Speech by Alan Dukes TD, Fine Gael spokesman on the Environment and Local Government on Genetically Modified Organisms - Dail Eireann, March 25, 1999.
The techniques of genetic engineering
have been in use since the In recent times, debate has focused almost exclusively on the genetic engineering of food crops. A great many concerns have been expressed in relation to the results of genetic engineering on food crops and on possible and as yet unknown effects on plant and human organisms. It seems that, while the general public is prepared to accept fairly readily the benefits of genetic engineering in the medical and health care sectors, because the benefits are palpable and immediately obvious, there is a greater reluctance to accept the use of these techniques in relation to the food chain, because of a suspicion that, while certain benefits may be obvious in the short-term, there could be longer term side effects that are unknowable in the present state of our knowledge. There is, indeed, recent EU survey evidence which indicates that food is now regarded as dangerous by 68% of people, putting it at the same level of perceived risk as medical products. Although there may be certain consistencies between these two views, I believe that that is understandable and, indeed, inevitable. I believe that there is a need for caution and for due observance of the precautionary principle. I am not one who believes that every advance in technology is desirable, or that we should always do what technology allows us to do. We need a case by case approach. Nuclear technology, after all, gave us nuclear weapons. We could survive quite happily without them. It also gave us effective methods of treatment of many kinds of cancer. Information technology has given us incredible ease of communication. It has also created the means of great and unacceptable intrusion into our lives, in many forms which the ordinary individual cannot control. One of the concerns that many ordinary people have about genetic engineering of food crops is that they can see no real advantage from particular applications. Where there is no perceived advantage, but a perceived level of risk, however low, then consumers will simply not want the product. They rightly feel that it should not be forced upon them without their knowledge. It seems to me, therefore, that we need four things: (a) careful and supervised research; (b) a hard-headed assessment of the utility of the results of research; (c) access by the public to information about research and consultation on its applications, and (d) information on the make-up of what is being offered in the market. The health care and pharmaceutical applications of genetic engineering are subject to rigorous testing. There is no public confidence that the application of genetic engineering in the food sector is subject to any comparable testing process. That gap must be filled. In the circumstances of the Single Market in the European Union, it seems to me that we need an EU agency that will require such rigorous testing and evaluation, lay down the conditions under which it is to be carried out, subject it to rigorous peer review and assess it from the point of view of the public interest. The Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission would seem to me to provide an appropriate nucleus for this function. This office - a part of the Commission's DG XXIV - has a legal remit to examine and supervise animal feeds, and can therefore operate in that context. It currently has no legal basis for action in relation to human foodstuffs. My belief is that it should be given the necessary legal basis and resources. That legal basis should also give it, as of right, access to all research being carried out by commercial organisations - which is where, realistically, we must expect the bulk of the research to be done. We need a mechanism by which the activities of this agency can be publicised and made accessible to the public. That seems to me to require, in each Member State, an independent agency dedicated to the publication of all of the relevant information, not only in the form required for rigorous peer review, but also in a form that makes it accessible to the public. We need, in each Member State, an ongoing and adequate process of public consultation. The formula adopted by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is clearly perceived to be inadequate and weighted in favour of academic and industrial interest. I am not accusing the Minister of bad faith: I am simply stating that the forum which he has provided is not one that gives all of the participants the assurance of feeling that they are equal. That must be remedied. Consumers are entitled to have access to full information on the characteristics of the food products that are being offered to them. Clear labelling is essential. To make clear labelling honest and meaningful, segregation of genetically-modified products from those that are not so modified is also a necessity. Although I have reservations about the almost automatic application of the results of technological development, I believe that there is rarely a case for not carrying out research. Ethical grounds seem to me to be almost the only basis on which limitation of research is justified. With that qualification, I believe that we must ensure that research continues, but that it is carried out on a clear and properly regulated basis. Specifically, that means that research into genetically modified crops should be allowed to continue. This research should, however, be conducted under licence and subject to strict regulation by a competent authority. Field trials are clearly a necessary component of such research. These, too, should be carried out under licence and subject to strict regulation by a competent body. Such field trials should, however, be comprehensive in nature, rather than concentrating solely on questions of yield, specific characteristics for which the genetic modification is carried out and specific traits in the plants or in the resulting products. They should cover also the effects of genetically modified plants on the soils, flora and fauna surrounding them. In addition to setting up the regulatory and supervisory structures which I have already mentioned, we should look again at the primary locus of responsibility for these issues in our governmental and administrative system. If we look only at the EU regulations concerning genetically modified organisms, we find that four Government Departments have responsibilities: the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. No one of these Departments has obvious lead responsibility. It is, perhaps, to the credit of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that he has attempted to take this role, but his approach to the issue has been deficient. It is only recently that he has taken up a proposal, first made by Young Fine Gael, that an inter-Departmental Working Group should be formed to deal with bio-technology-related issues. I understand that the Minister intends to move along that line. I believe, however, that the Government should reconsider the whole matter and place a clear onus of final responsibility on one Minister and Department and arrange for the necessary co-operation and co-ordination of the work of other Departments in the matter. It is now essential that the public consultation process be modified and reinforced in the way that I have suggested. When the issues that I have raised here and others that may yet be defined have been considered properly in the framework, this House should come back to the issue to consider what is needed by way of a policy and regulatory framework to ensure that, in this area, technology is at our service rather than constituting a perceived threat. Finally, I believe that serious attention should be given to the promotion and marketing of non-GM food products. It is already clear that action along these lines is under way in Argentina to produce and promote non-GM maize and soya. Other countries may follow suit. We should adopt a similar approach as GM techniques are applied to other food products. |
I welcome the fact that the House has
now provided for statements on the issues arising in relation
to genetically modified organisms. I