I wish to share my time with Senator Naughten.
Adjournment Matters. - Developments in Genetic Engineering.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
In view of the developments in genetic engineering and the public concern in relation to same, I ask the Minister for the Environment to review the Genetically Modified Organisms Regulations, 1994. There are plans to introduce genetically altered material into the agricultural landscape. There is provision for the Minister to intervene under the regulations of the Environmental Protection Act but so far he has not done so. He has left it in the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency so there is a continuing series of Chinese boxes or smoke-screens. Recently the Minister said:
My Department has not carried out any research on the introduction of genetically modified organisms in the agricultural sector. Issues in relation to agricultural research are a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry stated:
My Department has not carried out any research into the introduction of genetically modified organisms. Teagasc is the national body with responsibility for agricultural research, and some limited research in this area is part of the Teagasc Research Programme.
Mr. Liam Downey, the Director of Teagasc stated:
Teagasc keeps abreast of developments in gene transfer (genetic engineering) in plants but, to date, has not tested such plants either in the laboratory or field.
In other words, we have done nothing except shuffle the responsibility from one Department and agency to another. That is not acceptable because of the dangers involved.
Genetic engineering transfers genes from the DNA of one species to another. Genes from a fish, for example, are spliced to the DNA of a tomato to produce a new tomato with delayed ripening. Other manipulations to soya or sugar beet make them resistant to some herbicides. The process is interfering with the building blocks of nature and opening the doors to the unknown. One of the most worrying things is that these genetically altered materials are not contained; they can spread into the wild population of similar or related plants or organisms. It is not possible to control them or to predict the results in terms of resistance to herbicides or weedkillers or the production of toxins within the plants.
I am particularly worried about an experiment to genetically engineer beet. A company called Monsanto proposes to conduct such experiments in this country. I warn the House and the Minister about the track record of Monsanto. I have a copy of a detailed affidavit by a distinguished research scientist, Dr. Cate Jenkins, on recent scientific evidence developed after 1984 supporting a causal relationship between dioxin and human health effects. Monsanto was involved in the production of Agent Orange and attempted to deny its carcinogenic effects on the workers in its various plants who produced it. Paragraph 393 of the affidavit states:
The studies that Monsanto Company had conducted on the health effects among its workers exposed to dioxin during the manufacture of 2, 4, 5-T were relied upon heavily in earlier litigation by Vietnam veterans to deny a link between dioxin exposures and increased risk of human cancers. In 1985, court testimony delivered by Monsanto officials, as well as scientists who had been under contract to Monsanto, cast serious doubts on the credibility of these studies.
Testimony produced evidence of international misclassification of exposed and non-exposed workers, arbitrary deletion from the study of several key soft tissue sarcoma cases, unverified classification of chlorance subjects by common industrial dermatitis criteria, lack of assurance of untampered records delivered and used by consultants, false statements about dioxin contamination in Monsanto products, etc. A jury delivered a verdict against Monsanto based on this evidence of scientific fraud, granting the plaintiffs over $16 million in punitive damages.
That $16 million was subsequently reduced but the conviction stood. Apparently, we are happily going to permit this company to conduct genetic experiments in our fields without carrying out tests or research or operating the existing regulations. That is an extremely dangerous path on which to embark.
As already stated, genes do not necessarily remain where they are placed. In field tests for genetically engineered potatoes, 72 per cent of the plants grown close to the transgenic ones contained the resistance gene. In other words, it had spread beyond the initial population that had been experimented upon. Crops genetically engineered to destroy damage-causing insects can actually generate resistance in these insects and thus there is a limited timespan in which these crops will be effective. The original belief that a gene with a particular function would perform only this function no matter where it was inserted into the new plant no longer holds. Examples of experiments with petunia flowers to change the coloration of petals, etc., show that the gene was not limited to the original plants and extended into other areas.
These products are being manufactured in order to increase production output, they are not designed for the welfare of the general population. They are inimicable to the welfare of many populations in deprived areas of the world. This is not the only fraudulent research carried out by Monsanto. That company is currently being sued in the United States in respect of fraudulent research on the safety of IUDs, and in the mid-1980s they happily bought out G.D. Searle, a company which at the time was the subject of senate hearings in the USA into fraudulent research being presented to the Food and Drugs Administration. On that occasion, a number of rats being tested with NutraSweet had brain tumours operated on during the trial period — information on this was excluded from the trial results presented to the FDA. The FDA commissioner who allowed ongoing use of NutraSweet subsequently took a job with Searle, and there is generally a disturbing revolving door of scientists leaving Monsanto to work for regulators, etc.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this important issue. As Senator Naughten stated on the Order of Business, I look forward to a full debate on the matter.
Mr. Naughten
I thank Senator Norris for sharing time. As a genetic engineer, I take a slightly different view on this issue. I believe that the regulations are too strict. When a genetically engineered food product is being assessed in the US, the product, not the process involved, is assessed. However, in the EU, the process, not the product, is assessed. The US method is much safer because the end product to be passed on to the consumer is assessed.
The reason behind the genetic modification of foods is to improve their quality and shelf life by decreasing the additives involved, which means that the consumer will benefit. EU research in this area is less competitive than US research. If a food is genetically modified in the EU, the company involved must still make the food naturally which increases expenses and means that the process is much slower. Therefore, scarce research funding is employed in producing foods through the natural process rather than companies being allowed to use genetically modified processes utilised in the US.
I agree with Senator Norris about genetic field trials on beet, which were introduced for purely commercial purposes. This product will not benefit the consumer and will only be of use to the company carrying out the trials, which are designed to make the beet more resistant to a weed killer the company produces. The EU should clamp down on such activity. This will not be easily done because of the number of regulations involved. The field trials are rigorously monitored and a four to five year approval process must be undertaken. Such field trials have been carried out in the US for many years.
One of the conditions laid down in the regulations is that there must be some way to stop a gene transfer so that it cannot jump from one organism to another. It is also recommended that if a gene is lost, a kill mechanism must be in place to ensure that it cannot take over the entire population.
Genes have done so in certain instances.
Mr. Naughten
Yes, but at an early stage. I am referring to the EU regulations while the examples to which Senator Norris referred occurred in the US. The European regulations are more stringent. To begin a field trial and place a product on the market in the EU, approval must be obtained from the regulating bodies in all 15 member states not just the Irish Environmental Protection Agency.
There are genuine public fears about this issue which originated with the controversy about Dolly, the genetically modified sheep. That affair has given people in my profession a bad name. There is a need for further debate on this issue, both in the public arena and in the Oireachtas. People must be given the proper information. There are few risks involved with most foods but, as in the instance to which Senator Norris referred, such risks do exist. Genetically modified foods have major advantages for consumers because there is no need for additives. Will the Minister ensure that there is a full debate on this issue in the Oireachtas and that an information campaign is put in place to allow people reach their own conclusions on this matter?
I thank Senators Norris and Naughten for raising this important issue which relates to the Genetically Modified Organisms Regulations, 1994. It was interesting to hear the Senators argue from two perspectives.
There was a measure of agreement between us.
It is not my responsibility to decide whether a debate on this subject should be held in this House but, on the basis of what I heard, such a debate would be extremely interesting. When it occurs, I look forward to the opportunity to observe. On Saturday last, during a walkabout in my constituency, two people living in different housing estates referred to this subject which highlights the public's interest.
I must clarify two points. First, the 1994 regulations were made primarily for the purpose of transposing two EU directives into Irish law — Directive 580/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms and Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency is the national competent authority for the purpose of the regulations and directives.
Second, only two notifications for consent to deliberately release genetically modified organisms have been submitted in this country since the directives and the regulations came into force. Those notifications, which relate to field trials of genetically modified sugar beet plants, were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto plc in December 1996, in accordance with the provisions of Part III of the 1994 regulations. As competent authority for the purposes of the regulations, it is a matter for the agency to determine the notifications and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case. The Minister for the Environment must be conscious of the provisions of section 79(3) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, which preclude him from seeking to exercise any power or control in relation to the performance of agency functions in particular circumstances.
In relation to the issues raised by Senator Norris and Senator Naughton, the Minister for the Environment has plans to amend the 1994 regulations in the light of a number of developments. During Ireland's Presidency of the EU last year, he was pleased, in his capacity as Chairman of the Council of Environment Ministers, to lead and successfully conclude negotiations within the Council on a Commission proposal to amend Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organims. The objective of the amendment is to simplify and strengthen control provisions, having regard to scientific knowledge and technical advancement since the directive was adopted in 1990 and practical operational experience gained under it. The proposal is currently being considered by the European Parliament in accordance with Community co-operation procedures. When the amended directive is formally adopted, our 1994 regulations will be amended to incorporate the amended provisions.
In addition to the impending amendment of the contained use directive, the European Commission has also initiated a review of Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. In view of the increasing level of public concern regarding the release of genetically modified organisms, particularly on the labelling of genetically modified products intended for general release on the open market, the Environment Commissioner has indicated her intention to bring forward an amendment as soon as possible. The Government welcomes and supports the Commissioner's proposal to amend the directive and will stress the need to ensure that the fundamental objective of protecting human health and the environment is not compromised in the process. We will also seek maximum transparency in the amended directive, particularly on labelling provisions.
Pending full amendment of the directive, a technical amendment has now been proposed for the purpose of strengthening current labelling requirements. We also welcome this interim initiative and intend to maximise this opportunity for greater transparency. The proposal to amend the directive and the interim measure on better labelling will give rise to amendments to the 1994 regulations to bring them into line with Community legislation.
I wish to draw the Senators' attention to the recently adopted EU regulation concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. The Minister for Health has responsibility for the implementation of this regulation which comes into force next month. This regulation represents a major extension of the statutory provisions on the marketing of genetically engineered food products. The Department of Health and the Department of the Environment will consult closely on the parallel implementation of the novel food regulation and the directive.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. In particular, I welcome the introduction of provisions for labelling. People are entitled to know what they are eating and the commercial interests have strongly resisted any labelling that indicates the presence of genetically altered material. There should be a moratorium on the introduction of any new genetic material pending debate on the issue. Will the Minister of State indicate to the Minister for the Environment that many Members support the efforts of our EU partners, Austria and France, to maintain the right not to allow genetically engineered seeds to be grown in their countries?
The Seanad adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 April 1997.