The debate on genetically engineered organisms in agriculture has reached a new peak with the recent flurry of statements and actions from both sides of the issue. The Samahan ng Nagtataguyod ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Sambayanan (AGHAM) being an organization of patriotic and progressive scientists is making this statement to put forward our position as scientists and clarify certain issues related to genetically engineered organisms and its social impacts.
 
Recently, the Biotechnology Conference of the Philippines (BCP) and some newspaper opinion pages sought to limit the discussion on genetically engineered (GE) organisms to a purely scientific and technical debate. They brand those who oppose GE organisms as "parochial" and "selfish", blocking the national biotechnology agenda to the detriment of the Filipino people. On the contrary, limiting the issue of genetic engineering on a purely technical and scientific level is actually the narrow and myopic view of the issue.
Indeed, there are concerns of the safety of these GE crops as raised by a group of scientists and we believe that to resolve this question, a more comprehensive study must be undertaken. We reject however, the current field trials spearheaded by Monsanto aimed at the eventual commercialization of Bt-corn. In its stead, we propose the creation of an independent panel of scientists who would undertake the more comprehensive study that may include field-testing in carefully controlled conditions agreed upon by the team and the local community.
However, we would want to point out that even if the question of safety is finally resolved, the issue of who dictates and controls the use of this technology remains. This is the central core of our opposition.
We oppose not the technology. We believe this should be left to the option of the Filipino people who should decide which technologies they should use depending on their needs, conditions and capacity. However, historically it has not been the Filipino people who chose technologies to use in agriculture. For example, in more recent history, the use of high yielding varieties (HYVs) in rice and pesticide and chemical fertilizer technologies in the Green Revolution did initially increase production but has led to a deeper dependence on these farm inputs. These farm inputs are under the development and control of the agrochemical multinational companies, who now transformed themselves as the "life-science" industry with modern biotechnology.
The claims of the agricultural biotechnology industry that only their products are needed to feed the world and the re-echoing of this argument by the NCBP and the BCP is ignoring the realities that the majority of our farmers are in. In the Philippines, land is concentrated into the hands of a few landlord families while most farmers are landless or lack enough land to sustain their families.
Small farmers are not only dependent on the landed elite for land but pay a high landrent from the already meager harvest. They are also at the mercy of usurers who charge exorbitant interest rates for loans and merchants who under price products they buy from farmers but overprice agricultural inputs they sell to farmers. The available agricultural technology also remains backward.
This is the main cause of food insecurity in our country. Genuine land reform is the answer to this problem. Only then, can any kind of agricultural modernization program will succeed in alleviating the poverty rife in our country and put us in a genuine state of food security and self-sufficiency.
Government policies only worsen the situation. The proposed privatization of the National Food Authority and the present liberalization of agriculture and trade under the so-called globalization only serve to weaken the already weak agricultural sector and strengthen dependence on huge agrochemical MNCs. This is in sharp contrast with the supposed biotechnology policy as pointed out by BCP. In that policy, the government should be the one to promote food security but their sincerity is in question with their conflicting policies and action.
In the issue of field-testing by Monsanto, the government through their inaction or active complicity to allow these trials is indicative of their outlook in agriculture. Instead of maliciously and falsely accusing farmer groups and supporters of ignorance and portraying them as anti-science, opinion editorial writers as well as the scientists of the NCBP and the BCP should realize that the farmers, and the rest of the Filipino people, indeed realize that science and technology will be part of increasing their productivity. However, from the Filipino people's experience, as long as science and technology remains in the control of foreign multinationals and in the hands of a few, these technologies are but a tool for the majority's oppression and hardship.
This is not to say that we do not welcome advances in science. In fact, we do rejoice and are gladdened by these developments. What we reject is the control of these technologies by a few huge multinationals for their profit at the expense of the environment, health and lives of the Filipino people.
The scientific community, in particular the biotechnology sector, should put the opposition of the people to GE crops in the proper context. By limiting the debate of GE crops to the scientific and technical safety issues, we become unwitting tools of the huge multinational companies. We in the scientific community should instead unite with the people in resisting the control of these multinationals of who dictate what technologies we use and what type of development we pursue.
We call for the creation of an independent scientific panel to investigate and resolve the questions of safety of GE crops and technologies. In this regard, we call for a moratorium on the on-going field-testing of Monsanto Bt-corn.
We call on the science and technology community to unite with the people in rejecting multinational control of GE technologies and in making science and technology serve the people.