By Amy R. Remo
An international nongovernmental organization has asked the government
to deny an application of pharmaceutical giant Bayer for commercial
distribution of its genetically modified rice, Liberty Link Rice 62, on
grounds that the evaluation process is ?concealed from the public.?
The Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment
(SEARice) raised the alarm, saying the ?concealment? also posed serious
questions on the independence of the government?s Scientific and Technical
Review Panel from GMO-producing firms.

?We urge the Department of Agriculture to divulge the composition of
the STRP and assure the public of the members? independence from any GMO
firm?s interest,? said Socrates Lugasip, SEARice technical officer.

According to the DA, the STRP is composed of at least three ?reputable
and independent scientists ... to evaluate the application, particularly the
risk assessment studies conducted and actions taken by relevant regulatory
authorities in the country of origin.?

Lugasip said allowing the importation of this GM rice required
transparency and public knowledge as rice is the Filipinos? staple food.

?The people need to know the reasons behind the government?s rush to
allow this, despite the fact that the rice has not been grown commercially
elsewhere nor does it have any history of safe consumption by humans,?
Lugasip said.

Bayer, for its part, said it could not issue an official statement due
to a pending case on the commercialization of the LLRICE62.

Greenpeace filed this year a petition against the use of Bayer?s
LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing.

SEARice said a member of the STRP had said he would dismiss the
application of LLRICE62 for lack of merit.

?Would it enhance agricultural productivity, global competitiveness,
lower the price of rice in the market, alleviate poverty and hunger, improve
the health of the rice-eating Filipinos?? said STRP member Emerlito
Borromeo.

Borromeo added that the evaluation of GMO applications should not be
left to STRP alone because the panel?s perspective was confined only to
technical aspects, and does not cover the economic and sociocultural
implications of a particular GMO.


[business.inquirer.net]