National consultation by the arms of government on issues of vital relevance to Irish people is rare. The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, should be commended for initiating such a process with the difficult and complex implications of genetic engineering as they apply to genetically modified (GM) foods. The outcome of that process is, however, less comforting, despite its "positive but precautionary" position.
The report of a four-person independent panel, which has been adopted in full by the Government, presents a particularly strong endorsement of GM foods when unknowns and concerns hang over gene technology as it applies to plants. It also coincides with meltdown in consumer confidence in many parts of Europe, if not in Ireland. Monsanto, a leading GM foods company, has in the past week admitted it pushed GM foods with an arrogance that alienated consumers. It has also backed down from using terminator technology which forces GM seeds to shut down operation after a growing season, tying farmers into not inexpensive royalty payments.
The panel, headed by Dr Turlough O'Donnell, operated with thoroughness and commitment that ensured two national debates were meaningful; even historic. It also succeeded in ensuring essential elements of transparency, better safety evaluation and improved labelling are now part of Government policy on GMOs and the environment - though the Republic is embracing these principles long after the EU. What is of concern, however, is that some of the broad conclusions are quite strident where the picture, if anything, is not so unequivocal.
Many scientists would reject the absolutist view that genetic modification in agricultural crops has not produced "any harmful effects on human health or the environment". Their contentions would primarily centre on possible environmental impacts which are not reflected in the report.
What of America's beloved monarch butterfly shown to be put under further survival strain by GM crops in a study carried in Nature, one of the world's most authoritative scientific journals? What of evidence of cross-pollination between GM plants and wild species, so much so that US authorities are extending protective zones around GM crops? Then there is conclusive evidence that GM pollen travels far greater distances than anticipated. Equally, what are known as Bt crops - with a genetically modified organism (GMO) in-built to generate tolerance to a herbicide - are leading to less chemical use but resistance in plants is building up sooner than anticipated. Resistance has implications far beyond the GM plant itself.
When such issues appear to be brushed aside, or not considered significant, one can appreciate why anti-GM groups believe the process was flawed and their genuinely held views were treated in a dismissive fashion. Their withdrawal from the second and most crucial stage of the debate was most regrettable - some would say it was a cynical gesture to scuttle the process when it was not going to arrive at the result they wanted.
But having seen the withdrawal of all major groups against GM foods, Mr Dempsey's contention that the process was not undermined does not hold up. To achieve a sense of balance and fairness, therefore, inclusion of a minority position in the report might have been appropriate.