The Bt talong Case: Precautionary Principle in Action
With the recent controversy involving the Manila Bay white sand makeover, critics invoke the precautionary principle in arguing against the white sand project. It is not the first time that the said principle is invoked. The precautionary principle’s application became the center of a legal battle that reached the Philippine Supreme Court, which is the Bt talong case.
In this case, a group of research institutions led by the University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation Inc. (UPLBFI) pursued a collaborative research and development project on eggplants resistant to the fruit and shoot borer. The pest-resistant crop subject of the field trial was described as a “bioengineered eggplant.” The crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant (talong) genome to produce the protein Cry1Ac, which is toxic to the target insect pests. Cry1Ac protein is said to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as the fruit and shoot borer (FSB), the most destructive insect pest of eggplant. During the conduct of the contained experiment, which started in 2007 and officially terminated on March 3, 2009, all the biosafety measures have been complied with, and no untoward incident has occurred. After obtaining Biosafety Permits from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), UPLB commenced the field testing of Bt talong on various dates in the following approved trial sites: Kabacan, North Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, Camarines Sur; Bago Oshiro, Davao City; and Bay, Laguna.
Greenpeace, MASIPAG, filed a petition for a writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO). Individual respondents were alleging that the Bt talong field trials violate their constitutional right to health and balanced ecology, considering that the Bt talong is presumed harmful to human health and the environment. There is no independent, peer-reviewed study on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption and the environment. A study conducted by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini showed adverse effects on rats who were fed Bt corn, while local scientists also attested to the harmful effects of GMOs on human and animal health. Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target species, as highlighted by research conducted in the US, which demonstrated that pollen from Bt maize was toxic to the Monarch butterfly. Data from the use of Bt Cry1Ab maize indicate that beneficial insects have increased mortality when fed on larvae of a maize pest, the corn borer, which had been fed on Bt, and hence non-target beneficial species that may feed on eggplant could be similarly affected. Data from China show that the use of Bt crops (Bt cotton) can exacerbate populations of other secondary pests. The built-in pesticides of Bt crops will lead to Bt-resistant pests, thus increasing the use of pesticides contrary to the claims by GMO manufacturers. The 200 meters perimeter pollen trap area in the field testing area set by BPI is not sufficient to stop contamination of nearby non-Bt eggplants because pollinators such as honeybees can fly as far as four kilometers, and eggplant is 48% insect-pollinated. It was also contended that there is no precise and adequate assessment of the numerous hazards posed by Bt talong and its field trial.
Greenpeace et al. argued that this case calls for the application of the precautionary principle, the Bt talong field testing being a classic environmental case where scientific evidence as to health, environmental and socio-economic safety is insufficient or uncertain, and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates reasonable grounds for concern that there are potentially dangerous effects in human health and the environment.
The research institutions countered that the Bt talong field trials would not significantly affect the quality of the environment nor pose a hazard to human health. UPLBFI contended that there is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption. The allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong as food are irrelevant in the field trial stage as none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or animals, and all materials that will not be used for analyses will be chopped, boiled, and buried following the Biosafety Permit requirements. There is a 50-year history of safe use and consumption of agricultural products sprayed with commercial Bt microbial pesticides and a 14-year history of safe consumption of food and feed derived from Bt crops. Also mentioned is the almost 2 million hectares of land in the Philippines, which have been planted with Bt corn since 2003, and the absence of documented significant and negative impacts on the environment and human health. The statements given by scientists and experts in support of Greenpeace’s allegations on the safety of Bt corn were also addressed by citing contrary findings in other studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. It is argued that the precautionary principle is not applicable, considering that the field testing is only part of a continuing study being done to ensure that the field trials have no significant and negative impact on the environment. There is no resulting environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice life, health, or inhabitants’ property in two or more cities or provinces.
Can the precautionary principle be invoked to enjoin the Bt talong field testing? (The Supreme Court’s ruling will be discussed in the next issue.)