Let there be freedom of choice on Bt ‘talong’
The poor state of the nation must already be coming out of your ears, so today I will save you the irritation by switching to a controversy also close to the stomach. This is the development of a variety of eggplant resistant to pests, the Bt talong, through biotechnology.
The eggplant is very vulnerable to an insect pest that burrows through its thin skin and lays its eggs inside. When the egg hatches, the larvae feed on the meat of the fruit. The eggplant may be beautiful and shiny outside but inside it has many worms. You will never know this when buying eggplants in the market.
To fight the pest, the farmer sprays his eggplants with pesticide. The trouble is, the pest becomes progressively resistant to the pesticide. So the farmer increases the dose progressively. This means the pesticide residue left on the fruits also increases so that by the time they reach the market and you buy them, the amount of pesticide residue on the fruits may already be harmful to health.
Filipino scientists in Los Baños have been trying to breed an eggplant resistant to the pest trough biotechnology, and they appear to be succeeding.
Then comes the snake in Paradise, a European environmental pressure group known as Greenpeace. The group is opposed to the Bt talong because, it says, we never know what it would do to the environment. This group is quite aggressive and has Filipino supporters who have resorted to destroying the tiny experimental farms being used for the field trials.
I have already written about this fight several times in this column. In reaction to the latest one, a spokesperson of Greenpeace wrote to the Inquirer berating Bt talong, spoke of its alleged risks, and why Filipinos should not eat it.
We appreciate Greenpeace’s response to our views. However, certain things need to be clarified.
First, we do not advocate the consumption of Bt talong. I am no big fan of the eggplant, pesticide-free or otherwise. Eggplants abound in purine which becomes uric acid in the body, contributes to the formation of kidney stones and leads to the painful disease of gout. The eggplant, biotech or pesticide-laced, is therefore bad for people with kidney problems and susceptible to gout.
Second, what this column stands for is freedom of choice. That is why we oppose the extralegal means used by Greenpeace operatives and its local allies in their efforts to stop the work of our scientists. For example, we condemn the destruction of trial farms planted with biotech crops. Several Greenpeace operatives, locals and foreigners, are now facing criminal charges in connection with such activities.
We stand by our view that such means employed by Greenpeace operatives are depriving farmers of the freedom of choice. We prefer that the ultimate decision on what to plant and eat must come from Filipino farmers and consumers. They are already aware of the pros and cons of the controversy. What our farmers will choose to plant and what Filipinos choose to eat must not be dictated by a multibillion-eurodollar pressure group operating from Amsterdam.
Third, I have a problem with the assertions made by the Greenpeace spokesperson regarding questions on the safety of crop varieties developed through biotechnology. The problem stems from the fact that this spokesperson is not a scientist. He was, therefore, merely mouthing hysterical spiels made to appear as scientific data. What he had was secondhand information, distilled by him to suit an activist agenda.
In contrast, we have heard Filipino scientists speak about the safety of biotech crop
varieties that have been approved for commercialization.
Among them are Dr. Kenneth Hartigan-Go, head of the Food and Drug Administration. Hartigan-Go is a medical professional who has specialized in toxicology, the science that deals with poisonous substances. He has a medical license, a government position, and a professional reputation to protect. The odds are higher that a person like him won’t lie. He can be held accountable for whatever he says in public that affects public interest.
The same cannot be said of the Greenpeace spokesperson. He is not a licensed professional, nor is he accountable to the Filipino people. He answers only to his bosses and sponsors in Amsterdam.
Furthermore, the Greenpeace spokesperson who wrote the letter was allegedly with the raiding teams that destroyed a ground trial farm a few years ago. In our book, one who engages in such an act suffers a serious credibility problem.
I reiterate our position that Filipino farmers and consumers must have the freedom of choice on what to plant and to eat. They can reject or snub the pesticide-free eggplant variety. But let the ability to reject be part of the exercise of their freedom of choice.
