Elenita Daño

Executive Director
South East Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment
(SEARICE)

Perspective

The public has a right to know

Whatever your views on genetic engineering and GM food, in a democratic society the public has a right to accurate information and an opportunity to express a view. Furthermore, national governments have a moral obligation to consult with as wide a public as possible, and should certainly involve all stakeholders. In a matter that has implications for food security and food production, environmental safety and public health, to say nothing of the livelihoods of farmers, governments should not be allowed to limit consultations on GMOs to those who already agree with them.

Civil society lobby groups in other developing countries might usefully learn from the fight that we, in The Philippines, have had over the right to have a say on GMOs. The Philippines government was the first in Asia to introduce biosafety legislation. That was in 1989 and was in response to civil society pressure triggered by IRRI's work on rice bacterial blast. But very few representatives of civil society were involved in the process of drafting the biosafety regulations nor have they been able to contribute to, so-called, public consultations since, for example on the guidelines introduced in 1997 for field trials of GM crops. SEARICE, which is very active on issues that affect seeds, lobbied the government to hold consultations among farming communities and people's organizations but these were refused on the grounds of cost. Since then, the government has argued that it has indeed adopted a multi-stakeholder consultation process on the grounds that two or three representatives of civil society have taken part. We, at SEARICE, feel this is by no means adequate for an issue with such far-reaching implications.

In April 2002, the Department of Agriculture adopted an administrative order allowing the importation and commercial use of genetically modified crops, including food crops. This will take effect this year. But, since 2000, there have been field trials of GM maize, and many laboratory experiments on GM rice, maize, coconut, papaya, mango and other crops. Are the public being kept informed of the results, particularly as public money is involved? Only to the extent that there have been press releases and photographs issued by the multinational companies that are involved, and which show - unsurprisingly - a glossy, entirely favourable image of the results. When challenged, the government argues that publication of the full research results is restricted under the terms of their agreement with the companies concerned.

So where is the debate on GM crops heading? Is the commercialization of GM crops in The Philippines the end of the argument? By no means. We shall continue our work to raise people's awareness. We shall continue to explain the issues with posters, comics and radio spots in local languages. People have a right to know. Setting aside the arguments about biosafety and access to seeds, what is the use of growing GM maize when Europe refuses to accept it, South Korea has adopted very strict guidelines on importing and labelling, and Japan is generally saying no to GM crops? And why would farmers in The Philippines want to grow GM maize when the market has been liberalized and world prices are low? The world needs to protect diversity, not threaten it.

The GM debate has now become so polarised in South East Asia that people who were once friends and colleagues, but find themselves on opposite sides, will not even speak to each other. Countries on the brink of making decisions on GM crops must try to avoid this. The key is to involve as many as possible in the debate and not limit it to scientists and academics. Nor should they allow themselves to be caught up in the promotional gimmicks of forces that are pushing for the products.

Back to top