Genetically engineered food crops on trial
AGRICULTURE biotechnologist Dr. Rhodora R. Aldemita recalled that she was first introduced to the “Golden Rice” project as early as 2002 during her post-doctoral studies at the University of Freiburg, Germany.
As a scientist scholar from the Philippine Rice Institute (Philrice), she was asked to collaborate with Dr. Peter Beyer, a German biologist who invented with Zurich-based scientist Dr. Ingo Potrykus the “first generation” of the genetically engineered rice variety that can help cure Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD).
The golden rice laboratory was then housed at the Institute of Plant Sciences Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, with Potrykus as professor emeritus.
The Rockefeller Foundation provided initial funding for the development of the genetically engineered rice variety which accumulates beta-carotene, commonly known as vitamin A, in the grain.
This essential vitamin, however, is not available in sufficient amounts. The World Health Organization had reported that about 250 million preschool children are affected by VAD, and that providing children with vitamin A could prevent about a third of all under-five deaths.
Eventually, Aldemita became part of the golden rice team in the Philippine Rice Research Institute (Philrice) in 2005, with funding from the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation.
After two decades of research and development in the Philippines to study its viability in the country, the government finally granted a permit allowing the commercial planting of the Malusog Rice, the Golden Rice variety tailored for the country’s condition and tastes.
But last April 17, the Court of Appeals revoked the permit, bringing to a halt the commercialization of golden rice and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant based on a case filed by Greenpeace. the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pagunlad ng Agriculture (Masipag) and other environmental groups.
The Appellate Court concluded that in the absence of scientific consensus on its safety genetically modified crops should not be commercially cultivated.
The genetically engineered eggplant known as Bt talong, which was developed by experts from the Institute of Plant Breeding of the University of the Philippines Los Baños, on the other hand, was also approved for food and feed consumption—after also two decades of research— after it was found to be resistant to eggplant fruit and shoot borer, the most destructive pest of eggplants.
As early 2013, Bangladesh has started commercializing its Bt eggplant, which allowed farmers to drastically reduce their use of pesticides by 80 percent or more.
The Appellate Court concurred with the petitioner’s claim on the need to follow the so-called precautionary principle of waiting to approve new crops and activities until scientists reach a consensus that they are safe for humans and the environment.
Aldemita, now the executive director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agr-biotech Applications, said the appellate court’s ruling surprised the Asian science community,
“This could have a rippling effect, considering that the Philippine regulatory system had been the model for the region,” she said.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gabriel O. Romero, executive director of the Philippine Seed Industry Association, noted that the Philippines is already a leader in biotechnology, particularly after the government allowed the commercialization of its first genetically modified (GM) crop—the Bt corn—while adopting a stringent biosafety regulatory policy.
“For more than 20 years we have been positively benefiting from GM corn. Now we are sending bad signals to the farmers who have been seeking quality seeds if they were to get out of the poverty situation,” he said.
The CA decision, he said, also threatened to put to a halt the importation of GMO products which will adversely affect the feed industry since 70 percent of feed ingredients for livestock— poultry, hog raisers and even fisheries are from GMO soy and GMO corn.
While there are locally produced GMO corn seeds, the country still relies on imports for most of the supply, Romero said.
If the local supply to produce feeds is not enough, this might also impact the price of feeds in the market and subsequently impact the price of pork, chicken, and even cultured fish in the local markets, he explained.
But for Dr. Eufemio T. Rasco Jr., an academician at the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), the Philippines has stringent biosafety regulations on genetically engineered crops.
The opponents of the GM crops, he lamented, merely “want that researchers can assure that the technology is completely safe and has to have a completely zero possibility so it will not have a bad effect.”
“This is one requirement that is really difficult or impossible to satisfy,” according to Rasco, a professor emeritus at UPLB and author of the book, “Unfolding Gene Revolution,” which explained the ideology, science and regulation of plant biotechnology in the country.
The reason why scientists continue to conduct research, he explained, is to ensure that the “probability of risks is lower than those being used by farmers and consumers.”
“There’s no technology that is risk-free. That’s why the approach of regulators of the GMO technology is to look at the relative safety, compared to ordinary products,” he said.
Proponents argue that genetically engineered crops will not only yield higher harvests but can resist diseases and pests.
The Appellate Court should consider that government should also ensure food security as the main component for economic growth, they pointed out.