Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thank all those who have spoken. I commend Senator Henry's knowledge, Senator Feighan's experience and the experience and deeply thought out words of Senator Leyden. I am impressed at the amount of work the Minister of State and his team invested in the reply to the motion and I learned more about the subject from it. One important aspect was made very clear by the Minister of State. This is not actually a food safety problem. There is no evidence from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that this is a food safety issue. As the Minister of State said, there is no danger of something being produced because of the regulations which exist. It is much more likely, as Senator Leyden stated, to be an environmental problem. Foot and mouth disease was not a food safety problem. Other than the health and safety of the animals who might be slaughtered, it did not pose a health problem for humans. On the other hand, it had an economic dimension, which is the reason we faced it in the manner we did.

Let me address the environmental case. I am not sure my description is accurate — Senator Leyden also referred to this matter — but an animal gene, I understand it belonged to a pig, was introduced to salmon to make them grow. It is believed some of the salmon may have escaped into the ocean from a net. If that is the case, these giant salmon will influence all salmon in the years ahead by virtue of their size. Once they have escaped into the environment, it is too late.

We know similar circumstances have arisen in other areas. The Americans, for example, are concerned about butterflies and similar matters. Genetically modified foods, therefore, are not necessarily a food safety or health issue but clearly an environmental concern. Technology will deliver major benefits, some of which Senator Feighan described, and we must turn our back on it.

I will take another example unrelated to food. A grass seed was developed which changed colour in proximity to metal. One could ask what is the benefit of this development. The benefit was evident in places around the world where mines had been laid during wars. Within a few weeks of sprinkling the grass seed, it was possible to identify the location of mines by means of the different colour of grass. This was a very interesting and simple development which had major benefits.

Let us consider the considerable benefits arising from the development by Dr. Ricardo Wolf of super wheat and super rice in the 1950s. Senator Henry stated there is no evidence genetically modified food will solve the world's problems. For the rest of his life, Dr. Wolf could look back in the knowledge that he solved the problem of famine in many areas of the world. He did this not by means of genetic modification but simply by using technology to develop a better product. It is said that if someone invented a new mouse trap, people would beat a path to his door. We should consider the benefits of developing a product similar to those developed in the 1950s. Let us not turn our back on that prospect.

Senators raised concerns about labelling. The labelling requirement for products containing more than 0.9% of genetically modified product is acceptable. The danger of applying a lower level is that practically every food product on the grocery shelf contains soya, usually as a stabiliser. Lowering the level would require that almost every product on supermarket shelves be labelled because almost all of them contain some soya. If every product had a label stating it contained genetically modified ingredients, we would not be able to identify products made substantially from genetically modified ingredients. The labelling requirement in the legislation is well thought out and makes sense.

Senator Henry made a point about nut allergies. We must face up to these sort of challenges. The main point of this debate is that genetically modified foods will bring benefits to producers and consumers. We must tread carefully and that is what we are doing. Let us ensure we debate this matter openly. The Minister of State discussed the steps taken with regard to genetically modified sweetcorn and maize. If we watch developments closely, we will be able to protect ourselves from the perspective of health, which I do not believe to be a problem and, more important, from the environmental and agricultural perspectives.

I welcome the contributions of the Minister of State and Senators to this debate. This is the start rather than the end of a debate, which must be open, transparent and vigorous in order that we are aware of the direction we take in future.