Forget all the speculation about whether Europe now has a moratorium on GM foods after last week's dramatic gathering of EU environment ministers. The bottom line is that approval of any new GM products is not likely until 2002 at least, and that might not be such a bad thing, even for the developers of GM foods.
What has emerged is a European solution to a European problem. Directive 90-220 had become hopelessly fragmented by the differing interpretations, if not defiance, of some member-states. Ask any GM food company trying to survive in the mire of EU food regulation. An end of the political limbo surrounding these controversial foods is in sight.
The words "moratorium" or "ban" might be notable by their absence from any official documentation. Casting either of them in stone would be fraught with legal difficulty.
The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, does not get any sympathy from anti-GM groups when he reiterates this view. But this was borne out at the marathon council meeting in Luxembourg. Legal experts from both the Council of Ministers and the European Commission confirmed there was no legal basis for a general ban on GMOs under the current directive, though the emotive crusade of France and Greece might have suggested otherwise.
Mr Dempsey, in fairness, signalled from the start that he would not be supporting a "common position" at the Council of Ministers until his public consultation process on GM foods was completed.
The persistence of a small minority in seeking a ban meant forgoing an understanding in the form of a "political declaration". This would have meant any further GM products could not have been approved in the EU unless they complied with the more stringent requirements of the proposed amendments to the directive.
What resulted was a less clear position, but significant nonetheless. The Commission fears it could lead to challenges from increasingly exasperated manufacturers who have 11 new GMO applications on its books awaiting clearance.
Putting aside the moratorium, the agreement achieved is remarkable given past fragmentation. The new controls are more than reasonable. There is a good chance they will serve to reassure sceptical European consumers, if not the anti-GMO purists.
New GM products will still have to be approved by EU states collectively before being sold or grown in any member-state. Companies will also have to label their products if they contain GM material or foreign DNA/protein above a certain threshold.
Perhaps the most significant move will be to introduce monitoring after a GM food is introduced to the market, allied to a system of traceability. Liability should something go wrong is also back on the agenda. Approved products will be authorised for up to 10 years with an option for individual states to authorise for shorter periods. There will be mandatory public consultation on any proposed releases of GMOs into the environment.
Yet time is not on the EU's side. Anything which suggests new prevarication will trigger legal actions, probably led by the US going to the World Trade Organisation. It has not reached that point yet, though comments from a US trade representative imply a WTO action has re-emerged as a possibility.
Delays in introducing meaningful controls and efficiencies, by pandering to consumer concerns rather than science, risk undermining European competitiveness, both for food businesses and farmers.
Yes, there are environmental issues needing urgent attention, particularly resistance problems with "Bt crops" and unintentional effects on wild species.
However, the benefits of less chemical usage are showing tangible economic and environmental benefits, even if current products are of little direct benefit to consumers. Some 100 million acres of GM crops will be planted this year; not even 10,000 of them in the EU.
A nameless diplomat told the Financial Times before last week's meeting: "We have to demonstrate there is an effective regulatory regime that inspires the confidence of consumers and provides companies with more certainty. This is much better than talking about a moratorium."
Key steps in that direction have now been taken, though many twists and legal quagmires have yet to be overcome. Fuzziness is being replaced by some clarity underpinned by safeguards.