Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I would like to be associated with the good wishes to Dr. O'Mara.

Speaking hypothetically, if CRISPR was allowed, do the witnesses think it would enhance the role of Teagasc? In other words, is Teagasc being held back by virtue of the fact that it cannot use CRISPR? In talking about CRISPR, we are all talking about non-transgenic and the modification of the indigenous DNA of the specific plants or products we are discussing. This is trans-European but as we are Irish we will worry about the green jersey. How far behind the curve are we and are we in a position where we can turn up? In terms of Teagasc's research, has it ever provided feedback to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine specifically to the effect that it is being hamstrung by virtue of the fact that there is need for a change in Europe? Teagasc's Marginal Abatement Cost Curve, MACC, was adopted. The witnesses will often say that they only do the research and we formulate the policy, but the Teagasc research carried out in that regard has almost become policy. Does Teagasc have any leverage in terms of being able to say to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in particular that it is hamstrung and that it will never be able to keep up? Food security is in danger if we do not get a change in European law or the European directive such that we can start using the CRISPR-cas9. Is it ever the case that at meetings within the organisation there are people asking for the use of this to be allowed and saying that there is so much they could do with it? Is it holding Teagasc back?

Before Teagasc responds, I have a question for the Department. What seems to come across from the Department is the enforcement of the directive almost with blinkers on. The message that came across is that the Department is trying to ensure no environmental damage through the cultivation of GMO or whatever.

When looking at that, does the Department ever do a balance sheet and look at the negatives of not having GMOs? As part of the European green deal, there is a goal to reduce the use of chemicals. When the potential environmental damage of cultivation is being analysed, is the other side of the balance sheet taken into consideration? If reducing the use of chemicals by 50% were to negate environmental damage, is it considered whether it might be more advantageous to the environment to use these alternative technologies? Following on from that, is it suggested to the Minister that he should be knocking on doors in Europe? We are following the pied piper but, if we are going to achieve the targets the Department is the main instigator in setting, we need to get things changed in Europe. Should we just wait and hope that the next judgment or ruling is better or that the new legislation or directive being proposed in Europe suits us or are we trying to influence these discussions in a way that will suit us? That is a question for both parties.