I welcome Deputy O'Dowd. This is his first meeting and we look forward to his contributions in the future.
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals.
Thank you.
I welcome the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the representatives from the EPA.
On the issue of GM oilseed rape products, is the committee inviting anyone in from Friends of the Earth or Genetic Concern?
We have already asked the convenors to make a proposal as to who they wish to invite.
Is that still outstanding?
It is still outstanding. We expect to hear from those people at our next meeting, which is in two weeks time.
The joint committee will now consider COM (2004) 572, which relates to genetically modified oilseed rape product. Today's meeting represents the joint committee's first examination of the proposal. Officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are accompanied by a representative of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Environmental Protection Agency. The format of today's meeting will involve a brief presentation by the officials followed by a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome Mr. Tom O'Mahony of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Mr. Tom O’Mahony
I will begin by introducing the other members of the team and by thanking the joint committee for inviting us to speak to it. Mr. John Downey is from the Department of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Ronnie Devlin is from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dr. Tom McLoughlin is from the Environmental Protection Agency and Ms Áine Griffin is from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
It is only six weeks since we were here and had a good discussion about approval by the European Commission of a variety of genetically modified maize and the process from which that approval emerged. On that occasion, I gave a detailed explanation of the approval process. With the committee's agreement, I do not intend to repeat that explanation today. To be helpful to members who may not have been here on that occasion I have arranged for the circulation of a short aide memoire of what I said explaining how the approval process works.
COM (2004) 572 is a proposal by the Commission to the Council to approve a variety of genetically modified oilseed rape, GT73. The proposal covers the import of GT73 for animal feed and industrial processing. It does not propose cultivation. Use of GT73 for food purposes is not at issue either. However, the use of refined oil from GT73 for food use has been approved throughout the European Union since 1997 under the Novel Food Regulation.
The original notification in this case was made to the Dutch competent authority. The Dutch authority, following its assessment, indicated that it was satisfied that the importation of the product for the uses specified and under the conditions required by Directive 2001/18/EC would not adversely impact on the environment or human health. In accordance with the requirements of the directive, it was then open to the competent authorities of all member states and the Commission to offer views on, and to raise and maintain objections to, the Dutch proposal to approve the product.
During this process of EU-wide consideration which concluded in the spring of 2003, the EPA, as the Irish competent authority for the purposes of the directive, indicated that it had no objection to the Dutch view. The EPA arrived at its conclusion following consultation with other relevant bodies. If members wish to probe aspects of that process, Dr. McLoughlin will be able to go through it. The relevant bodies were the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health and Children, Teagasc, and the GMO and novel foods sub-committee under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's scientific committee.
However, the competent authorities of some other member states maintained objections to the Dutch proposal. Among the issues raised were the necessity to institute a traceability and labelling regime for GMOs, although this was in place by the time the matter came before the regulatory committee; queries in relation to the animal feed studies referred to in the notification; allergenicity; and the possible consequences of the establishment of feral colonies of oilseed rape and consequent gene transfer in the event of accidental spillage of viable seed. As unanimity among competent authorities on the notification was not achieved, responsibility for a decision on the notification fell to the regulatory committee.
In preparation for the meeting of the regulatory committee, the European Commission referred the papers, including the maintained objections, to the European Food Safety Agency for an opinion on the scientific objections raised by the member states. The European Food Safety Agency review concluded that "GT73 oilseed rape is as safe as conventional oilseed rape and therefore the placing on the market of GT73 oilseed rape for processing and feed use is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health or, in the context of its proposed use, on the environment".
The outcome of the vote at the regulatory committee was, as is indicated in the information note circulated to members, inconclusive, with 43 votes caste in favour, 57 against and 24 abstentions. For a decision under the qualified majority voting rule then operating, 88 votes were required. As members will also see in the information note, Ireland registered an abstention, and I would like to turn to the rationale that underlay that position. Ireland did not object to the product itself.
The Department carefully reviewed the papers associated with the meeting and, in particular, the view of the EPA as the Irish competent authority. We reviewed the objections maintained by the competent authorities of other member states, the EFSA opinion and the draft decision that was to be put to the meeting. The key concern for the member states maintaining an objection was the possibility of accidental loss of live oilseed rape seed during transportation, the establishment of feral colonies thereafter and the possibility of gene transfer.
This concern does not, however, arise to any great extent in Ireland, given that imported oilseed rape for feed use here, either from inside or outside the Community, is processed before arrival, leaving only a very minor possibility of unprocessed seed surviving the process, remaining viable, escaping and then establishing itself. This view was confirmed with the Department of Agriculture and Food independently of the EPA's consideration of the product. On that basis alone, it was felt that the Irish vote at the regulatory committee on 16 June might be cast in favour of the product.
On the other hand, the question arose as to whether the Irish position at the regulatory committee should seek to take fuller account of the concerns of other member states who, through their maintained objections, sought strengthened monitoring arrangements, given the import to their territories of unprocessed oilseed rape. It was also felt prudent to consider the issue in light of the possibility of the direct import of unprocessed GT73 oilseed rape into Ireland at some future date. In this regard, it was considered that putting enhanced monitoring procedures in place would not place an overwhelming burden on the notifier. Essentially, what might be required could be general surveillance of the areas of movement of the GT73 oilseed rape and appropriate testing to determine whether GT73 was, in fact, establishing feral colonies.
If such colonies were found to be establishing themselves, this would primarily point to the need for improvement of the handling and transportation methodologies for the product. As a further safeguard, strengthened monitoring procedures could also include appropriate emergency plans to deal with any feral colonies that might establish themselves and to eliminate any associated possibility of gene transfer and herbicide resistance to other brassicae.
The outcome of this consideration was that Ireland's representative at the meeting was mandated to vote in favour of the proposal, provided that stringent conditions were attached to ensure enhanced monitoring of accidental spillage. In the absence of such conditions, an abstention should be registered.
During the course of the meeting and before the vote was taken, the regulatory committee discussed the possibility of strengthening these monitoring arrangements as they might apply in the case of accidental spillage. Arising from this discussion an additional requirement was inserted into the proposed decision:
The consent holder shall report significant accidental spillage of viable GT73 grains to the competent authorities of the member states where spillage occurred. If required by the competent authorities of the member states, the consent holder shall monitor for the establishment of feral populations of GT73 oilseed rape in the vicinity of the accidental spillage.
However, notwithstanding the insertion of that additional requirement it became clear over the course of the meeting from the discussion that was taking place before the vote, that there was no prospect whatsoever that a qualified majority would be achieved at the meeting. Accordingly, Ireland abstained in the vote to enable further consideration of the stringency of the proposal before the matter coming before the Council.
Because no qualified majority was achieved, the work that had been done at the regulatory committee in trying to introduce a more rigorous system of monitoring had no legal standing. In the absence of a qualified majority it was open to the Commission in bringing the current proposal to the Council either to take the regulatory committee's recommendation on board or to go back to its original proposal for a decision. The proposal for a decision which is contained in the paper being considered by the committee does not include the strengthened provision as had been proposed by the regulatory committee.
The information note for the committee states that the proposal was expected to come before the Environment Council of Ministers which met on 14 October 2004. The proposal was withdrawn from the agenda. My understanding is that this was because there was not sufficient time to translate the document into all the official languages required for draft decisions. I understand the Commission's intention is that the proposal will come before the Environment Council of Ministers at its next meeting on 20 December 2004. The position that Ireland will take at the council in respect of this proposal will be determined by the Minister nearer the time of the meeting. In determining that position, the Minister will be aware of everything I have outlined to the committee and will also be aware of any views that the committee may wish to offer.
We will do our best to address any questions from members of the committee. As on similar occasions we propose to answer on our area of expertise, depending on the questions.
Who has responsibility for monitoring at the sowing stage of these crops? The delegation spoke about transportation and the reporting system in place to deal with spillage of genetically modified GT73. I regard the biggest problem with GM foods being where they enter into the traditional oilseed rape crops or maize crops. A farmer sowing a crop may not clean out the machine completely. He may store bags in a storeroom and if he is in a hurry, pick up the wrong bag and put it into the drill. That is where the real problems arise over time. Cross-fertilisation or cross-pollination of genetically modified crops with traditional crops could occur, as opposed to spillage during transportation.
Mr. O’Mahony
Mr. John Downey from the Department of Agriculture and Food will respond to that question. The key issue is whether the products are being imported for cultivation.
The products could be imported into the country but they are being cultivated elsewhere. They will have to be grown somewhere. What conditions are laid down at the source, as opposed to in this country? That is where the big problems will be. If they decide to sow the grain or the genetically modified oilseed rape in Holland there could be cross-contamination at source during sowing.
Mr. John Downey
This comes under the area of rules on the co-existence of GM crops with non-GM crops. The Commission has asked each of the member states to draw up guidelines for the effective co-existence of GM crops with non-GM crops, to avoid the scenarios to which the Deputy refers. The Department of Agriculture and Food is the lead Department in that area with representatives from the other areas and is in the process of drawing up these guidelines. All member states are due to have guidelines completed by July 2005. Germany and Denmark have already submitted their proposals for co-existence and the Netherlands will submit its proposals this week. The Department hopes to have a document with the Minister by the end of the year. It will examine isolation distances in respect of each of the relevant crops in Ireland and other member states will take similar measures. The transportation, storage and harvesting conditions will be examined to ensure there is no cross-contamination between GM crops and non-GM crops.
Will there be a deterrent such as a fine?
Mr. Downey
The Department is examining a number of options and one of the options to be decided by the Minister will be either in the form of guidelines, formal agreements or legislative backing such as a licensing system with conditions. Conditions and licensing systems will make provision for penalties for breaches. The Department is currently putting forward recommendations.
Mr. O’Mahony
It must be stressed that in respect of this specific proposal and this specific product, it is not cultivated anywhere in Europe. The proposal is only to allow the import of the final product for feed use and industrial use, not for cultivation.
Therein lies the problem. If it is in a country outside the EU, how can it be guaranteed that the oilseed rapes being imported which are not genetically modified are not slightly contaminated where seeds could have been mixed up at sowing time, at the start of cultivation? It cannot be guaranteed.
Mr. Downey
If it is coming in for feed and food, those situations are covered under the GM food and feed labelling provisions. Any oilseed rape coming into the country with a GM content greater than 0.9% must be labelled as GM. Each member state has its own sampling regime as does Ireland. We take samples of feed coming in, particularly as this is the first year and where there is an anticipation of a probability it could be GM and it is not labelled as GM. If it is not labelled accordingly as being greater than a GM content of 0.9%, that is a breach. The EU guidelines are quite strict and effective for all member states. We are not sure what systems are in place in countries such as the United States, Canada and Brazil. The control on imports into the EU would depend on GM labelling, sampling and testing.
I thank the representatives of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and the Environmental Protection Agency. I am very interested in this topic. I have a particular interest in organic growing. I have visited a number of farmers' markets, most recently in Letterkenny. More are opening around the country. Organic growers tell me that the concept of co-existence may be discussed in a fairly calm and clinical manner by officials who are not relying on farming for a living. In reality it is a little like talking about co-existence between a lion and a lamb; so long as the lion does not attack the lamb, everything will be fine. It is nonetheless a fairly tenuous and volatile situation. It has been explained by Mr. O'Mahony very clearly that it is not intended for growing in this country. However, the language used regarding safeguards, which suggested it would not become a feral colony, is couched in terms of enhanced monitoring procedures. This is not absolutist and suggests improved, top of the range monitoring procedures. I do not believe this gives an absolute guarantee. It refers to "a very minor possibility of unprocessed seed surviving the process, remaining viable, escaping and then establishing itself".
The courts in Canada have given no great comfort the owners of land on which a feral colony might become established. While it seems illogical to me, the court found in favour of Monsanto. Although the owner of the land had no part to play and indeed felt quite put upon and even victimised by having unwanted GM crops growing on his land, Monsanto was found to be the injured party and could claim for its seed growing on the land of somebody who had not paid for that seed. It does not give me any great comfort to see these conditional terms, such as "minor possibility" and "enhanced monitoring".
Has this matter been thought through and is it possible to offer guarantees to conventional as well as organic growers? A conventional grower does not want to turn into a GM farmer without giving the matter considerable thought. Given that we are an island and the marketing potential for non-GM food is much greater than that of GM food in world terms, this country would be better off not growing GM. For many reasons, I ask the officials to take on board my concerns. I do not know if they can offer any absolute guarantees, as opposed to the guarantees to which they have referred which are fairly conditional.
Mr. Ronnie Devlin
It might be of help to explain the sort of processing through which this product goes. Oilseed rape is generally grown for oil purposes. I have oilseed rape in the press at home. Essentially the grain is separated and put through crushers. Every grain is allegedly crushed and the oil is removed. What is imported into Ireland at present and proposed to be imported into Ireland in GT73 form is the crushed pulp of the seeds. When we refer to a very minor possibility of seeds escaping this process, while nobody can give a complete guarantee that 100% of every piece of seed is rendered unviable by the crushing process, the Deputy would have to accept there is a very minor possibility of a seed coming out of this process, surviving transportation and jumping out to establish a feral colony.
We are talking about a product that used to be seeds.
Mr. Devlin
Yes, we are talking essentially about seed pulp.
The important point is that the seeds must be sown at some stage to grow the crop. Genetically modified seeds are planted, harvested and go through the process of rendering to remove the oil. Equally, at sowing time a crop may be grown in an adjacent farm using conventional seeds. It is possible that genetically modified seeds could end up in the conventional oilseed rape system which might not go for rendering but may be used as seed. While a figure of 0.01% was referred to, over a period, it is possible that the percentage of genetically modified seed could increase in the conventional crop in the country of origin. This is the concern.
I agree entirely with Deputies Kelleher and Sargent. We have covered the technical ground ad nauseam and I do not believe we will win the officials over any more than they are likely to win us over. Do the officials have a view on how a future policy of organic farming incorporating a green image could be implemented if we cross the threshold of allowing this oilseed rape product? Once we cross this threshold we effectively become a GM country and we can never revert to our current clear image. Do the officials accept this? If not, how do they suggest we can avoid it?
Mr. Devlin
I wish to clarify this point. Nobody is seeking to grow in the EU the product we are discussing today. All that is sought is permission to allow this extracted material to come into the EU and be used as feed or for industrial use. If this product is to come in, it must be grown outside the 25 EU countries. There is no question of this being grown in the EU. A number of varieties have permission to be cultivated in the EU, mainly the maize varieties that went on the list, and these are generally cultivated in places like Spain. This is the only cultivation taking place in the EU at the moment. Anything else that needs to be cultivated must also come through this process.
Regarding this process as being some sort of defining issue is not relevant. A number of products were approved by the EU prior to the moratorium on food and feed products. This is another one of those. Any cultivation of this product will not happen within the 25 EU states. It must happen in Canada, the United States or somewhere similar. When it comes for cultivation, that is another issue and that is where co-existence etc. will come into play. When we draw up the co-existence guidelines, it is not a statement of being pro or anti-GM. The purpose is to have a series of rules and regulations in place, as we are obliged to do under EU legislation, whereby if someone in Ireland wants to cultivate a GM crop in Ireland, we have a control mechanism in place.
Mr. O’Mahony
Dr. McLoughlin will add to that.
Dr. Tom McLoughlin
This product has been scrutinised by member states' competent authorities, including the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland. When we received this dossier, we sought advice from different Departments, Teagasc and the scientific committee under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which consists of 17 different experts. They looked at the safety of this product. The European Food Safety Authority GMO panel also basically gave this the green light. They have all assessed the risk from importing this product into the European Union not for cultivation purposes.
It contains two genes taken from soil bacteria that make it tolerant to a herbicide. Basically the proteins those plants make are already in the plants, albeit at lower levels. Therefore, it is not a new protein per se. It is fair to say that it has been approved for use. Considering a number of other oilseed rape cultivars have been modified genetically, not by using GMO technology but by conventional plant breeding that confers a herbicide tolerant trait on a number of varieties — those that were developed in Canada — it could be argued that they are genetically modified but they are not termed as GM. They do not have to be approved for use at all. If they were to come into the European Union and specifically into this jurisdiction, it is possible the herbicide tolerant trait would be exactly the same as the one about which we are talking today. It is not regulated. As someone who has worked in research and development in this area as a scientist for more than 20 years and with the EPA for the past ten years as a regulator, I believe the risks are low. I have previously said there is no such thing as zero risk.
I wish to discuss the Monsanto field trials in Ireland. There is no doubt many people are concerned about this technology. According to EU law, we have to use a science based risk assessment. Field trials were conducted in Ireland involving genetically modified herbicide tolerant sugar beet. They were planted and harvested in the first year. They were then ploughed under — they were not allowed to be fed. The Environmental Protection Agency monitored the fields for up to five years in one or two locations. The genetically modified seed which was planted in the first year did not survive into subsequent years. It has been reported in Canada that there is a possibility of the oilseed rape gene — it is different from the sugar beet gene; there are many related wheat species — hopping into related wheat species if it is cultivated in this jurisdiction. The gene in question will not be cultivated in this jurisdiction if it is approved for use in Europe.
Most of the plant species found in this country were introduced into Ireland. The rhododendron, which is a problem in counties Mayo and Kerry, is an example of that but it is not modified per se. I do not believe the risk of genetically modified crops has to be evaluated in a scientific manner. I believe the risks are low. Competent authorities such as the EPA will have to be vigilant because they will have to examine each individual case.
Rhododendron does not have a patent for which one has to pay if it starts to grow on one's land.
Dr. McLoughlin
That is right. It is a fair comment. We have to examine all possibilities.
A member of the committee asked a pertinent question about organic status. Scientists at Teagasc in Oak Park are working on the possibility of conferring tolerance to make our potatoes tolerant of potato blight. If such a crop were developed in Ireland, it could be good for the economy, the environment and human health. Farmers would not have to spray fungicides to kill off potato blight. It could be argued that we have to be careful. Such a crop might be good for Irish agriculture, even though it would be genetically modified. It could also be argued that genetic modification, a form of biotechnology which has been around for the past 30 years, has a very safe history of use. Conventional breeding, on the other hand, has been ongoing for thousands of years. As I said to the committee previously, if the humble potato were to be placed on the EU market under Directive 2001/18/EC, it probably would not be approved because some potatoes produce toxins and poisonous compounds.
The legislation and the evaluation are very stringent. The EPA seeks and receives the best scientific advice. The European Food Safety Authority consists of independent scientists. Many people fear the genetic modification of crops, but I believe the risks are low. I repeat that we must be vigilant at all times. The matter has to be considered on a case-by-case, crop-by-crop basis.
The simple question has not been answered. I thought I led into it with a reasonably short explanation. If this product is introduced by way of feed or in any other way, Ireland's ability to maintain its green image will disappear. I asked if the Department agrees with that, but Mr. O'Mahony did not answer.
Mr. O’Mahony
I thought Mr. Downey had pointed out that a number of products which are used for feed are genetically modified. If Deputy Morgan's assertion about Ireland's image is correct, the boat has already sailed.
Can we get a list of the products?
Mr. O’Mahony
Yes, we will make such a list available.
I welcome the representatives of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and the Environmental Protection Agency to this meeting. This issue will be decided at the meeting of the Environment Council on 20 December next.
Mr. O’Mahony
It might not be decided then. It will go back to the Commission if there is no qualified majority.
I note that the Irish position on the issue will be determined by the Minister closer to the date of the meeting. I welcome the new policy of taking into account the views of this committee because a decision had already been taken the last time we discussed these issues. That the committee is being given the opportunity to make an input before the decision is made is to be welcomed. Can I ask about the two previous occasions on which an Irish position was determined at the regulatory committee? There are two references to it in Mr. O'Mahony's document. The reference to it on page 4 of the document appears to relate to the last meeting of the regulatory committee. It states:
The outcome of this consideration was that Ireland's representative at the meeting was mandated to vote in favour of the proposal, provided that stringent conditions were attached to ensure enhanced monitoring of accidental spillage.
Who gives the mandate? Does it emanate from the administrative apparatus of the Department, or is it given by the Minister or a Minister of State? Was there ministerial involvement in the giving of the mandate in question? Page 3 of the document refers to a feeling that "the Irish vote at the regulatory committee on 16 June might be cast in favour of the product". Who had that feeling? Was the representative on the regulatory committee? How was the decision made?
My final question relates to the mandate given for the last meeting. Mr. O'Mahony has said "Ireland's representative at the meeting was mandated to vote in favour of the proposal, provided that stringent conditions were attached to ensure enhanced monitoring of accidental spillage". What would be the consequences of accidental spillage? What are the concerns in that regard? Mr. Devlin said earlier that it is like orange juice with juicy bits, but no seed because it has all been crushed. If there are no dangers relating to seed, what dangers would be associated with spillage? What would be the consequences of a spillage?
Mr. O’Mahony
As Mr. Devlin was Ireland's representative at the meeting, I will ask him to go through the process that led to the approval of the mandate. I apologise if we have caused confusion by the way in which we have set the thing out. Pages 3 and 4 of the document the Department has presented to the committee relate to the lead-up to the meeting of 16 June.
Right.
Mr. Devlin
As Mr. O'Mahony has said, the document essentially explains where the Department came from and how the Minister reached his decision to mandate me to vote in favour of the proposal, as long as stringent conditions were attached. The possibility of any live seed escaping in Ireland is minuscule. There is no problem as long as seed does not escape. Large consignments of unprocessed oilseed rape will come to Europe at ports like Rotterdam. The oilseed rape seed is extremely small and light. It is difficult to handle it without any spillage taking place. If there is a spillage of oilseed rape, which is a hardy and vigorous plant, it can grow on the side of a road. It is possible that a number of related species of oilseed rape which are native to Europe may experience gene flow. As Dr. McLoughlin said earlier, the gene may pop through to other species to confer herbicide resistance on them.
In an Irish context, the chance of a negative effect from approving GT73 is virtually zero. The European context is slightly different as the unprocessed seed is used and spillage could occur.
While I am not a member, I have a few short questions to ask with the leave of the committee. I thank Mr. O'Mahony and his colleagues. I am a member of the sub-committee on EU scrutiny which dealt earlier with another food, BT11. Is Mr. O'Mahony aware that the Joint Committee on Health and Children refused to sanction BT11 on 13 May 2004?
Mr. O’Mahony
Yes.
I hope that will be conveyed to the Minister to inform him in determining his attitude if this matter comes up. When BT11 was being administered, it came to a different regulatory committee, namely, the Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. It then went to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. GT73 went to an environmental regulatory committee and has now come to the Environment Council. There are two different streams to address two different products. Mr. O'Mahony would make the point that GT73 does not involve a food issue, which is the message I picked up at the meeting on EU scrutiny. I disagree. As I understand it, part of GT73 will be used as a feed for animals. Accordingly, it will enter the human food chain. If that is correct, there should be a greater degree of co-ordination between Mr. O'Mahony's Department and the Department of Health and Children. Among the issues this committee must consider going forward is how to bring all of these items together to enable us to consider them holistically.
Mr. O'Mahony will also be aware that many large countries voted against BT11, which was passed only because of the Commission. I would appreciate the receipt of a list of genetically modified foods circulating in Ireland prior to the moratorium. Mr. O'Mahony said this matter had come before the scientific committee of the Food Safety Authority. Did the committee advise formally that the product was free from any defect or problem? If so, can we be given copies of the advice document?
I would like to hear Mr. O'Mahony's opinion of my belief that we should consider examining all of these products through one Government process. Whether a product is used directly or as animal feed, it enters the human food chain. While I cannot speak for all of my colleagues, the overwhelming view of Oireachtas Members is that the Irish people do not want genetically modified food and are entitled to be listened to. Among the majority of the parliamentary colleagues to whom I have spoken there is a negative feeling toward genetically modified food. While it is legitimate for the scientists to describe this as a politician's backward opinion, it is for the people to decide the matter. I say that with respect to Mr. O'Mahony and hope the strength of feeling will be taken into account when he proffers his advice.
Mr. O’Mahony
After I have made a couple of general points, I will ask Dr. McLoughlin to speak. This issue involves processes, the area in which he is heavily involved.
Deputy Gilmore's earlier question about who provides the mandate is very relevant. As officials and scientists, we are not making this up on the hoof but are implementing stated and published Government policy which dates back a number of years. As Mr. Devlin explained in answer to Deputy Gilmore about the mandate, it is for the Minister to adopt a position on each decision which comes before the Council or regulatory committee. The Minister makes his or her call in the context of the specific details of a particular case and overall Government policy set out a number of years ago.
Is Mr. O'Mahony aware that decisions at regulatory level are not subject to Dáil scrutiny? There is no requirement under the legislation for regulatory decisions to come before us.
Mr. O’Mahony
I am aware of that. It was one of the main subjects of the conversation on the last occasion I attended the committee. If a matter falls back under comitology rules for decision by the Commission or is judged to be out of the political loop, it will not be subject to Oireachtas scrutiny.
Most of my colleagues would prefer to see Ireland abstain or vote negatively at the regulatory committee level to ensure the matter goes to Council and, subsequently, the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas could at least have a debate on the foods on an item-by-item basis.
What is the advantage of the product over existing oilseed rape? What is so good about it?
Mr. Devlin
From the growers' point of view, it is herbicide resistant. One can plant the seed and as it is Round-Up ready, use Round-Up herbicide on it to kill everything in the ground other than the oilseed rape. This gives a pure crop. The product is modified purely for agronomic trades rather than the consumer. Frankly, it is of no benefit to the consumer as it is an agricultural product.
The product is not grown in any member state currently.
Mr. Devlin
It is not approved for cultivation in the EU. To skirt the point a little, approximately 125,000 tonnes of oilseed rape have been imported to Ireland to date in 2004. This information might be useful for the committee. Of that, 106,000 tonnes were imported directly from EU member states and it is not genetically modified. The remaining 18,500 tonnes came from Canada which is a heavy user of genetically modified products.
As this is the first time I have been at this committee, I am trying to understand the issues involved. Is the proposal that the product will be imported from Canada only in its processed form which has a negligible risk of seed remaining and from the EU in its unprocessed form? Is the intention to grow from the EU imports?
Mr. Devlin
No. The Community as a block imports oilseed rape of which there is a deficit. It is imported in general through Rotterdam and processed in mills in the Netherlands or other member states.
Is it imported unprocessed to permit the adding of value in member states.
Mr. Devlin
Yes.
Is it the Irish position that currently there are no circumstances in which any other approach can be adopted?
Mr. O’Mahony
Is that simply because there are no processors here?
That is the only reason.
Mr. O’Mahony
It is not an aspect of the proposal — the reality is there are no processors here.
If there were processors, would the Department have a different position?
Mr. O’Mahony
As we have said, the position could change if that were the case. This was one of the reasons we decided to adopt this more prudent approach.
If the Government agrees to the proposal, the implication is that the product will enter the country in unprocessed form and will be processed here.
Mr. O’Mahony
That would depend on whether it would be economically viable to do so and there was a manufacturing base for it.
Mr. O'Mahony considered it prudent to refer to the matter in his note in that context.
Mr. O’Mahony
Yes, I did so to cover that eventuality.
There is, therefore, no value added to the food chain. The only reason the approval is being sought for the product is that it is a better crop for the producer in the country of origin. We obtain no value from it. Is that correct?
Mr. Devlin
That is essentially the case.
Mr. Downey
The reason we are dealing with this issue is that the promoter of the product is seeking approval to market it in the European Union. Under EU legislation we cannot impose a barrier on trade without having legitimate scientific reasons to do so. The pressure is coming from the promoter.
As Mr. Devlin stated, 120,000 tonnes of oilseed rape are imported each year for feed. Of this, 20,000 tonnes are imported from outside the European Union. It is unlikely that even if the product is approved for import to the Community for feed, it will substantially replace existing sources because oilseed rape is one of the areas in which the European Union is reasonably self-sufficient.
It is unlikely to replace existing sources.
Mr. Downey
Yes, judging from the current position, there is no immediate gap for the product to fill.
I thank the officials for their presentation. Mr. O'Mahony stated that if a qualified majority is not reached on 20 December, the matter will be referred back to the Commission. What is the next step? Will he outline a timeframe?
With regard to the conditions for placing the product on the market, Article 3 stipulates that the words shall appear on the label or in a document. Are standards or guidelines in place for this procedure? Is a system in place to continually monitor the labelling of these products?
Mr. Downey
A regulation on genetically modified food and feeds sets out the requirements for feed containing GM crops and the form of wording to be used. On the feed element, it is part of our feed sampling programme to determine that the importers conform to the regulation's requirements. In other words, they must state the product in question is made using GM maize or whatever.
Would this wording be highly visible or in the small print?
Mr. Downey
It does not have any special status in terms of having a larger font size than other labelling requirements and the matter is not provided for in the legislation. There is an argument in this regard. Some people contend that other elements of feed give rise to greater safety concerns, regardless of whether a product is genetically modified. This is a reason for not allocating higher status to the GM font size. These matters all have similar status at present. Nevertheless, the product must state clearly that it contains GM products.
Mr. O’Mahony
The Senator's first question relates to an issue we teased out at the previous meeting. As regards EU law and the relevant directive and decision, when a proposal of this nature comes before the Council there are three possible outcomes. The Council can accept it by qualified majority or other means, in which case it is accepted, or oppose it with a qualified majority, in which case it is returned to the Commission which must re-examine the matter. If, however, it neither accepts nor rejects the proposal within the period laid down, the proposed implementing act must be adopted by the Commission. In other words, if the Council does not make a decision, it makes a decision by default.
We all accept Dr. McLoughlin's point that the scientific element is critical. It is important to know what we are talking about and to deal with the facts. Does he appreciate that we must also deal with more strategic, wider issues, for example, whether there is demand for the product to be marketed? Evidence shows that there is no demand for genetically modified foods. While I am aware the proposal relates to a specific product, as Deputy Mulcahy noted, it is an indirect part of the food chain — unless it is used as biofuel. The modus operandi for monitoring the product also raises questions.
Deputy O'Dowd asked what is the advantage of the product. It is that if one is a shareholder in the company producing the product, one wants to sell as much of it as possible, which is a valid commercial interest. We must bear in mind that the motivation behind this proposal has nothing to do with a desire to eliminate blight or avoid another famine but is concerned with making a product on which people will become dependent to a degree which makes it commercially successful. This motivation applies to all products and should be recognised. Although the science involved is objective and not bound by commercial considerations, the latter must be a consideration for the joint committee because identifying the agenda involved is as important to us as the scientific analysis.
The health aspect of this issue is also important. The science involved in the process has been around for 30 years or thereabouts but we must continue to monitor its health impact. We heard this morning on radio, for example, that asbestosis does not develop until 40 years after contact with asbestos. We must, therefore, maintain the cautionary principle in this regard. While I have no argument with the science, it is not the whole story. Perhaps the remit of elected representatives is wider than that of officials. They are in the hot seat but perhaps we should be in it.
Does Mr. O'Mahony have any final remarks?
Mr. O’Mahony
I hope we have given satisfactory answers to members' questions. We did not address Deputy Mulcahy's question regarding two separate streams. The key point is that while two separate processes operate in the Commission, domestically the same players are involved in every decision. I will not go through the process again because it is set out in the note. Irrespective of whether the issue is of a scientific or agricultural nature, the same players and scientists — the Food Safety Authority, the Departments of Health and Children, Agriculture and Food, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency — are involved in the process and fully co-ordinate.
We will articulate the views expressed today and include a transcript of the meeting in the submission to be made to the Minister before the Environment Council. He will have this information at his disposal before making his decision.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony and his colleagues from the Departments of Agriculture and Food, and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as well as the Environmental Protection Agency for their presentation and the comprehensive manner in which they dealt with members' questions. As I stated, this meeting marks the joint committee's first examination of this proposal. We agreed at our previous meeting to invite representatives of other bodies to meet us. Do members have suggestions in this regard?
Having discussed the matter with the other Whips and representatives, I have drawn up a list of names which I will submit to the clerk when the meeting concludes. It is agreed that representatives from these organisations will be requested to meet the committee. Is there any other business?
The committee has invited the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to address it. Is there any outcome on that yet?
We can discuss that under any other business. The clerk may have something to say about it.
I seek clarification on an e-mail I sent to the committee.
Can we deal with that under any other business?
Yes.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.40 p.m. and adjourned at 3.45 p.m. sine die.