I refer the committee to item (1) of brief 2 which was circulated last week. It is proposed to note adopted measures COM (2007) 734 and COM (2007) 784. Is that agreed?
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals: Discussion.
On a technical matter, the proposal allows member states fishing quotas in the Black Sea for 2008. I did not realise that fishing quotas applied in the Black Sea. How would fishing quotas be determined? Are the quotas determined in negotiation with neighbouring countries which are not in the European Union, for example would Russia have a fishing quota in the Black Sea?
The Department indicates that this has no implications for Ireland. I am not sure of the Russian position.
I am raising a question on the position of member states that are adjacent to non member states where there is a determination on a regulation.
The Deputy is testing me. I will seek to have the matter clarified before the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. Are COM (2007) 734 and COM (2007) 784 agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note the following proposals that need no further scrutiny: COM (2007) 95; COM (2007) 713; COM (2007) 735; COM (2007) 755; COM (2007) 776; COM (2007) 778; COM (2007) 796; COM (2007) 829; COM (2007) 870; COM (2007) 831; COM (2007) 840; COM (2007) 852; COM (2007) 859; and COM (2008) 12 - the follow-on note to the early warning note is C63/02, considered at the sub-committee meeting of 4 April 2007.
It is recommended that COM (2008) 14, COM (2008) 15 and COM (2007) 36 do not warrant further scrutiny. The follow-on note, C289/04 was considered at the sub-committee meeting of 14 December 2006. It is recommended that those proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following items require no further scrutiny and are proposed to be sent to sectoral committees for information: COM (2007) 528; COM (2007) 529; COM (2007) 530; COM (2007) 531; and COM (2007) 532. It is recommended that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny but that they be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 854 does not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no Common Foreign and Security Policy measures, Title lV measures, early warning notes or proposals proposed for further scrutiny.
The following proposal is to be forwarded to sectoral committees for observation and returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks but within six weeks at the latest: JHA 5231-08, draft Council framework decision on the enforcement of judgments in absentia. The purpose of this proposal is to modify current framework decisions which implement the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in different judicial areas so that there is consistency between member states when dealing with judgments rendered in absentia. The current diversity between member states on the rendering of these judgments complicates the work of the practitioner and hampers judicial co-operation.
The Department's note indicates that the proposal is of some significance. In initial discussions at working group level Ireland has not opposed the proposal in principle. However, the Department believes considerable further work will be required to arrive at a final draft which reflects the diverse legal systems among member states. The initial reaction of the Attorney General's office has been positive but implications for Irish law will only become apparent as negotiations proceed. Some amendments to existing legislation will be required if the proposal is adopted and some new legislative provisions may be required. It is hoped that negotiations will be concluded during the Slovenian Presidency before June 2008.
To fully to assess the absolute need for this proposal, the possible implication of the proposal for the Irish legal system and law and the adequacy of its provisions to protect fundamental human rights, it is proposed that it be scrutinised in further detail. In this regard, it is proposed to forward the proposal to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for written observations and returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2007) 782 is a proposal for a Council decision on determination of protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution under the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. A fisheries partnership agreement, FPA, was negotiated and agreed between the EU and Mauritania in July 2006. In December 2007, the Commission proposed that the protocol to the FPA not be renewed, on the basis that it is not economically viable due to under utilisation of fishing opportunities by member states. This would open the way for fresh negotiations with Mauritania, with a view to arranging a new protocol offering fishing opportunities which are better adapted to the requirements of the fleets of the member states concerned and a revised financial contribution adjusted in line with those opportunities. A majority of the member states are opposed to the termination of the protocol.
Ireland, together with most other member states, believes it is not necessary to formally end the current protocol. Ireland fought successfully for the inclusion of category 11 vessels at the request of the Irish pelagic industry. In the event, no Irish RSW vessels took up licence opportunities and the Commission has been severely critical of Ireland in this regard. However, a total of seven Irish RSW vessels have so far asked to be put forward for category 11 licences in the next licensing round under the current protocol and have advised that they are working to address the issues that have prevented them from participating in the past. A mid-sized freezer vessel, which comes within the ambit of category 9 of the existing agreement, may soon be introduced to the Irish fleet and is expected to seek to fish under the agreement. Ireland will seek to be included in this category.
In view of Ireland's position on the matter, it is proposed that the proposal warrants further scrutiny and that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.
When we write to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we should request some clarification of the decisions currently being made in terms of limiting the Irish fishing fleet, particularly in the context of this protocol that gives expansionary powers to extend the role of the Irish fleet into international waters. We should ask the committee to address that issue. The Irish fleet is being severely curtailed from fishing within our coastal area but, nevertheless, there seems to be a take-up of this proposal which would allow us enhance our fishing activity. We should ask the committee to see how that might be addressed.
We will take that on board. We have representatives here from the various Departments to discuss the scrutiny of COM (2007) 18 final/2, which is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas oil, and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road transport fuels, and amending Council directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel use by inland waterway vessels and repealing directive 93/12/EEC.
On behalf of the members of the joint committee, I welcome the representatives. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is represented by Mr. Owen Ryan and Mr. David O'Sullivan from the air quality and climate change section, and by Mr. Michael Young, an environmental inspector. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is represented by Mr. Martin Finucane and Mr. Richard Browne from the renewable and sustainable energy division.
Before we begin, I draw their attention to the fact that members of this 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 to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
We will have a five minute presentation from each of the representatives. Once the presentations are completed, a question and answer session will follow. I am sure members will have a number of questions on the various aspects of their concerns. I invite Mr. Owen Ryan to make his presentation.
Mr. Owen Ryan
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to present this proposal. To clarify, we have worked together to bring forward a single presentation.
This proposal was introduced by the European Commission in February last year and has been discussed a number of times in the interim. In summary, its objective is to improve air quality and assist in the fight against climate change by reducing net greenhouse gas emissions from road and non-road fuel use, and by enabling the increased use of bio-fuels without damage to the environment. The intention is that the directive will contribute to the implementation of community strategies on air quality, climate change and sustainable development.
I propose to outline briefly the main elements of the proposal. The first part deals with the sulphur content of fuels. Reducing the sulphur content of fuels is a priority in terms of protecting human health and the environment. Over the past 15 years or so, a series of directives has progressively introduced more robust sulphur standards for fuels, which directly benefit human health and the environment but also facilitate the introduction of new abatement technologies in motor vehicles. These technologies reduce other air pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen.
This proposal represents a further step in the process of reducing the sulphur content of fuels. First, the directive confirms that the sulphur content of road diesel will be ten parts per million from January 2009. The current maximum standard for petrol and diesel is 50 parts per million. The net result is that both will be reduced to ten parts per million from January 2009.
The proposal also provides for a significant reduction in the sulphur content of land-based, non-road fuel from 1,000 parts per million to ten parts per million from 31 December 2009. This will apply to agricultural and forestry tractors and other non-road mobile machinery such as those used on construction sites.
In addition, the sulphur content of fuel used in inland waterway vessels will be reduced in two stages from 1,000 parts per million to 300 by 31 December 2009 and from 300 parts per million to ten parts per million by 31 December 2011. There will be full convergence at the ten parts per million threshold at 31 December 2011.
It is briefly mentioned in the scrutiny note that there may be some practical difficulties for the Revenue Commissioners as a result of these changes due to the fact that the sulphur content of fuels has been used as one of a number of tests to identify tampering with fuel. As I said earlier, reducing the sulphur content of fuels is a priority on environmental and health grounds and it is expected that any incidental practical difficulties for the Revenue Commissioners arising from convergence of the limits for road and non-road fuels at the end of 2009 can be addressed.
In respect of new petrol standards to facilitate higher bio-fuel blends, existing specifications for petrol set a limit for the permissible ethanol level at 5% and also set permissible limits for vapour pressure in summer months. The primary reason for this is that in high temperatures, high vapour pressure will lead to the release of volatile organic compounds known as VOCs which are harmful to the environment and to human health. However, these limits restrict the level of bioethanol which can be blended with petrol. Using bio-fuel blends of between 5% and 10% would result in the final fuel exceeding the permitted thresholds. Therefore, the proposal, if adopted, would amend the 5% limit on ethanol and bring it up to 10% and permit higher vapour pressures when blending with bioethanol in order to provide for that change. The use of bio-fuels will be essential in achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set out in the final part of the proposal before us.
Surprisingly and for very technical reasons, vapour pressure is not an issue with blends where petrol represents the smaller volume, such as E85 fuel in which the blend is 85% ethanol and 15% petrol. While there may be some additional volatile organic compound emissions, the Commission has signalled that it will bring forward a proposal for mandatory introduction of vapour recovery from petrol pumps, the so-called stage 2 VOC recovery. Stage I would be for the delivery of the fuel to the filling station, while stage 2 is for the dispensing of the fuel to customers.
Ireland, the UK and the Scandinavian member states avail of a higher vapour pressure waiver for petrol in summer months. The reason is that on colder summer mornings, higher vapour pressure is required to ensure that petrol powered vehicles start. Under the proposal, this position would be maintained and no additional adjustment would be allowed for fuels based on an ethanol blend. What this would mean in practice is that during summer periods, lower vapour pressure petrol will have to be used by fuel suppliers when blending with high ethanol blends. This relates to blends of up to 10%.
The proposal on greenhouse gas emissions reductions from fuels is the final element and would introduce a requirement for suppliers of fuels for transport and non-road mobile machinery to reduce the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of these fuels by 1% per year over the period 2011 to 2020, amounting to a total reduction of 10% by 2020. This is the most significant element of the proposed directive from a climate change perspective because it will establish clear targets for fuel suppliers to contribute to the Community's long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals and complement a more recent proposal by the Commission to mandate car manufacturers to reduce average carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles.
Fuel suppliers are likely to address this reduction requirement from two perspectives, the first of which will focus on reducing process emissions in producing and transporting fuels and the second of which will concern the development of bio-fuel blends. The overall objective is to stimulate further development of low carbon fuels. The way this progresses will depend on the manufacturers, who have options in how they address the issue.
Ireland supports the proposal. The proposed provisions represent an important final step in switching the entire EU market to low-sulphur fuels, which will protect human health and the environment and allow for the introduction of advanced emissions abatement technologies to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, which are regulated under the national emissions ceiling directive 2001/81/EC. From a climate change perspective, the proposal is significant in seeking to ensure the fuel sector contributes to achieving the Community's long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals and parallel efforts on improving vehicle efficiency. This is an important step in stimulating further development of low carbon fuels with low life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. It is welcome from a number of perspectives, including those with a view to protecting human health and the environment, reducing gas emissions and addressing security of fuel supply.
We will be happy to answer any questions members may have.
On fuel laundering, what is the position on diesel identification? Diesels used to be identified by their colour, be it green or red. Is this being worked on and what are the proposals in this regard?
My knowledge of the boat industry is limited enough but I understand many boats have very old engines. Many of the boats come from abroad, including the United Kingdom. Will this cause difficulty, particularly for the tourism sector?
On the question of larger fleets of trucks and other vehicles, one of the major supermarkets in the United Kingdom runs its fleet on a 50:50 mix of bio-diesel and diesel. Could we consider this? We are setting a very modest target of 10%. Have the cost implications been identified? Are there incentives that could be given to companies to make them use clear and greener fuel?
Mr. Owen Ryan stated in his presentation that, in the summer months, lower vapour pressure would have to be used by fuel suppliers when blending with high ethanol blends. This seems confusing or complicated. Must we use different petrol at different times of the year depending on the temperature? Ireland may not be affected too badly in this regard given its variance in temperature?
I welcome the delegation and appreciate the very detailed work it has carried out. The document is very technical and one needs a technical mind to evaluate it. At the end of the day, will this cost the consumer more? Will the ordinary consumer who buys petrol at a filling station have to pay more as a result of this EU directive?
The cost of fuel, as Mr. Ryan knows, has started to rise again. Diesel and petrol have now reached €1.179 and they are expected to rise to €1.33 in the next few weeks with the cost of a barrel of oil going up. We must be conscious of the effect that would have on transport, particularly as we are an exporting island off another island on the edge of Europe. The effect would be far greater than that on mainland European countries.
The Vice Chairman raised the question of the Revenue Commissioners detecting diesel fuel which has been doctored by smugglers. It is questionable whether dying diesel is effective at all and it may even lead to smuggling.
I agree with Senator Leyden that the bottom line is the cost to people. Bio-fuels are generally cheaper so their use should give rise to reductions in the long run. Can we increase our use of bio-fuels without damaging the environment? Do bio-fuels cause much damage to the environment? I use bio-diesel and nobody told me it caused damage so can Mr. Ryan elaborate on that? It is an interesting point because most people using bio-fuels think they are doing the right thing.
Does the mix of fuels cause the problem? The targets we set for the mix are very low and that is because manufacturers are afraid to encourage a mix or to guarantee that doing so is safe for a vehicle. That, however, is bunkum as vehicles could easily use a 50:50 mix and could probably even take a mix including 70% bio-fuel, if the producers of the latter are to be believed. Without any adaption costs one could easily use 100% bio-fuel but the manufacturers of cars will not give guarantees and that is something we need to look at. I would like to know what is coming down the line in that regard. Can we tighten Europe's approach to making car manufacturers play their part by giving the necessary guarantees?
Why are boats and marine vehicles given longer to implement the directive? Is it because they are older vehicles? Perhaps it is because they travel further. I welcome the proposed law to provide labelling at petrol pumps and filling stations to indicate whether a product is petrol or bio-fuel.
The directive will only apply to non-road fuels and fuels used on inland waterways. Why does it not extend to the sea? Sulphur emissions are no more helpful around the island than they are on the inland waterways. Can this be rectified? I presume the reference to non-road fuels concerns tractors. What other vehicles might be included? How will the Department monitor the changeover and how will it take place? Will farmers co-operate? Do we have the production capacity for the farming community to use bio-fuels? How does this impact on standard food-producing farms? What discussions have taken place with farmers and how does the production of bio-fuels operate at present? The representatives might address that. Is fuel laundering specific to Ireland? Is Ireland the only country that has a problem with red and green diesels and subsequent potential laundering? There must be alternative ways of identifying which type of diesel is irregular.
Mr. Owen Ryan
The last point about the tampering of fuels was also the first one raised. Sulphur content was just one test applied. There are others and this is not expected to present a significant issue in terms of identifying or tampering with fuels.
I am not aware of any specific cost issue. None has been raised in the analysis done by the Commission. No significant cost increase is anticipated from this proposal.
My colleague, Mr.Michael Young, will comment on the issue relating to boats and engines in boats, as he has provided the technical input to the Department's work on the matter.
Mr. Michael Young
The proposal should not have any significant implication for boats. Sulphur is a constituent of crude oil and in a sense it is a contaminant. It does not provide any energy to the fuels that are removing it and actually makes the fuel cleaner. When sulphur is burnt in fuel sulphur dioxide is produced, which is a pollutant. Historically, sulphur levels in auto petrol have been tackled because of air pollution caused by motor vehicles. The focus has not really been on inland waterway or marine vehicles because exposure to this type of pollution does not have such a direct impact on human health. The emphasis has been on auto vehicles where targets have been addressed progressively, from 500 parts per million down to 350 parts per million, to the current figure of 50 parts per million which will decrease in 2009 to ten parts per million. The issue concerning waterway and marine vehicles is now being addressed.
Regarding Deputy Costello's comment, projections for 2020 show that because environmental legislation has effectively tackled emissions from tangible and visible land-based sources, by 2020 marine sources will be one of the predominant sources of sulphur dioxide. The Commission is developing strategies to tackle that to achieve cost-effective emission reductions from marine sources. Removing sulphur from fuel reduces air pollution and in that sense provides a cleaner fuel. There will not be any implications for older boats on inland waterways or for the tourism industry.
The reason for its being addressed on a slow timeframe is that this sector has not been tackled up to now. When environmental legislation is looked at in general its rationale is cost effective. Obviously it is desirable to act where the problem is being caused. Motor vehicle emissions are tackled where the population is exposed to by-products of the combustion of fuels. This proposal seeks to bring a uniform approach to fuels, which also makes sense from the standpoint of a refinery. Whitegate in Ireland, for example, generally produces a fuel stream of one quality. If it elects to produce a low-sulphur fuel that meets auto specifications it can also meet those of the inland waterways. As the market converts to cleaner fuels it makes sense to cover all usage. The proposal allows a longer timeline for inland waterways, reflecting the historical approach to that area. In the current negotiations, however, there are pressures from different member states to try to bring the timeline forward, to make a standard transition date in--
It probably will not happen anyway because, as Mr. Ryan says, the makers of the fuel will not--
Mr. Owen Ryan
I will address the point raised regarding shipping. Fuel for shipping is being looked at separately and in a more general sense, and is not covered by this proposal.
In response to other questions, no significant cost increase is anticipated but neither will there be reductions. I do not foresee the greater use of bio-fuels leading to a reduction in costs.
On the issue of environmental damage of bio-fuels, the purpose of the proposals and the idea of having specifications and having a policy on bio-fuels is to ensure that they do not cause environmental damage. This is a fundamental issue for consideration in this proposal and in other proposals that are on the table at EU level. It is good for people to use bio-fuels provided they are produced in a sustainable way. That is the point of the exercise. It is not a question of people doing the right or the wrong thing; it is a question of ensuring that the fuels are acceptable from an environmental and a health perspective. The mix is very low; that is an issue. While I do not have an answer here and now to why we are not looking for a more ambitious mix, it will inevitably be examined as this progresses.
In terms of production capacity for bio-fuels and whether there have been discussions with farmers, the answer is "No". In this instance the specification is to facilitate greater use of bio-fuels. The policy and requirements on the use of bio-fuels is a separate matter altogether and dealt with in a separate proposal. Irrespective of the specification or the policy, the delivery of the bio-fuel will be a matter for the manufacturer and how he or she sources it. For example, in this proposal there is a requirement to reduce the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of all fuels by 10% from 2010 - 2020. It will be for the manufacturers to decide how they will respond. We expect they will respond in two ways: the production and transportation of fuel on the one hand and using bio-fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately it is for the fuel suppliers to respond to these matters.
Vehicles such as tractors used in agriculture and forestry and the type of machinery used on major road construction sites are generally referred to as non-road mobile machinery.
I have gone through the list, have I missed anything?
Have we identified another method of identifying and distinguishing between different types of diesel if we eliminate the dye used currently?
Mr. Owen Ryan
That is not an issue. The presence of sulphur was just one criterion used for measuring or assessing fuels and identifying if there was tampering. While the convergence of the sulphur level for all fuels will eliminate that criterion, there are others. I am not aware of any proposal to change colours or anything like that.
Can Mr. Ryan comment on the amendments the parliament is proposing?
Mr. Owen Ryan
Although the proposal was tabled more than 12 months ago and there have been several discussions and debates, it has not moved very far. There must be a formal discussion with parliament at some stage but pending that I am not in a position to comment on what parliament wants. I know it has issues. There are different views on whether the level of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions sought in the proposal is adequate. These are matters for discussion. The parliament seems to have strong views on this in terms of vapour pressure and the use of metallic additives in fuels. These are still under discussion. Beyond that, I am not really in a position to comment today.
As Deputy English stated, the mix is quite low. Would this directive inhibit our policy to increase the mix at any time? The message that will go out to the manufacturers is that this is the level of mix. Are we speaking of a minimum level, and being able to introduce a higher level?
My second question relates to the distribution of this new fuel. It will be difficult to have it at the pumps. It will be so sparsely distributed that vehicles that operate on farms, for example, would have to travel a long distance for it. I presume this will be bulk supplied fuel that will be delivered and that farmers or owners of boats, for example, will pick it up at a depot rather than at pumps. Has it been thought out how it will be distributed to the end user?
Mr. Owen Ryan
The latter point is a little too far in the future to comment on.
There would be significant greenhouse gas emissions if a tractor had to drive 15 miles to get fuel at a pump.
Mr. Owen Ryan
The expectation is that will not happen and these new fuels will be available in petrol stations throughout the country in due course. I imagine that is the reasoning behind the labelling requirement to signal clearly to people the different fuels available.
There are fewer petrol stations and one must travel a long distance to get to them. It will be counterproductive if one must travel long distances to get the fuel. One would emit pollution driving there and back. That needs to be clarified.
I presume the plan is to provide this at every petrol station. Is that the logic of it? I presume this will be the norm.
Mr. Owen Ryan
Yes.
Mr. Michael Young
The sulphur specifications have come down over the years. It is the same fuel and it is a cleaner fuel in the case of the sulphur levels.
For bio-fuels, the intention is that rather than providing separate storage and tankage, it will be done by blending existing fuels. As Mr. Ryan mentioned earlier, currently there is a 5% limit on the blending of bio-fuels with petrol but this proposal will allow a 10% blend. It increases the blend of bio-fuels in regular petrol which will promote the uptake and penetration of bio-fuels. It will be done through the normal distribution procedures.
The normal distribution procedure used by tractors is not garages.
Mr. Martin Finnucane
Ireland's current bio-fuel targets, which are the 5.75% rate by 2010 and the 10% rate by 2010, will be mandatory targets under the new proposed renewable energy directive introduced on 23 January last in the energy climate change package. The reason they are introducing these on a mandatory basis at EU level is to allow a common fuel development across Europe. One of the outcomes the Commission is anxious to avoid is any danger of a proliferation of boutique-type fuels across the Union. As there is so much inter-member state driving and trade, the Commission wants to ensure there are reasonably common standards across Europe so that, for example, trucks can depart from one country and pass through several other countries without having to pinpoint precise locations where they can attract fuel for mainstream use.
This does not affect the development of higher blend bio-fuels for use in what we in Ireland would term captive fleets, for example, fleets in some local authority areas that typically would not travel long distances outside their home base that would facilitate the development of bio-fuels at much higher blends. Already in Ireland we are seeing some companies use bio-fuel blends as high as 100% in their own captive fleets. This allows dual protraction. With regard to the figure of 5% and the 10% figure for 2020, we are talking about common fuel usage available for mainstream fleets. There is nothing to stop the captive fleet going beyond that.
That sounds very logical. I know from previous experience of the introduction of unleaded petrol, there was a great debate with regard to whether it would be available at the pumps. I am sure the oil and biodiesel companies will be innovative in how they bring the product to the customer.
What is holding back movement on bio-fuels? What is the real reason? These are low targets. Targets are pretty low everywhere and I see no urgency in Europe to change the situation.
Mr. Martin Finnucane
Part of the reason relates to the current technologies available to produce bio-fuels. The so-called first generation bio-fuels would, typically, require a large quantity of land to produce relatively low percentages of overall fuel consumption. The development of second generation bio-fuels, which, basically, switched the feedstock away from the current cereal food-based crops towards the more lignocellulosic - the woody pulps - is generally reckoned to be about three to five years away from full commercialisation. The development of the second generation bio-fuels will be more efficient and effective and will enable much larger quantities of fuel to be developed from smaller portions of land. This will greatly facilitate the move towards a 10% blend by 2020.
Most farmers would have a diesel tank on their farms and that would be the normal way of supply, bulk supply. In many areas farms are isolated and farmers have some distance to travel for bio-fuels. Unless there is agreement that bio-fuels will be available at every station, the proposal could be counterproductive.
Mr. Owen Ryan
That is a fair point. I understand where Deputy Costello is coming from. We are entering an era where there will be significant change with regard to the types of fuel and vehicle we will use. This is inevitable for various reasons. As Mr. Finnucane said, there will be an adjustment period. Over time, as people buy different vehicles and have the capability to use different fuels, they will source them and manufacturers will respond.
While this specification deals with enabling a higher blend of bio-fuels in the ordinary fuel mix available throughout the country at filling stations, we should not forget that we are not just coming at it from the perspective of blending bio-fuels or trying to build up from 5% or 10%. There is another perspective. The 85% fuel is already on the market. In the fuel already available, ethanol is 85% of the fuel and only 15% is petrol as we have known it traditionally for many years.
We are coming at the issue from a variety of perspectives. Both fuel suppliers and vehicle manufacturers are being challenged through various aspects of policy to come up with new solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, to ensure that it happens in a way that is environmentally acceptable and protects human health.
I have not been involved in this area of debate previously and am not well read in this regard. A comment was made with regard to farmers switching to growing crops for bio-fuels. Is there a danger that if more farmers switch, one will have lower food production leading to greater imports which would defeat the purpose because we would then have a larger carbon footprint in trying to bring crops from other countries to Ireland? Has any analysis been carried out to ascertain what would happen if Irish farmers switched in greater numbers to the production of crops solely to produce bio-fuels, to the extent of using 20% or 30% of our land for that purpose?
Mr. Richard Browne
It is important to make a distinction between the two iterations of policy. The figure of 5.75% by 2010 has been extensively planned for in the bioenergy action plan. The second figure is 10% by 2020. We are beginning an exercise around the level of land use required not just for the production of bio-fuels but also for biomass to meet heat targets from renewable sources. The Commission has carried out a substantial amount of work on the 2020 figure and looked slightly beyond that date. Its take is that there will be a very minimal impact in terms of the effect on cereal prices and changes in land use. When I use the word "minimal", I mean possibly a 12% to 14% take of the total acreage in the European Union devoted to cereals will be used for bio-fuel crops. It is also important to point out that the move towards second generation bio-fuels will lead to an increase in the yield per hectare by as much as 40% and will also allow land not used for grain or food production to be used for growing woody crops such as acanthus, willow or even short rotation coppice, all of which will serve to reduce the loading on cereal or viable tillage land.
Mr. Owen Ryan
It will all form part of what will be the sustainability criteria that will be developed for bio-fuels. That is a key issue in terms of the direction policy on bio-fuels will take.
Green Biofuels Ireland will be opening the first green biodiesel industrial-sized plant in the coming months in New Ross, from where I come. It looks like it is beginning to be taken very seriously, a development we welcome. I thank Mr. Ryan and his colleagues from both Departments for their contributions. The discussion was very informative and will help the committee in finalising its scrutiny report on the proposal.
Sitting suspended at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 1.15 p.m.
The next item on the agenda is scrutiny of various EU legislative proposals regarding genetically modified foods: COM (2007) 336, COM (2007) 586, COM (2007) 814, COM (2007) 815, COM (2007) 736 and COM (2007) 813. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. Eamon Corcoran, principal officer in the food unit at the Department of Health and Children; Mr. Ian Keating, principal officer in the environment policy section at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Mr. Dermot Ryan, senior agricultural inspector at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Dr. Pat O'Mahony, chief specialist in biotechnology with the Food Safety Authority; Dr. Tom McLoughlin and Dr. Padraic Larkin from the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ms Kathryn Marsh from Organics Trust Limited. Before we begin, I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the 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 charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
We will hear presentations by each of the representatives. Owing to the number of Departments and organisations represented, I ask that each speaker stick to the time - five minutes - allocated. The presentations will be followed by a question and answer session with members. I call Mr. Corcoran who will make a joint presentation on behalf of the three Departments represented.
Mr. Eamon Corcoran
I thank the Vice Chairman and members of the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the subject matter of the six proposals mentioned. As members will be aware, departmental responsibilities for GM issues are shared. The Department of Health and Children is the lead Department in policy matters relating to food safety and consumer protection; the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the lead Department in policy matters relating to GM feed; and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the lead Department in matters relating to the protection of the environment in the case of GM crop cultivation. Each Department is represented.
COM (2007) 814 and COM (2007) 815 are dealt with by the Department of Health and Children. COM (2007) 336, COM (2007) 586 and COM (2007) 736 are dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, while COM (2007) 813 is dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the three Departments have been asked to co-ordinate their presentations in the interests of efficiency and coherence. It has been agreed by us that I will present on behalf of all three Departments. Accordingly, within the time available, I will present specific information on all six proposals and outline the background to the current position on voting on individual GM proposals as the issues arise.
The two proposals before the committee on which the Department of Health and Children is the lead Department, COM (2007) 814 and COM (2007) 815, relate to GM maize strains resulting from stacked events, the term used to describe the combination of individual GM traits by conventional crossing of GM plants. It should be noted that the individual events that constitute the stack are authorised individually within the European Union. Ireland abstained in the vote on these two proposals at the Agriculture Council earlier this month and they will now revert to the Commission which will most likely authorise the events.
As I mentioned, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the lead Department on COM (2007) 336, COM (2007) 586 and COM (2007) 736. COM (2007) 336 was made under EU Directive No. 18 of 2001 and asks the Council to authorise a potato product, genetically modified for the enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch, for a period of ten years. The amylopectin is for use primarily in non-food products such as paper. The authorisation sought includes cultivation and industrial production. A separate proposal under Regulation No. 1839 of 2003 was submitted for this product for food or feed use. Under the comitology procedure, the proposal was initially brought before a meeting of the regulatory committee on 4 December 2006, when no decision was reached. It was subsequently considered at Council on 16 July 2007 but it also failed to reach a decision. Under comitology rules, the decision to approve the product then reverted to the Commission which has not yet authorised the product.
COM (2007) 586 marks the third attempt by the Commission to overturn an Austrian national ban on the placing on the market of maize MON 810. On this occasion, however, it only seeks to overturn the prohibition on the importation and processing of maize MON 810 in relation to food and feed. Overturning the ban in respect of cultivation is not proposed. Ireland, in line with its position on the two previous votes, voted against the Commission proposal to revoke the Austrian national ban, indicating that on this occasion Austria should be allowed time to complete the study and present its findings for consideration at the Environmental Council. Austria failed to secure a qualified majority against the Commission proposal and the matter has reverted to the Commission for decision. No action has been taken to date but it is understood the Commission will initiate proceedings against Austria in the near future.
COM (2007) 736 is mainly a technical consolidation proposal and does not have policy or product approval implications. It concerns the consolidation of Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of GM micro-organisms and subsequent amendments thereto, with the incorporation of an amendment to the comitology procedure providing, where appropriate, for a regulatory procedure with scrutiny.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the lead Department on COM (2007) 813, a proposal for a Council decision to organise the placing on the market of food and feed produced from a GM potato, EH 92-527-1. The proposal was submitted to the standing committee in October 2007 but was defeated. Ireland abstained. It also abstained on this proposal at the agriculture Council earlier this month. The proposal will revert to the Commission which will most likely authorise the event.
That is the position on the six proposals being scrutinised. I am aware, however, that this meeting takes place in the context of a decision taken on 12 February at which the committee decided that "in view of ongoing concerns at political and public level relating to the use of GM organisms and in view of Ireland's change in position", further scrutiny of a number of proposals, four of which are being discussed today, was warranted. The change in position referred to is that until recently Ireland generally adopted a positive but precautionary approach when issues relating to GMOs were considered. Our position tended to be science-led. As members will be aware, our position on GM products is under review. Consequently, in votes of a substantive nature relating to food and feed, Ireland now generally abstains. On substantive issues relating to crop cultivation, we generally vote against. On other mainly procedural issues such as COM (2007) 586, one of the proposals being considered today, we vote on a case by case basis. This general arrangement applies to all levels of comitology.
I trust that what I have said has been of assistance to the committee. With the representatives from the other Departments, I will be pleased to assist the committee in any way I can in the question and answer session.
Dr. Pat O’Mahony
On behalf of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to speak on the issue of GM foods. The FSAI is the competent authority which implements GM food legislation in Ireland, while policy falls within the remit of the Department of Health and Children.
Each year the FSAI monitors the food supply for the presence of GM food ingredients to ensure only authorised GM ingredients are on the market and are labelled appropriately. A total of 88 out of the 436 soya, maize or rice containing foods tested between 2001 and 2007 were found to contain low levels of GM ingredients. With the exception of the unauthorised GM rice identified in products from the USA in 2006, all GM ingredients identified in FSAI surveys were authorised for use within the European Union and, therefore, considered safe. The food products in question were not labelled to identify their GM content, as the GM ingredients were present at levels below the labelling threshold, which currently stands at 0.9%.
It is important to note that not all GM ingredients can be distinguished from their non-GM counterparts. For example, oil from GM oilseed rape and sugar from GM sugar are both chemically and physically identical to those derived from their non-GM counterparts. These products are highly processed and refined, to the extent that DNA or protein from the original plant does not survive, rendering current analytical techniques useless.
In line with Regulation 1829/2003, applications to authorise a GMO for use in food and feed are generally considered at the same time. The authorisation of a GM food in the European Union begins with a safety assessment carried out by the GMO panel of the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, a risk assessment body set up under Regulation 178/2002. The GMO panel is one of a number of EFSA scientific panels and made up of 20 reputable, independent scientists drawn from across the European Union. Once an application dossier is deemed complete by the EFSA, it is made available to the competent authorities of member states, while a summary is made available to the public. The EFSA takes comments from member states into account and upon publication of the final safety opinion, the public has 30 days to submit comments to the Commission. Within three months of publication of the EFSA opinion, the Commission is required to draft a decision for consideration and vote by the standing committee for the food chain and animal health, thus moving the application from science-based risk assessors to the comitology procedure and risk managers.
The FSAI is a science-based consumer protection agency with a scientific committee which is assisted by a number of specialised sub-committees, including the GMO sub-committee. The FSAI consults the GMO sub-committee not only on matters of GM food and feed but also upon request from our colleagues in the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as part of the assessment of GMOs for deliberate release. The FSAI, like most EU member states, relies on the thorough safety assessments carried out by the EFSA. This, with the advice of the GMO sub-committee, serves as the basis for FSAI opinions on the safety of GM food which are then transmitted to the Department of Health and Children for consideration.
Although grown throughout the world for more than a decade, there is no scientifically substantiated case of harm caused to humans or animals by the consumption of food or feed derived from GM crops. Should any credible evidence be made available that an EU authorised GM ingredient can have a detrimental effect on the health of humans, animals or the environment, EU legislation allows for the summary removal of that GM ingredient by a member state pending a full investigation by the Commission.
Most GM foods currently on the EU market constitute ingredients from GM varieties of maize, soya bean, oilseed rape and cotton. A full register is publically available and maintained by the Commission. The traits generally incorporated in GM crops up to now are herbicide tolerance and pest resistance which are mainly of agronomic importance. The FSAI does not give blanket approval to GM food but assesses each application on a case by case basis as required by EU legislation. It is satisfied that GM food currently authorised for the EU market is as safe as its non-GM counterpart, although there are some concerns with the prospect of foods being used to produce commercial-scale pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals and other non-food products in the future. Notwithstanding this, the FSAI maintains a watching brief on all developments in the area of food production with a view to ensuring food safety remains a top priority.
Dr. Tom McLoughlin
Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh as an cuireadh a thug tú dúinn, mé féin agus Dr. Padraic Larkin, teacht anseo ón EPA. My presentation is long but I will go through it in five minutes.
The Environmental Protection Agency is the regulator or competent authority in Ireland for the implementation of the GMO regulations on the contained use and deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. The agency also deals with the transboundary movement of GMOs. It was nominated as the competent authority to administer the regulations in Ireland, which process commenced in January 2005. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is responsible for national policy on GMOs and the environment. In practice, this means that anyone wishing to use a GMO in a laboratory - contained use - or a field trial - deliberate release into the environment - must first obtain consent from the agency.
The past 35 years developments in the use of genetic engineering technology, or GM technology as it is sometimes called, have brought many useful applications in health care in the form of new pharmaceuticals, vaccines and new methods for diagnosing disease. This technology is also making a major impact on the investigation of crime, waste treatment, environmental clean-up and other areas. The agency as one of the regulatory authorities in Ireland - others include the FSAI for food, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for animal feed and the Irish Medicines Board for medicines - is neither for nor against the technology.
We have a register of GMO users in Ireland. As of this month, there are 277 entries in the GMO register which is available at our headquarters in Wexford. This is in accordance with GMO regulations. Some 95% of these are contained use. There are more than 40 different centres working on contained use of GMOs, for example, the Wyeth bio-pharmaceutical plant in Grange Castle is using GM technology to produce human medicines and in the Conway Institute in UCD there are approximately 25 principal investigators working on GM technology to look at diseases like cancer. There is a lot of GM work ongoing in contained use premises in Ireland.
On the other hand, there is deliberate release. There are two types of deliberate release: release for a field trial; or release for placing on the market. As of January 2008, 18 GM products have received consent under Directive 90/200/EEC that preceded Directive 2001/18/EC. There are a further seven that have been approved under Directive 2001/18/EC and ten dossiers have been transferred under the food and feed legislation, what is known as the centralised European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, procedure.
When GM crops are released into the environment they must be monitored. Directive 2001/18/EEC strengthens the previous directive, in particular, in the case of post-market monitoring plans, that is, mandatory labelling of all GMOs, and improved transparency throughout the different stages of the authorisation procedure.
Like the FSAI, the EPA assesses dossiers we receive from the Commission on a scientific basis. We have in-house expertise. We also have a GMO advisory committee, which consists of 14 members and which is set up under the regulations. Two of those representatives consist of NGOs, one of whom is represented by Ms Kathryn Marsh who is here today. We seek advice from the GMO and novel foods sub-committee under the FSAI scientific committee and we liaise with Departments and others such as Teagasc and the Irish Medicines Board. We work closely with EFSA which is the new equivalent of the FDA for Europe. It is a risk-based scientific assessment. All the dossiers or notifications are assessed on a case by case basis.
The overriding concern of the EPA in looking at GMO notifications - whether for contained use, deliberate use or placing on the market in the European Union - and in implementation of the regulations is to ensure that their use does not have any adverse effect on human health or the environment.
Ms Kathryn Marsh
I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today and I congratulate it on continuing the scrutiny despite the fact that all of these issues have already reverted to the Commission.
Organics Trust is one of the three organic certification bodies licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to certify organic produce in the Republic of Ireland. We certify for the island of Ireland and for the UK as well.
Organic farming is a system of farming depending on the relationship of the farmer with the natural environment. The organic farmer promises the consumer that organic food is being produced in a soil-based system without chemical inputs or genetically modified organisms. The credibility of organic farming is seriously undermined by the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified organisms in organic produce.
GMOs are forbidden by organic farming because, first, we work to the precautionary principle, the cornerstone of science - do no harm and do not do anything that cannot be undone. Once released into the environment GMOs cannot be recalled.
Genetic modification is not an exact science. The experimenter does not know whether the gene he or she wants to transfer is being moved. He or she cannot know what else has been added to a DNA sequence, nor does he or she know what has been damaged in that sequence. The initial theory was that gene promoters only turn on the gene to which they are attached. Experimentation has demonstrated that there is no way to predict which genes are activated.
We hear much in the context of GMs about the concept of substantial equivalent. The idea is that genetically modified foods are essentially the same as non-modified foods. Biochemical profiles of a new food are deemed to be substantially equivalent to an existing food if they fall within the range of natural variation already exhibited by existing food or crops. This does not mean they have the same characteristics, but that they are not more different than other organisms that have occurred naturally. Substantial equivalence should be the starting point of safety evaluation, rather than the end point of the assessment.
Unlike new drugs, there is no requirement for GM food to be routinely tested on animals and human beings. We do not know its effects on health. There have been no long-term studies into its impact on human or animal health. Safety testing is dependent on good study design of proper containment. Study design is almost always seriously flawed and inadequate. When the Irish EPA imposed good design and containment as a condition of live field trials of the genetically modified potato here, the company involved decided to only do trials in countries that imposed less stringent conditions. Because of EU regulations, foodstuffs approved in countries with weaker testing regimes are allowed to be grown and sold throughout Europe. This applies also in the case of the potato under consideration today.
Studies tend to obtain results that suit those funding them. Some 166 studies have been carried out on the safety of aspartame. All the independent studies found possible health problems, but all the industry studies found no problems. I am not saying that industry scientists are corrupt. My experience is that they are pretty good. However, what I am saying is that many companies do not publish results that do not suit them.
The biotechnology industry is in charge of safety within it and there is no lay scrutiny at any point in the process. Only people who are trained in the system are involved, partly because of the hard work involved in learning it and partly because the system does not allow for it. The European Food Safety Authority has no lay involvement. This should be addressed.
Two of the organisms under discussion today relate to pesticide resistance. The impact of pesticide use is that if one kills off the target pests engineered, other pests move into the space and one finishes up using a wider spectrum pesticide. Cotton is the prime example of this and pesticide use in that industry has increased over time with the use of GMOs.
With regard to the potato varieties proposed to be moved to feed use, there have been no long-term feeding studies done on these, but they have already reached Commission stage. There is also strong potential for gene flow from non-transgenic crops. The parents of the GM maize varieties have been associated with inflammatory reactions. Although they themselves are not on the markets, there is a possibility that some of these genes may come to their offspring.
We congratulate France on banning the Monsanto 810 maize and think Ireland should follow suit, particularly in view of the likely spread to Ireland of the corn borer as a result of global warming. We congratulate the Austrian Government on its unwillingness to expose its people, environment and economy to the dangers associated with the use of GMOs.
We support contained use where it is fully contained use in which the organism is destroyed and does not exist outside containment. However, it must be clear that the GMO involved does not persist beyond the contained use into the wider environment.
I thank the witnesses for their informative presentations. I will put a few questions before opening the discussion to the floor. I intend to allow three members at a time put their questions and then allow the representatives respond. The issue is quite complex.
When many people hear of GM food, they tend to be scared of the issue, unsure about it or not fully informed. I am sure there is a considerable amount of information available for research but the difficulty concerns the amount of information available to the ordinary consumer. Improvements could be achieved in this regard.
The world's population grew by approximately 75,000 per year between 1995 and 2004. Is it possible to continue to feed the population of the world through organic and normal farming methods? Given the amount of crops grown at present and the number of European countries growing them, can Ireland continue to avoid growing GM crops? Spain, Germany, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania are growing GM crops. The bio-pharmaceutical, medical diagnostics, food, feed and industrial sectors are all using some form of technology associated with genetic modification. How can we continue to remain outside the GM sector? I am not sure about our current position of abstaining from making a decision and I would prefer if we voted for or against the proposals. We will have to keep an eye on what is happening in respect of the programme for Government.
There is an EU deficit in terms of protein imports, amounting to 33 million tonnes of soya per annum. How do we make up the shortfall? As an increasing number of the world's soybean crops are genetically modified, and considering that some of these crops are in their second or third generation, can we continue to protect the EU and Irish market from the GM soybean market?
It is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to access approved GM and non-GM soya. Will this have an impact on our white meat sector? Ireland is largely dependent on imported feed materials. What is the likely impact on Irish farming of our resistance to GM foods?
The average timeframe for approving GM crops in the United States is 15 months while it tends to take between two and a half to ten years in the European Union. The latter timeframe seems excessive. Have the delegates any comments on this?
I join the Vice Chairman in welcoming the delegation. I have learned much more today than during many other briefings and am therefore thankful.
During the five-year term of the previous Government, the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny followed this matter quite closely and at one stage had a joint meeting with the Committee on the Environment and Local Government or the Committee on Health and Children. The issue was therefore very much in focus. I hope this committee can focus similarly on this important topic for the next five years.
There has been a change in the Government's position. As I understand it, the officials in Brussels, be they in the fields of agriculture or health, used to vote almost automatically in favour of proposals. Mr. Corcoran stated there has been a change and that we are now neutral or slightly negative. I hope we can adopt a completely negative position and stand shoulder to shoulder against some of the countries trying to foist their position on a very unwilling public throughout Europe. Any consumer to whom I have spoken does not want to eat GM products. I hope there is no ambiguity about this. If so, I would like the officials to identify the consumers who want to eat them. I certainly do not want to. I want to eat healthy natural food. I understand there is no such thing as a 100% natural plant because there are hybrids and so forth, but the effort to re-engineer food by inserting genes from fish or God knows what is unacceptable to the consumer. We must reiterate this as often as we can.
I do not want to elaborate on the environmental issues because I do not fully understand them but I accept that if we let the genie out of the box, we will never get it back in. In this regard, I welcome the presentation of the Environmental Protection Agency. It appears we are scrutinising all the field trials quite closely in so far as this is possible.
The Vice Chairman made some points on agriculture. If agriculture has any future, it is in producing natural healthy food. Brazil can produce as much food as all of Europe, as can the United States. Such countries will all go down the road of genetic modification. Our future lies in producing top-quality, natural food. Otherwise Ireland will simply be one more little cog in the wheel and its agricultural produce will not stand out in the crowd.
I hope we return to this topic. There is a green element to the Government and I would like to discuss this subject with the Green Party's members, including the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, who specialises in this area. I would like to know whether they will join me and other supportive members in declaring Ireland a GM-free zone.
Deputy Costello can confirm my remarks of last November to Ms Catherine Day, Secretary General of the European Commission. Members of the Committee on European Affairs were present. During my discussion, I referred to the concept of comitology - I call it cosmology - which is relevant to the scrutiny of European proposals. Where a broad decision has been made by the European Council on a particular aspect of law, business or administration and a sub-decision falls to be made, in respect of which the members cannot reach agreement, responsibility for making the sub-decision falls back to the European Commission under what is called comitology.
The word "comitology" is used in Mr. Corcoran's presentation and he will be fully aware of it. When the democratically elected leaders of member states fail to make a decision, it falls upon people who are not elected to make it. I will not say there is an element of cowardice but it is unacceptable that our European leaders do not make a decision in favour of or against what is proposed. In terms of democracy and transparency it flies in the face of everything that pro-Europeans support, that it goes back to the officials of the Commission to make wide-ranging decisions like this which can affect our environment, our health and our food. It is completely unacceptable that people who have not been elected make important decisions outside of the democratic process on matters such as these foodstuffs. This issue of comitology must end. Deputy Costello will recall that I said that to Ms Catherine Day, the Secretary General of the Commission, when we met her. Ms Day is a most impressive and amiable woman. She seems happy enough to motor with comitology but I think it is completely unacceptable.
If we are a real scrutiny committee, we should review all of the decisions made by comitology to see if they were unacceptable to Ireland but are now being forced on to the Irish people. I give notice to the Vice Chairman of my suggestion that this issue of comitology, either generally or under GM food, goes right on to our agenda for the next few years.
I thank Deputy Mulcahy for his passionate presentation. For his information, we invited representatives, including at ministerial level, from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, unfortunately, no one was available. I want to make him aware that they were invited.
I thank the delegation for their illuminating presentations. I take issue with some of the points made by Deputy Mulcahy. Perhaps the Department officials might like to comment on this. I do not accept that there has been a fundamental change in Government policy on GMOs. As far as I am concerned, the Government position is effectively the same. Abstaining is not decision making in any shape or form. While a Green tinge on this Government in the case of GMOs is perhaps evident, it does not constitute substance. We all know how important GMOs are to the agricultural industry and particularly to foodstuffs. That has not changed, cannot change and will not change under this or any future Administration in practice despite what may be put forward in theory.
I also disagree that it is time to move to an entirely negative position on GMOs. We cannot under estimate how damaging it would be for us, not only for the agricultural industry but on a global basis, to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the imperative of GM foods and GM foodstuff in our day to day life in the future in all continents and in all countries.
I disagree that a government should be led necessarily by public opinion. I believe in the role of leadership in government. There is a clear case being advocated at all levels, including United Nations level, on the absolute need for GM foods in tackling such problems as world poverty and world hunger. There is a fundamental role for GM foods and if public opinion has been tainted by a biased and one-sided Green lobby in the past, then it is for the Government to show leadership and to provide information about the realities in terms of the economic challenges and food shortage challenges we face in the world.
Deputy Mulcahy also referred to letting the genie out of the bottle. We know the genie has been out of the bottle for a long time and anybody involved in agriculture here knows how reliant we are on GM foods. It is too late to put that genie back in the bottle.
I agree that we must be at the high end of food production. I do not necessarily agree that GM foods and high end food production are mutually exclusive. To say we cannot compete in terms of mass food production with countries such as Brazil and the United States is simply untrue. If one looks at the beef industry, one will see that this country is the largest exporter of beef in the world. We have made and will continue to make a significant contribution with the right policy making and leadership at Government level. We cannot just bury our hands in the sand in that respect.
I have a few points to make about decision making at EU level and some of the problems associated with it. I state clearly my objection to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or any Minister abstaining on important issues such as this. It is imperative that Ireland takes a proactive stance and does not sit back and allow other member states to make the decisions for us. It is contradictory to say we object to decisions being referred back to the European Commission when the Government, by abstaining at Council of Ministers level, is not participating in decision making. It is a bizarre argument.
I have major concerns, which I share with the Chairman, about the timeline at EU level for the approval and recognition of GMOs. It is unacceptable that the process can take up to ten years when countries in other parts of the world are moving forward very quickly. There is a significant issue with politicians, namely, an absolute refusal to give leadership and take positions. It is almost a rule of thumb at this stage that EU leaders, Ministers and so on refuse to accept and follow expert scientific advice. There are scientific panels which conduct research and make recommendations according to the guidelines and rules to which they have been mandated to adhere. Again, we see procrastination and a refusal to give leadership and take tough decisions at European and member state level, which is very unfortunate. We are losing out in Europe as a result.
We must acknowledge that there is considerable reliance in this country on GM foodstuffs, particularly crops. Maize is being imported to feed our cattle, sheep and pigs and the sector is dominated by GM crops. In reality, one cannot separate them when most agricultural land in Brazil and other countries from which we import is now essentially subsumed by GM crops. It is impossible to turn our backs on this and deny it. We need to face up to it.
It is clear that it is not possible to reverse and roll back from where we are in respect of GM feedstuffs. The cost associated with our farmers trying to compete on a global level is crippling and will, ultimately, undermine the entire agriculture sector. We must make decisions on whether we want to move forward, compete and produce high quality output in all sectors of the industry. It is not realistic to think we can rely on producing organic vegetables and meat. We must continue to support the industry that is so fundamental to the economy.
What does Ms Marsh from Organics Trust Limited see as the alternative to GMOs? How does she see the agriculture industry proceeding, progressing and competing on global markets without them? Particular emphasis must be laid on the significant challenge presented by global food shortages, including within the European Union. We no longer have beef mountains and milk lakes but there are food shortages within the Union that will increase in number unless we enhance productivity and output. The only way to do this while competing on global markets is through the acceleration and improvement of the role of GM foods in the agriculture sector in this country. What are the views of Ms Marsh and some of the other speakers on that issue?
I thank Deputy Creighton for her contribution.
I have a few points to make, the first of which relates to what Deputy Mulcahy mentioned about comitology. I can confirm that he did raise the issue with Ms Catherine Day when she was here. It seems there is still a comitology procedure given Austria's ban on GM products. However, the Commission is acting directly against Austria to oblige it to lift its ban. This would mean that no EU member state would have a comprehensive ban on GM products in terms of their importation and cultivation. I would like to receive clarification in this regard but it looks like that is what is going to happen. If it does, what will be the implications for Ireland which, to some extent, has been relying on the Austrian stance in some of the statements it has made? It was stated Ireland abstained when the matter related to food and feed - which is hard to understand - and voted against when it relates to crop cultivation. What will be the implications if Austria is forced to lift its ban on GM products?
Representatives from the farming organisations appeared before the committee last week. They stood foursquare behind food product safety. They won their case against the importation of Brazilian beef on the grounds that the Brazilian Government was not able to provide sufficient evidence that its product was safe, that it was not properly monitored and that cases of foot and mouth disease were to be found in herds in Brazil.
The real issue is whether the food eaten by animals is safe. This is a question for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. How do we know that GM food is safe? I was amazed to read in the presentation by the FSAI that the current analytical techniques had been rendered useless with regard to certain GM products. For example, it is stated oil from GM oilseed rape and sugar from GM sugar beet are chemically and physically identical to those products derived from their non-GM counterparts. It seems impossible that that should be the case. If they are chemically and physically identical, why do we need a GM product? Why do we not use the existing non-GM product? It is further stated these products are highly processed and refined, to the extent that the DNA or protein from the original plant does not survive, rendering current analytical techniques useless. With such robust processing and refining, there must be a question mark about the safety of the product. This begs the question of what is the value of an analysis if there is not enough left to analyse. In that case the FSAI should be asked how it can come to the conclusion that it is satisfied that GM products currently authorised for the EU market are as safe as their non-GM counterparts. If it cannot analyse them, it cannot make that statement. I have considerable concerns about the scientific basis of some of the statements made in this regard.
I have a query in respect of a statement made by Ms Marsh that it is not true to say that in the long term there will be increased yields from GM products. If there will not be increased yields from GM products, what is the purpose in having such products? Is that a true or false statement? As I understand it, the major reason for the use of GM products is to solve the problem of world hunger and deal with a situation where we cannot produce enough food. There is, therefore, a desirable reason for producing GM food, namely, that farmers cannot produce the food required. I would like to see both sides of this argument addressed.
What is the nature of the review taking place? We have not received any details. On the basis of the review will a more stringent position be proposed? Who will conduct the review and how will it be carried out? Will it be an independent external review or an internal review in one Department or in all the agencies and Departments involved? It would be interesting to receive an update from the relevant Green Party Ministers who seem strong on issues of this nature, as we do not know what they are doing about them.
Is it possible to hold clinical tests in a contained environment? How can one grow a crop anywhere or in any circumstances without avoiding the danger of the wind transmitting spores outside the contained environment? Unless it is done in a very restricted area, it is impossible to contain such a crop. If we accept that it is possible to have safe large-scale cultivation of GM products, would it not be better to direct such products towards the bio-fuel market rather than towards the human food or animal feed market?
Mr. Eamon Corcoran
I will deal with some of the wide range of issues raised by committee members and will refer others to my colleagues.
The position is that if a GMO is authorised within the European Union, there is no mechanism to exclude it from the Irish market without being in breach of our EU obligations. However, there is room for manoeuvre in the case of proposals to authorise new GMOs and issues concerning cultivation.
A number of members referred to comitology, a process that developed to avoid deadlock. As members will be aware, under EU procedure, the Commission has the right of initiative, while member states have the right of decision. According to the rules, decisions only revert to the Commission where member states have not taken a definitive decision, either in favour of or against a proposal. The system developed in the context of enlargement of the Community to avoid deadlock where Commission proposals were not decided on.
On the position that obtained which we described as positive but precautionary, we did not vote blindly in favour of proposals. The science was very carefully studied. In the case of food issues, the study was undertaken by us and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. I am sure the situation was similar in the case of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Events were only submitted for decision where the science had been clarified. While we have voted in favour in all cases since I started working in this area, September 2002, we were not on autopilot. We made a conscious decision to carefully review the science in conjunction with the relevant agency, in our case the FSAI, and voted accordingly.
Members will be aware of the commitment in the programme for Government to negotiate the establishment of an all-Ireland GM-free zone. The current position, whereby we abstain on food and feed issues, has to be considered in the context of the implications of the commitment in the programme for Government. Abstention should be seen in that context. When the process under way has been concluded, we will move away from that position. To respond to Deputy Costello's queries, the review process will fall to be dealt with by a political decision. A group of senior officials, operating under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, is also involved but the process will not involve an external agency conducting the review. It should be seen in the context of the commitment in the programme for Government.
Other issues, including those raised by the Chairman, can more appropriately be dealt with by my colleague, Mr. Ryan, as they relate to crop reduction and the implications for farming. My colleague, Mr. Keating, will be in a position to address a number of other issues, particularly those relating to the Austrian ban and the length of time it takes to obtain clearance.
Mr. Dermot Ryan
Questions were asked about the supply of feedstuffs for animals. We import approximately 3 million tonnes of feed materials per annum from around the world to feed our animals. They include in excess of 1 million tonnes of protein feed materials, consisting of maize by-products which are high in protein and are used to feed the ruminant sector. They also include soyabean products, primarily to feed our pigs and poultry. There has been increasing planting of GM maize and GM soyabean in the countries from which we import, such as the United States, from where we import the maize products to feed our ruminants. Over the years increasing amounts of the maize crop in the United States have become genetically modified.
We import soyabean primarily from South America, particularly from Brazil. It is estimated that the proportion of the GM soyabean crop in comparison with the non-GM crop is increasing each year, to the extent that approximately 55% of the crop harvested in 2007 is probably genetically modified. The crop sown in 2007 is probably 65% genetically modified and it is estimated that, as 2008 progresses, the trend will continue to the point where some 75% of crops sown in 2008 will be genetically modified. This has resulted in a price differential between non-GM soyabean and GM soyabean and it now costs more money to buy a tonne of non-GM soyabean than a tonne of genetically modified soyabean.
This is just one factor that has contributed to the increase in the price of feed. One of the main problems arises from the time taken to authorise new GM events and varieties in the exporting countries - the United States of America and South America - compared with the EU. Genetically modified varieties are approved relatively quickly in the exporting countries and are grown in those countries before they have been approved in the EU, causing trade problems. This asynchronisation in the approval processes needs to be addressed with a view to speeding up approval procedures in Europe to help avoid those trade difficulties.
Other factors involved in the increase in feed prices include the scarcity of feed materials, arising from increased demand in developing economies such as India and China. Their demand for feed materials from the countries from which we have traditionally imported is increasing and this drives up prices. In addition, there are climatic factors, such as the prolonged drought in Australia which has dramatically reduced the wheat yield.
The increased demand for bio-fuels consumes wheat and maize for conversion into ethanol and bio-diesel and this has increased competition, driving up prices. In the context of the GM-free debate the distinction has been made between the cultivation of GM crops and the importation of feed material into Ireland. This matter was referred to in last week's meeting of this committee and the issues are in focus in the evolving debate.
Mr. Ian Keating
Both the Chairman and Deputy Creighton asked why it can take so long to deal with GMO approval in Europe. I cannot fully answer that, but I will make some observations. For approximately 20 years the EU has been involved in the approval or disapproval of GM products and we have had a regulatory environment in Europe for that time. There has been a consistent difference in attitude toward GM products between member states.
With regard to products that come before the different regulatory committees in which we are represented, most of us could predict with a high degree of accuracy how votes will go. The same member states generally vote against or in favour, with some member states taking a more equivocal attitude. There is a fault line in Europe in terms of the attitude of member states to GM products and this attitude spills over to some degree into the way the legal instruments are operated, Directive 2001/18 on our side of the house and Regulation 1829 with regard to food and feed. It was not envisaged that those instruments would work for every contested GM application that came before them, but they are put into practice and this is what, in part, gives rise to the fairly long delay in dealing with authorisation for GM products.
Deputy Costello mentioned the Austrian ban. There have been three votes among member states with regard to lifting the Austrian ban. The most recent one was very close, even though cultivation was not the subject of the Commission proposal. In other words, the ban would have remained in place with regard to cultivation and the proposal would simply have related to food and feed. The ban has not yet been lifted by the Commission, but our understanding from contacts in Brussels is that the Commission proposes to move against Austria. There are no special implications for Ireland in this as the Austrian ban is limited to Austrian territory. Austria did not have a general ban on all GM products. The ban related to Mon 810, a maize product. Austria has invoked the safeguard clause, otherwise known as the national ban, against other products, but it never had a total ban on all GM products, because that is not permissible under EU law.
Dr. Tom McLoughlin
To answer Deputy Costello's question whether GM crops can be grown in a contained use facility - they can and there are three or four such uses in Ireland. Teagasc has one in Oakpark where it has a specialised greenhouse which has been licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency as a contained use facility. There is also work going on in NUI Maynooth where they are transferring genes - an experiment that is also happening in other places throughout the world - not into the nucleus of the plant cells, but into the mitochondrion. This will circumvent the problem of gene flow through pollen transfer. Perhaps in several years, scientists or companies may transfer genes using this technology where pollen will not be a problem, a potential advantage.
Deputy Creighton suggested the genie might have been let out of the bottle. Last year several member states of the European Union, among them Spain, France and Germany, planted approximately 110,000 hectares of mainly Mon 810. The Spanish, German and French authorities, particularly the Spanish, had meetings where they presented the research results after looking at post-market monitoring of these crops - the Bt crop that potentially replaces chemicals in agriculture. They have looked at indicators of biodiversity and at gene flow. The studies have been funded by taxpayers in Spain. To date, they have not seen anything untoward with these crops with regard to the long-term potential cumulative effects of using GM crops in these countries. This is the sort of research we should do in Ireland in case Irish farmers ever want to grow GM crops. It is imperative that those crops are started, in the greenhouse initially and then in small-scale field trials, before moving to cultivation. The Spanish, French and Germans certainly have an advantage but we can learn from them.
Dr. Pat O’Mahony
Unfortunately, Deputy Costello has left, but he raised one or two salient points. Perhaps my presentation was not as clear as I wanted it to be but when I spoke about oil and sugar, I meant for detection purposes. We survey 100 or more foods every year but there may be no unusual DNA or protein present or detected. Oil is oil and sugar is sugar, whether they come from the GM or non-GM version. The processing is the same for both; therefore, there is no issue.
The Deputy also asked how we knew products were safe. We use the mantra that nothing is absolutely safe in the world of food. Peanuts, for example, kill people every year through their potent allergens. As regards our potatoes, carrots, tomatoes or any other product that we are trying to get onto the market, we could be puritanical about them and they would not make it to the market. They all have toxins, carcinogens and allergens at various levels. It is a matter of striking a healthy balance. The approach with regard to food safety is to get the right balance. We weigh up what is on the market as regards the foods we know are safe as a result of long-term usage. That is the best we can do. We consider as many toxins, allergens and carcinogens as we can and make an assumption but we cannot say any food is absolutely safe. Nobody can tell me that the water in front of me is absolutely safe. It is a matter of perception that is sometimes open to abuse.
As all the responses of contributors are included in the committee record , Deputy Costello will be able to read the response to the issues he raised.
Ms Kathryn Marsh
Many questions were addressed to me but I have not made a note of all of them. I apologise for missing some of them.
I thank Dr. O'Mahony for making a clear distinction with regard to GMOs. It is a matter of playing around with the proteins of a cell. Therefore, we can only test what has happened to them. For example, an oil in respect of which one can test for a DMA protein is not fully refined. If we try to fry it, it will burn.
Deputy Costello raised the question of yield. In recent times there have been a lot of studies conducted. A good organic or conventional farmer will produce better yields than a bad one. Nowadays, farmers with equivalent levels of skill have equivalent yields. There has been much research into organic techniques and production levels have risen enormously as a result. We are beginning to see a difference between the two in recent studies, namely, that there are higher nutrient and mineral levels in organic crops, as well as higher dry matter and lower water content.
There was a question about lead times. I am sorry to say countries such as the USA have short lead times because in the past there was a great interchange of personnel at the top of the Food and Drug Administration and the top of biopharmaceutical companies. Protocols were established that would not meet European standards for testing. In the early days we accepted these in the European Union but now we like to look more carefully at our data before we introduce new products. Everything is challenged and looked at. As there is no real mechanism for doing this in the USA, crops can be rapidly placed on markets once they have passed the initial testing phase.
Reference was made to Monsanto 810. One of its parents in animal feeding experiments with mice showed very high levels of inflammation. There is still potential for that in the longer term. With regard to the Spanish experiments referred to by Dr. McLoughlin, there are serious drawbacks associated with any procedure where bacillus thuringiensis is put right through a plant. It is used in organic farming as a last-resort insecticide, but not in Ireland. It is used on a one-off basis. It is not in every cell of the food somebody is eating - the reality is rather different. GMOs were not introduced to increase crop yield but to lower the cost of production by lowering pesticide and herbicide use. In the short run, they do so.
The weeds that produced the gene with Roundup resistance were originally found growing in one of Monsanto's Roundup production plants. If Roundup is used on any area for long enough, some weed will naturally develop resistance thereto. Monsanto noticed it had many such weeds and stated it would be great if crops were equally resistant. In nature, if one sprays herbicide for long enough, a plant will eventually grow that resists it. Exactly the same process occurs when one engineers a plant to express a herbicide. In the long run, the weeds will develop resistance and then one must try a different herbicide and another thereafter. They will have to be more powerful and toxic than the Roundup used in the first place. This is already happening in the first few generations of Roundup-resistant crops.
The same is the case with the early generations of bacillus thuringiensis crops. Pests are developing that are immune thereto and therefore there are already boll weevils in the cotton crop and other minor pests moving into the space out of which the boll weevil moved. It is well known that nature abhors a vacuum and these are the kinds of organisms that move into it. These are the side effects of lowering the costs of production. Conventional breeding is still regarded as the most effective way of increasing actual yields from a crop.
One would increase yield if one found a more efficient way of controlling weeds and pests. Other resistant pests or weeds move into the gap. Since the varieties of crops in question were not selected initially for yield, but for other qualities, yields are falling. The vice president of the Canadian Farmers Union, a Canadian farmer stated "We didn't realise what we were getting into. Canada is now a GM country. If we had a choice, we wouldn't have become a GM nation." He said this to the Food and Agriculture Organisation after he had found his yields decreasing and his herbicide use increasing.
I have not had time to compile all the statistics on the cost of imported GM-free feed because I only discovered I would make a presentation to this committee on Friday, but I got somebody to calculate for me the increase in the price of a pound of steak if GM-free feed were obtained at this week's delivery cost to Greenore. It would amount to 2 cent and we therefore do not need to worry too much. There is a strong premium developing rapidly around the world for meat that has not been reared on GM feed. The premium is not very high but, on the plate, it translates into a figure of between 50 cent and €1 per kilogram. Obviously, not much of this goes back to the farmer. We are all familiar with what goes where in the agriculture sector but, even with this premium, the farmer will not be at a loss. We, therefore, do not need to worry about the matter.
I thank all of the contributors for their very interesting presentations. I am sorry that all members of the committee could not be present but the transcript of the debate will be there for them to see. Our discussion has been very informative and will help the committee in finalising its scrutiny report on the proposal.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.40 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 2008.