Farmers ask SC to lift CA order vs Bt eggplant production
MANILA, Philippines – A group of farmers from Pangasinan and Bukidnon has asked the Supreme Court to reverse a Court of Appeals decision that stopped the field trial of the genetically modified (GM) eggplant as their livelihood might be adversely affected by the decision.
The appellate court effectively ordered to stop the commercial development of the so-called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant through its issuance of a writ of kalikasan with a temporary environmental protection order in May 2013.
In their 57-page “petition for review in intervention” with the Supreme Court, the farmers lamented that the Court of Appeals was putting to death “technology and innovation” in farming.
The petitioners are composed of farmers Edgar Talasan and Euguene Halasan of Impasug-ong, Bukidnon; and David Casimero, George Matias, Laureano Sanchez, Maximino Apelado, Danilo Doronio, Roberto Apelado, Marvin Matias, Emily Bitco, Asuncio Desmito of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan.
They said they experienced first-hand the benefits of Bt technology. They added that they sprayed less pesticide in using Bt corn.
The farmers said they knew that the Bt eggplant would result in the reduction of pesticide use in battling the pest fruit and shoot borers (FSBs).
One of the petitioners against the Bt eggplant, Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), claimed that field trials of the genetically modified vegetable might contaminate the environment.
The farmers, however, said Bt technology would enhance environmental sustainability and would more likely bring about improvements in the environment by reducing the impact of agriculture on biodiversity and alleviating the pressure to convert rainforests and natural habitats into farmlands.
The farmers cited a 2013 study in the United Kingdom, which reportedly showed that the GM technology had resulted in a $98.2-billion economic benefit over the period 1996 to 2011. It also cut pesticide spraying by 474 million kilograms.
The study said the reduction in spraying resulted in a reduction of associated environmental footprint by 18.1 percent, and that the technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. The reduction was equivalent to removing 23 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 10.2 million cars from the roads.
The farmers lamented that the Court of Appeals came up with the writ of kalikasan and TEPO decisions even if did not at all find “any particular violation of any environmental law on the part of the petitioners.”
“Much less did it explain the particular environmental harm that is caused by, or may be due to, the Bt egglant field trials,” they said, adding that the environment would actually have less pesticide “loading” and that there would be less health hazard in pesticide residue in eggplant for consumers.
The farmers also said they would have less exposure to harmful pesticide due to less spraying.
The farmers said the appeals court’s decision merely made “references to the Divine Plan,” saying it believed the Bt technology “alters” nature.
But the court, said the farmers, failed to show any evidence that the GM eggplant would have “irreversible” and “irreparable” damage to the environment, which should be the essence of a writ of kalikasan order.
The farmers said the court’s decision had “grave” implications and would be a “patent violation” of their right to property. Their right to the protection of their livelihood is guaranteed by the Constitution, according to the farmers.
The planting of the eggplant resistant to fruit and shoot borers (FSB) should even be encouraged, the farmers said.
The farmers cited a budget study that showed Bt eggplant could increase cash returns to farmers by almost P117,000, or 21 percent, per hectare.
“These increases in profitability will be due to increase in marketable surplus resulting from minimal or zero eggplant FSB damage and overall lower cost of production. The biggest cash cost saving is expected to come from savings in pesticide expense,” they said.
