Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1999

Vol. 158 No. 8

Genetically Modified Food: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Dr. Moffatt)

I am aware of recent concerns and media reports concerning the issue of genetically modified food. This is a very complex issue involving, inter alia, technical, scientific, ethical and economic aspects. Within the scientific aspect, there are ecological, environmental, nutritional, human health and veterinary concerns.

I will explain briefly the technique of genetic modification. Genetic modification, sometimes referred to as genetic engineering, uses a series of technologies which enable the genetic properties of living micro-organisms, bacteria, fungi and viruses, organisms, plants and animals, to be altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The techniques required to alter the genetic properties of an organism in a precise and controlled manner have only been discovered in the past 25 years and are still being developed. As a result, processes involving genetic modification are often referred to as modern biotechnology. Genetic modification techniques have opened up new possibilities for growth in sectors such as agriculture and industry and made a significant contribution to modern health care. Genetically modified organisms are referred to as GMOs.

The purpose of modifying the genetic properties of any organism is to make it capable of producing new substances or performing new functions. For example, the scientific knowledge and technology exists to produce crop plants, such as sugar beet, soya and maize, with resistance to specific herbicides and pests. GMOs and genetic modification techniques are widely used in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, including the production of valuable medicines such as human insulin for use by diabetics.

Genetic modification is also central to the development of new gene therapy treatments to combat serious disease and disability. Because of the recent emergence of this technology, we must approach the issues which it raises in a thorough, comprehensive and balanced manner. The technology has the potential to be of great benefit to humanity. However, its potential benefits must be weighed against any potential risks. Because of the wide range of issues to be considered in relation to genetic modification several Departments have responsibility for different aspects of it, including responsibility for different EU legislative instruments.

My colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, has responsibility for developments in the biotechnology industry while the Minister for Agriculture and Food has responsibility for EU legislation on seed varieties. I understand that this legislation is in the process of being amended to take account of developments in gene technology. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, has responsibility for Directive 90/219 on the contained use of genetically modified organisms as well as Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. These directives cover the environmental risk assessment and release approval of all GMOs through the research and development stage, known as field trials, as well as the placing of products containing GMOs on the market. The Environmental Protection Agency enforces this directive on behalf of the Minister.

I am cognisant of public concern regarding the labelling of genetically modified foodstuffs. The EU, supported by member states, has drafted legislation in this regard. The purpose of measures taken by the EU on the labelling of GMOs and their derivatives is to give consumers clear, honest, neutral and scientifically sound information on products derived from a genetically modified source.

In July 1997 the European Commission adopted a general policy orientation on the labelling of genetically modified products which stated that it would develop legislation based on the following: labelling of products consisting of, containing or derived from GMOs throughout the food chain; labelling of products to give consumers clear, honest and neutral information about the GMO origin of products, facilitating choice for consumers without stigmatising modern biotechnology or raising doubts about the safety of products; a science-based approach implying mandatory labelling whenever the GMO origin can be scientifically proven in order to ensure enforceability and to limit the scope for fraud, through the possibility of verification; an approach which is simple and not unduly costly for operators to comply with and minimises uncertainty; an approach that is in accordance with the EU's international obligations and does not impose mandatory segregation of production, transport and distribution lines on operators, but only proportionate labelling requirements, and a coherent and flexible framework to determine the precise labelling rules with a clear proactive role for the EU.

My Department is the competent authority in Ireland for EU legislation pertaining to the genetic modification of foodstuffs intended for human consumption. There are two EU regulations is this regard. Regulation No. 258/97 came into force in all member states on 15 May 1997 and introduced a statutory pre-market approval system for novel foods throughout the EU. This regulation applies to the placing of novel foods and novel food ingredients on the market in the European Union.

Foods and food ingredients which have not, as of 15 May 1997, been used to a significant degree within the European Union and contain, or are produced from, a genetically modified organism fall, inter alia, within its scope. In essence, the regulation provides that novel foods and novel food ingredients, if not substantially equivalent to their non-novel counterparts, must be officially approved and authorised before being placed on the European market.

The regulation defines a novel food as a food which has not been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Union and which falls under one of the following categories: foods and food ingredients consisting of or containing GMOs; foods and food ingredients produced from, but not containing GMOs; foods and food ingredients with a new or intentionally modified primary molecular structure; foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from micro-organisms, fungi or algae; foods and food ingredients consisting of, or isolated from, plants and food ingredients isolated from animals, except for foods and food ingredients obtained by traditional propagation or breeding practices and having a history of safe food use; foods and food ingredients to which has been applied a production process not currently used, where that gives rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the foods or food ingredients which affect their nutritional value, metabolism or level of undesirable substances.

The regulation provides that a person intending to place a novel food on the market must submit a request to the member state in which it is to be placed on the market for the first time. That member state must ensure an assessment is carried out within three months from receipt of the request. This initial assessment is forwarded to the European Commission which circulates the report to other member states, which have a period of 60 days to make comments or lodge reasoned objections to the marketing of the novel food. No product consisting of, containing or derived from GMOs can be authorised for marketing without first having undergone an appropriate safety assessment.

Labelling should make it possible for consumers to make choices, and the novel foods regulation states that there must be specific label ling to inform the consumer of any characteristic or food property, for example, composition, nutritional value, nutritional effects and intended use of the food, which renders a novel food or novel food ingredient no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient. There must also be specific labelling to advise the consumer of the presence in the novel food or food ingredient of the following: material which is not present in an existing equivalent foodstuff and which may have implications for the health of certain sections of the population; material which is not present in an existing equivalent foodstuff and which gives rise to ethical concerns; or an organism genetically modified by techniques of genetic modification.

The controls as outlined provide protection for consumers and I assure the House that I am keeping the matter under continuing review to ensure this continues to be the case. I am aware that consumers wish to be in a position where they can decide whether they want to consume products either containing GMOs or produced using genetic modification techniques. I assure the House that I will continue to urge for maximum transparency on this issue. These labelling requirements for novel foods, as prescribed by the novel foods regulation, are additional to the general food labelling provisions which are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

To assist my Department in this area, the newly established Food Safety Authority of Ireland's scientific committee has set up a GMO and novel foods sub-committee which advises my Department on issues in the area of genetic modification. This sub-committee also affords a forum for the exchange of expert scientific opinion and advice on this new technology and its application to food. This sub-committee assesses applications made under Regulation 258/97. To date, no application for the placing of a novel food on the market has been made to my Department, which is the competent authority for this regulation. However, the GMO and novel foods sub-committee has commented on a number of applications which have been made to other member states. To date, no product has received approval in Europe under this regulation.

However, a genetically modified soya bean manufactured by Monsanto and a genetically modified maize manufactured by Novartis, formerly Ciba Geigy, were authorised under Directive 90/220 prior to the coming into force of Regulation 258/97. To address consumer concerns about the labelling of these two products, the Council published Regulation 1139/98, which came into effect on 1 September 1998. This ensures that the provisions of Regulation 258/97 apply to foods and food ingredients consisting of or derived from GMOs which were placed on the market before the entry into force of Regulation 258/97. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that the same labelling rules for the information of the final consumer apply to food and food ingredients consisting of or derived from GMOs which were placed on the market before the entry into force of Regulation 258/97.

Regulation 1139/98 lays down additional labelling requirements for the Monsanto genetically modified soya bean and the Novartis genetically modified maize. Such labelling ensures that the consumer is informed of any characteristic or food property, such as composition, nutritional value, nutritional effects or the intended use of the food, which renders a food or food ingredient no longer equivalent to existing ones. In essence, if genetically modified protein or DNA is present in a foodstuff, then it is subject to the additional labelling requirements. In the context of its legislative framework the European Union is currently examining developing proposals for food additives derived from a genetically modified source and the labelling thereof, as well as the use of labelling claims referring to the absence of use of genetic engineering techniques – so-called "GMO-free" labelling.

Last August the Minister for the Environment and Local Government published a consultation paper on genetically modified organisms and the environment. The three main aims of this consultation paper were to explain the regulatory process, identify key issues of concern and establish the views of all interested parties. I understand the Minister is currently in the final stages of consultation on this paper and that this will consist of consultation over two days with interested parties and will be chaired by an independent person. Arising from this, the independent chairperson will submit a report to the Minister and, having considered this, will arrive at a national position. I await the outcome of this consultation with interest.

I appreciate that it is a subject which is debated with intensity by those in favour of or against genetically modified foods, and I know the public can become confused and fearful with claims and counter-claims being bandied about. There is an onus on us to ensure the matter is evaluated in a calm and reasonable way, that we can put the proper safeguards in place and that a satisfactory and acceptable means of labelling can be agreed so that consumers are fully informed at all times of the content of the food they are purchasing. In this context, I reassure the House that I am keeping the matter of genetic modification of foodstuffs under continuing review and am determined to ensure that public health and the rights of consumers are fully protected in this regard.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Senator Tom Hayes said I was an expert on this subject but, like most people, I do not have an idea what it is about. Unless they have a detailed scientific background, most people have probably never heard of genetically modified food. People buy produce and get on with the job of preparing it and getting it on the table as quickly as possible. They are usually in such a rush, they do not have time to read and scrutinise labels on packaging. While genetically modified food is a reality and there are foods on shop shelves which are such, or contain an ingredient which is such, most people are blissfully unaware of that reality.

This is something which has developed over the past 29 years and various scientific experts across the world have been involved, particularly in the United States of America. The number of acres producing genetically modified foods has increased dramatically from 20 million in 1996 to 50 million in 1998. This is an extraordinary increase. We are lucky only a small percentage of that acreage is produced in Europe. About 85 per cent is produced in the US, South America, China and parts of Australia.

There are many restrictions in the European Union. The Minister referred in his speech to the various EU directives which are implemented by the member states and the various Departments which have responsibility for specific sections of those regulations in Ireland, including the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Agriculture and Food, the Environment and Local Government, and Health and Children.

Not having a scientific background, I am not in a position to comment on any of the details, either for or against the argument. Most people would be in the same position because they are not familiar with that area of expertise. We, as consumers, must depend on the experts who address this issue. On the one hand there are the multinational companies who have conducted a great deal of research on and invested heavily in genetically modified products and on the other hand there are the people who produce foods in their traditional form without using any type of artificial fertilisers, etc. There are two extremes and two very different viewpoints. In a sense the consumer, who is in the middle, does not know the truth. That is why the Government's role is extremely important.

The Government must ensure that all the necessary research is done as far as is humanly possible. Scientists are a little like lawyers in that they can put up a good argument on either side. There are two medical practitioners in the House at present. It is said that doctors differ and patients die, and the same can be said of scientists. There was an example of that in the United States around 1989 or 1990 when a particular drug was marketed by Showa Denko KK, Japan's third largest chemical company. The company genetically engineered a dietary supplement which ended up killing 30 Americans and disabling more than 5,000. The product had to be withdrawn immediately from the market but it had done serious damage and there were serious repercussions. Of course there were no instructive labels at that time.

Many people are allergic to various foods and sometimes people do not find out until late in life. We have all heard of tragic cases where somebody died suddenly as a result of a reaction to eating a particular food. For example, some people are allergic to shellfish. There are proteins which can be extracted from various species of fish or other foods, and bacteria can be mixed with them. I am not a scientist so I cannot really comment on that. However, if any of these specific extracts to which people are allergic are contained in foods and people are unaware of it, the fallout could be calamitous. I do not know how the consumer can be completely protected from that or whether the rules, regulations, directives and legislation protects that category of person, but we need to be extremely careful and cautious in the way we proceed.

The Minister, in the course of his speech, dealt extensively with the importance of labelling. I agree with and endorse everything he said about the labelling process. I commend what he said but, to get down to the basics of everyday reality, must a person doing the shopping examine everything other than fresh vegetables? Even vegetables may have been interfered with because we import much fruit and vegetables from other countries. Do we really know that the lovely fresh oranges, apples and fresh vegetables or processed foods on the shelves have not been genetically modified? It all sounds great on paper but to apply it to reality is a different kettle of fish.

I would go so far as to say that there is a need within the grocery-retail trade to segregate genetically modified foods on particular shelves which specifically state that these foods are genetically modified or that a derivative from a genetically modified product is incorporated in these foods. There is a need to look at it in that light. Even if it means mixing a variety of products, so be it. Labelling, while commendable, is not sufficient to protect the consumer in the long term. I ask the Minister to look at that matter with a view to segregation and clear identification of genetically modified foods in retail shops. The same should apply to pharmacies and they should have a separate section on genetically modified products. After all, most people are happy in the belief that every food is produced or grown in the traditional way. Most people are unaware that all these developments are taking place and are unaware of the fallout.

There is a need for a public debate to highlight the facts and to ensure the people are alerted to and more knowledgeable about this issue. I am delighted that the European Union is continuing to keep a cautious view on this matter and that the directives ensure caution is taken, unlike the situation in the United States where there seems to be a free for all and they continue to increase the number of acres producing genetically modified foods.

In the United States there is a dramatic increase in the demand for aquacultural products. Fish farming is developing at a rapid rate and genetically modified species are becoming a major feature of that. We must look at the environmental fallout. If genetically modified fish, which are twice as big and eat twice as much as other fish, mix with the natural wild species, what would be the effect on the environment? First, there would be an effect on spawning and down the road it would affect the product.

The bottom line is that there is fundamental interference with the basic law of nature. We must be sure of what we are doing and have wonderful competence and skill. This is fundamental. Scientists may be highly competent and intelligent, but in the final analysis biotechnology is not a pure and perfect science.

Mistakes have been made. There has been terrible fallout as a result of experimental work on animals. Creatures have been born with terrible disabilities all due to the experimentation process. One could justify that and say that it is necessary in order to achieve perfection, but we must ask what will be the fallout from this so called progress.

I commend the Minister for what is being done within the Department. One might say that we are merely complying with EU regulations and I have no doubt that further legislation will be necessary in order to comply with future EU directives. However, the majority of people are blissfully unaware of developments in the production of food and pharmaceuticals. The development of drugs such as insulin has been extremely useful but other developments have not been so commendable. We must move carefully and cautiously and always bear in mind the ultimate aim of protecting the consumer. We must not be overwhelmed by pressure from large companies who wish to make a quick profit, even at the expense of human beings.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

Since Eve handed the apple to Adam the topic of genetic modification has been discussed. My school catechism told me that we are as we are as a result of that act. Be that as it may.

Genetic modification, or the attempt to modify foods and seeds, has a long and fairly honourable history. The Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel, in Slovakia in the last century laid the foundation of modern genetics. It was he who discovered how genetic modification worked and we have been building on his work ever since. On the other hand the great Russian fraud, Lysenskoe, managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Russian people and of Joseph Stalin – a rather clever trick – and escape with his life. He spoke of genetic modification for 20 or 30 years although he knew absolutely nothing about it.

There is an imní or anxiety on the general public regarding this matter. As Senator Taylor-Quinn said, the public are dimly aware of it, their awareness is unsettling and they would like to have the subject explained in plain language.

Some advantages of genetic modification have been mentioned, including modern anti-diabetic drugs. Anyone who has practised medicine during the past 20 years has seen the improvement in insulins. Early insulins were very painful to administer and gave rise to allergic reactions. Today, due to genetic modification, they are simple to administer, give rise to no allergic reactions and the quality of life of diabetics has been immensely improved as a result. Genetic modification is not all bad and we must encourage research in this area.

Genetic modification is not all good either. We have managed to grow a range of fruits which look beautiful but are almost tasteless. One need only think of the Golden Delicious apple which is neither golden nor delicious. It tastes like wood, is hard and cold and has no flavour. However, it sells by the million because it looks well, can be picked easily, packed safely, transported over thousands of miles with no damage to the fruit and has a long shelf life. This suits supermarket owners and fruit retailers and wholesalers but it does not benefit the consuming public. Such a product also carries a premium price, which is an added attraction for producers, wholesalers and retailers.

The Minister of State gave an overview of the present position of genetically modified organisms. He admitted that we do not know all about it. We are developing the technology. The Minister of State gave a commitment to transparency so that if genetically modified products appear on our supermarket shelves, we will know whence they came, what they contain and if they cause any side effects. Dr. Wall, the director of the Food Safety Authority, also gave that commitment when he came before the Joint Committee on Health and Children last year. He also admitted that we are only at the beginning of this development; we are not even at the cutting edge.

If we are to play our part as legislators and representatives of the public we must be vigilant. We cannot leave this matter to the Department of Health and Children. We must inform the consumer about the effects and side effects of the foods they are consuming. We must insist on rigorous labelling and transparency. Senator Taylor-Quinn alluded to the fact that the drive for genetic modification is not coming from seed producers or horticulturalists. It is coming from the huge chemical combines which see large profits – and there is nothing wrong with profit – in genetic modification of food. They see that they can change the way we grow, label and sell food. Large profits can tempt companies to cut corners. We need only remember the Thalidomide tragedy which resulted from cutting corners. A result of that tragedy is that drug companies label many of their products as unsafe for pregnant women. The amount of medication available to seriously ill women who are pregnant is severely limited because drug companies will not take a chance with labelling even though they know their products are safe.

We are now at the beginning of genetic modification. The process has huge chemical, biological and ethical implications for us all. I am sure the Minister of State will be obliged to return to this House on many occasions as the range of genetically modified organisms expands, the techniques to develop them improve and our knowledge increases. I welcome the Minister of State's speech.

Mr. Gallagher

I am delighted we have this opportunity to discuss this very important subject. It appears to be much easier to arrange debates on important subjects in this House than in the other House. I heard some Deputies express delight when a debate on this subject was promised before the end of the session. In our usual manner, we are proceeding to deal efficiently with an item of major public concern. As Senator Fitzpatrick said, this will be the first of many debates on this subject.

I listened with interest to the Minister of State's speech and I am disappointed to realise that this subject is being dealt with by four Departments. It would be preferable if responsibility for this policy area, which is so important for industry and is of such public concern, were assigned to one Minister. We have seen how the division of responsibility for children among several Departments did not lead to coherent policy formulation or a coherent response to problems. I appeal to the Government to assign responsibility for this area to a single Minister or Minister of State to ensure that what the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is doing in regard to biotechnology, what the Department of the Environment and Local Government is doing in regard to GMO use and release of GMOs into the environment, what the Department of Agriculture and Food is doing in regard to EU legislation on seed varieties and what the Department of Health and Children is doing in regard to food safety and environmental health, are all brought together and co-ordinated under the responsibility of one person.

In the area of child care, the former Minister of State, Deputy Currie, and the current Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, have both shown that things can start to happen if a Minister is given responsibility across a number of relevant Departments. The public expects the Government to respond to concerns on this issue with one coherent voice. The channelling of responsibility in this regard through at least a Minister of State would be very helpful in our ongoing debate.

I welcome the consultation document published by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government last year. It is very honest in stating the position and is relatively honest in identifying the existing concerns. I do not fault him for putting it out for public consultation and trying to ensure that as many groups and individuals as possible respond before he makes final policy decisions on the matter. However, I have two concerns.

First, the non governmental organisations have serious questions about the consultation process itself. They recently indicated that they would boycott the final two day conference which was to be chaired by an independent chairperson who would then report back to the Government. I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the NGOs to sit down again and work out a way for both sides to agree on full participation by the NGO sector. I am not saying I agree with everything the NGOs say; however, I must compliment them on the work they have done in heightening public awareness on this very important issue.

My second difficulty is that the document and what the Minister said are very much at variance with what the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and his colleagues said when they were in Opposition. In the Fianna Fáil environmental policy document, published prior to the last general election, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said that Fianna Fáil's environmental policy would support a moratorium on genetically modified food being grown in Ireland. That is not mentioned in the discussion document or what the Minister of State said here today. Where stands that particular commitment?

There was a further statement in that Fianna Fáil policy document that the party would not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history, with the consumer as guinea pig. That is not mentioned in the discussion document or what the Minister of State said today. Where stands that commitment?

Is it the case that it is all right to play to the gallery and the NGO community when one is in Opposition but the position suddenly changes when one is in Government? If that is the case, it does nothing to enhance the credibility of politics and political involvement in decision making on very important issues such as this. I urge the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to come out as clearly as possible with a comprehensive commitment, over which he is prepared to stand as Minister and in which the public can have full confidence.

Many people have asked me over the past couple of weeks to support a moratorium on genetically modified foods. However, when I have discussed this with them they have not been very clear about what they want. Do they want a moratorium on the introduction of more foods into the food chain? There is quite a number of genetically modified compounds in food already. Are they against genetically modified organisms being grown in this country? Trials have already been undertaken in that regard. Are they against the very concept of genetic engineering itself? It is important that everyone who participates in the debate is very clear about what they are looking for.

I am not against genetic engineering per se. Some of the arguments I have heard about it remind me of some of the arguments which the Catholic Church makes against artificial contraception. I value and appreciate the contribution that technology and biotechnology can make to the improvement of human development. However, I believe this country has something to gain by being very slow and reticent to embrace this technology and its fruits.

My primary concern is the fact that this project is not driven in any sense by a wish or desire to meet real human needs. The old question of "In whose interest is this being done?" is very apposite in this debate. About six large multinationals, which are very much US based and supported by the US Government in the World Trade Organisation and the recent fruitless conference in South America, are using genetic engineering and GMOs to enhance their profits and, in my view, to reduce biodiversity. Anything which harms biodiversity, as the application of this technology does, must be combated strongly.

In a debate which took place in the National University of Ireland Maynooth in March 1998 a prominent Indian environmentalist, Dr. Vandana Shiva, said that genetic engineering, as employed by multinationals such as Monsanto and Novartis, was not going to feed the world by improving yields and reducing chemical inputs. He said that was empirically false. Genetic engineering had moved on from being a public science driven research tool during the 1970s to one where corporations were focusing on less than a handful of crops, notably wheat and rice.

This move to monoculture is extremely dangerous and ties in with many of the concerns which were discussed by the UN in Rio. We are supposed to be promoting biodiversity but much of this drive is going towards monoculture and the lessening of biodiversity. An article in The Irish Times on 5 September 1998 referred to the concerns about “superweeds” and cross pollination and the fact that there was some evidence that genetically engineered organisms were more successful at propagating themselves. We must take that evidence very seriously and be very careful in what we do.

The European public is very sceptical about what is largely a new and relatively untried area of technology. It is a US phenomenon which, as I said earlier, is aimed more at creating huge profits for a number of multinationals than at doing anything for the food industry or the world's poor.

The fact that European consumers are not taken with this technology is borne out by a survey recently carried out by Lansdowne Market Research which showed that 62 per cent of Irish people are fairly or very concerned about genetic engineering. The survey showed that 79 per cent of consumers know little or nothing about the technology. A very interesting figure was the fact that those who said they knew something about genetic engineering were more concerned about it than those who did not. Some 89 per cent of those who said they knew something about genetic engineering were concerned about it. This runs counter to the claim that is often made by companies such as Monsanto that consumers' fears are born out of ignorance. In my view, the more education the consumer has on this subject the more sceptical and reluctant they become.

The main action which could be taken by the Government and the European Union in the short term for the consumer would be to ensure that labelling is improved. With the heightened awareness of this debate in recent weeks, I have become more alert about trying to identify which products on the supermarket shelves carry, or might carry, genetically modified organisms. It is very difficult to do one's shopping while working all that out. I have particular concerns about any products which are used for baby food.

We have seen the damage that was done to consumer confidence by the BSE crisis. The BSE crisis occurred as a result of short-term measures taken in the 1980s which caused immeasurable damage to the food industry here and across Europe. Our farmers are paying for that now. I would hate to see a situation arising in the future where farmers of other products would experience similar problems because shortsighted approaches were taken. If anyone has any doubts about the serious scientific and technical issues which remain unanswered, they need only read pages 8 and 9 of the document published by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government last year. In the light of such questions remaining, we should proceed very slowly on this issue.

I welcome the entry of personalities such as Darina Allen into this debate. Darina Allen is the most visible face of good Irish food and cookery. I believe Ireland's food industry would be better served by declaring Ireland a GMO-free zone in regard to food production and by attempting to maximise the competitive advantage that would give us in the European market. I agree with Darina Allen's comment that scientists got several things wrong in the past, such as the production of Thalidomide and DDT which had dire consequences. Further, if we get this wrong with food, there will be no going back and a global crisis will result. We must be sure we are right and if that means waiting another 25 years, so be it.

What is the rush? This is a new and relatively untested technology. We do not know what its long-term effects will be or what effects it will have across the food chain and among other species. The technology is not yet ready to be transferred from the laboratory to the dining table.

In my preparation for this debate I sought the advice last week of my late colleague, Dr. Upton, who was much more skilled and informed in this area than I am. I deeply regret that due to his sudden death, I was unable to avail of his wisdom.

Mr. Gibbons

I welcome the Minister for what I consider to be one of the most important debates we have had in the Seanad over the past 12 months. One need only pick up any newspaper at the moment to read an article on genetically modified foods and GMOs in general but we are receiving a very slanted picture of reality.

Senator Gallagher referred to a recent poll which revealed that many people are very concerned about GMOs. The main reason for that concern stems from lack of information. The information which is available is not being conveyed to the public in a manner people can understand. This is something which concerns me greatly because I believe some people, for one reason or another, are putting across the view that biotechnology in general is a very dangerous way to proceed. I do not go along with that. In a previous existence, I worked as a research officer in a plant breeding department in Carlow and I have some information on this issue which I feel may be relevant to this discussion.

As I see it, we are, in the current debate, receiving extreme views on one side in favour of genetic engineering and extreme views against it on the other. There is a big gulf between those two views and I believe it is there that the reality lies. There are huge benefits to be gained from the use of genetic engineering. The Minister mentioned the current extensive use of insulin and its safety today compared to the situation which pertained before it was genetically engineered. It has also been suggested that genetic engineering can enhance crop yields. The literature certainly reveals evidence to support that. However, such evidence must be tempered by the view being advanced by large chemical corporations that the use of this technology will lead to a situation where we will be able to feed the whole world.

In preparation for today's debate, I read some very informative research papers. One in particular, written by Dr. Eddie Walsh of the Department of Crop Science in UCD, is an extremely balanced paper in which the author outlines both sides of the argument as he sees them. Dr. Walsh has reviewed the available literature on this topic extensively. We are told that up to 10 per cent of the world's population is starving, hungry or suffering from malnutrition. That is a scandal by any standard but to suggest that genetic engineering, in itself, will solve the problem is misleading. While it might enhance yield, the real problem in regard to starving people is related to the distribution of food as well as its production. Food is most needed in poorer countries and the likelihood of those countries being able to investigate and avail of the benefits of genetic engineering is much more remote than it would be in the developed world.

There are obvious agronomic benefits from the use of genetic engineering, as there were from conventional breeding in the past. We are able to breed crops nowadays which are resistant to drought and, hopefully, we will be able to produce a greater number of crops of basic foodstuffs in the future which will be able to tolerate salinity and other adverse conditions. Such developments would certainly assist in feeding all the people in the world but we must proceed with caution.

The susceptibility of crops in general to fungal, bacterial and viral pathogens is an area in which conventional breeding has moved on, but it has moved slowly. If genetic engineering allows us the opportunity to advance these developments more rapidly, that would prove beneficial. There is no doubt but that diseases and pest attacks on crops are reducing the output of food. It has been suggested that we may be able to produce crops in the future with the aid of genetic engineering which will reduce our dependence on chemicals for their production. I am fearful about the continued use of insecticides, pesticides and fungicides in crop production. I am aware that in regard to food consumption, safe levels of such substances have been worked out based on research all over the world. However, I am still fearful of what their long-term effects might be.

Senator Gallagher referred to the effects of DDT on the food chain in the past. When DDT was first produced, it was viewed as a panacea for all our ills and it did work extremely effectively. As time went on, however, it moved into the food chain to such an extent that it can now be found in human bone marrow. It wiped out species of birds because of its effect on eggshells, nests and so on. We must proceed with extreme caution in this area. At the end of the day, when the pros and cons of biotechnology are advanced, we must be willing to move forward but we must do so carefully.

Environmental impact issues are also very important. Senator Gallagher, who has obviously done much work for this debate, alluded to the possible escape of transgenes through intercrossing and the possibility of super-weeds. The literature suggests this is a possibility. However, it must also be said that it is a possibility in conventional breeding. Care must be taken.

The long-term effects of monoculture and producing crops with the aid of genetic engineering which will lead to monoculture should not be pursued. We saw the effects of this in the past in the corn belt in the United States. Without question monoculture would be catastrophic.

Senator Fitzpatrick discussed at length the effects on food safety, as did the Minister, and I think this is particularly important. I am very concerned that the public in general does not have the information they require to make a safe judgment on whether these products should be consumed. However, I must allude to the references by certain people to the work carried out at the Rowett Institute in Scotland and the effects of genetic engineering on potatoes. The work carried out at the institute was part of a three part experiment, with other work carried out in the Scottish Crop Research Institute and at Durham University on different aspects of the matter. When the work was finished the findings showed some discrepancies and the professor in charge of the work in the Rowett Institute went public with some of his findings. He did not publish them in an international journal where his work would have been referred, something which is very significant. Over the past couple of weeks some of the information printed in our daily newspapers has been factually incorrect. This is fuelling fear among the general public.

As regards the feeding trials undertaken in this particular experiment with rats, it was claimed that the immune and digestive systems in rats were affected by genetically modified potatoes. I have the results of the work and, while I do not want do discuss them at length, the conclusions are extremely important. The conclusions were audited by a group of highly reputable scientists, based on the discrepancies in the public domain. I wish to put the conclusions on the record as it is very important that the facts are set out for the public. In one case the Con A gene, which was extracted from a jackbean, was fed to rats for 110 days, the equivalent to feeding it to humans for ten years. This was not the gene from the potato as the effects of the gene in the potato could not be picked up. It was added to mashed and raw potatoes at a concentration 5,000 greater than that measured in the tubers where it was detected. The results showed some effects on the rats. This was the result of the famous lectins.

It is interesting that what was put in the public domain was that the lectin from the snowdrop, which is supposed to have caused the problem, showed no effects at all on the digestive systems of the rats when they were examined, even when the concentrations were 100 times those detected. This is extremely important information. To suggest otherwise is totally wrong. The final paragraph of the audit committee's report stated:

Therefore, the audit committee is of the opinion that the existing data do not support any suggestion that the consumption by rats of transgenic potatoes expressing GNA has an effect on growth, organ development or the immune function.

We have all read something to the contrary in the papers.

It is extremely important that whatever information is made available to the public is factually correct; to suggest otherwise I would question the motives of the people putting out incorrect information. Biotechnology has much to offer, but we must be extremely careful, take it step by step, and give the public the facts and the truth.

Dr. Henry

The value of the Seanad is being shown this afternoon, with Members being concerned and trying to be moderate about a subject on which the most emotive statements have been made. I am very glad the Minister began by pointing out how important genetic engineering has been in medicine, giving the very good example of the development of insulin which is now used worldwide and is far more satisfactory than pig insulin which was used in the past. I have bored the House with Adjournment Matters on the need to supplement bread with folic acid in order to lower the incidence of spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Imagine how valuable it would be if we could produce a wheat with a higher level of folic acid in this context and in the context of the new work being published on heart disease which shows our genetic predisposition to it due to our inability to properly metabolise homocystine.

We must accept that these techniques are very important developments. However, great concerns are expressed by the general public and members of the scientific community, mainly because so little of the research is based on independent evidence. Unfortunately, we must rely almost totally on research work which is supported by the major pharmaceutical companies and multinationals such as Monsanto and Novartis, etc. Naturally, like any of us with scientific training, we are extraordinarily suspicious about the independence of research which is not independent. I am sure some Members, including Senator Glynn, may have noticed that authors, at the end of articles in medical journals, have to state who supported the research. It is a sad day when we have reached this point. One of the great factors causing concern among the public is that it is nearly impossible to get independent results from trials.

I have been in correspondence with Dr. Hickey of Monsanto and have been unable to get references to the work. Senator Dardis has also tried on my behalf and failed. Bad as I am, I am able to read references and if they are present I will look up some of them on the website and read them. It is very hard when there is a block in even getting references. The same literature is sent out every time one asks for information, but it does not contain the references which I would like to have. This is the type of thing which causes consumers to be so concerned.

Senator Gallagher mentioned Darina Allen, a fine woman who has done an enormous amount for cuisine in Ireland. She is obviously very fearful of all genetically modified products. However, I have no worries about genetically engineered rennet because the proteins in particular, the enzymes, produced must be among the safest. We have a polymerised chain reaction product, and we have only one thing. Think of from what natural rennet comes – the stomachs of young calves – and about how worried we have all been about offal. After all, the calf is the young of the cow. We have all been worried about BSE, whether the white cells can pass it on and about taking them out of blood. At huge expense, we have taken the leucocytes out of blood products being used for transfusion with really no evidence to date of which I know other than the hypothetical possibility that it might pass on BSE. Yet we are quite happy about using natural rennet which comes from a calf.

We must be rational and ask why we are not using animal offal if we are afraid of BSE but we have gone further in terms of dorsal root ganglion – we have to eat beef off the bone, although I have never heard of anyone trying to eat a grilled dorsal root ganglion – yet we are prepared to say it is better to have natural rennet. We must be very careful and try to bring some logic to the situation.

I feel very strongly about labelling; this is essential. The Americans are behaving in an appalling way mixing soya beans at source and genetically modified soya is combined with non-genetically modified soya. It is impossible for one to buy pure soya. The Brazilians have got in on the act and are producing non-genetically modified soya beans, which may be bought by companies which want to be in a position to say they are producing food without genetically modified soya in it. The world market may manage to get around this issue.

Labelling is essential, but difficult. I do not know how many Members know what the E numbers mean because I do not. I presume we asked for them to be listed on products because we were afraid of some of them. We do, however, see them listed on products in the supermarket. Whatever way genetically modified food is to be labelled, there should be some way—

Mr. Gallagher

We should say it is not in a product.

Dr. Henry

That is something for which we should ask, not something which is too obtuse.

I was glad to hear the extra information Senator Gibbons produced about the research carried out in the Rowett Institute. The reports in the newspapers were amazing. One said the significance of this research was that lectins were being shown for the first time to cause problems with mammals; everyone knows many of them cause trouble with mammals. That is why we have to cook mange and jack beans and why we should not eat daffodils – certainly one should cook them if one is going to eat them. Lectins are in virtually all plants because, as far as I remember, they hold the cells together. I know my botany studies were a long time ago, but I presume the botany of 30 years ago regarding lectins holding plant cells together is still the same. I am glad Senator Gibbons was able to give us this extra information.

It is always very worrying when one sees widespread dissemination of work which has not been published in an academic journal. It is nearly as much a cause of concern as not being able to get the references from the major companies. It is the lectin in peanuts, I believe, which causes the allergic reaction. While I am sure there was proper concern that this research should come out, perhaps the scientific community should have assessed it before it was assessed by the popular press.

I support what Senator Gibbons said about the claims made by those who produce genetically modified foods that they will feed the world. This is rubbish. In general, it is the difficulty in the distribution of food which causes famine and war. If a multinational wants to do anything about feeding the world, it could stop the production and sale of weapons. That would be a useful way of making it easier to distribute food. If one looks at areas where there are problems with food distribution, one will find in the majority of cases that wars are taking place there. Of course, droughts, tidal waves, etc. can be the cause of starvation but conflict is more likely to be the cause.

The claims made about how stable are genetically modified products are probably too extreme. We already know about the cotton produced in the southern states in America which was said to be totally resistant to the boll-weevil. Let us not under-estimate the boll-weevil which got around it in three generations. We are back to Darwinism and the survival of the fittest. Organisms which can prosper are the ones which will survive. It was no length before the cotton crops were sadly affected by resistant boll-weevils, which might have caused more trouble. I believe the same happened with the Colorado beetle, a pretty smart member of the insect race. They were able to overcome insecticide resistant potatoes in a few generations. We have been told things can be made impervious to viruses, bacteria and fungi, but what is the life cycle of a virus? It is so short that it continually mutates and if it did not circumvent something in the first hundred mutations, it will do so in the next hundred. The claims being made about how resistant these crops may be to organisms may be a little more than is justified.

We must take on board the concern about cross-pollination. There may be no problem for those on the prairies whose crops are planted at great distances from one another. I do not know how true it is but I heard about an organic farmer who reported cross-pollination of his crops from adjacent crops which were genetically modified. This affected the purity of what he was trying to sell. This could be a cause for alarm, especially in this country.

I have difficulty with the philosophy of monocultures, as I am sure do other Senators. Are we to destroy the countryside as we know it? We are saying we are going to make a crop resistant to whatever herbicide we put down, but everything else will be killed. We should look at what happened when we introduced DDT. There are still organophosphates out there and there is still con cern about the possibility of them being implicated with cancers. They still get into the food chain and there is no way to get them out. This is a very new technology about which we would need to be very careful. The reason we need to be particularly careful is that we depend so much on agriculture for our incomes and we are trying to present this country as one with a clean green image.

We have tremendous facilities in biotechnology. Senator Gibbons mentioned Professor Ed Walsh and the department of plant life at UCD. This country has fantastic third level institutions and agricultural colleges into which we should pump an enormous amount of money to do independent research in these fields. Then we could be to the forefront of this research.

This sort of research will not just be of commercial benefit to Ireland. Its results can be sold as every country in Europe is concerned about this issue. We might even be able to interest the Americans. Conditions are right in this country for carrying out this research as the institutes are already in existence and we have genetics departments which could advise on the matter. We should provide more money for science and technology research to place Ireland in the forefront of research in this field so we are not dependent on findings from those who produce herbicides, pesticides and, alas, the seeds.

Mr. Glynn

I listened with interest to this debate and I was struck by the contributions of Senators Gibbons, Henry and Fitzpatrick. There is a great deal of misinformation about genetically modified food and many consumers are ignorant of its implications. I thank Senators Gibbons and Fitzpatrick for their enlightened views.

EC Regulation No. 258/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and food ingredients came into force in all member states on 15 May 1997. The regulation provides that novel foods and food ingredients must undergo a safety assessment and be officially approved and authorised before being placed on the European market. It also contains provisions in certain instances for the labelling of novel foods and food ingredients. The Department of Health and Children has been designated as the competent authority to oversee the regulation in Ireland.

Foods and food ingredients which fall within the scope of the regulation are those which have not hitherto been used for human consumption to any significant degree within the EU and which fall into the following categories: foods which contain genetically modified organisms, GMOs; foods produced from, but not containing, GMOs; foods and food ingredients which are of an intentionally modified molecular structure; foods composed of micro-organisms, fungi or algae; foods produced from plants or animals not using traditional propagation techniques and foods produced from new technologies which give rise to signifi cant changes in the composition or structure of the food.

There is an assessment procedure. The novel foods regulation provides that a person intending to place a novel food on the market must submit a request to the member state in which the novel food is to be sold for the first time. The member state shall ensure that an assessment is carried out within three months of receipt of the request. This initial assessment is forwarded to the EU Commission which circulates the report to other member states, which have 60 days to make comments or lodge reasonable objections to the marketing of the novel food. An economic operator may claim that the novel food which he proposes to place on the market is substantially equivalent to its non-novel counterpart, in which case it need not pass the assessment process.

The labelling provisions of the regulation still apply to the food. The regulations state that there must be specific labelling to inform the consumer of any characteristic or food property, for example, composition, nutritional value, nutritional effects or intended use of the food, which render a novel food or novel food ingredient no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient. There must also be specific labelling to advise the consumer of the presence in the novel food or novel food ingredient of material which is not present in any existing equivalent foodstuff and which may have implications for the health of sections of the population; material which is not present in an existing equivalent foodstuff and which gives rise to ethical concerns or an organism genetically modified by techniques of genetic modification. These labelling requirements for novel foods are additional to the general food labelling provisions which are the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The labelling and other provisions of Regulation 258/97 do not apply to foods or food ingredients which were used for human consumption to a significant degree within the EU before the coming into force of the regulation and, therefore, were not considered novel. The purpose of Regulation 1139/98 is to ensure that Regulation 258/97 should apply to foods and food ingredients consisting of, or derived from, GMOs placed on the market before the coming into force of Regulation 258/97. This aims to prevent distortions of competition and to ensure that the same labelling rules apply to foods and food ingredients consisting of, or derived from, GMOs placed on the market before the coming into force of Regulation 258/97. The regulation applies to food and food ingredients produced in whole or in part from genetically modified soya beans and maize.

The regulation lays down additional labelling requirements for these products. Such labelling ensures that the consumer is informed of any characteristic or food property, such as compo sition, nutritional value or nutritional effects or the intended use of the food, which renders a food or food ingredient no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient.

EU legislation on genetically modified organisms is the responsibility of a number of Departments. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has responsibility for developments in the biotechnology industry. The Department of Agriculture and Food has responsibility for EU legislation on seed varieties, which is in the process of being amended to take account of developments in gene technology.

The Department of the Environment and Local Government has a key role in the area of genetic modification. It also has responsibility for Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified organisms, as amended by Council Directive 99/81/EC. The Environmental Protection Agency is the competent authority for the implementation of these directives.

On 28 August 1998 the Department of the Environment and Local Government published a consultation paper on genetically modified organisms and the environment to explain the regulatory process, identify key issues of concern and establish the views of interested parties. On foot of this consultation process, the Minister plans to review national policy and practice in the specific area of his remit, namely, potential risks to the environment arising from the deliberate release of GMOs. Persons and bodies wishing to participate in this consultation process have been advised and requested to make submissions.

This is a very important debate. There is a future for genetically modified food. However, there is a great deal of misinformation and I hope the consultation process established by the Minister will bear fruit.

Ms Cox

I wish to share my time with Senator Leonard.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Cox

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue from the consumer's viewpoint. As a consumer, when I buy food in supermarkets I would like to know whether the contents have been genetically modified or whether the food contains a genetically modified ingredient. This is one of the areas where it is imperative that the Government fulfils its commitment to ensuring that the rights of consumers are fully protected by the introduction of legislation to ensure that genetically modified organisms are properly labelled on products. I was surprised to learn in a discussion recently that jars of baby food contain genetically modified ingredients. If I had been aware of that fact, I would not have bought those particular products. It is a matter of choice. It is vitally important to protect consumers by giving them a choice. This is a basic right.

I have no difficulty with the concept of genetic modification, particularly in the field of medicine and all the wonderful products which are now available as a result of genetic modification experiments. There are many good reasons for preserving food and selling it in other countries where it would be better to have genetically modified food than no food at all. I am not completely against the idea of genetically modifying foodstuffs, but in the interest of the protection of consumers' rights, it is vital that people are given the choice. Proper, adequate and clear labelling is essential. People might say that is too difficult to do, but similar problems have been overcome in the past. I am sure the Government will take this issue on board. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is particularly committed to bringing legislation before the Government and the House to protect and respect consumer rights in this area.

Other speakers have much more in-depth knowledge of this area. I am speaking as a consumer. I am delighted that all the Departments involved have identified that this area needs to be addressed.

Ms Leonard

I welcome the Minister to the House for this discussion on genetically modified foods which is becoming an increasingly controversial topic. Those involved in the production of genetically modified food insist that the selection of certain plants and careful breeding will result in improvements in agricultural products in terms of taste, quality, nutritional value and, most importantly, yield.

One may ask what is the problem with genetically modified foods. We live in a consumer led society where people want all types of food of the best possible quality to be available all year round. It appears from research carried out by some of the multinationals involved in the production of genetically modified food that modern breeding has been remarkably successful in raising yields, improving the quality of the produce and making it more resistant to disease. What is top quality? The fact that a product looks good is not an indication of the content of the food.

Most organisms, particularly plants, are only sexually compatible with their own species. However, genetic modification allows identification of individual genes which can be decoded, copied and transferred to other organisms. The problem I foresee with genetically modified foods is similar to the problem with additives to food. We all read the ingredients on packets in supermarkets and note the various additives. Sometimes one cannot even pronounce them but there is always a long list. However, nobody knows the effect of these additives. They improve the colour, texture and possibly taste of products, but in recent years an increasing number of people have developed allergies. Nobody knows whether the multiple additives are compatible. Who can state that removing genes from one plant and inoculat ing another plant is a safe practice? The debate on this area is only beginning.

Labelling is the only satisfactory means of informing people about the contents of food. It is then up to individuals to decide whether they want to eat genetically modified food. It probably will be ten or 20 years before we know the effects of such food. In the meantime, controversy rages between the multinational companies who have supposedly carried out research and environmental groups.

It is not proper that companies such as Monsanto have the power to develop whatever products they wish with a view to eliminating all other competition. It is also their intention to produce pesticides and fungicides which can only be used on their products, thus eliminating all other forms of competition. Such a monopoly is not good for developments in agriculture or for consumers. The bottom line in this debate is the complete lack of public knowledge. There is a need for independent publications so that public consultation can take place and people can understand the issue and make informed decisions.

Other speakers said they are totally against the genetic modification of food. However, we must remember that genetic interference in the medical field is the reason many people are alive today who would not have survived up to 50 years ago. These include people with diabetes who inject themselves daily with insulin which originally came from pigs. We should also remember that the polio vaccination, which is a live vaccine, has improved mortality rates. Every drug which is tried and tested produces benefits. There are always concerns about trials, but that is development. It is fine to stand on the moral high ground and oppose change. However, we are at a point where change and progress in agriculture are critical. Unfortunately, we are entering the unknown with regard to the genetic modification of food.

While there is genetic modification of food now, I am concerned that there will be genetic interference in humans in the future. It is frightening to anticipate where research will lead. Genetic modification of humans is already taking place to a certain extent. People are buying books which explain how to conceive a boy or a girl and how it is possible to conceive a child who is a genius. This may sound ridiculous but it is happening in the United State, Japan and elsewhere. Any type of research is dangerous. I am from a medical background and I understand the procedures involved in trying to treat and solve infertility problems. However, one does not know the exact position now and what the situation will be in 20 years. It is a dangerous area. This also applies to developments in the area of genetically modified food.

Independent analysis is the key. Unfortunately, to date we only have the arguments from the large companies operating in this area. It is important to debate this subject. However, it is also important that the public has the opportunity to make informed choices.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Dr. Moffatt)

I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate on this important topic. We will hear a lot more about this subject in the future. Genetic engineering has been going on in a major fashion for the past 25 years and for several thousands of years before that we had natural selection. Things are moving on and we have to be careful. As most people would agree, the way forward is with information. Let people have the information and make up their own minds. In the short term that means definitive labelling so that people will know the exact details and they can make there choice.

Again, I thank everybody who contributed.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Dé Céadaoin ar 2.30 p.m.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 March 1999.