Reactions to the Supreme Court Ruling on Bt Eggplant

On 8 December 2015, the Philippine Supreme Court (SC) issued a decision reaffirming the ban on the Bt talong/eggplant field trials being conducted by the University of the Philippines (UP) in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Bt eggplant, a genetically-modified organism (GMO), contains insecticidal genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria which makes the plant resistant to the fruit-and-shoot borer pest, thereby reducing the need for pesticides.

In a rare instance of policy-making (or rather, policy-influencing), the SC, through its Resolution Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 and 209430, ruled that, in consideration of the precautionary principle and the inadequacy of existing regulation,

1. The conduct of the assailed field testing for Bt talong is hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED;

2. Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08, series of 2002 is declared NULL AND VOID; and

3. Consequently, any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms is TEMPORARILY ENJOINED until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance with law (note: emphasis mine).

Reactions were mixed yet predictable. While the SC decision drew harsh criticism from several prominent scientists in plant breeding and genetics, Greenpeace and its local nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-GMO/pro-organic partners celebrated their victory. Below is a round-up of Op-Ed pieces on the decision.

Reactions against the SC decision

1. A misapplication of the writ of kalikasan: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 — Dr. Emil Javier, former Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), UP President and member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), counters the Court’s theory of the right to a balanced ecology by arguing that man has been tilting the balance of nature in man’s favor, especially in the fields of agriculture and medicine, throughout civilization. In addition, Dr. Javier contends that the very nature of the Bt toxin, because of its specificity, rules out the possibility of harm to humans. Dr. Javier also warns that the decision may lead to food insecurity, unless the DA comes up with revised guidelines and Congress enacts appropriate legislation to address the Court’s concerns. Finally, Dr. Javier observes that while there is no unanimity, there is broad consensus in the scientific community regarding the safety of GMOs.

2. The SC kills Bt talong, and takes down Philippine science as well — Dr. Michael Purugganan, Dean of Science at NYU, claims that that SC Decision is so prohibitive as to stifle future research and development of GMO technology in the Philippines.

3. Dark day for science — According to Mark Lynas, environmentalist and former Greenpeace member, the Court ruling, in essence, has given greater weight to the biased and anti-science arguments of Greenpeace and its allies over the competent expertise of NAST, UP, DA and DENR combined. However, Greenpeace has produced little scientific evidence to back up its claims, save for citing the retracted and heavily-discredited studies of staunch anti-GMO advocate Dr. Seralini, which Greenpeace itself has funded.

4. Fear of science and The end of agri research? — Boo Chanco, business journalist and political pundit, claims that the decision manifests a fear of science and the unknown. Furthermore, Mr. Chanco claims that Court has overstepped its mandate by tackling an issue that should be handled by the Executive and Legislative branches.

5. Statement of the UP League of Agricultural Biotechnology Students (LABS) — UP students assert that the SC Decision is a misapplication of the precautionary principle, and that only through testing can scientists determine the effects of a particular technology. The students further call for science-based decision-making and a broadening of understanding of biotechnology in the country.

Edit as of 26 March 2016: Additional articles from the scientific community

• Bt talong safe for consumption, good for economy: researchers
• A heavy blow to food security and scientific research: UPLB Position on the Supreme Court Decision on BT Eggplant Field Testing
• SC Bt ‘talong’ ruling’s economic implications
• The SC’s Bt talong decision: Error in precaution?
• A scientist’s take on SC’s decision on Bt ‘talong’

Reactions from the legal community

1. Next steps after BT Talong decision — According to Dean Tony La Viña, Dean of the Ateneo School of Government, environmental lawyer, former Undersecretary at the DENR and drafter of the National Biosafety Framework, the harsh criticism of the SC decision from the scientific community is unwarranted because the decision merely exposed the need to revise the country’s outdated biosafety regulations. In his closing, Dean La Viña argues that “the decision enables scientific progress by laying down the markers for a good regulatory process.”

2. SC Bt ‘talong’ decision: criticism baseless — Oscar Franklin Tan, lawyer and columnist, argues that the decision “made no scientific pronouncements.” Rather, it served to “nullify government GMO guidelines for lack of measures on risk management and transparency for stakeholders required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.”

Reactions in support of the SC decision

1. Rejoinder to a scientist’s ‘blast’ against SC for stopping GMOs — In his counter-article, Dr. Romeo Quijano, pharmacologist and toxicologist, accuses Dr. Purugganan of being anti-people, corruption and pandering to big agri. Dr. Quijano then lists down all the international organizations that have allegedly declared GMOs as unsafe (note: Ed. has not found any anti-GMO statement from these organizations. Further reading).

2. Philippines Supreme Court bans development of genetically engineered products (Greenpeace), Farmer-Scientist Group, Petitioners Won Case Against Bt Eggplant (MASIPAG) and Filipino scientists, farmers must build on court victory vs BT Talong, unite vs corporate capture of agriculture (AGHAM) — Anti-GMO activist groups laud the Court’s decision, citing the decision as a victory for Filipino farmers and consumers. Moreover, the civil society organizations reiterated their stance against genetic modification/engineering, claiming that GM technology only serves the interests of big agricultural companies like Monsanto.

Other reactions from journalists

1. Fear of science and The end of agri research? — Boo Chanco, business journalist and political pundit, claims that the decision manifests a fear of science and the unknown. Furthermore, Mr. Chanco claims that Court has overstepped its mandate by tackling an issue that should be handled by the Executive and Legislative branches.

2. A quaint court ruling on GM eggplant — Crispin Maslog, science journalist, argues that the Court has raised the issue of whether it is competent to judge scientific matters, thus exposing the need for the Court to hire independent scientists to assist in the deliberation of science-related cases.