If a biotech company tomorrow developed a "wonder food" genetically modified to reduce cholesterol, predisposition to cancer and the ageing process, it probably would not even dare seek EU permission for its commercial production.
One look at the regulatory mire that has surrounded GM foods in Europe and it would be understandable if its developers held off in the interests of avoiding a prolonged and costly period of corporate masochism.
The EU's approval process - most notably under the 90-220 directive on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment - bears the hallmarks of a stalling station. No new GM crop has been approved for nearly a year, and this is not for want of potential candidates.
EU law, however, means member-states may refuse to accept GM crops approved by the European Commission if they have evidence of risk. Austria, Luxembourg and France have cited this provision. Others have reservations, but Greece has become the most vociferous of late. Britain with a pro-biotech government has, in effect, applied a moratorium on commercial GM crop production amid consumer hysteria.
Ireland has been non-committal, although it voted against two GM crops seeking approval this year. Its policy was due to be informed by a public consultation process overseen by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey. Today's meeting imposed a tight time-frame on an independent chairing panel which had less than three weeks to report to the Government and evaluate two public debates (the second of which was undermined by the withdrawal of most anti-GM groups in Ireland).
Such is the extent of the GM issue that many would contend the deadline was impossible to meet in terms of reaching an overview.
As EU environment ministers meet to consider reforms, they have to wrestle with two conflicting demands: a significant alliance seeking a moratorium, and the pressing need for standardisation of regulations underpinned by fast approval of GM foods.
Why will the US have such a bearing? The bigger picture reveals world trade increasingly encountering log-jams over food safety.
The G8 summit in Cologne last weekend was preoccupied with the issue. Some progress was made with a communique committing them to "a science-based, rules-based approach" to biotechnology.
More tangible progress was reported within 24 hours between the US (producer of 75 per cent of the world's GM produce) and the EU at their biannual get-together. Many regard this as the first step towards resolving differences over GM food.
Both sides agreed a pilot programme in which respective regulatory authorities would assess in parallel new GM products. The US hopes it will lead to a network involving scientists from both sides of the Atlantic coming to decisions promptly. Washington hopes this in turn will improve EU consumer confidence and signal reform of EU food regulations.
The European Commission realises further fallout with the US risks yet another food war, though the US knows that ramming GM foods down European throats will do it little good.
Moreover, failure to accept the merits of gene technology, with adequate safeguards and controls, risks undermining EU competitiveness. An overcautious approach with continuing bureaucracy and member-states doing solo runs when it comes to GM regulation will prove very costly.