Those following the ebb and flow of the international GMO debate may have seen the news that the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the ban on field trials of Bt eggplant (known as Bt talong in the Philippines, Bt brinjal in India and Bt begun in Bangladesh) as demanded for many years by anti-GMO activist groups.
The decision is a big blow to farmers, the environment and the scientific community in the Philippines and others pursuing the dream of sustainable and progressive agriculture in Asia. It may also make waves in Bangladesh, as the same activist groups, led by Greenpeace Asia, are well funded and networked and will likely use the Philippines decision as a stick to beat Sheikh Hasina's government on the GMO issue.
However, the Prime Minister and the Agriculture Minister Matia Chowdhury, who have both given strong support to science-based agriculture and associated anti-poverty efforts in Bangladesh, should stand firm. They should be reassured that the decision of the Philippines Supreme Court was based on misrepresentation of scientific facts, years of fanatical lobbying by activists, and legal technicalities.
Of course the Philippines Supreme Court's competence to adjudicate on matters of domestic law is not in question. However, its judgement that the science about Bt talong and GMOs in general is not settled is very dependent on biased assessments submitted by Greenpeace and other groups with an overt anti-science agenda.
In effect, the Court has decided that Greenpeace and its fellow activists are more competent to pronounce on scientific matters than the Philippines National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) and the government’s Departments of Agriculture, and Environment and Natural Resources. This is highly irregular to say the least and an insult to science-based policy.
The ruling seems particularly bizarre given the shoddy evidence Greenpeace submitted in its original petition against Bt eggplant. Most of Greenpeace’s evidence was never published in scientific journals. Instead, it was commissioned and paid for by Greenpeace to serve its ideological battle against modern biotechnology.
In particular, a Greenpeace-funded study by a French anti-GMO academic, Giles-Eric Seralini, was a central component of evidence submitted to the court. This asserted that Bt eggplant was unsafe for human and animal consumption, in contradiction with hundreds of high-quality safety studies conducted by reputable scientists internationally over the years, and an overall GMO safety consensus that is highly robust and supported by every major scientific academy in the world.
It is likely that the Philippine’s Supreme Court justices did not take into account that Giles-Eric Seralini has been comprehensively discredited since his Greenpeace-funded report was written in 2009. In 2012 the same Seralini published a paper claiming to show that GMO maize caused cancer in rats. However, the methodology of his study was later judged by the scientific community to be unsound, and his paper was retracted by the journal that published it- a highly unusual move and fatally damaging to Seralini's credibility as a scientist.
Unfortunately, Greenpeace - a powerful multinational group with an annual turnover of hundreds of millions of dollars - is used to getting its way. The same bogus science was also used by Greenpeace to bamboozle the Indian government into issuing a moratorium on Bt brinjal in 2010, and has been regularly touted in Bangladesh by anti-development groups such as Farida Akhter's UBINIG.
Greenpeace also uses criminal methods when it chooses, for example vandalising one of the Filipino field trials of Bt eggplant at the University of the Philippines in 2011. Ironically, its activists only succeeded in destroying non-transgenic plants, as they were unable to tell the difference in the field. In Bangladesh, activists based in Dhaka have travelled the country spreading scare stories such as the misinformation that Bt begun will cause cancer or paralysis.
It is important to recall that the intent behind Bt begun is to reduce insecticide use, and it does so extremely well. This will benefit farmers, consumers and the environment through reducing exposure to toxic pesticides. Bt eggplant protects itself against the main insect pest, the fruit and shoot borer, using a bacterial protein that causes the insect to stop feeding. This is the same protein used by organic farmers and - unlike chemical pesticides - has a long history of safe use to humans and the environment.
In Bangladesh, Bt brinjal is now available to growers and preliminary results from ongoing studies by Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) experts have found reductions in pesticide use by farmers of 80% or more, and big benefits in livelihoods. It is peculiar that so-called environmentalist groups like UBINIG, which claim to oppose pesticide use, apparently aim to maintain farmers' dependence on pesticides because of their superstitious opposition to modern biotechnology in agriculture.
The Philippines Supreme Court decision is disappointing to scientists and anti-poverty campaigners across the region. Whereas Greenpeace and other activist groups have, though a combination of vandalism, lies and lawsuits, hampered agricultural scientific progress in countries from Thailand to India, Bangladesh has stood out by making Bt eggplant available and letting farmers choose. The rapid adoption of Bt brinjal in Bangladesh demonstrates its farmers have chosen science over misinformation spread by anti-scientific groups.
We can only hope that the Government stands firm against the renewed anti-GMO demands that the Philippines decision will now no doubt spark in Bangladesh. Agricultural modernisation and pesticide reductions are important goals and should not be thrown away to serve an anti-science agenda.
