It is unfortunate that the 19 non-government organisations (NGOs) involved in a Department of the Environment-sponsored debate on genetically modified foods should withdraw from the process because of dissatisfaction with its format. A shortage of time allowed for the discussion of issues of prime interest to the NGOs - ethics, biodiversity, food and risks - was given as the main reason for the decision, along with a Government unwillingness to consider a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified foods. Genetic Concern declared the process to be a "cosmetic exercise" with a totally inappropriate format.
There is no doubt the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, was overly-ambitious in seeking to provide an adequate hearing for the concerns and aspirations of the three main groups involved - the biotech and GM food industry, academics and the NGOs - in the course of two full days of discussion. Given the gulfs that separate the various positions, disagreements over the agenda could have been foreseen. A shortage of time simply exacerbated those tensions and has now led to the withdrawal of those organisations most concerned about the impact of genetically modified organisms on the environment. Experience in other European countries should have provided the Government with adequate warning of the deep unease felt by the general public on the issue of genetically modified foods. Citizen pressure has already encouraged Austria and Luxembourg to disregard EU Commission advice and impose moratoriums on the planting of such crops.
Mr Dempsey deserves some sympathy for his predicament. In the light of Fianna Fail's commitment - in opposition - to impose a moratorium, he is the only minister prepared to grapple publicly with this contentious issue. And he is working to a tight deadline in the public consultation process, because his EU ministerial colleagues are due to make long-term decisions on GM foods at a special Council meeting in Germany on June 24th. But that does not excuse truncation of public debate or the clear preference of Government to limit debate to environmental issues. In that regard, both the Minister for Health, Mr Cowen, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr Walsh - who should be key players in this public debate - have been conspicuous by their silence.
The harsh reality is that, in the aftermath of the BSE disaster and a series of more recent food scares, public confidence in the quality of food and the reassurances of governments has been shaken. There is an instinctive nervousness about tampering with the genetic make-up of plants when all the consequences cannot be foreseen. The biotech and GM food industry maintains the cross-breeding of plants has always been an intrinsic part of farming. And they insist their techniques are proven and safe. The academic world is divided, but it tends to support a broadening of scientific technologies, provided there has been rigorous testing and adequate safeguards are in place. In that context, the withdrawal of the 19 NGOs will inevitably damage the status and credibility of the report that emerges from the current debate.