Any escape of genetically modified organisms into the environment would be disastrous for the reputation of Ireland as a State with foodstuffs which are not genetically modified, the High Court was told yesterday.
Ms Clare Watson, of Genetic Concern, said the Environmental Protection Agency had failed to satisfy itself there was no risk of such escape from a site in Co Carlow, where it has granted consent for the growth of genetically modified sugar beet.
She made the claims in an affidavit read to the court on the second day of her challenge to the EPA's decision, of May 1st, 1997, to grant Monsanto Plc permission for field trials of the genetically engineered beet on lands owned by Teagasc, at Oak Park, Co Carlow.
Ms Watson is seeking orders and declarations against the EPA and Monsanto - with an address in Buckinghamshire, England - which would quash the permission and direct the EPA to reconsider the application in accordance with specific laws.
The EPA has denied it failed to comply with the relevant laws and procedures and says it reached an independent conclusion on Monsanto's application.
During yesterday's hearing, Mr John Gordon SC, for Ms Watson, read some 27 questions put by the EPA to Monsanto about its application and the responses from the company.
He also completed reading Ms Watson's affidavit in which she said she has been increasingly concerned about the development of genetically engineered plants and animals and in particular the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMO) into the environment.
Genetic Concern, which seeks to raise public awareness of the dangers of the release of such GMOs, was particularly concerned about the application by Monsanto for the deliberate release of such organisms from the Oak Park site, she said. The procedure adopted by the EPA in dealing with the Monsanto application was inherently void and any determination based on such procedure was fundamentally invalid.
The EPA was required by the Genetically Modified Organisms Regulations (1994) to be satisfied prior to giving its consent that the deliberate release of GMOs would not result in adverse effects on health or the environment. Because of the level of information submitted by Monsanto the EPA could not have been satisfied in that regard, she said.
The documents submitted by Monsanto indicated there was a real risk that the plants, which were the subject of the deliberate release, may escape either as pollen or as seeds and there was no fall-back position or adequate proposals to ensure such escape does not occur, she said.
Ms Watson said it was generally accepted that an escape of GMOs would have an adverse effect on the environment. In the context of the Monsanto trials, it was particularly significant as the area within which such plants were to be grown was one where there were large quantities of similar type plants, with which the genetically modified plants could interbreed.
She said Monsanto proposed that pollen arising from the growth of such plants would be prevented by the manual pulling off of flower buds at two-week intervals.
In another affidavit, Dr Catherine Webb, of Monsanto, said she had more than seven years' experience in plant breeding. Since 1997 she had worked closely with the planning and implementation of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet trials.
She said the purpose of Monsanto's Carlow trials was to test the effect of Roundup - a glyphosate-based herbicide produced by the company - on glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet. The trials were necessary for Monsanto to secure approval for the commercial use of Roundup on sugar beet.
Dr Webb gave a detailed account of meetings with the EPA regarding Monsanto's application. She said the EPA was thorough in its conduct of the approval process and had imposed conditions not required by the UK authorities in relation to similar trials. Information required by the EPA was also more detailed than that required in several EU countries and the US.
Dr Webb also said there was "no realistic possibility" that any pollen might escape from the test site. It was "simply incorrect" to suggest there were no precautions to prevent the seed to be planted from escaping on the way to the planting site, or from escaping during planting due to the impact of birds and animals.
The hearing before Mr Justice O'Sullivan continues today.
