the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, is set to get 19 organisations - all opponents of genetically modified foods - back on board for a series of national debates prior to the Government finalising its policy on the issue.
In what is believed to be a bottom line offer, Mr Dempsey has indicated he is prepared to give the non-governmental organisations a bigger role in the main debate.
The change in format was proposed at a meeting yesterday between Department officials and representatives of the NGOs, which had previously withdrawn from his consultation process. It entails four NGO nominees featuring in the main debate in late May with two speakers from the biotech industry and two academics. Originally, only two NGO nominees were envisaged. Two Government representatives due to be nominated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment are to be withdrawn, though the Department of the Environment will make an opening statement. Mr Dempsey has stood firm, however, on the make-up of an independent four-member "chairing panel" which will report to the Government at the end of the debate process.
The formation of a policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the environment faces a tight schedule, as the German Presidency of the EU has indicated it will attempt to reach consensus on the highly divisive issue at an environment ministers' meeting on June 24th.
Yesterday's attempt to get the Irish process back on the rails is likely to succeed as it is believed most if not all 19 NGOs (which had formally objected to the way GM foods were being introduced and regulated) are likely to rejoin the process.
They had claimed it was imbalanced and too confined. They are likely to participate because of their repeated demands for debate and previous commitment to the process - indicated by submissions made to Government - though they still have reservations about the format. The NGOs' spokeswoman, Ms Iva Pocock of the pressure group Voice, said: "We believe it's a limited consultation process because it's not raising all the issues that genetic engineering raises."
Mr Quentin Gargan, a spokesman for Genetic Concern, said it was not the kind of consensus debate needed to evaluate GM food issues across agriculture, health, environment and trade, but they were likely to participate.
Meanwhile, European Commission attempts to dilute reforms of the main EU directive on GMOs, known as 90-220, may be resisted in many member-states. Greece has placed a moratorium on GM crop tests, while Austria and Luxembourg are not likely to relent on their GM food bans. Restrictions in France and Denmark, and to some degree in Britain, will make the Commission stance harder to defend.
Ms Patricia McKenna, a Green MEP, criticised the Commission position as "ridiculously weak". It did not embrace caution in tune with consumer concern and ignored most of the key European Parliament recommendations, she said, notably the introduction of mandatory liability to hold industry responsible for any negative impact.
Commenting after the Commission presented its amended proposal on the Bowe Report, which will set the June ministerial meeting agenda, Ms McKenna said it had rejected calls for the drawingup of a list of banned GMOs; an end to the use of antibiotic resistance markers in GM products and measures to reduce risk of GMO transfer.
Senator Jim Gibbons (PD) has criticised the Green Party's approach. Reasoned debate was required to help consumers understand the issue, not scaremongering which had distorted facts and fed confusion, he said.
