Dear Editor:
We value views expressed by opinion makers of BusinessWorld. They serve as a clarion call to alert the public on significant topics of the day. We therefore appreciate the concerns expressed by Mr. Bernardo V. Lopez in his column on genetically engineered (GE) crops last May 17, as it affords us the opportunity to discuss freely and openly the benefits and risks of biotechnology.

Please allow us to respond to the point raised by Mr. Lopez:

* Transnational corporations (TNCs) hope to control global agriculture by inducing dependence on these through monopoly of GE seed production*.

Seed companies have indeed sought to control their product by limiting farmers from saving seeds for future planting. In the late '90s, the US government granted a patent to an invention that allowed GE plants to produce sterile seeds. The technology was later used by Monsanto to develop bio-engineered corn carrying these so-called terminator genes for distribution and sale. But the strong backlash from the public, including farmer and consumer groups and the science community, forced Monsanto to drop the use of this technology.

It should be noted that TNCs, by the fact that they are profit-oriented entities, will always seek to achieve a position where profits can be maximized and costs minimized. All business entities, down to the sari-sari store, strive to do the same. We, the members of the Biotechnology Conference of the Philippines (BCP), realize and accept this reality. However, we are also aware that biotechnology provider opportunities for improved food security, environment and health, and that any risks it may entail must be scientifically identified and then managed. It is for this reason that we urge, among other actions, increased government and private sector support for biotechnology research by Filipino scientists, since ownership and control of technologies by Filipinos provide better access for Filipinos to such technologies. We might get our cue from China. China has adopted full government support for biotechnology precisely to prevent control of GE technology by TNCs. It invested massively in genetically modified organism (GMO) R&D. Today, Chinese farmers have a choice of buying seeds from TNCs or from their own seed companies.

* TNCs use Third World nations as guinea pigs to test the viability of GE crops. They first targeted Europe and the US as the prime GE market, but found strong resistance from their consumers who are highly informed.*

The first field trials of transgenic crops were performed in the USA and France in 1986. Since then, more than 7,000 field trials have been conducted on more than 30,000 individual sites in about 40 countries, initially in North America and the European Union, but with Latin America and Asia making headway. The US approved commercial production of GE tomatoes on Oct. 19, 1992. Commercial production of Bt corn was approved in that country on May 17, 1995. As of April 15, 2001, the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service has approved 55 petitions for crops to be commercially produced after these went through stringent testing. In the year 2000, 20% of the corn grown in the US was genetically modified. It is therefore inaccurate to claim that Third World countries are guinea pigs for GMOs. If there are people to be labeled as "guinea pigs" for GMOs, the facts indicate that these are Americans. It is likewise misleading to claim that there is strong resistance against GMOs among Americans. Market research has found that the average US consumer is not bothered with the issue of GE products for food so long as these pass stringent government regulatory standards.

As far as Europe is concerned, it should be pointed out that although the most active resistance from GMOs can be observed among Europeans, dynamic and fast-growing firms which are engaged in research and the field testing of various GMOs are also located in the continent.

* Pro-GE advocates mostly argue in terms of economics - maximizing yield and minimizing cost - sacrificing health and environment considerations.*

On the contrary, advocates of biotechnology believe that the benefits from this new science transcend mere economics. Many in fact argue solely in terms of health and environment considerations. Health benefits include the development of more nutritional food (e.g., crops carrying additional vitamins), fruits containing vaccines and the production of more effective, specialized medicines. Environmental benefits may accrue indirectly, for example, through the introduction of pest-resistant crops that allow farmers to use smaller quantities of pesticides, or directly, for example, through the use of bio-engineered bacteria for decontamination of industrial and household wastes.

* TNC modus operandi in the Philippines is to get the support of NGOs and farmer associations as the backbone of their advocacy campaign. Another style is to put up their own association or NGOs. Some pro-GE groups retaliate by labeling anti-GE farm associations and NGOs as "communists," or alleging that they are funded by environment and anti-GE groups in Europe*.

We would like to believe in the good faith and sincerity of every individual or group advocating for particular causes and concerns. As a member of the larger community, each and every one of us endeavors to build a better society for ourselves and for our children. We find the use of labels unproductive, as these tend to reduce issues into non-arguments and debase rational thinking into knee-jerk reactions. More often than not, labels polarize protagonists as helpless captives of extreme positions. What we should encourage are consensus building, dialogue and open communication with all stakeholders including those with opposing views. After all, it is best to work for open covenants openly arrived at.

We at the Biotechnology Conference of the Philippines (BCP) believe that the potential of biotechnology to fully contribute to national development efforts can only be achieved through "a dynamic and unfettered and yet objective exchange of information and ideals from within and among the State, science community and the general public" (BCP Statement of Principles). We ask for enlightened support for this worthwhile science and technology, one that is founded on and spurred by the pursuit of truth and the public good.

- BENIGNO D. PECZON, Ph.D., Head Convenor, BCP, c/o Biotechnology Assoc of the Philippines, 66 United St., Mandaluyong City

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **