Golden Rice and Bt brinjal controversy: The Philippine Court decision defends food sovereignty
Farida Akhter || Monday 29 April 2024 ||
Bangladesh has a wide diversity of rice and vegetables, but two genetically modified food crops (Bt brinjal and golden rice) are being promoted unnecessarily. This is unfortunate and shameful. Farmers and environmental groups have been protesting against such actions. These two GM crops have raised controversy in Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, and Indonesia and among global anti-GMO activists.
At present, the genetically modified Golden Rice is on the table of the National Committee on Biosafety in Bangladesh for approval. The Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) applied to the National Technical Committee on Crop Biotechnology (NTCCB) at the Ministry of Agriculture on November 26, 2017, which was forwarded to the National Committee on Biosafety on December 4, 2017. Biosafety approval is a prerequisite for inclusion in the rice variety listing of Bangladesh's National Seed Board (NSB). Thanks to the Bangladesh National Biosafety Committee (NCB) in the Ministry of Environment for assessing Golden Rice when so much scientific information warns about its potential risks and shows comprehensive natural alternatives. Golden rice is genetically engineered to produce provitamin A carotenoids; the rice kernels' color is yellowish. It is claimed to be a fortified food with a high content of carotenoids, in particular, beta-carotene in the grains, to help combat vitamin A deficiency (VAD). The exclusive rights to the Golden Rice technology belong to Syngenta, which has partnered with other companies like Bayer AG, Monsanto Co, Orynova BV, and Zeneca Mogen BV.
The other player in Golden Rice is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gave IRRI a grant of over $10 million in 2011 to fund the development and evaluation of Golden Rice varieties for Bangladesh and the Philippines.
So, Golden Rice is not just an innovation by scientists at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI); it is also not based on the Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) situation in Bangladesh. It is a multi-country project of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which includes the Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. There have been many protests against Golden Rice in the Philippines and Bangladesh, amidst concerns about its safety and efficacy over the last 20 years. Golden Rice, nothing golden about it, was developed in 1999 as first-generation Golden Rice GR1 through infusing genes from the daffodil flower, a European flower, to get its yellow colour, but it failed. Later, the second-generation golden rice (GR2) was developed by taking gene from corn to get pro-vitamin-A expression. In Bangladesh, the first Golden Rice was evolved by incorporating the beta-carotene gene of the daffodil flower into BRRI Dhan 29, a HYV Rice, commonly grown by farmers in the Boro season. However, introducing Golden Rice 1 (GR-1) was unsuccessful. Later, the second genetically engineered golden rice evolved by incorporating beta-carotenoid from maize into BRRI Dhan 29, keeping its golden color. No impartial assessment of its success or failure has been made so far. Yet Bangladesh continued to be a laboratory for the trial, the farmers and the people became the guinea pigs. The innovators of the Golden Rice were not capable enough to give any evidence in favor of any positive gain of gene incorporation from maize to rice.
The approval attempts for Golden Rice in Bangladesh were taken up again in 2019 just after the controversial election of 2018 and the formation of the cabinet of the same government in January 2019. Dr. Abdul Razzak became the new Minister for Agriculture. It was as if he became the Agriculture Minister for working on Golden Rice only. After meeting with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) on 30th January 2019, he told the journalists that ‘Golden rice, a new variety of rice enriched with Vitamin A, will be available soon in Bangladesh’. For IRRI, that announcement was insufficient, it continued to pursue approval from the Ministry of Environment. The Director General of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Dr Matthew Morell visited the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) on March 7, 2019. He even visited Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina at the Prime Minister’s Office, making it a very high-profile visit to create pressure.
During his visit, Dr. Matthew Morell made misleading statements regarding the approval from regulatory agencies in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to import the rice. These statements were meant to pressure the National Committee of Bio-safety of Bangladesh to clear the golden rice for commercialization, even though it had not undergone environmental assessment. This showed that the IRRI was desperate to get clearance in Bangladesh for commercial cultivation. They did not care about the potential risks it poses for the country and its major staple food crop rice. It poses a threat to all other rice-producing countries as well.
The pursuance by IRRI and the proponents of Golden Rice are going in circles within the target countries Bangladesh and the Philippines. If anything happens in the Philippines, they take up the case with the Bangladesh authorities. For example, on 21 July 2021, the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and the Department of Agriculture (DA-Phil Rice) issued a Biosafety permit for commercially propagating genetically engineered golden rice in the Philippines. The promoters of Golden Rice became more anxious about Bangladesh not having the approval yet, as if Bangladesh is lagging in “big” scientific achievement. The farmers, consumers, scientists and sectoral organizations from the Philippines and the regional forum, the Stop Golden Rice! Network (SGRN), has questioned the decision of the Bureau of Plant Industry and has raised regulatory concerns while approving GR for commercial propagation. So the decision was not welcomed, and protests continued. Even in Bangladesh, activists did not accept such a decision and protested against it.
IRRI continues its pressure through high-profile visits to the Bangladesh government every time there is a change in the Minister for Agriculture. This year (2024) after another controversial election on January 7, the visit to the new Agriculture Minister became evident. According to newspaper reports published on 5 April, the Project leader of the Healthier Rice Programme of IRRI met the newly appointed Agriculture Minister, Dr. Abdus Shahid, and the BRRI Director General, Dr. Shahjahan Kabir. The earlier Minister for Agriculture was an Agriculture scientist, now replaced by one with a degree in communication. The Ministry of Agriculture needs to pay attention to the opinions of civil society and environmental organizations before it approves Golden Rice.
The other genetically modified food crop is Brinjal (Solanum melongena L), also known as aubergine or eggplant). It is one of the most common and essential vegetables in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has hundreds of different varieties of brinjals in various agroecological zones. Such a vegetable has been genetically modified and is called Btbrinjal. Crystal gene from Bacillus thuringiensis has been inserted into brinjal genome to increase the resistance of brinjal against Fruit and Shoot Borer (FSB) insect. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) has conducted this research with the support of ABSP II of USAID. BARI received the seeds of Btbrinjal from Maharastra Hybrid Seed Company (MAHYCO), India.
Bangladesh National Biosafety Committee made the mistake in 2013 by hastily approving Bt Brinjal (the genetically modified aubergine). UBINIG field research and an intensive survey of Bt Brinjal planting confirmed that this GM vegetable crop was a big failure in the farmers' field. More importantly, while approving Bt Brinjal, the seven approval conditions by the National Biosafety Committee were not met. One such condition was to label the Bt brinjal before it is marketed still needs to be met. The farmers receiving Bt brinjal seeds never knew it was a genetically modified crop requiring biosafety measures. It was given as a “new brinjal variety” that did not require pesticide spraying. No authority in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment attempted to examine compliance with the approval conditions and the environmental and health impact after Bt brinjal was widely distributed and cultivated to the farmers.
Bangladesh is a ‘target’ country for the Bt. Brinjal is under the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSP II), funded by USAID and led by Cornell University, USA. It is a tri-country project that includes Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines. The partnership arrangement was extended to the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi, the University of the Philippines in Los Banos, a government research institute, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), and a private seed company, East West Seeds, Bangladesh.
In Bangladesh, 'Monsanto Technology' is a joint venture with Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) of India and its collaboration with the private seed company East West Seeds, Bangladesh. Mahyco has transferred the technology and primary breeding material of BtBrinjal to two Indian public sector institutions (PSIs), the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (TNAU) and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UASD), though the ownership of the GE event EE-1 still rests with Mahyco. The Bt Brinjal contains a gene construct of Cry 1 Ac from Monsanto, the American MNC. The public sector institutions in India and Bangladesh used the Mahyco material to backcross with their brinjal varieties to incorporate the genetic event into them, imparting tolerance to the fruit and stem borers of brinjal that cause severe damage to the produce.
Due to the unsafe and inadequate tests, various independent analysts and renowned experts raised their voices to the Indian authorities. Environment Minister Jai Ram Ramesh issued a moratorium on its field trials in 2010 after public consultations and the highest court in the Philippines stopped field trials in 2013. Green Peace South East Asia (Phillipines), MASIPAG, and other individuals filed a petition to the Court of Appeals, the Republic of the Philippines, praying for the issuance of temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) and that public respondents be restrained from conducting the field trials of Bt Talong (Bt brinjal) on various location in the Philippines on the ground that the said field trials violate or threaten to violate the right of filipino citizens to a balanced and healthful ecology.
No new additional study with the Bt brinjal has proven it safe after India and the Philippines decided based on a precautionary approach. It is unclear on what basis Bangladesh government approved Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation, despite having rich native diversity, which will now be endangered. After the moratorium of Bt brinjal in India and court rejection in the Philippines, there was no reason to approve it in Bangladesh. Still, it was done very quickly, taking only 6 to 8 months, which was insufficient to assess its safety. There have been protests and court cases in 2013 by UBINIG, environmental groups, and Nayakrishi farmers. But the government was in a hurry to approve it. Since 2014, Bt brinjal seeds have been distributed to the farmers by the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) in different phases. UBINIG monitoring of the field cultivation showed nothing but failure, and farmers are unwilling to continue cultivation. However, the promoters at Cornell University are using the tactics of “Lies” about socalled happy bt brinjal farmers. It is almost 10 years now, but Bt brinjal is hardly known to the farmers.
Bangladesh is among the few known countries as the country of origin of brinjals. In the book “Origin of Cultivated Plants,” published in 1886, De Candolle stated that the species S. melongena has been in India from ancient times and is regarded as a native of Asia. Vavilov (1926) said that its center of origin was in the Indo-Burma region (which included Bangladesh).
Now, there is good news from the Philippines. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the applicants—including MASIPAG, farmer/scientist group, Green Peace, and others—and against the Philippine Government’s actions that granted permits for the commercial propagation of Bt brinjal and golden rice. The Court of Appeals ruling acknowledges the inherent risks associated with genetically modified crops and reaffirms the importance of conserving and protecting biodiversity and people's health.
The court ruled that all commercial propagation of golden rice and Bt eggplant must be stopped until “the concerned respondent government agencies submit proof of safety and compliance with all legal requirements.
It acknowledged that Golden rice and Bt eggplant, touted as a solution to vitamin A deficiency and pest infestation, faced staunch opposition from small farmers, consumers, children’s rights, scientists, and groups from various sectors who have long advocated for healthy, sustainable, community-driven farming methods through farmer-led agroecology.
The respondents (the Philippines Government) may appeal against this decision for reconsideration, yet it is a significant victory for farmers, the environment, and people’s health. The judges’ decision to uphold the precautionary principle and insist on proper risk assessment procedures being in place and carried out gives a clear signal against any deregulation measures.
According to MASIPAG the petitioner, ‘this victory in the Philippine Court of Appeals is a testament to the correctness of forwarding farmer-led agroecology and food sovereignty and to the resilience and determination of farmers who have tirelessly defended their rights to control their seeds, food systems, biodiversity and health of the people. It sends a powerful message to corporations and policymakers that the future of agriculture lies in empowering farmers and embracing agro-ecological principles that prioritize environmental sustainability, biodiversity, and the well-being of farming communities.
The Court of Appeals' decision on the Precautionary principles was essential. According to the CA, the evidence presented compelled the application of the “precautionary principle” under Rule 1, Section 4(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The principle provides that “when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.”
After judicious examination of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the three conditions for the precautionary principle to apply—uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm—are present in the case. It cited the opinions of expert witnesses for all parties based on their judicial affidavits, the numerous studies submitted in evidence, and their testimonies. In other words, the burden of evidence of harm is placed on those desiring to change the status quo, who, in this case, are the respondents.
This gives hope to farmers, activists, scientists, and all working on food sovereignty.
Published: 28 April, 2024. 'Philippine court’s decision defends food sovereignty'