To help solve the problems of hunger and poverty as well as to invigorate the economy with cheaper food products for both domestic consumption and export, the Philippine government has approved the use, planting and development of genetically modified food crops. The Bureau of Plant Industry has approved for direct use as human food, animal feed and for food-product processing 25 genetically modified food crops. Among these are corn, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, potato and cotton.

The United States is the foremost exponent of GMOs. Monsanto, the agribusiness transnational conglomerate, sells GM corn here and throughout the world.

Since they were first introduced GMOs have been opposed by many reliable and rigorously scientific bodies.

Even in church circles, no less than John Paul II, had warned against failing to “resist the temptation of high productivity and profit [by means] that work to the detriment of the respect of nature.” He warned that when farmers “forget this basic principle and become tyrants of the earth rather than its custodians… sooner or later, the earth rebels.” Pope Benedict XVI has not taken a stand and is letting pontifical institutes continue their evaluation work.

GMOs are a divisive issue in the Church. Bishops who wish to see hunger and poverty immediately alleviated favor the use of GMOs. They argue that there is a moral duty for Christians to eradicate hunger and use available technology to do so.

Others who give the highest value to the Christian obligation to respect the ecological balance and the Christian duty to prevent humanity’s “suicide” want GMOs to be subjected to stricter studies.

Many African and South American churchmen are driven to oppose GMOs out of fear that these will prolong control of the world’s food supply by the rich countries and their giant corporations (like Monsanto).

The use of GM crops in poor countries would then make poor farmers even poorer.

The present state of scientific studies about GMOs is that data are mainly contradictory. This being the case, the most authoritative statement about the subject from the Vatican, the 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, suggests that “it may then be appropriate to base evaluations on the precautionary principle.”

Many scientists have offered studies to show that lots of things about GMOs demand precautionary measures. Others point out that remedial measures should now be taken because hazardous GMO crop pollens have in fact already infected native species. This alarm has been sounded in the Philippines.

Earlier this month, Greenpeace and Professor Gilles Eric Séralini, a government expert in genetic engineering with the University of Caen in France, held a press conference in Berlin to reveal that Séralini’s team has discovered that Monsanto’s GMO corn—MON 863—poses a direct threat to humans. Séralini questioned Monsanto’s analyses of MON 863, which was used as a basis for its approval. He said Monsanto’s analyses do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. “To begin with, their statistical protocols are highly questionable.”

Greenpeace demanded the complete and immediate withdrawal of MON 863 corn from the global market and is asking governments to reassess all the genetically engineered products they have approved.

Professor Séralini’s panel of scientists found that laboratory rats fed with MON 863 YieldGard Rootwom displayed kidney and liver toxicity.

MON 863 is corn genetically engineered to produce its own insecticide called “modified Cry3Bb1” to kill rootworm insects in the soil. It contains gene coding for antibiotic resistance.

“New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity,” the French study was published in the scientific journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (www.sprin¬gerlink.com/content/1432-0703).

The European Commission (EC) granted Mosanto the license it sought to market MON 863 for consumption by both humans and animals.

Greenpeace obtained incriminating data owing to a court case and worked to have Professor Séralini and his team evaluate and investigate the matter.

Our columnist, Dan Mariano, has quoted Daniel Ocampo, the Greenpeace Southeast Asia genetic engineering campaigner, as saying: “This case is especially significant to the Philippines right now in the light of the Bureau of Plant Industry’s claims [in mid March] that they enforce stringent regulatory systems for the approval of GMOs.”

BPI must withdraw its approval of these dangerous GMO food crops.