View from source 

The continuing revelations on the scary extent of activities and influence of the USAID-funded AGILE in shaping government policies have only served to underscore the significance of the proposal of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. to regulate the activities of PR and lobby groups in meddling with the work of the legislature and government agencies. 

Indeed, as we have seen from the various exposés on the manipulations of AGILE to shift government policies to ones that would favor American interests (concerns ranging from open skies to the privatization of tax collection), these lobby groups could be used as convenient conduits where global business and political interests can bring in financial ammunition to push their agenda on the local front. 

Pimentel might wish to include international pressure groups like Greenpeace among those whose activities should be rigorously regulated. While the activities of Greenpeace are more overt than those of AGILE, it too has vast international financial resources to put pressure on government and legislative decision-making. As with AGILE, what Greenpeace wants to happen may not be the best for the Philippines. 

Take the case of recent news reports where Environment Secretary Elisea Gozun appeared to be openly and publicly contradicting the earlier announced policy of President Arroyo adopting biotechnology as the anchor of the government’s food security and sufficiency program. 

It’s a no brainer to guess who’s behind this position of Gozun, who, before her appointment, was identified with environmental activist groups. 

Greenpeace had a field day telling the media about Gozun’s reversal of the Arroyo administration’s policy on biotechnology. 

Greenpeace’s principal lobbyist against biotechnology, Beau Baconguiz (he’s been saying that biotechnology would result in a million dead bodies and sick children, cancer clusters and deformities), hailed Gozun and cited her adherence to the Greenpeace principle which urges scientists to err on the side of caution. 

In the Greenpeace press release, Baconguiz said that Gozun had promised to review the approval given by the Arroyo administration for the domestic propagation of genetically modified seed types. 

We hope that Gozun was just misquoted by Baconguiz in the Greenpeace press release. She may be new at the DENR, but it’s hard to believe that she is not aware of the government’s probiotechnology policy. President Arroyo herself announced this at the mammoth food summit in Mindanao attended by all of the country’s major farmers’ groups. 

Gozun, as the alter ego of the President at the DENR, should now be ready to take the bigger perspective on the issue of biotechnology. She should free herself from the narrow confines of the so-called Greenpeace principle that says that, even in the absence of any evidence on the alleged dangers of biotechnology, it should not be adopted at all until its safety is proven to the satisfaction of Greenpeace. What Greenpeace is saying is that biotechnology is guilty, and the people advocating its use would have to prove their innocence. 

The problem with this position is that Greenpeace decides whether or not biotechnology is safe for the environment and the people’s health. It doesn’t want to accept the conclusions made by scientists, including Filipino scientists, that their studies have shown none of the negative health and environmental impact that Greenpeace fears. Greenpeace doesn’t want to consider the fact that genetically modified seeds are being used extensively in the United States and many other countries without any problem. 

Gozun might wish to weigh the speculations made by Greenpeace against the benefits of using genetically modified high-yielding seed varieties that require minimal or no use of toxic chemical pesticides. We wonder if Gozun has asked Greenpeace what the alternatives are for our farmers. Organic farming is certainly not the answer. The only other option is to continue planting seed types that need millions of gallons of chemical pesticides to make things viable for farmers. 

If Gozun has really adopted a position against biotechnology, as Greenpeace wants the public to believe, she should have taken up matters first with the President before making any public announcement on the issue. 

The environment secretary is well advised to be cautious in dealing with Baconguiz. Greenpeace has its own agenda. She has to keep in mind that she should adhere to what is best for the country as decided by the President and the rest of the Cabinet. It is to the interest of Greenpeace to milk every possible benefit for its agenda from Gozun’s alleged anti-biotechnology stance even if this pictures her in direct conflict with her colleagues in the Cabinet. 

In the Greenpeace press release, for example, it was stressed that Gozun’s opposition to the policy promoting biotechnology was in contrast to the prevailing position of other government agencies. The reference is obviously to Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit, who has adopted the findings of the Filipino scientific community and the American Medical Association that genetically modified food products are safe. 

We would like to assume that Gozun means well. However, we hope she also realizes that when a Cabinet member opposes an announced official policy of the President in public and in the process aligns herself with a well-funded international group, the public cannot help having doubts in their minds.