Was the Department of the Environment's great public debate on genetically-modified foods an attempt at consensus-building or was it a dodge to placate nervous voters?
In either case the whole scheme has come crashing down around the ears of the Minister, Mr Dempsey, following the decision by 19 of the 21 NGOs involved to step out of the process.
Today was to be the second day of a two-day national consultation process during which the pros and cons of the introduction of modified foods and crops were to be thrashed out. Debate will be in short supply when the meeting convenes in Dublin this morning, however, given the absence of all those opposed to the technology.
Left at the rostrum will be industry representatives, joined by academic researchers who, on day one, were decidedly in favour of genetic engineering.
Gone are the organic food producers, environmentalists and concerned citizens who are frightened by the lack of clarity over whether modified foods are safe.
The Department and the GM industry will blame the NGOs for refusing the fence, backing out of the process after deciding it wasn't giving them what they wanted.
For their part, the NGOs will say the four-person independent panel set up to oversee the debate produced an unworkable agenda for today's discussions, and that in any case the process was only a cosmetic exercise to help fend off awkward questions as the Government parties plied the Euro and local election hustings.
What will be lost in these exchanges is the fact that as a national public consultation process on the release of genetically modified organisms to the environment, the scheme has been an abject failure. The only point to its credit was that it at least attempted to bring together the various strands of the argument.
Day one was noteworthy in that virtually no debate occurred, only a restatement of existing and highly polarised positions. It also failed to deliver a close of business agenda set by the panel, which had been indicated on the day's schedule of events.
Was day two likely to be any better? It seems doubtful given an agenda that flies in the face of the Minister's and the independent panel's chair, Dr Turlough O'Donnell's insistence that the debate must focus on GM organisms and their release to the environment.
Mr Dempsey insisted there was no need for a governmental process, that one driven by the Department was sufficient given that it would look only at how the technology might affect the environment.
Mr O'Donnell initially rejected attempts by animal welfare groups on day one of the process to enter the discussions because only modified crops and not modified animals were on the programme. He later adjusted this position, though it does not appear on the agenda for day two.
Today's agenda allows for four 90-minute "debates", only one of which is about the environment. The other three are about the economy, regulation and providing information to the public.
It was on the presentation of this agenda that the NGOs decided they were walking off the pitch. But even if they had remained, how inclusive were the proceedings, how "national" was the debate?
The national consultation process was announced by the Minister in August 1998. He invited any interested parties and members of the public to make submissions for inclusion in consultation documents to go forward for debate over the two days. About 200 submissions were received and these filled a telephone book-sized document.
The respondents were then invited to come to the debate and speak, but members of the public were not. Either you stated your interest early on or you were left out of the process.
As might have been predicted, the lobbies on both sides were quick to sign up and were there on day one and these two camps dominated the proceedings.
No debate occurred, however, as one entrenched speaker was followed by the next. Some hours were given over in the afternoon to allowing the rest of the "public" to be heard, but these were little more than unanswered expressions of concern and worry.
This is not a consultation debate, this is not a way to help people come to grips with the issues. It has done nothing to calm public fears about genetically modified foods, and has done nothing to make people feel better informed.
The lack of concerted action by Government on this issue has left an information vacuum which has been quickly filled by advocates on the extremes of the GMO argument. There are recognised ways to build consensus and public confidence, based on intensive public involvement in the debate. Instead we have a process where the punter for the most part is nowhere to be seen.