Mr. O’Mahony. There was one field trial on patients in Ireland of a GMM to counteract angina, which involved the use of a genetically modified virus. This was regulated by both the EPA and the Irish Medicines Board.

In terms of consultation on GM crop dossiers, the EPA has in-house expertise contributing information, education and experience in this technology. It also has a statutory advisory committee on GMOs, set up under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the GMO regulations. The fourth advisory committee was appointed in June 2005. Nominating bodies include various Departments, the Director of Consumer Affairs, organisations in which the EPA opinion is represented, persons whose occupations are in biotechnology research, organisations concerned with environmental protection and consumer interest groups. The agency is also advised by a sub-committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI. This group consists of 14 experts in areas ranging from plant molecular biology to animal nutrition to toxicology, among others. The EPA also consults with Teagasc and other State bodies.

The overriding concern of the EPA in the consideration of GMO notifications dossiers and the implementation of GMO regulations is to ensure that the use of GMOs does not adversely affect human health or the environment.

Mr. Pat O’Mahony

I thank the Chair for inviting the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to address the committees. My brief statement will outline the work of the authority and its operation regarding genetically modified food.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is an independent, science-based consumer protection body operating under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children since January 1999. The FSAI's mission is to protect consumers' health and interests by ensuring that food consumed, distributed, marketed or produced in the State meets the highest standards of safety and hygiene. As a science-based organisation, it relies on the best scientific advice available in Ireland as provided by its scientific committee and related sub-committees. In facilitating transparency and maintaining integrity, members of the scientific committee and sub-committees submit declarations of interest so that conflicts of interest can be avoided if they arise.

The FSAI is a competent authority for GM food in Ireland and a main responsibility in this regard is assessing risk to human safety of new types of GM foods within the EU authorisation process. The FSAI ensures, through regular surveys, that only authorised GM foods are on sale in Ireland and that such foods are labelled appropriately. Consumers can then make informed purchasing choices.

The Department of Health and Children retains the remit for policy matters on GM food in Ireland and votes at the GM section of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. This EU regulatory committee has delegates from all EU member states and can authorise new GM foods for the EU market if a qualified majority is achieved. GM food in the EU is primarily regulated by the GM food and feed regulation EC No. 1829/2003 and by the traceability and labelling regulation EC No. 1830/2003. Detailed scientific data is provided by an applicant before a GM food is placed on the EU market. The data is assessed by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. The EFSA opinion, along with the original application, is scrutinised by member states before a vote is taken at the standing committee on a draft Commission decision. If no qualified majority is reached, the draft Commission decision goes to Council and if no qualified majority is reached either for or against the Commission proposal, the decision reverts to the Commission.

Specific labelling of GM food is required where greater than 0.9% of the food or an ingredient is from a GM source. A food containing a GM ingredient below this threshold does not require specific GM labelling provided that the ingredient's presence is technically unavoidable, possibly brought about by mixing, production, processing, transport or storage.

Article 34 of the GM food and feed regulation enables the Commission or individual member states to remove from sale any GM food deemed a risk to human or animal health, or the environment. The risk from the food can be subject to a detailed assessment; it would be allowed to return to the market or prohibited from sale depending on the assessment outcome.

The FSAI does not give blanket approval to GM foods but assesses each application on a case by case basis. The FSAI is satisfied that, based on the best scientific advice available, GM foods or ingredients currently authorised for the European market are as safe as their conventionally-produced counterparts. The FSAI monitors the biotechnology arena to maintain a current knowledge of developments that could impact upon the food supply. The authority is committed to ensuring that food on the market is safe and that consumers have clear and accurate labelling that enables informed purchase choices.

Chairman

I call Mr. Oisín Coghlan from Friends of the Earth Ireland to make his presentation. Alternatively, Mr. Coghlan and Mr. Michael O'Callaghan from GM-free Ireland Network can dispense with the presentation and partake now in the question and answer session.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

I would like to make the presentation. I thank the committee for the opportunity to partake in today's discussion. It is a useful exercise in democratic scrutiny of European legislation. Friends of the Earth is one of the largest international environmental organisations. The Irish branch was launched last October and is an independent member of the international federation.

I will deal specifically with national bans and consider the wider issue briefly. Friends of the Earth urges this committee to recommend that Ireland opposes the Commission's proposals to end the national bans of individual member states on GM products. Ireland should vote against the proposals at the Environment Council next week.

In opposing the proposals, there are reasons of principle, pragmatic politics and the individual merit of national bans. Countries have the right to prohibit GM products under the UN biosafety protocol in order to protect the environment and public health in line with the precautionary principle, specifically in conditions of scientific uncertainty. The Commission proposals would undermine this right and the protocol, not just for EU members, but by way of demonstration for other countries.

The Commission's proposals go against European public and political opinion. According to Eurobarometer research, 70% of Europeans do not want to eat GM foods; moreover, 164 regions and provinces across Europe have declared their wish to prohibit or restrict GM crops. Member states often refuse to support new GM licence applications. Within the Union it is up to member states to decide by qualified majority on these matters and only if this process fails does the Commission do so. When a majority, but not a qualified majority, of member states oppose new GM licences, the Commission has approved them anyway. On 29 November 2004, member states voted in the GM regulatory committee mentioned before by 221 votes to 54 to allow national bans on Bt176 maize, but the Commission is pressing ahead still with its proposals to force countries to lift the ban. This was only nine votes short of a qualified majority needed to end the Commission proposals.

In a time of diminished public confidence in EU institutions, particularly in the wake of the French and Dutch referendum decisions, it would be foolish for the Council to allow the Commission to ride roughshod over public and political opinion next week. Member states should vindicate the principle of subsidiarity at the meeting on 24 June and vote down the Commission's proposals.

I will consider briefly two examples of the bans up for discussion. With Bt176 maize, Ireland voted against the approval of the licence for this product in 1997. In fact, 13 of 15 member states voted against it. At the time, unanimity was required to bind the Commission to the decision; in the absence of such unanimity, the Commission introduced the crop anyway. Luxembourg, Austria and Germany have national bans, principally on the grounds that Bt176 contains a novel gene code for resisting ampicillin antibiotics. If picked up by bacteria, this gene would facilitate resistance to these important medicines. In 2004, the European Food Safety Authority stated that such genes should not be present in GM plants to be put on the market. In these circumstances and having voted against the product initially, it would be churlish of Ireland to allow the Commission to end national bans put in place by member states.

MON810 maize was originally approved under the previous relevant EU directive, which did not include a thorough environmental risk assessment. It will be late next year before the same product goes through the new risk assessment procedure of the new directive. The results of this are not certain. Indeed, research is showing that it should not perhaps be approved next time. In the meantime, under the old directive, no legal obligation exists on Monsanto or farmers using it to notify anyone, neighbouring farmers or national governments, that it is being planted. This increases the risk of cross-contamination for conventional farmers. It is therefore no surprise that Poland, Hungary and Greece have joined with Austria in banning it nationally. Ireland should support these countries' right to a national ban at least until the new directive comes through next year.

In light of these concerns, the question for the committees is why individual member states should be forced to lift national bans against their will. It should be noted that abstention will not suffice. If Ireland abstains, it could end up sitting on the fence as the Commission walks by thumbing its nose at public opinion. Friends of the Earth believes that Ireland should support and vindicate the right of countries to remain GM free once they have democratically decided to do so.

More generally, Friends of the Earth believes that Ireland should exercise the right to remain GMO free. Friends of the Earth has concerns about the health impact of GM foods and increasing corporate control of seed production and food supply. This will limit consumer and farmer choice and curtail wildlife protection over the coming decade. We should think long and hard before we allow agriculture and food be dominated by GM. It is a once-off decision. There is no chance to go back if we opt for GM.

Owing to cross-contamination, many regions and countries cannot remain GM free if they so wish. We can do so and that is an opportunity we should take up. The issue is not simply one of environmental protection; it is also economic. We already market our produce under the banner "Ireland — the Food Island". There will be a global market for GM-free food for the rest of this century and we should position ourselves over time to be "Ireland — the GM-free Food Island". On that basis we ask the committee to vote next week against the proposal to end national bans.

Mr. Michael O’Callaghan

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to address the committee. I speak on behalf of 32,000 farmers, food producers, restaurateurs, foresters, fishermen, environmental organisations and consumers who are extremely concerned at the Government's hardline pro-GM policy in the European context. In 1997 Deputy Walsh, then Fianna Fáil spokesperson on agriculture, promised that if Fianna Fáil was re-elected it would never allow GM into Ireland. That policy was reversed months later following a meeting attended by the Taoiseach in the White House.

Since then Ireland has never voted against genetically modified food and crops in the European Union. We have abstained a few times recently. By abstention we are guilty of facilitating the comitology procedure whereby the democratic system in the European Parliament is by-passed and the matter goes to committee, then to the Commission and Council of Ministers. If there is no qualifying majority vote at the Council, the Commissioner decides the issue.

Most European countries which oppose GM foods and want to preserve food safety and agricultural biodiversity see Ireland as the country which ended the de facto embargo on GM food and crops by legalising 18 varieties of Monsanto maize. It did this when it held the Presidency of the European Union and before David Byrne left the Commission last year. Our fellow Europeans perceive us as the bad guys in this business. During the past two years I have attended international conferences in Europe and spoken to politicians and environment ministers from other countries.

Europe is going GM free but in Ireland there are 1,000 sites which declared themselves off-limits to GM crops on 22 April. These belong to farmers who do not want their land contaminated and have put the Government on notice that they do not want anyone to come anywhere near them with a GM crop. Once these things are introduced, co-existence is not possible. For example, genetically modified oil seed rape has been shown scientifically to contaminate crops 26 kilometres away from pollen blown in the wind. Ireland is very windy and there are plenty of animals to carry seeds too. Co-existence will not work once GM crops are allowed and we will lose market share. Irish farmers are already losing market share. Kepak, one of the leading beef exporters, told us that its leading Italian markets will discontinue taking Irish beef if it come from animals fed on GM foods.

It behoves Ireland to show some solidarity with the other countries which are ahead of us in public awareness and legislative action on food safety. Dr. Philip Michael, chairman of the Irish Doctors Environmental Association, says of Bt10 maize on which it is proposed to lift the ban:

... both the theoretical and proven adverse effects of GM foods are well known. There is a major global health risk looming in terms of antibiotic resistance of microorganisms commonly encountered in daily medical practice. Ampycillin is still one of the safest and most useful drugs in adult and paediatric practice in many parts of the world. Anything which could jeopardise its usefulness by increasing the rate of resistance development must be avoided at all costs. Hence the importance of removing all traces of Bt10 maize from the animal food chain.

An illegal variety of Bt10 maize has been placed on the market by Syngenta over the past four years, with no traceability. It was mixed up with a legal variety called Bt11. Syngenta tried to cover up the story which was made public by Nature magazine a few weeks ago. Syngenta then said perhaps only 100 tonnes might have found its way on to the market and of that only a tiny amount could have come to Europe. A week later a ship landed in Greenore carrying 2,546 tonnes of the maize. It is illegal in every country in the European Union and in the United States. It should not have been allowed in here. Ireland should send it back.

Pro-GM campaigners often confuse one by saying that if one is against GM crops one is against all their medical and pharmaceutical uses. We are not opposed to those uses. Any GM work done in contained laboratories is fine. It is not fine to release GM substances into the environment. Typically, a GM crop almost always consists of bits of DNA from viruses, bacteria, plants and animals brought together in a random way and inserted in a random way. It is not engineering; it is hit and miss. There are serious scientific concerns about it and there has been serious suppression of scientists who have released information including a major cover-up of research by Monsanto on the MON 863 maize proposed for legalisation which was revealed last week. There are serious health risks connected with this.

It is impossible to do this subject justice in five minutes. We have a problem with the Food Safety Authority but not the people in the authority — I do not mean to antagonise anybody. When I spoke at a meeting here last November various Deputies and Senators asked the Food Safety Authority if it had the resources to test these foods and decide whether they are safe. The authority admitted publicly that it did not. It depends on what the European Food Safety Authority tells it. The Italian Minister of Agriculture, Giovanni Alemanno, criticised the EFSA for consistently relying on the risk assessment procedures provided by Monsanto and Syngenta and other large companies. It is not acceptable that we in Ireland depend for our food safety on the word of the companies we should be regulating.

Unfortunately we discovered that the head of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is a former member of the board of directors of the International Life Sciences Institute. The institute was involved in a scandal in which it hid its industry credentials and got into the World Health Organisation to reduce health standards. That connection is too close for comfort and someone else should be in charge of the Food Safety Authority.

Chairman

Before opening up the discussion to questions I call on Mr. O'Mahony and Dr. McLoughlin. Some people have suggested that our decisions are made on policy as opposed to the science involved. Will Mr. O'Mahony give us an idea of what process is involved in making a scientific evaluation of these products?

Mr. T. O’Mahony

I may have given an overview of that in my presentation but for the detail I defer to Dr. McLoughlin.

Dr. McLoughlin

For both a part b field trial or for a placement on the market under Directive 2001/18/EC in another member state, the EPA, as the evaluating competent authority in Ireland, would receive a notification or dossier from the European Commission. However, the EPA has never received a dossier in that particular regard.

On receipt of a dossier, we have 60 days in which to evaluate it and make comments. It is important to note that this evaluation is based on risk assessment and examining any potential risk to both human health and the environment, such as whether a GM seed released into the environment would cross-pollinate with a neighbouring or closely related cousin. Human health concerns deal with importation or cultivation in the European Union and potential toxicity, allergenicity or inadvertent feeding. Food consumption aspects are covered by the legislation for which the FSAI is responsible.

The EPA initially evaluates the dossier in-house before sending it for review to our expert GMO advisory committee, which represents NGOs, people in biotechnology and experts from various Government Departments. It is also sent to the Food Safety Authority's sub-committee on GMOs and novel foods. We get the best scientific advice in Ireland on those dossiers and must take that advice on board before sending a report to the agency's board which makes the decision.

If an objection is raised by the competent authority of any member state within the 60-day period, the procedure is extended by 45 days. If a member state raises an objection, it goes to the regulatory committee and is then carried by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which may seek further advice from the agency. I hope that explains it.

Chairman

That clarifies the position.

Deputy R. Quinn

I thank the witnesses for their considered presentations, which contained much to digest in more ways than one. Do I take it that the position of GM-free Ireland Network and Friends of the Earth could be summarised as being that the scientific jury is out on the long-term effects of GMO in terms of cross-cultivation and pollination? We do not have enough information and, as a consequence, we should utilise our strategic position as an island to place ourselves as a GM-free area, also taking account of time-sequencing.

Mr. O’Callaghan

I agree with the conclusion but not with the first part. Vast scientific evidence already shows that it is inherently risky and genetically unstable.

Deputy Quinn

Does Mr. McLoughlin from the EPA share that view?

Dr. McLoughlin

There is no such thing as zero risk. The Monsanto field trials were part b small-scale release over a number of years. The level of risk, which was evaluated by the agency as low with which our experts agreed, was challenged in the High Court. The court agreed with us but there was much public concern. It must be done on a case by case basis. The agency, as the competent authority, carried out site inspections over a number of years on sugar beet and the risks from those field trials were vanishingly low. Sugar beet is a biennial plant which is harvested in the first year. We did not see it grow in that plot in subsequent years, nor did it grow at the side of the roads or on mountains. Some plants can survive over the winter and in a crop such as oilseed rape, the pollen containing the genetic material conferring herbicide tolerance can transfer to a related wheat species.

One can argue that is the potential risk. However, in Directive 2001/18, post-market monitoring is in place for the first time in the history of agriculture and that will audit those plants once they are released into the environment. A GM potato that would be tolerant to potato blight has been developed by scientists in the United States and our scientists at Teagasc in Oakpark are examining this technology. One can argue that if such a product is used in Ireland, it may have many potential benefits to both the environment and human health because farmers must apply sprays to counteract the fungus that causes potato blight. It must be examined on a case by case basis.

Overall scientific evidence states that there is no such thing as zero risk. In some cases there would be low risk but the risk must be managed and this is what the legislation dictates. I would not agree with what Mr. O'Callaghan states. The issue of an antibiotic marker gene is a red herring. The use of antibiotics in human medicine, veterinary medicine and animal feedstuffs during the past 40 years in Ireland is more hazardous than the use of an antibiotic marker gene. The plant does not produce the antibiotic, it contains a gene that confers tolerance to an antibiotic. The possibility exists, although it is extremely low, that the micro gene could be transferred to the microflora of the gut. Unfortunately, most of the microflora of the gut are already tolerant of kanamycin from the use of antibiotics over the years.

Mr. O’Callaghan

In risk assessment, what one finds depends on what one is seeking. The risk assessment procedures of the biotechnology industry and the European Food Safety Authority have been seriously criticised by independent competent scientists who have stated they are designed to be biased and to make it appear safe.

The control mechanism of an organism is the chromosomes in its cell. One does not have to be a biologist to understand that if one brutally blasts a new piece of modified DNA with a microscopic shotgun into a cell without knowing where it will stick, one will disrupt the self-organising control mechanism of the organism. Genetic modification creates instability. We have been told by reputable scientists that in certain cases when Monsanto and other companies patented a genetically modified crop, three or four years later the crop sold under that patent had evolved. The genetics were unstable and it no longer corresponded to the blueprint.

We must not forget the stated reason for GMO is that these transnational corporations are concerned with ending hunger and providing more nutrition for people. We are not against genetic engineering per se because it can be useful for producing pharmaceuticals in the medical field, etc. However, the scientists, politicians and farmers to whom I spoke in many countries believe the essential push behind this technology is that the crops are patented and that it is a way for the companies to get control over farmers.

Deputy Cuffe

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. My initial concern is that members of the public have an input into the licensing regime. Am I correct in assuming that there is no opportunity for the general public to have its say in the licensing of particular products? Could Mr. O'Mahony or Mr. McLoughlin confirm that?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

There is a facility on the European Food Safety Authority's website where members of the public can comment and give opinions on dossiers.

Deputy Cuffe

What about particular licences within the Irish framework?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

Is the Deputy referring to licences already in existence?

Deputy Cuffe

No. I mean those that are at a preliminary stage. At what stage do members of the general public get to voice their opinions?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

On the food side, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland specifically looks at safety. We do not involve the public. We issue an opinion based on the best science available and the Department of Health and Children either takes or does not take the advice.

Deputy Cuffe

There is quite a gap in the procedure. Members of the public can have an input into even the most complicated forms of licensing regarding integrated pollution control. They have two bites of the cherry, given that a draft licence is issued. There is then a second opportunity for members of the general public to make their views known. Within the debate about genetically modified products in Ireland, there has not been a sufficient public forum both on the generality and on the specific licensing arrangements. That gives rise to much of the public concern.

Mr. T. O’Mahony

I will clarify the position. The licensing is not done in Ireland and that is the difference. The licensing is done at a European level and what we are doing in Ireland is an input into that. If it comes to a vote at the regulatory committee, it is an input into Ireland's voting position. The licensing is done at European level and that is where the public access is available through the website.

Deputy Cuffe

Nonetheless, it would be possible for the Department or for the FSAI to directly invite public submissions. That, perhaps, is an opportunity lost to publicly request submissions into the process. It would be worth doing. I agree with other speakers regarding the added value Ireland, being an island nation, and in light of the green, clean image that Bord Bia is trying to foster, possesses. That is at risk if we fail to oppose the lifting of bans at European level.

Mr. John Heney

Perhaps I could throw some light on this. I was in Montreal last week at the Convention on Biological Diversity which discussed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to which Ireland is a signatory. Article 23 of the protocol deals with public awareness and participation. Paragraph 2 states:

The Parties shall, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations, consult the public in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms [that is, GMOs that can regenerate themselves] and shall make the results of such decisions available to the public, while respecting confidential information in accordance with Article 21.

There is an obligation on us as signatories of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Perhaps I could be allowed, at a later stage, to speak as a farmer on this issue.

Deputy Cuffe

That was most useful. The presentation Mr. Heney gave several months ago at the debate in the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government was also most useful and added to that debate. I agree that if there was a degree of focus on public consultation within the State, it might dampen down some of the passion in the entire area and lead to more clarity on the public's genuine concerns. I hope the committees will urge the Government to continue the existing bans.

In the context of the Government's view at EU level, Mr. Tom O'Mahony referred to the Administration's positive but precautionary approach. I have not seen any great fanfare in terms of the Government having a positive approach. Has that been formally announced or is this the first public disclosure of a formal policy on the issue?

Mr. T. O’Mahony

I am slightly taken aback by the question. A very exhaustive process was carried out by the Government from 1998 to 2000. This involved a number of strands including, initially, a consultative paper issued by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which led to a stakeholders' panel which, in turn, fed into an interdepartmental working group on modern biotechnology under the chair of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The latter published a report in 2000 which was adopted as Government policy at that time. Its overall conclusion was a positive acceptance of the potential benefits of biotechnology tempered by a precautionary approach to the potential risks and acceptance of the need to ensure that, as far as possible, the benefits of biotechnology are maximised and the risks minimised without compromising on safety for people and the environment.

In public statements in parliamentary questions, etc., since then, the relevant Departments have tended to make fairly extensive reference to this positive but precautionary principle as underlying our approach. That is the basis of it. It is a published report of an interdepartmental group which was adopted by Government as policy.

Deputy Cuffe

I note the dates on that report. It is just that, within my short tenure in the Dáil, I have not heard either the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, or his predecessor shouting from the rooftops that they favour a positive but precautionary approach. I take Mr. Tom O'Mahony's point regarding that report.

There is a need for much consultation on the issue. I request that the joint committees formally urge the Government to vote for the continuation of the bans that are in place and to further strengthen the view that my party and many others hold that Ireland favours a ban on the licensing of GM foods, feeds and crops within the State.

Chairman

Mr. Heney stated that he wants to make a point as a farmer. I will allow him to do so. I warn Mr. Heney that Deputy Ruairí Quinn has a thing about farmers.

Mr. Heney

It is very important that we, as the people who produce the food, have our voices heard. I am a farmer. I talk and think like a farmer. I am, therefore, approaching this from the point of view of a farmer. I admire and respect the scientists beside me. However, we are talking here about the greatest and most fundamental change ever in the production of food. For centuries we have been used to working with and enhancing nature to produce food. Now that will change. We are being asked to dominate nature, to change the nuts and bolts. I am a food producer.

There are 10,000 members in the ICSA and they all feel that they have a huge moral obligation to society in the way they produce food for society. We do not take it lightly. People may say it is a business and, in that context, we should adhere to whatever regulations are in place. We feel we have a moral obligation to society. We are being asked now to use GM products. We are being forced to use them because when we went to obtain feed last year we found it contained GM ingredients. I, like many other farmers, had to use straight barley that is grown in Ireland in order to be sure it was not genetically modified.

I recognise the scientific knowledge. However, another issue that arose in Montreal was the idea of community knowledge. Why do people not want GM food? There is no groundswell among farmers in favour of GM. I do not hear them saying that it is a great development and that they want to use it. I spent hours speaking to scientists in Montreal. They told me all about what could be done with this and the great advantages and huge savings that could be made. These lovely men in suits were going to make us more money, increase our productivity and all sorts of other things. I attended a meeting after that where I met farmers from all over the world, people who work on the land. I saw a farmer from Canada in tears because his product, which was contaminated with GM, is now being discounted. The position in America is the same. I met farmers from India who have suffered because of Bt cotton. The suicide rate has doubled and quadrupled in the areas where it is grown. This is what is happening to farmers on the ground. It is important that this point is brought out here today. We can talk about science but as Mr. McLoughlin said, science is not infallible. Scientists got it wrong before. Rachel Carson was despised, laughed at and ridiculed when she spoke about the danger of DDT but that changed very quickly.

We have accumulated knowledge over many generations. We are worried about this. If we are being asked to take this risk, then there is a risk. Who will benefit from risk benefit analysis? We are not short of food in Europe. The people in Africa do not like it either because Africa is anti-GM. We saw last week in Montreal how powerful the industry is. Two countries, New Zealand and Brazil, stopped an agreement on improving the identification of consignments of GM corn because it would cost too much for the exporting countries. Africa is terrified because all the GM maize is being dumped on it.

From a farmer's perspective, I see many things going wrong. Farmers globally do not want it. As I said earlier, the limited amount of public information is a nonsense. We signed up to an obligation to put a public information process in place. I have seen the influence of the biotechnology industry and I have heard the promises. I have spoken to farmers around the globe who have experienced the advantages of this technology.

The UN global environmental facility published a document which states that modern technology is a new field and that much about the interaction of live genetically modified organisms with various eco-systems is not yet known. Concern relates to the potentially adverse effects on biological diversity and the potential risk to human health. Other areas of concern might be the possibility of an adverse impact on beneficial insects and eco-systems, the potential for weakness in genetically modified crops and the stability of inserted genes. Why should we rush down that road? What is in it for us? I appeal to the Government not to force the other EU member states to drop their bans.

Deputy Gilmore

We were told by Mr. Pat O'Mahony, and it was confirmed by Mr. McLoughlin, that the EPA did not raise any objection to the proposal on MON863, which is currently before the European Union. Is the EPA assessment of that question documented? Is the documentation on which the EPA reached that conclusion publicly available? Is there a file or a documented paper trail which traces the EPA's assessment of that question? Is it possible to see documentation about the process and what informed the conclusion reached by the EPA?

Chairman

Has the EPA received a request for that information before and has it released it?

Mr. McLoughlin

There is a file available, but there is no onus in the legislation to make files publicly available, unlike waste or IPPC legislation. However, in the case of the Monsanto notification, the board of the agency decided to make the file available. Every item which came in regarding the Monsanto field trials in 1997 was made publicly available. That is a question for the board of the agency. Everything we sent and all the advice we got is in the file.

Mr. O’Callaghan

Was the EPA privy to the secret dossier of approximately 1,300 pages that Monsanto prepared on MON863, which was suppressed and was the subject of great controversy but which is now available? Did the EPA see that document or was its decision based on old assessments from years ago?

Chairman

I will allow Deputy Gilmore to ask his other question before we seek a reply to that one.

Deputy Gilmore

The committees should recommend that when issues relating to GM go to any of the State agencies for consideration and scientific evaluation and opinion, whether it is a ministerial position at the Council or the position of the regulatory committee, all the documentation which informs the conclusion reached by either the EPA or the Food Safety Authority of Ireland should be available publicly so that it can be tested and examined by people who have concerns or different views.

I agree with Deputy Quinn that, as an island, it is in our interest to support the concept of national bans. As an island, we should take a GM-free approach. If the agricultural and food production policy of the European Union generally is based on the assumption that there is over production, that we have a system of quotas which limit production and farm supports which are based on keeping production down, why would the European Union want to move to a situation where it allows a form of food production which its proponents argue is more efficient and intensive? What is the logic from the European Union's point of view of moving to genetically modified foods at considerable expense when it has a policy which is aimed at limiting and placing quotas and caps on the production of traditionally produced foods?

Mr. John Downey

I will probably not be able to deal comprehensively with that question from an EU point of view. The development of GM technology in the food area is part of the overall development of the biotechnological industry within the EU. The position taken is that enterprises in which the farming community wants to engage, whether these are conventional, organic or GM farming, should be available to the farming community on the basis that they do not cause any adverse effects to the environment, to human health or to the food and feed safety chain. To eliminate a type of enterprise for a trade reason or to reduce production types seems inconsistent with the approach taken by the EU. There are people who identify benefits for the biotechnological development of the food industry in the cultivation and food production areas. The main thrust of the argument is that the enterprises which the farming community wants to carry out should be available without causing any upset to existing farming enterprises or difficulties to the environment or to food and feed safety.

As regards the co-existence of GM crops, which is relevant to the Department of Agriculture and Food, we must put all the mechanisms in place to ensure there are no adverse effects to the wider farming community. These facilities must be made available to the farming and food producing communities.

Chairman

I am conscious that members of the Government parties have not had an opportunity to ask questions. I ask Mr. Coghlan to be brief.

Mr. Coghlan

I will be brief. As regards the Commission's motivation or intentions, it is worth noting that European regulation of GM is subject to a WTO dispute case which the US has brought on the basis that the existing regulation is hampering trade and US business. The EU is defending the European position at the WTO. However, because it has not released what it is saying, we do not know what case it is making. It appears the Commission's actions on these matters amount partly to a pre-emption of what may or may not come out of the WTO. The Commission seems to want to tidy up what it can.

Senator Dardis

I have a number of specific as well as general questions. I am glad Mr. Downey has had the opportunity to speak because some of my comments will be directed to him as well as Mr. Pat O'Mahony and Mr. Tom O'Mahony.

Am I correct in assuming the illegal shipment by Syngenta of Bt10 maize to Greenore was confiscated and locked up somewhere and did not find its way into the marketplace?

Mr. Downey

The Senator is correct; the Bt10 maize has not found its way into the market. It is in storage.

Senator Dardis

It is a little simplistic to say the Bt10 maize arrived and create the impression that it was distributed.

Mr. Downey

It was placed in storage.

Senator Dardis

That leads me to my next point. What strikes me is that the procedures for regulating GM content are more rigorously applied in the case of animal feed rather than food. Mr. Pat O'Mahony has referred to the specific labelling requirement when a food product has a GM content of more than 0.9%. How do we ensure compliance with this requirement?

On an allied question, the FSAI conducts regular surveys to ensure only authorised GM foods are on the market. How does one know the product in the jar is GM free?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

Senator Dardis is both correct and incorrect. If there is maize or soya in a product, unless it has been highly refined, as can happen, one can detach the DNA or protein which can be tested and the specific genes inserted can be identified and quantified. One can take specific samples from a shipment of maize and homogenise them in order to identify and quantify it. That is how one arrives at the figure of 0.9%. It is based on DNA. One measures the GM DNA relative to normal DNA in the plant and arrives at the percentage.

Senator Dardis

Is testing being conducted?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

Yes.

Chairman

Is it the case that testing might be more rigorous for one product as opposed to another?

Senator Dardis

If it is our intention to ensure the thresholds are met and only foods of a particular quality arrive in the country, what are we doing to ensure this happens?

It might be helpful if I list all my queries rather than raising them sequentially. One of the difficulties is that we are dealing with the biotechnology of food, seed, crops and animal feed and its effect on health. A number of bodies are involved, including the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and the European Food Safety Authority. To apply a cliché, too many cooks spoil the broth. I know where primary statutory responsibility rests but there is a significant number of agencies involved.

Is Mr. Heney the national chairman of the ICSA or chairman of the rural development committee?

Mr. Heney

I am chairman of the rural development committee.

Senator Dardis

Is Mr. Heney speaking on behalf of the ICSA or in a personal capacity?

Mr. Heney

I am speaking officially for the ICSA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association.

Senator Dardis

I know the view of the ICSA on GM free foods but it comes back to verification. I understand some Bt maize found its way into the animal food chain. If I see a sign in the local butcher shot that meat is GM free, I am at a loss to know how I can establish this. While I am in favour of being able to buy GM free meat, I wonder how I will know it is GM free.

Mr. Heney spoke about moral obligations which we all have. There is a moral obligation to the Third World. Ms Rachel Carson's Silent Spring detailed the impact of DDT which we know is carcinogenic and was banned. However, many people in Africa would not be alive but for it. We know nothing is risk free.

If one looks at the balance of advantage of GM crops as against a Fusarium resistance wheat crop or corn root worm and potato cyst eelworm, is it possible to make a judgment as to which is better environmentally and from a health point of view, to use chemicals, fungicides and seed dressings and so on or genetically modify the crop? I accept there are difficulties and that nothing is risk free but if it is the case that yields can be increased exponentially at an economic value, in terms of the moral obligation to feed a world that is starving, is there not some balance of advantage?

Dr. McLoughlin

We must look at the issue on a case by case basis. Of the 19 GM products approved for use at European level, very few would be pertinent for Irish agriculture. Many are tolerant of Bt and we do not have the European corn borer pest. We could have a GM potato on the market that is tolerant of potato blight which would be very pertinent to Ireland. Consumers may wish to buy such products. If one was not using chemicals to control potato blight, the argument could be made as to whether it would be better for the environment or human health but the important point is that products are labelled and it is up to the farmer and consumer to decide if they want to buy GM products. It is not a decision for the regulatory agencies.

I am a consumer with children and concerned about the chemicals used on some of the products we import such as bananas, apples and oranges. Is the reason fruit is uniform in appearance that pesticides have been used? The debate centres on whether chemicals and pesticides are potentially more problematic to human health and the environment than GM crops. That is my judgment. It is the decision of the individual consumer.

The humble potato has been used for many years in Ireland but if that product had to meet the requirements of EU Directive 2001/18, it would not secure approval because it produces the toxin Solanin. As a consequence, it would probably not be marketed. We have to consider the relative risks of GM crops. I refer, for example, to the use of GM crops vis-a-vis the use of the most toxic plant known to man, namely, the tobacco plant, and the number of deaths it causes worldwide as compared to eating herbicide tolerant or Bt tolerant maize. One must put this in perspective. We seem to be concerned about perceived risks while accepting tobacco related deaths and deaths on our roads. It is important that the public is given proper risk information.

Senator Dardis

How can I, with confidence, exercise my desire to buy GM-free foods?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

Current labelling legislation for GM foods is specific. In other words, if it is below 0.9% the consumer will not know about it. Having said that, farmers strive not to use GMOs in their farming practices. However, we have found one or two products with traces of GMOs due to mixing during transport storage. GM labelling has come under scrutiny from us because opportunists in the industry have figured out that certain people may be sensitive to GM and are putting GM-free labels on products. Some companies are labelling foods with GM ingredients with GM-free labels.

Deputy R. Quinn

Are such people prosecuted? What is the legal redress if it is discovered that a company is deliberately misleading the public? What action can be taken?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

We recently identified a number of products labelled as GM-free but containing GM ingredients. As the companies responsible are based outside Ireland, we cannot apply sanctions but we have notified the relevant authorities. We have notified retailers and the industry here that the buck stops with them if the consumer is being misled.

Chairman

Has action been taken in any other jurisdiction?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

Just a little as they also had difficulties getting through the system. We have put the Irish industry on notice that we will prosecute for a second offence.

Deputy R. Quinn

If a retailer buys a consignment from an agent because it is GM-free and it later turns out the consignment contains GM ingredients and if you inform the retailer he or she is misleading the public and have, presumably, a legal obligation to remove the product, does he or she take the hit?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

We inform the retailer of the problem and tell him or her that we will take action the next time it happens. We try to be fair to the retailer and to the consumer. The retailer is made aware of the problem and the risk he or she will be taking if he or she stocks the product again.

Chairman

Are consumers informed?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

We publish the surveys on our website and they are often taken up by the media. We identify the brands and problems which arose.

Chairman

Is that the extent of the action taken?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

We also notify the press.

Deputy Cuffe

Are the breaches identified through testing or from information received from elsewhere?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

They are discovered through routine testing. We identified GM-free as an issue two years ago when carrying out regular testing for authorised GMs with which there was no problem. However, we noted an increase in GM-free labelling at that time.

It is one thing for a food containing GM ingredients to be labelled GM-free but under the EU general labelling directive, one cannot associate special characteristics with a food if all similar foods have the same characteristic. The example I usually use is that one cannot label milk from an organic cow as GM-free because there is no such thing as GM-free milk. We have found that many companies are putting GM-free labels on their products. By way of example, I recently came across a bottle of colloidal silver, a supplement. The ingredients were recorded as 99.9% water and 0.1% colloidal silver. The product contained no biological material but was labelled as GM-free. Certain companies are using the label as a marketing ploy.

Senator Dardis

Perhaps Mr. Downey could inform the committee about the yield potential. Is it true that this is the type of silver bullet that can help eradicate world hunger?

Mr. Downey

I am accompanied by two experts in the fields of feed and general crop, Mr. Gerry Lohan and Mr. Tom Keating. I am not able to give the Senator a definite answer to his question. Perhaps my colleagues may be able to answer it for him. If there are questions relating to agriculture, I had intended——

Chairman

We would like an answer to the question.

Mr. Gerry Lohan

I work in the crop variety testing division in the Department of Agriculture and Food. On the advantage gained from GM crops, it is very much an open question as to whether there is a major advantage, one way or the other, in terms of the economic response one will get. The situation differs from case to case.

On whether it will help solve world hunger, I would not trumpet that as likely to happen. However, there are advantages in certain cases. The best advantage to Third World countries is that GM crops would inherently control particular insects and diseases, thereby assisting such countries to produce crops rather than having Europe produce additional food and export it elsewhere. The main advantage would be in Third World countries being able to produce better yields from their crops by virtue of controlling insect pests. It would also reduce the amount of insecticide used by farmers in somewhat primitive circumstances which often lead to health problems. GM-free crops of that nature would be advantageous if used indigenously within those countries. However, I do not believe there is any advantage to be gained from the production of those products in Europe.

Mr. Coghlan

Senator Dardis identified the problem in terms of world hunger when he mentioned seed. Our primary concern with regard to the impact of GM being widely used in the Third World is the dependence of farmers on the GM companies for seed and the potential use of terminator genes which would mean that they could not save seed from one season to the next. We are concerned about the motives of the companies involved and about the sustainability and viability of the Third World feeding itself that way.

Mr. O’Callaghan

On traceability, we have been repeatedly informed about the ability of the competent authorities in Europe and the US to keep this matter under control. I would like to make two points in that regard. Co-existence is not possible. It is a dangerous myth. In Canada, it is now impossible to grow GM-free oilseed rape because of contamination. The same applies to soya. It is almost impossible to grow GM-free soya or maize in Argentina. This type of contamination is unlike any we are used to. If DDT is put in the food chain, it will eventually dissipate over a few hundred years. If a genetically engineered oilseed rape plant was placed in the middle of St. Stephen's Green, there would be approximately 10 million rape seed plants throughout the country ten years later. It is an opposite-type pollution in that it grows and cannot be stopped.

Intelligent food producing regions throughout Europe are aware of that. A person caught growing GM in Tuscany can be sent to prison for two years and fined €50,000. That regime applies throughout Italy, in some parts of France and in Greece. A motion banning the growth of GM products was unanimously passed in County Clare recently. Many people throughout Europe oppose GM. I am talking about regional and some national governments and the food producing companies. It is important to realise that the 30 biggest food brands and retailers in Europe, as reported in a pamphlet from Greenpeace, have GM-free policies in place. There is no market for GM food in Europe. These regions are involved for financial gain. We should be doing the same in Ireland.

Deputy Mulcahy

I thank the Chairman and Deputy Haughey for convening the joint meeting on this important topic. There are implications for the European project, our environment and our agricultural industry. This represents a great failure for Europe and for Ireland. Most of these products have been passed through the Commission under comitology because the member states have refused to say either yes or no. From the European perspective, the member states have flunked it. They have passed the buck to an unelected Commission. Unfortunately, last year an Irish Commissioner broke a ten-year moratorium on the ban. The floodgates are now open.

People tomorrow at the European Council will be scratching their heads and wondering why people voted against the new EU Constitution. This is a good example of why people did that. An unelected body, the Commission, is making an incredibly important decision which will affect all our lives into the future. That is unacceptable and illegal.

Deputy Quinn

The national Government accepted it.

Deputy Mulcahy

I said that. This is extraordinarily serious and it is illegal. There is an onus on you, Chairman, and on the Joint Committee on European Affairs to take the best legal advice to establish if this comitology procedure is legal.

Chairman

Our advice is that it is legal.

Deputy Mulcahy

It was not rock solid advice because there were caveats at the end of it. It is a serious issue. That is the European perspective.

As regards the environmental perspective, I do not know if it will destroy the environment. Mr. O'Callaghan could be right when he says it will. The experts cannot tell us it will not destroy the environment. I have not received a written guarantee from any of the agencies to say this will not destroy our environment into the future. I would look forward to receiving such a guarantee. I do not want to take that risk.

We are sullying Ireland's reputation as a green natural producer of food. Shame on the politicians and officials who supported it and shame on us for allowing it to happen. We will ruin Ireland's reputation as a green environment and food producing country into the future if we allow ourselves to become involved in GM technology.

Deputy Cuffe

I hope the Deputy said that to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche.

Deputy Mulcahy

I am saying it publicly to everyone.

Deputy Cuffe

I hope the Deputy said it directly to the Minister.

Deputy Mulcahy

I did.

Deputy Cuffe

That is good.

Deputy Mulcahy

As regards the food angle, I have yet to meet a consumer who wants to eat genetically modified food. Such consumers do not exist. I would like to know what An Bord Bia and the Department of Agriculture and Food think. Do they think we will sell more products around the world if we allow our food to be genetically modified? Do they think we will enhance the value of our products? We will ruin our reputation worldwide as a food producer. It does not take a PhD in science or food processing to know that.

Senator Dardis

The Department did not advocate what the Deputy suggested.

Deputy Mulcahy

The farmers may have vested interests in this and the Senator can speak for his vested interest later.

Senator Dardis

At least I declared it.

Deputy Mulcahy

This is an incredibly serious matter in regard to our food. I understood that the thinking in Irish agriculture was that we would produce and sell high quality natural premium food of which we could all be proud. However, I find out today that we cannot ban these products. I thought we could have banned them unilaterally, but we cannot. My first question today was supposed to be if local authorities could ban them within their areas. However, it seems they cannot. Regional government bans are illegal. The Commission will propose next week to remove these prohibitions. I call on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, to support these countries in their prohibitions. I also call on Ireland to move a motion to prohibit these products in our country. This is extraordinarily serious.

I thank the officials for coming here today. I know they are doing their best. Shame on Ireland and on Europe. This must be the beginning, not the end.

Mr. Coghlan

The Deputy asked about the opinion of An Bord Bia. Each agency is given a small piece of the picture to examine and its mandate does not allow it to look at the wider picture which this committee is discussing. We are in danger of each agency not being allowed to state that it does not favour GM products or that it is in our wider interests to avoid them. That means we will end up with a dish which no one wants to buy because no one, other than the committee, is allowed to say we do not want it.

Chairman

Senator Dardis made the point earlier that many people are involved in this area. As he said, communication between different Departments may not have been as good as it should have been.

Mr. Coghlan

We should not forget the remit and the mandate.

Mr. Heney

I agree with Deputy Mulcahy's sentiments. I want to respond to what Senator Dardis said. He appeared to place a question mark on the type of moral obligation I have as a food producer. That matter was dealt with earlier. There are apparent advantages to GM cropping in the Third World. However, the problem is the introduction of mono-culture type crops to that area because they are susceptible to the local environment. However, the native varieties have survived for generations. The people there fear these new varieties because they are letting them down and they are losing a lot of money.

Senator Dardis

Mexican dwarf wheat was not there for generations.

Mr. Heney

The Senator is talking about the green revolution.

Senator Dardis

It transformed Bangladesh.

Mr. Heney

There were also failings. The Senator made an issue of the Bt10 consignment in County Louth and he said it was still in quarantine and had not been put on the market. Can the Senator tell me how many loads of corn gluten arrived in Ireland over the past four years and made its way into animal feed and human food? That is the big question. We have relied on the authority ——

Senator Dardis

Mr. Heney is addressing the question to the wrong person. I am not competent to answer that.

Chairman

Senator Dardis's only point was that he could see the negatives and the positives to some aspects of this issue. That is fair. Perhaps Senator Dardis is not the right person of whom to address that question. Mr. Heney should make a general point.

Mr. Heney

Perhaps I am asking myself that question and I am worried about it. My obligation to the consumer has been undermined because there is now a danger that I have fed my animals on something of which I was not aware and which is illegal.

I want to take up an issue with Mr. Downey about giving farmers the ability to grow GM crops. I do not see a groundswell of farmers wanting to grow GM crops, although someone may find one or two. Many of the actions which farmers would like to take are not allowed. We have suddenly become democratic and permit everybody to do things. Maybe we can regulate for co-existence but as a farmer I have seen regulations come and go. The common sense of farmers is that it is not feasible to rely on official regulations to make co-existence work.

Senator Dardis

While I asked questions, I did not at any stage advocate that GM crops be grown in this country. I want this to be clearly understood.

Chairman

I apologise for the delay and ask for patience. As two committees are meeting simultaneously, delays will occur in hearing from members. We should continue for some time longer because some members have not yet had the opportunity to speak.

Senator Lydon

We should not be afraid of scientific advancement in any field, including that of GM foods. However, because of my background, I have witnessed the introduction of cure-all drugs in the field of medicine, and specifically psychiatry, over the past 25 years. Some drugs were withdrawn a year after their approval by the FDA in America, when patients died or suffered severe side effects. This led me to the belief that, when introducing anything which may affect people, we must move with considerable caution. The same applies to GM foods.

The report before us states that the inclusion of the antibiotic resistant marker genes, ARMG, in a product can theoretically cause loss of effectiveness in humans of kanamycin and neomycin but this did not cause the European Food Safety Authority any worries. Losses could theoretically result, as happened in the cases of other drugs. Theoretical effects sometimes became reality. The report also stated that it would confer resistance to antibiotics which have minor therapeutic relevance to human medicine. As that implies some relevance, we cannot afford to take the risk.

It was pertinent of Deputy Gilmore to ask why, if we do not need it and have a situation of over production, we are trying to introduce it. The GM agenda is driven by one company, Monsanto. A few years ago, this company introduced seeds which would not germinate, so that the farmer had to buy more the following year. By this means, the entire market of 42 million farmers would be controlled. We cannot trust this company. A great opportunity exists to market Ireland as a GM-free zone. We must take into account that 70% of the EU, approximately 300 million people, do not want GM foods. It is irrelevant that they may have been misinformed. We must respect their beliefs.

I concur with Deputy Cuffe's remark that we should encourage the Government to vote against the introduction of this stage. I am not opposed to GM foods per se but we are not ready and do not need them. We should encourage our Government to introduce a ban to keep this country free of them for the foreseeable future.

Mr. O’Callaghan

I spoke to a person in Europe who plays a key role in investigating the GM issue. He authoritatively said that, because of Ireland's geographical location as an island which is upwind from the rest of Europe 80% of the time, an all-island GMO-free policy would result in the most credible GMO-free food status in Europe. This would be of interest to international companies who wish to supply the growing market for GMO-free seed. Significant investment by large seed companies would ensue. This is a further example of the economic advantages possible for Ireland in this matter.

Deputy Sexton

My concerns do not differ from those of the ordinary man on the street. I concur with Deputy Mulcahy in that serious concern exists at the speed of Europe's progression, while citizens are left behind. Farmers have indicated that they are not particularly interested in GM crops. Consumers are not interested. This committee confirmed that the benefits for any country in adopting GM crops are questionable. Every contributor here agreed that we do not need or want them. I am concerned that we are seen by Europe as pushing the agenda. It appears that the only beneficiaries will be pioneers of the crops such as Monsanto.

EU member states decided to impose national bans but the Commission seems to think it can override these decisions. The cynicism of Joe Citizen arises from such circumstances. We say that member states may make independent decisions but a matter as significant as the introduction of GM foods may be overridden by the Commission. As a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I recommend that the Government should oppose the Commission's attempt to override the ban imposed at member state level. After listening to today's contributions and because no matter is free of risk, we should err on the side of caution. I seek a GM-free Ireland.

I would like to ask a brief question of Mr. O'Mahony. Did he say that GM-free milk is not available in Ireland or did I mishear him?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

That is technically the case. As there are no GM cows, there is no GM milk.

Deputy Sexton

Does Mr. O'Mahony mean that all milk is GM free?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

There are no GM cows. In terms of legislation, giving a GM-free label to certain milk might imply that other milk may contain GMOs.

Deputy Sexton

I thought it was the other way around.

Mr. O’Callaghan

It is important to realise that the mandatory GM labelling legislation does not apply to food supplied from animals. Unless organic produce is consumed, the bacon, eggs, milk, butter and other animal produce in Ireland comes from animals which have been fed a GM diet which may include illegal material such as last week's 2,500 tonne shipment. We have all been eating this material without realising it.

Deputy Sexton

I began my life with an allergic reaction to penicillin. As I grow older, my resistance to other antibiotics is increasing and I suffer a stronger allergic reaction to other substances. Similar events are experienced by the population as a whole. The environment is responsible to a large degree. The introduction of GM foods by Monsanto and other companies would give rise to significant concerns in terms of the health of the population.

Senator Bannon

I thank the Chairman and Deputy Haughey for organising today's important meeting. The German Government commissioned a review of Monsanto's study. Why have the results of this not been published by the German Government or the European Food Safety Authority? We merely receive leaked information. Evidence from feeding trials indicates that GM corn causes harm to rats. It changed the balance of white and red blood cells in rats and triggered serious kidney problems. This result alarmed the French. Recent reports suggest that the British Government is also concerned. As far back as 1998, concerns were expressed when it was discovered that rats were harmed when fed GM potatoes. It is of serious concern that it has not been proven that GM foods pose no health risks for animals. I am totally opposed to the introduction of GM foods because of the serious health repercussions. There should be more openness and transparency on this issue in the interests of public safety.

Deputy Mulcahy spoke earlier about consumers' concerns in regard to GM foods. Experts throughout Europe observe that supermarkets and food manufacturers are also concerned at the introduction of GM foods because the public do not want them and there will be no market for such products. GM foods should not be forced on consumers. Moreover, the warnings from experts and doctors dictate that such products should not be forced into our food chains.

I hope the Government will oppose the introduction of GM foods at EU level and it will have my support in such a stance. The Oireachtas must make a decision on this matter rather then passing the buck to the Commission. Elected representatives should be able to make decisions such as this based on the expert opinions and studies available.

Chairman

Mr. McLoughlin has heard a number of members raising similar concerns in regard to GM foods. He mentioned relief for angina sufferers as one example of the positive benefits of a particular genetically modified micro-organism. Can Mr. McLoughlin counter members' concerns by giving more such positive examples?

Mr. McLoughlin

Mr. Lohan made the case clearly when he said there are pros and cons regarding the introduction of GM crops. The use of GMOs in medicines and bio-pharmaceuticals has undoubtedly been accepted readily in Europe. There is no public concern regarding these issues in Ireland.

In response to Deputy Cuffe, the EPA maintains a register of GMO users in Ireland which provides detailed information on the usage of GMOs, whether in contained environments or in respect of a deliberate release into the environment as part of a field trial. The placing on the market of GMOs would be a matter for the EPA as the competent evaluating authority. The EPA's register means all this information is publicly available.

I can only speak for farmers who are using GM herbicide-tolerant crops but I am certain that if the public does not want GM foods, such products will not see the light of day. As I have already said, many of the GM crops approved for use in Europe, such as the Bt crops, are not relevant for Irish agriculture because we do not have to contend with the particular pests those crops are designed to control. The jury is out on GM crops in Europe. In the United States and some other countries, however, the GM crop acreage has increased dramatically since 1996.

Deputy Quinn

Have there been any public health side effects as a consequence of the increased usage of GM crops in the US?

Mr. McLoughlin

My colleague, Mr. Pat O'Mahony, may be the best person to answer that question. I understand no adverse effects have been reported from the use of GM crops since their introduction. People frequently become ill as a consequence of eating chicken infected with bacteria such as salmonella. However, no adverse effects have been reported from the consumption of GM soya beans, for example, a product we have been using in Ireland since 1996.

Deputy Mulcahy

I understand there is no requirement for growers to register their use of GM crops and that once a product is authorised by the EU, a farmer may plant that seed without a licence. Is this correct?

Mr. McLoughlin

My colleague, Mr. John Downey, alluded to co-existence measures and the Department of Agriculture and Food is the competent authority for co-existence.

Mr. Lohan

An interdepartmental working group is currently preparing a report on co-existence measures, which will be presented to the Minister shortly. Part of this research will involve the introduction of measures to determine how GM crops can be used by farmers. At present, there is no requirement for a farmer to report the use of a GM crop. However, farmers are obliged to notify the Department when they import any seeds for this purpose.

Deputy Mulcahy

Is that a legal requirement?

Mr. Lohan

Yes.

Senator Dardis

Does Mr. Lohan agree that the maize varieties which are currently genetically modified are unlikely to be sown here?

Mr. Lohan

That is correct because we do not have to contend with the European corn borer. This means there is no reason to grow those varieties here.

Deputy Mulcahy

: Do we know accurately how many acres are under GM crops in Ireland?

Mr. Lohan

There are currently no GM crops in Ireland.

Deputy Mulcahy

How does Mr. Lohan know this?

Mr. Lohan

No GM seed has been imported. It is a legal requirement to report to the Department of Agriculture and Food any seed that is imported as well as its nature and purpose. In addition, tests are carried out in the Department's seed certification division on all imported seed, whether GM or non-GM seed. No GM seed has been imported to date.

Senator Quinn

I apologise to the delegation for missing part of its presentation. I was obliged to attend another committee meeting. A hero of mine is a man called Norman Borlaug, now 90 years of age, who won the Nobel peace prize in 1970. I advise members and witnesses to look up his name on the Internet because the work he has done is very impressive. He is credited with saving tens of millions of lives through his work on crop development, particularly maize and wheat, and he remains an enthusiastic and committed scientist.

I mention him merely to highlight the danger we face of making a decision which might exclude us from scientific developments. This is a matter of concern because our future will depend on our being in touch with all such developments. If we exclude ourselves totally from the advances in GM crops, we may lose out to a large extent on the opportunities that arise in the years ahead, not only in food production but in many other areas.

I will give one example which I have mentioned on other occasions. A genetically modified grass seed has been developed which changes colour when it grows beside metal. One may well wonder what is the purpose of such a product. However, it is of great use in areas where mines have been laid because the seed can be scattered over that area and, within days or weeks, it is possible to identify the location of the mines because the grass will be brown rather than green. I mention this as an example of the benefits that would not have derived if GM products had been excluded worldwide.

As a nation with a serious involvement in food production, we must consider whether we are we in danger of excluding ourselves if we take a strong anti-GM attitude. On the other hand, we must also listen to customers, a particular concern of mine. There is no doubt about the lack of interest in GM products among the public, as another member observed. I have met very few Irish customers who have expressed an interest in such products. However, I meet many people in the US who are enthusiastic about the benefits they have received from GM foods.

We can opt to exclude ourselves from scientific developments by putting forward a clear and determined viewpoint that we are totally opposed to this. That is the wrong approach to take. We may also choose to be guided by the argument that we should have nothing to do with GM foods because that is what the vast majority of the Irish public wants. Some of the emotive language we have heard today concerns me. In many cases, the anti-GM attitude is driven by emotion rather than by the evidence presented by scientists and other experts. Yet I have concerns about the scientists too. I do not mean those in Ireland or those present, but in general they seem, to use an expression that someone used in another regard, to have vested interests. When I meet scientists, it very often turns out later that they had a vested interest on one side or the other. Some of the scientists have to be very careful about the words they use when they are totally opposed to GM foods or totally in favour. There does not seem to be a balance.

When I come to what we should do in Ireland, I do not think we are sure where we should go, and this discussion is part of that. We have a decision to make next week, and I am a great believer in European subsidiarity. If we do not manage to hold on to rights to make close to home those decisions that we should make, we will lose the enthusiasm of the Irish people for Europe. Perhaps it is a question of time. Perhaps we must decide between the emotional and the scientific view. On this occasion, we must also decide how we are to bring Irish democracy along with us and maintain support.

On that basis, I come down in favour of maintaining the right to regional balance. That is the way we should go next week. However, I would hate to make a decision that places us, in words that I have heard today, in the position of saying we are opposed to almost every scientific development. I see substantial future benefits in genetically modified products. Let us ensure that, when we make such decisions, we do so on the basis of scientific evidence rather than emotion.

Chairman

Senator Quinn made a valid point, which is roughly the same one that Senator Dardis was making, although I may be mistaken. He made the point that we should not be totally opposed to this.

Mr. Heney

We do not oppose the use of biotechnology in other areas. My only field is food production. However, I strenuously disagree with the use of the word "emotion". The Senator is dismissing the idea of community knowledge when compared with expert knowledge. However, in Montreal I found the expert knowledge very narrow. I spent two or three hours speaking to someone who, although not a farmer, was involved in agriculture in India. The Indians have great respect for the concept of community knowledge. The Senator, by using the term "emotion", could be seen to be dismissing the idea of community knowledge. It is a wealth of knowledge that has grown regarding food production over generations and specific areas. I referred to it earlier in the context of monoculture versus cropping which is adaptable to local conditions.

People are terrified that the seed they have been using for generations will be taken from them and patented by the big companies. Developing countries have a great fear of that. I am amazed that the opposition to GM has come from developing countries — perhaps the Senator would accuse them of being emotional. All the support for GM came from wealthy countries such as the US and Canada, along with Argentina, which is greatly developing its export industry.

I have a great problem with the idea of emotion. The experts went out to the Third World and did all sorts of things, causing disasters there. Take coffee, for example. The world is now overflowing with coffee. They thought that a cash crop would aid those countries, but it did not work. The green revolution was referred to. It was not all grand, since that caused problems too. It was a great help where it worked, but it also caused a great many problems by not allowing the crops that people had produced in their areas to continue, although they could adapt to all sorts of environmental and climate changes. The new crops were wiped out as soon as there was a drought. It is not as simple as we would like to believe.

I appeal to the Senator to address the issue of community knowledge. It was a scientist who raised the issue with me rather than a farmer. A botanist who was very much in favour of GM spoke of community knowledge, which one cannot quantify or measure. However, it exists and is extremely important. It should not be dismissed in this debate.

Ms Joan Regan

I would like to return to a point raised about public health. We have no credible evidence that the consumption of GM foods poses any threat to public health. In considering applications and authorisations, a full risk assessment is carried out, and the Department, in voting, would have due regard to the health aspects. As yet, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any public health issue.

Senator Bannon

Why have the German Government and the European Food Safety Authority not published the full results of the recent review of the Monsanto study? All we are getting is leaks.

Mr. P. O’Mahony

Perhaps I can clarify that. On the food side, when an application to market a new GM food is received, the Commission and the applicant sit down and decide what sections or parts are deemed commercially sensitive. From what I can gather regarding the document to which the Senator refers, certain parts of the rat study were deemed sensitive and confidential, something more than likely agreed by the Commission. As far as I am aware, those were the issues raised by the anti-GM lobby. It would not be up to the European Food Safety Authority to release what it had already agreed was confidential. It would be up to Monsanto, and I believe it is fighting that in the courts. It is apparently an issue of confidentiality and sensitivity.

Senator Bannon

Will it ever be made public?

Mr. P. O’Mahony

We have access to it as a member state conducting risk assessments through the European Food Safety Authority. Perhaps if the court in Germany authorised its publication, or if Monsanto agreed to release it, it might be made public.

Senator Quinn

I take the point that Mr. Heney made regarding community knowledge. However, that must be backed up by science. If community knowledge is to be based on opposition to scientific knowledge, I would have great difficulty with it.

Perhaps I might address another point regarding the United States. The Food and Drug Administration of the United States seems to have very strict controls. That was the authority that did not allow thalidomide into the United States, thereby rescuing many babies from the effects of a scientific development that we in Europe allowed. It is very highly regarded and I have not heard of any problems occurring in the United States. When I visit the country, I hear only enthusiasm from those in the food production and retail industry and from consumers, who have recognised the benefits rather than the disadvantages.

Mr. O’Callaghan

I feel obliged to contradict the Senator. My information is that the person in charge of biotechnology at the FDA in the United States is a former Monsanto lawyer. There has been great discussion in such journals as Scientific American on scientists being fired because they were whistleblowers who reported on GM issues and other problems. They have been removed from the FDA by the White House. We regard the FDA in the United States as completely corrupt and untrustworthy on the GM issue specifically.

The other point concerned the report on Monsanto that Senator Bannon mentioned. That was made public two weeks ago. It has been released since the German court and Monsanto agreed to do so. I have a copy here of Dr. Árpád Pusztai's evaluation of that report, which is on the GM-free Ireland website. The Senator can find it there, or if he wishes I can give him a copy. I understand that there was great reluctance on Monsanto's part to release it.

I might make a quick comment on the science. We must be scientific. We face a situation similar to that regarding the false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq made by Bush and Blair. False claims have been made in this country, for example, by people in this room, that there is no scientific evidence of any health risks from GM. Those and other such claims give science a bad name. There is evidence for and against, and one can argue, but to deny the existence of any evidence of health risks when senior scientists in this country have said that gives science a bad name. It raises the question of what kind of science the biotech industry is using.

The independent science panel on GM is of the opinion that the industry's way of thinking about risk assessment and about the functioning of the genome is based on an outdated reductionist scientific paradigm, like a flat earth view of things that systematically ignores 30 years of new insights into molecular biology and systems theory and a whole range of sub-disciplines. The basic premise of the outdated model is that living organisms are like a machine and one piece of DNA codes to one particular protein that has one single effect in the metabolism of the organism in a linear, causal way. The new paradigm of genetics states that single pieces of DNA can code from many different proteins and these have many different effects, backwards and forwards, within the metabolism of the organism and within the larger ecosystem in which that organism exists.

Chairman

I am beginning to realise why the Irish Government is abstaining in all these votes.

Senator Brennan

I concur with concerns expressed by previous speakers. It has been said that following the vote in Europe, GMOs may be allowed in other countries, even if they are not allowed in Ireland, but if we are against GM food or seeds being introduced then by abstaining we would be giving Europe the right to make the decision on our behalf. As the elected representatives of the people the worst decision would be abstention.

Chairman

Mr. Coghlan and Mr. O'Callaghan made the point in their opening presentations that abstention would be as good as a "Yes" in that it would go back to the Commission to make the decision. Can Mr. O'Mahony comment on that?

Mr. O’Mahony

I am mindful of the strictures the Chairman reminded us of at the outset that under the legislation we cannot express comments on the merits of Government policy. The Minister must take a position based on all of the information provided to him, which will include a full transcript of today's debate in which strong arguments have been made. It would not be appropriate for me to respond directly.

Chairman

I appreciate Mr. O'Mahony's position.

Senator Brennan

It is therefore important for this Committee to make a recommendation.

Chairman

As the transcript will be sent to the Minister, if the Senator wishes to make a recommendation he may do so. It will then be on record for the Minister to consider.

Senator Brennan

Opponents of the recent EU constitutional referendum made the point that it would dictate to other countries. In line with that, we should retain the status quo and not agree to any changes with regard to EU food policy.

Senator Ormonde

I came to the joint committee meeting this morning with no knowledge of this issue. I am from an urban background but I buy organic food and I am conscious of the debate about natural food.

I was impressed during the debate by the focus on community knowledge, because it is somewhat lacking. I respect the professionalism of the contributors but there needs to be a balance between professional expertise and the views of ordinary citizens. I feel there is a gap in that regard. Citizens do not know what is happening any more than myself and I am here to represent them. All of us, from officials to public representatives, have failed to discuss the issue and it is regrettable that it is only now we are doing so. Maybe we will learn the lesson that a discussion needs to take place in our schools and our third level colleges because that is where our knowledge of the issue will come from in the future.

I thoroughly believe in the concept of subsidiarity, about which we talked at length in the run up to the expected referendum. There is not enough transparency on this issue and if decisions are again taken out of our hands they will go against us. I would appreciate another discussion on this in the future as I have limited knowledge and am on a learning curve.

Deputy Haughey

I welcome the fact that we have had this meeting of the two joint committees this morning and I pay tribute to Deputy Mulcahy. When I was a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs it was Deputy Mulcahy who first raised this issue and established the weakness in the decision-making process.

On a point of order, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government is meeting next week with the Minister. We have adopted a procedure whereby the Minister comes into the committee in advance of European Council meetings. This issue will be part of the committee's agenda.

Chairman

I propose sending a transcript to the Minister and discussing the matter with the Deputy to decide on how we are to proceed. It has been an open meeting for the past two and a half hours in which various views have been expressed which warrant further discussion by the two committees before deciding the next step.

Deputy Haughey

Strong views have been expressed but the committee will be in a position next week to make a recommendation to the Minister. I encourage the members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs to attend the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government next week.

Deputy Sexton

Deputy Mulcahy has a formal proposal to make to the committee.

Chairman

Our orders of reference may prevent the committee from doing that. Can it be dealt with in the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government?

Deputy Cuffe

Is it in order to move a motion from the floor of this committee urging the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to vote in favour of a continued ban on GMOs at the forthcoming meeting of the Environment Council?

Chairman

From a procedural standpoint it may be appropriate to move it in the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. Deputy Mulcahy is contemplating a motion as well.

Deputy Cuffe

If there are competing motions I would prefer the transcript to be sent to the Minister. Then I will speak to Deputy Haughey about what we have discussed so that a determination can be made by the committee members.

Deputy Sexton

Can the Chairman clarify that?

Chairman

A transcript will be sent to the Minister. The orders of reference of this committee preclude it from dealing with it. The Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government will deal with it next week. To clarify, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Austria have sought these prohibitions. The Commission is now essentially moving to end these prohibitions. Without submitting a motion, is the committee clear that it is supporting these countries?

Chairman

It is quite clear from the transcript.

Deputy Sexton

I would prefer something more formal if we could find the methodology.

Chairman

That would be fine. This is an issue for the committee itself to decide.

Senator Dardis

Is it possible for both committees to vote together?

Deputy Haughey

Perhaps we should go into private session on this issue.

Chairman

Perhaps we are being too polite. Does anybody have a viewpoint opposing that of Deputies Cuffe and Mulcahy? Perhaps Deputy Sexton is correct.

Deputy D. Wallace

I am one of the last speakers so most of the issues have been covered. I concur with my colleagues in paying tribute to all the speakers, representing both statutory bodies and voluntary groups. Much that they have said is on behalf of ourselves, who have not devoted as much time or energy to this very important subject. We have had many meetings here but rarely has a meeting run for nearly two and three quarters hours on one subject. This highlights the importance of this issue.

A vote should not be taken as the consensus of the committee is clear. The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government is to meet next week, which is advantageous as it gives Deputy Cuffe and others the opportunity to articulate what has been said here. There is nothing to divide upon.

All of us have individual concerns and anxieties but two sides exist in this story, as Senator Quinn has articulated. Rather than putting down a formal motion and taking a vote, the consensus should be conveyed to the relevant Minister. The added advantage is that the members of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government will continue the debate on this subject. I recommend strongly this route, as more could be achieved than if a straight "Yes" or "No" were recorded on this issue.

Chairman

The middle course would be to write a letter expressing the serious concerns raised today and attaching it to the transcripts. There is a procedural issue in involving this committee in the business of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government.

Deputy Mulcahy

I would urge in the letter that the Minister should support these countries in their prohibition of the GM products. I want to support them.

Deputy Sexton

That is important.

Chairman

That is fine. Is everyone agreed?

Deputy Mulcahy

Let us be clear that we are supporting these countries in their prohibition. We are asking the Minister to vote with these countries and against the Commission.

Deputy Sexton

We must say that definitively.

Chairman

Is everyone agreed?

Deputy Haughey

Members of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government are entitled to submit a motion in writing to the clerk of said committee in advance of next week's meeting.

Chairman

Is everyone agreed? Agreed. I thank everyone for attending and apologise for the length of the meeting. Great interest in the issue was evident.

The joint committees adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until Wednesday, 29 June 2005.