Licence to grow modified beet challenged

The Environmental Protection Agency failed to implement sufficient procedures to be satisfied there could be no risk to human health or the environment before permitting field trials of genetically engineered sugar beet in Co Carlow, the High Court was told yesterday.

Ms Clare Watson, of Foster Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin, a member of the organisation Genetic Concern, is challenging the decision of the EPA, of May 1st 1997, to grant Monsanto plc permission to grow genetically modified sugar beet on lands owned by Teagasc at Oak Park, Co Carlow.

In judicial review proceedings, she is seeking a number of orders and declarations against the EPA and Monsanto plc, with an address at High Wickham, Buckinghamshire, which would quash the permission and direct the EPA to reconsider the application.

The EPA has also given Monsanto the go-ahead for a further four trials in other locations and a challenge to that decision is dependent on the outcome of the present hearing. The case is being heard by Mr Justice O' Sullivan.

Opening the hearing, Mr John Gordon SC, for Ms Watson, said Genetic Concern aimed to raise public awareness of issues involved in genetic engineering generally and particularly the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

Ms Watson's complaint was about the manner in which the EPA agreed to applications by Monsanto for permission to release genetically modified organisms into the environment in the course of an experimental field trial.

What was at issue was the development by Monsanto of a genetically modified sugar beet resistant to the Roundup weedkiller manufactured by Monsanto. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup and it acts by inhibiting enzymes in plants, causing them to die, counsel said.

Monsanto was seeking to introduce into normal sugar beet a gene which would render the beet resistant to glyphosate. The ultimate aim was that farmers could routinely spray the crop with Roundup which would be effective only against weeds. Mr Gordon said the period with which the court was concerned ranged from December 1996, when Monsanto applied for the licences, to May 1997 when the EPA granted permission.

He said after Monsanto applied for the licences, the EPA told the company it had to publish newspaper notices about its proposals. The first notice was published on January 9th, 1997, not in a national daily newspaper, but the Carlow Nationalist. At the time, Monsanto sought licences for three locations, but proceeded only with the Carlow trials.

He said notice was published outside the time set by the regulations but the EPA allowed Monsanto to publish it again and on January 16th, the notice was republished, again in local papers.

He said the EPA sent a lengthy list of queries to Monsanto which were replied to on March 1997. On May 1st 1997, the EPA issued consents for both applications but with conditions.

It sought information on how the field trials would be actually operated and what guidelines would be adhered to. That information was sent on May 7th, some queries were then made by Dr Tom McLoughlin of the EPA and amended guidelines were furnished by Monsanto. On May 13th, 1997 Dr McLoughlin gave the go-ahead for the trials, counsel said.

Hundreds of objections and queries were sent to the EPA, including an objection from Genetic Concern, after the first notice of the Monsanto trials was published, Mr Gordon noted.

He would be contending that the EPA misinterpreted its role. The EPA was obliged not to grant any consents unless it was satisfied the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment would not result in adverse effects on human health or the environment. It appeared the EPA heavily relied on representations from Monsanto and did not sufficiently evaluate the application itself. He also submitted the EPA had acted in excess of its powers. By issuing a consent to which was attached a request for more information, the EPA had prevented his clients and others from submitting any observation. He also argued the final consent was given by Dr McLoughlin and not by the board of the EPA - a function the board was not entitled to delegate.

In its defence, the EPA denies it failed to comply with its duties under the applicable laws and regulations. It says it expressly evaluated and assessed the risk to public health and to the environment from the proposed deliberate release of genetically modified organisms and reached an independent conclusion.

The hearing continues.