[searcabic] News Release: Crop Biofortification, Key to Meeting MDGs / News Feature: Addressing Biosafety Concerns: How Safe is Biotechnology?

Tue Jan 26 09:36:35 CST 2010

  Right click any image to view this page properly. If this e-mail does not
appear as a web page, please click
here.<http://www.bic.searca.org/e-news/newsfeature/newsfeature.html>

*Posted 26 January 2010*

1-NEWS RELEASE: CROP BIOFORTIFICATION, KEY TO MEETING MDGs
2-NEWS FEATURE: ADDRESSING BIOSAFETY CONCERNS: HOW SAFE IS BIOTECHNOLOGY?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*1-CROP BIOFORTIFICATION, KEY TO MEETING MDGs*
<http://www.bic.searca.org/>*by Jenny A. Panopio
22-January-2009 SEARCA BIC Press Release*

Micronutrients are considered as “magic wands” as they are essential to
growth, health, and wellness of all, especially the children and women.
However, micronutrients deficiency is a global problem, contributing to
world’s widespread malnutrition and high rate of children and women’s
mortality. UNICEF and WHO World Food Programme estimate that more than 2
billion people in the world are deficient in Vitamin A, Iodine, Iron or
Zinc. And most these people are deficient to more than one of these
micronutrients.

According to Dr. Corazon Barba, nutritionist from the University of the
Philippines Los Banos (UPLB), “Six out of the eight objectives in the
Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) are related to micronutrient deficiency.
And together with conventional interventions, such as supplementation and
industrial fortification, biofortification of crops with essential
micronutrients could greatly contribute in the attainment of these MDGs”.
Dr. Barba believes on the potentials of crop biofortification as one of the
long term solutions in combating this widespread and persistent public
health problem. Dr. Randy Hautea of ISAAA also trusts that biofortification
can help in alleviating global malnutrition.

Crop biofortification is a strategy employed by agricultural research
institutions to utilize genetic modification (GM) as well as conventional
breeding of crops to enhance levels of essential micronutrient. The
potentials and safety issues of biofortified crops to address micronutrient
deficiencies was the focus of a symposium held last January 18, 2010 at
SEARCA, College, Laguna.

During the symposium, Dr. Gerard Barry, Golden Rice Network Coordinator of
the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), shared the current
biofortification initiatives in rice for micronutrients Vitamin A, iron, and
zinc. Of all these efforts, the pro-Vitamin A Golden rice is considered to
be in most advanced stage and is expected to reach commercial approval in
the Philippines by the Year 2012 or 2013.

Like any other biotech/GM crops, biofortified crops, such as Golden rice,
are assessed for food and environmental safety prior to commercial release.
The Philippines has set-up policies and regulatory framework that governs
such assessment prior to commercial use.

The symposium was organized by the UPLB Institute of Human Nutrition and
Food in cooperation with the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) <http://www.isaaa.org/>, SEARCA
Biotechnology Information Center <http://www.bic.searca.org/> and the Biotech
Coalition of the Philippines <http://www.bcp.org/>.

For more biotechnology updates in the Philippines, visit
www.bic.agri.searca.org or email bic at agri.searca.org.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*2-ADDRESSING BIOSAFETY CONCERNS: HOW SAFE IS
BIOTECHNOLOGY?*<http://www.bic.searca.org/>
*by Reynaldo V. Ebora, Carlo G. Custodio and Virginia G. Nevonario –
Enriquez* [image: Download new BioLife
Magazine!]<http://www.bic.searca.org/bmarc/biolife_sep_dec09.pdf>
*BIOLIFE 2009 Number 2*

THE PHILIPPINES established the first functional biosafety regulation in the
developing world as early as 1990 through Executive Order 430 issued by the
President Corazon C. Aquino. In 2002, the country became the first country
in Asia to commercialize a transgenic crop for food, feed and processing. At
present, the Philippines is the only Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) country commercially producing GM crops. ASEAN countries are in
various stages of regulatory development with each country pursuing its own
research and development (R&D) agenda. However, experience has shown that a
functional biosafety system is a very critical factor in the successful
commercial release of genetically modified (GM) crops; the absence of clear
regulatory mechanism is also one of the stumbling blocks for the
commercialization of GM crops.

Indonesia, for instance, has stopped producing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
cotton since 2001 after commercially planting it in limited areas in South
Sulawesi, partly due to the absence of a clear regulatory mechanism. On the
other hand, a very strict regulatory system practically makes adoption of GM
technology a big challenge, if not an impossible one.

*Setting up the Philippine biosafety regulatory system*
The Philippines has recognized the potential benefits of the responsible use
of biotechnology from the time of President Marcos to President Arroyo. The
Philippine government has supported biotech R&D as well as the establishment
of sound biosafety policies.

The National Institute of Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology [which was
later renamed National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
(BIOTECH)] was established in UP Los Baños during the time of President
Marcos. Side-by-side with the support to research was the establishment and
development of biosafety guidelines to ensure the safe and responsible use
of modern biotechnology. In 1990, President Aquino issued Executive Order
430 instituting the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines
(NCBP) that effectively regulates recombinant DNA research in the country.
President Ramos also recognized modern biotechnology as one of the tools to
realize improvement in crop production under the Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act (AFMA). Similarly, both Presidents Estrada and Arroyo
issued policy statements affirming that modern biotechnology is an important
tool for agricultural production and food security. In 2006, President
Arroyo also issued Executive Order 514 to further strengthen the NCBP.

*Bt corn: Handling the Biosafety issue*
The first greenhouse evaluation of Bt corn in the Philippines was approved
in September 1997. This was followed by field tests conducted in December
1999 to March 2002 under the supervision of the NCBP. Multi-location field
trials were conducted by Monsanto Philippines in July 2001 to May 2002 and
Pioneer Hi-Breed Philippines in June 2002 to July 2003.

With products nearing commercialization, the need for a set of regulations
that would assess both short and long-term effects on the environment and
human health was realized. The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) became
responsible in regulating field tests and monitoring the eventual commercial
propagation of GM crops and thus practically made adoption of GM technology
possible. In April 2002, the Department of Agriculture (DA), through then
Secretary Leonardo Montemayor, issued Administrative Order No. 8 – Rules and
Regulations for the Importation and Release into the Environment of Plants
and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology.

Bt corn was commercially released in December 2002. A study by Yorobe et al
(2004) showed that while Bt corn seeds cost twice as much than their
conventional counterparts, farmers realized greater profits. Expenses
related to pesticide use were reduced and yield was higher compared to
conventional corn.

After Bt corn, the Philippines approved next for commercial release GM
herbicide-tolerant corn and GM corn stacked with both the insect-resistant
and herbicide-tolerant traits. As of June 2009, the total area planted to
transgenic corn is estimated at 1,077,947 hectares, a clear proof of the
high adoption rate of the technology by the corn farmers.

*Coming-more GM crops from the public sector*
Currently in the pipeline for commercial release in the Philippines are GM
crops developed by public-sector research institutes. These are: 1) papaya
ringspot virus (PRSV)-resistant papaya; 2) fruit and shoot borer-resistant
eggplant, and; 3) delayed ripening papaya. These have been subjected to
confined field trials (CFT) where their agronomic performance was evaluated
while subjecting them to environmental risk assessment. CFT allows field
evaluation without compromising environmental safety. Also, the experienced
gained in handling private-sector GM crops is used in the field evaluation
of GM crops developed by the public sector. While the Philippines may not
have the most number of ongoing researches in the developing world, its
functional biosafety system paves the way for the safe and responsible
evaluation and the eventual use of GM crops developed by both the private
and public sectors.

*Now in operation, Philippine Biosafety Clearing House (BCH Pilipinas)*
One of the main features of the Philippine biosafety regulatory system is
transparency, i.e., decisions made related to GM crops are transparent, with
due consideration to crucial confidential business information. In 2008, the
Philippines established the web-based BCH Pilipinas (
http://bch.dost.gov.ph/system/), in compliance to the country’s membership
in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

BCH Pilipinas basically makes biotechnology and biosafety information at the
public’s fingertips. BCH Pilipinas is made possible through the
collaborative efforts of the following government departments as Competent
National Authorities: Departments of Science and Technology (DOST),
Agriculture (DA), Health (DOH) and Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Information on risk assessment, transformation events for food, feed and
processing approved by the government for importation as well as
biosafety-related trainings, seminars and workshops can be obtained from BCH
Pilipinas, which are regularly updated.

*Lessons Learned and Challenges*
One of the lessons learned in the commercialization of transgenic crops in
the Philippines is the importance of having a transparent and predictable
regulatory system that facilitates compliance by the technology developers,
as well as builds public trust and confidence in the regulatory process.

Public participation is also key to biosafety decision-making. In the
Philippines system, public participation is provided for through the
community representatives in the Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs)
who are directly involved in the evaluation of biosafety applications. Any
biosafety application cannot be acted upon by higher authorities unless it
is favorably endorsed by the IBC, thus allowing direct participation of the
public in the decision-making process, aside from giving them the
opportunity to comment on the proposed field trails.

Like any other biological based system, biosafety regulations are not static
and, in fact, are continuously evolving due to the development of new
biotechnology products and the discovery of new knowledge associated with
emerging technologies. It is therefore imperative that capacity-building of
personnel involved in biosafety evaluation be constantly pursued in order to
have a system responsive to the current technical and communication needs.

Sustained information, education and communication (IEC) campaign is
essential so that the public is informed with the current
biotechnology-related developments. Although debates on the pros and cons of
transgenic technology are not expected to totally go away, the success of
the technology can be partly measured in its safe and sustainable use, and
its adoption by the consumers and the general public. Like any other new
technology, a positive public perception is a must for the successful
adoption of biotechnology in the country. Fortunately, current studies have
shown that Filipinos generally viewed biotechnology positively.

*The way forward*
Considering the accomplishment of the Philippines in biotechnology R&D and
the gains obtained from the adoption and actual utilization of GN
technologies, particularly in agriculture, it is logical for both private
and public sectors to sustain their current efforts to mainstream the use of
biotechnology in the production system while taking biosafety aspects into
full consideration. Indeed, biosafety is like a twin of biotechnology; it is
an essential component for biotechnology to be successfully adopted by the
public.
*
Dr. Reynaldo V. Ebora, is the Executive Director of the Philippine Council
for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development. Dr. Virginia
G. Novenario-Enriquez is the Research Information and Utilization Division
(RIUD) Chief of the Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology
Research and Development (PCASTRD). Mr. Carlo G. Custodio, is from the
Program for Biosafety System (PBS) Southeast Asia. *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*DISCLAIMER*: Articles that are posted in this news service do not
necessarily reflect the views of SEARCA.

To post in e-group, e-mail bic at searcaweb.org.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, click
here<http://searcaweb.org/mailman/options/bic_searcaweb.org>
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://searcaweb.org/pipermail/bic_searcaweb.org/attachments/20100126/ba77fd15/attachment-0001.html>