The word historical is frequently abused in the world of politics, but its adoption was appropriate in the context of a gathering to consider what place GM foods should have, if any, within the Irish environment.
All sides of the argument were under the one roof in a process designed by the Department of the Environment to allow the public participate in "balanced and robust policy-making". It may have proved to be a somewhat unwieldy process initially, but each relished the opportunity to lay out their stall.
The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, repeated his determination that the myriad issues, particularly public concerns, that arise from the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment should be addressed openly.
Essentially, the national consultation debate, which opened yesterday in a Dublin hotel (and resumes next week), was to consider all views on GM crops born of biotechnology; namely, the process in which an extra gene is incorporated into a food and confers a "desirable" characteristic. Most of the current generation of GM foods have in-built resistance to a weed-killer or insecticide, which their makers claim bring benefits to the farmer and the environment.
Mr Dempsey stressed there were no preconditions. He had not reached a final position on the highly complex issue of GM foods, even where there is only consideration of environmental consequences. He did, however, reiterate reasons why Fianna Fail could not deliver on its pre-general election promise of a moratorium on the release of GMOs to the environment. It was not possible for any EU member-state to impose a unilateral ban. "As Minister, I have to respect the legislation as it stands."
But Mr Dempsey accepted the restrictive nature of prohibition provisions in EU legislation was exposed when Austria and Luxembourg banned a GM maize product. Notwithstanding his allowing the debate to take its course, and the findings at the end of it from the independent chairing panel headed by Mr Turlough O'Donnell QC, he set down Irish principles that will apply when EU environment ministers attempt in June to overhaul EU regulations on GM crops.
In this, he underlined the precautionary principle (though those against gene technology applying to food say it is already too late as GMOs are already released into the Irish environment by virtue of GM sugar beet tests in progress). There was also a need for "maximum transparency" in regulations and labelling GM foods, he said.
Once speeches were over, what was of most concern to each side began to surface. Those against focused on the case for a moratorium: proper consumer choice (the ability to buy non-GM food), bio-diversity impact and ethical considerations, though Prof Peter Whittaker of NUI Maynooth also underlined the need for careful consideration of bio-ethical issues surrounding the technology.
The academics found in favour of GM foods in a weighing-up of positives and negatives but agreed there was need for effective regulation and case-by-case evaluation.
Biotech industry's emphasis was on considering the benefits and safety of GM foods. On those grounds, it believes, it's an argument that can be won.
Ms Iva Pocock of VOICE, a spokesperson for all 19 NGOs in the debate process, stressed their concerns were not just as environmentalists but also consumers, farmers, food producers/retailers, and those with ethical concerns. The first issue had to be "Should there be a moratorium in Ireland?", she said.
The debate had to be put in the context of a history of "no case of serious illness" or ecological disaster because of GM foods, said Prof David McConnell, a geneticist, of TCD. Separate to any asking if GM foods were beneficial or safe, the question had to put if regulations were adequate. And, especially in the Irish context, were regulatory agencies adequately resourced? This related most, he said, to the Department of Agriculture, the Food Safety Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Genetic Concern spokesman, Mr Quentin Gargan, highlighted surveys in Ireland and Scandinavia showing the more consumers learn about gene technology, the less they like it. This was disputed by two academics, who cited a EU-wide poll with high approval ratings.
The reality just now, however, is that any survey in Europe is likely to reveal that - with justified cause or not - most consumers are decidedly uneasy about a technology said by bio-industry to have "a perfect safety record". GM foods will not find acceptability until that lack of trust is overcome; another complicating factor that makes a satisfactory resolution of the GM debate for all sides next to impossible to achieve.
Mr O'Donnell said while a shortlist of key issues would be finalised over coming days, the very large list of concerns raised by the debate would feature in the chairing panel's report to the Minister for the Environment.