To many bewildered by the sudden emergence of an often complex debate about genetically modified (GM) foods, it may seem that biotechnology came to Ireland with the arrival of the US company Monsanto, the first to test revolutionary but controversial GM crops here.
Already, however, there are some 170 national and multinational companies specialising in biotechnology in the Republic. A significant level of expertise has been built up in higher-level institutions since the 1980s. A skilled graduate workforce is in place to attract inward investment.
A national biotechnology programme is ensuring academia is interfacing with industry and BioReasearch Ireland, through five centres at Irish universities, is making a contribution to international research and development.
This suggests the State is in a position to exploit biotechnology much the way it has already embraced information technology. The need for such a direction on a EU-wide scale has been advocated by the highest level in Europe as a key quality employment generating measure going into the next century. The sector is predicted to be valued at 250 billion ecus and employing three million people by 2005.
It suggests there is little room for slowing down the race by seeking more extensive evaluation of this new technology, and even less for moral evaluation of such a radical alteration of nature's genes.
Modern biotechnology is so firmly set on a course of rapid expansion that a moratorium on GM crop production, following a Fianna Fail pre-election promise, was an extremely unlikely, if not impossible, option at this point. Moreover, the European Commission is pushing for biotechnology barriers within Europe to be lifted so the EU can finally become competitive on a global scale and catch up with the US.
The statement in the heat of an election campaign saying the party would "not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history with the consumer as guinea-pig" was to haunt those Fianna Fail ministers with responsibility for environment, health and agriculture.
To give the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, credit, there are indications he now favours more extensive labelling to ensure consumers get proper choice when shopping; endorsing more exhaustive risk assessment and setting out public concerns to be addressed.
Such labelling commitments are extremely difficult to put into practice. Previous EU attempts at meaningful labelling - notably the discredited "may contain genetically modified organisms" provision - underline how expediency has been allowed to dominate over clarity.
The Minister is acutely aware that the labelling debate is linked to the issue of whether it is necessary, feasible and viable to segregate GM products from conventional (non-modified) products. The environmental group, Genetic Concern, has always said any labelling system which does not incorporate segregation is flawed.
By attempting to improve labelling - it is not yet exactly clear how - he is attempting to ensure consumers will have ultimate choice and determine whether GM foods are accepted.
While it may be ostensibly endorsing a more pro-consumer line with talk of transparency, safety and choice, the Government is clearly backing biotechnology. But given its "newness", the extent of opposition to GM foods, and research likely to suggest it may not yet be a perfect technology, the debate is by no means over.