JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Jan 2008

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals on GM Products: Discussion.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Eamon Corcoran, principal officer, Mr. Gerry McMahon, assistant principal, and Ms Miriam Joyce, administrative officer, of the food unit of the Department of Health and Children, and Dr. Pat O'Mahony, chief specialist in biotechnology of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. I also welcome Mr. Dermot Ryan, senior agricultural inspector, Dr. Liam Hyde, agricultural inspector, and Mr. John Downey, assistant principal, of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are here to assist us in scrutinising the following proposals: COM (2007) 346, COM (2007) 397, COM (2007) 402 and COM (2007) 403 on genetically modified sugar beet and genetically modified maize. I understand that Mr. Corcoran will speak on the first three proposals and Mr. Ryan will speak on the last one.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Eamon Corcoran

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present on these issues. Policy matters on genetically modified, GM, food fall within the remit of the Department of Health and Children while policy matters on genetically modified feed are within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Representatives of both Departments are in attendance. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, is the competent authority charged with enforcing GM food legislation, and Dr. Pat O'Mahony, chief specialist in biotechnology in the FSAI, is also in attendance.

I would like to clarify at the outset that the four GM events being examined here today are now fully authorised in the EU. I propose to begin by outlining the procedure for the placing on the market of genetically modified food and feed, which is governed by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003. This procedure applies to all market placements within the European Union. I will then outline the procedures which are in place to ensure compliance with GM food legislation which, as a food safety issue, is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children. The final part of my statement will be a presentation of information on proposal COM (2007) 346, which relates to a genetically modified sugar beet, and proposals COM (2007) 402 and COM (2007) 403, which are concerned with maizes for food and feed use.

Following this, Mr. Dermot Ryan from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will present specific information on COM (2007) 397, authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize DAS-59122-7, which is intended primarily for animal feed purposes. Then we will be pleased to address any questions members may wish to raise.

To set the overall context, the placing on the market of genetically modified food and feed is governed by Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. Under this regulation, applications for authorisation within the EU are submitted initially to the competent authority of a member state. The application for authorisation is then forwarded to the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, for independent examination.

Subject to a favourable opinion from EFSA, in consultation with the competent authorities of member states, the application then proceeds as a draft Commission decision to the competent EU regulatory committee. Decisions in respect of GMOs are submitted to the genetically modified food and feed and environmental risk section of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. In order for the decision to be agreed at standing committee level, member states must reach a qualified majority vote, QMV. If the proposal fails at standing committee level, it must be brought forward within three months as a draft Commission decision to Council where, again, a QMV is required to grant the authorisation. If no QMV is reached at Council, the decision reverts to the Commission. In practice, no GM authorisation has yet obtained a QMV, either at standing committee or at Council level, but all applications for authorisation have ultimately been granted by the Commission.

The second part of my presentation relates to compliance. In this regard, the FSAI, as the competent authority charged with enforcing GM food legislation, carries out regular checks on the marketplace to ensure compliance with GM food legislation. The FSAI surveys have focused on foodstuffs containing ingredients from maize and soya bean, which are the most common GM ingredients authorised within the EU.

A total of 236 samples of food have been tested since 2000 with 58 - approximately 25% - of those being shown to contain authorised GM ingredients. In the case of products containing authorised GM ingredients, specific GM labelling requirements were not required as their relative content was estimated at less than the labelling threshold of 0.9%.

Other compliance issues can arise from time to time, for example, on 23 August 2006, the European Commission imposed emergency measures, under the provisions of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, regarding the import of various long-grain rice products from the United States owing to the possible presence of genetically modified rice, called "LL RICE 601", which has not been authorised for placing on the market in the European Community. This remains the only unauthorised GM food ingredient identified on the Irish market.

On compliance, the Department of Health and Children, advised by the FSAI, is satisfied that appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure the safety of authorised GM foods, or foods containing GM ingredients, placed on the market in Ireland. The EU has one of the most rigorous regimes for the assessment of GMOs as well as food and feed derived from GMOs. In this regard only GM foods which satisfy the highest standards of safety are allowed on the market.

In the final part of my presentation I will address the three proposals which come within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. The first of these, COM (2007) 346, concerns a GM strain, H7-1, of sugar beet. The GM sugar beet application does not have any implications for the feed industry in Ireland.

On 20 December 2006, EFSA verified that it was unlikely that the placing on the market of the products produced from sugar beet H7-1 - as described in the application - would, in the context of their intended uses, have any adverse effects on human or animal health or on the environment. However, the proposal was not carried at the standing committee on 19 April last and was, therefore, brought to Council for approval on 18 September. Whereas Ireland voted positively at the standing committee, in line with a positive but precautionary stance, the coming into office of the new Government resulted in our abstention in the Council vote. We advised that the Irish position on GM products was currently under review and that consequently we were abstaining.

Proposals COM (2007) 402 and 403 are both concerned with GM maize strains resulting from "stacked events". The latter is the term used to describe the combination of individual GM traits by conventional crossing of GM plants. These are the first instances of the seeking of authorisations for such events. With regard to the introduction of these two stacked maize events, it should be noted that the individual events that constitute the stack are already authorised within the EU. As with the previous proposal, COM (2007) 346, we had initially voted in favour of these two proposals at the standing committee on 8 June last. Again, however, we abstained from the subsequent Council vote on 25 September.

The final proposal for consideration is COM (2007) 397, which concerns the GM maize DAS-59122, commonly known as Herculex. As the primary use of this maize is for animal feed purposes, the dossier has been dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Subject to the agreement of the Chair, I wish to ask Mr. Dermot Ryan, senior inspector at that Department to speak on the proposal.

Mr. Dermot Ryan

I thank the committee for affording my colleagues and I the opportunity to give details of the proposals to authorise a number of GM events in the EU. As Mr. Corcoran indicated, I will confine my presentation to those aspects that impinge upon the animal feed industry in Ireland.

The GM maize events referred to by my colleague were already authorised in the USA and were being grown there. Any changes in maize cultivation in the USA can have consequences for the animal feed industry in Ireland because we are very dependant on imports from that jurisdiction of the by-products of maize processing. These by-products, namely, distillers dried grains and maize gluten, are high in protein and are particularly suitable for ruminant diets.

In the past we sourced very large quantities of distillers dried grains and maize gluten from the USA. Irish importers have not been able to import these two feed materials from any other source. The maize processing industry in the USA uses large quantities of GM maize and, consequently, the by-products that Ireland imports from that industry are derived from GM crops.

The real difficulty caused by the growing of GM varieties in the USA that contain events which are not yet authorised in the EU is the potential for admixture with varieties containing authorised events and the detection of such unauthorised events in an imported consignment. It is the introduction of new events not yet authorised in the EU that has the potential to cause major difficulties due to the admixture to which I refer. DAS-59122, which is generally referred to as Herculex RW, was such an event. It caused very significant difficulties last year and I propose to address that issue in more detail.

We were first alerted in late 2006 that a small area of that year's US maize crop was sown with varieties containing Herculex RW, a GM event authorised in the US, and some other countries such as Canada, Argentina and Japan, but not in the EU at that time. There was anxiety within the industry that some of this new GM crop could accidentally mix with GM maize varieties grown in the USA and containing events that are already authorised in the EU and thus be included in imports coming to Europe. The consequence of detecting traces of unauthorised GM events in a consignment of GM feed is the impounding of the entire consignment.

In order to facilitate the export to the EU of maize by-products, the US trade put in place an action plan, involving segregation, laboratory testing, and certification, in late 2006 in order to ensure that products imported into the EU did not contain Herculex RW. Under these arrangements, maize by-products exported to the EU were certified as being free of Herculex RW and this allowed trade to continue. However, despite the above certification procedures, traces of Herculex RW were detected in a consignment of maize by-products imported into Ireland in June 2007. Consequently, the Department was obliged to impound over 7,000 tonnes of the feed involved. As already indicated, the event Herculex RW was authorised for marketing within the EU in November 2007. At that point, we released the 7,000 tonnes in question.

Senator Paul Bradford

I thank our guests for their interesting presentation. I am not an expert in this area but there are some questions in respect of which I am seeking clarification.

The most important statement made by our guests seems to be that which indicates either a change in Government policy or some form of rowing back. It was indicated that the coming into office of the new Government resulted in Ireland abstaining at a Council vote and advising that our position on GM products at the time was under review. I presume the review is taking place at Government level and involves the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Health and Children. What is the current status of the review? Has a decision been arrived at? I was not aware of the review and I am not sure if the committee discussed it previously.

Notwithstanding the review, the EU made a decision in November 2007 to authorise Herculex RW and the 7,000 tonnes of by-products that had been impounded were released. Was an Irish view expressed in respect of the decision to which I refer or did we abstain from the decision-making process? Had the review been completed by November 2007? Those are the main questions I wish to raise in respect of policy.

The presentation refers to the sampling of foods. Since 2000, 236 samples of food have been tested and 25% of these contained authorised GM ingredients. It appears that, over a seven-year period, the level of sampling has not been that proactive. In order to satisfy and assure the consumers and the market, should we not be more demanding in our sampling? The figure of 236 for the number of samples taken over a seven-year period seems quite modest.

We were advised that the GM strain of sugar beet does not have implications for the feed industry in Ireland. What about the food industry? It is difficult to expect that a sugar beet modification at EU level will not, in some way, impinge on our food industry. We no longer have a native sugar beet industry. All sugar consumed in Ireland in the future will be produced at European or world level. Could this GM strain have implications for the food industry and has that been fully detailed? What is our up to date policy-political view, why did it change, has the review been completed and is there a new Government view?

Deputy Seán Sherlock

Thank you, Chairman, and I thank the contributors for what they have placed before us. One senses a shift in the Government's position. The committee should know, either from today's contributors or directly from the Minister, the exact and unequivocal Government position on genetically modified foods.

I am confused about the process. I appreciate there is a stringent scientific process and I am not a scientist. A rationale is applied and one must go along with rational science with regard to testing and so on. If a qualified majority is not reached at the Council of Ministers and the decision reverts to the Commission, how does the Commission have the mandate to make a decision on genetically modified organisms if no decision has been made at Council? If I am misinterpreting the statement made, I will welcome correction. I would like clarification on that point.

The Herculex incident is well documented. Is the Government satisfied with the level and extent of testing of products coming into the EU? Is the Government satisfied with the level of testing?

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I am totally confused. One hears different arguments from different sides of this debate. I will ask a layman's question. Is genetically modified food safe for human consumption? Attitudes have changed slightly with regard to animal feed. What are the advantages of GM maize and will it have an effect on the health of people who eat food produced from that system?

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Like the last speaker, I ask a lay person's question. What is the problem with GM food and why is such strict authorisation of each product, particularly of each new product as it comes on stream, necessary? Can we not have an international rather than European agreement? The United States authorised GM foods sooner than we did. Could we not have a worldwide agreement on the authorisation of GM foods which are safe for animal feed or human consumption?

The question of GM food is of serious consequence for farmers. This year's scarcity of food and by-products showed that if we do not allow GM foods into Ireland we will not source material. We have no option but to accept GM foods. Why does the EU apply such strict controls on the use of GM foods? Can the Government see the day when GM products can be grown in Ireland or in other EU countries? Could we ever be self-sufficient in GM products or at least have them in plentiful supply?

Why has the Council of Ministers never granted GM foods access to the EU market? Why does the Government abstain from authorising some foods and vote for others? Why is our policy not consistent? Are there consequences for humans who consume meat from animals fed on GM products? We do not seem to know enough about genetically modified products. Farmers have no option but to use them because we cannot survive without them.

Deputy Martin Mansergh

If I understand the narrative correctly, the last Government took a certain position on this issue and the new Government adopted a somewhat more reserved position. It must be said that new governments are entitled to examine existing policies but since November last, the products under consideration have been approved. Therefore, in effect, the country and the EU are back where we were in June except that these products have been approved. Are there further issues to be discussed with regard to other products or has the problem which put animal feed prices up last year been effectively solved by the Commission decision?

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I welcome the delegation and thank Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Ryan for their presentations. I am puzzled by the workings of the EU Commission. In order for the decision to be agreed at standing committee level, member states must reach a qualified majority vote. If the proposal fails at standing committee level it must be brought forward within three months as a draft Commission decision to Council where, again, a qualified majority vote is required to grant authorisation. If no qualified majority vote is reached at Council, the decision reverts to the Commission. In practice, no GM authorisation has yet obtained a qualified majority vote, either at standing committee or at Council level, but all applications for authorisation have ultimately been granted by the Commission. This puzzles me. What is the point in having a standing committee with no power? It appears the Commission is able to overrule the committee. Why refer applications to the committee if the Commission has absolute power to do as it wishes? This does not make sense. It merely amounts to delaying tactics. Perhaps the delegation might explain it to me.

The European Union has one of the most rigorous regimes for the assessment of GMOs and food and feed derived from them. It has been stated that it is a well known fact that the GM maize events referred to were authorised in the United States where any changes in maize cultivation can have consequences for the animal feed industry in Ireland which is dependent on imports from the United States of by-products of maize processing. These by-products, namely, dried grains for distillers and maize gluten, are high in protein and particularly suited to ruminant diets. Irish importers have not been able to import these two feed materials from any other source. The maize processing industry in the United States uses large quantities of GM maize.

Will the delegation tell the committee if it was the Commission which made the decision? The presentation reads:

However, despite the above the certification procedures, traces of Herculex RW were detected in a consignment of maize by-products imported into Ireland in June 2007. Consequently, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to impound over 7,000 tonnes of the feed involved. As already indicated, the event Herculex RW was authorised for marketing within the EU in November 2007 and we then released the 7,000 tonnes.

Do I take it that this is the end of the story so far as Herculex RW is concerned? Is it the case that it is now an authorised ingredient for use in pig and animal feedstuffs in this country? If so, this is a fait accompli.

Chairman

I welcome Deputy Naughten, a former member of the committee.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I note the committee is still dealing with the issue of authorisations. I welcome the delegates. Some of the questions I will ask I asked in the past and on some of which I seek an update.

I will deal, first, with the release of product, either accidentally or deliberately. I will come back to the issue of deliberate release. What is the possibility of maize being released into the environment and germinating? Is it probable that this could happen here?

Will the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food representatives inform the committee of where matters stand in respect of its proposals regarding the deliberate release of GM crops into the environment? Also, will they provide us with the figures for 2007 for consignments of feed into Ireland which were declared as being free from GM but which subsequently, following departmental testing, tested positive for GM? I know that in the past a significant percentage of the products declared negative for GM were subsequently found to be positive. Has this trend reduced?

My final question relates to the stacking of GM maize, a particular variety of which is being stacked here. It was stated two genetically engineered maize varieties were being cross-bred. While the point has been made during the presentation that each has been authorised for use, what analysis has been undertaken of the combined impact of the imported DNA? Has any adverse impact been noted? While both crops are generally recognised as being safe, what research has been undertaken into their stacking impact?

Deputy Tom Sheahan

My first observation is that there are nearly as many present to make the presentation as there are members to hear it. I am absolutely fuming about the information given in the joint presentation. I will make no comment on the information provided by the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children. However, I would like this point to be noted.

Mr. Eamon Corcoran

A diverse range of issues have been raised. I will try to deal with them, although not necessarily in the order in which they were raised.

Deputy Scanlon raised the key issue of whether GM food was safe for human consumption. The short answer is yes, it is as safe as non-GM food.

Deputy Aylward asked what was the problem with GM food? The core problem with it in EU member states is that there is consumer resistance. This is not the position in a number of other jurisdictions, in particular, the United States. The structures have been developed partly against a background of general consumer concerns and the attempt to address them.

Deputy Aylward also asked about international agreements. A mechanism known as Codex Alimentarius links the World Health Organisation and food and agricultural organisations. It is this body which undertakes research into GM foods and a whole range of food related issues. Its remit covers food and trade. That is how the science is addressed in the first instance. Notwithstanding the fact that these structures are in place, it remains the case that in some countries, primarily EU member states, there are ongoing consumer concerns that positive answers from science cannot adequately address.

A number of members asked about the status of the current process designed to clarify Government policy on an ongoing basis. Up until the middle of last year, Ireland had proceeded on what was known as a positive but precautionary basis. If science supported a particular application and there were no outstanding scientific concerns, it was policy across all Departments with an interest in food and feed to vote in favour of the proposal. However, that policy changed when the current Government took office.

The background to the review was set out in a press statement issued by the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, on 28 September 2007, in which he stated Ireland's abstention was not inconsistent with the commitment in the programme for Government to seek to negotiate to have the island of Ireland GM-free. He further stated abstention was the most appropriate position for Ireland to take, given that a process had begun, involving the relevant Departments - the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Health and Children and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - to elaborate on this commitment and tease out its policy implications. The French, Italians and others are involved in similar processes. There was a process at official level involving the four Departments mentioned. It was managed by the Department of the Taoiseach. As it is essentially completed at official level, it is now a political issue. Therefore, the Chairman will understand the reason I am reluctant to go any further on it.

Another issue raised was comitology. An issue is referred first to the standing committee. If there is no agreement at the committee, it is referred to the Council of Ministers. If there is no agreement at the Council, the matter reverts to the Commission for decision. The implication is that if member states do not come down decisively on a proposal, the default position is that it is referred to the Commission for decision. This is common in a number of areas, not just the food sector. It is not specific to the matter of GM foods. This is the process to which we have signed up. It may appear that the standing committee is irrelevant where there is a deadlock but the committee does much good work and resolves many issues. It performs a useful function across the food chain and in dealing with animal health areas generally.

I will ask Mr. Ryan to deal with the issue of fees. It would also be more appropriate to ask Dr. O'Mahony to deal with the frequency of sampling. The number of officials present relates directly to the seriousness we attach to this process. If we have dealt with the concerns of the committee in an unsatisfactory manner, we will take that on board. We take this process extremely seriously.

Chairman

We know that is the case. It was also the case in the past and I compliment all those involved. It is right to bring the appropriate officials here to answer any questions that may arise. I thank Mr. Corcoran.

Mr. Dermot Ryan

A number of questions were asked about Herculex Rw. This event was the subject of an application to the European Union for authorisation for its importation as a feed into the European Union. In accordance with procedures, the European Food Safety Authority gave an opinion that it did not present any danger with regard to its use in animal feed. The application then went through the normal process. The difficulty arose in so far as it had been grown commercially in the USA in 2006 and harvested late that year. It then began to be imported into the European Union, including Ireland, in 2007, despite the fact that the American authorities had put in place an action plan to ensure it did not find its way into Europe. For some reason or other, in one consignment that arrived in Ireland in June 2007 traces of Herculex RW were found in laboratory analysis. Accordingly, the complete consignment of 7,000 tonnes was impounded and removed from the feed chain. Subsequently, in November 2007 the event was authorised for use within the European Union and, accordingly, we were free to allow the 7,000 tonnes to be released. That is a brief summary of the Herculex RW saga.

The question of feed prices was raised and whether, now that Herculex RW has been authorised, it would alleviate problems surrounding feed prices. A number of factors have contributed to the increase in feed prices. Worldwide there has been a significant increase in demand for protein and cereal feeds in general. Countries such as China and India have increasingly demanded more imports, which has shoved up the price of feed materials. Also, the drive towards biofuels, particularly in the United States and South America, has been a significant contributor to the diversion of wheat and maize for non-feed, non-food uses and significantly contributed to increased feed prices. That continues to be the case.

Various other factors have also driven up prices. The year 2007 was a particularly bad one for flies, for example. In Australia a severe drought resulted in a reduced output; it was probably cut in half. In eastern Europe unfavourable weather conditions also resulted in enormously reduced supplies. Furthermore, supplies of material from America traditionally exported to Europe are now going to new countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Various countries have entered the market and are competing strongly for supplies. This has driven up the price of all feed materials. We have also had increased freight prices which have gone up by a factor of four in the last couple of years, driven to a large extent by growing economies such as India and China which have gobbled up any extra freight available. A further factor was the trading difficulties encountered due to the lack of synchronisation between the authorisation of GM events in importing countries such as European countries and exporting countries such as America. These were the major factors involved in the feed prices equation.

Deputy Naughten raised the issue of the testing of imports, a question which my colleague, Dr. Hyde, will answer. Mr. Downey will try to answer the question relating to the deliberate release of GM events into the environment.

Dr. Liam Hyde

On the question posed by Deputy Naughten, our figures which have been made available to the committee show that testing focuses on non-GM events, quantities or consignments of maize coming into the country. The reason for this is that we expect most of the maize to be GM. Therefore, our testing has focused on the non-GM events or maize consignments for which there is no declaration. The figures previously submitted to the committee showed that 17 consignments which were either not labelled as GM or were deemed to be non-GM had been checked in 2005. Five were found to contain GM. In 2006, 11 were tested and three were found to be GM. Seven consignments were tested in 2007 and none was found to contain positives. The situation vis-à-vis labelling - the relevant issue - has improved.

Mr. John Downey

Deliberate release refers to the cultivation of authorised GM crops. On the question of accidental release, the vast quantity of the maize imported into Ireland is in by-product format which is not a format that could establish feral colonies of GM crops. Only one GM crop is authorised for growing in the European Union - MON810 which is geared very much to southern Europe. We do not face any difficulty in the cultivation of GM crops in Ireland.

Dr. Pat O’Mahony

Members asked about sampling. Food is separate from feed. We go to the shops, pick products off the shelves and send them to a lab for testing. We currently use a commercial lab but hope to change this. We took 97 samples in 2007 and the results are coming in. Roughly the same proportion had GM ingredients, again all authorised. Whether that amount of sampling is enough must be taken in context. Currently we look only at specific processed foods containing maize and soya. If other ingredients come on the market, whether in Europe or in other countries, we can start looking at those.

Senator Bradford asked whether GM sugar beet was an issue as regards food. It is. What is happening in the feed industry now will probably hit the food industry in a number of years. Sugar beet is used to produce sugar and fodder. We look at the sugar but, unfortunately, sugar is sugar, whether it is from a GM crop or a non-GM crop. There is no test to distinguish one from the other. That is also true of the vegetable oils from oilseed cotton and oilseed rapes. Therefore, there are products in respect of which it is impossible to tell whether they are GM without following a long and arduous paper trail, which is not feasible. Like all agencies, we operate with a limited budget and the cost of testing products is significant. We do what we think is necessary.

In reply to Deputy Naughten, the European Food Safety Authority takes stacking events seriously and assesses them. If it crosses two individual traits that have already been assessed, it will assess them again. It has a guidance document in regard to that matter. If a GM trait is crossed with a non-GM trait, it is not assessed any further, as it is considered to be the same trait.

Chairman

We will take supplementary questions.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

There is a dichotomy, given the fact that unauthorised GM foods have been imported here over a period of years and the Government seems to believe there is no inconsistency between this and stating Ireland is GM free. Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between cultivation and importation. From the point of view of protecting agriculture, I do not see a contradiction between the importation of GM substances that have been rigorously tested and the Government's taking a firm position at Council level on that process and maintaining biodiversity. In a nutshell, the Government needs to take a less ambivalent position on the matter. It needs to be unequivocal at Council level vis-à-vis the process of GM importation.

Senator Paul Bradford

I had previously heard the statement of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Sargent, that it was Government policy to provide for a GM free Ireland. However, it really struck home when it became part of the presentation. It is important for us to meet the Minister of State to tease this out because if he is not playing politics with us, we are going to have to be realistic. If a GM free Ireland is now Government policy, it will fundamentally and radically change Irish agriculture. I do not expect a political answer from Mr. Corcoran or Mr. Ryan, but from a policy perspective, are we technically now pursuing a GM free Ireland? That would make the current debate redundant because a GM free Ireland would mean major changes to Irish agriculture.

Consumer resistance was mentioned. I take the point that the consumer is rightly worried, even though I was very satisfied with what I had heard from our officials. If we are to live in the world of reality rather than that of fantasy politics, what the committee, country and consumers at home and abroad should be worried about is the very real and clear threat of significant world food shortages. Current world food statistics clearly show that in the past five or six years the world has consumed significantly more food on an annual basis than has been produced. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that cannot continue. Given the projected huge increase in demand in the coming years in China and India for protein, meat in particular, the committee should be deeply concerned on behalf of consumers that not only Europe but also the world will not be able to produce enough food to feed itself. That is the real food issue, not the GM debate. Our policies will have to be geared towards addressing that issue. The idea of a GM free Ireland sounds lovely, but it has not been practised to date and unless there is a major change in Government policy, it will not be practised. If it is still on the agenda and the Minister of State with responsibility for food claims he is pursuing a policy of totally GM free agriculture, we need to debate the matter with him. However, a GM free Ireland is not consistent with allowing policies to be made in Europe, even if we abstain, and the decision made in November to release Herculex RW, with which I have no difficulty. We must try to separate the chaff from the wheat, if I can be excused the pun, because our abstention and our allowing of these products through is not consistent with a GM free Ireland.

We need a debate with the Minister of State with responsibility for food on the world food market and how we need to respond to it. We are all pro-biofuel and pro-alternative uses for agricultural crops. We had better also be pro-ensuring that the Irish consumer, the European consumer and the world population will have enough food to eat. That will require advances in technology. In the past five or ten years we have been cautious in our policy on GM foods. However, we have been progressive and realistic. I am happy with that stance and believe we try to proceed that way, but that is not consistent with introducing a total blanket ban on GM products. Is it now Government policy that Ireland should be GM free with a blanket ban on the importation of GM foods in any shape or form and on the cultivation in Ireland of GM foods? Was it merely a press release from the Minister of State to satisfy himself or is it Government policy?

Chairman

The Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, will appear before the committee on 20 February to discuss the issue of farmers' markets and we will request him to devote some time to address the issue of GM foods on that day.

Senator Paul Bradford

I thank the Chairman.

Deputy Martin Mansergh

My supplementary questions are mainly directed at Mr. Ryan. I wish to clarify one of his responses. He has mentioned five factors that have driven up feed prices in the past few months, one of which is the issue of authorisation of GM products. Can I take it that he is saying explicitly this has now been removed from the equation, that the other factors may remain and that there are no further issues, apart from the ones we are discussing? I take it that there are no further issues that are keeping feed prices artificially high from an EU point of view.

My second question is rhetorical. Are we not lucky that the European Commission makes decisions by default when for one reason or another EU member state governments find issues such as this too much of a hot potato on which to make clear decisions? From the perspective of Mr. Ryan's responses and his knowledge of the general position, in the light of the current situation, presumably a GM free Ireland can only refer to cultivation, not imported feedstuffs? Does Ireland even have the power to prevent the importation of feedstuffs once they have been authorised at EU level? Is it consistent with EU rules?

I wish to comment on how much I welcome the presence of civil servants from various agencies and Departments and the comprehensive replies representatives have given. It is important that the public service take the matter of parliamentary accountability seriously. Therefore, I welcome the presence of the civil servants rather than being critical of their attendance in any way.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

The result on this issue is clearly evident. We have sourced large quantities of distillers' dried grains and maize gluten from the USA for decades. The maize processing industry in the USA is dependent on GM maize. It is clearly evident from the information presented that the three causes of the increase in feed prices are increased worldwide demand for protein foods, the 2007 drought in Australia and the increase in freight charges. There is a global demand for food, especially in India and China. Such demand is also evident in the fishing industry. Our fish processors are tapping into the Indian and Chinese markets and their export trade is booming.

Senator Bradford hit the nail on the head when he said we were fast approaching a time when it was questionable if we would be able to feed the world's population, unless we rose to the occasion and produced the food required. It is a myth to say Ireland will be GM free. How will that be possible when the European Union has certified Herculex RW poses no health danger to this country and authorised it for marketing within the Union? If that is the case, Irish producers will accept they will be able to partake of feedstuffs containing Herculex RW and GM maize. Otherwise, from where will they get food to rear their animals? Will we desecrate our export trade of meat, lamb and pig products? If we do not follow suit, like our European counterparts, we will be frozen out of the equation.

We are being carried away by the myth of Ireland being GM free. We cannot ride two horses at the one time; we must proceed one way or the other. It is evident that the European Union has adopted the use of GM products in feedstuffs. The time is fast approaching when imports of food from elsewhere in Europe will be sourced from GM products. Therefore, it is evident there is no longer a debate on whether Ireland should pursue a GM free status on the market.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I wish to raise a number of questions. Why do the experts and officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the health area think the consumers of Europe have such concerns about GM products when clearly they have been shown to be safe for consumption? I presume consumers are driving that level of concern. Why are governments hesitant about allowing GM foods to be grown in Europe? If I heard correctly, only one GM product is being grown in the south of Europe. Why are such products not grown throughout Europe? Is it not hypocritical for us to import GM foods and mix them with other foods for animal feedstuffs and human consumption, while banning the growth of GM products here? If there was a concern about a GM product imported in animal feedstuffs, would it pose a danger to health in terms of a transfer to the human food chain?

Mr. Eamon Corcoran

The bulk of the questions relate to feedstuffs and the response falls to my colleague, Mr. Ryan.

To pick up on the points raised by Deputy Aylward, it is an open question as to why consumers in Europe are far more concerned about GM products than consumers in the United States and Canada. North Americans also adopt a far more flexible attitude to fortifying foods with vitamins. They generally do not have the same concern about childhood immunisation or the fluoridation of water. Europe and North America are different societies. The reality is that any European government has a range of issues to address in regard to GM food and feed issues, with which neither the US Government nor the Canadian Government need concern itself. It is simply a situation with which European governments have to deal. Beyond that, I cannot speculate further as to why that is the case.

On Deputy Aylward's second point of feed crossing into the food chain, when feed dossiers are examined, that is one of the issues that arises and is considered. As regards the process, no concerns have emerged. Other issues raised are essentially political in that they relate to the direction of Government policy. I note that the Minister of State will be appearing before the committee shortly, so it might be more appropriate for those issues to be progressed at that meeting.

Mr. Dermot Ryan

One of the questions concerned the importation of GM feed and whether it would be consistent with EU rules to take a stance to ban the importation of such feed materials. It would be inconsistent with EU legislation to ban such feed materials. The second question was whether there were some GM events coming down the track similar to Herculex RW. There are a number of GM events that are awaiting EU approval, which have already been authorised in the United States and South America. They will be important as regards trade and importing feed materials. These events concern maize and soya bean. Our hope is that the authorisation process will be speeded up in order to avoid the ongoing difficulties in that regard.

Senator Paul Bradford

I appreciate that our guests are not here to answer political questions. The job of politicians is to set the political agenda and part of the witnesses' role is to implement Government instructions. Will Mr. Ryan confirm that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not implementing a GM-free policy for Ireland?

Chairman

Who wishes to answer that question?

Mr. Dermot Ryan

As regards importing feed materials such as maize by-products, probably 95% of those products coming into Ireland are declared as GM. Similarly, probably in excess of 92% or 93% of the soya bean product coming in is declared as GM. It is envisaged that we will continue to import these feed materials in such quantities in order to feed our animals.

Senator Paul Bradford

So we are not pursuing a policy of a GM-free Ireland, notwithstanding the Minister of State's policy?

Mr. Dermot Ryan

It is envisaged that we will continue to import such quantities of GM feed materials in order to feed our animals.

Senator Paul Bradford

I agree.

Mr. Dermot Ryan

That is the situation.

Senator Paul Bradford

I am happy with that. It is important that we should debate this matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent. With respect, it is more important than farmers' markets which make up 1% of the Irish agri-economy. If the Minister of State has one view we need to tease it out with him. There is a need to clarify what he means by a GM-free Ireland because I do not think it is realistic or practical. I am glad to hear what Mr. Ryan and his colleagues have said. We all have to live in the real world where there are worrying and quite alarming food shortages. We need to respond to that situation and our primary responsibility is to ensure that enough food is produced to feed people both at home and abroad. It might sound like an unfashionable policy but it is necessary. I am sorry for having digressed.

Deputy Martin Mansergh

With respect, what a GM-free Ireland might mean has already been settled here this morning. It is simply a question of whether one cultivates GM crops here. The question of imported feed seems to me to have been settled.

Chairman

I wish to thank Mr. Corcoran and his colleagues from the Department of Health and Children, in addition to Mr. Ryan and his colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for having attended the committee to help our scrutiny process. Their contributions have been most informative and of great assistance to our work. I wish to apologise again for being late but, unfortunately, I got held up in traffic. When the Vice Chairman is not here it usually falls to the Government Whip to take the Chair. Is it agreed that if that happens in future, the Government Whip will take the Chair? Agreed.

Senator Paul Bradford

If he is not available, Deputy Sheehan will stand in.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I am not judging the Chairman's capabilities.

Chairman

The meeting is adjourned until 6 February 2008 when representatives of Veterinary Ireland and the Veterinary Council of Ireland will be in attendance.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 February 2008.