A discernible shift has taken place in the controversy over foods said to revolutionise farming by adding "desirable genes" to crops. Such developments are increasingly worrying consumers.
Scientific opinion has in the main not been swayed by claims that GM foods are bad for you. But the environmental impact in terms of threatening wildlife and the genetic make-up of wild plants is proving to be a different story.
What many consider is the first clear evidence of GM crops posing a threat to wildlife emerged last week when researchers discovered the Monarch butterfly was being eliminated on coming into contact with pollen from GM maize, which produces Bt toxin, a natural insecticide.
A report from the British Medical Association indicates where most concern resides. It is illustrated by its warning that such foods and crops might have a cumulative and irreversible effect on the environment and the food chain, with implications for biodiversity.
And who would have anticipated that from a position of absolute certainty, the leading developer of GM crops, Monsanto, would now admit they can cross-breed with native plants creating hybrids resistant to some weed-killers?
The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, will attempt to address all environmental concerns before finalising the Government's position on the testing and introduction of GM crops to Ireland (even if testing has already begun). In the face of growing consumer concern and polarised debate, he announced a public consultation process last year, prompted mainly by an EU move to reform regulations. A national debate between all those who made submissions has stemmed from it.
The Minister rescued the process last month by altering the format after GM food opponents claimed it was imbalanced and too restricted in that it could not consider, for example, ethical and health concerns. He reduced State input and increased representation of non-governmental organisations, all 19 of which oppose the way GM foods are being allowed on supermarket shelves and testing arrangements for GM crops.
Since the process began in August, it has become as protracted as it has become complicated. On top of this, the Government faces a tight schedule if it is to be meaningful, as the EU is to finalise reform of its policy on release of genetically modified organisms into the environment on June 24th.
It could be argued that the debate should have taken place two years ago before a multiplicity of GM foods - some labelled, most not - began appearing on supermarket shelves. Since then, the debate has become much more intense and the research more conflicting, and notable in Ireland by an absence of input from the Departments of Agriculture and Health - though a report by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland said GM foods on the market were no more a threat than their conventional equivalents.
Today "the stakeholders" - biotech industry, academia and NGOs - will outline their respective positions after Mr Dempsey has made an opening statement and his officials have put the debate in context at Sutton Castle Hotel in Dublin. An independent chairing panel will then draw its conclusions in terms of setting the agenda for a final day's debate on June 3rd.
It may seem bureaucratic but the process is significant in that it gives the public an opportunity to state its concerns before national policy is codified - a rare opportunity to directly participate in forming regulations that will impact on the food we eat.