Suing the Government Over GM Rice: What Are Filipinos Defending?

I. Golden Rice: Miracle Cure or Poison?

Once ingested, β-carotene is converted by the human body into vitamin A, offering a potential remedy for the widespread vitamin A deficiency that afflicts children across Africa and South-east Asia. Consequently, since its initial development in 1999, golden rice has been heralded as a miracle cure capable of ‘saving a million children each year’. Its developer, Ingo Potrykus, was also prominently featured on the cover of Time magazine that same year.

However, the rollout of this panacea in Asia—the region where rice is primarily produced and consumed—has not gone as smoothly as anticipated.

Within no time, more than 30 organisations from at least eight Asian countries came together to form the ‘Stop Golden Rice Network’, taking action across scientific, legal, public education, grassroots mobilisation, and street politics fronts. The Philippines has emerged as the most steadfast opponent. The recent victory in April is simply the latest win in a protracted campaign spanning over two decades.

Why has Golden Rice met with such fierce resistance in the Philippines? Much of this can be attributed to the close collaboration between Filipino scientists, public interest lawyers, and farmer organisations.

MASIPAG, a Philippine organisation consistently at the forefront of opposition to Golden Rice, was established in 1985 by a group of plant breeders dedicated to advancing agricultural and farmer interests. At the time, these scientists noted that the ‘Green Revolution’ promoted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)—also headquartered in the Philippines, and built around hybrid rice, pesticides, and chemical fertilisers—had not only failed to lift Filipino farmers out of poverty but had also triggered environmental degradation, public health concerns, and the erosion of genetic resources. This led them to question what kind of technology could genuinely serve the interests of agriculture and farming communities.

MASIPAG quickly evolved into a network of NGOs and scientists that placed farmers’ interests first. By providing training in ecological agriculture and plant breeding, they enabled farmers to regain control over their production. From the very beginning, they threw themselves into the anti-Golden Rice movement, organising countless public talks and forums at farmers’ markets and primary and secondary schools throughout the Philippines.

It was during these sessions that Lauro realised dismantling the case for Golden Rice required nothing more than basic common sense.

“Many natural foods pack more beta-carotene than Golden Rice, including everyday staples like pumpkin and carrots, with sweet potatoes topping the list,” Lauro told us. “What’s more, storage and cooking significantly speed up the degradation of beta-carotene in Golden Rice.”

Now 55, Lauro is from central Luzon in the Philippines. Alongside his rice paddies, he tends a few acres of sloping land growing pineapples, papayas, bananas, and a variety of vegetables. He fits the profile of a traditional smallholder farmer in South-East Asia: food is grown first to meet household needs, with any surplus taken to market to bring in extra income.

A long-time practitioner of diversified farming, Lauro strongly endorses MASIPAG’s core argument against Golden Rice as a nutritional band-aid. He believes that beta-carotene should be sourced from fresh fruits and vegetables, and that guaranteeing access to healthy, diverse diets is the only way to address malnutrition and hidden hunger at the source. Why complicate matters when the answer is already within reach?

In reality, Golden Rice contains an average of just 3.57 micrograms of beta-carotene per gram—a tiny fraction of the 173 micrograms found in sweet potatoes. Expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, including representatives from MASIPAG, testified during the trial that relying exclusively on Golden Rice to meet vitamin A requirements would mean an adult would have to eat 20 kilograms of rice a day. That is roughly a third of China’s annual per capita rice consumption, making it plainly unworkable.

More concerning still, Golden Rice not only fails to address vitamin A deficiency but also carries a host of safety concerns.

Dr Charito Medina, a crop scientist with MASIPAG, identified in a published toxicology report that the CRTI protein expressed by Golden Rice shares homology with three toxins found in snake venom. He stressed that because rice is a staple in the Philippines, long-term feeding and multi-generational studies to assess chronic toxicity are essential. To hastily declare Golden Rice safe based merely on acute toxicity test results is, in his view, profoundly irresponsible.

Beyond beta-carotene, Golden Rice also expresses other carotenoids. The report completely ignores whether these could produce antinutritional factors or even toxins.

Given the myriad uncertainties surrounding genetically modified technology, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted and brought into force the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the early 2000s. As a party to the Protocol, the Philippines is under an obligation to enact legislation or establish corresponding regulatory frameworks to mitigate the potential risks posed by GM technology.

Under prevailing Philippine law, any genetically modified crop intended for field trials, use as food or feed, direct consumption following processing, or commercial release must undergo rigorous risk assessments conducted by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with relevant government agencies and stakeholders before a Biosafety Permit can be issued.

A primary reason many environmental and biodiversity conservation groups oppose genetically modified organisms is the risk of genetic contamination. During the recent trial in the Philippines, a witness for the plaintiff, organic smallholder farmer Mae Jethel Kapunan, also raised his concerns.

Twenty-five years ago, he transitioned from conventional to organic farming, primarily cultivating traditional rice varieties such as black rice, and has since achieved Philippine organic certification. Under the certification rules, he is prohibited from using chemical inputs or genetically modified seeds. Should neighbouring farms begin cultivating Golden Rice, it would be difficult to guarantee that those seeds do not find their way into his own fields. Moreover, although rice is predominantly self-pollinating, it has an outcrossing rate of around five per cent. Any genetic contamination could utterly destroy the livelihood he has built over many years. Kapunan also fears that if milling is not kept strictly separate, Golden Rice will inevitably contaminate the rice-milling production lines.

Regulations require the government not only to conduct thorough risk assessments before granting biosafety permits, but also to carry out ongoing monitoring afterwards. This includes assessing the possibility of the genetic contamination that Kapunan fears.

Earlier in the trial, defence witnesses repeatedly claimed that Golden Rice posed no risk of genetic contamination. Yet under cross-examination, they were forced to admit that the Department of Agriculture had not yet implemented any monitoring programmes, and that their claims relied solely on published literature rather than empirical evidence.

In reality, hybrid contamination caused by gene flow is common and not unique to GM crops. However, the uncertainty and potential harm they introduce far exceed those of genotypes already present in natural ecosystems.

Mutations induced by genetic engineering can affect any segment of a gene or its regulatory sequences, triggering unexpected genetic changes that subsequently alter gene expression. To put it vividly, it is like opening Pandora’s box: we can never predict what chain reaction a single mutation might set off next.

Take Monsanto’s CZW-3 GM pumpkin, developed and approved in 1997, for example: after the insertion of a virus-resistance gene, the pumpkin’s β-carotene levels fell by a factor of 68, while its sodium content rose fourfold.

The faint yellow tint and diminished yield of Golden Rice are further examples of unintended variations. According to the latest figures from the Philippine Rice Research Institute, across three consecutive harvest seasons between 2022 and 2023, the yield of Golden Rice in trial plots failed to meet the claimed four tonnes per hectare (equivalent to 533.33 *jin* per *mu*). This represents a one-third drop in yield per *mu* compared to the near-isogenic control variety, and when valued at market rates, the harvest even fails to break even.

The MASIPAG legal complaint also references the 1999 case of GM insect-resistant cotton in India. Originally, the *Bacillus thuringiensis* (Bt) protein was designed to confer insect resistance solely within the cotton bolls. Two years after its introduction, however, it was confirmed that gene expression had shifted to the roots, stems, and leaves, leading to widespread yield collapses and leaving numerous cotton farmers in crippling debt, with some taking their own lives. Consequently, the Indian government has since prohibited the commercial cultivation of Bt eggplant.

After a thorough hearing of both sides, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in favour of MASIPAG and the other plaintiffs on 23 April 2023. The appellate court upheld this decision on 18 April this year, reaffirming the precautionary principle: “Where there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental impact, the matter must be resolved by applying the precautionary principle.”

The court further emphasized that the government’s role “should not be limited to approving the use of modern biotechnology, but must instead foster its safe and responsible application for the public good.”

Because Golden Rice and Bt eggplant are intended for direct human consumption, consumer oversight mechanisms formed a central pillar of the case. Several judges took turns questioning the defendant’s witnesses: How will consumers know if the eggplant they purchase is Bt eggplant? How can they lodge an effective complaint should a food safety incident occur?

Relying on the concept of “substantial equivalence” between these GM crops and conventional varieties, the defendant had implemented no labelling or traceability systems, leaving consumers unable to tell the difference.

The defendant’s witnesses further stated that the government would only reopen the risk assessment process if formal objections were lodged against the evaluation literature. At this point, the judges could hardly keep up with the logic, remarking that the threshold for oversight was somewhat unrealistic.

Consequently, the appellate court also issued a “writ of continuing mandamus”. This places the burden of proof back on the promoters of GM technology, rather than on consumers and users—regulatory approval will not be granted unless conclusive evidence demonstrating no harm to human health and the environment is provided.

III. A Path to Reclaiming Control

Laro has another reason for opposing Golden Rice. GM crops do not allow farmers to save seeds, and they carry the risk of genetic contamination. He fears that one day, the traditional rice and eggplant varieties he has painstakingly conserved will become contaminated, forcing him to return to the old practice of buying seeds commercially.

Years ago, it was precisely the high cost of external inputs required for conventional farming that drove his transition to organic agriculture.

Fifty kilograms of chemical fertiliser costs 2,000 pesos. Seeds come in at 1,500 pesos. Lauro counted on his fingers to break down the annual inputs required for his few mu of rice fields. That’s 3,500 pesos, which works out to roughly 380 yuan. Given that he also has to hand over eight sacks of rice to the landowner each harvest season, it amounts to a considerable outlay.

Indeed, Lauro is a tenant farmer. Eliso told us that seven out of ten smallholders in the Philippines are landless and must pay landlords in kind. “It’s practically medieval, isn’t it?”

Since the colonial era, large landowners have controlled the vast majority of land in the Philippines. Post-independence governments have attempted land reform on several occasions, introducing measures such as capping rent in kind at 25% and purchasing land from landlords to sell to tenant farmers. Yet the crisis of land dispossession among farmers remains deeply entrenched.

MASIPAG’s long-standing partner, the Philippine Farmers Movement (KMP), has consistently worked on the front lines advocating for farmers’ land rights. MASIPAG has taken a different approach: by bridging the gap between scientists and farmers, it helps growers save and propagate their own traditional seed varieties, provides training in low-input agroecological techniques, and reduces reliance on external inputs such as chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and commercial seeds.

In Eliso’s view, farmers’ livelihoods can only improve when they have autonomy over their means of production and farming methods. This pursuit ultimately converges with the struggle for land rights.

This echoes the words of Perfecto Vicente, an agronomist and MASIPAG’s first programme coordinator, who once told farmers: “What matters most to you is freedom… freedom from the control of chemical and seed corporations. This freedom is both your right and your privilege. You will only be truly powerful if you can save and breed your own seeds.”

Laro learned crop breeding after joining MASIPAG. He believes that traditional varieties purified and revitalised by farmers themselves are better adapted, more resilient to extreme weather, and the true guarantee of “family food security”.

Over nearly four decades, MASIPAG has trained more than 70 farmer breeders like Laro, successfully conserving over 2,000 rice varieties. These comprise more than 600 traditional varieties, 506 varieties bred by farmers, and 1,299 varieties improved by MASIPAG scientists.

IV. A Protracted Struggle

In an interview with Foodthink, Elisso remarked that this is by no means a final victory; MASIPAG must also prepare for a potential Supreme Court hearing.

On the other hand, they are growing increasingly concerned about a counterattack from the defendants in the form of public relations campaigns and stigmatisation. Supporters of genetically modified organisms include heavily capitalised agrochemical and seed corporations, as well as major financial backers like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Since the advent of GM technology, these entities have spared no expense, deploying various publicity and legal tactics to dominate the public discourse and deter any opposition through prohibitively costly litigation.

But regardless of how events unfold next, Elisso can at least breathe a sigh of relief for now.

Amidst the annual expansion of global GM crop cultivation and the impending commercialisation of GM staple crops, Elisso also hopes the Philippine court’s ruling will serve as a legal precedent that other nations can cite, such as Mexico, which is currently embroiled in litigation over its ban on GM maize.

In 2023, the Mexican president banned the direct consumption of GM maize products, citing threats to native traditional varieties and potential health risks, a move that directly impacts US export interests worth $5 billion annually.

The US has protested that Mexico’s action violates a free trade agreement. Meanwhile, several international legal frameworks, including the Nagoya Protocol and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, provide robust protections for farmers’ rights to save seeds. Whether mediation will ultimately safeguard the interests of Mexico’s smallholder farmers and consumers remains to be seen.

Elisso tells us that MASIPAG will not stop at legal victory. In the face of a global climate crisis and a proliferation of false solutions, smallholder farmers—who feed 70% of the world’s population with limited resources—deserve far greater support.

Therefore, their next step is to actively lobby for Philippine agricultural policy to shift in favour of smallholder farmers and agroecology. As MASIPAG states on its website:

“By investing in farmer-led initiatives

and advocating for policies that prioritise food sovereignty,

we can build

a more resilient and equitable food system

that nourishes both people and the planet.”

Foodthink Author

zeen

Foodthink Editor

 

 

 

 

With gratitude to Guan Qi (Peasant Seed Network) and Dr Li Shumeng for their support during the writing of this article

Editor: Tianle