07 February 2007
I have also received notice from Senator Henry of the following matter:
The need for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to indicate the steps she is taking to assess the economic advantages to Irish agriculture if GM crops which may cross-pollinate with conventional and organic crops are excluded . . .
Genetically Modified Organisms
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister of State for attending the House this evening. I am trying to consider the issue regarding genetically modified food, crops and so forth from an economic point of view. While I am sure the Department also considers it, I wonder whether it does so sufficiently seriously. There is an increasing demand for food that is either organic or what members of the public would consider to be healthy, traditional and so forth. I do not consider GM foods are likely to make me ill or to cause other people illness. Unfortunately, we have had some issues in the past that have caused great lack of confidence among the public in respect of food. I refer in particular to the development of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in cattle due to bonemeal being fed to the animals and the subsequent development of new variant Creuzfeld-Jakob disease in humans who ate that meat.
People have become highly suspicious of the assertions given to them that food is safe. This is unfortunate because although the majority of food produced in Ireland is safe, it takes a long time to reassure people after something like that happens. I had never heard of prions before the BSE scare or the development of the disease. Interesting however, in the early 1970s, a vet in Trinity College suggested that these were possible vectors of disease. He appreciated that even though they lacked nuclei. However, I do not believe much attention was paid to his findings.
While I do not believe I will contract a terrible disease by eating genetically modified foods, there are those who are really put off by the idea of eating such foods. As one person put it, while it is all well and good to assert that it is all right, one does not want to eat dog, as they do in China. I do not believe it does them any harm. Moreover, in west Africa, people eat agouti, a large rodent and people there have tried to feed it to me, claiming it tastes like a cross between chicken and rabbit. I have declined, stating that I would manage myself. While I am sure it would not do any harm, I do not necessarily wish to eat it. Consequently, we must ensure people have the choice of what they wish to eat.
The most recent complaint I received in this regard followed questions regarding animal feed put to the Minister for Agriculture and Food by Members of the Green Party on 1 December. The lady who complained to me stated that apparently 75% of the corn imported to Ireland for animal feed is genetically modified. She stated that she wanted choice as to the kind of feed consumed by the animals she was eating and she has a point in this respect.
The former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, used to agree with me that the fatty acids produced in grass-fed cattle are far more healthy for humans than the fatty acids produced in corn-fed animals. I repeatedly told him - he agreed with me - that we should make selling points of such issues in Ireland and that it was economically important. My complainant told me she wanted to have choice in respect of the food consumed by the animals. However, being familiar with the findings regarding fatty acids, I could not tell her she was necessarily wrong, regardless of whether the corn was genetically modified. While this subject may be rather esoteric, people are becoming increasingly careful about what they eat.
I believe we should promote Irish food as health food and I am sure the Minister of State and all at the Department of Agriculture and Food would agree. However, I wonder whether the Department has considered the economics of this issue sufficiently carefully. I do not refer to the health aspects, which have been covered adequately, but to the economics of it. Cheap food policies have driven the production of food since the close of the Second World War. The proportion of people's income devoted to putting food on the table is now much less than was the case 20, 30 or 40 years ago. While this is good, it does not mean necessarily that our nutrition is better. As Members are aware, Ireland has experienced an explosion in obesity and type-2 diabetes.
The outbreak of avian flu in the turkey farm in England, in which people have seen the battery farms that house poultry numbering in the hundreds of thousands and that are confined to a small area is also significant in making people think about what is going on in this regard. One issue that concerns me greatly is that in such battery farms, the feed contains what are described as growth promoters, which are in fact antibiotics. While they are not antibiotics eaten by the Minister of State, the Acting Chairman or me, they remain antibiotics. As evident from the soaring sales of organic or traditionally reared chicken, many people consider the feeding of such growth promoters to poultry to be a serious problem. Some people do not wish to eat them and people should be given choice. Why can we not capitalise on this market?
Apart from the fact that apparently nut allergies can pass through genetically modified corn, I am not particularly worried by its health implications. However, I am seriously concerned about the fact that cross-pollination with organic and traditional crops in Ireland may be easier than we had realised.
I am aware the EU legislation does not allow us to ban such items. However, Austria, Germany, France and some other member states have cordoned off areas in respect of what can be grown there. I wonder whether the economics of the increased demand for traditional or organic foods have been investigated thoroughly. Ireland is a small island nation with a great agricultural tradition and I wonder whether this niche market has been properly investigated.
Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Ms M. Wallace): I thank Senator Henry for raising this important matter in the House and I propose to address the topic in three distinct parts. The first relates to the question of excluding GM crops from Irish agriculture, the second to cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops and the third pertains to the issue of the economic value in respect of the GM crops.
Before doing so, as the Senator referred to animal feed, I will clarify the figures in that regard for her friend. While GM crops are not grown in Ireland, it imports a considerable amount of GM maize, soya and rapeseed for incorporation into animal feed. I refer to import statistics from 2005. A total of 464,000 tonnes of GM maize were imported, which constituted 95% of total imports. The figure for GM soya was 204,000 tonnes, which also constituted 95% of total imports. The figure for GM rapeseed was 4,300 tonnes, or 3% of total imports. The aforementioned figures in respect of these GM foods might be even greater than Senator Henry thought. While I do not know whether that is any consolation, I wanted to provide her with the figures as they are.
9 o'clock
As the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has stated in this House on a number of previous occasions, the rules governing the production and the use of GM crops within the European Union are set out in EU legislation. The Senator also referred to this point. The legislation has been jointly adopted by the European Parliament and the Council and is binding on all member states. This legislation does not provide for the unilateral declaration of a GM free country or region as Senator Henry stated. In effect, this means it is illegal for any competent authority to prohibit the cultivation of GM crops authorised under the stringent EU authorisation procedures and listed on the EU Common Catalogue of Agriculture Plant Varieties, should a farmer wish to cultivate such crops. However, it should be noted that at present only one GM crop is authorised for cultivation within the EU and that is a GM maize variety only suitable for growing conditions in southern Europe, particularly Spain.
Notwithstanding that, options are available within member states and regions to restrict the growing of GM crops. One option is the concept of voluntarily developed GM free regions, where a voluntary agreement is reached among all growers in a region not to grow GM crops. Another option is to seek a derogation from the European Commission that, on the basis of sound scientific evidence, co-existence of GM crops with non-GM crops is not possible in certain regions in respect of certain named crops. The cultivation of these crops can then be legitimately prohibited if the case made is accepted by the Commission.
The second issue I wish to address is the question of GM crops cross pollinating with non-GM crops. The Senator may be aware that an interdepartmental working group established by the Department presented a report and recommendations on how best authorised GM crops could co-exist with non-GM crops should the Irish farming community decide to cultivate such crops. We are considering the measures proposed by the working group in conjunction with observations I received in a public consultation process held early last year on the recommendations made.
The proposed co-existence measures will focus on creating conditions during the cultivation, harvest, transport and storage of crops that will make it possible for conventional and organic growers to keep the adventitious presence of GMOs in their crops below the labelling thresholds established in community law. Measures are also proposed to provide redress to an organic farmer who suffers verifiable economic loss as a result of admixture of GM crops with non-GM crops.
At the request of the Minister for Agriculture and food, Deputy Coughlan, Teagasc carried out an evaluation of the possible national economic implications for the agrifood industry from the use of GMOs in crop and livestock production. Teagasc based its study on the economic implications of allowing the importation into Ireland of certified GM-free soyabean and maize livestock feed ingredients only and the economic implications of GM-free crop cultivation in Ireland.
In the first scenario, the study showed substantial additional costs would be placed on the livestock sector, particularly on specialist dairy and beef farmers, if they were to use certified GM-free soya and maize only in feedingstuffs. In the second scenario, the study examined five hypothetical GM crops which could be grown here, including herbicide tolerant sugar beet, septoria resistant winter wheat, fusarium resistant winter wheat, rhyncosporium resistant spring barley and blight resistant potatoes. This evaluation showed increased profits could be generated for growers of these GM crops compared to their conventional equivalent. However, the evaluation also showed a significant cost would be incurred with regard to identity preservation for conventional growers in a co-existence arrangement.
In a report prepared by the Irish Council for Bioethics in November 2005, Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland? Opinion, the question of Ireland losing its "clean green" image if GM crops were grown in this country was addressed and it concluded, "...fears over the loss of Ireland's 'clean green' image, solely on the basis of the introduction of GM crops, would appear to be somewhat misplaced." The need for further evaluations on the production and use of GM crops will continue to be monitored.
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister of State for her reply which I find extremely encouraging. I hope we will not focus on short-term profits. If she sees the former Minister, Deputy Walsh, in the corridors of power she might discuss with him the livestock sector, particularly fatty acids in beef. A major selling point is that grass-fed beef is better for one than corn-fed beef.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8 February 2007.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech
