The threads of the GM food debate in Europe have become so knotted that at times they seem impossible to unravel.
For many months the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has been one of the few State agencies daring enough to attempt to un-knot what are often terribly conflicting messages.
The bemused consumer has to decipher whether GM foods are going to save the planet or destroy it. At one turn, they are told they will result in multinationals cornering the global food market: at the next, they are told the foods will be the saviour of mankind.
On many occasions of late, the FSAI's chief executive, Dr Patrick Wall, has attempted to clinically tease out the basis for objections, before concentrating on the vital issue for his authority: whether GM foods are a threat to health.
The anti-GM food camp includes those who just don't like the sound of GM foods, those in favour of organic foods, consumers who simply want to eat non-GM foods on ethical grounds, and the conspiracy theorists who mistrust everything that comes from a multinational.
Yesterday's report from the authority, bolstered by the findings of its expert group on genetically modified organisms and novel foods, was a culmination of that process.
The report, particularly an associated leaflet for consumers, is predictable (based on the body of current scientific opinion) yet greatly helps the process of reintroducing reason into the debate; even if its remit was only food safety grounds, and it could not take on board the mainly genuine concerns about GM foods within other spheres.
The chairman of the expert group, Dr Colin Hill, a UCC microbiologist, identified the irony in that the power of gene technology is a primary source of objections to GM foods even if its precision comes with significant in-built safety.
GM foods were "the most regulated foods on the surface of the planet" and current forms available in the EU were safe. Yet the FSAI was not endorsing or promoting such foods, he said, or even acknowledging there were particular consumer benefits in GM foods on the market.
The risks of damning the technology so much that the benefits of any future "health-enhancing" GM foods would not be perceived have been underlined by Dr Wall. There is a strong case for considering "the healthier chip" made from a GM potato that absorbs less oil in cooking should it become available to a country like ours with such high rates of heart disease.
The report, clearly, does not endorse health concerns associated with GM foods as articulated by Genetic Concern. The extent of expertise behind it undermines a significant element of the campaign group's argument, though Genetic Concern correctly highlights an absence of independent study of GM foods effects.
In fairness, Genetic Concern cannot be accused of peddling the kind of misinformation and scare-mongering noted by the authors.
The (now acting) EU Environment Commissioner, Ms Ritt Bjerregaard, noted that "when the debate concerning genetically modified organisms becomes fierce, as at the moment, it is important to bear in mind that the rules on the marketing of genetic products have been adopted by the member-states themselves".
That should read: governments, Ireland's included, have got us into this fine mess, and must get us out of it in the best interests of their consumers; not to mention in the EU's economic interests (to maintain vital trade links with the US) and to retain a significant global presence in the field of biotechnology. Providing widely available user-friendly and non-alarmist information would be an indicator of new intent.
Prof Mike Gibney of Trinity College, a member of the FSAI's expert group, was asked yesterday to predict the immediate future for GM foods, especially given his membership of key EU food committees. It was likely to be one of "continued mayhem", he said, with politicians making convenient decisions coming up to election time.
He did not know what scientists could do amid the hysteria that stretches across much of Europe other than report their considered opinions, as they had done through the FSAI.
But he stressed that the scientific process was much like the judicial process, in that it got it right most of the time. It remains to be seen if this is sufficiently reassuring for a Europe showing signs that the more it knows about GM foods the less convinced it is of their merits.