TY  - BK
AU  - Custodio Jr,C.G.
AU  - Virma Rea G, Lee
AU  - Arcelo-Villena,,M.M.C.Q.
AU  - Rishi Kumar Tyagi
TI  - GM maize in the Philippines: A success story
SN  - 978-617-7101-15-6
U1  - 633.1559 APA 
PY  - 2019///
CY  - Bangkok (Thailand)
PB  - APAARI
KW  - AGROVOC
KW  - Transgenics
KW  - Maize
KW  - Transgenes
KW  - Genes
KW  - Pest resistance
KW  - Philippines
N2  - In December 2002, the Philippines became the first country in Asia to approve a GM crop for food and feed, namely, Bt maize (James 2003). This was possible because an enabling environment existed in the Philippines. A biosafety regulation existed as early as 1990, Executive Order 430, due to the proactiveness of the scientists themselves who crafted the regulation. Infrastructure for biotechnology existed as early as 1979. The importance of plant biotechnology was recognized in Republic Act No. 7308-1992. By the time the private sector applied for biosafety evaluation on GM maize with transformation event MON810 in 1996 and 1997, a regulatory regime was ready to conduct a science-based biosafety evaluation. The initial experiments testing the efficacy of MON810 to the Asiatic Corn Borer (Ostrinia furnacalis Guenee) were done as collaborative activities between the private industry and the Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB) of UP Los Baños. When questions arose regarding GM crops, it was the academic community that rose to the challenge and shared correct scientific information to decision makers. MON810 was evaluated from contained experiments to multi-location trials in a process under conditions that were described as extremely stringent. Contained experiments were done in the CL4 facility of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) which is designed for a high level of containment. The confined tests had strict requirements considering that MON810 already had regulatory approval in other countries by 1998 (Cariño 2009A). When MON810 was given permit for commercial propagation, the private sector focused on a farmer centered promotion strategy with their field agents doing the work. The supply distribution chain used was the same as the one for conventional crops. Based on Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) data, 10,000 hectares planted to GM maize was recorded in 2003. This peaked at around 720,000 hectares in 2012 and 2013. Recorded area planted to GM maize in April 2017 was at 550,000 hectares. The transformation events in GM maize approved for commercial propagation also grew. There are twelve transformation events with valid permits for commercial propagation until 2019, as permits are only valid for five years and would need to be renewed. A public perception study published in 2003 reported that “overall, most stakeholder groups had moderate attitude scores towards biotechnology”. A follow-up perception study (2006) reported that “In general, respondents of the study had a favorable perception and attitude towards agricultural biotechnology”. Media monitoring showed that in the early years, “reporting was high but sometimes inaccurate in the period of 2000-2009 perhaps as the technology was still unfamiliar”. There was “an increasing effort to present science-based information became more evident in the succeeding years”. The farmers experienced the benefits of using GM maize through lower insecticide cost, higher yield, and higher income. On a macrolevel, improvements in productivity and resource use efficiency can be partially attributed to GM maize technology specifically in yellow corn used for feed. Insect Resistance Management (IRM) is also being practiced in the Philippines to prolong the use of Bt technology in GM maize. Internationally established principles are applied combined with in-country researches to ensure that policies are science-based. Through the years, the Philippines faced challenges regarding transgenic technology as applied to GM crops. These challenges were in the form of technical issues, public perceptions, and even legal challenges. The country needs to upgrade its human resources in molecular biology and invest in physical resources and researches using molecular biology tools. With the country’s regulatory system evolving to meet challenges, capacity building of regulatory agencies is needed as well as clarity in the evaluation process. An enabling environment is needed to facilitate a science-based evaluation of new technologies
ER  -