|
Bb.
Pilipinas-Universe Anna Theresa Licaros cried foul last
week over accusations by Bayer CropScience that she and
other petitioners who advocate GMO-free rice are
“willing puppets” who “do not know a thing” about
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). She described
Bayer’s accusations as “patronizing and insulting” and
reaffirmed her conviction that GMOs are bad for the
environment and pose dangers to human health.
Licaros,
a University of the
Philippines
summa cum laude graduate who is starting to engage in
various advocacies, sought a legal injunction last month
against the approval of genetically modified rice
created by Bayer in the first-ever case of its kind in
the country.
Her
copetitioners include several other concerned citizens,
including model Amanda Griffin and actress and mother
Angel Aquino, as well as representatives from Greenpeace
and Searice and other civil-society groups. The GMO rice
questioned in the petition, Bayer LL62, if approved by
the government, will also be the first-ever GMO rice in
the Philippines.
“I filed
the case as a concerned citizen. When I become a mother,
I would not want my children to eat genetically modified
rice. I find it patronizing and insulting in the extreme
that Bayer and agrochemical corporations should presume
that concerned citizens like us are merely ignorant
pawns who have no right to use legal means to question
and challenge the government’s GMO approval process,”
said Licaros, a third-year UP law student, who is
currently within the top three in her class, in a
statement sent by Greenpeace.
The
politically incorrect digs at the petitioners are among
the main arguments filed by Bayer in their formal
opposition in the court of Judge Evangeline Marigomen of
Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 101 in a hearing
last week. Judge Marigomen had earlier issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the
Department of Agriculture (DA) from approving Bayer’s
GMO rice LL62. The TRO ends on September 20.
Greenpeace denounced Bayer’s insulting remarks as
desperate tactics meant to distract the attention of the
public from the real issue at hand, namely the safety of
GMOs. GMOs, which are aggressively marketed by big
corporations to governments and farmers, not only have
adverse effects on the environment but also have never
been proven beyond doubt to be safe for human
consumption.
The
ongoing court case for an injunction on GMO rice
questions the DA’s system for GMO approvals as outlined
in Administrative Order (AO) 8 (series of 2002). The
petitioners are convinced the system is unconstitutional
and violate the minimum standards set by the 1987
Constitution in recognizing the right of the people to
matters of public concern.
In the
hearing last Friday, Bayer took up the cudgels for the
government agency, presenting 17 arguments in defense of
AO 8. Greenpeace finds this move extremely questionable.
“The DA
has apparently taken the back seat in the court case.
Bayer, an agricultural corporation which the DA should
be regulating, is now the one persistently defending DA
procedures and policies. To us this looks very fishy.
Why are they so keen on keeping AO 8 as it is? Why must
the public be prevented from questioning the procedure?
What this strongly implies is that the DA’s policy works
completely to the advantage of GMO companies and is
therefore something that they do not want changed or
challenged,” said Greenpeace genetic engineering
campaigner Daniel Ocampo. “This is the most alarming
development in the court case so far: that the
DA—mandated to protect Filipino consumers and
farmers—should remain silent and allow giant
multinational corporations to speak in their defense.
What is the stranglehold they have over the DA? It would
be in the interest of the whole nation to hear Secretary
Yap himself address this issue.” |
