The Department of Agriculture's admission that it inadvertently planted a variety of oilseed rape containing small amounts of genetically modified material seems at a glance like a relatively small though unfortunate error. The crop, after all, was not commercially grown. Further examination, however, indicates a somewhat lax attitude within the department. The problem only came to light after an Environmental Protection Agency investigation. This was initiated when the EU oilseed rape market went into shock as it emerged that conventional seeds used on thousands of farms in Britain, Germany, France and Sweden, contained GM material - albeit at a level of less than one per cent.
It was enough for the Swedish and French governments to order the destruction of the crop. Their response reflected an awareness of consumer concerns. For the error - which originated in Canada when a herbicide-resistant (GM) variety "contaminated" supplies of conventional seeds - goes to the heart of fears about gene technology in food. There is much anxiety about the risk of cross contamination; worry that DNA from a GM crop variety will find its way into conventional crops, even if cross-breeding is a widespread and essential element of agriculture.
If biotechnology companies want to achieve the potential many GM foods undoubtedly have, due recognition of that concern is essential. It has to come with rigorous checks. Effective controls are needed in markets where particular GM varieties - permitted elsewhere - are not authorised. Such protocols must apply even if scientists say the risk of "fallout" is negligible.
In this case, most probably, there is no risk to the environment or human health. Moreover, the chances are no GM material entered the food chain even if the crop was fed to animals. In any event, the levels were low, and GM material does not appear to assert itself in successive crop generations. But that is to miss the point. With confirmation in yesterday's Guardian that the biotechnology company Monsanto has discovered unexpected gene fragments in its most widely used GM product, a variety of soya, more evidence exists confirming we are dealing with an imperfect technology. The Department should have had a precautionary approach in place before it planted the hybrid at three locations in 1998 under in its seed "variety testing" programme, and not happened to discover the mishap more than two years later.
The Government has identified the potential of biotechnology and is committing substantial research funding over the next decade to the sector. That will be illustrated later today in UCD when Irish universities, Teagasc and BioResearch Ireland meet to chart the course of Irish food biotechnology. Yet with this latest error, it is hard to avoid the contention by the Green Party, that Government policy on GM foods is "incoherent", and insufficient protections are in place to provide consumers with the kind of assurances they require.