JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

There are two EU proposals before the joint committee. I welcome Mr. Ian Keating from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dr. Tom McLoughlin from the Environmental Protection Agency and Mr. John Downey and Dr. Richard Hackett from the Department of Agriculture and Food who will update members on COM (2006) 78 which deals with the proposed reauthorisation of genetically modified oilseed rape lines for import into the European Community for industrial use and processing into animal feed.

Before asking Mr. Keating to make his opening remarks, I draw to the attention of delegates the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not attach to witnesses. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Keating to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Ian Keating

Thank you, Chairman. I am a principal officer in the environment policy section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. My Department is responsible for the national legislative framework that applies in relation to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment under Directive 2001/18 of the European Parliament and the Council and for policy input into the decision-making process under the directive.

As this is the first time, to my knowledge, that the joint committee has considered issues relating to Directive 2001/18, it might be useful if I were to place COM (2006) 78 in the context of the process from which it emerged. I will also try to update the committee on developments since its publication. Directive 2001/18 is one of two key pieces of current European legislation relating to the approval of genetically modified organisms, the second being the more recent Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed. While all new proposals to market genetically modified food and animal feed will fall to be considered under Regulation 1829/2003, a small number of proposals relating to animal feed made before Regulation 1829/2003 was finalised fell to be considered under Directive 2001/18.

Directive 2001/18 as well as Regulation 1829/2003, is an inclusive process, involving all member states. A company wishing to market a GM product submits a notification to the competent authority of the member state in which it is first proposed to market it. That competent authority then becomes lead competent authority for the purposes of that application. The lead competent authority examines the notification for completeness and makes summary information on the notification available to all other competent authorities and the European Commission.

Following detailed assessment of the notification, the lead competent authority can conclude that the product is either unfit or fit for marketing. If the conclusion is that the product is unfit, the process is completed and the application is refused. If, however, the lead competent authority considers that the product is fit for marketing, the process moves forward to obtain a detailed, Community-wide view. To achieve this, the full notification and the lead competent authority's assessment of it, are made available to all competent authorities and the Commission for their consideration.

It is then open to each competent authority and the Commission to seek further information or to indicate objections. In this process, it is open to all parties to discuss and possibly resolve outstanding issues. In this context, in coming to a view on any proposal under the Directive the Irish competent authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, consults other relevant bodies, including the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health and Children, Teagasc, the GMO and novel foods sub-committee under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's scientific committee and the EPA's GMO advisory committee. The public can also participate in the process through the Commission sponsored website which contains summary information on each notification.

Should a competent authority remain unsatisfied as to the appropriateness of the conclusion drawn by the lead competent authority that the product is fit to place on the market, and in practice, this is what usually happens, the notification is referred by the Commission to the regulatory committee of all member states established for the purposes of the Directive. Before the regulatory committee considers the notification, the Commission obtains an opinion on the notification and the objections raised by competent authorities from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. The opinion of EFSA is, therefore available to the regulatory committee.

In dealing with a notification, the regulatory committee operates on the basis of qualified majority voting. Should a qualified majority be obtained to approve the proposal, the proposal is adopted. However, if no qualified majority in favour of the proposal emerges from the committee, the Commission must formally make its proposal to the Council.

Should the Council, acting by qualified majority, agree with the Commission's proposal, the proposal is adopted. Where the Council, also by qualified majority, opposes the proposal, it is open to the Commission to abandon its proposal or produce an amended proposal. Should no opinion emerge from Council, the Commission may proceed with its proposal. The role of the European Parliament in the process is confined to a form of legal scrutiny of proposals rather than a wider assessment of their actual merit.

COM (2006) 78 is a proposal by the Commission to the Council to approve genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and their hybrid Ms8XRf3, which are resistant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. The proposal covers the import of the varieties for animal feed and industrial processing. It does not propose cultivation. Use of these varieties for food purposes is not at issue either — although the committee may wish to know that the use of refined oil from these varieties for food use has already been approved throughout the European Union since 2000 under the novel food regulation, the forerunner of the GM food and feed regulation which dealt exclusively with food for human consumption.

The original notification in this case was made to the Belgian competent authority. The Belgian authority, following its assessment, indicated that it was satisfied that the importation of the product for the uses specified and under the conditions required by Directive 2001/18/EC would not adversely impact on the environment or on human health. As this view was not shared by the competent authorities of all other member states, the proposal came before the regulatory committee under the process I outlined earlier.

The majority of objections raised to the proposal had centred on the possible consequences of the establishment of feral colonies of oilseed rape and consequent gene transfer in the event of accidental spillage of viable seed. EFSA's opinion which was made available to the regulatory committee concluded that the product "is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals and in the context of the proposed uses for the environment". EFSA recommended that "appropriate management systems should be in place to minimise accidental loss and spillage of transgenic oilseed rape during transportation, storage, handling in the environment and processing into derived products".

The Commission proposal that came before the regulatory committee sought to take account of EFSA's recommendations on management systems. Notwithstanding this, the outcome of the vote of the regulatory committee was inconclusive, as is indicated in the information note.

Ireland abstained during the vote of the regulatory committee. This abstention took a number of considerations into account, not least the abstention recorded by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government at the Environment Council in December 2004 on oilseed rape GT73, a virtually identical product.

On the question of accidental seed spillage and gene flow from feral colonies of GM oilseed rape, it is useful to point out that this concern does not arise to the same extent in Ireland as in certain other countries, given that imports to Ireland of oilseed rape for feed use, either from inside or outside the Community, are pulped before arrival, leaving only a remote possibility of unprocessed seeds surviving the process, remaining viable, escaping and then establishing themselves. In the case of GT73, the Department of Agriculture and Food agreed to put in place appropriate measures to ensure that any obligations placed on feed business operators by the Commission to minimise the accidental spillage of GM oilseed rape for animal feed are complied with.

One will see from the information note that it was legally necessary for the proposal to be brought before Council within three months of publication. As the scheduled meeting of the Environment Council fell outside the three-month deadline the matter was taken at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 18 September 2006. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, at the behest of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government abstained in the vote and maintained consistency in Ireland's voting pattern under directive 2001/18.

The Council comprising the 25 member states did not reach qualified majority on the proposal. In accordance with the procedure outlined Ireland's input and the input of all other member states to the decision making process has concluded and the responsibility for the matter now reverts to the European Commission.

In summary, document COM (2006) 78 has been overtaken by events which occurred on 18 September 2006. Notwithstanding this, I hope the information I have given to the committee in regard to the approval process under directive 2001/18/EC, and the progress of the particular product through that process, is helpful. I and my colleagues will endeavour to assist the committee in responding to any questions members may have. If we do not have the answers directly to hand we will be happy to communicate the information to the committee subsequently.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Keating for his presentation. I invite questions from members and call Deputy Naughten.

Deputy Naughten

I thank Mr. Keating for his comprehensive presentation. There are a number of questions I wish to put to the witnesses and specifically the issue of the potential environmental impact of the importation of this product into Ireland. I accept the point that the majority of the product imported is pulped. From a European perspective, it is critically important that there are strict controls in place in respect of the accidental release of oilseed rape in the European Union. Any of us who travel around the country at certain times of the year will see plenty of this crop on the roadside. It is an extremely difficult crop to control once there is accidental release. In the past I have asked the Minister to consider designating it, in such circumstances, as a noxious weed because the impact of accidental release of a genetically engineered oilseed rape crop on roadsides could be detrimental to the economy and Ireland as a food producing nation. It is critically important that every check and balance is put in place. Anyone who has seen the evidence from the United States regarding the accidental release of this crop will know the devastation it can cause. The delegation claims this product is pulped before arriving in Ireland. Is all of the product, whether genetically engineered or not, pulped? Is there oilseed rape for feed use coming into the State that is not pulped? Is there the potential that a consignment could enter the State that has not been pulped, if these procedures are approved? What is the scientific risk of a seed still being viable after going through the pulping process?

The European Food Safety Authority raised concerns on accidental spillage and recommended that appropriate management systems be put in place. What are the proposed systems? What steps are being taken, not only for the genetically engineered crop but also the conventional crop used in the State to ensure there will be no accidental release, which is commonplace? Why does Ireland abstain rather than vote against these EU proposals? It consistently does not take a position on the issue.

The approval process allows for public participation. Have many submissions been made by members of the public to the Commission? The main concern in Ireland on the use of GMOs, even in field trials, centres on the adverse impact an accidental release may have on the environment. Some crops are relatively easy to control in this respect. Oilseed rape, however, is one that is extremely difficult to control if released into the environment. Is terminator gene technology used with this crop?

Deputy Upton

My concerns are on the environmental impact arising from genetically modified seeds finding their way into the conventional crop cycle. Historically, gene flow from one conventional crop to another has happened. What procedures can be put in place and how confident can we be that we can manage a new strain of crop entering the cycle? Can we confidently say there will be no cross-contamination from the genetically modified to the conventional crop?

From a marketing viewpoint, Ireland is in a unique position on GM foods. Many of the arguments around the safety or otherwise of genetically modified foods can be set aside. We have been happily eating some genetically modified products for many years. That is not to take away from a concern about what might happen in the future and the genuine public perception. We must take that on board as well.

I would like to raise the same question as Deputy Naughten in regard to our position in abstaining on all the votes. It appears the current one in regard to the Minister for Agriculture and Food was based on the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had already taken a position of abstention. What is the purpose of abstaining? I appreciate it may be a political issue on which Mr. Keating cannot give us an answer, but he might be able to give some indication of why Ireland always takes that position.

Mr. Keating has raised an important point regarding the obligations on the feed business operators to minimise accidental spillage. How detailed are those obligations? How are they managed and who is held responsible if something goes wrong?

Deputy Ferris

I thank Mr. Keating for his presentation. It was very informative and well put together. Many of the questions I wanted to ask have been asked by the two previous speakers. The proposal covers the importation of a variety of GM products for animal feed and industrial processing. From an environmental point of view, I am not assured there can be any guarantees, particularly when these products find their way into animal feed. They will inevitably find their way back into the environment once they go through that process. I would like to be convinced that is not the case. While I accept that the pulping of rapeseed oil minimises the risk, it does not provide a guarantee of safety. I would like Mr. Keating to address these two issues.

Mr. Keating

I will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised by Deputies. I will be assisted in this by Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. John Downey from the Department of Agriculture and Food on different aspects of this. I preface my remarks by outlining Ireland's national position on GMOs as stated in the Government decision that underpinned the report of the group on modern biotechnology which was produced in 2000. Ireland's position in regard to GMOs is positive but precautionary. This is reflected in general terms in the procedure and the process the EU has adopted in regard to applications for approval of GM products. This procedure is regarded as being one of the most rigorous and onerous in the world. That is the general background against which approval for GM products in the Community and our national policy on GMOs is set.

A point was raised in regard to seed being pulped. It is my understanding, and the representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Food may have more to say about this, that all oilseed rape that comes here for feed purposes is pulped before it comes into the country. That is not to say that this may not change in the future. As matters stand escape of viable seed in Ireland seems much more unlikely than in other member states where the seed is handled and transported before it is pulped and where it would be much more likely to be viable.

A number of points were raised regarding management systems in the event of accidental spillage of oilseed rape were that to be viable. The legal instrument for approval of the two products and their hybrid is a proposed Commission decision and attached to that decision there is an annexe which deals specifically with technical guidelines which bear mainly upon the consent holder, in this case, Bayer CropScience, the company that made the original application to the Belgian competent authority.

There is an A4 page on technical guidance but I do not wish to labour the committee with all that detail. In summary, it states that the consent holder must inform operators in the community who handle and process bulk mixtures of imported oilseed rape that the product has been approved — that is if and when it is approved by the Commission and, to my knowledge, it has not yet been approved — and that a general surveillance plan for any unanticipated adverse effects from the placing on the market of these products has been adopted by the consent holder.

The consent holder should also provide operators with a national contact person for the reporting of any unanticipated adverse effects. He or she should inform operators about the possibility of and consequences arising from accidental spillage of these products, as evaluated by the EFSA in the context of its intended uses, as to what those are, and he or she should maintain regular contact with operators to ensure they are informed of any changes to current practice.

The consent holder should also ensure operators are alert to the possibility of accidental spillage of these products and also that, in the event that volunteer oilseed rape plants are established from this spillage, the consent holder must inform the operators that these plants should be eradicated to minimise the potential for unanticipated adverse effects, and provide operators with appropriate plans for eradicating volunteer oilseed rape plants. Under Article 45 of Directive 2001/18, member states may carry out checks and-or additional monitoring with respect to accidental spillage of these products. In summary, that sets out the technical guidelines attached to the Commission decision to address the concerns of the EFSA on the accidental spillage of this seed.

Two Deputies inquired as to why Ireland's voting position in recent times has been to abstain, both at the regulatory committee and in Council, in regard to proposals from the Commission to approve GM products. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has gone on record to give his view in this regard. He is mindful of the fact that Ireland's national policy on GM products is positive but precautionary. He is conscious also that any advice to him from expert bodies, most particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, which is Ireland's national competent authority for the purposes of Directive 2001/18, has also been positive in regard to these products. He has taken that into account. Nonetheless, given considerations of subsidiarity in particular, where a considerable number of member states — a sufficient number so that no qualified majority has been obtained in regard to these products in recent times — maintain objections to those products, the Minster has said, in those circumstances, and in deference to the member states who still hold concerns on these products, he was not minded to vote in favour of them and on that basis he has abstained. I hope I have reflected faithfully the explanation previously given by the Minister for his abstention on these products.

A question was asked about the extent to which participation has occurred from interested parties in this country on the Commission's website. I do not have details on that issue. I can ask the Commission. I am aware there is a strong lobby in this country, especially from certain groups that oppose GM technology. I would be most surprised in those circumstances if they were not availing of the procedure which is available to them to participate in the evaluation process through the Commission's website. Dr. McLoughlin may address this issue also. I am not aware of issues relating to a terminator gene with this product.

Other queries were raised. With regard to animal feeds, Deputy Ferris asked whether viable seed could remain. In an absolute sense, it could do so. However, with regard to new technology for GM products in particular, the approach elsewhere in Europe has been similar to that in Ireland, namely, positive but precautionary. An attempt has been made to evaluate the merits of these products and devise such systems as are reasonable to manage and control any risks that might be associated with them.

With the permission of the Chairman, I will defer to Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Downey who may wish to add to what I have said.

Dr. Tom McLoughlin

At previous meetings of the joint committee we answered questions similar to those asked by the two Deputies, in particular with regard to GM oilseed rape, to which they referred. It is a hybrid system and this is the first time such a system has been introduced at this plant. It was developed in the early 1980s by a Belgium company and purchased by a European company. It allows for the crossing of plant A with plant B to obtain hybrid vigour through genetic modification. It also results in a 20% increase in yield of both seed and oil. At the time this was regarded as incredible in that it was possible to achieve this not by plant breeding — it was not possible to achieve it by plant breeding because there were inbred lines — but by genetic modification.

The EPA is the competent authority for both the contained use and deliberate release of this product into the environment. We have examined the issue in recent years, with the examination being carried out on a risk assessment basis by the best scientific experts in the country, namely, the GMO advisory committee, the committee operating under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and other Government agencies.

I tend to disagree with Deputy Naughten, with all due respect to him, on the release into the environment of GM crops. A number of field trials of GM sugar beet took place some years ago. There were concerns that the sugar beet would grow on mountains, near lakes and on the sides of roads. We carried out monitoring of that trial which took place at Teagasc's Oak Park centre and other locations. Sugar beet would only grow where it was cultivated. We should bear in mind that some non-GM species were introduced inadvertently. For example, the rhododendron plant can get out of control in County Kerry and other parts. In my area of Achill Island a man introduced a gunnera plant approximately 30 years ago. Its seed was spread by birds and it is now difficult to control on Achill Island and other parts of west Mayo. This is an example of how a species which is difficult to control can be introduced. I agree with the Deputy in that regard.

On whether this plant would be difficult to control, we should bear in mind that it is for importation only. The chances of a plant spreading after it has arrived at a port with its seed pressed are vanishingly low. In recent days I attended the BioIreland conference at UCD. Committee members may have read in the newspaper reports on the conference that the cultivation of GM crops is widespread in other jurisdictions. For example, in 2005, 90 million hectares were planted worldwide with GM crops, mainly soya bean, maize and cotton. GM rapeseed was planted on 5% of the total acreage, some 4.6 million hectares, a huge area of land.

One might ask what legislation is in place at EU level. There is stringent EU legislation based on risk assessment and risk management procedures for placing those products, including this one, on the market. If this was to be cultivated in the European Union — and it is not, it is for import only — there would be post-market monitoring. These are the most stringent procedures used to date in agriculture and would identify anything untoward that did not emerge in the risk assessment, for example, gene flow to weed species, which will probably happen. Some seeds will grow but the question will be whether they are doing environmental harm or can be controlled using another chemical, or a cultural means, by pulling them. It can be controlled but the case of the gunnera is important because we must be vigilant at all times.

There is notification for the cultivation of the GM oilseed rape in the European Union, including in Ireland. There is much talk about using it to produce bio-diesel. One could argue that this would be good for the Irish economy because it is a hybrid system resulting in a 20% increase in yield.

If it does not happen here we might have to import our bio-diesel from somewhere else. We must bear that in mind but our role is to manage those crops, if they are approved for use. Once they are approved for use at EU level they can be used here providing they get into relevant seed catalogues.

There is no such thing as a zero risk. I have conducted research and development in this area for over 20 years and have worked with the EPA for the past 12 or 13 years and believe the risks can be managed. This should be done in accordance with EU and Irish legislation.

Farmers can use the seed year after year in the hybrid system. No terminator technology applies to this GM.

Mr. John Downey

I will ask Richard Hackett to deal with the nature of the oilseed rape coming into the country and how it is used in feed. Approximately 12 months ago we dealt with the first GM oilseed rape to be approved, GT73. That has not gone through the full marketing process because there is no validated methodology for this and it has not yet been signed in.

This product is the second one to come up. It is to be marketed for use in feed, so cultivation is not an issue. Steps were taken to prevent cultivation because as Dr. McLoughlin said, and as stated in a departmental document on co-existence, oilseed rape is a particular species which must be dealt with carefully. All the oilseed rape coming into the country for use as feed is crushed and cannot establish itself to any great extent but we must have procedures in place for the day when GM oilseed rape becomes marketable within the EU as an animal feed. There may be an economic argument against this happening. The first product is some way from being marketable. When it becomes marketable and is imported into Ireland as a GM feed, certain procedures must fall into place, based on those set out in the annexe to the proposal. These ensure that the consent holder informs everybody along the handling chain of its responsibilities in the case of accidental spillage of oilseed rape. Fortunately, importers are obliged to inform the Department prior to the importation. When this market opens Department officials will be alerted.

The Department has followed through in the case of GT73 and I cannot see any reason it would not ensure that where wholeseed GM oilseed rape is being imported as an animal feed, every person in the handling chain meets his or her responsibilities to prevent the establishment of feral colonies in the event of an accidental spillage of oilseed rape. If that is the case, the questions of cross-flow and gene-flow should not come into play in this context. The cultivation of GM oilseed rape is a whole new area, however, and involves questions on the co-existence side. The Irish market may not attract importations of wholeseed GM oilseed rape, but if it happens, certain procedures will be implemented in accordance with the requirements set out in the proposals and the recommendation for the previous Monsanto oilseed rape, GT73, and will be followed to ensure that all responsible people in the chain meet their obligations. On the nature of the product, I ask my colleague Dr. Hackett to speak.

Dr. Richard Hackett

In 2005, 139,000 tonnes of extracted oilseed rape was imported, of which 97% came from within the EU. In 2006, 159,000 tonnes were imported, all of which came from within the EU. The imports from the EU were not produced through GM technology. The product is a by-product of a crop which is grown for the production of oil for bio-fuel or food use. It is not grown for the purposes of animal feed and the substantial value of the crop is in its oil. To use whole-crop as an animal feed would not make economic sense which is why the product we import is pre-crushed. It would certainly not make economic sense to import wholeseed from areas outside the EU. On the risk of wholeseeds containing GM material coming into Ireland, I note that each stage in the process is designed to remove it.

Deputy Naughten

While I accept the points on the wholeseed, if this was approved by the Commission, it would allow the legal importation of wholeseed at some future date. Is wholeseed oilseed rape coming into Ireland for processing and uses other than animal feed processing? If a processing facility is opened in Ireland to process rape for oil extraction, of which eventuality there is currently talk, what impact would it have? While Mr. Keating outlined the provisions in the annex on a general surveillance plan, can he set out the additional checks and balances and precautions to prevent accidental spillage in the first place? While there is a requirement to put a plan in place in the event of an accidental spillage of this crop in Ireland, spillages have occurred and feral colonies have spread across the country. They can be seen by people travelling along the roads. What additional checks and balances are being introduced specifically regarding this crop in its wholeseed form compared with any other crop not using GM technology? Are any additional precautions being introduced?

Perhaps Dr. McLoughlin could answer this question. Is the herbicide resistant gene coming from another oilseed rape plant or elsewhere? If it is coming from a source other than an oilseed rape plant from where is it coming? I take issue with him on sugar beet. Perhaps it is because the oilseed rape crop is so distinctive when travelling along the roads that much more of it is visible than is the case with sugar beet. It is extremely difficult to control. On the issue of control, I accept the point that another herbicide could be used or it could be physically pulled. However, when we cannot get our act together on the control of ragwort, how will we control feral colonies of oilseed rape? If accidental release occurs, I do not believe we will have the wherewithal to eradicate it, which would be my main concern once it comes into the country. It could have an impact on the environment and I do not believe we have the checks and balances to address those concerns.

Mr. Keating

With the Chairman's permission, I will defer to Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Downey.

Dr. McLoughlin

To answer the Deputy's question, the herbicide tolerant trait comes from a soil bacterium. It is genetically engineered from a soil bacterium into the plant as has happened with soya beans and others. This is one of the concerns of those who say this is crossing the species barrier, which is what happens.

Regarding weeds, I agree that one will see many brassica weeds growing on the side of the road especially yellow plants in the spring. As oilseed rape has many first cousins, what the Deputy is seeing may not be oilseed rape per se, but they could be related weeds. That is not to say it could not: it can actually grow on the side of the road. Obviously if it grew on the side of the road, spraying it with glufosinate ammonium would do no good. However, if it were sprayed with any other herbicide, it would more than likely be killed. One would need to ask whether the herbicide tolerant trait gives it a competitive advantage. In some cases it may do so. It can be controlled, which is foreseen in the post-market monitoring plans as outlined in Directive 2001/18 regarding the deliberate release into the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency is the competent authority to implement the directive, which has been transposed into Irish law. If this or any other crop is ever planted for cultivation, all those matters must be considered.

Deputy Naughten

What would be the opinion of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if we were to carry out herbicide spraying along the sides of roads to eradicate feral colonies of oilseed rape? The practicality is the difficulty. I do not believe certain sections of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would be in favour of such a course of action.

Dr. McLoughlin

It would also be possible to use a culture means. There are different ways to control weeds other than using herbicide. I agree we should use more biological ways. Canada has a huge acreage of this variety, as alluded to by the Deputy. There has been much talk about cross-contamination, which has happened, because genes will flow. This occurs at a very low level and if we were to cultivate it in the EU, including Ireland, we would need to keep it below the 0.9% threshold. There is another crop in Canada which is herbicide tolerant but is not a GMO or regulated. One could plant it in Ireland without having to go through any of the Directive 2001/18 regulatory hoops. Only the Department of Agriculture and Food would have to look after it. There is this anomaly. GM crops are highly regulated, whereas herbicide tolerance can be achieved using non-GM means.

Deputy Naughten

My other question was whether any oilseed rape was coming whole into Ireland for purposes other than feed processing.

Dr. Hackett

To my knowledge, there are no crushing facilities in the country. Therefore, there would be no reason to import oilseed rape for any other use. A number of facilities for biofuel use are in the planning or development stages. They are not designed for the purpose of dealing with imported whole oilseeds. The market will dictate what will happen in the future but there is no importation.

We have a pre-notification procedure which requires all importers to notify the Department five days before any material lands in order that we can put testing procedures in place. We would know if wholeseeds were being imported.

Deputy Naughten

Would the Department of Agriculture and Food be the competent authority for the importation of wholeseeds other than for agricultural use? What additional protections are there at European level for the transportation of this crop compared with any other similar oilseed rape crop?

Mr. Downey

Two stipulations apply to a consent holder when this crop is being imported for animal feed. The consent holder must provide operators with appropriate plans for dealing with accidental spillage and eradicating volunteer oilseed rapes. Before such material was landed in Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Food would insist on having sight of the plans provided by the operator for all those handling the crop. The people responsible would be obliged to adhere to those plans if an accidental spillage occurred.

Deputy Naughten

Are there additional protections with regard to transport if there is no accidental spillage?

Mr. Downey

No GM oilseedrape crop is approved for importation into Ireland. The first to seek approval will probably be GT73. Before an Irish feed importer imports wholeseed GT73 for use as feed,a crushing facility will have to be established and much preparatory work will be required to be done by the Department. Part of the preparatory work will involve the presentation to the Department of the plans which the importer will have given to the operators along the line regarding transportation, accidental spillage and all measures required to ensure the product will not establish feral colonies. There is still some time before we see the first consignment of wholeseed GM oilseed rape coming into the country. As our requirements will have been established, when operators give us their plans, they will meet those requirements.

Deputy Naughten

There is nothing additional in the annexe relating to transportation.

Mr. Downey

No. The annexe places an obligation on operators to do all that is necessary to make sure volunteer oilseed rape plants do not establish. It is no more specific than this. It may be that when this becomes a reality or is likely to become one in Ireland, the Department may interpret this in the strongest possible way to ensure the colonies are not established.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Keating, Dr. McLoughlin, Mr. Downey and Dr. Hackett for attending today's meeting, and for the way in which they responded to members' questions. The clerk to the committee will prepare a draft report on our discussion today for the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow Mr. Keating and Dr. McLoughlin to withdraw? Agreed. Mr. Downey and Dr. Hackett will remain here for the next proposal.

Sitting suspended at 12.31 p.m. and resumed at 12.32 p.m.