The worldwide significance of a Philippines court’s ruling against modified brinjal and golden rice
A landmark decision was made by a Philippine court, which invalidated government licenses allowing the commercial distribution of genetically modified (GM) golden rice and brinjal.
The ruling might have an impact on India as well as other countries.
Crop genetic modification has long been a contentious topic worldwide. Up until now, India has only permitted the production of Bt cotton, a non-food crop. In 2010, India outlawed the growing of Bt brinjal because to significant health risks that surfaced during field testing.
Furthermore, the contentious genetically modified mustard crop has already been temporarily suspended from production by the Indian Supreme Court.
The Philippine government has the right to appeal this ruling, but not before establishing uniform scientific protocols for risk assessment.
Claimed to be the answer to both insect infestation and Vitamin A deficiency, golden rice and Bt eggplant encountered strong resistance from small farmers, consumers, children’s rights advocates, scientists, and sectoral organizations that have long supported farmer-led agroecology and healthy, sustainable, community-driven farming practices.
The decision means that no application for the confined use, field testing, direct use as food or feed, processing, commercial multiplication, or importation of genetically modified organisms will be approved by the government authorities in the Philippines.
The government of the Philippines must first improve its risk assessment processes, and it has given the Court of Appeal the specific plans for doing so.
The Court of Appeals’ decision, according to MASIPAG—a forum of farmers, scientists, and non-profits based in the Philippines that works to conserve agro-biodiversity through farmers’ control over genetic and biological resources, agricultural production, and related knowledge—acknowledges the inherent risks associated with genetically modified crops and reaffirms the significance of conserving and protecting biodiversity and public health.
In the court’s ruling, Indian scientist Dr. Debal Deb’s conclusions on how these genetically modified crops might affect the ecosystem were also cited.
“I am overjoyed that the three judges accepted the scientific testimony of myself and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, as well as the references in our Affidavits, which includes my own publication,” Dr. Deb, of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, who specializes in Indian rice variety conservation, stated.
He questioned, “When will our judges ever learn?”
The ruling would create a precedent in which large businesses attempt to control genetic resources in local communities.
According to MASIPAG, “it sends a strong message to companies and legislators that empowering farmers and adopting agroecological principles that promote environmental sustainability, biodiversity, and the well-being of agricultural communities” is how agriculture will grow in the future.
