AN INVITATION
PUBLIC FORUM on "RICE CRISIS: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED RICE IS NOT THE ANSWER?"
June 10, 2008 (Tuesday), 1:30pm to 5:30pm
Main Hall, AANI Herbal Garden, QC Circle, Quezon City.
The NO to GMO Coalition is holding a public forum entitled, ?PUBLIC FORUM on "RICE CRISIS: IS GE
RICE THE ANSWER?" scheduled on June 10, 2008 (Tuesday), 1:30pm to 5:30pm, at AANI Herbal Garden, QC Circle, Quezon City.
The activity seeks to discuss the issue of rice crisis in the country, the government policy on rice and the different responses of various sectors, i.e., genetically engineered rice and the organic farming.
Furthermore, it intends to gather different perspectives on the same from various sectors.
In line with this, we would like to invite you and/or your representative to participate in the said public forum. We are posting soon the programme for your perusal. Your participation would help the activity achieve its objectives.
For any inquiry and to confirm, please email no2gmo@yahoo.com or txt 0916 4755004
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Field studies find lower productivity with GM seeds
(The Independent, UK) – Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weed killer, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over.
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . "Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile."
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weed killer, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over.
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . "Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile."
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."
Sustainable Agriculture Works
For more than 30 years I have spent my life dedicated to natural resource conservation and protection of the environment. Since 1980 onwards we experimented on what we call then sustainable agriculture covering permaculture, natural farming, bio intensive gardens, bio dynamic agriculture, organic farming and a combination of the above. We focused primarily on rice in Infanta Quezon. Before I was merely an advocate without concrete and actual long term experience in the agricultural processes except through books and constant visits to
farmers' farms and our own demonstration farm..
In 1981 onwards to be able to understand not only technology but the farmers' life, difficulties and joys,I did actual tests with the farmers and somehow succeeded in veering away from "synthetic chemical" organic or synthetic or inorganic and organic, they are all categorized as chemicals...
GMO, hybrid, in bred, organic or inorganic inputs used; productivity increase or decrease in utilization are all definitely relative. It all depends on how a certain technology is used, what are the environmental factors of the soil, the cllimate and culture of the specific agricultural community... Comparisons would need similar is
not thesame parameters, both controlled and variables.
What is important I suppose are two urgent matters.
1. Will it be good for the farmers and the environment: will the farmers conserve nature through a technology, are they self reliant, can they depend on the environment which will make agri sutainable, will they get net income from the process of agriculture they are embedded in, can the markets absorb their products as the best product. These are practical questions we need to answer whenever we compare technologies lest some non friendly "sayantists" not necessarily scientists keep on on endless debates.
2. Do we consider philosophical as well as spiritual values of humankind and their relationship with nature, God and other members of society, more specially with the creator.
Let me end by sharing our latest efforts in Infanta. We were victims of the great disaster of 2004 where more than a 1000 has. of prime rice lands were submerged in mud, forest debris and rushing flood water for 2 days. When the waters receded we were left with powder like mud that is so infertile that some scientists warned me we wont be able to rehabilitate for two years at least. As the waters receded they brought to the sea the fertile top soil from the mountain and the former topsoil was buried to to three feet under the mud. Stubborn as we are, we came together and used all the knowedge and practices that we know and continuously studied with other groups.
We fine tuned and zealously pursued 10 best practices in rice. After two harvest where during which they simply kept what ever grew as bio mass, we started to plant.
Today more than before our top farmer harvests 9.2 tons of rice per has. Others get at least 120 cavans, 130, 140 150 170 cavans per hactare. Mind you no pesticides(toxic)were used. No hybrid seeds, all inbred but best cared for using our seed purification methods. For the soil we used a mixed fertilization or LEISA method as we veer away from synthetics.
3. What we did then was an antidote to green revolution. However, today, GMP which is considered the second green revolution has a lot of dangers over and beyond my two other comments above. Namely farmers welfare and sustainability as well as self reliance and not to be controlled by a few. Why is it more dangerous, because, GM is not necessarily safe. To unleash the experiment on poor, naive to this type of science where those doing the experiment donot provide insurance coverage to whatever negative effects happen is an injustice itself. Remember up to today, were the farmers compensated to the sickness and death of some farmers for the use of pesticides, the death of biodiversity in the soil due to the constant use of toxic synthetic chemicals. The risk is always care of the farmers. Most Asian farmers are small holders or landless. They are most vulnerable to vagaries of nature and science...If there are not guaranteed for field experiments, then let the experiment be isolated in the laboratories.
I hope this letter can help in the issues we are discussing. It is good to note that our experience is a proof that properly studied, guided and used, the participatory approach to agriculture can best promote what we struggle to show as sustainable agriculture.
Fr. Francis Lucas
President
ICDAI a community based organization in Infanta, Quezon
Chariperson
farmers' farms and our own demonstration farm..
In 1981 onwards to be able to understand not only technology but the farmers' life, difficulties and joys,I did actual tests with the farmers and somehow succeeded in veering away from "synthetic chemical" organic or synthetic or inorganic and organic, they are all categorized as chemicals...
GMO, hybrid, in bred, organic or inorganic inputs used; productivity increase or decrease in utilization are all definitely relative. It all depends on how a certain technology is used, what are the environmental factors of the soil, the cllimate and culture of the specific agricultural community... Comparisons would need similar is
not thesame parameters, both controlled and variables.
What is important I suppose are two urgent matters.
1. Will it be good for the farmers and the environment: will the farmers conserve nature through a technology, are they self reliant, can they depend on the environment which will make agri sutainable, will they get net income from the process of agriculture they are embedded in, can the markets absorb their products as the best product. These are practical questions we need to answer whenever we compare technologies lest some non friendly "sayantists" not necessarily scientists keep on on endless debates.
2. Do we consider philosophical as well as spiritual values of humankind and their relationship with nature, God and other members of society, more specially with the creator.
Let me end by sharing our latest efforts in Infanta. We were victims of the great disaster of 2004 where more than a 1000 has. of prime rice lands were submerged in mud, forest debris and rushing flood water for 2 days. When the waters receded we were left with powder like mud that is so infertile that some scientists warned me we wont be able to rehabilitate for two years at least. As the waters receded they brought to the sea the fertile top soil from the mountain and the former topsoil was buried to to three feet under the mud. Stubborn as we are, we came together and used all the knowedge and practices that we know and continuously studied with other groups.
We fine tuned and zealously pursued 10 best practices in rice. After two harvest where during which they simply kept what ever grew as bio mass, we started to plant.
Today more than before our top farmer harvests 9.2 tons of rice per has. Others get at least 120 cavans, 130, 140 150 170 cavans per hactare. Mind you no pesticides(toxic)were used. No hybrid seeds, all inbred but best cared for using our seed purification methods. For the soil we used a mixed fertilization or LEISA method as we veer away from synthetics.
3. What we did then was an antidote to green revolution. However, today, GMP which is considered the second green revolution has a lot of dangers over and beyond my two other comments above. Namely farmers welfare and sustainability as well as self reliance and not to be controlled by a few. Why is it more dangerous, because, GM is not necessarily safe. To unleash the experiment on poor, naive to this type of science where those doing the experiment donot provide insurance coverage to whatever negative effects happen is an injustice itself. Remember up to today, were the farmers compensated to the sickness and death of some farmers for the use of pesticides, the death of biodiversity in the soil due to the constant use of toxic synthetic chemicals. The risk is always care of the farmers. Most Asian farmers are small holders or landless. They are most vulnerable to vagaries of nature and science...If there are not guaranteed for field experiments, then let the experiment be isolated in the laboratories.
I hope this letter can help in the issues we are discussing. It is good to note that our experience is a proof that properly studied, guided and used, the participatory approach to agriculture can best promote what we struggle to show as sustainable agriculture.
Fr. Francis Lucas
President
ICDAI a community based organization in Infanta, Quezon
Chariperson
IAASTD Report: GM crops not the solution to World Hunger.
Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC
If GM crops are the panacea for solving the world food and energy crisis as Robin McKie alleges in The Observer (27 April, 2008) and Kevin Myers, “If Ever The World Needed GM Food production, It’s Right Now”, The Irish Independent, (April 29th,2008), its seems strange that it has not been endorsed by the recently released report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The IAASTD report is a unique collaboration between public bodies, such as the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives from governments, NGOs and scientific bodies. It is a thorough sifting of the evidence about agriculture and food production, running to 2,500 pages. It took four years to complete and involved the work of 400 scientists.
It does not endorse the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops will feed the world and produce sufficient biofuels for global transport. It argues that a drastic change in agricultural practices is necessary in order to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequality and environmental degradation. It maintains that GM crops are controversial and that they will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenge of climate change, loss of biodiversity, food security, poverty and hunger. It did not rule out a role for GM crops in the future, but highlighted the problems which the current regime of patenting seeds has on farmers and researches.
Hans Herren the co-chair of IAASTD believes that, a business-as-usual approach, is not an option. The report maintains that the most pressing agricultural need was to support small-scale farmers who operate in diverse ecosystems. These farmers need to be given access to better knowledge, more appropriate technology which is geared to farming in their particular location as well as more credit, so that poor farmers are not at the mercy of loan-sharks. They also need better roads and infrastructures, so that they can get their produce to markets.
Professor Janice Jiggins of Wageningen University , one of the contributors to the IAASTD report questioned whether GM crops had been proven as safe.[1] Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food, Rural Affairs, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, I would argue, no. [2] The report concludes that; Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.[3] The GM lobby often accuses those opposed to GM as being anti-science. Nothing is further from the truth. Robert Watson has pointed out that, “investment in agriculture science has decreased, yet we urgently need sustainable ways to produce food. Incentives for science to address the issues that matter to the poor, are weak”. [4]
Guihem Calvo, who is an adviser with the Ecological and Earth Science division of UNESCO, one of the agencies which sponsored the report, told a Paris news conference that, we must develop agriculture which is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and the use of organic fertilizers. [5]
The IAASTD report argues that small-scale farmers and ecologically sensitive methods of farming are the way forward. Furthermore, it believes that the agricultural knowledge of indigenous people and peasant farmers can play an important role, along side more accessible agricultural science, in meeting the food demands of today.
This reinforces my experience gained working with tribal and peasant farmers in Mindanao, in the Southern Philippines , during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. I, and many missionaries, who have worked on the ground in the Majority World, believe that famine and hunger have more to do with the absence of land reform, lack of access to cheap credit and basic technologies rather than with the lack of GM seeds.
The bias against women, which is so prevalent in both international and national agricultural policy, is also a major factor. Women, who are often the central players in agricultural production in the Majority World ( Third World ), only receive a miniscule proportion of that credit. According to the Nobel Prize winner, Wangari Maathai, African woman receive less than 10% of the credit given to small farmers even though women are ‘the primary caretakers, holding significant responsibility for tilling the land and feeding the children.
[1] Seán Poulter, “GM food ‘not the answer’ to world’s food shortage crisis, says report”, The Daily Mail, 16 April, 2008.
[2] Ibid.
[3] John Vidal, “Change in Farming Can Feed the World”, The Guardian, April 16th 2008.
[4] John Vidal, “Change in Farming Can Feed the World”, The Guardian, April 16, 2008.
[5] Ibid.
If GM crops are the panacea for solving the world food and energy crisis as Robin McKie alleges in The Observer (27 April, 2008) and Kevin Myers, “If Ever The World Needed GM Food production, It’s Right Now”, The Irish Independent, (April 29th,2008), its seems strange that it has not been endorsed by the recently released report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The IAASTD report is a unique collaboration between public bodies, such as the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives from governments, NGOs and scientific bodies. It is a thorough sifting of the evidence about agriculture and food production, running to 2,500 pages. It took four years to complete and involved the work of 400 scientists.
It does not endorse the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops will feed the world and produce sufficient biofuels for global transport. It argues that a drastic change in agricultural practices is necessary in order to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequality and environmental degradation. It maintains that GM crops are controversial and that they will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenge of climate change, loss of biodiversity, food security, poverty and hunger. It did not rule out a role for GM crops in the future, but highlighted the problems which the current regime of patenting seeds has on farmers and researches.
Hans Herren the co-chair of IAASTD believes that, a business-as-usual approach, is not an option. The report maintains that the most pressing agricultural need was to support small-scale farmers who operate in diverse ecosystems. These farmers need to be given access to better knowledge, more appropriate technology which is geared to farming in their particular location as well as more credit, so that poor farmers are not at the mercy of loan-sharks. They also need better roads and infrastructures, so that they can get their produce to markets.
Professor Janice Jiggins of Wageningen University , one of the contributors to the IAASTD report questioned whether GM crops had been proven as safe.[1] Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food, Rural Affairs, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, I would argue, no. [2] The report concludes that; Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.[3] The GM lobby often accuses those opposed to GM as being anti-science. Nothing is further from the truth. Robert Watson has pointed out that, “investment in agriculture science has decreased, yet we urgently need sustainable ways to produce food. Incentives for science to address the issues that matter to the poor, are weak”. [4]
Guihem Calvo, who is an adviser with the Ecological and Earth Science division of UNESCO, one of the agencies which sponsored the report, told a Paris news conference that, we must develop agriculture which is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and the use of organic fertilizers. [5]
The IAASTD report argues that small-scale farmers and ecologically sensitive methods of farming are the way forward. Furthermore, it believes that the agricultural knowledge of indigenous people and peasant farmers can play an important role, along side more accessible agricultural science, in meeting the food demands of today.
This reinforces my experience gained working with tribal and peasant farmers in Mindanao, in the Southern Philippines , during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. I, and many missionaries, who have worked on the ground in the Majority World, believe that famine and hunger have more to do with the absence of land reform, lack of access to cheap credit and basic technologies rather than with the lack of GM seeds.
The bias against women, which is so prevalent in both international and national agricultural policy, is also a major factor. Women, who are often the central players in agricultural production in the Majority World ( Third World ), only receive a miniscule proportion of that credit. According to the Nobel Prize winner, Wangari Maathai, African woman receive less than 10% of the credit given to small farmers even though women are ‘the primary caretakers, holding significant responsibility for tilling the land and feeding the children.
[1] Seán Poulter, “GM food ‘not the answer’ to world’s food shortage crisis, says report”, The Daily Mail, 16 April, 2008.
[2] Ibid.
[3] John Vidal, “Change in Farming Can Feed the World”, The Guardian, April 16th 2008.
[4] John Vidal, “Change in Farming Can Feed the World”, The Guardian, April 16, 2008.
[5] Ibid.
Stop the Reckless Genetically- Engineered (GE)- Rice Experiment on Filipinos!
Since Sept, 2006 through 2007, thousands of Filipinos were concerned with the reported discovery of genetically engineered (GE) rice in US long-grain rice shipments to different countries, esp to the European Union. Many groups and individuals- teachers, students, religious, priests and bishops, workers, farmers, government and business employees, and others wrote Pres Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,the Dept of Agriculture , the Bu of Plant Industry and the National Food Authority opposing the entry and import of US rice which may be contaminated with the reported “unauthorized GE rice”.
Despite their best efforts to urge the authorities to act against the entry of the said contaminated US long-grain rice and to stop its importation, it has entered the country seemingly surreptitiously in 2006 and this year as US “cheap rice” imported by the NFA itself in the midst of what media projects as “rice crisis” ( People doubt this crisis because a number of provinces are known to have bumper rice harvests and it seems importation is resorted to so routinely by the government to the dissatisfaction of many local farmers whose harvests have not been bought by the NFA.)
GE Rice Sold in Major Supermarkets. Thanks to the relentless monitoring of Green Peace which took samples from supermarkets and got them tested in a Japanese laboratory. Tests show the presence of GE rice in US long-grain samples in Nov,2006 and recently . On the first occasion, Purefeeds, Inc distributed “Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain in major supermarkets like Shopwise, SM and Robinsons (Phil Daily Inquirer, 29 Nov 2006). While it was announced by the NFA that Purefeeds promised to pull its stocks from the market, a cursory visit to a branch of SM in Manila showed the then ongoing sale of Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain This April, samples of the Blue Ribbon Texas Long Grain was found “positive for GMO rice strain LL601”. Those of Riceland Arkansas Long Grain were found “ ‘contaminated ‘ by a still unknown GMO strain”. Both are sold at supermarkets in Metro Manila.(Phil Daily Inquirer, 25 Apr 2008).
It was reported that “NFA Administrator Jessup Navarro last month said that the shipment had been tested and certified as GMO-free by the Eurofins Gene Scan through the US Dept of Agriculture” and that “the test results were also verified by USDA/Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration”( To its credit, according to a reliable source, the Dept of Agri has been insisting that no GE rice enter the country and so Mr Navarro was referring to a testing protocol of US rice shipment .In addition, DA Adm Order #8 , 2002 “directs that before any plant or animal is imported or released to the environment, it must undergo a risk assessment by the Bu of Plant Industry, the Bu of Animal Industry and the Fisheries Products Standards so that the potential risks of GMO products to health and environment could be reviewed”).
EU Rejects US-tested “GE-free” Rice. Green Peace, however, doubts the reliability of US tests because “since Jan, 2007, twenty-three (23) US-tested GMO-free rice shipments were rejected in the European Union (EU) because they tested positive for GMOs under EU standards”.(Business World, 17April 2008)
Six days after Green Peace announced that the US “cheap rice” imported by the NFA was found positive for genetically engineered/modified (GE/GM) rice and asked the government to stop its sale, major newspapers have not reported any urgent move on the part of government to do anything about this.
Rats Fed with GE Soy, Corn, Potato Show Health Damages. It seems that the authorities are not duly worried that there are reported separate studies which show that considerable damage to internal organs and blood changes occurred among rats fed with certain GE soya, corn and potato (GM Watch Daily Oct, 2005; May,2005; June,2005; Feb, 2007 at http//www/gmwatch.org). The results of the said studies with GE corn and potato were concealed for years and it took court action to force Monsanto, the developer, to make public their findings. The scientists who reviewed these animal studies point to the necessity of “full scale tests on the influence of GE products over living creatures” before these are marketed. .No such tests have been done on any of the GE food and food products imported into the Philippines , much less on the said GE contaminant of US rice shipment.
Nowhere in the world is GE rice legally marketed and eaten. Filipinos on this scale are the first to eat this untested, unauthorized GE rice that strayed into rice crops which the US has shipped to different countries.
Is not the sale in supermarkets and other outlets of NFA-imported US “cheap rice”, found contaminated with GE rice, tantamount to the government forcing Filipinos to act as guinea pigs in a nationwide haphazard feeding experiment? Unwittingly, uninformed and unsuspecting Filipinos are willing and paying subjects of this GMO experiment. Who is monitoring this? Who is in charge? Who is accountable for whatever harm can happen to health? to environment?
Philippine rice varieties can be contaminated by GE rice in a manner similar to what has happened to rice crops in the US . What can happen to the poor farmers? to us, rice-eating Filipinos? What can become of Philippine agriculture? of the economy?
Together with all concerned Filipinos, Lingkod Tao-Kalikasan calls on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to order the recall of all US long grain rice and rice products from supermarket shelves and other NFA distribution outlets NOW. We join Green Peace in asking “the government to quarantine the February shipment (44,000 metric tons or 880,000 bags) and conduct a joint sampling (as stringent as EU standards) of the imported rice to safeguard Filipinos from the unauthorized rice”. We ask Sec Arthur Yap of the Dept of Agriculture to implement strictly and transparently its own Adm Order #8 regarding genetically engineered plant and plant products and animals in order to safeguard public health and the environment.
Sr Ma Aida Velasquez, OSB
Coordinator, Lingkod Tao-Kalikasan
29 April 2008
Despite their best efforts to urge the authorities to act against the entry of the said contaminated US long-grain rice and to stop its importation, it has entered the country seemingly surreptitiously in 2006 and this year as US “cheap rice” imported by the NFA itself in the midst of what media projects as “rice crisis” ( People doubt this crisis because a number of provinces are known to have bumper rice harvests and it seems importation is resorted to so routinely by the government to the dissatisfaction of many local farmers whose harvests have not been bought by the NFA.)
GE Rice Sold in Major Supermarkets. Thanks to the relentless monitoring of Green Peace which took samples from supermarkets and got them tested in a Japanese laboratory. Tests show the presence of GE rice in US long-grain samples in Nov,2006 and recently . On the first occasion, Purefeeds, Inc distributed “Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain in major supermarkets like Shopwise, SM and Robinsons (Phil Daily Inquirer, 29 Nov 2006). While it was announced by the NFA that Purefeeds promised to pull its stocks from the market, a cursory visit to a branch of SM in Manila showed the then ongoing sale of Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain This April, samples of the Blue Ribbon Texas Long Grain was found “positive for GMO rice strain LL601”. Those of Riceland Arkansas Long Grain were found “ ‘contaminated ‘ by a still unknown GMO strain”. Both are sold at supermarkets in Metro Manila.(Phil Daily Inquirer, 25 Apr 2008).
It was reported that “NFA Administrator Jessup Navarro last month said that the shipment had been tested and certified as GMO-free by the Eurofins Gene Scan through the US Dept of Agriculture” and that “the test results were also verified by USDA/Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration”( To its credit, according to a reliable source, the Dept of Agri has been insisting that no GE rice enter the country and so Mr Navarro was referring to a testing protocol of US rice shipment .In addition, DA Adm Order #8 , 2002 “directs that before any plant or animal is imported or released to the environment, it must undergo a risk assessment by the Bu of Plant Industry, the Bu of Animal Industry and the Fisheries Products Standards so that the potential risks of GMO products to health and environment could be reviewed”).
EU Rejects US-tested “GE-free” Rice. Green Peace, however, doubts the reliability of US tests because “since Jan, 2007, twenty-three (23) US-tested GMO-free rice shipments were rejected in the European Union (EU) because they tested positive for GMOs under EU standards”.(Business World, 17April 2008)
Six days after Green Peace announced that the US “cheap rice” imported by the NFA was found positive for genetically engineered/modified (GE/GM) rice and asked the government to stop its sale, major newspapers have not reported any urgent move on the part of government to do anything about this.
Rats Fed with GE Soy, Corn, Potato Show Health Damages. It seems that the authorities are not duly worried that there are reported separate studies which show that considerable damage to internal organs and blood changes occurred among rats fed with certain GE soya, corn and potato (GM Watch Daily Oct, 2005; May,2005; June,2005; Feb, 2007 at http//www/gmwatch.org). The results of the said studies with GE corn and potato were concealed for years and it took court action to force Monsanto, the developer, to make public their findings. The scientists who reviewed these animal studies point to the necessity of “full scale tests on the influence of GE products over living creatures” before these are marketed. .No such tests have been done on any of the GE food and food products imported into the Philippines , much less on the said GE contaminant of US rice shipment.
Nowhere in the world is GE rice legally marketed and eaten. Filipinos on this scale are the first to eat this untested, unauthorized GE rice that strayed into rice crops which the US has shipped to different countries.
Is not the sale in supermarkets and other outlets of NFA-imported US “cheap rice”, found contaminated with GE rice, tantamount to the government forcing Filipinos to act as guinea pigs in a nationwide haphazard feeding experiment? Unwittingly, uninformed and unsuspecting Filipinos are willing and paying subjects of this GMO experiment. Who is monitoring this? Who is in charge? Who is accountable for whatever harm can happen to health? to environment?
Philippine rice varieties can be contaminated by GE rice in a manner similar to what has happened to rice crops in the US . What can happen to the poor farmers? to us, rice-eating Filipinos? What can become of Philippine agriculture? of the economy?
Together with all concerned Filipinos, Lingkod Tao-Kalikasan calls on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to order the recall of all US long grain rice and rice products from supermarket shelves and other NFA distribution outlets NOW. We join Green Peace in asking “the government to quarantine the February shipment (44,000 metric tons or 880,000 bags) and conduct a joint sampling (as stringent as EU standards) of the imported rice to safeguard Filipinos from the unauthorized rice”. We ask Sec Arthur Yap of the Dept of Agriculture to implement strictly and transparently its own Adm Order #8 regarding genetically engineered plant and plant products and animals in order to safeguard public health and the environment.
Sr Ma Aida Velasquez, OSB
Coordinator, Lingkod Tao-Kalikasan
29 April 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)