I welcome Mr. Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of GM Free Ireland Network, to the meeting to hear his views on the issues surrounding GM. Before I call on him to make his presentation, I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I remind members 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. O'Callaghan to make his presentation for which he has ten to 15 minutes.
GM Issues: Discussion with GM Free Ireland Network, Monsanto and Teagasc.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. As the committee is aware, the whole subject of GMOs is a controversial one at European level and also within Ireland. The remarks I will make today will fall into two sections - one deals with procedural issues about the nature of the debate in this country and in this Oireachtas committee, after which I wish to focus most of my time on the more substantive issues which I have identified as GM agrofuel crops and the issue of zero tolerance, unapproved GM food and feed. I assume, because of the timing of this discussion, that the zero tolerance issue is the hot potato we need to be thinking about because there is much discussion about this in the media and much pressure for the EU to weaken the zero tolerance policy for unapproved GM food and feed.
I had hoped to provide the committee beforehand with the list of documents but I was unable to get them photocopied on time. I have them with me and will leave a copy with the committee afterwards. Many members of our network, which includes 130 organisations, were alarmed and upset by the fact that we got the feeling that the committee members were not being enabled to hear a balanced representation from both sides of the debate. As the committee is aware, there are many issues apart from the science. These include the environmental aspects, the agronomic aspects for farmers, the legal aspects relating to patents and liability and redress, the health and medical aspects, the biodiversity aspects and the political questions relating to food sovereignty and food security. We would very much like an opportunity at a later date to present the views of experts whose opinions we share on those issues.
Given the time constraints, I will outline briefly the procedural matters. When we were told this meeting was taking place, I was informed there would be several speakers from organisations which either use, support or promote GM crops. Some 18 members of our network, which is an unincorporated association - it is truly a network of separate individual organisations - wrote to the Chairman, Deputy Brady, asking if it would be possible to postpone the meeting so that we could have an equal number of speakers from our side, but we were told that was not possible. Then a larger group of people within and beyond our network wrote a letter to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last Friday, asking if he would use his influence to try to further that request.
I would be grateful if Mr. O'Callaghan would concentrate on his presentation. We discussed that issue earlier prior to the start of the meeting.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
This is part of my presentation.
The committee has decided the format of this meeting. Therefore, I would like Mr. O'Callaghan to make his presentation.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
This is my presentation.
If Mr. O'Callaghan would concentrate on it, the committee would be grateful.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
I will skip quickly through the next part of my presentation. I draw the committee's attention to the fact that Ireland is a signatory to the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making on environmental issues. Under that convention we are obliged to enable stakeholders who would be materially affected by Government policy to be able to participate in the formulation of that policy and not only be consulted on it in a distant way. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes this quite clear also. Ireland has signed the convention but has not yet ratified it. Nonetheless, according to the Vienna Convention, the State is obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the purpose of a treaty such as the Aarhus Convention.
I will briefly refer to a number of opinion polls and surveys in my presentation, which clearly show that a very high percentage of Irish people do not want GM crops and are not too happy about the introduction of GM animal feed into the food chain. These surveys were carried out by the Irish Institute for Bioethics, Teagasc and in the presentation I quote the concerns expressed by several Senators, Deputies and MEPs who expressed similar views.
I comment in my presentation on the media bias on GM issues and examine the way the issue has been very superficially covered, usually pro-GM bias, by RTE, The Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal. I mention all this because what is going on at this committee is not only something that is peculiar to it. To have an intelligent policy-making process on an issue that is of such importance that it can forever change the nature of food supply and our ability to market very high quality safe GM-free food, which is what the European market increasingly wants, we need to be well informed and to hear a balanced discussion from all sides. That is all I am asking for, namely, that in future the committee would enable us to have a balanced discussion.
On the substantive issues, GM agrofuel crops have been proposed by a number of people in Ireland. Apart from the fact that it is generally recognised that the introduction of agrofuel crops, or bio-fuel crops as they are known, has played a significant role in the diversion of food crops to fuel - up to 30% according to the International Monetary Fund and 10% according to the European Commission - there is the danger that with the increasing use of oilseed rape for purposes, some of the imported seed could be genetically modified. As members will be aware, for a seed to be authorised for cultivation, I understand it needs approval by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There is a danger that live GMO seeds, including specific oilseed rape, could be brought in here not for the purpose of cultivation, and therefore without the approval of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but intended for conversion for crushing into bio-fuel. If such a seed was genetically modified, there would be a very high risk that it would spread and proliferate. As members probably know, a handful of seeds sprinkled across a country can quickly produce a contamination incident that would spread rapidly, as it has done in Canada where it is virtually impossible for farmers in large areas of that country to grow non-GM oilseed rape. I wanted to flag that issue and have gone into it in detail.
Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which is attached to the Convention on Biodiversity, it appears to be very clearly stated that signatories to the protocol, Ireland being one of them, are legally entitled to invoke the precautionary principle to prevent the introduction of a crop that they perceive to be dangerous without having to prove scientifically that it is dangerous. I have given the links for more information on that in my presentation. A recent meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol took place in Bonn. I have also given links to access information relative to that. It seems Ireland has a legal right in that respect. I will skip over the rest of the section on agrofuels in my presentation.
Some people in Ireland have called for the introduction of GM pharmaceutical crops, but we consider this would be the height of madness. If people were to find out what is happening in this area, they would quickly hear that the US Department of Agriculture has no record of some 300 separate GM pharmaceutical crop experiments. Furthermore, there is a high risk that when the same crops are used for food, the introduction of these seeds would contaminate the food supply with industrial plastics, anti-HIV compounds, all sorts of medicinal drugs, including blood thinners, blood clotters, contraceptive pills and so on. We believe that the risk of that taking place is unacceptable. I hope that, whatever else happens, the Government would never allow GM pharmaceutical crops to come in here.
When I raised this issue from the floor at a Teagasc organised meeting on tillage I attended a year or two ago, one the people on the panel said that if these GM crops were not used for food and only used for fuel, there would be no problem. He did not seem to realise that many of the GM crops are the same; they are used for both food and fuel such as, for example, maize and soy.
The important point in this respect is the zero tolerance issue. I have gone into some detail on it in my presentation. On 7 May the European Commissioner for Health was asked to put forward technical proposals on zero tolerance and on the so-called asynchronous approvals by this summer. There is huge pressure on the European Commission to scrap its zero tolerance policy, which only applies to non-approved genetically modified products. The first point I have listed under this heading on page 23 of my presentation is that of the global rise in food and feed prices. The argument is made that the European zero tolerance policy is contributing to rising costs of animal feed, but price increases for animal feed have occurred everywhere, including in the US which has the most permissive system of GM approvals. We believe that weakening EU GMO laws will not address such rising costs.
Relating this policy in more detail to the issue of soy and maize supply, according to a report of DG Agriculture of the European Commission last year, sourcing maize is not a problem for Europe. At least it is not a problem in regard to GM maize because there is plenty of other varieties of domestic cereals and imports from other trade partners available. That report states that "an interruption [in the maize supply] is unlikely to have a strong economic impact on future feed imports and livestock production at the overall EU level." As members will know, across Europe and in Ireland, there has been a great increase in tillage this year, as more and more farmers realise that dependency on expensive imports, whose price is boosted uncontrollably by climate effects, the impact of speculation and the diversion of crops into bio-fuel, is an unreliable way for us to move forward. There is a consensus across Europe among farmers I have spoken to that it is safer for us to produce our own tillage crops as much as we can.
This position is different in regard to soy. I list a number of points regarding soy in my presentation. It has been claimed that Europe needs to scrap the zero tolerance policy because it will prevent imports of GM soya from the US. The Americans are concerned about Roundup Ready 2 soya. They are saying that unless we scrap the zero tolerance policy, contamination incidents will inevitably happen. They are admitting this now and are saying that will affect the availability of soya in Europe. It is important for the committee to read through this text. Most soya imports to Europe do not come from the USA. The Roundup Ready 2 will be approved in Europe long before the seeds are widely available for propagation to farmers in the United States. Therefore the claim that zero tolerance will block imports of that soya product is a complete red herring. It will not happen.
My final point is that the difference in timings - so-called asynchronous approvals - is between the US and the rest of the world, not between the EU and its main exporter countries. The US is isolated in terms of the GMO approvals process. Brazil and China are much closer to us. Argentina assesses export opportunities as part of its approval system. If the EU drops the zero tolerance policy it will definitely open up the risk of contamination of imports with GMOs that have no health or environmental risk assessment. This will be detrimental to food safety and the quality agriculture strategies that most European countries are developing.
Zero tolerance does not need to be changed. It will only weaken us and will not give us any advantage. The important thing is to maintain the high standards we have.
Page 28 refers to a growing market for GM-free meat and dairy produce. I have listed a number of retailers in European countries, as of last year. Since then major retailers in Germany have introduced a voluntary GM-free label for meat and dairy produce, which was approved by Parliament. There is a growing market in Europe for the kind of meat and dairy produce that Ireland could more easily produce because of the competitive advantage we have from our grass-fed system, with minimal disruption of the feed supply. I urge the committee to take that into consideration.
We will have 20 minutes of questions and answers.
I welcome Mr. O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland. I thank him for his presentation and the documentation provided for the committee. I also thank the Chairman for having organised this debate, which provides an opportunity for everyone to make their voices heard. There has been no public debate to date, so I welcome Mr. O'Callaghan's voice in the discussion, as I do all the other contributors. We are operating in a vacuum. Mr. O'Callaghan referred to the Aarhus Convention. We had a situation whereby policy decisions were taken at the stroke of a pen concerning the content of the programme for Government about which nobody was consulted. The Aarhus Convention, of which I was unaware, obviously has an application in both directions. The reality is that there has been no public consultation. We have a Government science adviser, yet nobody seems to know the advice that is being offered to the Government on these issues. Openness, debate and consultation is the way forward on this issue. In that way, not only ourselves as public policy makers but also the public at large can become participants in the debate. It is important to record our appreciation and our endorsement of the debate and how it has been organised here.
I have a few brief questions for Mr. O'Callaghan, as I appreciate the time constraints. I would like to know his views on the use of GM technology here in the non-food area, in energy crops. I am not aware if there is relevant research or if companies are doing that. What is GM-free Ireland's view of a company that develops something, with the assistance of GM technology, that will deliver a higher crop of willow, which is not a food crop, or energy crops that may be used for food? That leads me to a bigger question, which concerns Mr. O'Callaghan's view on the status of GM-free Ireland's campaign. "GM-free Ireland" is an all-embracing statement. It does not deal with the use of GM technology in food or the agribusiness sector generally. GM has an application in industry, science, food production and enzymes used in food production. I presume GM-free Ireland is against the use of GM technology in all its guises.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
No, it is not.
That is a question that needs to be addressed because the technology has a universal application. As a society, we need to regulate how we use new technologies. We have nuclear technology but it has given us nuclear weapons, which is a regrettable development. It has also given us the possibility of great advances in the treatment of cancer and other medical conditions. Society must determine how it uses new technologies. That is the issue for us, as legislators, to grapple with.
The reality for farming, which is a concern for this committee, is that there has been a GM component in compound animal feed for close on 20 years. We do not have the capacity to grow protein sources here in the required volumes. There is an increase in planting this year across the EU, including Ireland, because of the increased prices last year. That may lead to a collapse due to the cyclical nature of things. However, no amount of increased grain growing will provide us with the protein imports we require. Perhaps Mr. O'Callaghan can address those points, including the global availability of non-GM alternatives.
I would also like to hear his view on the regulatory bodies. We have invested countless millions of taxpayers' money in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. If one takes the pyramid structure, we have the European food safety authority, which is headed by the former head of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dr. Patrick Wall. Does Mr. O'Callaghan have confidence in these regulatory bodies? I think I know his opinion on the FDA from previous encounters. These bodies are established, independent and objective commentators on all these issues, whose brief is the public interest, not the interest of any individuals who might stand to make commercial gains.
I thank Mr. O'Callaghan for his presentation. As somebody who knows absolutely nothing about this, can Mr. O'Callaghan tell me why he is against GM produce? On the face of it this looks like a good idea and, given that one could produce food without disease in crops, it would provide a better return. I would like to know why Mr. O'Callaghan thinks it is a bad idea and why he thinks we should not go down that road. Are there health risks in using this system? Why does Mr. O'Callaghan think it is better not to go there? Is there an animal welfare risk after producing the feed?
I ask members to pose questions rather than make Second Stage speeches.
I thank Mr. O'Callaghan for his presentation. I have come here with an open mind because I believe we have not had the GM debate in Ireland.
I serve on two boards. I serve on the board of the Food Marketing Institute in the United States, which represents all food retailing business such as supermarkets, and I serve in Brussels on Eurocommerce which represents European retailers.
There is such a total contrast in attitude and this is where I am puzzled. The Americans not only put up with GM but are enthusiastic about it. They argue to me that fortress Europe is being encouraged to block the American products coming in to Europe. I would like to have an answer to this. They argue strongly that genetically modified foods in America are safer, are better for their health, maintain their freshness longer and taste better. I do not know whether I believe these assertions, but there seems such a total contrast between the beliefs of consumers in America and Europe.
I have asked for a scientific debate, which is why I was pleased to hear Deputy Creed suggest the chief scientific adviser to the Government should be able to make a case on this area to help solve it. As far as I can see, the European consumer bodies which are against genetically modified foods do not seem to have a scientific base behind what they say.
I was reminded in the United States that in the 1940s and 1950s when fluorescent lights were introduced many trade unions objected to working under them because it was reported that they would make one go bald. Apparently, there was not any truth to that.
I wonder did Senator O'Brien work under them.
The reason I mention that is there are so many cases being made in the United States in favour of genetically modified foods. While I have been on that board for 15 years, and genetically modified foods have been around for approximately 30 years, they claim they know of no instance of illness or deterioration in health. Therefore, I have been criticised for use of the emotive word "contamination", which Mr. O'Callaghan used today. I say this, not arguing the case on behalf of GM foods but with an open mind, to encourage the debate to develop more on a scientific basis than on merely the opinion of consumers.
I thank Senator Quinn and welcome him. He is not a member of the committee but he was a member from 1997 to 2002. I am delighted to see him back today.
Like the previous speakers, I want to ask a few questions. Where do we stand on genetically modified food in Ireland? There are two trains of thoughts on this matter. First and foremost, both European and Irish consumers in general do not want products where genetically modified crops have been involved in the feed sector. They seem to want to return to food produced from the conventional method.
Like everyone else, I want to know what are the risks of bringing in GM foods. In a way it is hypocritical that we import raw materials such as soya bean crop, usually from Canada and America, to feed our cattle and stock, yet the European and national policy is that one cannot grow it here. I have an open mind on genetically modified crops. I am just asking the questions.
Senator Quinn referred to the scientific evidence. We need more proof about genetically modified crops. Is there a danger of contamination? What is the danger? If something happens when the GM crops are being produced, have they no cure for it? Will this get away, like a cancer in crops that we can not stop?
As has been stated, given that there is 30 years of experience of it, and the United States and Canada are in favour of genetically modified crops to feed their millions, why can this small nation not grow such crops?
As a farmer, I need more evidence that GM crops will destroy the food chain, etc. Where is this leading? I do not understand why people are so against GM crops and so in favour of conventional crops, and I would like more information on this issue. As I stated, since raw material such as GM soya bean crop is being imported already and is being put into the food chain, why can we not grow it in this country?
Deputy Mary Upton, who is deputising for Deputy Seán Sherlock, is a former member of the committee and I welcome her back.
I apologise for being late. I am afraid I mistook the meeting time. I am sorry I missed Mr. O'Callaghan's presentation. I note I am quoted as saying that I support the campaign to keep the island of Ireland GM free. For the record, may I correct that? Clearly it is not possible. Historically, it has not been the case that the island of Ireland was GM free. Traditionally, we have used genetically modified agents in the production of foodstuffs.
I would like to see more of the scientific evidence on the growing of GM crops as there are issues at which we need to look carefully, but I certainly would not support the view implied in this to keep GM crops, GM food or the entire process of biotechnology out of this country. We need to look carefully at the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, either supporting or opposing GM. The debate needs to be based on solid scientific data, not on emotion or on what we might like to believe. For example, there has been an excellent track record on the use of genetically modified products in cheese. For many years genetically modified renin has been widely used in this country. I am not aware of any evidence of any problems with that or with other genetically modified products used widely in medicine.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
That is not an issue for us.
Mr. O'Callaghan may reply when the members are finished. Continue Deputy.
I just want to make that point. We simply must move forward on the basis of scientific evidence, not on spurious or emotive reasons.
I would be willing to listen to all sides of the argument on the growing of scientific crops, but my concern about them would be the possibility or the hazards of them being released into the environment and contaminating other non-GM crops. That is something at which anybody who has worked with GM crops would look carefully. It also is quite difficult to ensure control of the spread of genetically modified crops but we must look at how that can be done. We must broaden the discussion on the value genetically modified crops add to the economy and the impact of such crops on feed production in this country where we import genetically modified feed. We must look pragmatically at the implications.
Equally, we must look at the other side of the argument, and ask what are the risks of environmental contamination and the marketing consequences for Ireland as a green island that might be considered free of genetically modified crops. We must look in a balanced way at each side of that argument.
I welcome the debate. It is important for us all to get both sides of the story and I hope that is what we will get this morning.
The following question jumps out at me. Where is the scientific evidence that there is a health risk associated with the use of genetically modified foods? Either for our people or for the cattle we feed with these foods, if there is evidence we want to hear about it.
The other matter about which I am concerned is the ludicrous situation in respect of zero tolerance. I come from a farming background and I can see the advantage of having zero tolerance. In that context, I am open to listening to the arguments on both sides before making a decision on it.
I welcome this debate, particularly in the context that it might be of assistance in clarifying the position in respect of some controversial evidence that has been provided both for and against GM foods. I speak from the point of view of producers. How will producers survive if they cannot rely on imports of foods or feedstuffs that are genetically modified?
Does Mr. O'Callaghan realise that in 30 years' time it will not be possible to produce enough food to feed the world's people because of dramatic increases in population? That is alarming. Even now there is extreme pressure in the context of producing enough food to meet the needs of the world's population. In Africa and elsewhere, many people are starving. If we do not take steps to counteract what is happening, the situation relating to world hunger will continue to deteriorate and increasing numbers of people will be affected. It is important, therefore, that, in scientific terms, matters relating to GM foods be clarified as quickly as possible.
The presentation indicates that Poland, Europe's largest agricultural producer, has imposed a total ban on GM crops and that it also planned to prohibit GM feed by this year unless it was scientifically proven to be safe. Surely it is time that scientific evidence was presented to prove, once and for all, whether GM foods have detrimental effects. We should not proceed on the basis of hearsay. Common sense must prevail in respect of this matter.
If imports of GM foods or feedstuffs containing GM ingredients are to be banned, pig production and agriculture in general in this country will be wiped out. From where will we obtain what we require in order to feed our animals? Will everyone be obliged to survive on fresh air and cold water? It is not possible to do so. Common sense must prevail.
Other members wish to pose questions. The Deputy should conclude.
The sooner concrete evidence is provided in respect of GM foods, the better. I have become sick of hearing evidence relating to this matter during the past decade. Action has not been taken, which has been to the detriment of food producers here.
I remind members who may have arrived late that we agreed a timeframe, to which we wish to adhere, in respect of the agenda.
I apologise for going overboard.
I do not have an opinion on GM products. I remain to be convinced by those on either side. I eat meat and two vegetables every day. When I sit down to lunch, I do not believe the food I eat is 100% GM-free. As already stated, I remain to be convinced and I will approach this matter with an open mind.
How does one follow that?
It will be difficult for the Senator to beat Deputy Tom Sheahan's short contribution, but I hope he will do so.
We should all be eating meat and two vegetables each day.
I agree with most of what my colleagues stated. Deputy Upton's analysis reflects from where most of us are coming. We hold a common sense perspective on this matter. The GM debate is great from the point of view of headlines. Bizarre statements can be presented as if they are somehow profound and people engage in sloganeering. I welcome the debate we are having today because at least we might obtain some answers, which would be a start.
The figures indicate that almost 1 million tonnes of maize were imported in 2006, of which some 87% was declared to have been produced using GM methods. Almost 500,000 tonnes of soya were imported in the same year, some 92% of which was declared to have been produced using GM methods. None of the rapeseed, in the region of 200,000 tonnes, imported in 2006 was produced using GM methods. Deputy P. J. Sheehan inquired as to how we might find alternatives for imported products of this nature. I do not believe it is possible to do so. We must face reality. It will not be possible to have a GM-free island because we must import GM products in order to feed our animals.
Deputy P. J. Sheehan made a sweeping statement in respect of world hunger. There may be a moral obligation on us in the wealthy European Union to respond, in whatever way possible, to the urgent need to produce more food. We should not be arrogant and sit comfortably in our homes while failing to make decisions on what can or cannot be done. That aspect of the debate must be considered. We can never be 100% certain about anything in life. If, however, there is a methodology or technology - in respect of which there is scientific support - for producing safer, better and more abundant food, it would be highly immoral of us to dismiss it out of hand.
I welcome Deputy Cuffe, who is not a member of the committee. I ask him to make his contribution and to be brief.
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute. I did not know there was a procedure whereby members should declare their dietary intentions. As someone who eats fish and side salads, I hope my standing will not be lowered in the eyes of the members of this committee.
The Deputy need not be concerned in that regard.
I am struck by the fact that this debate appears to be somewhat one-sided. There are many organisations which have concerns with regard to genetically modified foods. It seems rather odd that only one such organisation has been invited to address the committee.
Before the Deputy goes any further, Mr. O'Callaghan indicated that GM Free Ireland's network comprises some 130 organisations. I do not believe the committee would be able to cope with hearing evidence from representatives of each of those organisations.
I am surprised that there are approximately six representatives before the committee who, broadly speaking, seem to--
We are at the start of a process.
I hope the debate will not be clouded by bias.
We will not cloud the debate.
I also hope that the evidence of other groups will be heard.
There are three questions I wish to ask. Will Mr. O'Callaghan provide information in respect of terminator genes and their application by companies involved in this area? Is it true that companies which produce GM seeds have successfully sued farmers who grew crops which were, in a sense, contaminated by GM seeds that were, quite literally, blown onto their lands? Is there evidence that the use of GM seeds is helping to address the issue of world hunger? The arguments relating to this matter are charged with emotion. The view of some members is that the case is proven that GM has and will address world hunger. I wonder where there is factual evidence that GMOs are helping on the ground today to address world hunger.
I call Mr. O'Callaghan who has six minutes.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
This is the reason we wanted more speakers because it is impossible and ridiculous to answer 50 questions in six minutes but I will do my best.
Deputy Creed asked about our view on non-food GM crops and GMOs in general. If the Deputy reads the mission statement on the GM-Free Ireland website, he will see we have no position on the continued use of GM bacteria for the production of pharmaceuticals and so on. We are concerned about the release of living GMOs, including non-food GM crops. For example, there is a big push for genetically modified trees such as the eucalyptus for agrofuels. Contamination in crops is limited by the fact that most crops survive only for a year or two but trees sometimes survive for hundreds of years and, therefore, there is a serious concern that if GM trees were contaminated, it could create long-term problems. I do not have time to go into this in detail. There is a need for proteins.
Mr. Callaghan has my e-mail address and he might forward a more detailed response.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
Deputy Sheehan and Senator Bradford suggested that because we need proteins, we need GM proteins. Plenty of GM-free protein is available.
From what sources?
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
From a number of places, particularly Brazil. I organised a meeting last year with the European representative of the largest certified non-GMO soya meal exporter in Brazil. I have included in the annexes to the documents I am submitting to the committee a statement from him to the European Parliament last week. There is no question that Brazil has the capacity to supply all the certified GM-free soya meal Europe might want in response to market demand.
A choice is available but the problem is animal feed importers and commodity traders have a vested interest. Commodity traders are controlled by three large American companies, Cargill, Arch Daniel Midland and Bunge Limited. A number of them have financial ties to GM companies, including Monsanto, and it is simpler for the feed trading industry and the trader not to segregate the two chains. The consensus across Europe is there is a vested interest in forgetting about the GM-free product and selling the GM product because it is easier for everybody. However, representatives of 43 European regions organised a conference earlier this year, which I attended, and they have adopted quality agriculture strategies based on GM-free soya and maize to distinguish their food and farm products from the run of the mill product because of market demand. If it is accessible in 43 regions in numerous counties across Europe, there is no reason it should not be available in Ireland.
Deputy Scanlon inquired about whether there is evidence of health risks. The short answer is yes but further research is needed. One of the problems is that America, which claims to never have had problems with GM feed or food, has no labelling and, as a result, no traceability. That is intentional in order that in the event of health problems, there is no liability. If there is an epidemic of allergies in the US, which is the case currently, it is impossible to trace them to a particular food because one does not know whether it is genetically modified because of the lack of labelling.
We launched a book entitled Genetic Roulette by a journalist on 15 June last year at the European Parliament office in Dublin. It is a layman’s overview of the existing scientific evidence and it identifies 65 potential risks, a number of which are known. The studies were conducted by scientists and the book is available on the Internet at www.geneticroulette.com.
In response to Deputy Cuffe, terminator technology otherwise known as GURT, Genetic Use Restriction Technology, is available. There are various methods of making genetically modified crops sterile in order that the seeds will not reproduce. This is a great way to oblige farmers to buy the new seeds. In response to a letter in a newspaper, I was amused that the chairman of Monsanto Ireland, who appears before the committee today, said terminator technology is not available. He said it is a myth but it turns out that Monsanto co-owns the patent with the US Government.
Farmers have been sued widely, particularly by Monsanto. This was reported in numerous documentary films released recently and in a major article published in Vanity Fair. Farmers are also harassed and threatened with law suits in the US and Canada and most pay up. The most famous case involved Percy Schmeiser who was the first to be brought to court, having resisted, and he lost ownership of his seeds and crops as a result. According to the Irish Patent Office, there is nothing in Irish or European patent law that would prevent farmers, contaminated without their knowledge or consent, from being sued and losing ownership of their seeds and crops and that is one of the major issues.
Deputy Cuffe asked about evidence that GM feeds hunger. Only two types of GM crops are in commercial release today, those that produce their own pesticide, which comprise between 30% ad 40% and those that are immune to weed killer and an overlap. Virtually none in commercial production is designed to have higher yields or improved nutrition. These are hypothetical goals that are much more complex to achieve. They are multi-trait factors. Our organisation and many politicians and scientists view the biotechnology industry's claim that if one is opposed to GM, African babies will die of hunger as the worst kind of emotional scaremongering. That is despicable.
There is a great deal of information on our website. I encourage discussion about this and I am happy to appear before the committee, but I am sorry I do not have time to answer members' questions at greater length. It is a controversial subject. One of the reasons for this is that the patenting of crops is made virtually automatic if the companies can first genetically modify them. This means that now, five or six companies control 50% of the world's agricultural seeds. Monsanto controls 90%, or something like that, of the world's genetically modified seeds. If one compares all the trouble and strife over oil, the dictatorships and the wars on terror and the invasions, potentially these pale into insignificance compared with the amount of control and financial clout that these giant transnational corporations can obtain by controlling the food supply through GM. There are billions of euro at stake and when this kind of money is involved, there will be all sorts of hype, confusion and misunderstanding. We need a balanced debate as a matter of importance and I implore the Irish media to give a fair voice to both sides.
On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. O'Callaghan for his presentation and for answering questions to the best of his ability. I know we were very pressed for time but I hope this will be the start of discussions with groups on this matter.
Mr. Michael O’Callaghan
Just to be clear, we are not asking for 130 speakers from our side. What we would like to do is to nominate a group of expert speakers to represent the different issues.
We will suspend the sitting for one minute to allow our witness to depart and to allow new witnesses to be seated.
Sitting suspended at 12.11 p.m. and resumed at 12.12 p.m.
I welcome Professor David McConnell from Trinity College, Dr, Charles Spillane and Professor Fergal O'Gara from UCC. Professor McConnell will make a joint presentation on behalf of the three members of the delegation. I also welcome Professor Jimmy Burke from Teagasc.
Before I call on Professor McConnell to make the presentation, I draw to the attention of witnesses that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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 Professor McConnell to make his opening statement.
Professor David McConnell
I am making a joint statement on my behalf and on behalf of Professor O'Gara and Dr. Spillane. We are Irish geneticists who have been educated in Ireland, the UK, the United States and Switzerland. Our research has been published in leading international journals and we are recognised as experts in the field of genetics and in genetic engineering. We wish to present opinions based on knowledge of scientific evidence in the international scientific literature.
The evidence provides an overwhelming case that GM is safe and valuable. Each of us has been using GM for several decades, in my case, since 1971, in the case of Dr. O'Gara, since 1974 and Dr. Spillane since 1988. We have been advisers to international bodies on GM technology. Professor O'Gara is adviser to EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority and Dr. Spillane is adviser to FAO and I am adviser to UNIDO. These are three examples of our many different international connections. We are joined in this delegation by Dr. Jimmy Burke of Teagasc, the director of Oakpark research centre and he will make a separate statement. We have discussed this matter in detail with him and he supports our main advice. GM technology is highly regulated and it is safe. It is valuable for farmers, food processors and consumers. It should be as available to Irish farmers, processors and consumers as it is in many leading agricultural countries, notably the United States, Argentina and Brazil.
The idea of a GM-free island of Ireland is impossible, as Dr. Upton pointed out. GM products are essential in medicine and food processing. In principle, we could have a GM-free agriculture but this would be extremely damaging to our capacity to produce food, feed, fibre and fuel and in the future to produce sustainable quantities of chemicals, including plastics, from plants.
We should seek the opposite; to bring the process of approving GM technology in Ireland more or less into line with the way it is approved in the US, Brazil and Argentina. We should introduce GM technology whenever it makes scientific, environmental and economic sense.
The 38 years of genetic modifications have a record of safety and scientific achievement. It emerged in 1970 and it has revolutionised the study of biology, including medicine and agriculture. It has already led to significant benefits for mankind, being the main technology of biotechnology. We estimate there are somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 Irish university scientists using genetic modification in their research. The research is supported by the Health Research Board, Science Foundation Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department with responsibility for the marine, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and the EPA. Teagasc carries out its own GM research on plants in Oakpark and on micro-organisms in Fermoy.
I appreciate it is not always easy to understand what is going on but it is not that difficult. GM means modifying the genes of plants; we have been doing it since we invented farming 10,000 years ago. The last century saw classical plant genetics but more recently we have developed the new form which is called GM.
This technology has revolutionised medicine. The human gene for insulin was put into yeast and now a person being treated with insulin is almost certainly being treated with GM insulin. GM technology has revolutionised the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the Wyeth plant in Clondalkin cost about $2 billion, it employs about 2,000 people and it makes Enbrel, a hugely effective drug for treating arthritis and the market for which is several billion dollars a year.
I was pleased at Dr. Upton's reference to the role of GM technology in food processing, in which it plays a really important role, through the use of enzymes, for example, chymosin in cheese. Enzymes are also used in beer-making, the making of whiskey, bread and fruit juice. The technologies were introduced after rigorous tests showed they were safe and valuable.
Plant technology was invented in the 1970s, in Europe. It is quite simply a very precise tool which allows us to move one gene at a time into a plant. With old technology we were dealing with thousands of genes and it was imprecise and inflexible but the new technology allows us to do that. It must be remembered that almost every food we consume has been produced from a genetically modified plant, with the exception of blackberries and crab apples; everything else has been genetically modified during history. The key idea with GM technology is that we can change a plant by one gene at a time; we can choose a gene which is valued.
Is GM technology safe? That question was raised as an issue in the 1970s and scientists spent a great of time on this issue. For the past 38 years we have been working on the safety of GM technology. I introduced safety regulations into Trinity College in the late 1970s. When the country did not have any regulations I persuaded the board of Trinity College to introduce these regulations. The general scientific consensus about safety has been reported in every authoritative scientific assessment published by the major international scientific organisations, WHO, FAO, the National Research Council of the United States, the Royal Society, the British Medical Association, the European Food Safety Authority, the US National Academy of Sciences, Third World Academy of Sciences. The list goes on. It is clear there are no serious questions attached to the safety of GM plants. This is quite remarkable. When the evidence suggested they were safe, the plants were introduced commercially in 1995. The safety and value of those crops has been borne out by more than ten years of commercial plantings of GM crops on a massive scale worldwide without any adverse effects on health or anything else. I want to summarise this through the comment of Mr. David Byrne, the first EU Commissioner on Health and Consumer Affairs. In May 2004The Irish Times quoted him as saying, “The science is right, the law is right, the procedures are right, the information to the public is right and public health is protected and not under threat in any way”.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming. No damage to human or animal health or to the environment has been caused by GM plants. There is great value to agriculture and to rural competitiveness outside Europe. The scale of the plantings is staggering. GM crops were first planted in 1995 by OSA. Some 480 million acres of GM crops are planted worldwide, which is 44 times the total agricultural area of the Republic of Ireland. It involves 12 million farmers and only 11 million small farmers.
The programme for Government states that we should seek to negotiate the establishment of an all-Ireland GM-free zone, which is impossible for reasons that we have already discussed. It is also not desirable. In fact it makes no sense scientifically, economically, socially or environmentally. Attempts by otherwise responsible politicians to promote a GM-free Ireland will, in our opinion, severely undermine the Government's objective of promoting science and technology in Ireland. How can we expect Irish students to study science if the Government does not pay attention to science? Science is absolutely clear.
We were asked earlier whether it was important for solving the food problem world-wide. The facts are that 40,000 people will die today from hunger. Our colleagues around the world from the leading scientific authorities in the developing countries - we know many of them personally - are convinced that GM technology has a major role to play. I will give the committee one slightly curious example. Some 70% of the cotton in India is now GM cotton grown by small farmers. It greatly affects their standard of living and their ability to feed their families. Papaya suffered from a serious virus disease. American scientists made it virus resistant and recreated the Hawaiian papaya industry. Those GM virus-resistant papaya are now sweeping through Central America and into South America. Papaya is a very important crop for small farmers in developing countries.
I will outline some of the global trends. Some 55% of the people in the world now live in countries with GM crops. GM crop acreage is growing by more than 10% a year. Based on scientific evidence we are completely confident that GM crops, food, feed, fuel and fibre in the fields and in the marketplace are as safe as anyone can reasonably say. They pose no exceptional risks. The majority of GM crops have been developed to improve our health and livelihoods. No one has died in 38 years of this technology because of GM. Some 10,000 people died from food poisoning in the United States in 1994 before GM crops were ever used. There is no evidence that has increased. One Deputy asked whether it is possible to have a GM-free meal. It is almost impossible.
If Europe and Ireland are to benefit fully from this new agricultural revolution, the extreme, and I would say non-scientific, suppression of GM in Europe needs to be reversed. We can see the beginning of this happening in Spain, which now has major plantings of GM maize. I repeat that the scientific evidence is clear. The European approval process should be brought more or less into line with that which operates in other major countries such as the United States, Argentina and Brazil. Under these circumstances when some European countries are at long last beginning to recognise that GM is important, safe and valuable, it would be terribly damaging to Irish farmers and consumers if we were required by our Government to go in the opposite direction. In the drive to build a knowledge-based society, members of the committee can see it would be inconsistent, indefensible and I would say irresponsible for the Government to continue to ignore the scientific knowledge about GM, not to take account of international scientific advice and to take further steps to prevent very important sectors of our economy not having access to this knowledge. That is our advice to the committee and the three of us would welcome any questions members of the committee may have.
I thank Professor McConnell. I now call on Professor Jimmy Burke, who has ten minutes.
Professor Jimmy Burke
I will try to stick to time if I can. I thank the Chairman and members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the invitation to attend today's meeting to discuss the many issues surrounding the biotechnology and GM debate.
I have given the committee a copy of my presentation. I will not go through it all, I will be selective. As the agri-food sector is worth €20 billion to the national economy with more than €8 billion exported annually it is imperative that we have access to the latest technology so that we remain competitive. To date plant biotechnology has largely focused on the modification of agronomic traits that contribute to enhanced production efficiency. These traits are primarily in the areas of herbicide, insect or disease resistance and have been revolutionising many crop production systems in the Americas and elsewhere. A shift in focus towards the modification of traits that confer unique quality attributes to food products will make an even larger impact in the future.
New technologies have always been applied in agriculture and food production as they evolved. In the latter half of the 20th century, major improvements in agricultural productivity have been largely based on selective breeding programmes for plants and animals, intensive use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, as well as developments in mechanisation. This has been very successful in making our agriculture sector competitive on an international scale.
However, there is now and will be in the future increased emphasis on developing better and more sustainable ways for maximising production efficiency while at the same time reducing any environmental impact associated with agricultural practices. In this regard the tools and products of biotechnology and genetic engineering will be of major importance. The current biotechnology revolution happening worldwide is showing clearly how it is providing the basis for more sustainable agriculture.
The new aspects of biotechnology differ from previous agricultural technologies in a number of ways that are likely to be of significance. For example, we can increase productivity and improve product quality with minimal impact on production costs by providing tools to develop more effectively and incorporate desired characteristics of plants and animals.
As members of the committee will be aware, genetically modified crops have been grown around the world by farmers for many years and this technology is being widely used in many countries by our competitors. There are now more than 282 million acres of GM crops grown worldwide, and the area has expanded by double-digit growth rates every year since 2002. As Deputy Creed said, some of their products, produced using this technology, have been coming into this country for many years with a complete record of safety. Two GM maize by-products, corn gluten and distillers grains, have been vital ingredients in animal feed compounds for many years and have accounted for up to 30% of feed rations for beef cattle and dairy cows. A total of 800,000 tonnes of these maize by-products have been imported from the US every year by animal feed companies. However, regrettably EU policy decisions have effectively eliminated these imports with serious repercussions for the agricultural sector in this country in terms of added costs.
As supplies of GM-free maize by-products are not available elsewhere, the Irish feed industry is now forced to source 800,000 tonnes of replacement products. While it can get it, it is at an additional cost of €60 million. These costs are having a serious impact on animal feed prices and on the competitive position of livestock products on our major export markets. The situation with protein feed is even more serious as 95% of the world's soya bean is now of the GM type. Ireland is much more reliant on imports of compound feed ingredients generally than any other country in the EU. I have supplied the figures. It is very important that the EU approval system for these new crops or products is not unduly delayed as otherwise the repercussions for the Irish agricultural sector will be even more serious.
It is also worth noting that the extra costs imposed on the agriculture sector from last year onwards as a result of the Herculex issue, which focused minds on policymakers and the agriculture sector, are not recovered from the marketplace. As Senator Quinn may attest, consumers are not willing to pay extra for these products.
Ireland's ability to become a knowledge based economy will strongly depend on developing a national capability to participate in, monitor and evaluate, where appropriate, harnessed developments in biotechnology for our own benefit. The technology foresight reports, produced by high level groups established by the Government, identified biotechnology as an important development for the future of the country, particularly for the agri-foods, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and beverage sectors, about which Professor McConnell spoke.
I acknowledge, however, that the emergence of biotechnology has raised many questions of considerable public interest, including the safety of genetically modified organisms in food production and their effects on the environment. The record of GMOs to date internationally has been very good. While environmental issues are important across all sectors of the economy, they are often greatly exaggerated as far as agriculture is concerned. However, we must not be complacent and we need to strive for an acceptable balance between technical efficiency, food cost, food quality and conservation of the environment.
As we have heard, the debate in Europe on the risks and benefits of this technology is polarised and it is widely accepted that it should be more open, transparent and inclusive, with a greater level of understanding by all the stakeholders. Openness and transparency are also required in the policymaking process. In the absence of independent and credible information on biotechnology, the public is not given the opportunity to gain an understanding of or make informed decisions on its use in agriculture and other sectors.
It is worth noting that a Eurobarometer survey of consumers in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Czech Republic and Lithuania published some time ago asked European consumers' views of food production. When respondents were asked if they would buy GM foods if they were healthier, 56% of them indicated they would do so. When asked if they would buy GM foods if they contained fewer pesticide residues, 51% indicated they would do so. We must take into account the wider views of Europeans on GM food production.
What is the best position for Ireland on biotechnology, which I acknowledge is a politically sensitive issue? While it is not Teagasc's role to get involved in the politics of the issue, it is our job to examine the science involved, research the technology and evaluate its use in other countries to determine the benefits and risks of adopting GM technology here. Regulatory approvals in Europe for genetically modified organisms are covered under the environmental, food and feed regulations of the European Union. These strenuous regulations should give complete reassurance to consumers that approved products are as safe, if not safer, than conventional products on the market. It is worth noting that tomatoes, potatoes or wheat, if put through the same regulatory scrutiny, would not secure approval under the GM regulations. This fact should provide food for thought.
I am pleased to appear before the joint committee and would be happy to answer any questions members may have. I have circulated the paper for members perusal.
Before I call on Deputy Creed, I welcome Deputy Ned O'Keeffe back to the committee. The Deputy will replace Deputy Martin Mansergh who has been appointed Minister of State.
I welcome Professors McConnell, O'Gara and Burke and Dr. Spillane to add to the deliberations of the joint committee. On a technical issue, one which is frequently raised in debate, I understand the terminator technology in GM seed, as it is known, requires farmers to buy new seeds every year from the company producing them. Will the witnesses set out the position on this issue and explain what is the position regarding accidental contamination? Does the terminator technology preclude the possibility of cross-contamination?
Professor Burke referred to surveys of consumer opinion on the GM issue and Senator Quinn referred to the experience of this technology in the United States. Why is consumer resistance to these products in Europe not reflected in the United States? Will the delegation comment on the potential of this technology to improve yield at a time when food shortages are rising to the top of the political agenda and have caused food riots around the world?
In light of the direct farm gate experience most farmers have had of Teagasc, will Professor Burke comment on an issue on which Mr. O'Callaghan spoke, namely, the availability for import of non-GM protein sources both now and in the future and the issue of cost? Will he also comment on the extent of the research being undertaken by Teagasc in this area and what practical application it will have? Assuming the policy and regulatory framework moves in the direction of accepting GMOs, when does Professor Burke envisage that applications to cultivate GM crops will be placed on the political agenda?
I welcome the delegation and thank its members for their presentation. I do not take issue with the safety aspects set out by Professor McConnell. Is there any evidence in recognised scientific and peer reviewed literature of risks or hazards associated with GM products? Mr. O'Callaghan indicated that 55 problems could arise. As he has departed, I cannot question him on his statement. What is the evidence to support it? I understand Professor McConnell's position on safety and in my earlier life, when I was much more up to speed on this issue, I did not become aware of anything which would infer safety problems of any significance. I ask Professor McConnell to comment.
As Professor McConnell implied, we first approached this issue from the point of view of traditional plant breeding and the upgrading the technologies but have become more sophisticated and moved forward in terms of the application of new scientific developments and technologies. I ask Professor Burke to address the specific difficulty of environmental containment. How can this be achieved categorically and in a manner which ensures traditional crops are not contaminated? People who want to grow traditional crops clearly have every right to do so. They also have a rightful expectation that the crops they are growing will not be contaminated by genetically modified crops. This is an important environmental and economic question. The issue of the ownership of the technology was raised by my colleague.
Despite various efforts to present a factual case on GM technology and many other valuable aspects of science, an information gap between the scientific community and laypersons persists. There is still a big gap despite the various efforts that were made not just in regard to GM technology but in terms of many other aspects of science that are valuable to us. There is a big gap in what the scientists know, understand and talk about on a daily basis in their common parlance that is beyond understanding for the layman because it is not presented to people in the way it should be. I do not say anybody should fudge the information and dress it down or anything like that; the information should be factual but it must be comprehensible to people.
I will be brief. I thank the academics for their informative presentation. To play the devil's advocate, I have one question for both Professor McConnell and Professor O'Gara. What funding do they receive from Monsanto, let it be in the form of donation or sponsorship to their departments?
Having listened to Mr. O'Callaghan, Professor McConnell and Professor Burke, as a farmer if I were to make a judgment on the presentations today I would come down in favour of the latter two speakers because they were very convincing in their arguments. They had the scientific evidence to back up what they said. I am pleased to hear that GM is safe from a scientific point of view.
Mr. O'Callaghan referred to allergies in America that have not been proven because of labelling. What is his view on labelling? People appear to have a psychological block in terms of organic food versus conventional food and they have the same block when it comes to GM food versus conventional food. How do we convince people that GM food is safe and that there are no worries in regard to it, especially in the context of allergies?
Along with other Deputies I was lobbied last autumn by grain import merchants about the availability of raw material such as soya bean and maize to mix in our feedstuffs. We were told by Mr. O'Callaghan that non-GM soya bean and maize was available in Brazil. I do not believe that is the case because of lobbying and certain financial constraints. The EU was lobbying the committee to lift certain restrictions on the availability of GM grain. It was stated that if we did not, we would not have animal feed for the winter. I do not believe that the soya bean and maize was available in Brazil because they had to introduce GM food.
Is there a conflict in producing genetically modified and conventional food side by side? Should GM be labelled and will GM grain eventually contaminate conventionally produced seeds if it is grown in Ireland?
I will be very brief. I congratulate Professor McConnell and Professor Burke on their presentations. That was the most common sense approach I have ever heard from academics. They have allayed any fears I had on GM modified feed. As Professor Burke pointed out, 282 million acres of GM crops are grown worldwide and the growth of GM crops has expanded by double-digit rates every year since 2002. One can ask where we would be if we take that food out of the production chain.
A total of 28 years of scientific experience backs up what Professor McConnell stated this morning. That is ample evidence for his position and any other suggestion contrary to that is ridiculous and does not stand up to scrutiny. Both professors clearly outlined that there is no danger to the human population from genetically modified foodstuffs. If that is the case, why are we listening to people who have not done any scientific experiments and who cannot prove what they are talking about, who are trying to create consternation around the world? I am fully convinced of the need to adopt GM products. I was very interested to hear Professor McConnell state that 40,000 people are dying each day from hunger. My estimation of one person per minute was far below the reality as that is at least ten or 20 people a minute. They have imparted select knowledge and convinced me without a shadow of a doubt that there is no option but to proceed along the lines of GM.
Professor David McConnell
I suggest that my colleagues deal with the questions from Deputy Creed on why we in Europe are so resistant to GM. Professor O'Gara will comment on that.
Professor Fergal O’Gara
That is a most interesting question, which social scientists are addressing and many studies have focused on it. The bottom line is that when we look at the evolution of what happened in Europe with GM technology that the first products to come into Europe were American-based and there was a difference in culture between the multinational companies bringing them into Europe. I refer to the way business is done in the United States versus the way business is done in Europe. Straightaway there was a difference of opinion from a cultural perspective as to how that should have been handled. The difference centred on the promotion and marketing of the product. Consumers inquired about the benefits of introducing the crops into Europe. The key traits were herbicide tolerance and insect tolerance and consumers wanted to know how those traits would influence the food they eat. The answer is that there was no influence because their benefit was felt at the production stage. In the first instance it was the producers, namely, the farmers who benefited rather than consumers who wanted to know what was in it for them. We are now moving on to the next generation of GM crops where issues like flavour and shelf life are influenced and that will be more significant in terms of consumer interest.
With the introduction of any new technology how one connects with the public is an issue. I referred to the difference between the culture in the United States and Europe. What is happening in Europe now is that different types of outreach programmes are being set up in educational institutions. For example, in Cork we have a programme through which we bring school children into the university and demonstrate what the technology is all about. When parents accompany the children it is apparent that there is a difference in understanding between the children and their parents, who have a difficulty with the concept. Consumer resistance is being addressed but the key issue on the products is that they have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Professor David McConnell
A number of questions were asked by Deputies Creed and Aylward about animal feed and the supply of it. Perhaps Dr. Burke will comment.
Professor Jimmy Burke
Deputy Creed referred to the terminator technology. That is an unfortunate term in a way. It was developed by scientists at the US Department of Agriculture. While it has a patent on the technology, a similar type was available for years. For example, how many of us have eaten seedless grapes or hybrid maize? One cannot keep the seeds to produce seeds with which to propagate. It is a question of choice. The benefit of the terminator technology, as patented, was that it allowed one to overcome the issue of gene flow, if it arose. I refer to pollen moving from one species to another, as raised by Deputy Upton. The technology was one classic way of surmounting the problem because it prevented it from arising. There are also other ways of doing so.
Professor O'Gara referred to consumer resistance. The availability of genetically modified crops is a major issue. In Europe we are only 30% self-sufficient in protein sources. We can grow more protein crops but never what we require to meet the demands of our pig, poultry, beef and dairy sectors. The world beyond Europe is turning to genetic modification. Some 95% of all soybean grown worldwide is of the GM type. The other 5% can be sourced but one must pay a hefty premium. The costs are incurred by the purchasers, or importers, and passed on to farmers. They are real costs that affect our competitive position and are not recouped in the marketplace. If we want to pay the premium, we will have real difficulty in sourcing sufficient supplies, and Teagasc believes it cannot be done.
The research of Teagasc was mentioned by Deputy Creed. A significant investment was made in 1998 in respect of GM technology and we therefore have the ability to consider gene flow, including the distance of flow, the consequences, whether there is hybridisation with native species and, if so, the implications. All our information is on our website, www.gmoinfo.ie. Our consideration covers risk assessment, the agronomy of the crops and the examination of the tools of biotechnology in terms of marker assisted selection in developing new varieties of potatoes, grasses or clovers.
On the timeframe for GM, not many know that if I wanted to grow GM maize tomorrow in Ireland, I could do so. It is already approved for use in Europe. If it is approved for use in Europe, we can grow it in Ireland without any licence. The reason we have not been doing so to date is the European corn borer, against which the crop has resistance, does not exist in this country. Therefore, it is not of any great interest to us. However, the position is changing because we now have 20,000 hectares of maize and we will soon have the same amount of maize as we had sugar beet. Atrozine, which was used for years in weed control in maize, has been withdrawn by the EU pesticides division. If we had Roundup Ready maize in the future, it would be of significant benefit to Irish tillage farmers.
Other crops coming down the track are oilseed rape, which we can also grow today. It is approved for use in Europe but we have no need for it yet. GM wheat and potatoes are all coming down the track.
The products of the biotechnology industry are having an impact on us now and this will never change. One must ask what crops will grow in Ireland and where they will fit into the system. We must ask what savings they will make for the agriculture sector and whether they have any benefits at all. Answering these questions is the role of Teagasc and it will continue to work in this regard.
Deputy Upton referred to germplasm ownership. Much germplasm is still in the hands of organisations such as Teagasc and other publicly funded research organisations. It is important that this remain the case. Big multinational companies can develop new varieties with different traits with their technology but they can never own the varieties outright. They can exploit the patents for their duration and once they are exceeded, ownership reverts to the public, such that the members and I will be able to grow the free varieties in 20 years. This is the case in respect of any plant bred under plant breeders' rights. The fear of big companies owning varieties outright in the future is not based on fact and the issue should be clarified.
Deputy Aylward referred to allergies. There is absolutely no question that any allergies can come from GM crops. This is the first risk that is checked. I could not say the same for conventional breeding. We are breeding conventional crops and I could not put my hand up and say no allergies will arise from our conventional breeding programme in the future. This is because we do not test for them. However, under the GM regulatory framework of the European Union, including Ireland, the existence of allergies is the first phenomenon to be ascertained. We have nine or ten genes that are known allergens and these are the first to come up.
With regard to potatoes and wheat, because of the gluten, if a link were established with other poisonous plants of the potato and tomato family related to deadly nightshade, they would not have a hope in hell of getting through the current process under the GM regulations. The process is very robust and should give consumers all the assurance they require.
Professor David McConnell
Dr. Spillane will answer some questions, after which Dr. O'Gara will deal with the question on risks, hazards and genetic roulette.
Dr. Charles Spillane
I will deal with some of the issues raised. One member asked about the yield increases associated with GM crops. In Canada, there is a reported increase of 24% in respect of canola. A recent study in three Spanish provinces reports an increase of 12% for Bt maize, with profits to the farmers of approximately €122 extra per hectare. Of the 12 million Third World farmers currently growing GM crops, 11 million are smallholders. Economic studies show they have benefited.
I have just returned from a conference of the European Plant Science Organisation where there was a sense of crisis regarding how the planet will provide 50% more food by 2030. We need to use every safe technology at our disposal to do so. If we do not want to have an impact on the environment, we need to increase productivity per hectare. It is important to grow more food on less land and this will have to happen.
The patenting issue relates to the broader question on the role of intellectual property and national legislation. It is a question of who pays for agricultural research. Intellectual property law was established to promote private sector investment in research and in this regard it is a question for national legislation. One can have publicly funded research and privately funded research.
Hundreds of studies on health risks have been conducted to date by authoritative scientific bodies and these studies attest to the safety of GM crops and foods in terms of human, animal and environmental health. A recent study by a Swiss institute, led by Dr. Sanvido, reviewed all the environmental impacts of GM crops and found no convincing evidence that there are any unique hazards associated with them.
On requests for more research, a considerable sum of public money has already been spent. Up to 2003, 110 biosafety research projects were funded by the European Union. Some €70 million was spent by 400 research groups and all their results indicate they cannot find any unknowns regarding the dangers of GM crops. At national level, extensive funding has been made available. Between 2005 and 2007, federal agencies in Germany have spent €10 million.
On the zero threshold issue, the Confederation of Food and Drinks Industries of the EU and cereal producers have estimated the impact of keeping with the zero threshold is anywhere between €1 billion and €2.8 billion in respect of the impact on the European agri-food sector. Rice milling operations in Europe have already made losses in the region of €52 million.
Public perception is largely influenced by misinformation campaigns. There is evidence that it is changing in that Eurobarometer studies show that 80% of those polled were not concerned by the use of GMOs in agriculture. If we consider the number of calls to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, we will note 0.6% pertain to GM crops.
There is scientific consensus that there are problems with first-generation bio-fuel crops. One does not get as much energy out as one puts in and it is therefore necessary to develop second-generation crops that will have a more efficient energy balance. It is also necessary to develop GM technology to produce enzymes, processes whereby wood can be converted to alcohol and more sustainable energy systems.
Professor David McConnell
We want to ensure bio-fuel production does not compete with food production. The second generation bio-fuel processes are focussed to a high degree in using, for example, wheat straw to generate bio-alcohol. Professor Fergal O'Gara will speak on the book, Genetic Roulette, which is described as being for the layman. It was also written by a layman.
Professor Fergal O’Gara
Deputy Upton raised this publication. When scientific evidence and information is put into the public domain in publications and international scientific journals, there can be competition for good stories. A good story can capture the public's and scientific imagination. If one publishes a story about how GMOs could be bad for one's health, it will of course attract much attention.
In the case of Genetic Roulette, two studies were done on feeding GMs to experimental animals. A study done of monarch butterflies was published in the news and views section of Nature, a prestigious scientific magazine. A second study was done with GM potatoes fed to rats in Scotland. Both made claims that GM material is hazardous. However, when scientists tried to reproduce these experiments, they could not. When doing these experiments, a scientist needs a comparator. When feeding experimental animals, the carbohydrate and protein content of their diet is essential to meet WHO and FAO standards. The two reports on the studies were subsequently retracted. If it is in the public domain as a primary publication, it can be difficult to spot the retraction. That confuses the scientific literature in these types of story.
Deputy Tom Sheahan asked about funding from Monsanto. I do not have funding from Monsanto, unfortunately as I would like to have it. I am not aware of anyone else in UCC with funding from Monsanto. The issue that has been raised, particularly with the regulatory authorities in the UK, is that if a scientist has funding from industry, he or she is somehow tainted. That is not true. Scientists, who have proven excellence in a particular area in their career development, will have people wanting to work with them. Irish scientists compete in European programmes with transnational co-operation. In some of these programmes, industry involvement is needed. It is a balanced situation where industry is involved at pre-competitive research which is beneficial to the scientific process.
The focus of attention with the GM-free zone has been primarily on plants. There are also very important products coming from genetically modified microbes which are entering the food chain through food processing. These are developed in fermenters in contained facilities regulated by EU directive. That type of production is essential to the Irish food chain. We want our young scientists and graduates to be at the cutting edge of technology. Anything that would hamper that exposure for graduates and product development would not be good for the national economy.
I will allow one supplementary from Deputy Upton.
The aspect of containment is very important and needs to be addressed. Ireland is marketed as a clean and green island. Is there any advantage from a trading point to claim Ireland does not produce genetically modified crops? Every evening when I am stuck in a traffic jam returning home I note one restaurant on the way which advertises GM-free bagels. How important are they?
Professor David McConnell
Containment has been seriously addressed by the EU authorities.
Professor Jimmy Burke
Obviously we will have to have choice. Labelling has maybe gone a little over the top. This is an industry that could be regulated out of existence for no real reason.
Co-existence guidelines are in place for Irish farmers to grow GM crops. An organic farm and a GM farm could co-exist side by side. The regulations are in place but are over the top, putting too much onus on the GM farm not to contaminate.
It is all about choice. Labelling rules are in place. It is about informing the consumer. A point was made about zero tolerance. Of the ten approved events in Europe, not one has been approved by the political process. Perhaps the House could take leadership and get some focus in the European dimension. Ireland is not raising its head high enough, saying it is proud of this technology.
I cannot say if GM crops will be grown in Ireland in the foreseeable future. It will be some time. The current GM crop types are not relevant to Ireland's agriculture. In the future, they will be and Ireland should have the ability to use them if they give an advantage.
Can cross-contamination occur?
Members, please. I let Deputy Upton have a supplementary when I should not have. It is not fair to the delegation following if there are supplementary questions.
Professor David McConnell
Ireland is working very hard to present itself as the most advanced in scientific terms. It is fundamental to our industry and agriculture. If Ireland markets itself as GM-free, it would be a bit like people arriving in the country expecting we do not have tractors. It would undermine the Government's policy and general social policy to have a highly educated and sophisticated population working in the most advanced agricultural and industrial processes.
I am not funded by Monsanto. Like Professor O'Gara, I would welcome funding from Monsanto as well as other companies on the basis that I regard myself as a person of integrity. My department is 50 years old this year and was founded by an annual grant of £3,000 from the Irish Sugar Company. All of us have worked as hard as we can to co-operate with Irish and multinational industries to bring our science forward for the benefit of farmers and consumers. I also work quite hard in dealing with world hunger.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegation for attending.
Sitting suspended at 1.09 p.m. and resumed at 1.10 p.m.
I welcome Mr. Patrick O'Reilly, chief executive, and Mr. Colin Merritt, head of biotech communications and new business development at Monsanto Ireland Limited. Before I call on them to make their presentation, I draw to their attention the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make a charge against a person outside the Houses, or an official by name or in such a way to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. O'Reilly to make his opening statement.
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
A Chathaoirligh, a Theachtaí Dála agus a Seanadóirí, go raibh maith agaibh.
On behalf of Monsanto Ireland, I thank the Chairman and the committee members for the opportunity to present our position on plant biotechnology and its relevance to Ireland. I joined Monsanto over 20 years ago as a research scientist. I have held various positions in research and development, in marketing and sales and I am currently business manager. With me is my colleague Dr. Colin Merritt, who is our head of biotech communications and new business development for the UK and Ireland. Dr. Merritt trained in ecology and plant science and has worked in a number of roles in research and development and biotech communications within Monsanto.
The subject of plant biotechnology is a topic that stirs a wide range of emotions, opinions and healthy debate. Monsanto has long been an advocate for improving agriculture with the tools of biotechnology. We believe biotechnology can help make agriculture more productive and sustainable. Many organizations share our views, but others disagree. Opponents of agricultural biotechnology cite safety and philosophical objections to developing and applying the science of biotechnology to improve agriculture. One of the Government's roles in this issue is to evaluate input from all sides and make sound policy decisions that benefit the public good. Our only request in this regard is that those decisions be evidence based. The rejection of an evidence based approach is a danger to democracy.
The exponential growth and acceptance of biotech crops makes it one of the most successful agricultural technologies ever developed. In 1996, when biotech crops were first grown commercially, there were only 4.2 million acres planted worldwide. In 2007, 12 million farmers in 23 countries planted over 280 million acres of biotech crops. The technology has proven to be scale neutral, as 90% of the farmers using it in 2007 were based in developing countries. The first generation of biotech crops are primarily focused on improved crop protection and production traits. In the past decade farmers planting biotech crops have increased their income by more than $34 billion, through a combination of higher yields and lower inputs. This is one of the main reasons farmers who plant biotech seeds once will typically repurchase at rates well above 90%. When given the right to choose, they choose biotech seed.
Farmers have decreased pesticide applications by over 289 million kg through the use of biotech crops. Biotech crops have decreased carbon dioxide emissions and saved fossil fuel use due to less tillage and spraying. In 2006 alone, biotech crops saved 14.8 billion kg of carbon dioxide, equivalent to removing 6.5 million cars from the road. Consumers have also benefited from plant biotechnology, as healthy crops produce healthy foods.
The next generation of biotech crops in the pipeline is addressing more complex challenges across the spectrum of food, feed, fuel and the environment. The United Nations has predicted that by 2025, two out of three people will live in drought or water stressed conditions. Today, agriculture uses approximately 70% of the world's total, available freshwater supplies. Monsanto has developed drought resistant crops that allow plants to survive with less water, or recover and re-grow after dry conditions. Research is also being done to develop biotech crops that can handle the stress of high temperatures and salt-tolerant conditions. Nitrogen fertilizer represents one of the most crucial factors in raising crop yields, but also represents the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions. Crops are now in development which could allow the maintenance of some current crop yields using a third to a half less nitrogen fertilizer. This development has enormous implications to both the security of food production and protection against climate change effects.
Perhaps what is most exciting about the next generation of biotech crops are the direct consumer benefits. These include nutrient enhanced varieties, such as vitamin-enriched foods, or heart healthy oils such as omega-3 enriched soybean and rapeseed oils. Developments in the plant biotechnology industry that can help bio-fuel production include plants that provide greater yields for bio-fuel crops, plants that provide more oil per unit and plants that grow in marginal or degraded soil.
Like all new technologies, plant biotech has faced its share of concerns and claims, which can broadly be divided into three areas. These are scientific and technology related concerns such as: safety to health and the environment, pollen movement and the risk of so-called 'superweeds' occurring; moral and ethical concerns, such as playing God with nature and movement of genes across species; and industry-related concerns, such as patenting, monopoly control of the food industry, and the so-called concept of "terminator" seeds, reference to which was made several times this morning. Time does not permit me to address all of these topics in detail, but I would like to make a number of points that should help clarify certain aspects.
The safety of biotech crops and foods now on the market has been affirmed by experts around the world. The European Commission, in a publication released by the directorate general for research in October 2001, summarised 81 projects on the safety of biotech plants and derived products. These studies, which received a total EU funding of €70 million, involved over 400 scientific teams from all over Europe. The conclusion highlighted that "the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make GM plants and derived products even safer than conventional plants and foods".
Many of our most important crops produce seed through cross-pollination, while many farm crops are completely or mainly self-pollinating. Pollen transfer may be by wind or by insects. The potential and extent of cross-pollination is an important consideration in all cropping systems and in plant breeding, since it affects the level of purity of crop varieties. For example, in oilseed rape there are different strains which are grown for food oils, while other strains are grown for industrial, non-edible oils. Most crops are incompatible with all but very close relatives, so the risk of pollen transfer to wild plants is mostly very small and manageable. It is not a safety issue. Simple measures can keep cross-pollination down to very small levels, and allow very high standards of purity. Professor Burke previously alluded to the aspects of co-existence. Suggestion that the escape of specific genes such as herbicide tolerance or insect resistance will create weeds which cannot be controlled are simply not supported by the evidence.
Through dialogue with many people, Monsanto has learned to appreciate that agricultural biotechnology raises some moral and ethical issues that go beyond science. I draw the attention of committee members to significant reports on this topic from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the FAO, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the Irish Council for Bioethics. The latter stated in its 2005 report that it does "not view the genetic modification of crops as morally objectionable in itself". It further stated that "GM crop and food technology holds a great deal of promise".
Monsanto invests over $2 million dollars per day on research and development. Patent protection allows companies to see a return on their investment. Ninety per cent of farmers using biotechnology traits are smallholder farmers in developing countries. For over a decade, Monsanto has provided technology and expertise to public sector research organisations specializing in the improvement of crops for the developing world. Biotechnology traits and methodologies developed for Monsanto commercial products have been donated to improve rice, cassava, sweet potato, papaya and other crops. Monsanto recently joined a precedent setting public private partnership led by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation to bring drought tolerant maize to smallholder farmers in Africa. The partnership is known as Water Efficient Maize for Africa, or WEMA. Monsanto will provide data and materials from our commercial drought tolerant programme royalty-free, including proprietary germplasm, advanced breeding tools and drought tolerance traits.
When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will plant only the seed they purchase from us. They understand the basic simplicity of the agreement, which is that a business must be paid for its product. A very small percentage of farmers do not honour this agreement. Where this occurs, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. Sometimes however, we are sadly forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with about 120 lawsuits in total having been filed. This comes to fewer than ten per year for the past 12 years. Fewer than a dozen cases have required a full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court has decided in our favour. Monsanto does not profit from these lawsuits. After legal fees are deducted, the remainder is donated to voluntary organisations.
Sterile seed technology is a concept in which seed produced by a crop will not grow. Dubbed "terminator technology" in the popular press, many have expressed concerns that sterile seed technology might pose a threat to the livelihood and way of life of small landholder farmers in developing countries. Monsanto has never developed or commercialised a sterile seed product. We made a commitment as far back as 1999 not to commercialise sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment and have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way.
Over the years, some people have expressed concern about what they see as concentration of agricultural seeds in the hands of a small number of companies. The commercial seed market accounts for only about 33% of the total volume of seeds used globally. Another 33% is farmer-saved seed and the remaining seed comes from national or public institutions. As one of the largest commercial seed companies, Monsanto offers for sale about 3% to 5% of the world's seeds. We actively license our biotech traits to a number of other seed companies, so in fact the farmer has thousands of seed choices. Global adoption of biotech crops has increased at double digit rates each year since introduction. Given the right to grow biotech crops, many farmers choose to and they do so not because they lack alternatives, but because they recognise value.
Let me move on to the relevance of the technology to Ireland. I often hear the comment that biotech crops grown in the rest of the world have little relevance to this country, other than for import of their grain for feed use. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the biotech crops, some of which have been on the market for over a decade and others which are in the pipeline, would bring direct economic and environmental benefits to farmers if grown in Ireland. For example, in the area of crop protection and production, herbicide tolerant oilseed rape and forage maize, disease resistant cereals and blight resistant potatoes are all relevant to this country. Herbicide tolerant crops, in particular, facilitate greatly the practice of minimum or eco-tillage, which results in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. In the food and feed sector, oilseed crops with the ability to produce omega-3 enhanced oils or with reduced trans-fats, are both important products for the food industry. Biotech maize varieties, as seen in Spain, with built-in high levels of lysine are immediately relevant to the feed industry.
In the bio-fuels arena, higher yielding varieties of non-food oil crops and varieties with enhanced oil profiles will help improve energy efficiencies in this area. From an environmental perspective, biotech crops that have significantly better nitrogen utilisation capabilities are especially relevant to Ireland in the context of the recent nitrates directive legislation.
What are the challenges and decisions for Ireland in regard to biotech crops? The most immediate issue is one of achieving a reliable source of imported feed material for the grain and feed industry, as stated here today. The whole aspect of "asynchronous authorisations" whereby new varieties are authorised for sale in other world areas but are delayed in Europe, has the potential to make this a difficult task. Commercialisation of the next generation of biotech crops in the US and South America is moving ahead rapidly. Additionally, demand is growing for increased feed material requirements in Asia in particular. Ireland will need to remain very proactive in its policy to safeguard the indigenous feed industry, as it proportionately relies more heavily on feed imports than any other European country.
Linked to this challenge is the current programme for Government position of a GM-free island. This is purely an illogical position for a number of reasons. First, what exactly is meant by the term GM-free? As outlined, GM technology is widely used in Ireland, in medicine, in forensic science and in the food industry. The vast majority of feed imported into this country is of GM origin. Second, there is no legal basis for such a position. Only last week, Austria lifted its ban on import of GM material. Third, why should farmers, on the one hand, have to compete against this technology in terms of production efficiencies gained from its use by farmers in other countries while, on the other, be denied access to using it on their own farms? Fourth, the concept of GM-free imparting any commercial advantage to our agriculture industry is a bogus one. There have been 12 years to capitalise on such a concept and no advantage has accrued.
Irish farmers and the agricultural industry have been badly served by the anti-plant biotech sentiment and sheer bias that has dominated in Europe in the past decade. Farmers here were simply not given a choice to decide for themselves if they wanted to use plant biotechnology. Irish farmers know their consumers better than anyone. Surely, equipping them with choices for their consumers is both democratic and forms good policy in the rapidly changing agri-food sector. It is time Irish farmers were given the right to choose for themselves.
It is not surprising there is public confusion and concern in regard to GM foods given the misrepresentation of the facts by anti-biotech groups globally combined with headline grabbing media stories. However, the claim by fear mongers that the public are totally opposed to GM foods is overstated. Professor Burke referred to recent Eurobarometer studies. It is interesting to note that in regard to Irish results specifically, these studies show that the use of genetically modified organisms in farming ranks only 11th out of 15 environmental issues that concern the public. Furthermore, when the public were asked who they trust on these issues, the answer was our scientists and, unlike most of our European counterparts, our national Government. It is apparent, therefore, that if we want to adopt modern technologies within Ireland, the national Government and scientists must be included and encouraged to be in the forefront of the rational debate and information process.
In conclusion, agriculture is facing unprecedented challenges and responsibilities in regard to feed, food and fuel production. Ireland, with a strong indigenous agriculture industry, has a huge opportunity to participate in this new challenge. After 12 years of wide-scale commercial use, biotech varieties account for a fifth of the world's rapeseed, a quarter of the world's maize, over two fifths of the world's cotton and almost two thirds of the world's soya plantings. Despite the many questions and concerns raised, none of the doomsday health and environmental effects claimed have occurred. The regulations controlling these technologies have proven very stringent and very precautionary. Biotech commodities, particularly soya and maize, are now a major component of animal feedstuffs in Ireland. For any country or region to adopt a policy of isolation from this global situation would be to place at risk whole sectors of the livestock industry, as well as the whole area of affordable locally-produced food. We sincerely propose it is time to move away from the old polarised position of the previous century, and adopt a more evidence-based and forward looking and choice driven approach. I will be happy to answer any questions.
I welcome Mr. O'Reilly and the Monsanto representatives. The presentation reads well and the figures it contains are impressive. Mr. O'Reilly stated that Monsanto spends in the region of $2 million a day on research and, obviously, there is a big commercial dividend from that. I have nothing against multinational corporations or profit, which is what drives the economy. However, on the question I raised with the previous delegation, namely, that of consumer resistance - this is not a personal criticism, so I ask that it not be taken personally - the view is that Monsanto is the bad guy in this debate and its press image is poor, to say the least.
I have in my possession - Monsanto has probably seen this - a letter sent to a Canadian farmer in Saskatchewan regarding the unlicensed planting of Roundup Ready canola. The threatening language in the letter, however few in number such letters are, is the kind of public relations that does GM technology a disservice.
I raise this purely in the context of patent law. I noted Mr. O'Reilly's comment on sterile seed which, if I have a handle on this, is the same issue with which we dealt earlier, namely, terminator genes and contamination. Does current patent law in this area operate something like it operates in the area of new drug development, namely, that after a ten-year period any company can produce a generic version of the technology? Does this apply in respect of the specific research Monsanto might put into developing a new crop so that after ten years it is available to anybody who wants it?
I would fear an embrace of GM technology resulting in farmers being beholden to large corporations for their seed on an annual basis. It is an issue which needs to be addressed. Current patent law could make farmers beholden to these large corporations, which would gain an increased share of market. Mr. O'Reilly quotes figures of just 2% or 3% of world seed but I would like to have more information on that and develop the point further. I would not support a situation where people would become prisoners of one supplier, with all of the cost and other consequences. It is an enormous power to have and would not rest easily with me. Mr. O'Reilly should provide an overview on patent law as it applies to this technology.
I also welcome the representatives from Monsanto. As a practical question, who, if anyone, does Monsanto fund in Ireland? While two distinguished scientists are present, whom I would have considered to have been at the forefront of genetic modification, neither is in receipt of funding. Do organisations in Ireland receive funding from Monsanto?
While my questions would have been similar to that posed by Deputy Creed on patent law and ownership, I wish to ask a specific question in that regard. Mr. O'Reilly mentioned the technology's importance and value in developing countries and stated it is particularly important where food shortages occur and where climate problems are prevalent and seriously affect the food supply. What interaction does Monsanto have with agencies such as, for example, Concern or Oxfam? How does it interact with them, if at all? I perceive them to be leading developing country agencies that have a highly important role to play. While they may not be agencies with which Monsanto interacts, they come to mind as two significant examples. The Monsanto representatives should indicate what relationship it has with them.
As for the issue of containment and pollen transfer, I seek the witnesses' opinion on who they perceive to be responsible for containment in the first instance. While Professor Burke has already dealt with this issue, they might comment on it again because this is a real issue for farmers who are growing conventional crops at present. Who do they perceive to be responsible in the case of contamination of a conventional crop when both types are being grown fairly close together?
This is my first day as a member of the joint committee and I am somewhat lost. I thank the Chairman for welcoming me and I am glad to be present. This is an important day and an important discussion about which I have a few questions. Seeds are brought about through plant breeding and, from Mr. O'Reilly's comments, I understand that Monsanto has 2% of that market. However, as competition must exist in that market and is its driving force, who are its competitors? My understanding is that Monsanto does not have a monopoly and I suspect its representatives will not tell me whether that is the case. However, who are its competitors and how advanced are they when compared to Monsanto? I am aware Monsanto has been the leader in this field arising from its operations in Missouri, in the mid-west of America.
I have a keen interest in the feed industry because I feed a lot of livestock and Ireland cannot continue without adequate supply. A previous presentation mentioned the need to source 800,000 tonnes of feed, mainly for pigs and poultry. Animal production in Ireland now is totally uncompetitive vis-à-vis our neighbours across the water and in Europe and huge losses are being incurred by farmers. Our pigs and poultry industries could go to the wall arising from that problem.
While Brazil has been mentioned, feed from there is as expensive as that coming from the United States of America, regardless of whether it is GM-free. Another point mentioned concerned cotton grown in India by small farmers. In the past, while growing up I was engaged in agriculture and cotton seed meal was available for animal feed. Why has it disappeared from the market? Is its disappearance connected to GM or to competition or is it because it is all grown for cotton?
What is the future for GM-modified potatoes? Ireland has a blight problem and I understand it is about to re-emerge. It interferes with production, as well as the crop's quantity and quality. I will content myself with these questions and will leave the technical areas to my colleagues in the Opposition.
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
I will respond to Deputy Creed's questions first. I refer to the commercial dividend and the respective benefits derived from the new technology by the farmer and the company. As I stated in the submission, the income benefit from biotechnology crops has been approximately $34 billion in recent years. Much work and many studies have been done to examine how such benefits are broken down, as well as their source, that is, whether the benefits arise from yield or from lower inputs and whether they flow to the suppliers or to the farmers. The average breakdown of the benefit is approximately two thirds to the farmers and one third to the suppliers, respectively. It varies somewhat across crops and can be a little higher for farmers in certain crops, such as cotton in particular for which insecticide inputs are reduced dramatically, and somewhat less in others. However, the general ratio is two thirds of the benefit to the user to one third to the supplier. In this context, the supplier comprises the entire industry from Monsanto down through the trade, etc.
In this regard, it is important to point out that the dramatic increase in growth on a yearly basis could not happen unless repeat purchases from farmers were at a high level. We estimate it is greater than 90% for most crops. The best marketing in the world may give one the perception that one can derive great benefit from a technology in the first or second years. However, to repeatedly achieve such a return of users means that farmers, particularly in respect of first generation crops, derive such a real benefit on a yearly basis. I also should point out they now have greater choice than was the case before the advent of biotechnology, particularly in the United States, where conventional crops, organic and biotechnology are available. While their choice has not been diminished by the appearance of biotechnology, they are using it more. Companies such as Monsanto are driven by the demands of profit, as we need such profits to perform more research and development. However, unless the end user derives benefit from what we produce, the technology will fail.
This leads to the patenting side, which also is relevant. I will hand over to Mr. Colin Merritt for that question.
Mr. Colin Merritt
I am grateful for the invitation to attend with my colleague, Mr. Patrick O'Reilly. Obviously, the question of patents is highly sensitive and important. Whenever one is involved with a technology that is immediately capable of being copied, be it software for computers, music or the written word, clearly one must have some system. Royalty systems for seed varieties have been in existence for many years and for biotechnology traits, one has the option to patent. As Deputy Creed correctly noted, this is similar to the position in pharmaceuticals, whereby one has the technology patented for a period, which usually is for 20 years. As that period also is eaten away by the development time, frequently by the time one launches the product commercially, only half that patent time remains. During that time, one has exclusive rights to the product's commercialisation, after which the line becomes public. The other critical point about patents is they result in the publication of the information, which allows others to use that information for research. They only thing they cannot do is exploit it commercially during the period without a licence to so do. It is a means to allow one to recover one's business investments.
Deputy Creed also commented on disputes and whether farmers pay their royalties and how they go down with farmers. As Mr. O'Reilly outlined, cases have arisen in which we have been obliged to go to court in respect of individuals who have saved and often resold seed. Out of 12 million farmers, ten a year is not very many. Even out of the tens of thousands in North America, such numbers are very small. Moreover, it is the tens of thousands of farmers who choose to buy those crops and who pay for the right and the royalties who wish to ensure that others are not getting a free ride. It is a difficult balancing act and the Deputy is correct that in the past ten years, we have learned about the right way to go about this process and have evolved the agreements with growers. In general, however, the system is the only way in which one will secure the investment to develop crops that are of great benefit to farmers.
There is one case in respect of a Canadian farmer that has been widely publicised, with whom we had a long-running court case. I believe Deputy Upton's earlier questions also referred to this issue. The farmer claimed that he was the recipient of seed that had blown onto his land and that we were suing him for that. If one reads through the conclusions of all the cases, including the higher appeal cases, this farmer was found to have seeds growing, in rows of more than 1,000 acres, of 98% purity. The court decided this could not have occurred without him knowing of its presence, or that he should have known of its presence, in the seed he sowed. His neighbours, as much as anybody else, were keen to see that there was a fair playing field and that justice was seen to be done. This is how the patent law is employed. It is a very important part of development.
That leads on to the other very understandable question that arose. When one has a development which is then very widely developed, does that create a dominance or monopoly situation? There are many other companies working in and coming to the marketplace either through which we license our own genetic technology or which have developed their own. Examples that would be very well known to the committee are DuPont/Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF. These are also large corporations but there are many hundreds of smaller companies which are working in this area.
The difficulty is that because we have such a tough and rigorous regulatory system in this area of science, it becomes expensive for the smaller companies. This is one of the problems we have almost created as a society by making the hurdles for this system so much higher than for any other form of technology. We almost create more of a problem for the small companies. We often work in partnership with many of those small companies to give them the ability to market the products and make their own businesses out of it.
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
Deputy Upton asked about funding in Ireland. It gives me no pride to state that we do not fund any research on biotechnology in Ireland. We have two sides to our business. There is the day-to-day running of the business in respect of chemicals and conventional seeds. At times, we avail of facilities from Teagasc where one wants to carry out testing on chemicals, etc. That is a required fee. We do not carry out straight funding of research on biotechnology in Ireland.
We get requests on a monthly basis for sponsorship of conferences such as the recent Nuffield conference in Kilkenny, while a biotechnology conference will take in Cork later this year. We would sponsor some of those conferences on a case by case basis but we do not engage in direct funding to any institutes.
The question about who the competitors are was probably answered by Mr. Merritt in respect of the big players. In particular, DuPont/Pioneer is very strong in this area.
What about Bayer? Is it from Germany?
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
Bayer is probably the least advanced. Although it is one of the largest companies, it was the last to get into this technology. DuPont/Pioneer was the first while Dow and BASF have followed more recently.
In respect of Deputy Creed's initial question, the reason we have such a large proportion of the biotechnology seeds business is we took a strategic decision about ten years ahead of other companies which were in the standard pesticide industry to look at biotechnology per se. We were the first company to decide to stop chemical synthesis, even though we were doing a considerable amount of work in that area at the time and put much of the effort into biotechnology.
There has been a gap because of what we decided to do many years to do. The first biotechnology crops that came to market came through us but the other companies are catching up very quickly and there is plenty of healthy competition as we see it.
Mr. Merritt might speak about our linkages with charity organisations in other countries such as Oxfam and Concern.
Deputy Creed has a supplementary question.
Declining biodiversity is a trend that probably predates GM technology and is not exclusively the fault of Monsanto. The loss of traditional seed types in favour of the more advanced higher yield, drought resistant technologies offered by Monsanto is reducing the biodiversity that was available. This is a larger issue than just GM technology but does the company have any comment to make on that? Does it carry out any investments in trying to counter that global development which, I hasten to say, is not exclusively a problem for Monsanto and probably predates GM technology?
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
We would have many comments on that. First, we strongly disagree that biodiversity is reduced in respect of biotechnology, rather we believe it has increased. Even if one looks at conventional farming, one can see that there may have been a variety of wheat in the 1970s that would last for ten or 15 years. Now with conventional cereal production, varieties only last three or four years. This is not because there is less biodiversity or choice but because there is far more. Monoculture and the growing of many crops year on year with the same variety is nothing like the extent it was in the past.
I know that this can be a contentious issue. If one is bringing genes into varieties that otherwise were not there before, one is helping from a biodiversity standpoint. We would say that the use of biotechnology helps to increase rather than reduce biodiversity. The significant factor in all of this is that by increasing yield and getting more from less, one is preventing a considerable amount of wildlife habitat and land that is not in production from having to go into production. One has two options given the higher need for food. One can grow on more land or get more from existing land. Biodiversity is far more likely to be affected by extensification than by intensification. Mr. Merritt might wish to add to this point.
Mr. Colin Merritt
I will build a little on that. The Roundup Ready crop now represents over 90% of the US crop. This does not mean that it is all one variety. There are something like 3,000 varieties of soya bean. It becomes a bit like an optional extra on one's car. It is a gene that is added to the gene pool. The fundamental part of all breeding programmes is a broad diversity of source parental material. We contribute to that globally through running breeding programmes around the world from which we can then share. We contribute to gene banks of those seed varieties because it is very important to preserve and retain that genetic resource for future use so that when we introduce new concepts like drought tolerance and so forth, they will add to all the diversity of seeds that are there. They are an enhancement.
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
There is also the question of our linkage to the technology in developing countries and partnerships between the public and private sectors.
Mr. Colin Merritt
A very good case is the example quoted by Mr. O'Reilly of drought tolerant maize. Clearly, one of the situations that caused some controversy early on was the somewhat sterile debate about whether GM technology will feed the world. Very often, it has been stated that companies like ours said that it would. I do not think we have ever said that it is the answer to feeding the world but it is a contribution that must be considered. Therefore, rather than being at odds with organisations that are helping in food aid, we are contributing to that. In a very important programme in Africa, something like ten times the amount of food was produced through a given amount of money put into providing high yielding hybrid seed than would be produced by the equivalent in food aid, which does not help local farmers and sustainability.
That is why we get involved where we can in the kind of programmes in which we are now involved with funding from the Gates and Buffett foundations to the tune of just under $50 million to develop this drought-resistant trait for maize in Africa. This is very important and, according to African and other international research partnerships, could result in 20% to 35% yield enhancements in those areas seriously affected by drought. Our role is to donate the royalty-free technology within that programme because we have the funding coming from our commercial operations in similar areas in places like North America.
Is Mr. O'Reilly finished?
Mr. Patrick O’Reilly
In respect of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's question, we believe there must be a future for GM potatoes. BASF has carried out a considerable amount of work in this area. It has developed blight resistant varieties that can significantly reduce the amount of pesticide required. While it is unfortunate that they are not being tested in Ireland, they are being tested elsewhere and will be put on the market. This example relates to potatoes, but there are additional uses in industry. For example, as regards paper, use is made of starch production, a non-food usage. In terms of GM technology, many companies are considering the use of potatoes.
What percentage of the world's soya beans are GM-free?
Mr. Colin Merritt
Since approximately 64% of the world's soya beans are GM, the remaining 36% are, by logical deduction, non-GM. It is important to note that of America, Brazil and Argentina, the three major exporters, Brazil is the only one with a substantial amount of non-GM soya beans. Whereas its percentage is approximately 50%, the others have amounts in the high 90% range. If we continue with a zero tolerance policy in respect of new generations, meaning that no GM foods can be imported into Europe, a problem will be created. If one is a trader on the Atlantic coast of South America, one has a choice. One can take the risk of having one's goods impounded in Europe or one can turn left at the Panama Canal and head towards a hungry market. In China alone, soya consumption has increased from 13 million tonnes to 30 million tonnes in the past five years.
On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Merritt for their presentation and answers. I thank members for keeping within the timeframe set for the meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 July 2008.