GMO tests controlled by private interests—Greenpeace

N EAL CRUZ’S latest column on genetically modified organisms or GMOs (Opinion, 12/16/13) was a disappointment. His assertions were erroneous and, regrettably, he used his column to echo the scurrilous diatribe of antienvironment propagandists.

Greenpeace did not lead the uprooting of GMO “golden rice” plants in Pili, Camarines Sur. The farmers acted on their own accord. They opposed the GMO open field experiment because it “went ahead without public consultation, environmental impact assessment, and prior safety tests on ‘ surrogate animals’.” (Inquirer. 8/16/13).

Bt eggplant, like other GMOs inserted with the Bt gene (crops genetically modified with the DNA of an unrelated organism, in this case the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis), is not proven to make the use of pesticides unnecessary. Local studies have shown that, worse, certain pests are now immune to Bt corn, requiring even more intensive use of spray pesticides.

We agree with Cruz: Any policy decision on GMOs in our country “must be based on verifiable scientific facts.” But we add, the scientific testing must be independent. At present there are almost no independent tests conducted on GMOs as they are shielded from the public eye under corporate secrecy clauses. Every GMO scientist, promoter, spokesperson and even many government evaluators have at one time or another worked for the very agrochemical companies that created GMO crops.

The Bt eggplant open-field experiment in Laguna was part of a corporate-funded GMO study by scientists working both for GMO corporations as well as for a private UPLB foundation. There is no objectivity in science that is controlled by private interests. And there is no justification for risky experiments that pose threats to the environment, human health and farmers’ livelihoods. Open-field experiments expose other crops to contamination that would be very difficult, and even impossible, to recall.

It helps to be reminded that the corporate face behind GMOs is a multibillion-dollar international industry whose enormous financial resources allow them powerful connections to further their agenda. In 2010, Monsanto, the single largest GMO corporation, spent $6.6 million in the United States alone for lobbying to promote laws that will lead to even greater corporate control of farms and crops—and to stop measures to promote sustainable agriculture.

Greenpeace Philippines stands with agricultural scientists, in the Philippines and around the world, who champion sustainable agriculture. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (Iaastd), a UN body of 400 leading agricultural scientists and development experts from around the world, released a report that called on governments to redirect and increase their funding toward a revolution in agriculture that is firmly agroecological. This means moving away from destructive and chemical-dependent industrial agriculture and to adopt environmentfriendly modern farming methods that champion biodiversity and benefit local communities. The Iaastd also concluded that GMO crops are not the solution to soaring food prices, hunger and poverty, and acknowledged the scientific uncertainty around GMO crops.

Because there is still no scientific consensus that GMOs are safe for the environment and human health, Kenneth Go of the Philippine Food and Drug Administration has no scientific basis for his irresponsible statement supporting GMO crops. Planting GMOs in open field experiments contaminates natural and traditional varieties. An important Philippine staple, white corn, in areas in the Visayas and Mindanao, is already contaminated with risky Bt corn DNA. We shouldn’t let this happen to the rest of our food.

As a last note: it is interesting that in the same column in question, Cruz praises the success of a tobacco manufacturer in a move “to be fair.” We see a parallel between GMO companies and tobacco manufacturers: cigarette companies went to extraordinary lengths to suppress the knowledge that smoking is harmful. It took a UN-WHO treaty in 2003 to start reversing decades of cigarette brainwashing and to create an agreement “to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke.”

It seems like Cruz is happy about the success of cheap cigarettes which pose health, environmental and social risks—and is irate about Filipino farmers who are demanding a safer, more ecological way to farm.

—DANIEL OCAMPO, sustainable agriculture

campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, daniel.ocampo@greenpeace.org

At present there are almost no independent tests conducted on GMOs