I greatly welcome today's discussion in the House on the subject of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they have become known. I wish to share my time with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey.
Genetically Modified Organisms: Statements.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Quite a number of Departments are actively working in this area at this time, including my own Department and the Departments of the Environment and Local Government, Health and Children and Agriculture and Food. As the Minister of State with responsibility for consumer affairs, I greatly welcome the ongoing work in these Departments, particularly the Government's decision to co-ordinate our work in this area at interdepartmental level. In addition, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, is progressing with his consultative process on GMOs.
As Minister of State with responsibility for consumer affairs, one of my main concerns in this area is to ensure the consumer is in a position to make well informed choices in relation to GMO products, especially GM food. It is my earnest hope that today's debate on this subject will be of assistance to consumers in enlightening them on the issues involved in relation to GM food.
While my Department is responsible for general food labelling rules, legislation falling within the remit of other Departments contains additional specific labelling requirements. For example, the Department of Agriculture and Food is responsible for legislation containing labelling rules for jams, wines and quick frozen foods, while the Department of Health and Children has introduced legal requirements for nutritional labelling of baby foods. Responsibility for labelling of novel foods, i.e. foodstuffs new to the food chain, and novel food ingredients lies with the Department of Health and Children. Novel foods are foods and food ingredients which have not been used to a significant degree within the EU. Foods which contain, or are produced from, genetically modified organisms fall within the scope of the definition. I have outlined the number of Departments involved because it is important that we co-ordinate our work. I welcome the fact that this is being done in a very specific way through the interdepartmental committee.
At EU level we have developed legislation in this area. The purpose of the measures adopted 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. I will have more to say about this later.
In July 1997 the European Commission adopted a general policy on the labelling of genetically modified products, which stated it would develop legislation on the labelling of products consisting of, or containing, GMOs throughout the food chain. The labelling should give consumers clear, honest and neutral information on products about the GMO origin of products, facilitating choice for consumers without stigmatising modern biotechnology or raising doubts about the safety of products.
The Department of Health and Children 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 in this regard. Regulation 258/97, which came into force on 15 May 1997, introduced a statutory pre-market approval system for novel foods throughout the EU. The regulation applies to the placing of novel foods and novel food ingredients on the market in the European Union. In essence, the regulation provides that novel foods and novel food ingredients, as defined in the regulation, must be officially approved and authorised before being placed on the EU market.
Regulation 1139/98, which came into force on 1 September 1998, ensures that the provisions of Regulation 258/97 apply to soya and maize which were placed on the market before the entry into force of Regulation 258/97. 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/EEC prior to the coming into force of Regulation 258/97. The aim of Regulation 1139/98 is to ensure that the same labelling rules 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. In essence, and in layman's language, if genetically modified protein or DNA is present in a foodstuff the foodstuff is subject to the additional labelling requirements.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland's scientific committee has established a GMO and novel foods sub-committee to advise the Minister for Health and Children on issues relating to the genetic modification of food. The sub-committee affords a forum for the exchange of expert scientific opinion and advice on this new technology and its application to food. The sub-committee assesses applications made under Regulation 258/97 and animal feed related applications made under Directive 90/220/EEC, for which the Environmental Protection Agency is the competent authority in Ireland. I understand that, to date, no application for the placing of a novel food on the market has been made to the Department of Health and Children. The FSAI sub-committee has considered a number of applications made to other member states but no product has yet received approval in the EU under Regulation 258/97.
On 19 March the UK Government introduced legislation to give effect to Regulation 1139/98. The UK legislation obliges restaurants and other food outlets to indicate on their menus if a food contains genetically modified soya or maize or, alternatively, to convey the information to the consumer through a member of staff if a food contains genetically modified soya or maize, except where neither protein nor DNA resulting from genetic modification is present.
I understand the Department of Health and Children is urgently considering the measures necessary to lay down the enforcement provisions and penalties for non-compliance with Regulation 1139/98 in Ireland. This involves urgent consideration of the issues in consultation with the newly established interdepartmental group on GMOs, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, industry and other relevant parties. A further element in this process would be an EU consensus on validated analytical methods to test if a product contains genetically modified DNA or protein, and discussions are continuing at EU level on this issue.
I am aware of recent developments at retail level regarding information to the consumer about the sale of genetically modified foodstuffs. An international consortium of food retailers and industry has been established to validate sources of GM free crops, products and derivatives. The consortium, which includes a major Irish supermarket chain, will be responsible for establishing audit and testing processes to verify the authenticity of GM free raw materials to be used in their products. The consortium was established in response to customer demand to provide GM free foods. Providing consumers with a real and validated choice to purchase or not to purchase GM foods is to be welcomed. I will encourage support in all appropriate EU fora for this approach.
The consumer is uncomfortable and suspicious about GMOs. As Senator Henry stated in a Seanad debate, giving the very good example of insulin, there is an appreciation of the importance of genetic engineering in the area of medicine. I share her view. The consumer can understand and see the benefits of genetic engineering in the area of medicine. However, the jury is out in relation to genetically modified foods.
I am aware of the recent concerns and media reports concerning GM foods. This is a very complex issue, involving technical, scientific, ethical and economic aspects. Due to the recent emergence of this technology, we must approach the issues which it raises in a thorough, comprehensive and responsible manner. Much more information is required for all of us to weigh up the potential benefits against the potential risks. In my view, labelling requirements under current EU law are inadequate. These deficiencies are currently being addressed at EU level and the Government is fully committed to supporting these developments and working to ensure that the consequent legislation fully respects consumer rights.
The rights of consumers must be fully protected in the matter of genetically modified foods. The consumer is entitled to exercise his or her own choice in regard to GM foods and to be provided with the means necessary to so do. The option to purchase foods which are guaranteed to be free of genetically modified organisms is a basic consumer right. Adequate labelling is, and will continue to be, essential in this regard.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Kitt, for sharing time with me. There is wide public interest in, and concern about, the use of GMOs in the environment, crops and food. There have been rapid developments in modern biotechnology. However, public information and product specific information, which would safeguard public choice in terms of the use of GMO products, have lagged behind, even though these products are becoming a reality in all our lives.
We must address and respond to public interest and concern. I have been happy to play my part in this by tackling head on the issues which fall within my area of responsibility – the implications of the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. A number of principles have guided, and continue to guide, my approach to dealing with these issues. The first is the precautionary principle. I have always underlined its application in this area and the importance of strong, effective, precautionary legislation. It is on that basis I am participating in EU negotiations to amend the Community directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment.
I have placed great emphasis on the issue of maximum transparency in the regulatory process for which I have overall responsibility, particularly in regard to the labelling of genetically modified products placed on the market. If GMOs are present in food, there should be clear and explicit labelling in that regard. Full information is the third key principle. I am absolutely committed to the provision of full information in this area as a basis for good public debate. The more information that can be made available, the better the debate will be. Stories aimed at scaring people which have been circulated can be addressed because they have little foundation. These principles are reflected in the national consultation paper on GMOs and the environment, which I published last year. It represented the first major public communication from Government in this important area. My aim was to stimulate informed debate among all interests, including the biotechnology sector and the general public.
People have asked why, in dealing with this issue, Fianna Fáil has not acted on its pre-election promise to support a moratorium on the release of GMOs into the environment. That is a valid question and one that I am happy to answer. When I took up office, one of my first actions was to see what could be done to implement this promise. I was advised by my Department that under EU legislation it was not possible for Ireland, or any EU member state, to impose a unilateral ban on GMOs. I was not aware that the prohibition provisions contained in the EU legislation, for which I have responsibility in Ireland, are so restrictive in their application. Authorities in many other member states may have been under a similar misapprehension. The full extent of the restrictions has become clearer for all member states only as a result of the limited provisional prohibition action taken by two states in regard to a specific maize product. As Minister, I must respect EU legislation as it stands.
This in no way detracts from my commitment to provide leadership and an opportunity for a full public debate on the amendment of EU legislation and the formulation of national policy on GMOs and the environment. I am delivering on that commitment through the process which began with the publication of my consultation paper. Having received almost 200 responses to that paper, I am pressing ahead to bring the process to a conclusion. In that context, questions were raised about the ability of the process to reflect in a balanced way the range of concerns and points of view in this complex area. Some respondents to the consultation paper suggested a national consensus conference mediated by a panel of lay people to represent public interest. While conferences of this nature have been held in a limited number of countries, there is no objective evidence that they represent the optimum way forward in all circumstances.
In considering the best way to bring the consultation process to a conclusion, I was mindful of the need to build on the progress so far and put in place arrangements which are as participative and democratic as possible. This is particularly important given the range and balance of the many interests and individuals who responded to the consultation paper, all of whom I want to participate in the process until its conclusion.
For that reason I decided to hold a two part debate. I have invited all the respondents to participate in the debate at which a number of key environmental issues will be identified and analysed in detail. I am acutely aware of the critical importance of independent management of the debate and an independent report on the outcome. I have finalised arrangements for it to take place before an independent panel comprising four people. It will be chaired by Mr. Turlough O'Donnell, QC, a member of the Law Reform Commission, former Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland and former Chairman of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. The other three members will be Professor Dervilla Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry in UCD, Mr. Sean Cromien, former secretary of the Department of Finance and a noted ornithologist, and Ms. Evelyn Owens, chairperson of the National Centre for Partnership and former chairperson of the Labour Court. I want to put on record my deep appreciation to all four members for their agreement to fulfil this important role.
On foot of the report which the panel will prepare, and having regard to the written responses which have been received, I will complete the review of national environmental policy in this area as quickly as possible and issue a statement on the outcome. The full range of issues associated with genetic engineering cannot be addressed within the framework of my consultation process. Following a report by me to Government recently, the interdepartmental group, to which Deputy Kitt referred, was established. It will address these wider issues and prepare a co-ordinated overall position as soon as possible. Departments involved with other aspects of genetic engineering will, of course, assist in concluding the consultation process where issues overlap. I also regard it as particularly valuable that the results of the process will be available to inform and add value to the wider work of the interdepartmental group.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to bring Deputies up to date on the substantial progress that has been made on formulating a policy position on the environmental dimension to GMOs. I look forward to concluding the consultation process within the next few months. At that stage, the considerable time and energy devoted to the process will have been worth it. We will have arrived at a policy position on the environmental aspects of GMOs on the basis of a full, open and informed debate. That is exactly as it should be.
I welcome the fact that provision has been made for statements on the issues arising from genetically modified organisms. I regard this series of statements as an opportunity to identify the issues and outline the concerns which should be dealt with in a full and informed debate. Such a debate should lead to the consideration of any relevant legislative and regulatory action on the genuine concerns identified during the debate. That debate should be calm and measured. However, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey and Minister of State, Deputy Kitt have, in my view, adopted what seems to be an excessively laid back approach to the statements today. That contrasts sharply with the approach adopted by the Green Party which has produced a two page document containing ten eminently questionable assertions and one utterly impractical proposal. I do not believe that is a good contribution to the debate but regrettably it is consistent—
The Deputy should give us an opportunity to explain our views. He has not contributed even once to this issue before now.
I deplore the fact that a Green Party MEP recently made a most extraordinary and unfounded assertion about the effects of human insulin which has created alarm and confusion among people who do not deserve to be treated in such a fashion. Such assertions do not add to the value of a debate on this issue.
The techniques of genetic engineering have been in use since the early 1980s in a range of areas from health care to food. In the areas of health care and pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering has enabled the development of human insulin which has had a dramatic effect on the treatment of diabetes. It has enabled the development of Interferon which has a wide range of applications in the treatment of a number of cancers and viral diseases. It has enabled the development of a vaccine for hepatitis B which, if left untreated, can lead to liver cancer and has enabled the development of substances which can assist in the treatment of HIV and AIDS. It has also enabled the development of diagnostic aids for certain types of cancer.
In the food processing sector, genetically engineered enzymes have been in use for ten years in applications such as cheese manufacture and the clarification of beers, wines and fruit juices. In the pharmaceutical sector, it is estimated that biopharmaceuticals accounted for 13 per cent of all new chemical entities between 1990 and 1994 and accounted for 5 per cent of global pharmaceutical sales. It is forecast that as much as 30 per cent of all new pharmaceutical products produced after the year 2000 will involve some form of biotechnology in their research and development. In the areas of health care and diagnostics, more than 600 diagnostic products currently in use are based on biotechnology.
Biotechnology has played a role in the cleaning and remediation of soils after environmental disasters and it could have important applications in the management of effluent treatment plants. The Green Party would tell us we should avoid such disasters and would be quite right to do so. However, in this as in other areas, the Green Party seems to adopt the principle that we should not train doctors because doing so might encourage people to become ill. That is carrying the precautionary principle to absurd lengths.
I do not recall the Green Party ever having made such a comment.
The Deputy has heard me make that comment before and will hear me say it again if his party does not cop on to itself.
Deputy Dukes cannot back up his comments.
Deputy Dukes, without interruption.
In recent times, debate on these issues has focused almost exclusively on the genetic engineering of food crops. Many concerns have been expressed in regard to the results of genetic engineering in this area and on its possible and, as yet unknown, effects on plant and human organisms. It seems that while the general public is prepared to accept fairly readily the palpable and obvious benefits of genetic engineering in the medical and health care sectors, there is a reluctance to accept the use of these techniques in regard to the food chain because of the suspicion that while certain benefits may be obvious in the short-term, there could be more long-term side effects of which we are not yet aware. Indeed, recent survey evidence in the EU indicates that food is now regarded as potentially dangerous with 68 per cent of people putting it at the same level of perceived risk as medical products. Although there may be a certain inconsistency between those two views, I believe it is understandable and inevitable. There is a need for caution and due observance of the precautionary principle.
I do not believe that every advance in technology is desirable or that we should always do what technology allows us to. We need to adopt a case by case approach; that applies to bioengineering as much as to any other area of technology. Nuclear technology gave us nuclear weapons which we could happily survive without—
Fine Gael supports nuclear technology.
That is rubbish. The Deputy has been going on with the same old claptrap for years and nobody believes him any more.
It is absolutely true.
Nuclear technology also provided effective methods of treatment for many kinds of cancer. Some people want to ignore the real world around them. They live on cloud nine and most of them are members of the Green Party.
Information technology has provided us with incredible ease of communication but has also created the means of very great and unacceptable intrusion into our lives in forms over which most ordinary people have no control. We need a case by case approach to the application of what technology allows us to do.
One of the concerns many ordinary people have in relation to the genetic engineering of food crops is that they cannot see any real advantage from particular applications. Where there is no perceived advantage but a perceived level of risk, however low, consumers simply do not want the product and rightly feel it should not be forced on them without their knowledge. We need four things. First, we need careful and properly supervised research. Second, we need a hardheaded assessment of the utility of the results of that research. Third, the public needs access to information about research and consultation on its applications. Fourth, we need information on the make-up of what is on offer in the market.
The health care and pharmaceutical applications of genetic engineering are subject to rigorous testing but there is no public confidence that the application of genetic engineering in the food sector is subject to any comparable testing process. That gap must be filled. In the circumstances of the European single market, we need an EU agency which will require rigorous testing and evaluation, lay down the conditions under which it is to be carried out, subject it to rigorous peer review and assess it from the point of view of the public interest. The Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission would seem to provide an appropriate nucleus for this function. The office, which is part of the Commission's DG XXIV, has a legal remit to examine and supervise animal feeds and could, therefore, operate in that context. It currently has no legal basis for action in relation to human foodstuffs. I believe it should be given the necessary legal basis and resources to carry out the job which needs to be done. That legal basis should also give the office, as of right, access to all research being carried out by commercial organisations. Realistically, that is where we must expect the bulk of research to be done.
We need a mechanism through which the activities of this agency can be publicised and made accessible to the public. That would require the establishment of an independent agency in each member state, dedicated to the publication of all the relevant information, not only in the form required for rigorous peer review but also in a form accessible to the public. In that respect, serious questions now arise in regard to the remit and legal standing of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. These questions must be resolved immediately, specifically in terms of public interest in ensuring food safety.
I was interested to hear the Minister for the Environment and Local Government explain how and why the Government found it impossible to live up to a commitment given by Fianna Fáil before the last election. Although I accept the Minister's explanation, if he had taken even five minutes to think about it he may not have made it, had he or whoever wrote it been motivated by long-term consumer safety and not short-term political advantage. In spite of what the Minister said, which was clearly correct, I believe it would be appropriate for the Government and the Governments of other member states to consider a moratorium on the commercial planting of genetically modified crops at EU level. That it is not possible for a member state to legally operate unilaterally in this regard in the face of concerns which exist suggests it is time member states considered introducing a moratorium across the EU.
It is necessary to have an ongoing and adequate process of public consultation in every member state. The formula adopted heretofore by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is clearly perceived to be inadequate and weighted in favour of academic and industrial interests. I am not accusing the Minister of bad faith, I am simply stating the forum he has provided to date does not give assurance to all participants that they are equal, something which must be remedied. I note the Minister has indicated a new approach for the conduct of the debate from now on, and the House should tease out this during the remainder of the debate. The Minister must rethink the idea of consensus conferences. I am not at all happy with his out of hand dismissal of consensus conferences which have taken place in other member states. I strongly urge the Minister to listen to what will be said in the House during these statements and to see if what he has proposed can be modified to meet the real concerns which exist. It is in the interest of the Minister and everybody else to have a process which the public feels examines all of these issues in proper detail and identifies the steps which must be taken.
Consumers are entitled to full information on the characteristics of the food products being offered to them. Clear labelling is essential, and to make it honest and meaningful segregation of genetically modified products from those which are not so modified is necessary. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, made a brief reference to this, pointing out that in his view labelling requirements under current EU laws are inadequate and that these deficiencies are being addressed at EU level. I ask the Minister to hurry along in this regard. There is no need for a lengthy process. If member states set about the task properly, they should not take forever to meet the requirements which we all know exist in relation to labelling.
Although I have reservations about the almost automatic application of the results of technological developments, which is perhaps a debate for another day, there is rarely a case for not carrying out research. Ethical grounds are almost the only basis on which limitation of research is justified. With that qualification we must ensure research continues and is carried out in a clear and properly regulated manner. Specifically, this means research into genetically modified crops should be allowed continue, but it must be conducted under licence and subject to strict regulation by a competent authority. Field trials are clearly a necessary component of such research. These too should be carried out under licence and subject to strict regulation by a competent body. They should, however, be comprehensive in nature, rather than concentrating solely, as currently seems to be the case, on yield, specific characteristics for which the genetic modification is carried out and specific traits in the plants or resulting product. Field trials should also cover the effects of genetically modified plants on soils and surrounding flora and fauna.
In addition to setting up the regulatory and supervisory structures I have mentioned, we should re-examine the primary locus of responsibility for these issues in our governmental and administrative systems. In the context of EU regulations and directives concerning genetically modified organisms, four Departments have responsibilities, namely, the Departments of Health and Children, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Agriculture and Food and the Environment and Local Government. No one Department has primary responsibility. It is perhaps to the credit of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that he has attempted to take on this role, but his approach to the issue has been deficient. It is only recently that he has taken up a proposal, first made by Young Fine Gael, that an interdepartmental working group should be formed to deal with biotechnology related issues and I understand he intends to move in this direction. The Government should reconsider the matter, place a clear onus of final responsibility on one Department and arrange for the necessary co-operation and co-ordination of the work of other Departments.
The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, stated that another element in the process is EU consensus on validated analytical methods to test whether a product contains genetically modified DNA or protein. While we welcome this, we must point out it is only part of a wider action the Minister for the Environment and Local Government referred to in his speech in the context of the action being taken by a group of supermarkets and some restaurants which should be commended and supported.
It is essential that the public consultation process be modified and reinforced in the ways I have suggested. While the issues I have raised, and others which have yet to be defined, have been considered properly in that framework, the House should return to the issue to consider what is necessary in terms of policy and a regulatory framework to ensure technology is at our service rather than constituting a perceived threat.
Serious attention should be given to the promotion and marketing of non-genetically modified food products. It is already clear that action is under way in Argentina to promote, produce and market non-genetically modified maize and soya. Other countries may follow suit and we should adopt a similar approach as GM techniques are applied to other food products. This type of action can result in the kind of pressure which is beginning to lead to a modification in the stance taken by, for example, the US, on issues relating to genetically modified foods in world trade. Such action will be to the benefit of consumers in the long-term and will lead to a more rational assessment of the benefits of genetic modification in the food sector in particular. It should also encourage EU members states to act in a concerted manner along some of the lines I have previously indicated.
I acknowledge that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government excused himself and apologised for his inability to remain in the House after delivering his speech. I understand there are occasions when the pressures of Government may require a Minister to be elsewhere. However, this is not a long debate and has been planned for some time. It is unacceptable that neither of the two Ministers who led this debate could remain to hear the contributions of Members. I acknowledge we have present the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, for whom I have considerable respect. However, to my knowledge, he does not serve at any of the three Departments which have line responsibility for the issue of genetically modified foods: the Departments of Health and Children, Environment and Local Government and Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
It is remarkable that Fianna Fáil, which at the last election was prepared to regurgitate to the lobby groups whatever they wanted to hear and make an election promise on which it has done a volte-face today, cannot even send to the House a Minister or Minister of State who has a line responsibility in this area to hear contributions on the debate. It is testament to the fact that Fianna Fáil does not take this issue seriously. It did not take it sufficiently seriously in Opposition to be more cautious about the election commitment which was made, and does not take it sufficiently seriously in Government to send a Minister who has some responsibility for the area to contribute to, participate in and listen to a debate which has been flagged for so long.
At one level the debate is about a simple and personal matter: how safe is the food we eat? Yet it is enormously complex because we live in a changing world in which the questions about from where our food comes, by whom it is produced, for what reward and of what our food is made are becoming increasingly difficult questions. It is a debate which will dominate the early part of the next century. It is important the debate in the Dáil and the continuing public debate on the relationship between biotechnology and the food we eat is conducted based on reason and information rather than on rhetoric and half-truth.
In all the material we have received in advance of the debate – I thank all those who submitted material to me – the most interesting information is contained in the report of the survey conducted by Lansdowne Marketing Research for Genetic Concern in January this year. Seventy eight per cent of respondents said they knew little or nothing about genetic engineering, yet a public debate is taking place which is essentially asking policymakers and the general public to say "yes" or "no" to genetically modified food. On the one hand, large powerful corporations like Monsanto with considerable resources and political influence are seeking to assure us that genetically modified food production is absolutely safe, is the answer to global food shortages and is even safer and greener than traditional products. On the other hand, lobby groups are urging caution, although some appear to be adopting a dogmatic opposition to the technology itself, and there is the opportunity for the political opportunist to exploit the shortage of public awareness and understanding of the issue to promote the politics of fear.
No one has been more opportunistic in this than Fianna Fáil, which made an election commitment in 1997 and presumably received support and votes on that basis and today has brazenly and without sufficient basis done a volte-face on that. The Minister says his hands are tied by the European Union regarding a ban on genetically modified foods and products. I know of no European Union law which states that this State should approve either trials or the production of genetically modified food. The Minister's answer is an excuse to escape from a pre-election commitment which is not convenient now that his party is in Government.
The Labour Party believes the debate on genetically modified food should be based neither on hype nor hysteria but on reason and fact. We believe there are a number of principles which must underpin this debate: the right of the consumer to safe food, the need to ensure our environment and ecosystems are not damaged by new or old food production methods, the need for the public to be informed about the food choices they make, and the need for public policy to be formulated to meet these requirements.
The modification of food is not new. Since agriculture began 10,000 years ago, humankind has been mixing seeds, developing new strains of plant and, more recently, using artificial fertilisers and pest controls. There is hardly a food we eat which has not been modified in some way by human activity. Genetic modification itself is relatively new, being developed in the last quarter of a century, but it is already common in medicine and food. Many new medicines, vaccines and diagnostic reagents, including human insulin, anti-cancer drugs and the hepatitis B vaccine, are the products of modern biotechnology. Many of our everyday foods, including cheese, fruit juices, beer and wine, are already processed by genetically engineered enzymes and yeasts. Whether we like it or not, genetic modification of medicines and foods is already a substantial reality.
What is new, however, is that the application of biotechnology to food production has quickly reached a point where it is about to globally transform the way in which crops are grown, agriculture conducted and food produced. Already in the United States, 32 per cent of the corn crop and 38 per cent of the soya crop are genetically modified. Seventy five per cent of all processed foods in the United States now contain genetically modified ingredients, and it is estimated that, within a few years, crop production in the United States will have switched over almost exclusively to genetically modified crops.
This in turn is driving the pressure to commence genetically modified crop production and food distribution in Europe and elsewhere. The huge companies which have developed GM food want global outlets for their products and are pressing politically, diplomatically and through the World Trade Organisation for the right to sell. Coupled with this is an understandable concern in European agriculture and the European biotechnology industry that Europe should not fall behind in the control and development of biotechnology in food. The pressure is on to genetically modify food. The logic of the market is that where United States agriculture has led, the rest of the world will inevitably have to follow. Ultimately and perhaps within a short time, crop production will be universally genetically modified.
Should we necessarily accept that? It may be that GM food production is one of the great advances of humankind, that it is the means of producing the 60 per cent extra food the world's population will need over the next 25 years, that rice enhanced with vitamin A is the answer to malnutrition in the developing world, and that wheat enhanced with folic acid will halt spina bifida. On the other hand, maybe GM foods will result in as yet unknown diseases, that they will cause resistance to be lowered, that the toxins which keep insects away from plants will eventually harm our health, and that the widespread production of GM crops will irrevocably disturb our ecosystems.
We do not know the answers to these questions. How could we? The production of GM crops is only about ten years old. How can scientists say with such certainty after so short a trial period for GM crops that they are either safe or unsafe? I have always understood that scientific inquiry and research is by its nature slow, sometimes uncertain and contradictory. The full ecological and health consequences of a crop grown today may not be known for half a century, yet we are effectively being asked to authorise, almost within the space of a decade, not the manageable production of individual crops in occasional locations but the transformation of the world's entire crop production system.
This is a huge dilemma for policymakers, and in facing up to it, it is essential they reclaim the public space and the right to require that commercial activity and scientific endeavour serve the common good. The commercial interests behind GM food production and the Government of the United States may be preparing for the extension of their GM revolution, but it does not follow that policymakers in Europe and elsewhere should take a short cut through the process of information, of public consultation and of democratic dialogue which, in a democratic society, informs the making of public policy.
We do not have to be rushed into GM crop production in Europe. Whatever argument there may be for genetically modified foods solving world food shortages, it hardly applies in the European Union, one of whose biggest problems is food surpluses and which is paying farmers to stop producing traditional products through set-aside and other payments. Neither should we be rushed into approving crop trials which are not for the pursuit of objective scientific inquiry but to establish the physical and economic viability of production. The Labour Party, therefore, supports a moratorium on the production and commercial trials of GM crops in Ireland and Europe to allow space for the public and policy makers to be better informed, to give reasoned consideration to the issues surrounding GM crop production and, if necessary, to put in place a satisfactory regulatory framework in Ireland and Europe.
The debate on GM food needs to engage the public, not just specialists, whether from the industry or the lobbies. The consultation paper produced by the Department of the Environment and Local Government is a welcome document. Unfortunately the consultative process proposed by the Minister was initially unbalanced and unsatisfactory. Genetic Concern has proposed a Norwegian style public jury format. This should be proceeded with but it is not enough.
The debate should be widened beyond the format proposed by the Minister. The trolley pusher in the supermarket who buys groceries needs to be actively engaged in the debate which should be conducted on radio and television in an educational rather than entertainment format. There is little point in pitting two extremists against each other who will simply add to the supply of polarised misinformation. There should be panels of scientists, consumer bodies, NGOs and Government agencies to discuss the issue in a reasoned manner and for the public to come to a conclusion in its own time.
In urging a cautious, careful and considered approach to policy on GM food I am not arguing for a position which is hostile to biotechnology. The scientific work should continue but within a framework which puts the public good and the integrity of the environment first. There are many issues to be considered: the ethics of some biotechnology possibilities; the safety of the food produced; the impact, if any, on health; the impact on the environment, wildlife and biodiversity; the economics of biotechnology produced food; the implications for agriculture and food production in the developing world; the control of this technology by a handful of large multinationals; and the mechanisms needed to inform and assure the public. The need of the industry to make a return on its considerable investment in research, the enthusiasm of some scientists for the process and the desire of some producers for more easily managed crops are not the only factors which should determine the pace of development of biotechnology in food.
While the process of consultation is continuing, the issue arises of GM products already on supermarket shelves. The Labour Party believes that the consumer has a right to know what is in the food we buy, how it is made, where it comes from and how it has been treated. We have a right to have food products accurately and adequately labelled. A label which simply states that a product may contain GM ingredients is inadequate.
There are difficulties with labelling. How does one test the accuracy of a label on a processed product when DNA becomes less traceable in processing? Should a GM label be stuck on everything with a GM ingredient? Would we then end up with so many GM stickers all over the supermarket that the bewildered consumer will give up and carry on buying? Should we distinguish between traditional genetic modification and new genetic modification?
There is a need to go beyond labelling to better education about food. If we have a right to know about food and its origin, we have a right to be educated about food. We should start now through the education system and in public and continuing education to be informed and to make informed judgments about the foods we buy and eat. There is no substitute for knowledge and personal judgment.
There is a lack of confidence in the public apparatus for the approval of foods. The citizen no longer trusts a Government spokesperson or an agency which reassures them that the experts have tested the food and it is safe. Recent experiences with blood, BSE, salmonella, water quality and the revelations at the beef tribunal have all undermined public confidence that the State apparatus will keep us safe.
Confidence needs to be restored. It will take a considerable investment of resources to do this. Telling the public that there are EU directives to save us from potential harm from genetic modification and that the Environment Protection Agency has responsibility to enforce them sounds reassuring until we discover that the EPA has only one officer dealing with the GM issue. The Food Safety Authority is seriously under-resourced and understaffed. The Department of Agriculture and Food is regarded by most consumers as the downtown office of food producers. If we want a safe food regime, we will have to pay for it and give the proper resources and authority to the agencies to which we give responsibility for food safety, public health and a clean environment.
There is a need for better co-ordination. There are four Departments and at least two State agencies with responsibility for GM food. There is a need for a dedicated Department of food safety and education. In the short-term there is a need for greater co-ordination between the bodies which have responsibility.
This debate raises two other issues, the first of which is the relationship between science and policy making. The world in which we live has been changed dramatically by the advances of science. We seem to have a virtual ignorance and fear of science. We do not include science at the policy table. There is a need for a new relationship between policy makers and scientists. The scientist should be as central to planning and policy making as the economist. In this way we would avoid finding ourselves in the situation of having to play catch up on an issue which has been thrust upon us by scientific advance.
The second issue is that of regulation. Throughout the 1980s an ideological battle took place in the developed world between left and right on the question of regulation. The war cry of the right, "deregulate", was heard nowhere more than the United States. The Reagan Administration, which led the charge, cleared the way for the development and rapid advance of genetically modified food. It is no accident that GM foods were developed and advanced rapidly in the most deregulated political and economic environment in the world. The development and rapid advancement of GM foods is the product of deregulation in the 1980s.
There is a need to reassert that there is such a thing as society, the public and common good; that there is a need for democratic debate and that in this case the market is not totally free, that it is subject to intervention and regulation to prevent food being controlled by large powerful multinationals and developed in a way about which the consumer is not informed or entirely happy.
(Dublin West): This is an extremely important debate. The genetic engineering of crops, vegetables, food products and animals is one of the most serious questions facing this country and international society. Genetic engineering is as serious and as sinister a development as nuclear fission as a generator of electric power. The people who opposed the siting of a nuclear fission electric generator in Carnsore in Wexford have been subsequently entirely vindicated by what happened in Chernobyl with this uncontrollable potentially devastating force.
Debate adjourned.