Debate format defended after protest boycott by opponents

The independent chairman of the national consultation process on genetically modified foods has strongly defended the format for the final debate held yesterday at Sutton, Co Dublin, despite the withdrawal of 19 anti-GM food groups.

Dr Turlough O'Donnell QC accepted it was "a matter of considerable regret" they did not see fit to return after an initial debate last week. He was satisfied the first debate was "open, participative and democratic", and fulfilled the objectives set by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey.

The agenda reflected the initial proceedings, and the four-person chairing panel was confident it matched the Minister's brief in consulting all interests on genetically modified organisms and the environment. "It was a fair attempt to deal with key environmental issues," he said.

The NGOs' representative, Ms Iva Pocock, said it was not simply a matter of the agenda. "We are not being party poopers because the agenda is not exactly the way we want it. But for the Minister to rule out the possibility of a moratorium even before the debate, a process we entered in good faith, was totally unacceptable." Genetic Concern spokesman Mr Quentin Gargan claimed there were indications the chairing panel was unclear on its brief and the process was "merely a cosmetic exercise". This was an indictment of the way the process was put together and reflected the way Government departments were at variance on GM foods.

Dr Jim Ryan, of BioResearch Ireland, the Republic's biotech research agency, said he could see no justification for the withdrawal. The debate format had been restructured in response to their concerns and to give them greater representation. If they wanted to alter the format again, it would have been possible, he said.

The debate was conducted with thoroughness and courtesy. The chairing panel, which is expected to report by June 24th, was keen to tease out issues ranging from safety to regulation to labelling. But the absence of Genetic Concern and 18 other diverse interest groups (and their counter-argument) undermined its efforts. It is to rely on written submissions and tapes of earlier presentations from the NGOs.

There was also an absence from the process of a sense of collegiality, to the extent that some bridges could have been built between two polarised sides. Many continued to rely on the absolutist arguments that had dominated previous debates.

It was Prof Joe Cummins, a geneticist who is concerned about GM technology, who noted the absence of that essential element to consensus-building. The emeritus professor of genetics at the University of Western Ontario came from Canada to represent Genetic Concern at the debate. But he spent the morning sitting alongside the protesting NGOs, at the entrance to Sutton Castle Hotel. A garda monitored their movements. For them, consultation did not mean collegiality, and certainly not consensus.