The Supreme Court decision to stop the field testing of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is snuffing out the dreams of young students and scientists. The ruling is also removing the incentive to study the benefits of agriculture biotechnology and threatening the country’s food security goals.
The Philippines had long been at the bottom in the field of sciences. Only one-fourth of the average number of university enrollees, according to the Commission on Higher Education data from 1994 to 2011, choose engineering, information technology and natural sciences programs. The number of graduates does not even carry that same ratio—only about 14 percent of graduates on the average come from these courses.
The numbers may grow worse at this time, especially now that the Philippine judiciary seemed to have backtracked on its rules on biotechnology”•the use and even the study of biotechnology are now currently put to halt unless the joint department circular among line agencies led by the Department of Agriculture is approved.
The Supreme Court’s decision in December to temporarily ban the “contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation” of GMOs followed a ruling to permanently halt the development of GMO eggplant, after a legal case filed by a group led by the Philippine unit of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.
The High Court ruling has its own dire repercussions on a number of students enrolled in the agriculture biotechnology courses in the country. Over 300 students of the University of Los Baños taking agriculture biotechnology are now in a quandary after the Supreme Court issued the controversial decision.
The UP Grains or the U.P. (Genetic Researchers and Agricultural Innovators Society), comprised of a mix of agriculture biotechnology students who are readily giving trainings to farmers, is frustrated and wants to voice out its side of the GMO story.
UP Grains member and officer Kohlin M. Lallabban, a graduating agriculture biotechnology student, notes that “for years, science has been duly neglected in the country, from the decreasing budget allocations, to the lack of support for local innovations, and recently, the repealing of the only official support the Philippine government ever had for biotechnology in the country.”
“These are disturbing trends, showing how the Philippines isn’t advancing, but turning backwards to the time when people are afraid of change just because they don’t understand it,” laments Lallabban.
A daughter of a farmer and a teacher, Kohlin greatly depends on the state funding to finish her course. However, as the UP system now prohibits the use of the school laboratories for any biotechnology applications in accordance to the SC directive, she must now personally finance her laboratory research requirements to finish her thesis. She concedes her family could not afford to pay for the lab expenses, which could entail at least P65,000.
She hopes government line agencies will immediately approve a joint department circular governing the use of biotechnology in the country.
Contrary to the claims of GMO critics, students like Kohlin are not there to “exploit, abuse and earn” from the technology. Their ideologies are still intact.
“We do not wish to exploit the masses and the environment through science and we never will. After all, we, as the millennials, will be the ones to inherit it anyway. We have every reason to believe that we have given much effort to improve people’s lives, and make this country a better place to live in,” she says.
Kohlin, students and the rest of the academe are hoping that public consultations on the new rules governing the country’s use of biotechnology, whether for research and commercial purposes, will unravel the truth.
Biotech supporter
Kohlin and other aspiring agriculture scientists are not alone in trying to educate the public about the benefits of GMOs. The National Academy of Science and Technology Philippines earlier expressed concern over the impact of the Supreme Court decision to stop the field tests on food security and scientific research.
NAST-PHL said the court’s conclusion that there was lack of consensus on the safety of genetically modified crops was derived from a very limited literature survey and questionable sources.
The science body said none of the references covered the statements of the academies of science of many developed and developing countries that there was no difference in the risks between GM crops and conventionally-bred crops.
“The information sources cited by the court, in fact, recommend that further research be conducted to assess the risks in the deployment of GM crops. Unfortunately, by permanently stopping the field tests of Bt eggplant, the research that would have provided the answers to the reservations on the safety of Bt eggplant can no longer be continued,” the group said.
“It must be pointed out that this move, if not clarified, will have serious repercussions on the research and development activities, especially in plant breeding as well as the flow of the supply of food and feed specifically those that are based on crops largely harvested from transgenic lines, like soybean and corn,” the group said.
“The possible disruption in the supply chain may cause food security issues in the near future,” it warned.
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]