David Norris (Independent)

I am grateful to my colleague for sharing his time. I welcome the Minister of State. I wish to raise a small number of concerns. The first is the question of labelling which was raised by my colleague, Senator O'Toole, who is very interested in this area. I am concerned, as he is, because people, including shopkeepers, do not appear to appreciate the difference between "use by" and "best before" dates. This has been drawn to our attention by Dr. John O'Brien, Chief Executive of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. He says:

It is alarming that some businesses are ignorant about this most basic, but critical labelling requirement — the shelflife of the product. Our campaign simply explains that a 'Use By' date is used on products that are highly perishable and if they are consumed after their 'Use By' date they could cause illness. 'Best Before' dates refer to a period that a product remains at its best condition and whilst people can eat products after the 'Best Before' date has passed, they may disappoint in terms of quality but they should not pose a food safety risk.

This is a very significant point if there is misunderstanding not just by shoppers but also by shopkeepers. The authority also examined breakfast cereal that was labelled as gluten free and yet was found to contain high levels of gluten. That is very dangerous for people who suffer from coeliac disease. Labelling is clearly an important and significant element. There is also the question of items labelled as Irish when they are of foreign origin. A study of 55 different kinds of noodles for irradiation found that approximately 25% of products had irradiated ingredients. There is a legal requirement that this be stated on the label but it was not.

This leads me to the question of genetically modified foods. I would like the Minister of State to take this very seriously, as the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, does. I draw the attention of the Minister of State to a very interesting book, entitled Genetic Roulette, by Jeffrey M. Smith. The information contained in it is very worrying. It is compiled by scientists and it demonstrates clearly that in terms of genetically modified crops, frequently the pollen from those crops can adversely affect the health of people living in the area. We have noticed, even in this country, an increase in allergies. This situation will only be made worse if we do not retain our status as a GM free country. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, is committed to this position and I applaud him for it.

It is important we would remain committed to this position even if there were not scientific worries. From a marketing and labelling point of view, it would very advantageous for us to be able to indicate that our food products were free of this material. However, it is a position that is very difficult to maintain. Tesco, for example, has a GM free policy but this has been vitiated because their own brand American long grain rice was recently contaminated with Bayer CropScience's genetically modified American long-grain GM rice variety LL601. It was discovered in two packs of Tesco dried American long grain rice. This is illegal in the EU and the USA, yet it managed to get into the shops in Ireland. That is how penetrative it is.

Monsanto is behind most of this. Monsanto claims, through Mr. Robert Shapiro, the chief executive officer, to be interested in all kinds of ideals of feeding the world and so on. In the introduction to the book Genetic Roulette it is recounted that somebody who was idealistically motivated by the speeches, words and writings of Mr. Shapiro took a job there and was told by senior management that what Robert Shapiro says is one thing but what they do is something else. They are there to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. They do not even understand what he is saying. That is what we are dealing with. A scientific committee which was established in the United Kingdom made certain quite worrying findings. Subsequently it was disbanded. It is time we looked at the question of genetically modified food, the idea of patenting life forms and the questions raised about whether there can be pollution of neighbouring areas from genetically modified crops. There have been court cases about that where neighbouring farmers found their crops were contaminated but were then sued by Monsanto. The judgment of the Canadian court was that regardless of whether the farmer was responsible, and it was found he had not stolen the material, he was responsible. He owed money to Monsanto precisely because it had patented the life form and was entitled to a return on it, regardless of whether he had taken it from elsewhere or planted it. It was due to the fact that it crept in——