Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1998

Vol. 487 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Genetically Modified Organisms.

Mr. Gormley

Many Deputies will be aware that the US multinational, Monsanto, plans to carry out experimental planting of genetically engineered sugar beet at ten sites throughout Ireland. Last year they carried out one field trial and, through the very courageous work of Genetic Concern, a judicial review was granted. At the granting of that judicial review Mr. Justice O'Sullivan said that there was a substantial case to be answered. It seems that the first full debate on this very important subject will take place not in this House, not in public, but in the High Court.

As of yesterday, the number of objections received by the EPA numbered 2,500, roughly ten times the number of objections received in total last year. Why are the public so concerned? Why are people objecting so strenuously to this? More important, why are the public not being encouraged by politicians to openly debate this very important issue?

It could be that this so-called project is seen as being of benefit to farmers. I ask farmers whether they are aware that in the USA farmers must sign a contract obliging them to pay Monsanto a technology fee, as well as a premium price for the seed. The farmer then must use Monsanto's brand of weedkiller and is forbidden to save seed for future crops. This is the real reason behind genetic engineering. It is about profit, and profit should not be the concern of this House. We should be concerned about the potential danger that genetic engineering presents, not just for the environment, not just to health, but to the future of Irish agriculture which has a fantastic reputation as a producer of natural clean food.

I am not a Luddite. I favour scientific and technological advancement. I received a telephone call today from the Sunday Business Post, which led me to believe I have a reputation as a technology wizard — I am not sure if that is deserved. However, in terms of scientific advancement, I believe we have to advance cautiously and responsibly. In this case we are not doing that. We are talking here about the very essence of life.

The sugar beet about which we speak has had a combination of 11 different genes from two bacteria, three viruses and two plants spliced in to make the plant resistant to Roundup, a systemic weedkiller that normally kills all weeds. Have we forgotten about the problems associated with CFCs where again big multinational companies, DuPont and ICI, promoted these products as safe, and we now read, even today, of the huge problems associated with skin cancers because of the depletion of the ozone layer. Have we forgotten about the problems associated with the nuclear industry? Again many of us, when we were going to school, were told categorically that this was a safe industry. Many people in this House were enthusiasts and wanted nuclear power here. Some of us, who were regarded as mavericks and cranks, objected to that at Carnsore. Have we forgotten about BSE and the real problems that has caused for Irish agriculture? It seems that scientific certainty can go awry at times, and unfortunately we have forgotten that.

Monsanto will describe this as a very precise technology, and yet thousands of members of the Union of Concerned Scientists say that genetic engineering of food and agriculture must be banned, at least until we fully understand the function of all the genes in modified organisms. Monsanto do not have a great reputation for telling the truth, and there are many instances where they have altered information to suit their own purposes, particularly in relation to dioxin.

When Fianna Fáil campaigned in the general election, it said clearly that Fianna Fáil would not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history, with the consumer as guinea pig. It said that current scientific knowledge was inadequate to protect the consumer and the environment from the unpredictable and potentially disastrous effects which may appear immediately or at any time in the future. The Minister who said that, Deputy Dempsey, must be himself genetically engineered, because no ordinary human being could be so cynical and so irresponsible. We must debate this issue, and we must debate it quickly.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. D. Wallace)

I thank Deputy Gormley for raising this item.

The areas of genetic engineering for which the Department is responsible relate to the contained use and deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. At EU level, these activities are controlled under Directives 90/21 9/EEC and 90/220/EEC. The competent authority provisions of this directive are transposed into national law under the Genetically Modified Organisms Regulations, 1994 and the Environmental Protection Agency is the competent authority for the purposes of the regulations and the directives.

The multiple application to which the Deputy referred relates to two notifications which have been submitted to the EPA for consent to undertake controlled experimental releases of two genetically modified sugar beet plants on a number of sites around the country. Experimental releases of genetically modified plants are generally carried out for research purposes and, in the case of crop plants, they do not involve the use of the trial crop for human consumption or animal feed purposes. Separate prior consent is required for placing genetically modified products on the EU market; under the deliberate release directive 90/220/EEC in the case of animal feeds and under EU Regulation 258/97, concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, in the case of food products.

The prior notification and consent provisions of directive 90/220/EEC related to experimental releases of genetically modified organisms for research purposes have been fully transposed into national law under the 1994 regulations. Our legislative control procedures are fully in line with EU law and they are being fully implemented by the EPA as national competent authority.

It is a matter for the EPA to process and determine the two sugar beet notifications in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 regulations and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the specific case. In fact, under section 79(3) of the EPA Act, 1992, the Minister is precluded from seeking to exercise any power or control in relation to the performance in particular circumstances by the agency of a function assigned to it by or under the Act.

My colleague Minister Dempsey and I are fully committed to a precautionary approach in this whole area and to the fundamental objective, as expressed in the deliberate release directive, of protecting human health and the environment. The directive, and the regulations which transpose it into national law, already reflect such an approach in providing a mandatory requirement on users to obtain prior written consent, based on a comprehensive environmental risk assessment and evaluation, before any deliberate releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment may be carried out.

In anticipation of a proposal from the European Commission to bring forward an amendment of the deliberate release directive, my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, has indicated his intention to have a national debate on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. A draft paper on a national policy position is being prepared in the Department and will be made widely available as part of a widespread consultation with the public and the biotechnology industry in the country. The views expressed by Deputy Gormley will be taken into consideration in drafting the policy paper.