In October 1996, genetically engineered (GE) soya beans developed by US multi-national Monsanto were released on the European market, unlabelled and unsegregated from conventional varieties. Recently, GE maize from another chemical giant, Novartis, was introduced to our shops.

Genetic engineering came to Irish fields in early 1997, when Monsanto applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a licence to test genetically engineered sugar beet. The notice of the application was published in newspapers local to the three proposed sites. No effort was made by either the industry or Government to provide information on the issues involved.

To help address the situation, some individuals, with the support of environmental, health food and consumer groups, launched Genetic Concern, a campaign to highlight the potential dangers of genetic engineering in food and agriculture.

We aim to provide information, to promote debate and to call for a moratorium on genetic engineering in food production until its environmental and health safety can be assured and until consumer choice can be facilitated.

Naively, we thought there would be many routes in the regulatory system through which we could voice our concerns. Not so.

Genetic engineering is controlled by a plethora of European regulations and directives which cover areas such as deliberate release, the placing of plant protection products on the market, marketing of seeds, animal feed, novel foods and the patenting of biotechnological inventions. Within the State, responsibility for these span four Government departments.

The EPA has autonomous power to grant licences for GE field trials. Members of the public have just 21 days in which to object, after which we have no right to make further comment. Most importantly, unlike issues relating to planning or pollution, there is no requirement in the regulations for a public inquiry into the EPA's decisions.

We have no direct say at all on whether genetically engineered crops can be grown commercially in the State. Such decisions are made within the EU, with the approval of relevant national civil servants or ministers. At no point has the public an opportunity to intervene. In fact, we do not even have to be told that genetically engineered crops are growing in our country . . . unless, of course, we ask.

The products are approved for consumption again without recourse to the public. GE crops are not segregated at source but are mixed with conventional varieties.

Current labelling regulations require that products containing protein from soya beans and maize grown in the US must be labelled as containing GE ingredients. Yet, this will only be accurate for a small percentage of the products. Also, the most commonly used derivatives of GE maize and soya beans such as starches, oils, fats, lecithin and additives are all exempt - though this may soon change under EU law.

In the spring of 1997, the EPA granted Monsanto a licence to grow field trials on Teagasc land in Co Carlow. Genetic Concern and other groups called for a public inquiry, for public debate, for a Dail debate, for a meeting with the Minister for the Environment and with the Minister for Agriculture. We were ignored on all counts, despite a very limited consultation process which we felt obliged to withdraw from. Remarkably, the Government has only agreed to have a Dail debate on GM foods in the last month.

It became clear that the only way for anyone to question the use of genetic engineering in Irish food and agriculture was to apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the EPA decision. And in the event of losing the case that person could be responsible for paying all the legal costs.

I decided to go down this route in the full knowledge of the risks involved, not because I felt the risks were acceptable, but because I knew there was no other option. A stand had to be taken to ensure that the issue was taken seriously.

Yet even the court case did not answer the questions we had to ask. We wanted to examine claims by industry that genetic engineering is safe for human health and the environment. However, a judicial review can only look at the technical and legal issues. In effect, what ended up being examined in court was whether the EPA used the correct procedures to make its decision.

The scientific issues, despite my legal team's best efforts to include them and in accordance with Monsanto's best efforts to exclude them, were not explored at all.

Regardless of whether genetic engineering is safe in its present form, I lost the High Court challenge. To add insult to injury, both Monsanto and the EPA vigorously contested that this was not a public interest case in which costs could be waived.

Estimates suggest the final cost could be as high as £400,000. Raising such a staggering amount would be an enormous task for any campaign group. For Genetic Concern it means that, rather than concentrating on raising public awareness, we may now have to focus on serious fundraising.

I am seriously considering an appeal to the Supreme Court despite the risk of incurring another few hundred thousand pounds worth of debt; hardly a fair basis on which to make such a decision.

The consumer used to be king. And the initiative by Superquinn and others is very welcome. But the fact remains that the political lobbying of the GM industry gives it the upper hand. Surveys show that consumers do not want the products of this technology but politicians and democracy have so far failed us. So what do we have to do next to make our voices heard?

Clare Watson is a founding member of Genetic Concern.