Professor Fiona Doohan:

There are conflicting views on glyphosate and Roundup. What is undoubtedly clear is that we cannot do without it at farm level at present. I agree there is some weak research on both sides, as well as some strong research. It needs to be resolved at research level. However, currently there is no alternative. That comes back to the earlier question of the evolution of diseases. As we are trying to develop these new treatments, the disease is always changing to overcome them. That is why we do not, either personally or as a group in UCD, work on developing new chemicals.

That is not to say we do not need them. We absolutely do and it would be unrealistic to say we do not. Teagasc has a good reputation in trialling new chemicals and seeing how they are suited and adapted for Ireland.

What we work on is developing disease resistance. How can one variety be resistant to disease and the other susceptible? No farmer would grow the latter because it would have a terrible yield. All farmers would opt for the former because it would have a high yield. It is about trying to get the two things into one. Equally, it is true the pathogen will change to attack this. If there are two lines of defence, there is the initial line of defence, which is specific and a one-to-one interaction between a disease and a plant, and then hundreds of other subsequent actions occur, like when one's immune system is activated. We do not target the one which can be changed quite quickly, meaning the disease can reoccur. Instead, we target everything underneath. It is a much more multifaceted approach, not a single-target approach, when developing new resistant varieties of plants.

In terms of biological treatment, are we developing crops which can be harvested earlier? No, we are trying to mitigate against the augmented use of fertiliser. That is not to say there are crops which could be earlier harvesting crops such as rye, which has particular benefits for some animals. There is a balance in terms of its positive and negative effects. We can look at crops and alternative crops. We have tested some biological agents as an alternative to seed treatment. In such cases, seeds are treated with chemicals before a farmer puts them in the ground with high and low fertiliser inputs. It has been shown, particularly in the cases of low fertiliser inputs, some of these biological agents can really increase crop yield. They have a particular role to play, particularly if one is going back to a system where one might be reducing the fertiliser inputs. We have published several papers on this and have done trials in Cork.

I am based in UCD and lead the environmental centre there where we have many glasshouses and specialised climate changers for the present and the future. We also work with a team of crop scientists at Lyons Research Farm. We recently invested much in developing a long-term grass study. In the future, we hope to develop similar projects for cereals. We also work a lot with Oak Park in Carlow, which has excellent field facilities and does excellent research at field level. It is collaborative and essentially a national project. We have published much on biologicals which the committee can look at.

Through Science Foundation Ireland funding, we have worked with cereal breeders and identified lines of wheat which are totally resistant to septoria tritici blotch, STB, which is the most limiting disease in wheat in Ireland. The breeders are taking this material from us and are breeding it into new varieties for the future.

On my point that GM, genetically modified, food is a grey area, in my opinion, not all GM food is good and not all GM is bad. It has an important role to play in food security. I personally do not believe we should be advocating the development of herbicide-resistant crops where one develops a crop which can be sprayed with a herbicide and then the crop itself is resistant to it. While we need Roundup at present, one needs to advocate for and take actions to improve the long-term sustainability of soil health. That is what I mean by grey. It is not about whether it is safe. Environmentally, for me, for the long-term future it is questionable and negative. For example, it was good to put an extra gene into rice to produce Golden Rice which saved the eyesight of many children in Asia. If one puts a gene that helps control disease into wheat which, accordingly, reduces chemical inputs, that is also a good development.

I separate that from an economic decision for Ireland in the short term as to whether to go with GM. It is not something under which one should draw the line and make concrete-----.