Mary Wallace (Meath, Fianna Fail)

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.

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.