Consumer watchdog critical of policy on GM foods

Government policy on genetic engineering is seriously flawed because consumer interests are barely considered, according to the chairman of the Consumer Association of Ireland, Dr Peter Dargan.

With genetically-modified foods looking like "an unstoppable juggernaut", public concerns and consumer representation on monitoring authorities were subject to mere tokenism, he said.

While Dr Dargan welcomed the publication this week of a genetic engineering policy report by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, he said the Government was coming late to the issue and its policy showed little evidence of being consumer-driven.

Having spent a month in the US examining the biotechnology involved, he said, he was not against such foods, which had massive potential if directed in the right way. Production of "nutri-foods" including vaccines, and use of biotechnology in organ transplantation, would be of immense significance.

He was not, however, persuaded by companies such as Monsanto and Novartis saying that genetically-modified (GM) foods would feed the world, if they were developing "terminator genes" in maize and corn which caused seed to die after a year, and farmers would be tied into contracts to buy particular seeds.

It was worrying, too, that pharmaceutical firms were buying seed companies.

"To me it smacks of monopoly, and I'm not against big business," he said. The US view that one could not separate GM produce from non-modified food, and therefore label it, was disingenuous, he added. "If consumers have strong objections, they should be allowed make a choice."

Adequate monitoring of GM food production must be put in place and not arrangements which meant controls were implemented by the industry itself, as at present, he said.

"It's not enough that the US Food and Drugs Administration and its Environmental Protection Agency approve. There is a revolving door with people working for those agencies and industry."

Globally, a super authority was needed with representation from the US, Japan and the EU, to ensure effective controls. For the EU, it meant conducting independent research. Dr Dargan, who is a vet, said he was not anti-science, but it needed controls. "Europe has to be part of biotechnology. We can't stand idly by while the big ship has passed us by or run over us. We must direct it in a favourable way."

With millions of acres of GM crops being planted, some may be good for farmers, but the downside had to be also looked at, notably food-chain implications such as the effects on insect population of the use of insecticide resistance genes, he said.

With Monsanto having some 400 researchers at doctorate level and the US about 10 years ahead of Europe, Ireland needed to deploy its best scientists to help fill in research gaps, he added. He was surprised by the extent to which universities were currently being funded by industry and patenting their findings.

He said this raised the question: "If research does not give the desired result, is it buried?"

Meanwhile, Monsanto, the first company to test GM crops in the Republic, has supported Government attempts to ensure a prudent and responsible policy on genetic engineering.

"Biotechnology will be as important as information technology in terms of attracting quality jobs and investment," a spokesman said. "Ireland must be to the forefront in benefiting from its development."

The document had set out in a non-judgmental way the arguments concerning genetic modification and biotechnology's importance to Ireland, he added. "We have at all times been willing to engage in on-going debate, and this paper will bring that on to a new and welcome level."