GMO: Farmers’ Friend or Foe?
The Philippines plants its first genetically modified crop
By Maricar T. Manuzon

In developing countries like the Philippines, resistance to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is very strong. Nonetheless, it is only fairly recently that the government came up with an updated set of rules to regulate the entry of GMOs and bio-engineering technology in the country.

The Department of Agriculture’s Administrative Order No. 8 (DA-AO 8) issued in April 2002 is the administrative framework for the risk assessment of GMOs brought or to be brought into the country, albeit applicable to plant and plant-based products only. DA-AO 8, also known as “Rules and Regulations on the Importation and Release into the Environment of Plant and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology” took almost three years to craft, after extensive consultations.

DA-AO 8 sets into place a process by which the DA will conduct a formal determination of the safety of plant and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology. Under DA-AO 8, all biotech plant and plant products for release into the environment for field testing and propagation, or for importation for direct use for food, feed, or for processing shall undergo required safety tests. The permits to be granted under DA-AO 8 include that for field testing, propagation (or commercial planting), importation for direct use as food, feed, and processing, and delisting of the regulated article.

The main regulatory agency for DA-AO 8 is the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), which has the mandate over plants and plant products, whether derived using modern biotechnology or not. The BPI will be assisted by other regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Animal Industry, Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards, and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority. These agencies are expected to give advisory opinions in accordance with their respective mandates and responsibilities and the nature of the product. The BPI is also assisted by a Scientific and Technical Review Panel, an independent body of scientists which conduct risk assessment on bio-engineering technology and products.

However, what can be considered as the antecedent and more general and encompassing policy version of DA-AO 8 is the Philippine Biosafety Guidelines first published in 1991 (with a second edition published in 1996) by the National Biosafety Committee of the Philippines (NBCP).

reated in 1990 through Executive Order No. 430 with the aim to protect the environment and human health against unnecessary risks posed by GMOs and possible harmful exotic species, NBCP is an inter-agency body tasked to formulate, review, or amend national policies and guidelines on biosafety.

Following the issuance of DA-AO 8, DA’s regulatory agencies are now formulating their protocols for their new role in regulating plant and products of modern biotechnology and are building on the National Biosafety Committee of the Philippines risk assessment guidelines and expert advise of international organizations engaged in biotechnology/biosafety. The regulatory agencies will also need to come up with monitoring protocols. What needs to be looked into is the policy on the labeling of Genetically modified (GM)z plant products, as it has been consistently raised as an issue by consumer groups.

PHILIPPINES’ First GM Crop
Employing DA-AO 8 in the risk assessment, DA approved in December 2002 the propagation and import for direct use of Bt corn – the first genetically modified crop approved for field-testing in the country.

Bt corn is a variety of corn where a specific gene of Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt – a common soil bacterium used safely since the 1950s by organic gardeners and farmers worldwide as biological insecticide – is inserted to produce a protein that protects the corn plant from asiatic corn borers, the number one enemy of corn. The corn borers cause up to 80% yield loss as they feed on the stem, leaves, and corn ears even before they are harvested. Bt corn is being planted for its insecticidal properties, and the consequent promise of better yields and income for farmers.

Although highly unpopular among some consumers and environmentalists, there is yet to be found a clearly defined scientific basis to declare Bt corn unsafe. DA argues that Bt corn has undergone thorough testing for toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional food and feed values. This, DA holds, is in keeping with its mandate to assure the entry of safe foods for the Filipino consumer.

Besides, DA adds that more than 50 international organizations including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, declared GM crops - including Bt corn - as safe and pose no additional threat to human and environment. Moreover, countries of the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, United States, South Africa, and Argentina have approved Bt corn for food, feed, and environment. From 1996 to 2002, Bt corn has been planted in almost 44 million hectares.

A DA primer elaborates that Bt corn has the potential benefits of increasing corn farm yields by an average of 40%, and reduce farm costs by eliminating the need for commercial pesticides which, in turn, reduce labor inputs. These benefits all redound to increased farm profits for Bt corn farmers. An increase in yields improves the income of farmers and could reduce poverty in the rural areas.

DA further argues that Bt corn use would result in improvement in the environment since it requires less pesticide use. On a national scale, increased corn production can reduce dependency on corn importation. The Philippines imports an average of 300,000 to 500,000 metric tons of corn annually.

Notwithstanding the highlighted benefits of Bt corn usage and the quite positive experience with GM crops of developing countries, oppositors still hold that GM crops run against the natural evolution of crops and have not yet been proven as safe to humans and the environment. Furthermore, they fear that once GMOs are released to the environment, their possible harmful effects would be irreversible. Note, however, that there is an ideological slant to the argument that genetic engineering of crops is tinkering with God-given nature – and even the Philippine Catholic hierarchy is using this argument to join the anti-GMO bandwagon.

The other argument used against GMO crops is that they foster unnecessary dependence of farmers on the companies which produce the seeds. In some cases, seeds sold are so-called “terminator” seeds because they are unable to produce more new seeds, which keeps farmers going back to seed manufacturers to buy more. The counter-argument here is that such seeds can be highly productive so that even continuous purchasing of them - at more expensive prices at that - makes them a worthwhile investment. In any event, in the case of corn seeds, farmers still have a choice of whether to go for GMO seeds or hybrid seeds or the traditional, open-pollinated variety.

Another argument is that GMO seeds are engineered to work best with other products such as herbicides produced by the same manufacturers of the seeds. Such tight linkages may make for steady markets for the manufacturers but could keep farmers heavily dependent on them.

At the end of the day, it may all boil down to what makes farmers – especially in developing countries – more viable and rich while solving a food security issue for countries like the Philippines. As in any GMO debate, it is hard to come up with a conclusive ending to this article. It seems that genetic engineering will remain a controversial topic until such time that GM crops like Bt corn prove that they can provide benefits without adding risks to the environment or human health.