Download PDF - SEARCA Biotechnology Information Center

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
1

2 BIO LIFE January – March 2005

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
3
In this issue
Maiden Issue January-March 2005
Farmers shifting to new
corn technologies 19
The hunt for food-borne diseases 20
Biotechnology: solving
national hunger 22
Cover story
Gov’t agriculturists at the helm
of GMO testing 6
Bt cotton: an alternative
high-value crop 10
You’re wearing Bt cotton! 11
Biotechnology around the world 12
‘Doubly green revolution’
now in Asia 14
After one year of commercial adoption:
Has the Filipino farmer
benefited from Bt corn 16
Cover design: Benjo Laygo
Illustrations: Leonilo Doloricon
Photo: Joe Galvez
The Philippines as Asia’s
agri-trade center 24
Agricultural biotechnology
and food security 26
Biotech Trivia 28
Exhibit showcases biotech’s
support to development 8
Primer on Biotechnology 30
In Africa, biotech is a matter
of survival 34
Quotes to live with 36
Columns
A sunrise industry 4
Dr. Benigno Peczon
Modern biotechnology
and ‘People Power’ 5
Alice Ilaga
Emerging job provider 15
Joe Escartin
BioLife is a quarterly magazine published by the
Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines in cooperation
with the J. Burgos Media Services Inc. with editorial
offices at 6F Lansbergh Place, Tomas Morato Avenue
corner Scout Castor Street, Quezon City, Philippines.
Telephone (63-2) 3728506. Fax No. (63-2)3728560.
E-mail: peoplead@mozcom.com.
Website: biotechforlife.com.ph.
Joel C. Paredes, editorial director • Roja Salvador, Iskho Lopez, associate editors
Benjo Laygo, art director • Nanie Gonzales, assistant art director • Joe Galvez, photo editor
Dr. Edith Burgos, Fr. Noli Alparce and Abe Manalo, editorial consultants
Leonilo Doloricon, art consultant • Paolo Capino, Alfonso Sabilano, Menchu Bon,
Rose Bingayen, Natividad Guerrero, editorial staff.
Our partner agencies are the Department of Agriculture, DA-Biotech Program Implementation
Unit, and Technical Committee for Public Awareness and Education of the Philippine Agricultural
and Fisheries Biotechnology Program, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study
and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) and the Philippine Council for Agriculture Forestry
and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD)
Our Biotech for Life Media and Advocacy Resource Center is open to the public. It is located
at 92 Road 1 corner Road 33, Project 6, Quezon City with telefax No. (63-2) 4569339.

4 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
A sunrise industry
THE evidence is in. Biotechnology
offers:
• more food with better quality
• products to combat specific medical
conditions
In December 2002, the Philippine
Government approved the commercial
planting of genetically modified corn.
This corn called Bt corn has built-in resistance
to infestation by the Asiatic
corn borer. Before December 2002, the
Asiatic corn borer was a major problem
in corn production. Since the borer
resides inside the plant, it cannot be
easily controlled by insecticide sprays.
In cases of heavy infestation, up to 80
percent of the crop has been reported
to have been lost. With Bt corn, the
corn produced is unlikely to contain
aflatoxin, because the kernels are not
attacked by corn borers. Aflatoxin is a
by-product of molds which grow on
kernels damaged by borers. It has been
identified as one of the most potent
carcinogens or cancer-inducing agents.
In the early 1980s, scientists successfully
produced human insulin in bacteria
called E. coli by transferring the human
gene which codes for insulin into
the bacteria. Since recombinant human
insulin entered the market in the 1980s,
virtually all diabetics have shifted to this
type of insulin. Previously, insulin-dependent
diabetics obtained insulin purified
from pigs and cows. Insulin from
these animals differ slightly from human
insulin. The differences sometimes
Benigno
D.
Peczon,
Ph.D.
have resulted in allergic reactions. Beginning
this year, 2004, Filipinos can
purchase human growth hormone produced
using modern biotechnology.
Heretofore, only minute amounts of
human growth hormone could be collected
and purified from its traditional
sources. Proper administration of this
hormone can address medical concerns
such as physical growth which was almost
impossible to successfully address
in the past.
More innovation are in the pipeline.
Using genes obtained from daffodils
which code for the production of the
precursor of Vitamin A, scientists
working in the Philippines are in the
process of transferring these genes to
local rice varieties to create Golden Rice.
Vitamin A deficiency can result in blindness.
At the Philippine Rice Research
Institute in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Filipino
scientists are performing research
to create rice which is resistant to bacterial
blight. Bacterial blight is one of
the more significant causes of substan-
tial yield loss in rice production. Filipino
researchers at UP Los Baños are
developing papaya which is resistant to
viral ringspot disease. Viruses from this
disease severely stunt productivity, virtually
wiping out papaya plantations. A
host of other researches aimed at improving
Philippine agriculture and industry
are in various stages of development
at places such as BIOTECH at
UP Los Baños, UP Diliman, Leyte State
University, Central Luzon State University,
etc.
Research is also being performed in
the health sector at various places, including
UST, the Marine Science Institute
at UP Diliman, UP Manila, and the
Centro Escolar University. Filipino scientists
are involved in scientific approaches
to combat cancer and AIDS.
Research on edible vaccines is ongoing.
This would obviate the need for injections
which many, particularly children,
find disagreeable.
Clearly, millions of Filipinos have
benefited from the innovations already
available. Millions more will benefit as
innovations progress from the research
stage to commercialization.
Unfounded fears may delay, or
worse, put a straightjacket on innovations.
While there are risks in any innovation,
the core idea is containment of
risks. Innovators pursue research and
development and government agencies
create and implement policy with maximum
focus on human safety and regard
for the environment. Each and every
innovation in biotechnology is examined
on a case-by-case basis.
The Biotechnology Coalition of the
Philippines, Inc. (BCP), the membership
of which consists of researchers,
farmers, government functionaries, institutional
employees, private citizens,
as well as established institutions, was
established to ensure the safe and responsible
use of biotechnology. BCP
exists to serve as your ally in progress
and the betterment of the Philippine
way of life – through judicious utilization
of biotechnology.
Dr. Benigno Peczon is the president and
CEO of the Biotechnology Coalition of the
Philippines

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
5
Modern biotechnology
and ‘People Power’
THE use and commercial application
of the tools of modern
biotechnology and its being propeople
is one big irony that many
would say and agree with. However,
the reality is the contrary.
It’s just that we were made to
believe that this modern agricultural
tool is a “technological monopoly” by
the big multinational companies. The
mention of the name of one biotech
company might even instantly ring a
bell, after biotech critics conjured
images of a ‘Monster’ that is eating
up farmers among other allegations.
However, the fact is the immediate
beneficiaries of these modern biotechnology
applications are the
majority of the population who will
be receiving on their tables its blessings
of good and safe foods.
But if the detractors of modern
biotechnology would really want to
engage the corporations who have
Alice
Ilaga
invested so much in research and
development of this modern agricultural
tool, giving them some reasonable
right to get back a fair return-oninvestments,
then the Philippine
experience should show them a good
lesson in public good and public
trust.
Through the Department of
Agriculture’s Biotechnology Program,
the modern biotechnology sector has
somehow carved out a niche of its
own in the public sector arena of
modern biotechnology research.
The DA Biotech Program has
funded several research and development
projects in the government
research labs to develop local products
of modern biotechnology using
indigenous crops—such as our local
hybrid rice and papaya, and other
crops.
If in the near future the product
of these researchers will bear the
‘Pinoy GM’ fruit of this labor and
reaches full commercialization, this
will surely belie that great irony that
this technology is “foreign domination”
of local agriculture. In this case,
this will be more than just Pinoy GM
but rather it’s People’s GM. Isn’t that
revolutionary Isn’t that People
Power
Alice Ilaga is the director of The Department
of Agriculture Biotechnology Program Implementation
Unit.

6 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Dr. Merle Palacpac (right) and her team in the Biotechnology Core team.
By JOEL C. PAREDES
ON a Friday morning Dr. Aurora Legaspi was unusually busy at
tending to her small farm. It’s actually a mini- green house inside
the Bureau of Plant Industry’s National Seeds Quality Control
Services (NSQCS) offices near Diliman in Quezon City.
As NSQCS’ chief, Dr. Legaspi, who describes herself as a seeds
technologist, was overseeing the planting of their agency’s first experimental
hybrid GMO rice seeds, which they acquired from Philippine
Rice Research Institute (Philrice). Her enthusiastic agriculturist,
Jane Bartolini, was busy attending to the tiny seeds. She was
the experiment’s mother hen, although the agency also tapped a
Philrice expert consultant for the seed testing.
After over 44 years in service, Dr. Legaspi could have just looked
forward to a quiet retirement.
Yet soft-spoken Dr. Legaspi still looks eager to be part of a crucial
project – that of institutionalizing biotechnology in seed testing.
By January, the NSQCS would have fully operationalized their
high-tech biotechnology laboratory. Dr. Legaspi managed to give us
a good tour of her modest office-cum-laboratory, which was granted
late last year with the necessary equipments to venture in GMO
seeds, starting with hybrid rice.
She is convinced that the trend in biotechnology is a key in pursuing
modern methods in seed testing to ensure that government
can maintain the quality of seeds to improve agricultural production
in the country.
DR. LEGASPI

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
7
Senior Agriculturist Jane Bartolini isolates DNA from individual plant samples for purity testing.
This will also give the government an opportunity to use advanced
testing based on reliable and efficient molecular techniques
for variety verification, pathogen identification in relation to seed
health testing and seed quality control program, she says.
The NSQCS is actually the agency that is mandated to continuously
provide services such as seed certification, seed testing and
training needed in assuring and maintaining the quality of seeds
used to improve agricultural production in the country.
Maribel Querijero, a senior agriculturist who is stationed at the
biotech laboratory, says that as a member of the International Seed
Testing Association, they have to cope with the challenges triggered
by the globalization for the Philippines to regain competitiveness in
the seed market.
As government’s regulatory body, the NSQCS is tasked to assure
planters a steady supply of high quality seeds and planting
materials with distinctness, uniformity and stability.
“If seed growers or seed companies want to prove their seed is
not contaminated by any GM we can test. But since some producers
are promoting GMOs, we can also prove that in testing their
products,” says Querijero, who has been into seed testing since 1990
when she joined the BPI after a brief stint with the International Rice
Research Institute in Los Banos.
With her experience in biotech products, Querijero says she can
assure that GMOs that are being tested here do no create allergens,
contrary to critics claim. “I’ve seen it. The genes that they
insert in feed do not really harm humans,” she says.
THE year 2002 was actually the time when the Corn MON810, or
popularly known as Bt corn, was finally approved by government
for propagation as well as direct use for food or feed and processing.
It was widely acknowledged as a major breakthrough in the agriculture
and science communities. It opened the country to the propagation
of modern biotechnology. It also took the challenge needed
to help ensure the success of government’s food security agenda.
The Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt corn, is resistant to corn borer,
an insect that destroys corn crops. Bt corn is produced by transferring
bacterial genes to the corn to make it resistant to corn borer.
The product was already commercially available in the United
States, Canada, Japan, European Union, South Africa and Argentina
but the BT corn still had to pass through the Department of
Agriculture’s stringent—and rigid — evaluation process. The Bureau
of Animal Industry (BAI) tapped 16 personnel for feed safety,
the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BFARS)
and two technical experts from the Fertilizer and Pesticides Authority
(FPA ) the safety in handling of BT corn in food and feed.
Finally, experts concluded that Bt corn was safe to humans,
animals, non-target organisms. It was also as nutritious as any ordinary
corn, safer than chemical insecticides and very effective in controlling
Asiatic corn borer.
Despite its discovered wonders, it’s not surprising that cynics
would simply find BT corn a killer. It has a smack of multinational
control, tracing its roots to the US multinational giant Monsanto, which
was a target of a worldwide campaign by anti-biotech activists.

8 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Says environmentalist-turned anti-biotech activist Roberto
Verzola:”This is so important to me that I didn’t feel like eating for 30
days, when government decided to commercialize a GMO called Bt
Corn.”
He even alleged that so-called “genetic contamination” is becoming
a worldwide problem. “Certainly (this) requires a second hard
look,” he says.
Today, however, Dr. Merle Palacpac, co-chair of the BPI Biotechnology
Core Team, feels vindicated. She was part of the team
that evaluated the biotech products. “At least we have proven that
Bt corn, no matter how controversial, is safe after all” she says.
Dr. Palacpac, chief of the post entry quarantine station in Los
Banos, Laguna, says there are 18 other GMOs that government is
now evaluating for possible commercial use, among them soybeans,
canola, cotton and potato.
With the influx of GMOs, the government has begun modernizing
the plant quarantine services laboratories for GM and plant pathogen
detection.
Dr. Palacpac says their target is to establish an internationally
accredited testing facility for rapid detection of GMOs as well pests
in plants, planting materials and plant products.
Palacpac says they hope to increase the export with the expedition
of sector certification and application of modern phytosanitary
measures acceptable to other country.
While modernizing plant quarantine services, the laboratory can
help build people’s confidence of the general public on the capacity
of government to safeguard the public from plant pests and unwanted
organisms on plants, plant products and regulated articles.
Indeed, while the country is open to GMOs, the BPI maintains
the need to detect “unapproved” GM transformation events in imported
GMOs using validated protocols. While these products are
already commercially available in other countries, they will have to
pass through stringent evaluation by government experts.
As then Agriculture Secretary Leonardo Montemayor puts it when
he issued administration order No. 8, in April 2002: “The products of
modern biotechnology cannot be enjoyed fully by the people unless
uncertainties regarding their risks to human health and the environment
are minimized and managed, if not eliminated”.
Montemayor issued the order nearly a year after President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo issued a policy statement on modern biotechnology,
declaring that the promotion of safe and responsible use of modern
biotechnology and its products as “one of the several means to
achieve and sustain food security, equitable access to health services,
sustainable and safe environment and industry development.”
Senior agriculturists Maribel Querijero, Josephine Malabanan and Jane Bartolini load DNA samples to
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tubes at the NSQCS Biotech Unit laboratory.

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
9
Recent advances in molecular techniques, however, opened new
opportunities for seed quality assurance and plant variety protection.
Newer methods based on DNA variations have gained increasing
acceptance in variety verification and seed testing because of
the robustness of the method and opportunity for automation.
DNA-based techniques also offer simple, fast and accurate for
discriminating seemingly identical varieties or seeds such as hybrid
seed parentals that are otherwise difficult to be distinguished through
conventional methods.
These methods used the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a
powerful technique developed not only for plant variety verification
and seed purity testing but also for the precise detection of generically
modified seeds.
The Bureau of Plant Industry has started training laboratory
staff on various aspects of DNA analysis and operation of various
equipment which Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap allocated late last
year for the biotechnology project.
With their new laboratory, NSQC’s Dr. Legaspi says they can
evaluate and validate modern-biotechnology based procedures for
plant variety verification, seed purity testing especially for hybrid
seeds and detection of GMO in conventional seed lots.
Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap (top) and sample
seedlings ofGM hybrid rice (right) which are now being
tested at the NSQCS’ biotechnology laboratory.
Photos by JOE GALVEZ
AT the National Seed Quality Control Service, the opening of a
new biotechnology laboratory gives government an opportunity
to use advanced testing procedures based on reliable and efficient
molecular techniques.
Varietal purity is an important seed quality control parameter
affecting the performance of a variety and quality of its produce.
Genetic purity on the other hand, is also an important requirement
to obtain and maintain plant variety protection.
Traditionally, the method used by government for varietal testing
was mainly based only on ocular inspection of a representative
seed sample. In some cases, varietal purity certification was done
by conducting a grow-out test.
These methods lack precision due to subjectiveness, long duration
required to produce grow-out results, costs and environmental
effects that complicate the assessment of genetic traits.

10 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Bt cotton:
an alternative
high-value crop
By GAMALIEL TEJADA
‘H
OW much will I gain if I plant cotton’
is the immediate question of a farmer
enjoined to grow cotton by a field worker of
the Cotton Development Administration
(CODA). It’s not surprising that this becomes
the primary concern: as the cost of fertilizers,
chemicals and labor escalates, farmers
want to squeeze whatever meager profit they
can out of growing a certain crop, be it cotton,
tobacco, rice, or corn.
Under current practice in growing cotton,
the net cash income is as low as P1,250
a hectare. This is based on the 2001/2002
cotton season’s national average seed cotton
yield of 1,030 kilograms, total production
cash cost of P20,350 a hectare, and P20
a kilogram of seed cotton.
While a homegrown technology for growing
cotton is in place to obtain optimum yield
and income, farmers are going beyond
what’s recommended, especially in pest control.
Cotton bollworm, the most destructive
of cotton pests, accounts for a big chunk of
total pest-control budget. A cotton farmer
would often spray pesticides 8-11 times in
one hectare—which costs him P6,400.
Besides entailing high cost, this practice
of extensive spraying puts the farmer,
his family and community at risk. The danger
to the environment of non-judicious
use of chemicals has been extensively
documented here and abroad——contaminated
water supply, air pollution, not
to mention the resulting health ailments,
among others.
The increasing problems from chemical
use have prodded scientists to keep seeking
efficient and safer means of production
in agriculture and fishery.
One noteworthy product of this endeavor
is a biotechnology product called Bt cotton.
Transgenic plant
Bt cotton is a transgenic plant, i.e., developed
through genetic engineering. With
its built-in ability to control the cotton bollworm
and other sucking pests, it has highly
improved cotton production in 16 Bt cottongrowing
countries, among them Australia,
Canada, Argentina, India, Indonesia, Thailand
and the United States. Higher productivity
and greater socioeconomic advantages
are among the documented benefits.
The Philippines is in a position to enjoy
similar benefits with the commercial planting
of Bt cotton. Calculations made by CODA
experts——toxicologist Dr. Aida Solsoloy,
and Dr. Edison C. Rinen, breeder and director
of the Cotton Research Center—show
that introducing Bt cotton in the country will
increase farm level yield to 3,000 kilograms
per hectare; reduce cost of chemicals to
P1,600 (from the average P6,400 for spraying
8-11 times) and raise net cash income to
P40,770 per hectare.
According to Solsoloy, even if the Bt cotton
seed is more expensive than currently
recommended cotton cultivars, this is augmented
by the increase in yield and lower
pest control cost.
In sum, the promise of Bt cotton may be
summed up thus: high yield plus low production
cost equals high profit and a healthy
environment.

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
11
You’re wearing
Science shows how fashion can be hip, cool
—and technologically, economically smart.
By MARICHEL NAVARRO
THE popular denim pants and t-shirt worn like a uniform by young
and old alike are made from natural cotton fiber. Indeed, cotton
still wins hands down over synthetic or other natural fibers like silk,
abaca and ramie as a favorite clothing material in the tropics.
Cotton fiber, after all, is comfortable, easy to maintain and relatively
inexpensive. Not many people know there is a great probability
that the cotton fiber used to weave the imported fabric came from a Bt
cotton variety.
What is Bt cotton This insect-damage-immune cotton contains a
naturally occurring substance, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein, which
is the active ingredient in safe and effective sprays for morre than 50
years. The production of this protein directly by cotton plants has virtually
revolutionized insect control, making the lives and work of farmers
better.
The major pest afflicting the crop, cotton bollworm, is easily controlled
by Bt cotton.
The lint produced by the Bt cotton variety looks and feels like conventionally
bred cotton. Side by side, they manifest no remarkable
difference. The difference is significant in the production process. A
farmer planting Bt cotton benefits in terms of lower production cost,
owing to reduced inputs of pesticide and reduced labor requirements,
as well as a marked increase in yield. Seed cost, though, is admittedly
higher, but overall, this is compensated for by lower production expense
and higher yield.
The significance of Bt cotton cannot be overemphasized enough,
especially when considering the overall irony in the present situation.
While most everyone, from babies to senior citizens, wear or use cotton-based
material, the Philippines still imports 95 percent of domestic
requirements from the US, Australia and Pakistan. The local textile
industry accounts for 53 percent of its total raw material requirements.
Nearly 50 percent of our cotton imports come from Bt cotton-growing
countries, the US and Australia. In 2002, some 20 percent of total
cotton planted all over the world was of Bt cotton variety, with Australia
and the US among the most significant planters.
Here in the Philippines, there is some hope the lopsided equation
in sourcing cotton can be cured. The Department through the Cotton
Development Administration proposes to introduce Bt cotton as an
alternative to conventionally-bred varieties. If this happens, farmers
can increase their income from planting Bt cotton, and textile millers
will have a local source for good-quality fiber. More important, the
country will benefit from homegrown cotton, and save an estimated
$86 million in import costs yearly.
Soon, with the wonders of science, fashion can be not only aesthetically
good, but also economically sound.
Bt cotton!

12 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
BIOTECHNOLOGY AROUND THE WORLD
EU okays foods
containing GM maize
BRUSSELS—The European Commission
recently announced it was granting
authorization for importing food products
with the genetically-modified NK 603
maize. The decision “takes effect immediately
and will remain valid for 10 years,”
the EC said.
Previously, farm and environment
ministers of the European Union had
failed to reach any agreement on the
matter.
NK 603 maize has been geneticallymodified
to tolerate glyphosphate
herbicide. Before the authorization for
food importation, it had been allowed
for use as animal feed and for industrial
processes. The new authorization
means that foodstuffs for both people
and animals that contain NK 603 and
its derivatives like starch, oil, gluten
and grains may be imported into the
EU.
The commission stressed, however,
that the maize would be grown and
harvested outside the EU.
In compliance with EU legislation,
any item containing the geneticallymodified
maize must be clearly labelled
as such. Earlier this year, in May, the
commission allowed the importation of
another genetically-modified corn, BT-
11, ending a five-year European embargo
on genetically modified products.
“The NK 603 maize has been scientifically
assessed by the European food
safety authority as being as safe as any
conventional maize,” EU Environment
Commissioner Margot Wallstroem said
in July, adding that, “Its safety therefore
is not in question, and neither is the
question of user or consumer choice.”
Explaining the latter, she said that “
clear labelling provides the farmers and
consumers with the information they
need to decide whether to buy the
product or not.”
Fish that glow
in the dark
WUKU, Taiwan—A Taiwanese company
that became famous for its
transgenic fish, has added a new species
to its product line: a species that glows
fluorescent gold in the dark.
The gene-transferring exercise used
by the researchers of Taikong Corp.
involves the introduction of a fluorescent
protein extracted from jellyfish, into the
nucleus of a rice fish embryo by “microinjection.”
The fluorescence is replicated
through this process and takes hold in
the fish embryo, and officials said the
transplanted genes may come from a
fish of the same or different species.
The company’s finance manager Bill
Kuo said the glow-gold-in-the-dark fish is
the latest in a line of genetically modified
fish his company developed since three
years ago.
Each fish sells for 59 Taiwan dollars
($1.80).
TIME magazine had dubbed the
company’s first neon fish, which hit the
market last year, as “one of the coolest
inventions” of 2003.
Having overcome barriers to mass
breeding the fish, Taikong has now set
its sights on China. A Chinese fish farm
has been licensed to mass-produce the
transgenic fish, for which worldwide
demand is estimated at 200 million.
Meanwhile, some environmentalists
remain wary about allowing mass breeding
unless more tests and evaluations are
done. (From Khaleej Times Online)

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
13
US agriculture
department has new
biotech unit
WASHINGTON—The US Department
of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) has a new
dedicated compliance and enforcement
unit under its Biotechnology Regulatory
Services program.
The APHIs administrator, Bobby
Acord, said the new compliance program
will focus on violation prevention, riskbased
criteria for quality inspections and
auditing, uniform enforcement and
thorough documentation. He noted that
“compliance with APHIs biotechnology
regulations had been very high over the
past 15 years, but with ever-changing
science, it is imperative that the safeguards
in place to protect America’s
agriculture continue to evolve.”
The unit is building on efforts already
under way in the BRS to enhance
compliance—including changes In
Brazil, China gearing
for GM legislation
TWO of the world’s biggest farming
nations, Brazil and China, are set to
legalize genetically modified crops,
according to the Nov. 19, 2004 issue of
The Economist magazine.
China is reported to be likely soon to
authorize commercial growing of GM rice,
while Brazil is just about ready to set up
its mechanism for legalizing all GM
crops.
Actually, many farmers already grow
GM cotton in China. And Brazil’s farmers
plant GM soya in the far south, with the
seed smuggled from Argentina. That
practice is illegal in theory, but in October,
well after planting had begun, such was
given a go-ahead by a presidential
decree.
Meanwhile, a bill to regulate GM
crops has been approved in the Senate
and is being passed upon by the Chamber
of Deputies. One problem standing in
the way of speedy passage is this,
though: the bill also embraces the
controversial stem-cell research.
It is known that the government
cannot crack down hard on violators,
because farmers have seen the advantage
of GM crops. Brazil is the world’s
second largest soya grower after the US,
where nearly all soya is GM. Up to one
third of the expected huge (60 million
tonnes) soya crop this season could be
GM. With legality questions being torn
down, the proportion of GM is seen to
increase. The GM seed, derived from
Monsanto’s herbicide-resistant variety,
does not in itself raise yields; but it cuts
costs, making soya attractive to plant.
For its part, China is well-prepared.
Its scientists have long been developing
GM rice varieties—mostly pest-resistant;
and occasionally herbicide- and diseaseresistant.
For three years now Chinese
officials have done “pre-production” trials,
giving the new seeds to farmers in
diverse areas. So far, the trials show
pesticide use down by 80 percent and
yields up by 4-8 percent.
While China’s environmental protection
agency shares the usual doubts
about GM and unofficial environmental
campaigners are active against GM,
China’s biosafety committee is seen in
some quarters as likely to give the gosignal,
primarily because of the health of
farmers. Crop spraying that is now
extensively used is not as safe as in
richer countries; and consumers fear the
risk of pesticide residues.
Yet another implication that is seen is
in nearby India, where farmers had
rushed to sow GM cotton and where
scientists have lots of biotech-rice skills.
India might also rush into GM rice in
order not to be left behind by China.
regulations, permit conditions, inspections
and auditing procedures.
Created in August 2002, BRS is
charged with regulating the introduction
(importation, interstate movement and
field release) of genetically engineered
organisms like plants, insects, microorganisms,
and any other organism that is
known to be, or could be, a plant pest.
Through a strong regulatory framework,
BRS ensures the safe and contained
introduction of new genetically engineered
plants with significant safeguards
to prevent the accidental release of any
such material. Under the Plant Protection
Act of 2000, failure to follow the conditions
set by BRS can result in serious
fines and even jail time.

14 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
‘Doubly green
revolution’
now in Asia
TRADITIONAL corn farming in Mindanao.
A
“BETTER” kind of Green Revolution, release at IRRI’s website www.irri.org said.
this time called “doubly green revolution,”
The “doubly green revolution” was
is now invading the rice fields of first conceptualized by Gordon Conway,
Asia, including the Philippines, as farmers former head of the Rockefeller Foundation
adopt new technologies that reduce their
in a 1997 book of the same title.
inappropriate use of pesticides and boost Conway argued that the world needed a
their incomes, a rice expert said.
doubly-green revolution that would be
Ronald Cantrell, director general of the even more productive than the first
Philippines-based International Rice
Green Revolution, and “doubly green” by
Research Institute (IRRI), told the annual conserving natural resources and
general meeting of the Consultative Group protecting the environment.
on International Agricultural Research
“Today, we would like to suggest that,
(CGIAR) held in Mexico in October, that certainly in rice, the doubly green revolution
the days of unsustainable, high-input rice
has commenced,” Cantrell said. “IRRI
farming will soon be a thing of the past. and its partners in Asia have already
He described IRRI’s research strategy enjoyed noteworthy success with environment-friendly
for the 21st century as breeding improved
technologies for improving
rice varieties with durable diseaseresistance,
rice productivity and poor farmers’ lives.”
while developing innovative,
In Asia, the Green Revolution in rice
sustainable cropping systems, a news began with IRRI’s release in 1966 of IR8,
the first modern, high-yielding semi-dwarf
rice variety, IRRI said.
Half of the modern rice varieties released
in South and Southeast Asia over 38 years
derive at least partly from work by IRRI and
its partners. The global rice harvest has
more than doubled in that period, racing
slightly ahead of population growth.
Larger per capita harvests have helped
to reduce world rice prices by 80 percent
over the past 20 years. At the same time,
poor consumers have benefited through
lower prices for their staple food and their
single largest expense, and farmers have
enjoyed lower unit costs and higher profits.
At the national level, Asians have achieved
food security.
“However, as we all know, the job
started in the first Green Revolution is not
finished,” Cantrell said.
“Although it did stave off hunger to a
significant extent on two continents, an
estimated 800 million still do not have
access to sufficient food to meet their
needs, and millions of farmers remain
trapped in poverty.
“We have learned some important
lessons over the last 40 years,” Cantrell
added. “Modern technologies can be
environmentally sensitive if they are
designed and used with the benefit of
modern ecological knowledge. And IRRI is
committed to ensuring a cleaner, greener
environment.”
Cantrell cited four environmentally
focused research achievements. First,
work in China has confirmed that crop
biodiversity can play a key role in helping
farmers improve their livelihoods while
protecting the environment and their
families’ health. In 1997, IRRI scientists
and collaborators in Yunnan started
experiments with interplanting to control
the devastating rice blast fungus, while
reducing fungicide use. The technology
spread from a mere 12 hectares in an
initial experiment in 1997 to 812 hectares
in 1998, 3,000 hectares in 1999 and
43,000 hectares in 2000.
In 2000, The New York Times described
this project as one of the largest
agricultural experiments ever.
Today, farmers across 10 Chinese
provinces interplant nearly 1 million
hectares, achieving better plant protection
with minimal fungicide use and preserving
popular traditional varieties, IRRI said.
In Vietnam, IRRI and its government
partners have succeeded in implementing
integrated pest management and breaking
the farmers’ dependence on insecticides.
Research there has shown that

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
15
spraying in the first 40 days after sowing
rice is a waste of money and a threat to
farmers’ health and the environment.
Through communication campaign,
using radio dramas, leaflets, posters and
billboards, researchers persuaded almost
2 million rice-growing households in the
Mekong Delta to spray much less.
Surveys in 1999 showed insecticide
use had halved from an average of 3.4
applications per farmer per season to 1.7
applications. The percentage of farmers
who believed that insecticides bring higher
yield had plunged from 83 to 13 percent,
and those who realized that insecticides
killed the natural enemies of rice pests had
risen from 29 to 79 percent, IRRI said.
In Bangladesh, the success story in
reducing chemical use in rice farming
came after three years of the IRRI-led
project called Livelihood Improvement
Through Ecology (LITE), where more
than 2,000 farmers have reduced their
insecticide use by 99 percent. Before the
project, high government subsidies on
insecticides got farmers hooked on
spraying. With continued donor support
for the project, the next decade may see
insecticide use disappear among the 11.8
million rice farmers of Bangladesh.
The challenge for farmers in the use of
chemical fertilizers has always been when to
apply them and how much. After about 10
years of development and study, IRRI is
promoting a simple site-specific nutrient
management (SSNM) technique by which
farmers feed the rice plant nutrients only
as and when needed, when nutrients in
indigenous sources—soil, water, crop
residues and manure—are less than optimal.
As the two SSNM sites in Bangladesh
showed, net return with real-time nitrogen
management, compared with that of the
farmers’ practice, was on average US$41
to US$65 per hectare better for each
season—across five seasons, IRRI said.
The benefits from SSNM multiply when
improved management of phosphorus and
potassium is included.
SSNM is currently being evaluated by
extension workers and farmers at some 20
locations in Bangladesh, China, India,
Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, the Philippines
and Vietnam. Each location represents
an area of intensive rice farming on
more than 100,000 hectares with similar
soils and cropping systems, it added.
“And so, as farmers across the riceproducing
world join us in the doubly green
revolution,” Cantrell said, “we are confident
that food security will improve significantly
for millions of impoverished people.”
The emerging
job provider
THE predicament of the present
gov-ernment is how to address its
job crisis at the same time compete in
the global economic arena. Its economic
policy must coincide with its social
and political agenda. Programs and
policies to solve the unemployment
problem must be politically sensitive.
Their implementation must cushion
the undesirable impact on
marginalized sector. Investments
sourced locally or overseas must have
strong employment orientation and
work-force-biased.
One such area which have high potentials
to provide job opportunities is
biotechnology-based industries. Referred
to as entrepreneurial life science
sector by an international accounting
firm, Ernest and Young, biotechnology
industry offers windows of opportunities
for employment. While its applications
which involve the use of modern
scientific techniques to produce or develop
products and services have encountered
resistance and consumer distrust,
biotechnology will certainly become
a strategic employment generator.
In north American and European
countries, biotechnology industry has
significantly provided jobs for thousands
of workers. As a multibillion
dollar industry in the US biotech companies
which invested about $10 billion
in research and development were
reported to have already provided jobs
to more than 200,000 persons. Other
companies in Canada and Europe have
similarly accounted for increased job
opportunities in these areas.
As a result of scientifically and financially
successful applications in
health and environment, investors
have shifted their funds to biotechbased
businesses. In the health sector,
about a hundred biotechnology drugs
are expected to be in the market. More
companies are reported to be involved
in agro-food business. Applications of
modern biotechnology to crops and
to the conservation of food have been
advancing rapidly. Environmental degradation
and climate change have pro-
Joe Escartin
vided added impetus for the adoption
of biotechnology, particularly GMOs
in agri-based industry. Certainly concern
for food security will make the
advent of biotechnology inevitable.
Being a knowledge-intensive industry,
biotechnology will bring about expansion
in research and development activities
of companies as their competitive
edge. Investments in the intellectual
capital of companies will usher a bright
prospects for employment for the Filipino
knowledge-based workforce.
Manufacturing industries for materials
such as biodegradable plastics,
biopolymers and biopesticides, novel
fibers and timbers are potential employment
generators. With its contributions
to industrial processes, food
production and storage as well as
drugs; safe health and environment,
biotechnology will become the business
of the future. It will be a significant
jobs provider for many of our
graduates of science-based courses.
As we welcome the advent of biotechnology
as potential provider of job
opportunities for our knowledgebased
workers, we cannot disregard
some apprehensions and distrusts of
some sectors. Unease about health and
safety is very prominent. One of the
reasons for the public unease is the
genetically modified foods and crops.
For instance, it is feared that antibiotic
resistant genes inserted in genetically
modified plants for monitoring
purposes may spread to humans.
Also, the so called “super weeds”
due to possible leak out of genes put
into plant to make them resistant to
disease and pests may cause
Turn to page 29

16 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
AFTER ONE YEAR OF COMMERCIAL ADOPTION:
By LYN RESURRECCION
THE debate on biotechnology, or specifi
cally on genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), has quieted down in the past year
from the fever-pitch level of more than two
years ago, although the opposition against
the modern technology that is seen to dominate
the new millennium still persists.
At the center of the debate in the country
was the controversial Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) corn, the product of a process
where the Bt protein found in the soil is integrated
into the corn plant to equip it with a
high degree of resistance to the damaging
Asian corn borer.
Critics oppose the technology in the
name of human safety and the environment,
despite the scientists’ persistent denials
of such peril, and painstaking explanations
that there has been no evidence to
that effect.
But, at least, so far for now, the days of
plant pulling, such as in the Bt corn field
trial in Tampakan, South Cotabato, and the
emotion-filled rallies or fora against the
technology, have passed.
Since the Department of Agriculture approved
in December 2002 the commercial
release of Bt corn, what have been seen
and heard are testimonies in favor of the
main beneficiaries of the technology—the
farmers—on the advantages of the use of
Bt corn. In a paper at the 45th National
PAEDA Convention in Quezon City in October,
entitled, “Economic Impact of Bt Corn
in the Philippines,” Jose M. Yorobe Jr., assistant
professor of the Department of Agricultural
Economics at the University of the
Philippines Los Baños, said that after one
year of commercial adoption in only about
10,000 hectares planted to Bt corn in the
country, substantial unit-yield increase of
as much as 37 percent was realized by the
Bt corn farms.
“This translates to an additional profit
of P10,132 per hectare with a reduction in
insecticide expenditures of 60 percent. An
incremental net income of P1.34 per kilogram
was gained by the Bt corn users, al-
though the seed cost was twice the ordinary
hybrid,” Yorobe said in the paper. He
acknowledged that the paper was part of a
study by the International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA), a not-for-profit organization, on
the impact of Bt corn in the Philippines.
ISAAA centers are based in the Philippines,
Kenya and the United States. He
stressed that the adoption of Bt corn in the
country, albeit still limited in time and
hectarage, showed a significant impact on
the farm financial performance as shown
by the adoption elasticity that was even
higher than those observed in developed
countries. The Yorobe paper used data from
the ISAAA survey, which interviewed 107
Bt and 362 non-Bt corn farmers in the wet
and dry seasons of crop-year 2003 and
2004 in four major Bt-corn adopting provinces
of Isabela, Camarines Sur, Bukidnon
and South Cotabato.
At least three towns and three
barangays per town were chosen based on
the density of Bt corn adopters.

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
17
Table 1. Expenditures on Insecticide Use,
407 Bt and non-Bt Corn Farmers, Philippines, 2003-2004
Insecticide Cost (PhP/ha)
Location/Cropping
No. of
observations Bt Non-Bt Difference
1st Cropping
Camarines Sur 53 149 328 179.00
Bukidnon 68 134 56 (78.00)
2nd Cropping
Bukidnon 51 0 47 47.00
South Cotabato 103 206 652 446.00
Isabela 132 149 281 132.00
ALL 407 156 324 168.00
Source of data: ISAAA Corn Survey, 2003-2004
Table 2. Yield differences between Bt and non-Bt corn farms,
407 farmers, Philippines, 2003-2004
CROPPING/LOCATION Bt Non-Bt % Difference
1st cropping
Camarines Sur 4516.67 3287.46 37.39 **
Bukidnon 4215.90 3324.18 26.83 ns
All locations 4301.83 3307.75 30.05 **
2nd cropping
Bukidnon 2868.36 3566.30 (19.57) ns
Isabela 5303.85 4483.77 18.29 ***
South Cotabato 4793.55 3486.31 37.50 ***
All locations 4890.28 3789.96 29.03 ***
Both croppings 4849.50 3610.31 34.32 ***
*** = significant at 1 percent
** = significant at 5 percent
ns = not significant
Source of data: ISAAA Corn Survey, 2003-2004
Lesser use of insecticide
Before the adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines,
damage by the Asian corn borer on
corn yield had reached as high as 30 percent,
or a low of 4.3 percent. Farmers used insecticides,
which have been proven costly and
unsafe to the human health and to the environment.
With the Bt corn, Yorobe said insecticide
use by farmers was reduced based on
the amount spent on insecticides per hectare.
About P168 per hectare was saved on
insecticide expenditures by Bt corn farmers.
“This implies that farmers sprayed fewer times
and used less insecticides,” he said.
Yorobe explained that Table 1 (Table 4
in the study) showed that the amount used
by non-Bt farmers on insecticides was relatively
high in Isabela and Camarines Sur
because of the prevalent incidence of corn
borer. The cost advantage was not conspicuous
in Bukidnon especially during the
second (dry) season because the incidence
of corn borer was slight. More insecticide
use was also reported in Bukidnon in the
wet season because of the prevalence of
corn borer.
High yield and income
Of course, the major consideration in the
use of new technology—this time Bt corn—
is profitability. Farmers venture into new
methods to be able to increase their income.
The reduction in pest damage, Yorobe said,
translates to better yield and income. He
stressed: “Experiences in other countries
already indicate the superior financial performance
of Bt-corn farms over the non-Bt
corn ones.” A comparison of mean yield per
hectare of Bt corn and non-Bt corn showed
the “substantial absolute advantage” of Bt
corn (Table 2)
(Table 2 in the study). Yorobe observed
that in all locations in both cropping seasons,
the Bt corn farms had a yield advantage
of 34.32 percent over non-Bt corn users,
with a high of more than 37 percent in
Camarines Sur and South Cotabato. The
average yield of Bt corn farms was 4,850kg/
hectare compared to only 3,610kg/hectare
for non-Bt corn.
The study said that financial evaluation
on the performance of Bt corn farms also
indicated an increase of about 25 percent in
profitability over non-Bt corn farms. The yield
differences between Bt corn and non-Bt corn
farms were “statistically significant” in all locations,
except in Bukidnon, the study said,
at 1-percent level for the first cropping, and
5 percent level for the second cropping. The
favorable growing conditions in Isabela and
South Cotabato in the second or dry season
contributed significantly to better corn production,
Yorobe said.
Table 3 (Table 5 in the study) presented
an evaluation of the financial performance
of Bt and non-Bt farms for 2003-2004. The
production cost of a kilo of Bt corn was lower

18 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
by 23 centavos than the non-Bt, but cash
costs were higher. The net income per kilo Table 3. Prices, Net Income and Returns to Labor and Management,
showed a difference of 10 centavos for the
407 Bt and Non-Bt Corn Farms, Philippines, 2003-2004
Bt corn and had an advantage of more than CORN TYPE/ Cost of Net Cash Return to
P1/kg in returns over the non-Bt varieties. LOCATION Price Production Income Costs Labor and
Yorobe also observed that Bt corn received
Pesos/kg Management
a premium price in the market due to better
(1 - 4)
quality and less impurities. He said that Bt Bt
corn farmers, particularly in Camarines Sur Camarines Sur 8.00 5.86 2.14 5.38 2.62
and Bukidnon, received premium prices by Bukidnon1st crop 6.86 5.99 0.87 5.27 1.59
as much as P1.61/kg during the second crop. Bukidnon 2nd crop 9.80 10.08 (0.28) 9.30 0.50
Many farmers traced this to the fact that Bt South Cotabato 8.83 4.61 4.22 4.29 4.54
corn kernels and ears were bigger and Isabela 8.92 4.27 4.66 4.10 4.82
cleaner with uniform sizes.
All locations 8.82 4.97 3.85 4.66 4.16
In sum, (Table 4) (Table 6 in the study)
the increase in total revenue of Bt corn farms Non-Bt
amounts to P14,849 per hectare, with savings
of P168/hectare in insecticide expendi-
Bukidnon 1st crop 6.66 5.31 1.36 4.30 2.36
ture. Although the seed costs were twice Bukidnon 2nd crop 8.19 5.16 3.02 4.23 3.96
higher than the non-Bt varieties, the study South Cotabato 8.11 4.92 3.20 4.35 3.76
showed that the profit advantage almost Isabela 8.68 4.77 3.90 4.52 4.16
doubled. The benefit cost ratio of 2.014 All locations 7.71 5.20 2.51 4.56 3.15
shows the better performance of Bt corn. Source of data: ISAAA Corn Survey, 2003-2004
With the estimated area planted to Bt corn
Bicol 6.84 6.10 0.74 5.66 1.18
in 2003-2004 at 10,769 hectares, Table 5
(Table 13 in the study) shows the results of
the distribution of benefits. The estimates are Table 4. Income and Cost Advantages of Bt corn Farm Adopters,
presented by region owing to wide differences
in agro-climatic conditions and man-
407 Bt and non-Bt Corn Farmers, Philippines, 2003-2004
agement practices across regions, Yorobe CROPPING/ Increase Pesticide BC Ratio
explained.
LOCATION in Total Application Additional Additional (total
Variations in yield per hectare and cost
Revenue Savings Seed Cost Profit returns/
per unit were evident in the results. With a
(Pesos/hectare)
total cost)
larger area planted to Bt corn and a higher 1st Cropping
cost reduction per unit, the net benefit to Camarines Sur 13,833.00 179.00 2,202.00 4,462.00 1.363
farmers was largest in Northern Luzon, with Bukidnon 7,210.00 (78.00) 2,626.00 (701.00) 1.201
P20.95 million. Farmers in other regions had
lesser benefits because of the smaller area 2nd Cropping
planted to Bt corn and minimal reported cost Bukidnon (710.00) 47.00 2,649.00 (6,283.00) 1.365
reduction per unit of production.
Isabela 8,680.00 132.00 1,741.00 7,910.00 2.285
Farmers in Northern Mindanao had South Cotabato 14,046.00 446.00 2,289.00 7,669.00 1.991
negative benefits as more costs were reported
on fertilizers, chemicals and hired labor.
Farms in these areas also experienced Source of data: ISAAA Corn Survey, 2003-2004
drought and stalk rot infestation.
All locations 14,849.00 168.00 2,047.00 10,132.00 2.014
After one year of commercialization, the
net benefit to farmers in the aggregate
amounted to P46.44 million. This was estimated
using the area planted to Bt and the
reduction in per-unit costs. The estimated
gross revenue by the seed company was
P43.48 million, which includes the cost of
the technology. These benefits, Yorobe underlined,
represent the direct and immediate
impact of the corn industry and now cover
the indirect effects with other industries, like
livestock, where corn is a big demand.
Farmers’ profile
It is interesting to note that there are
some noticeable differences observed in
the characteristics between Bt and non-Bt
After one year of
commercialization, the
net benefit to farmers in
the aggregate amounted
to P46.44 million.
This was estimated
using the area planted
to Bt and the reduction
in per-unit costs.
corn farmers, which could be important factors
in the adoption of the new technology.
(Table 6)
(Table 1 in the study). It shows that Bt
corn farmers were relatively younger (45.38
against 46.77 years), and have larger farms
((4.04 hectares against 2.47 hectares) than
their non-Bt counterparts. The area planted
to Bt corn was also larger (2.64 hectares)
compared to non-Bt corn (1.64 hectares). Bt
corn farmers were also better-educated
(about 10 years of formal schooling against
the non-Bt users’ eight years); they earned
more—over P2,000 a month—from other
sources besides farming, and this is an important
source of capital for farming opera-

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
19
Table 5. Welfare Effects of Bt corn Adoption,
by location, Philippines, 2003-2004
Northern Southern Northern Southern All
Item Luzon Luzon Mindanao Mindanao Locations
Area (hect ares)a 7, 901 2,257 130 481 10,769
Yield/ha (kg) 5, 304 4,516 4,215 4,794 4,850
Price (PhP/ kg) 8.68 8.00 8.33 8.11 8.82
Cost reduction
(PhP/ kg) 0.50 0.24 (0.68) 0.31 0.23
Net Benefit to
Farmers (million P)b 20. 95 2.45 (0.37) 0.71 46.44
Estimated Gross
Revenue to Seed
Companies (million P) 30. 61 10.16 0.62 2.09 43.48
a Estimates provided by Monsanto, Philippines.
b Taken from Appendix Table 1.
Source of data: ISAAA Corn Survey, 2003-2004
Table 6. Selected characteristics of farming households,
Bt Corn Study, Philippines, 2003-2004.
Characteristic Bt Non-Bt All
Farm size (ha) 4.04 2.47 2.82
Corn area (ha) 2.64 1.64 1.86
Planted corn area (ha) 2.32 1.55 1.72
Age (years) 45.38 46.77 46.46
Years of schooling 9.65 7.81 8.22
Income from other sources
(per month) 4,066.79 1,088.56 1,766.58
Membership in farmer organization (%) 47.66 57.02 54.89
Contact with extension worker (%) 91.04 84.89 86.30
Chemical expense (PhP/ha) 267.21 406.52 371.69
Hired labor (Man-days/ha) 51.99 46.98 48.22
Variety used (%) 25 75 100
Source of data: ISAAA Corn Survey, 2003- 2004
tions. The study also showed that although
fewer Bt corn farmers were members of
farmers’ organizations, many of them (91
percent) have frequent contact with extension
workers.
What needs to be done
With the high cost of Bt corn seeds,
Yorobe said findings ways to reduce that cost
will certainly result in a net benefit to farmers.
“The current effects are still minimal
considering an adoption rate of only 1 percent,”
he said. In order to further realize the
benefits of Bt corn through higher adoption
rates, public support is needed in terms of
information dissemination, development of
the Bt corn seed market and the government
incentives to facilitate farmers’ access to the
technology.
He said that the availability of Bt corn
seeds is still limited and domestic seed production
capacity is still low. “As the seed
market is opened to other entrants, the adoption
rate and welfare gains are expected to
increase in the future,” he said.
Despite its current limitations, Yorobe
said that the results of the one-year introduction
of Bt corn to Filipino farmers “clearly
favor the national agenda of increased productivity
and income for small corn farmers.”
But, he asserted, “the adoption level should
be increased.”
Farmers
shifting to
new corn
technologies
WHENEVER farmers find a crop that
offers good income and is more
comfortable to work on than their
existing crop, they would not take so
much time to decide on whether or not
they are going to adopt the new crop.
Chances are that they would
switch to the new crop to make their
lives a little bit more comfortable.
Such is the case in three towns of
Pampanga, particularly in Lubao,
Arayat and Mexico.
Traditionally, almost all farmers in
these towns have been producing rice
and sugarcane. Others are into
banana, mango and eggplant farming.
With fellow farmers in Pampanga
making more profit from Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) corn, more and more
farmers in these towns are going into
Bt corn production in order to cut cost
of production, increase yield and
reduce the use of chemical sprays.
Bt corn, a bio-engineered or
genetically modified crop, is resistant
to the Asian corn borer, which can
cause severe yield losses.
One of the farmers who has made
the switch is Carlos “Caloy” G.
Guevarra, who operates a 10-hectare
corn production area in barangay
Anao, Mexico, Pampanga.
Using a Pioneer hybrid 30Y73 with
YieldGard Corn Borer Protection
during the dry season, he was able to
harvest an average yield of a recordhigh
10.25 metric tons (mt)/hectare,
equivalent to 153 cavans.
Guevarra said, “At a price of P7.50
a kilo corn grain, my gross income
reached around P76,000, giving me a
net income of more than P50,000 a
hectare.”
Guevarra likes to use the new
technology even if he does not usually
encounter corn borer problems in his
farm because he claims that farmers
can never really predict when the
insect pest will significantly damage
Turn to page 33

20 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Photos by JOE GALVEZ
By JOEL C. PAREDES
FOR many Filipinos, urban living means
survival in a carnivorous world. But are
those juicy burgers or chicken wings and
drumsticks safe enough for the yuppie
crowd
Well, think twice. Contaminated beef
and other meat, milk and water are the most
common sources of disease- producing organisms—or
pathogens.
Bloody diarrhea and related diseases
for instance are caused by a pathogen
called Escherichia coli.
Typhoid fever, meanwhile, is caused by
Salmonella thypimurium.
The Salmonella are actually common
inhabitants of intestinal tracts of animals,
especially poultry and cattle.
Government scientists concede that
The hunt for
food-borne
diseases
these are but two of the most common foodborne
pathogens which have become a
major concern of government and the private
sector in public health safety.
Pathogenic microorganisms, including
Campylobacter and Listeria pose a foodpoisoning
threat. Fortunately, identifying these
pathogenic microorganisms has become a

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
21
Dr. Criselda Pagluanan (top), head of the
of the NMIS central meat laboratory.
Miicrobiologist Candice Lumibao (left and
top right) prepares a reagent for DNA
centrifugation at the NMIS Biotech Unit
laboratory. Dr. Cynthia Nalo-Ochona
(right) loads DNA samples to a
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tube.
priority of the Department of Agriculture.
The National Meat Inspection Commission,
which is in charge of surveillance, prevention
and control of food-borne disease,
says that it is now requiring microbiological
analysis to assess the quality and safety of
food prior to public consumption.
This usually involves employing the conventional
method of detecting pathogenic
microorganisms. This method, however, is
quite laborious and time-consuming.
Lately, the agency has ventured into a
new procedure—which is accurate and
rapid – in identifying these pathogens. DNAbased
assays are now used for identification.
These methods rely on the nucleic acid
composition of the bacterium rather than the
phenotypic expressions that may be variable
under culture conditions.
Lately, Dr. Criselda Pagluanan, head of
the central meat laboratory of the National
Meat Inspection Services (NMIS) of the
agency, says that because of the new procedure,
they were able to issue clearance
within two days, compared to five days using
the traditional methods.
They have started using polymerase
chain reaction (PCR), molecular based
screening and detection of bacterial pathogens.
All these are being done at the NMIC’s
new biotechnology laboratory near Visayas
avenue in Quezon City. The P11 million laboratory
caters to 20 slaughterhouses in Metro
Manila, but government hopes to set up similar
laboratories nationwide.
Candice Lumibao, who is in charge of
the NMIS’ biotechnology laboratory, says
they are now testing more than 270 meat
samples ranging from chicken, beef, pork,
hotdogs, processed meat products from
various slaughterhouses and private food
corporations like Swifts, Purefoods and
CDO Karne Norte.
Lumibao, a molecular biology and biotechnology
graduate from the University of
the Philippines, says they also plan to do
more screening on four micro-organisms.
She began the meat testing on May
2004 for the screening of pathogenic micro-organism
in meat and the screening of
salmonella.
Lumibao was formerly a technical assistant
at the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center (SEAFDEC) in Iloilo before
moving to NMIS.
Dr. Pagluanan, an animal science specialist,
says that although they have just
started in April she is convinced that biotechnology
has helped a lot in promoting
food safety.

22 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Photos by JOE GALVEZ
By PAOLO CAPINO
IMAGINE this is the year 2030. The Philippines
has increased its population by
150 per cent. On top of that, poverty has
widened rapidly and virtually all the resources
generated in the past century have
been used up.
Hunger reaches epidemic proportions,
and the starving masses scavenge for anything
that they can eat. Economic development
has hurtled in the opposite direction,
plunging toward an economic crisis. The
basic sustaining means for a society to expand
productively have already expired and
we see an era where food is scarce.
The government, however, is illequipped
in providing for its citizens, resulting
in various problems which the country is
also incapable of managing.
Exaggerated and over-analyzed as the
scenario seems to be, it is not impossible
nor even improbable. The setting would
appear like it came straight out of a novel,
but if people continually look at it as just a
fictional dilemma, then 26 years from now it
may well become reality.
With the Philippines teetering on the
brink of a potential fiscal crisis, the odds remain
high that the demands of food security
cannot be adequately met, or met in a timely
fashion.
In November this year, biotechnology
advocates from the private and government
sectors held a round-table dialog with local
mayors to build a partnership in promoting
the use of biotechnology as a means of
improving agricultural production in order to
promote the welfare of the local population.
Key players were leaders of the League
of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP)
and a panel from the Department of Agriculture.
They tackled the issues which can be
deemed crucial to the food sufficiency and
security program of the government.
Dr. Saturnina Halos, Ph.D., the Chair-
DR. SATURNINA Halos (top) gives
mayors an overview on why
biotechnology’s crucial role to the
country’s food security program as
LMP Sec. Gen. Gerardo Calderon
(top, right) urges his colleagues to
forge partnership with the
Department of Agriculture.
Catanauan Mayor Sebastian
Serrano (below) raises a question
to DA Biotech Implementing Unit
Director Alice Ilaga and Biotech
for Life Media and Advocacy
Resource Center’s Jose Escartin.

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
23
person for the Biotechnology Advisory Team
of the Department of Agriculture (BAT-DA),
asserted: “Biotechnology plays a vital role
in innovations on medicine, fuel production,
health services and even in food preparations.”
“Biotechnology is the wave of the future
and it would help agricultural communities
increase their production, improve their incomes
and provide consumers with nutritious
and disease resistant food products,” she
told the mayors.
Halos lamented the “resistance in some
quarters to biotechnology,” saying that the
fears raised by critics have been adequately
addressed by the scientific community and
the government.
To address their concerns, Halos said
the government, through the Department of
Agriculture, the Philippine Council for Agriculture,
Forestry and National Resources
Research and Development (PCARRD) and
the Southeast Asian Center for Graduate
Study and Media Research in Agriculture
(SEARCA), joined hands with the private
sector led by the Biotechnology Coalition of
the Philippines to set up a Biotechnology
Media and Advocacy Resource Center as
its research and advocacy arm.
In her discussion, Halos noted that “scientific
rigor has attended biotechnology research
in the country, with only Biotechnology
corn (Bt corn) securing accreditation for
commercial cultivation.”
She told mayors that “experiments with
Bt corn have yielded a wealth of information
on promoting disease-resistant crops and
higher-yielding varieties.”
Contrary to the fears raised by critics,
she assured the mayors, “Biotechnology research
has revealed that no ailments related
to biotechnology crops specifically Bt corn
cultivation have been confirmed and that
charges about super weeds arising from Bt
corn have proven to be false.”
Meanwhile Dr. Alice Ilaga, the Director
of the Biotech Implementation Unit, noted
that“when it comes to GMO’s however, there
are those who oppose and those who support
it.”
Few may realize it, but “GMO yields are
already utilized in everyday life”, she said
Earlier, Dr. Halos already published her
report confirming that “more than 1,000
canned goods already stored in grocery
shelves may already contain GMO’s.”
It is this ‘pro-anti’ stance which became
the concern of the local government units.
Catanauan Mayor Sebastian Serrano observed
that there was open resistance of
religious groups in their areas.
Serrano described the peasant farmers
as “very religious” and said that “it cannot
be avoided that priests who sternly oppose
the use of GMOs dissuade them from employing
GMO technology” Mayor Serrano
expressed disappointment over the church’s
releasing a pastoral letter against the utilization
of biotechnology.
With the separation of Church and State
in mind, the Secretary General of the LMP,
Gerardo Calderon wants to establish a concrete
organization to support biotechnology.
“In my last term of office, I want to create a
Mayor’s Development Academy so that we
can include educational programs for Biotechnology.”
said Calderon.
The government has the power to initiate
a program to decrease hunger, if not
totally dissolve it, so that it can protect future
generations from this problem, the biotechnology
advocates told the mayors.
As an official policy, and realizing the
tremendous benefits from biotechnology,
the government is urging LGUs to keep an
open mind to the option of biotechnology,
as it will help farmers become more competitive,
reduce damage to the environment
and produce foods with cutting-edge nutrition
qualities.
A research regarding Bt corn growth, for
instance, showed it can actually induce an
additional P10,000 per hectare in income.
Having larger crop yields with productive
monetary growth, biotechnology surely creates
an environment for agricultural profit.
The law is on the side of biotechnology,
mandating that agriculture must rely increasingly
on more modern technologies. President
Arroyo in an official statement stated
that “the country must promote safe and
sustainable biotechnology”.
Shutting the door to biotech because of
invalidated fears, the experts have stressed
time and time again, will produce a more
certain and certifiable outcome: massive
hunger, agricultural trade imbalances and
nutritional lapses.

24 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Photos by JOE GALVEZ
The Philippines
as Asia’s agri-trade center
By ROJA SALVADOR
IMAGINE the Philippines as a center of
agricultural trade in Asia. We could be exporting
200 million chickens to our Asian
neighbors. We can also be the source of beef
and beef products of Japan and other Asian
countries. But all these could happen only if
the Philippines can maximize its food security
program. Biotechnology can be its cutting
edge.
The Philippines remains as the only
country in Asia that is free from avian flu or
“bird flu”. All our Asian neighbors are infected
with the highly pathogenic avian flu. If the
Philippines remains bird-flu free, then it will
be the source of poultry supply of its neighbors.
Moreover, Japan, after having two incidences
of Bovine Spongiform
Encephatology (BSE)–a cattle disease that
can be transmitted to human—is eyeing the
Philippines as its source of beef and beef
products. This is only possible if we are capable
of detecting animal disease even before
it reaches enters the Philippines and if
our standards of testing meat and animals
are globally accepted. Such a tough job falls
on the lap of the Department of Agriculture’s
Bureau of Animal Industry-Philippine Animal
Health Center Biotechnology Project.
Through that center’s project titled, “Enhancing
Biotechnology Laboratory Capabilities
for Animal Disease Diagnosis, Control,
Prevention and Improved Livestock Production,”
the Philippines is envisioned to achieve
globally-accepted standards of testing animal
diseases. Through the use of biotechnology,
the center can detect animal diseases and
find cures faster and more accurately.
The Department of Agriculture aims to
improve poultry and livestock production in
the Philippines. The Biotechnology Experimental
Laboratory Animal Section (BELAS)
is manned by two women: project leader Dra.
Calcita M. Morales and co-project leader
Dra. Cynthia Nalo-Ochona. They have undergone
training in various countries to make
sure that their testing procedures would be
accepted internationally. Their mission is to
conduct tests on animal diseases in order to
learn how to prevent these even before they
reach the country and to find cures to the
existing diseases even before they spread
in the country.
The team has already collected brain
samples to detect BSE or the mad cow disease,
which affects the cow’s central nervous
system. The disease can be transferred to
human beings when the infected cow’s meat
is eaten. At present, no incidence of BSE has

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
25
A MICROBIOLOGIST working at
the Biotech Lab Unit of the
National Meat Inspection Services
(left), while Dr. Cynthia Nalo-
Ochona (below) extracts RNA from
a tissue culture of an animal
disease virus. At right, Dr. Ochona
slices a bovine brain for BSE or
“mad cow” disease testing.
been detected in the country. One of the diseases
given priority attention in the project is
the Infectious Laryngotracheitis (ILT) which
affects poultry. It is an acute viral disease of
mature chickens, pheasants and peafowl, affecting
the respiratory system.
The disease has been reported and
documented to be present in the country.
Outbreaks of ILT have recently been occurring
in the provinces of Batangas,
Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija and
Bacolod with reports of 30-40 percent mortalities
in pullets.
“Namamatay ang mga manok; and at
the time that they are ready to lay eggs, that’s
when they die,” laments Dr. Morales, who
describes ILT as a reemerging disease in
the Philippines. The chickens die even before
they lay eggs. The disease has been
discovered to be concentrated in Batangas,
Bataan, Nueva Ecija and Pampanga. It is
concentrated in Batangas and Pampanga,
which is the egg basket of the Philippines.
“We have to stop the disease even before
it spreads in other parts of the country,
so [there must be] support [for] the modern
biotechnology methods of detecting the disease”
said Morales.
The traditional method of detecting ILT
is very slow, tedious and expensive. The
faster, reliable, specific and more accurate
method of detecting the viral agent is through
the use of DNA-based techniques, whereby
not only the ILT virus is detected but also
the type and strain present. These are important
considerations for an effective and
appropriate vaccination, control, and disease
prevention.
The group also conducts tests to develop
more accurate and specific tools for the control,
prevention and eradication of Hog Cholera,
a highly contagious disease affecting
pigs and wild boar. This has caused major
economic loss in the global pig industry.
Meanwhile, Dr. Ochona has just finished
conducting safety and feeding trials on the
use of BT corn on pig. The initial result is
that the pigs which eat BT corn are fatter.
More results will soon come out.
Morales, who has been in the Bureau
for 30 years, believes that a more supportive
government and civil society is crucial to
their success. “Twenty years ago, the Philippines
used to be at the top in terms of advancing
biotechnology among Asian countries;
now we are lagging behind. Let us not
waste the opportunities,” she stresses.

26 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
Agricultural biotechno
By ISKHO F. LOPEZ
FOOD SECURITY concerns the
availability of food in a community
and having sufficient supply. The
community either produces the food or
buys from outside the community.
Food production depends on the level
of skills and on what is provided by natural
resources. Should the community prove to
be inadequate in producing food and its
natural resources are scarce, and at the
same time it is unable to afford food from
outside, then food security is expectedly low.
In places where natural resources are
abundant, the community needs to
develop the proper food production skills in
order to make the most of what its natural
resources can offer. And therein lies the
challenge to productivity.
Developing food production skills
involve transfer of technology or the use of
scientific or other organized knowledge
and its application to practical tasks in
order to improve or enhance food productivity.
Where such technology reduces
reliance on skills, the result would be an
increase in food security. As it has been
proven, genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) help increase food security, and
an example would be the stalk borerresistant
maize.
The Philippine government has
adopted a policy to promote the safe and
responsible use of biotechnology as one of
the means to achieve food security,
according to Dr. Saturnina Halos, Senior
Project Development Adviser of the
Bureau of Agricultural Research of the
Department of Agriculture. “As a developing
country, the Philippines has a large
proportion (40percent) of its population
dependent on agriculture,” explains Halos.
She points out that individual farms in
the Philippines are relatively small with the
average size being about 1.5 hectares.
Such farms usually support a family of 6-
12 persons. These farms would have
variable soil fertility, and some would
contain problem minerals. Rainfall in these
places would be variable and access to
markets, while easy for some, would be
difficult for many others.
Providing a sketchy profile of Filipino
farmers, Halos says these farmers’
Benjo 04

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
27
logy and food security
schooling ranges from two to 20 years, with
many of the poor having at most four years
of primary education. “In short, conditions
are so variable,” says Halos. “It is folly to
provide a single solution to problems of
low productivity which, in general, characterize
Philippine agriculture.
Hence, we believe that biotechnology
is only one of the technological means to
increase incomes.”
She cites as an example the organic
produce market, where products are
priced about twice as much as the nonorganic
ones. “Depending upon market
conditions, income increases can be
achieved by targeting a niche market,” she
continues. “This market is limited to
the higher-income bracket (5 percent
of the Philippine population) and
accessible to farmers mainly around
urban centers.”
Organic farming incurs higher
production cost and lower yields due
to insect pests and diseases, which
today are not reliably controlled by
organic means. Halos likewise
underscores that there is lower
efficiency in organic farming owing to
these factors. “Besides, tropical
conditions breed so many insect
pests and diseases,” she says.
Another means to increase incomes is
to increase yields per unit area. A dramatic
example is the use of hybrid corn compared
with traditional varieties introduced
by the Spaniards centuries ago. Hybrid
corn yields range from 3-9 tons/ha
whereas traditional corn varieties yield 0.3-
2 tons/ha.
On the other hand, income increases
can be achieved by preventing losses
mainly from pests and diseases. These
losses range from 35-100 percent. In corn,
reports on yield losses due to the insect
Asiatic corn borer range from 5-95 percent.
Currently, farmers control this insect
with a chemical pesticide applied by hand
into individual plants. This chemical can
cause nausea and vomiting among the
applicators, death to farm animals, and
can kill any insect species that encounters
it. Moreover, for the chemical to be
effective, it must be applied at a particular
time within a short period during corn
growth.
“Farmers are therefore looking for a
better solution to the borer problem,”
continues Halos. Multi-location trials
conducted with the genetically modified Bt
corn have conclusively shown that the
borer cannot thrive on Bt corn and yield
gains averaged 40 percent. Bt corn is
genetically modified to include a toxinproducing
gene from a soil bacterium,
Bacillus thuringiensis, which poisons
insects feeding on the plant. “For this
reason, planting Bt corn has become
attractive to many farmers who don’t mind
paying for the seeds because they beleive
that their increase in yields will compensate
for the additional seed cost,” says
The increasing hectarage
of GM crops (from 1.6 million
in 1996 to some 50 million
the past few years) implies
that an increasing number of
farmers see more benefits
from planting these crops.
Halos. “If provided credit, they will buy
good seeds and, once they enjoy the
benefits of assured higher yields, they
would rather buy good seeds and reject
seeds of dubious quality even if provided
free.”
The increasing hectarage of GM crops
(from 1.6 million in 1996 to some 50 million
the past few years) implies that an
increasing number of farmers see more
benefits from planting these crops.
Reports from South Africa and China show
that small farmers benefit more from the
technology than corporate farmers.
“I agree that biotechnology research in
developing countries should focus on
solving technical problems of each
country’s agriculture,” says Halos.
“In addition, research should also
address biosafety issues including setting
up the necessary infrastructure to comply
with biosafety regulations. That is, when a
country decides to invest in biotechnology
research it should also establish biosafety
regulations. In this manner, issues raised
against biotechnology are scientifically
addressed. Although this raises the cost of
the technology, it does provide assurance
to the public that proper measures are
adopted to ensure that biotech products
are safe.”
According to Halos, the Philippines has
adopted biosafety regulations covering
biotechnology research since 1991 and
has recently established regulations
covering the import, commercialization and
release into the environment of biotech
plant and plant products. These regulations
define the biosafety research agenda
in developing a biotech crop.
Halos also cites research on
edible vaccines for humans as well as
animals. “The development of edible
vaccines is undertaken primarily by
researchers in industrialized countries,
supposedly for developing
countries,” she explains. “To hasten
this development, it is about time that
we in the developing world actively
participate in developing the effective
edible vaccine for our own country
needs.”
Dependence on agricultural
products makes Asian needs unique
to the region when compared to the
more developed countries in the western
hemisphere.
China is keen about adapting the use
of Bt crops just as India is moving towards
its utilization and other Asian countries are
carefully watching and looking forward to
its use.
The continuing research and development
of agricultural biotechnology is in
preparation for the challenge of food
security in the future.
(Dr. Saturnina Halos provides advice to the
Philippine Department of Agriculture on biotechnology
for agricultural development. She
was trained as a plant breeder and geneticist
and has been doing research in biotechnology
for years. Using public funds, Dr.
Halos and her husband have invented and
are developing the market for a microbial
preparation—a seed inoculant—that improves
plant growth and yield and reduces
fertilizer requirements. She’s also doing research
using DNA analysis.)

28 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
FOOD Biotechnology has played
an important role in the history of
mankind. Here’s a listing of highlights
in Man’s in meeting the challenge of
day-to-day living, particularly his
attempts to improve food supply.
These dates are benchmarks of both
scientific and regulatory breakthroughs.
8000 B.C
People decided to live in one place
and grow plants as crops. They saved
the best of their crop to use as seed
for the following year.
2500 – 2000 B.C.
The Egyptians domesticate geese,
making them bigger and better tasting
when cooked. They developed
methods of fermentation, baking,
brewing and cheese making.
1800 B.C.
Yeast is used to make wine, beer
and leavened bread. This is the first
time people use microorganisms to
create new and different food.
BIOTECH TRIVIA
Man and Biotechnology
through the years
sealing it in an airtight container.
1930 and 1985.
1953
James Watson and Francis Crick
define the structure of DNA, which
shows how cells in all living things
store, duplicate and pass genetic
information from generation to
generation.
1973
Scientists Stanley Cohen and
Herbert Boyer move a gene, a specific
piece of DNA, from one organism to
another.
1990
The first food products enhanced
by biotechnology are approved for
use: In the US, Chymosin, an enzyme
used in cheese making, and in the
UK, a yeast used in baking.
1993
FDA approves the use of bovine
somatotropin (BST) to increase milk
production in cows.
500 B.C.
Mediterranean people develop
marinating. Europeans master the
preservative technique of salting.
1500s
Acidic cooking techniques, like
fermenting foods with spice and salt,
come to the forefront.
1694
The ability of plants to sexually
reproduce is discovered.
1719
First recorded plant hybrid (intraspecific
hybridization)
1861
Louis Pasteur develops his technique
of pasteurization, a process by
which he protects food by heating it
to kill dangerous microbes then
1865
From experiments on pea plants
in a monastery garden, Gregor
Mendel, an Austrian botanist and
monk, concludes that certain unseen
particles pass traits from generation
to generation.
1876
Interspecific and intergeneric
crossbreeding
1900
The science of genetics is born
when Mendel’s work in 1865 is
rediscovered.
1922
Farmers first purchase hybrid seed
corn created by crossbreeding two
corn plants. Hybrid corn helps
account for a 600 percent increase in
U.S. production of corn between
1994
The FlavSavr tomato, the first
whole food product using modern
biotechnology, receives FDA approval
and enters the marketplace.
1996
Dolly, the first cloned mammal, is
born after researchers in the U.K.
clone a mammary gland cell of an
adult sheep using nuclear transfer
technology.
1996
Biotechnology-enhanced soy, corn
and grain crops are sold commercially
for the first time.
2000
Global area of biotechnology crops
reaches 44.2 million hectares, up by 11
percent from 39.9 million hectares in
1999.

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
29
and Crick opened up so many scientific discoveries
that led to unlocking of recombinant
Exhibit showcases biotech’s DNA technology. Some examples of modern
biotechnology applications are presented
support to development
– health products, insect-protected corn and
DNA fingerprinting in the forensic medicine.
THE National Academy
of Science and
Technology (NAST)
has launched the
“Bioteknolohiya!” exhibit
in the Philippine
The NAST, the country’s highest advisory
body on science and technology, has
recognized the important role of modern biotechnology
as a tool to enhance agricultural
productivity to feed and improve the lives of
the fast-growing population and to help address
environmental degradation.
It has supported the safe and responsible
applications of modern biotechnology
in science and technology, agriculture
and food, health and medicine, environment,
trade and industry. The Salinlahi of
NAST is a leading government science
culture in the country. Since 1998, it has
been visited by more than half a million
students of all levels of education.
Dr. Emil Javier, NAST vice president,
welcomed the guests during the launching.
NATIONAL Academy of Science and Technology
The guests of honor were Science Secretary
Estrella Alabastro and Education Sec-
(NAST) academician Dr. Evelyn Mae Mendoza
speaks about the evolution of bitoechnology and its
advantages in the country. Also in the photograph retary Florencio Abad. As the Project Leader
are Science Undersecretary Dr. Rogelio Panlasigui of the Biotech Exhibit, academician Dr.
and NAST vice president Dr. Emil Javier.
Evelyn Mae Tecson Mendoza lead the viewing
of the
RODEL ROTONI/TODAY
exhibit.
Heritage Science
Center (Salinlahi) at
the Department of Science
and Technology
Complex in Bicutan,
Taguig.
“Bioteknolohiya!”
aims to promote science-based
information
on the principles
and the safe and responsible
applications
of modern biotechnology.
The exhibit brings
the viewers into the
world of biotechnology,
which connotes
modern science and technology. It welcomes
the viewers with centuries’ old biotech
products the Filipino ancestors used – traditional
wine, such as tapuy or rice wine, vinegar
and patis
From these, the viewers are led to biotechnology
of plant and mammalian cell culture
and recombinant DNA technology involving
microorganisms, plants and animals.
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE
In many countries, the debate surrounding
the use of biotechnology in agriculture
is often solely associated with genetically
modified (GM) crops. As a result, many believe
that biotechnology is only about developing
these products. What many do
not realize is that there are many other
important applications of biotechnology
that have made (and will continue to make)
a tremendous impact on agricultural productivity.
Biotechnology encompasses a
number of tools and elements of conventional
breeding techniques, bioinformatics,
microbiology, molecular genetics, biochemistry,
plant physiology, and molecular
biology.
The present applications of biotechnol-
“Bioteknolohiya!” aims to present the
science of biotechnology in as simple terms
as possible. It teaches the basis and basic
principles of genetic engineering with
Matsing and Pagong from the old master,
Dr. Kuwago, and the like.
The centerpiece of the exhibit is the
double helical DNA structure itself, the discovery
of which in 1952 by scientists Watson
A lot more than just GM crops
ogy that are important for agriculture and the
environment include:
• Conventional plant breeding
• Tissue culture and micropropagation
• Molecular breeding or marker assisted
selection
• Genetic engineering and GM crops
• The ‘Omics’ - Genomics, Proteomics,
Metabolomics
• Plant disease diagnostics
• Microbial fermentation
• Biotechnology is defined as a set of
tools that uses living organisms (or
parts of organisms) to make or modify
a product, improve plants, trees or
animals, or develop microorganisms
for specific uses.
JOE ESCARTIN
From page 15
havoc to the environment. Other apprehensions
may be based on ethical
concerns which are mainly on the
way genetically modified foods are
produced and not on the characteristics
of the product itself.
One concern that should pre-occupy
our scientists and policy makers
to ensure that the applications
of biotechnology particularly
GMOs will be safe to humans and
environment as well as cost-effective
to those, particularly the farmers
who will adopt them.
The need to pursue research and
development activities that are sensitive
to a peculiarities of the Filipinos
and the Philippine environment has
become urgent. Thus, Pinoy biotech
or Pinoy GMOs industries will have
to be propagated as possible source
of jobs.
Mr. Joe Escartin is the president of Green
Option and a consultant of the Biotechnology
for Life Media and Advocacy Resource
Center.

30 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY
Biotechnology is any technique that uses a living organism
(e.g., plants, animals, microorganisms) or parts of it to improve
another living organism for a specific purpose. Mankind has been
using biotechnology to, for instance, produce cheese, soy sauce,
bread and beer, as well as lifesaving antibiotics and vaccines for
rabies and hepatitis B.
IS BIOTECHNOLOGY A NEW THING IN SCIENCE
A big NO. While it may sound so sophisticated or mysterious—thus,
something to be afraid of—biotechnology has been
with mankind through the centuries, having been used, as the
above cited information states, for both household (cheese and
vinegar) and medicinal (antibiotics, vaccines) purposes, as well as
for improving crops (interspecific
and intergenetic crossbreeding).
In recent years, the most
significant and well-publicized strides in biotechnology have been
made in agricultural applications. With the help of biotechnology,
scientists seeking to find ways to feed people have come up with plant
strains that are either more productive (and therefore can yield more on
the same land area and the same inputs), or are pest- and diseaseresistant
(and therefore substantially preserve yield and reduce crop
losses while increasing the food on the table), or are even more
enriched and thus boost health—or a combination or all of the above.
No less than the United Nations Human Development Report
2001 declares that biotechnology offers “the hope of crops with
higher yields, pest- and drought-resistant properties and superior
nutritional characteristics—especially for farmers in ecological
zones left behind by the green revolution.”
By the BIOTECH FOR LIFE MEDIA & ADVOCACY CENTER
HOW CAN THE PHILIPPINES BENEFIT
FROM BIOTECHNOLOGY
The primary benefit of biotechnology is in agriculture,
considering the Philippine situation: a fast-growing population,
increasingly less land to cultivate, and the rising cost of farm
inputs and of production risks. Such negative factors are being
compounded by the steady liberalization of world trade, with
tariff barriers for agricultural products being knocked down
even as some developed countries continue to subsidize their
farm sectors.
As it is, developed countries are already growing biotech
crops on an estimated land hectarage exceeding 40 million
hectares. We can only keep up by applying biotechnology to
complement the conventional methods. With biotechnology, the
precarious level of forest cover
will not be further jeopardized
because there will be no need to
clear forests to produce agricultural land. With biotechnology,
plants grown on existing land area, as well as those on poor
soils or stressful environments, can be made more productive.
Savings can be attained from cutting down on agrochemical
inputs such as pesticides. Nutritional deficiencies among
Filipinos can be curbed because biotech allows staples like rice
to be enriched with vitamins and minerals.
IS BIOTECHNOLOGY SAFE TO HUMANS
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Because it has been extensively researched and reviewed,
especially as an agricultural development, the level of safety of
biotechnology is repeatedly validated in thousands of field tests

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
31
with biotech crops—for the past nearly 20 years—and the
findings all show the benefits outweighing any potential (because
none has been discovered) risk. The biotech crops that
are more pest-resistant have in fact greatly reduced the risk of
chemical poisoning that has occurred in some places where
pesticides were not used prudently.
In Western Europe, where the biotech protest movement is
very strong, the European Commission concluded, after an
analysis of scientific evidence from 81 research projects, that:
“The use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory
scrutiny probably make [biotech crops] even safer than conventional
plants and foods.”
WHAT IS A ‘GM’ CROP
The biggest debate in biotechnology has centered the past
few years on such terms as “GMO” and “GM crops,” or genetically
modified organisms or crops.
In reality, all crops are really “genetically modified” from their
original wild state by various processes of domestication,
selection and controlled breeding over long periods of time.
A GM or transgenic crop is one where such natural modification
is hastened by a deliberate scientific process. A GM crop
contains a gene(s) that has been artificially inserted, instead of
the plant acquiring it through pollination. The inserted gene
(known as the transgene) may come from another unrelated
plant, or from a completely different species.
WHY ARE ‘GM’ CROPS MADE
Plant breeders have been exchanging genes between plants
to produce offspring with desired traits; but this crossbreeding
has been limited to exchanges between closely related or the
same species—which takes a long time to produce the desired
results or changes in features.
With GM technology, scientists can bring together in one
plant the useful genes of a diverse range of living sources, not
just within the crop species or closely related plants. This
speeds up the work of producing superior plant varieties.
The use of the so-called “first-generation” GM crops has
yielded significant benefits thus far, primarily, as stated above, in
terms of bigger produce, lower farm costs and higher farm profit,
and an improvement in the environment. Now, the “secondgeneration”
GM crops have the additional advantage of being
infused with nutritive qualities that address the dietary deficiencies
of people. Examples of such crops are potatoes with higher
starch content; rice enriched with iron and vitamin A; and edible
vaccines in maize and potatoes.
AREN’T THERE RISKS IN USING ‘GM’ CROPS
All emerging technologies and scientific developments carry
risks, among them: (1) the possibility transgenes will escape
from cultivated crops into wild relatives; or (2) the peril of
unintentional introduction of allergens into food; or of (3) pests
becoming resistant, through time, to the toxins produced by
GM crops.
However, legislation and regulatory institutions dictate
processes that entail careful review of applications to precisely
avoid or reduce these risks. The technology innovators (i.e.,
scientists), the producers and the government has the obligation
to ensure the safety of novel food and drugs for people and their
benign impact on the environment.

32 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL PHILIPPINE POLICY
ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
Realizing the tremendous benefits from biotechnology, the
government has determined that keeping an open mind to
biotechnology is the best option because it will help farmers
become more competitive, reduce damage to environment and
produce foods with cutting-edge nutritive qualities.
History shows that the most important—because they gave
mankind far-reaching, continuing benefits—scientific discoveries
and applications underwent years of study, testing and relentless
review. Biotechnology is continually being subjected to such
scrutiny here and around the world by responsible, competent
scientists and other experts; all reviews so far have concluded
that the benefits outweigh any potential risk. The alternative, i.e.,
to shut the door to biotech because of an invalidated fear—will
produce a more certain outcome: massive hunger, agricultural
trade imbalances, health and nutrition problems.
WHO REGULATES BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
IN THE PHILIPPINES
For researches under laboratory setting, there is the National
Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines or NCBP.
In field trials and the commercial use of GM crops, there is the
Department of Agriculture and its four specialized regulatory
agencies: (1) The Bureau of Plant Industry or BPI, working with
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for
environmental safety; (2) the Bureau of Animal Industry or BAI for
feed safety; (3) the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product
Standards for food safety; and (4) the Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority or FPA for safety induction of plants with pesticidal
properties.
For GM-derived drugs and processed foods, there is the Bureau
of Food and Drugs in BFAD, under the Department of Health.
REFERENCES:
• Wambugu, Florence, “Africa needs biotech to fight malnutrition,”
LA Times; World Report in Yomiuri Shimbun, Dec. 3, 2001.
• International Service for the Acquisition of Agricultural-biotech
Applications-Southeast Asia Center.
• Philrice-Department of Agriculture.
• United Nations Human Development Report 2001.
• Communication Guidelines for a Better Understanding of
Biotechnology Issues, 2002.

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
33
Farmers shifting to new corn technologies
Typical Bt corn harvest.
From page 19
the corn fields. He likened the corn borer to
a “natural calamity” or typhoons.
Jay Narciso of Arayat, Pampanga, considers
himself adventurous and decisive.
Narciso has spent almost half of his life
working abroad. He has worked in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, on the staff of the Saudi Arabian
Interior Minister. After seven years,
he moved to Switzerland and stayed in Europe
for six years, after which he decided
to return to his native Pampanga.
Being a son of farmers, Narciso decided
to invest his earnings in corn farming. He
started purchasing two tractors and ventured
into modern farming practices, initially by
planting conventional hybrid seeds.
“With these regular hybrids, I would yield
an average of seven tons/hectare, which
to regular standards is above average,”
Narciso said.
Eventually, he decided to upgrade into
Bt corn and planted five hectares of
YieldGard 818. With the new technology, his
yield increased from 9mt/hectare to 10mt/
hectare, which improved his income by about
30 percent.
Farming is not new to another former
overseas Filipino worker, Jesus Gavino, 52,
from the hometown of President Arroyo in
Santiago, Lubao, Pampanga. In his youth,
he used to help his father in the farm during
summer.
Gavino spent 16 years as a heavy-lift
driver in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Then, he
decided to come home and venture into
farming. Initially, with conventional hybrids,
he would average 5mt/hectare. Switching to
YieldGard 818 gave him a yield record from
9mt/hectare to 10mt/ hectare.
These farmers agreed that using modern
technologies in corn farming, current
farm yield and income levels could still be
improved.
In South Cotabato, Lanao del Sur and
Isabela, a revolutionary backyard-farming
venture has been changing the lives of
farmers and farming communities since
they ventured into Bt corn and hybrid corn
farming.
Farmers who used to get about an average
of 6.5mt to 7mt of corn from a one-hectare
farm may now be able to harvest 10
metric tons or even more.
Such is the case of Carmelito “Lito” G.
Dinopol, from barangay Topland, Koronadal,
South Cotabato, who has been planting conventional
hybrid corn for the last two years,
starting only with 5 hectares.
Mang Lito used to apply insecticides to protect
his fields from insect pests. But unfortunately,
during the rainy season, the sprayed
chemicals are washed off easily, thus, significantly
decreasing yield, he observed.
From a field tour of a Bt corn demonstration
farm, Mang Lito was able to see for himself
the added value of having corn plants with
built-in protection against corn borer. Trying
the new technology has improved his yield
and, having been encouraged by the good
market price of corn, he is now helping fellow
farmers in his community avail themselves of
the Bt corn technology.
From Wao, Lanao del Sur, Francisco
Piagola used to plant his four-hectare
farm with open-pollinated corn
varieties that yielded only 1.5mt/hectare.
A simple switch to corn hybrids
in the ‘90s dramatically increased his
yield to 4mt/hectare to 6mt/hectare.
As he adopts the latest corn hybrid
introduced in the market, such as the
NK hybrid of Syngenta, his yield level
reached 8mt/hectare to 9mt/hectare.
The prospect of good farm income
enticed Manong Francisco to quit his
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. job to become a fulltime
corn farmer, thereby nurturing the
farm with good farm management
practices.
“I was able to send my children to
school and acquired several pieces of
property,” he added.
In Reina Mercedes, Isabela, in
Northern Luzon, Peviano Soriano, a
former seaman who shifted his career
to farming, likes to try and compare
new kinds of corn hybrids (like those
produced by Cargil Asian, Pioneer,
Cornworld, Syngenta) in his farm. With fertilizer
application, the corn hybrids yield from
6 metric tons/hectare to 8.5 metric tons/hectare.
The experience has been helping
Soriano select which variety is most suited
to his farm.
These farmers believe that with the help
of modern corn farming technologies, such
as improved seeds or planting materials,
fertilization and other recommended cultural
practices, yields of crops, such as corn, can
be tremendously improved.
They all received plaques of appreciation
from the Department of Agriculture and
CropLife Philippines Inc. for successfully
using modern farming technologies that contribute
to the attainment of the objectives of
the National Corn Program.
El Bill R. Madrigal/ SEARCA-BIC (Originally
printed in TODAY, Earth and Science Page,
August 31, 2004)

34 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
In Africa, biotech is
a matter of survival
By FLORENCE WAMBUGU
NAIROBI—They can buy their food in supermarkets.
They can eat fast food,
home-cooked food, restaurant food. They can
choose the more expensive organic foods, or
even imported foods. They can eat fresh, frozen
or canned produce. Then, from their world
of plenty, they tell us what we can and cannot
feed our children.
The “they” I refer to are a variety of antibiotechnology
protesters who would deny
developing countries like my home, Kenya,
the resources to develop a technology that
can help alleviate hunger, malnutrition and
poverty. Genetic engineering of plants has
sparked a revolution in agriculture, one that
can play an important role in feeding the
world’s hungry. As an African, I know that
biotech is not a panacea. It cannot solve problems
of inept or corrupt governments,
underfunded research, unsound agricultural
policy or a lack of capital. But as a scientist, I
also know that biotech is a powerful new tool
that can help address some of the agricultural
problems that plague Africa.
The protesters have fanned the flames of
mistrust of genetically modified foods through
a campaign of misinformation. These people
and organizations have become adept at playing
on the media’s appetite for controversy to
draw attention to their cause. But the real victim
in this controversy is the truth, and African
farmers and consumers are not far behind.
I know of what I speak, because I grew
up barefoot and hungry in Nyeri, Kenya,
searching for solutions that would rid our crops
of the pests that ravaged them year after year.
We tried to smother the bugs by using ashes
from burned wood and crafted various concoctions
to spray the plants with.
Most of the time our attempts failed, and
so I learned early in life that to grow enough
food we must somehow find a way to control
the plant pests and viruses that routinely destroyed
our crops and shank our harvests.
Long before there were protesters, I was
working on biotech solutions to the vexing local
problems facing African farmers. Today,
after years of research, we are well on our
way to finding some of the answers. At home,
I am engaged in field trials of sweet potatoes,
an important staple in the African diet. These
sweet potatoes have been modified to resist
a plant virus that can decimate up to 80 percent
of a farmer’s crops.
We have completed only the first of four
trials, but thus far the results are encouraging.
Potential benefits from this research include
increasing sweet potato yields enough
to feed an additional 10 million hungry people,
and giving the farmers bigger harvests without
increasing their production costs, for a
potential gain of $500 million per year in crop
yields.
American protesters talk about how the
new methods will wipe out traditional varieties.
But let me tell you how it worked with
sweet potatoes in Kenya. Researchers
worked closely with farmers, allowing them
to select the local variety they thought had
the best taste, color and texture. That was
the sweet potato into which we inserted the
virus-resistant gene.
But, even as the science moves forward,
the protesters try to push us back.
I do believe they care, but they do not understand
the hunger that grips millions of Africans
and deprives malnourished children of the
opportunity to grow up healthy and to achieve
their full potential. For people in affluent countries,
hunger is an abstract concept.
There are those who say there is more than
enough food in the world, and that the solution
to ending hunger lies in redistributing surpluses
to the people who need them. However wellmeaning
their intentions, they are wrong.
Food aid is a temporary solution at best
and hardly a solution at all to the underlying
causes of hunger and poverty.
Biotechnology is a solution for Africa because,
unlike some other technologies, it is
packaged in the seed. Even small-scale farmers
can learn how to handle it and can share
in its benefits. Such farmers lack the resources
for the machinery and chemicals that revolutionized
agriculture in the West years ago.
And biotechnology can help Africans conserve
our beautiful natural resources and protect
our biodiversity. Instead of local varieties
being lost to disease, they are being protected
and conserved both in the field and in the laboratory.
This same opportunity can extend to
other African crops. And by using biotechnology
to make more productive the lands low in
nutrients, affected by drought or hampered
by other conditions, we can help slow the pressure
to put remaining wilderness under cultivation,
thereby protecting the plants and animals
they house.
I’m not alone in my belief that biotechnology
offers a solution to agricultural and food
problems. In Western Europe, birthplace of
the biotech protest movement, after an analysis
of the scientific evidence from 81 research
projects, the European Commission concluded
that, “The use of more precise technology
and the greater regulatory scrutiny
probably make biotech crops] even safer than
conventional plants and foods.”
And the United Nations Human Development
Report 2001 unequivocally states that
biotechnology offers “the hope of crops with
higher yields, pest- and drought-resistant
properties and superior nutritional characteristics—especially
for farmers in ecological
zones left behind by the green revolution.” As
a scientist working in biotechnology, and as
an African, I know this to be true.
So, I say to the protesters: be careful what
you attack because you might be harming that
which you profess to care about.
Florence Wambugu is a plant pathologist and,
when she wrote this piece for the LA Times
World Report special section in the Yomiurri
Shimbun, was the regional director for International
Service for the Acquisition of Agriculturalbiotech
Applications. She joined A Harvest
Biotech Foundation International in 2002

January – March 2005 BIO LIFE
35
“
We shall promote the safe and responsible use of
modern biotechnology and its products as one of
several means to achieve and sustain food security,
equitable access to health services, sustainable
and safe environment, and industry development.
”
– President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
“
We have long resolved to manage
modern biotechnology to boost agricultural
modernization of the Philippines.
”
– Dr. Patricio S. Faylon, executive director, Philippine
Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources
Research and Development (PCARRD)

36 BIO LIFE January – March 2005
“
The level of
safety associated
with (genetically
modified) foods is
at least as high as
that of any other
available foods
because the
safety assessment
process
undertaken for GM
foods is far more
thorough than that
undertaken for any
other food. The
safety assessment
process ensures
that GM foods
provide all the
benefits of
conventional food
and no additional
risks.
”
– Australia New
Zealand Food
Authority
“
We have seen
no evidence that
the bioengineered
foods now on the
market pose any
human health
concerns or that
they are in any
way less safe than
crops produced
through traditional
breeding.
”
– US Food and Drug
Administration
commissioner
Jane E. Henney, MD