It is “a huge setback to the struggling science community.” It is also “a serious curtailment of the academic freedom of the University of the Philippines.”
That was how Dr. Emil Q. Javier considered the day when the Special 13th Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a ruling to permanently stop confined field trials of Bt talong (eggplant). Bt comes from “Bacillus thuringiensis,” a common soil microorganism.
“It is clear that there is no full scientific certainty yet as to the effects of the Bt talong field trials on the environment and the health of the people,” said the appellate court’s Special 13th Division, speaking through Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican.
“The CA Order was a perverse application of the Writ of Kalikasan which intent to assure the Filipino people of balanced and healthful ecology because this was precisely what the Bt talong research was trying to accomplish,” wrote Dr. Javier in his paper, “Misapplication of the Writ of Kalikasan.”
A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law which provides for the protection one’s right to “a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature,” as provided for in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution.
“The eggplants that Filipino housewives buy in public markets are very often heavily coated with chemical pesticides, to protect the fruits from the fruit borer insect which render the fruit inedible and non-marketable,” deplored Dr. Javier.
Dr. Javier is a former president of the University of the Philippines and the National Academy of Science and Technology. With a Ph.D. in plant breeding from Cornell University, he was the founding director of the Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB) and the National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in UP Los Baños.
“Bt talong is resistant to the fruit borer and need not to be sprayed, thus reducing the hazard to human health, reducing pollution of the environment, not to mention costs to small famers, and ultimately the food price to the consumers,” Dr. Javier explained.
Regarding the Bt gene, Dr. Javier said that it is safe and has been used “for half a century now” as biological spray to protect vegetable crops. It is the same Bt gene that has been transferred to and approved for food, feed, and environmental safety in corn, cotton, soybeans, and tomato.
“Hundreds of millions of hectares of these GMO (genetically modified organism) crops have been harvested worldwide since 1996,” he said. “And to date, no single instance of food poisoning and allergy has been reported and verified.”
According to Dr. Javier, the concern for the environment of the Special Division of Court of Appeals is “misinformed and misplaced.” In addition, the Writ of Kalikasan against Bt talong “may also negatively impact research in the Philippines on other important crops.”
The Biotech Coalition of the Philippines (BCP), a non-profit membership association which promotes the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology for national development, has the same concern.
“Confined field trials allow our scientists to better understand how biotech varieties grow in real-life conditions,” said Dr. Nina Gloriani, BCP president, in a statement.
Dr. Gloriani, who is the current dean of the College of Public Health at UP Manila, said that Filipino researchers “have long taken government guidelines for confined field trials very seriously and have worked to minimize any risks to the environment and human and animal safety.”
The country’s current regulatory protocols are very rigid and science-based. “Our current biosafety laws already provide for a high standard of protection for the environment and human health, and a track record of more than a decade of field trials and commercialization of Bt corn,” Dr. Gloriani emphasized.
For his part, Dr. Javier said that the World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Science, the British Royal Science Society and several other prestigious organizations consider consuming GMO foods are “no riskier” than consuming same foods from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques.
“In other words, varieties developed using genetic engineering technologies are equivalent, or even safer, to those varieties using conventional plant breeding,” Dr. Javier pointed out.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gloriani urged the Judiciary to reconsider the ruling and take into consideration the strict government guidelines for the confined field trial which minimize any health or environmental impact.
“We really hope that the ruling will be reviewed and reconsidered soonest for the sake of the development of Philippine agriculture,” Dr. Gloriani urged.
Dr. Javier issued this simple thought: “Between a known health and environmental hazard from the overuse of chemical pesticide versus speculation of risk from a gene from a common soil organism being transferred to other unspecified living things, the Court should have not succumbed to the fear of the unknown being sown by GMO opponents.”
