A call for a lengthy and public debate on genetic modification and biotechnology was made to the Environmental Protection Agency before the agency granted permission for field trials of genetically-modified sugar beet in Co Carlow, the High Court heard yesterday.
The call was made by Ms Clare Watson, of the organisation Genetic Concern, in a letter sent to the EPA in February last year objecting to the application by Monsanto plc for permission to conduct the field trials.
In the letter, Ms Watson wrote that "the whole question of genetic modification and biotechnology has huge ethical and moral implications for us all". She asked: "What right have we to tamper with nature in a way that knows no boundaries, particularly when the replication of biological material is taken into account?"
She wrote: "We would very much question the motivation behind Monsanto's application and can only presume that they are aiming to ensure that as many farmers as possible get tied into using their beet and weedkiller."
The letter was read to the court on the ninth day of a challenge by Ms Watson to the decision of the EPA of May 1st 1997 granting permission to Monsanto, of High Wickham, Buckinghamshire, to carry out field trials on lands owned by Teagasc at Oak Park, Co Carlow. Monsanto is conducting the trials to assess the effects of its weedkiller, Roundup - in which the active ingredient is glyphosate - on glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet.
In court yesterday, Ms Fidelma Macken SC, for Monsanto, concluded her submissions on behalf of the multinational company. In the course of these she read the letter from Ms Watson which, she submitted, indicated that Ms Watson had ethical concerns regarding genetic engineering which were not the matter for decision by the court in the present case. She said Monsanto's application for permission for the trials complied with the requirements of the relevant 1990 European Council Directive and with the Genetically Modified Regulations 1994. The application was "perfectly valid".
People had 21 days to make submissions or objections to the application and, if further information came to light in the closed period of the application, there was no requirement on the Minister for the Environment, or the EPA, to enlarge that time. If the time available was objectionable from a statutory point of view, the Minister should have been joined to the proceedings.
In closing submissions for Ms Watson, Mr Frank Clarke SC said he was standing over his submission that the EPA must be satisfied that the risk of damage to human health and the environment from the release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the environment should be zero before granting permission for such releases.
Even if he was wrong in that, he submitted that Monsanto was incorrect in its submission that the 1990 directive must be construed as not providing that there must be a zero risk. He said the directive provided that measures must be taken to avoid release of GMOs, not just minimise these.
Mr Clarke resumes his submissions today before Mr Justice O'Sullivan.