In the face of constant badgering from Green TDs, the Government has finally agreed to have a Dail debate on genetic engineering as it applies to food. Within a week it had also decided to set up an inter-departmental committee to interpret "mixed signals" on genetically modified (GM) foods and report back to the Cabinet as soon as possible. A snap change, it seems, from almost blind indifference over many months, to active engagement, if not panic.

The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, in contrast to his non-engaged colleagues in Agriculture and Health - and despite the colossal implications of gene technology for their fiefdoms - did at least attempt to formulate a national policy. He initiated a consultation process last August.

But it was seriously behind schedule when derailed recently by 19 non-governmental organisations, including Genetic Concern. They decided to discontinue participation because of the confined structure of a series of national debates - even if pulling out flies in the face of their constant complaint that the Government was refusing to engage in meaningful discussion.

Indications of voter unease with the technology have suddenly become more discernible. And the more consumers sensed that GM foods were being imposed on them (most obviously in the form of unlabelled produce) with little gain for them so far, the more unease became concern.

It also happens to be a time of political vulnerability in the run-up to local and Euro elections. The absence of rigorous policy and balanced Government-led education on biotechnology - probably due to a wish that the EU would get to grips with this complex subject - means the State has every chance of succumbing to anti-GM food fever.

Irrationality and hysteria are facilitating its spread. An information void meant scare tactics succeeded and calm evaluation was all but impossible in many EU member-states. "Anyone who has dared to raise even the smallest hand in protest is accused of being either corrupt or a Dr Strangelove," is how the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, describes it.

Britain is in a tizzy since some prominent scientists defended the sensational claims of Dr Arpad Pusztai. The issue has gone beyond the fuzzy world of boffins when the News of the World screams: "Tell us if it's safe." Dr Pusztai has shown the need for more extensive testing of GM foods, but claims of damage to immune systems from eating GM potatoes rely on what is increasingly regarded as slipshod work - reflected in the verdict of leading British toxicologist Prof Tom Sanders, and others, that it was substandard and unworthy of publication in a reputable science journal.

There is a need for extreme caution with the development of GM foods, particularly the threat of cross-pollination and possible vulnerability of insects, birds and other species. But over-reliance on Pusztai-type arguments will not serve the public interest, and risks forcing an abandonment of the technology even where it has proven potential.

The Government is now, however, trapped in its own tangle and trying to play catch-up. Its debate is probably 18 months too late in the sense of adequately defending the State's biotechnology interests and yet ensuring sufficient protection of its environment and facilitating calm evaluation of these novel foods by consumers. There will be little comfort from Europe in coming months as the European Commission attempts to unravel a confused mess, with many member-states flouting EU regulations.

Moreover, it knows the EU should instead be preparing for the mother of all trade wars with the US over GM foods: the kind of confrontation which will make disputes over bananas and hormones in beef appear like bun fights, because of much greater investment by the US in GM crops.

However, attempts to introduce Monsanto's controversial genetically engineered growth hormone BST, which boosts milk yield in cattle, to Europe, will make for an interesting side-show, and may even deepen anti-gene technology sentiment.

A vote to include BST in the Codex Alimentarius, the international list of approved food additives, will probably be the trigger. The comments of the US Agriculture Secretary, Mr Dan Glickman, did not cause the trepidation they should have, for they coincided with GM foods moving away from the realm of reasoned debate. What was lost in the process was "a sense of perspective, a capacity to discriminate between, and evaluate the separate risks. And then to add in the gains", the Financial Times noted.

The State was fortunate in that the Food Safety Authority injected calm reasoning into the debate here, while it has to be said the campaign group Genetic Concern resisted the scare option in favour of sound argument backed by its considerable scientific expertise built up over two years.

Mr Glickman is talking of the need for "a strong science-based embrace of new technologies" in Europe, a code for acceptance of GM foods. His government is increasingly exasperated with "the slow pace and unpredictable nature of the EU's approval process for GM crops", reflecting consumer suspicion rather than healthy scepticism. Last year, the US sold only a fraction of its usual volume of corn to Spain and Portugal as its new GM varieties had not yet been approved.

Firstly, however, the European Commission has to overcome deep internal divisions on how best to update regulations and address labelling rules that will continue to infuriate consumers unless there is crop segregation. There is dispute over the length of time a GM product should be licensed under directive 90/220.

Some governments want the Commission explicitly to declare that a member-state can refuse to approve a GM product on ethical grounds. Others contend this would effectively allow governments to "ban GM foods because they do not like them". They also have to take on board the European Parliament's demand for GM product liability cover for any negative impact.

The State's failure to confront the implications of gene technology means it now has considerably less stringent safeguards than Britain, which under Mr Blair is unashamedly pro-biotech. There are signs of change, with the Government recently voting against allowing two new varieties of GM cotton into the EU, after the State's inglorious history of abstaining on GM product votes. Fortunately, Europe's GM food quagmire means a possible resolution will not now be proposed by the Commission until June at the earliest.

It allows time for a meaningful Irish policy to be finalised - one that should embrace biotechnology but also signal new safeguards that will not be compromised.