Genetic manipulation of food crops poses threats to human health, the environment, and the livelihood of farmers. This is what true and unbiased science warns us about. Yet, sadly, some respected names have been turning a blind eye to the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Why? Presumably, due to corporate control over the agriculture industry.

The latest disappointment in this war for food security is Dr. Emil Javier, president of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and former president of the University of the Philippines (UP). In a rather over-the-top press statement, Javier hailed the GMO “Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant (as) potentially the best environmentally friendly technology for eggplant production.”

This was issued in response to the petition for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus filed at the Supreme Court recently against field trials of Bt talong in the country.


Signatories of the petition against GMOs included prominent scientists as well as farmers from areas affected by the field trials. Clearly, Javier and his colleagues aren’t being thorough academicians, much less scientists, since their camp has been urging the SC to let the field trials continue despite the lack of extensive research in a confined laboratory setting. Such testing is necessary to eliminate the risks from GMOs that have already been established through scientific studies.

Who is really unscientific, and who is making use of real science facts?

GMO proponents are trying to paint the movement against GMO field trials as unscientific, and yet they are the ones who are not heeding the precautionary principle of science. They advocate releasing GMOs in open field trials before any conclusive proof can be obtained in confined, controlled laboratory environments that GMOs won’thave adverse effects on human health and the environment.

They assert that the field trials are meant to study the effects of GMOs. But this is a very unscientific approach since GMOs released into the environment cannot be recalled. They try to argue that there is usually a 10 meter ditch around field trial sites and, at times, a netted fence around the sites. But, of course, one doesn’t need a science degree to know that such small ditches and fences will never keep the wind, birds, insects and other pollinators from entering such areas and carrying off or scattering seeds into much bigger areas. Talk about throwing caution to the wind!

They have never addressed studies, based on 90-day tests made by the GMO manufacturers themselves, which showed that laboratory animals fed with GMO crops developed kidney and lung failures, lowered blood clotting ability, and other complications. What more would longer studies show? Or how about recording what happens to the animals for the rest of their lifespan? And what would an inter-generational study yield? None of these scientific data are even explored, and these GMO proponents have the gall to say that their call to the Supreme Court is based on science!

On the contrary, more reputable scientists, such as Dr. Ben Malayang III of Silliman University, Dr. Romeo Quijano of UP Manila, and toxicologist Dr. Wency Kiat of St.Luke’s Medical Center, are all signatories in the petition to stop the field trials. They agree that our food supply should be protected from GMO pushers.

Have a gander at this video, and tell me who you believe is really looking out for public interests? Who are the real scientists in this struggle for real food security? The comment section is wide open.