In 1996, genetically-modified soya and maize first received approval for importation into a Europe which knew very little about biotechnology and genetically modified foods. It was at that early stage that EU citizens should have been informed of the technology behind these ingredients, and the extreme safety procedures they have to undergo before approval for food use is granted. Because this has failed to happen, much of the information currently surrounding these foods is inaccurate and unbalanced.

Attention must now become focused on ensuring that consumers receive a balanced, clear and consistent message about GM foods - only then can they make an informed choice. If this message is to be balanced, Government bodies, the food industry and environmental lobby groups will all have a role to play in the dissemination of such information.

One of the points that has failed to get an airing is the responsible actions of the food industry as users of these ingredients. When the food industry became aware that GMsoya and maize would make up part of the consignments from the US in October 1996, we met regulatory authorities, scientists, companies involved in the technology, and consumer groups. Despite their availability in the US for some time and the use of the technology since the 1970s, these ingredients were new to us. We found the release into the environment, and the marketing and labelling of GM ingredients are controlled by a number of EU regulations.

In talking to these bodies and individuals, the food industry accepted and continues to accept that these ingredients are safe. They have undergone the most rigorous controls to ensure they are safe for human consumption. The EU regulations, which allow these products to be marketed and used in Europe, are among the most strict ever.

Our own Food Safety Authority, an independent body of the highest standing, evaluates each new product on a case by case basis - if it is unsure or dissatisfied with any information it receives, it will reject that dossier. As the users of these new ingredients, the food industry has absolute faith in the system within the Food Safety Authority which evaluates GM ingredients.

The consumer has, however, failed to recognise the safety of these products because the message has become confused by the use of scare tactics and media headlines designed to sell stories and muddy the waters.

Admittedly, the labelling issue has also led to much confusion. From the outset, the food industry has been consistent in its call for labelling which will allow consumers to make an informed choice on whether to purchase GM foods.

We are committed to labelling all food products containing soya and maize derivatives according to the EU regulations. These regulations require that ingredients are labelled if they contain either protein or DNA. This allows the food industry, authorities and consumers to verify whether the label is accurate. By applying these rules we are providing the consumer with meaningful information - if the genetic material is not present, it cannot be tested. To label all ingredients, whether or not it can be proven, is of little use to the consumer and is completely impossible to regulate.

To illustrate this rationale, it is worth noting that if a product is labelled as organic, up to 5 per cent of the ingredients may be derived from non-organic ingredients. This is a sensible provision for organic farmers, allowing some flexibility. This argument has been totally ignored by particular interest groups, which will allow no flexibility in the labelling of GM ingredients.

If we are to restore balance and reason to the discussions surrounding GM foods, we must provide information to consumers. Genetic Concern has stated that surveys indicate consumers do not want GM foods. However, not one survey of the population has been carried out by an independent body to illustrate the level of concerns consumers have. What has been demonstrated, however, is the complete lack of information.

It is incumbent on all bodies, including the authorities, consumer groups, environmental lobby groups, the food industry and the biotechnology sector to provide sensible and accurate information.

The label is only one means of informing the consumer and we could be far more imaginative in providing consumers with information which will help them make those choices with the use of help-lines, information packs for groups and schools, and leaflets. The food industry, including manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and caterers would be far better employed in providing the consumer with a balanced, clear and consistent message, rather than scoring commercial points with daily media announcements.

It is very likely we will see the development of more GM foods in the future - foods and ingredients from which the Irish consumer will derive a direct benefit. If the current debate is allowed to go unchecked, European and Irish consumers may never realise these benefits.

Kathryn Raleigh is executive of IBEC's Food and Drink Federation.