On Bt Corn, GMOs Importation in Relation to the CA Decision against Golden Rice, Bt Eggplant

Note, however, that the above data shows the demand and supply of corn and soya meal for the period 2019-2023 or before the CA’s decision. It pertains to a period when GM corn was already widely grown. Thus, the unfortunate situation (insufficiency of local corn production to meet the feeds and livestock industry) was due to GMO failure in the last 20 years, and not due to the CA’s decision.

Unfulfilled promise of GMOs

 Twelve years ago, a similar incident happened. The court ruled against the release to the environment of Bt eggplant through field trial in the case International Service For The Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc., et. al. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et - al. docketed as G.R. No. 209430 in 2012. Pro-GMOs attacked the decision.

Blaming the court’s decision for the feeds crisis just like now was used by the Philippine Association of Feed Millers Inc. (“PAFMI”) in their Petition/Motion for Reconsideration-In-Intervention in the said earlier Bt Talong case. It’s a pity that after many years since then, the Philippines has not addressed the same problem that is clearly, deeply rooted to GMO production and import dependence. It behooves us to ask what happened to the promised increased production in corn through GMOs.

A quick web search would reveal how Bt Corn was promised to make the country self-sufficient in terms of corn production. For one, in a 2018 article (Annex “C”), entitled “GM corn aids Philippine self-sufficiency”,^[1] the then Agriculture Undersecretary Segfredo Serrano made pride that the country was able to achieve  corn self-sufficiency as early as 2013 and that GM corn saved the country’s livestock industry. He even assured the scientists present in the media conference on the Global Status of Commercialized Biotechnology/GM Crops in 2017 that the “DA is with you in the rally for an enabling policy environment, for the generation of much-needed technologies that will help address challenges such as food security, agricultural productivity and competitiveness, and climate change”.

But, as the data shows, the local corn production has not strategically improved despite the use of GM corn in the last 20 years. Environmental scientist Donna Ria Josue-Canacan explained the adverse impacts of GM corn planting: “Although Bt Corn killed the common pests, after repeated and long-term use of Bt Corn, there was an observed shift in major pests. There was also emergence of new pests. The weeds in the Bt Corn farms also developed resistance over time. In response, farmers used more chemical pesticides and herbicides that killed not just the target pests and weeds but also the organisms and grasses that are needed to hold and keep the soil together and the environment healthy. Eventually, the soil degraded and eroded, productivity decreased and the income of Bt Corn farmers declined over time. This is the same finding in many research on GMO impacts.”

Before GM corn farming was introduced, corn farmers save and plant these saved seeds for next planting season. GM corn, on the other hand, cannot be planted after harvest. Thus, GM corn farmers have to buy GM corn seeds for every planting season.

In the long term, the adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts of GM corn outweighs the short-term, unsustainable benefits of planting it. The predicament of feed and livestock industry is significantly due to GMO failure.

The CA decision – victory to farmers, Filipinos      

In its decision, the 4th Division of the CA canceled the biosafety permits for the said GMO crops, directing respondent government agencies and other proponents – University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) on the case of Bt eggplant and Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) on the case of Malusog Rice, to cease from commercially propagating and conducting activities relating to the said GMO crops, until such time that the concerned respondent government agencies submit proof of safety and compliance with all the legal requirements.

The CA also ordered the concerned respondent government agencies to perform their mandate under applicable Joint Department Circulars (JDCs), by submitting to the CA concrete mechanisms adopted to monitor all activities conducted under the JDCs, and all measures taken to strengthen the risk assessment procedure outlined in JDC No. 1-2021. Subsequently, any application for contained use, field testing, direct use as food or feed, or processing, commercial propagation, and importation of GMOs is suspended until compliance with the decision of the CA has been effected.

With its decision, the CA sided with the petitioners in opposing the entry of GMO crops into the Philippines as they pose serious health and environmental risks and violate the Constitutional right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthy ecology.

 

The case

The case was initially filed with the Supreme Court on October 17, 2022, but was referred back to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.

 Represented by Z. Soriano & Associates (Community Legal Help and Public Interest Centre) and Butuyan & Rayel (CentreLaw), the legal action was led by Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG). The other petitioners in the case are non-profits Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives For Community Empowerment (SEARICE), Kilusang Magbubukid Ng Pilipinas (KMP), Climate Change Network For Community-Based Initiatives (CCNCI), and Salinlahi Alliance For Children’s Concerns (SALINLAHI), Inc., former Senator Orlando Mercado, former UP Professor Teodoro Mendoza, former National Anti-Poverty Commission Chief Liza Maza, consumer rights activist Reginald Vallejos, artist Mae Paner, and farmers Virginia Nazareno, Jocelyn Jamandron, and Lauro Diego.

The respondents in the case are the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Department of Health, the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry of the Department of Agriculture, the Philippine Rice Institute, and University of the Philippines-Los Baños.

Global and national opposition to GMOs

A significant trend is emerging globally against the acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In various countries, opposition to GMOs is evident through legal measures, constitutional provisions, and public sentiment.

To mention some efforts, Mexico's Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on genetically modified corn imports for animal feed, citing concerns over potential health and environmental risks. Additionally, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued a decree to ban GM corn for human consumption by 2024, along with the elimination of glyphosate, an herbicide associated with GM crop cultivation.

India has also halted plans for new trials of Bt Eggplant and other transgenic crops unless states provide certification and designate isolated trial sites, reflecting concerns about the potential agriculture and environmental impact.

On the other hand, Ecuador's constitution declares the country free of transgenic crops and seeds unless their introduction serves the nation's interests and does not threaten human health, food sovereignty, or ecosystems.

In the European Union, 19 out of 27 member states have either partially or fully banned GMOs, with countries like France, Germany, Austria, and others opting for total bans. This opposition is reinforced by public referendums, legislative measures, and strict regulatory frameworks.

In the Philippines, opposition to GMOs predates specific legal cases, with provinces, municipalities, and cities passing ordinances against the coexistence of genetically modified and organic agriculture. Concerns about the potential risks to health, biodiversity, and traditional farming practices have fueled this opposition.