FOCUS ON ASIA'S RESISTANCE - The Philippines
Much of the following material is taken from GM WATCH's new *FOCUS on ASIA* resource and the included links http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=42&page=1
The Philippines
1.Introduction: GM crops
2.FEATURED RESISTANCE GROUP: Masipag
3.SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS OPPOSING GMOS IN THE PHILIPPINES
4.ARTICLES from the Philippines
- GMOs derail food security
- More protests against Monsanto
- IMMUNOLOGICAL REACTION TO Bt TOXIN
Commercial approval for the cultivation of Monsanto's Bt corn was granted in December 2002 despite fierce opposition, including a protracted hunger strike, from farmers' organisations, environmentalists and sections of the Catholic Church. Subsequent concerns about a possible link of Bt-corn farming to outbreaks of illness in the Philippines have been the subject of scientific research. (see item 3 below)
Pressure to accept GM crop production has come not just from the biotech industry and its lobbyists, backed by the US, but also from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) which is located in Los Banos, Laguna, about 60 kilometers south of the Philippine capital, Manila. Here Golden Rice is among the GM crops under development.
---
2.FEATURED RESISTANCE GROUP
MASIPAG
http://www.masipag.org/
MASIPAG is short for Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) or the Farmers-Scientists Partnership for Development.
It's a farmer-led network in the Philippines of people's organizations, non-government organizations and scientists working towards the sustainable use and management of biodiversity through farmers' control of genetic and biological resources, agricultural production and associated knowledge.
"MASIPAG is a product of its own time. It was born out of necessity to critically respond to glaring spread of rural poverty and has evolved as the farmers' challenge to the Philippine government and IRRI [International Rice Research Institute] to respond to the real situation and need of Filipino small farmers" after the failure of the Green Revolution.
---
3.SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS OPPOSING GMOS IN THE PHILIPPINES
SEARICE
http://www.searice.org.ph/
RESIST!
http://www.geocities.com/resist_agtncs/pr7.htm
Philippines Greens
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
http://www.geocities.com/kmp_ph/strug/0520a03.html
---
4.ARTICLES (2004)
i.GMOs derail food security - analysis from the Philippines (10 August 2004)
ii.More protests against Monsanto in the Philippines
iii.PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF STUDY SHOW IMMUNOLOGICAL REACTION TO Bt TOXIN
---
i.Upshot: GMOs derail food security
By BV Lopez
Business World, Philippines
10.08.2004
http://www.biotechimc.org/or/2004/08/3233.shtml
The issues of health safety and environment in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in agriculture, although important, are really secondary from a geopolitical view. It is the issue of control by foreign multinationals (MNCs) of Third World self-reliance in food production and the issue of food security which has a deeper impact. Small agrarian countries like the Philippines will easily be meek lambs ready for the slaughterhouse if foreigners controlled food production and used it as a geopolitical tool for economic and political ends.
Once GMOs proliferate, agriculture will become totally dependent on the MNCs [multinational corporations] for their GMO seeds, a dangerous technological monopoly which may be irreversible. Most MNCs going to GMOs today are in the red, and in their despair, they expect to be saved only by the staggering windfall from their monopoly over GMO seeds. Their targets are the critical basic staples such as rice, corn, and sweet potatoes, which makes it more scary.
"In Uganda, conventional breeding (of sweet potatoes) has produced a high-yielding variety more quickly and more cheaply" than GM varieties, hinting of the monopolistic overpricing practice of MNCs. After three years, in the same protracted but failed project in Kenya with a staggering investment of about $6 million financed by Monsanto, the World Bank, and the US government, sweet potatoes modified to resist a virus "were no less vulnerable than ordinary varieties."
Yet the PR was way ahead of projected milestones. Project leader Dr. Florence Wambugu branded it a "resounding scientific success" and an "agricultural revolution in Africa" in spite of its utter failure to resist the virus. (New Scientist, Vol. 181, No. 2433, 7 February 2004).
The greatest PR ploy of the GMO MNCs is the "food for the hungry" line and "food security" when the effects of GMOs are the exact opposite. In India, Syngenta's GMO rice is being blamed "for destroying the livelihoods of the peasants ... destroying sustainable agricultural systems in Asia. This is leading to food insecurity and causes hunger in Asia." GMO causes food insecurity by derailing "appropriate technologies such as organic farming called System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and other ecological methods, that have been proven highly productive without using ... hybrids, or GE seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides."
Thus, the Indian farmers reply, "We do not need corporations such as Syngenta to feed us." (Pesticide Action Network/PAN, 27 April 2004).
Controlling seed banks and plant genetic resources is a key GMO MNC strategy. In the Cordilleras, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), a known GMO MNC supporter, angered locals by collecting rice seeds for years for their gene banks without giving back anything. I wonder if IRRI is willing to share its seed bank with Filipinos from whom they got it. Or is it "patented" for future monopoly?
In India, Syngenta "attempted to control the whole gene bank of Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, which held 24,000 rice samples in trust." Their partnership soured when the university started smelling a rat after Syngenta requested for the gene bank to be transferred to its laboratories.
The next step after gene-banking is patenting. "Since (Syngenta) announced the successful sequencing of the rice genome in early 2002, it has become obvious that parts of the genome have now been patented." (PAN). In other words, after "stealing" the species from Third World resources, it now claims "ownership" of modified versions for exclusive sale through patents. They do not pay royalty on the sources of their sequencing or share ownership or patents. They may own the technology, but not the inputs or the original genes.
The EU hates GMO, that is why MNCs have gone to the Third World countries which are easier preys. China is going GMO because it can see the US as the huge GMO market, focusing on three key crops - soybean, corn, and cotton. It also foresees local shortages, especially in soy bean.
Which are the institutions behind the global proliferation of GMOs? These are the very international lenders which give us loans and grants. USAID, the World Bank-financed Monsanto's sweet potato fiasco in Kenya. The hidden global agenda of these lenders, together with the US government, is to support the MNCs, whose ultimate sources of funds are the MNCs themselves. It is the entire confluence of rich countries undermining poor nations on a worldwide scale. The US government, because of the powerful lobby of the GMO MNCs, is the single biggest prime mover of GMOs and its obsession is global proliferation.
This is the reason MNCs have all the money for expensive PR programs in the Third World. They set up pseudo-farmer associations to articulate and justify their campaigns, to give a false picture of consensus. Their media clout is extensive. There is a huge but silent global war raging this very minute surrounding the invisible microscopic gene. The GMO advocates are blinded by the windfall, but the environmentalists and health advocates can see dangerous, irreversible contamination and destruction in spite of claims of safety because GMO is an "infant science." There are too many unknowns to be discovered in the future only when it is irreversible. But more important, farmers and peasants can see their livelihood and productivity being stolen by gigantic forces of global proportions they are helpless to fight. And Third World nations see their ability to feed themselves being undermined.
---
ii.More protests against Monsanto in the Philippines
Anti-Bt corn advocates "convict" Monsanto
Bong Sarmiento/MindaNews/27 May 2004
KORONADAL CITY -- Some 1,000 members of militant groups staged a protest rally Thursday outside the plant of seed giant Monsanto Phils. in General Santos City where they held a mock trial and judged the firm "guilty" for promoting the controversial Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn which they claimed is hazardous to humans and the environment.
Eliezer Billanes, chair of the South Cotabato Movement Against Genetically Modified Organisms (SCMAGMO), said members of militant organizations from as far as North Cotabato and Davao del Sur joined the indignation rally.
Monsanto was found "guilty" for allegedly causing illnesses to humans and poisoning the environment, he added.
"Monsanto should stop the commercial distribution of Bt corn. We are convinced that Bt corn has ill effects to humans and the environment," he said in a telephone interview.
Among those who joined the protest action were Bayan Muna, Kilusan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas, Anak Pawis, Gabriela, Suara Bangsamoro and representatives from the local Catholic Church. The Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) spearheaded the protest action.
In December 2002, the Philippine government, through the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Plant Industry, approved Monsanto's application for the commercialization of Bt corn.
As a result of the approval, anti-Bt corn advocates launched several protest actions, highlighted last year by a hunger strike headed by Roberto Versola, a prominent critic of the transgenic crop, in front of the DA main office in Metro Manila.
Likewise, before the approval for the crop's commercialization was granted to Monsanto, disgusted militant farmers stormed and uprooted on Aug. 29, 2001 Monsanto's Bt corn field test site in barangay Maltana in Tampakan, South Cotabato. The crop was about to be harvested at that time.
Despite the protests, Monsanto officials have repeatedly assured that Bt corn has no ill effects on human health and the environment.
"This approval in the Philippines demonstrates that both farmers and government regulators recognize the safety and benefits of plant biotechnology, which is why use of these technologies continues to expand throughout the world," said Robb Fraley, chief technology officer of Monsanto.
"This acceptance is driven by the overwhelming benefits of biotechnology, such as significant reduction in pesticide use," he added.
According to Monsanto, the YieldGard 818 Corn Borer was the first biotech crop to be approved for commercial planting in the Philippines, and is one of the first biotech food crops to be approved for planting in Asia.
Company officials said several other Asian countries including Japan, Korea,Taiwan and Australia have reviewed the safety of a number biotech crops and granted import approvals.
They also said the approval for commercialization by the agriculture department was based in part on local field trial results that demonstrated significant increases in yield and a reduced need for insecticide applications, which will potentially increase farmers' incomes.
Early this year, a Norwegian scientist, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, claimed that traces of Bt toxin were found in the blood samples of residents living near a Bt corn field in Polomolok, South Cotabato.
Traavik, however, stressed that it is difficult to conclude whether the traces of Bt toxin found on the blood samples were a result of the individuals' exposure to the Bt cornfield in sitio Kalyong, barangay Landan in Polomolok town.
Local Monsanto officials had brushed aside the findings of Traavik and recommended an independent study about the matter.
"We really don't know how they were able to determine such findings. I think it's a biased result considering that they came from those opposing our product," Francisco Camacho, Monsanto's technology development executive based in General Santos City, said.
He said the credibility of findings should be substantiated especially the process of taking the blood samples. "We have to make sure that the samples were taken properly and that the process of the analysis was based on accepted scientific standards," he said.
Camacho also said the alleged infection of Landan residents by the Bt corn plants was the only report they received from hundreds of sites planted with the crop in this city and nearby South Cotabato.
---
iii.PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF STUDY SHOW IMMUNOLOGICAL REACTION TO Bt TOXIN
http://www.searice.org.ph/
A scientist who analyzed the blood samples of some farmers and individuals living near the plots where a certain type of Bt corn was planted last year in a town in Mindanao, in Southern Philippines, has shown a coincidence in time which may or may not show a cause and effect relationship between the production of antibodies against Bt toxin and the disease allegedly suffered by these farmers and individuals.
“Antibodies in the human blood show that these people have been exposed to the Bt toxin during the last few months," said Dr. Terje Traavik, the scientist from the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology who conducted the study.
Around July of last year, when the nearby Bt corn plot was flowering in that Mindanao town, several individuals complained of headache, flu, nausea and general weakness of the body.
Their condition persisted for several weeks, prompting the Social Action Center, an arm of the Roman Catholic Church under the Diocese of Marbel, to seek the help of several local organizations and NGOs like SEARICE and MASIPAG to help identify the cause of their symptoms in order that they can get the proper medication.
Aware of the need to do more follow-up studies to what he has already done, Dr. Traavik emphasized that “the most pressing issue now is to see that the rest of the studies here are carried out as soon as possible.”
With the commercialization of Monsanto’s Bt corn, the Philippine government has received a number of applications of other varieties of genetically engineered corn for commercial cultivation, apart from dozens of genetically modified organisms for food, feed and processing, approved since January 2003.#