ISAAA v. Greenpeace

7/26/2019 ISAAA v. Greenpeace

1/111

EN BANC

G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR TE AC!"ISITION OF AGRI#BIOTEC A$$LICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v.GREEN$EACE

SO"TEAST ASIA %$ILI$$INES&, 'AGSASA(A ATSI)ENTI$I(O SA $AG$A$A"NLAD NG AGRI("LT"RA

%'ASI$AG&, RE$. TEODORO CASI*O, DR. BEN 'ALA)ANG III,DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATERINE

"NTALAN, ATT). 'ARIA $A+ L"NA, "ANITO 'ODINA,DAGOO) 'AGA-A), DR. RO'EO !"IANO, DR. -ENCESLAO

(IAT, R., ATT). . ARR) RO!"E, R., FOR'ER SEN. ORLANDO'ERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, 'A)OR ED-ARD S. AGEDORN

AND ED-IN 'ARTINE LO$E+,Respondents.

CRO$ LIFE $ILI$$INES, INC.,Petitioner-in-Intervention.

G.R. No. 20927

ENVIRON'ENTAL 'ANAGE'ENT B"REA" OF TE DE$ART'ENTOF ENVIRON'ENT AND NAT"RAL RESO"RCES, B"REA" OF

$LANT IND"STR) AND FERTILI+ER AND $ESTICIDEA"TORIT) OF TE DE$ART'ENT OF

AGRIC"LT"RE, Petitioners, v.CO"RT OF A$$EALS, GREEN$EACESO"TEAST ASIA %$ILI$$INES&, 'AGSASA(AATSI)ENTI$I(O SA $AG$A$A"NLAD NG AGRI("LT"RA

%'ASI$AG&, RE$. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN 'ALA)ANG III,DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATERINE

"NTALAN, ATT). 'ARIA $A+ L"NA, "ANITO 'ODINA,DAGOO) 'AGA-A), DR. RO'EO !"IANO, DR. -ENCESLAO

(IAT, R., ATT). . ARR) RO!"E, R., FOR'ER SEN. ORLANDO'ERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, 'A)OR ED-ARD S. AGEDORN

AND ED-IN 'ARTINE LO$E+, RES$ONDENTS. CRO$ LIFE$ILI$$INES, INC.Petitioner-in-Intervention.

G.R. No. 209/01

"NIVERSIT) OF TE $ILI$$INES LOS BANOS FO"NDATION,INC., Petitioner, v.GREEN$EACE SO"TEAST ASIA%$ILI$$INES&, 'AGSASA(AAT SI)ENTI$I(O SA

$AG$A$A"NLAD NG AGRI("LT"RA %'ASI$AG&, RE$. TEODOROCASINO, DR. BEN 'ALA)ANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG,

LEONARDO AVILA III, CATERINE "NTALAN, ATT). 'ARIA $A+L"NA, "ANITO 'ODINA, DAGOO) 'AGA-A), DR. RO'EO

!"IANO, DR. -ENCESLAO (IAT, R., ATT). ARR) R. RO!"E,R., FOR'ER SEN. ORLANDO 'ERCADO, NOEL CABANGON,

'A)OR ED-ARD S. AGEDORN AND ED-IN 'ARTINELO$E+, Respondents.

G.R. No. 209/0


2/111

"NIVERSIT) OF TE $ILI$$INES, Petitioner, v.GREEN$EACESO"TEAST ASIA %$ILI$$INES&, 'AGSASA(AAT

SI)ENTI$I(O SA $AG$A$A"NLAD NG AGRI("LT"RA%'ASI$AG&, RE$. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN 'ALA)ANG III,

DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATERINE"NTALAN, ATT). 'ARIA $A+ L"NA, "ANITO 'ODINA,DAGOO) 'AGA-A), DR. RO'EO !"IANO, DR. -ENCESLAO(IAT, ATT). ARR) R. RO!"E, R., FOR'ER SEN. ORLANDO

'ERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, 'A)OR ED-ARD S. AGEDORNAND ED-IN 'ARTINE LO$E+, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VILLARA'A, R.,J.

The consolidated petitions before Us seek the reversal of theDecision1dated May 17, 2013 and Resoltion2dated !epte"ber 20,2013 of the #ort of $ppeals %#$& in #$'(.R. !) *o. 00013 +hichper"anently enoined the condct of field trials for -enetically"odified e--plant.

Te $3r4e6

Respondent (reenpeace !otheast $sia %)hilippines& is the )hilippinebranch of (reenpeace !otheast $sia, a re-ional office of (reenpeace

nternational re-istered in Thailand.3

(reenpeace is a non'-overn"ental environ"ental or-ani/ation +hich operates in over 0contries and +ith an international coordinatin- body in $"sterda",*etherlands. t is +ell kno+n for independent direct actions in the-lobal ca"pai-n to preserve the environ"ent and pro"ote peace.

)etitioner nternational !ervice for the $cisition of $-ri'iotech$pplications, nc. %!$$$& is an international non'profit or-ani/ationfonded in 10 4to facilitate the acisition and transfer ofa-ricltral biotechnolo-y applications fro" the indstrial contries,for the benefit of resorce'poor far"ers in the developin- +orld4 and

lti"ately 4to alleviate hn-er and poverty in the developin-contries.4 )artly fnded by the United !tates $-ency for nternationalDevelop"ent %U!$D&, !$$$ pro"otes the se of a-ricltralbiotechnolo-y, sch as -enetically "odified or-anis"s %(M5s&.

Respondent Ma-sasaka at !iyentipiko sa )a-papanlad n- $-rikltra%M$!)$(& is a coalition of local far"ers, scientists and *(5s +orkin-to+ards 4the sstainable se and "ana-e"ent of biodiversity thro-hfar"ers6 control of -enetic and biolo-ical resorces, a-ricltralprodction, and associated kno+led-e.4

The University of the )hilippines os afios %U)& is an atono"osconstitent of the University of the )hilippines %U)&, ori-inallyestablished as the U) #olle-e of $-ricltre. t is the center ofbiotechnolo-y edcation and research in !otheast $sia and ho"e toat least for international research and e8tension centers. )etitionerU) 9ondation, nc. %U)9& is a private corporation or-ani/ed 4to


3/111

be an instr"ent for instittionali/in- a rational syste" of tili/in-U) e8pertise and other assets for -eneratin- additional revenesand other resorces needed by :U);4. ts "ain prpose is to assistU) in 4e8pandin- and opti"ally tili/in- its h"an, financial, and

"aterial resorces to+ards a focsed thrst in a-ricltre,biotechnolo-y, en-ineerin- and environ"ental sciences and relatedacade"ic pro-ra"s and activities.4 $ "e"orand" of a-ree"entbet+een U)9 and U) allo+s the for"er to se available facilitiesfor its activities and the latter to desi-nate fro" a"on- its staff schpersonnel needed by proects., 2010 and Bne2=, 2010. Thereafter, field testin- of %t talongco""enced on variosdates in the follo+in- approved trial sitesC Fabacan, *orth #otabato!ta. Maria, )an-asinan )ili, #a"arines !r a-o 5shiro, Davao #ityand ay, a-na.


6/111

5n $pril 2>, 2012, (reenpeace, M$!)$( and individal respondents%(reenpeace, et al.& filed a petition for +rit of aliasanand +rit ofcontinin- "anda"s +ith prayer for the issance of a Te"porary

?nviron"ental )rotection 5rder %T?)5&. They alle-ed that the %ttalongfield trials violate their constittional ri-ht to health and abalanced ecolo-y considerin- that %1& the reired environ"entalco"pliance certificate nder )residential Decree %)D& *o. 11& data fro" #hina sho+ that the se of %tcrops %%tcotton&can e8acerbate poplations of other secondary pests %7& the bilt'inpesticides of %tcrops +ill lead to %tresistant pests, ths increasin- the

se of pesticides contrary to the clai"s by (M5 "anfactrers and%=& the 200 "eters peri"eter pollen trap area in the field testin- areaset by ) is not sfficient to stop conta"ination of nearby non'%te--plants becase pollinators sch as honeybees can fly as far asfor kilo"eters and an e--plant is =G insect'pollinated. The fllacceptance by the proect proponents of the findin-s in the M$@E#5Dossier +as stron-ly assailed on the -rond that these do notprecisely and adeately assess the n"eros ha/ards posed by %ttalongand its field trial.

(reenpeace, et al. frther clai"ed that the %t talongfield test proectdid not co"ply +ith the reired pblic consltation nder !ections 2>A 27 of theocal (overn"ent #ode, $ rando" srvey by (reenpeaceon Bly 21, 2011 revealed that ten hoseholds livin- in the areai""ediately arond the %t talonge8peri"ental far" in ay, a-nae8pressed lack of kno+led-e abot the field testin- in their locality.The !angguniang %arangayof )an-as-an in aybay, eyteco"plained abot the lack of infor"ation on the natre andncertainties of the %t talongfield testin- in their baran-ay. The Davao#ity (overn"ent like+ise opposed the proect de to lack oftransparency and pblic consltation. t ordered the prootin-

of %te--plants at the trial site and disposed the" strictly inaccordance +ith protocols relayed by the ) thro-h Ms. Merle)alacpac. !ch action hi-hli-hted the city -overn"ent6s policy on4sstainable and safe practices.4 5n the other hand, the !angguniang%ayanof !ta. arbara, loilo passed a resoltion sspendin- the fieldtestin- de to the follo+in-C lack of pblic consltation absence ofadeate stdy to deter"ine the effect of %t talongfield testin- on


7/111

friendly insects absence of risk assess"ent on the potential i"pactsof -enetically "odified %(M& crops on h"an health and theenviron"ent and the possibility of cross'pollination of %te--plants+ith native species or variety of e--plants, and serios threat to

h"an health if these prodcts +ere sold to the "arket.

(reenpeace, et al. ar-ed that this case calls for the application of theprecationary principle, the %t talongfield testin- bein- a classicenviron"ental case +here scientific evidence as to the health,environ"ental and socio'econo"ic safety is insfficient or ncertainand preli"inary scientific evalation indicates reasonable -ronds forconcern that there are potentially dan-eros effects on h"an healthand the environ"ent.

The follo+in- reliefs are ths prayed forCa. Upon the filin- :of this petition;, a Te"porary ?nviron"ent)rotection 5rder shold be issedC %i& enoinin- pblic respondents )and 9)$ of the D$ fro" processin- for field testin-, and re-isterin- asherbicidal prodct, %t talongin the )hilippines %ii& stoppin- all pendin-field testin- of %ttalongany+here in the )hilippines and %in& orderin-the prootin- of planted %t talongfor field trials as their very presencepose si-nificant and irreparable risks to h"an health and theenviron"ent.

b. Upon the filin- :of this petition;, isse a +rit of continin-

"anda"s co""andin-C%i& Respondents to sb"it to and nder-o the process ofenviron"ental i"pact state"ent syste" nder the ?nviron"entalMana-e"ent rea

%ii& Respondents to sb"it independent, co"prehensive, and ri-id riskassess"ent, field tests report, re-latory co"pliance reports andspportin- doc"ents, and other "aterial particlars of the %ttalongfield trial

%iii& Respondents to sb"it all its issed certifications on pblicinfor"ation, pblic consltation, pblic participation, and consent ofthe local -overn"ent nits in the baran-ays, "nicipalities, andprovinces affected by the field testin- of %t talong

%iv& Respondent re-lator, in coordination +ith relevant -overn"enta-encies and in consltation +ith stakeholders, to sb"it anacceptable draft of an a"end"ent of the *ational io'!afety9ra"e+ork of the )hilippines, and D$ $d"inistrative 5rder *o. 0=,definin- or incorporatin- an independent, transparent, andco"prehensive scientific and socio'econo"ic risk assess"ent, pblic

infor"ation, consltation, and participation, and providin- for theireffective i"ple"entation, in accord +ith international safetystandards and,

%v& Respondent ) of the D$, in coordination +ith relevant-overn"ent a-encies, to condct balanced nation+ide pblic


8/111

infor"ation on the natre of %t talongand %t talongfield trial, and asrvey of social acceptability of the sa"e.c. Upon filin- :of this petition;, isse a +rit of aliasanco""andin-Respondents to file their respective retrns and e8plain +hy they

shold not be dicially sanctioned for violatin- or threatenin- toviolate or allo+in- the violation of the above'en"erated la+s,principles, and international principle and standards, or co""ittin-acts, +hich +old reslt into an environ"ental da"a-e of sch"a-nitde as to predice the life, health, or property of petitioners inparticlar and of the 9ilipino people in -eneral.

d. $fter hearin- and dicial deter"ination, to cancel all %t talongfielde8peri"ents that are fond to be violatin- the above"entioned la+s,principles, and international standards and reco""end to #on-resscrative le-islations to effectate sch order.1=#hanRoblesHirtala+library5n May 2, 2012, the #ort issed the +rit of aliasana-ainst !$$$,?nviron"ental Mana-e"ent rea %?M&I)I9ertili/er and )esticide$thority %9)$& and U),1='aorderin- the" to "ake a verified retrn+ithin a non'e8tendible period often %10& days, as provided in !ec. =,Rle 7 of the Rles of )rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases.1

!$$$, ?MI)I9)$, U)9 and U)M9 filed their respective verifiedretrns. They all ar-ed that the issance of +rit of aliasanis notproper becase in the i"ple"entation of the %t talongproect, allenviron"ental la+s +ere co"plied +ith, incldin- pblic consltations

in the affected co""nities, to ensre that the people6s ri-ht to abalanced and healthfl ecolo-y +as protected and respected. They alsoasserted that the %t talongproect is not covered by the )hilippine?nviron"ental "pact !tate"ent %)?!& a+ and that %t talongfieldtrials +ill not si-nificantly affect the ality of the environ"ent norpose a ha/ard to h"an health. !$$$ contended that the *9 a"plysafe-ards the environ"ent policies and -oals pro"oted by the )?!a+. 5n its part, U)9 asserted that there is a 4plethora of scientific+orks and literatre, peer'revie+ed, on the safety of %t talongforh"an cons"ption.420U), +hich filed an $ns+er21to the petition

before the #$, adopted said position of U)9.

!$$$ ar-ed that the alle-ations re-ardin- the safety of %t talongasfood are irrelevant in the field trial sta-e as none of the e--plants +illbe cons"ed by h"ans or ani"als, and all "aterials that +ill not besed for analyses +ill be chopped, boiled and bried follo+in- theiosafety )er"it reire"ents. t cited a


9/111

5n the procedral aspect, !$$$ so-ht the dis"issal of the petitionfor +rit of aliasanfor non'observance of the rle on hierarchy ofcorts and the alle-ations therein bein- "ere assertions and baselessconclsions of la+. ?M, ) and 9)$ estioned the le-al standin- of

(reenpeace, et al. in filin- the petition for +rit of aliasanas they donot stand to sffer any direct inry as a reslt of the %t talongfieldtests. They like+ise prayed for the denial of the petition for continin-"anda"s for failre to state a case of action and for tter lack of"erit.

U)M9 also estioned the le-al standin- of (reenpeace, et al. forfailin- to alle-e that they have been prediced or da"a-ed, or theirconstittional ri-hts to health and a balanced ecolo-y +ere violated orthreatened to be violated by the condct of %t talongfield trials.nsofar as the field trials in Davao #ity, the actal field trials at a-o5shiro started on *ove"ber 2


10/111

of aliasan %2& +hether or not said petition had been rendered "ootand acade"ic by the alle-ed ter"ination of the %t talongfield testin-and %3& +hether or not the case presented a sticiable controversy.

Under Resoltion23dated 5ctober 12, 2012, the #$ resolved thatC %1&

(reenpeace, et al. possess the reisite le-al standin- to file thepetition for +rit ofaliasan %2& ass"in- arguendothat the fieldtrials have already been ter"inated, the case is not yet "oot since it iscapable of repetition yet evadin- revie+ and %3& the alle-ed non'co"pliance +ith environ"ental and local -overn"ent la+s presentsticiable controversies for resoltion by the cort.

The #$ then proceeded to hear the "erits of the case, adoptin- the4hot'tb4 "ethod +herein the e8pert +itnesses of both parties testify

at the sa"e ti"e. (reenpeace, et al. presented the follo+in- as e8pert+itnessesC Dr. en Malayan- %Dr. Malayan-&, Dr. #harito Medina%Dr. Medina&, and Dr. Tshar #hakraborty %Dr. #hakraborty&. 5n theopposin- side +ere the e8pert +itnesses in the persons of Dr. Reynaldo?bora %Dr. ?bora&, Dr. !atrnina @alos %Dr. @alos&, Dr. 9lerida #ariJo%Dr. #ariJo&, and Dr. )eter Davies %Dr. Davies&. 5ther +itnesses +hotestified +ereC $tty. #ar"elo !e-i %$tty. !e-i&, Ms. Merle )alacpac%Ms. )alacpac&, Mr. Mario *avasero %Mr. *avasero& and Dr. Randy@atea %Dr. @atea&.

5n *ove"ber 20, 2012, iotechnolo-y #oalition of the )hilippines, nc.%#)& filed an Ur-ent Motion for eave to ntervene as

Respondent.2

t clai"ed to have a le-al interest in the sbect "atter

of the case as a broad'based coalition of advocates for theadvance"ent of "odern biotechnolo-y in the )hilippines.

n its Resoltion2, 2013, the #$ denied #)6s

"otion for intervention statin- that the latter had no direct andspecific interest in the condct of %t talongfield trials.

5n May 17, 2013, the #$ rendered a Decision in favor of (reenpeace,et al., as follo+sC

-EREFORE, in vie+ of the fore-oin- pre"ises, d-"ent is herebyrendered by s GRANTINGthe petition filed in this case. Therespondents are DIRECTEDtoCchanRoblesvirtala+library

%a& )er"anently cease and desist fro" frther condctin- "ttalongfield trials and

%b& )rotect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environ"ent inaccordance +ith the fore-oin- d-"ent of this #ort.

*o costs.

SO ORDERED.2>#hanRoblesHirtala+library


11/111

The #$ fond that e8istin- re-lations issed by the D$ and theDepart"ent of !cience and Technolo-y %D5!T& are insfficient to-arantee the safety of the environ"ent and health of the people.#oncrrin- +ith Dr. Malayan-6s vie+ that the -overn"ent "st

e8ercise precation 4nder the real" of pblic policy4 and beyondscientific debate, the appellate cort noted the possible irreversibleeffects of the field trials and the introdction of %t talongto the"arket.

$fter scrtini/in- the parties6 ar-"ents and evidence, the #$conclded that the precationary principle set forth in !ection 1, Rle

20 of the Rles of )rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases27

finds

relevance in the present controversy. !tressin- the fact that the 4over'all safety -arantee of the "t talong4 re"ains nkno+n, the appellate

cort cited the testi"ony of Dr. #ariJo +ho ad"itted that the prodctis not yet safe for cons"ption becase a safety assess"ent is still tobe done. $-ain, the Decision oted fro" Dr. Malayan- +ho testifiedthat the estion of %t talong6s safety de"ands "a8i"" precationand t"ost prdence, bearin- in "ind the contry6s rich biodiversity.$"id the ncertainties srrondin- the %t talong, the #$ ths pheldthe pri"acy of the people6s constittional ri-ht to health and abalanced ecolo-y.

Denyin- the "otions for reconsideration filed by !$$$, ?MI)I9)$,

U) and U)9, the #$ in its Resoltion dated !epte"ber 20, 2013reected the ar-"ent of U) that the appellate cort6s rlin-violated U)6s constittional ri-ht to acade"ic freedo". The appellatecort pointed ot that the +rit of aliasanori-inally issed by this#ort did not stop research on %t talongbt only the particlarprocedre adopted in doin- field trials and only at this ti"e +hen thereis yet no la+ in the for" of a con-ressional enact"ent for ensrin- itssafety and levels of acceptable risks +hen introdced into the openenviron"ent. !ince the +rit stops the field trials of %t talongas aprocedre bt does not stop %t talongresearch, there is no assalt onacade"ic freedo".

The #$ then stified its rlin- by e8pondin- on the theory thatintrodcin- a -enetically "odified plant into or ecosyste" is an4ecolo-ically i"balancin- act.4 ThsC

Ke sppose that it is of niversal and -eneral kno+led-e that anecosyste" is a niverse of biotic %livin-& and non'biotic thin-sinteractin- as a livin- co""nity in a particlar space and ti"e. n theecosyste" are fond specific and particlar biotic and non'bioticentities +hich depend on each other for the biotic entities to srvive

and "aintain life. $ critical ele"ent for biotic entities to "aintain life+old be that their poplations are in a proper and natral proportionto others so that, in the -iven li"its of available non'biotic entities inthe ecosyste", no one poplation over+hel"s another. n the case ofthe )hilippines, it is considered as one of the richest contries in ter"sof biodiversity. t has so "any plants and ani"als. t also has "anykinds of other livin- thin-s than "any contries in the +orld. Ke do


12/111

not flly kno+ ho+ all these livin- thin-s or creatres interact a"on-the"selves. t, for sre, 4ere 6 3 =er>ec4 3;< 6o;< b33;ce o>or bo 6;>;4e 3;< 3b6o4e 6


13/111

(enetic ?n-ineerin- ca"e p +ith a findin- that rats fed +ithRondp'tolerant -enetically "odified corn for t+o years developedcancers, t"ors and "ltiple or-an da"a-e. The seven e8pert+itnesses +ho testified in this #ort in the hearin- condcted on

*ove"ber 20, 2012 +ere dly confronted +ith this findin- and they+ere not able to convincin-ly rebt it. That is +hy +e, in decidin- thiscase, applied the precationary principle in -rantin- the petition filedin the case at bench.

)rescindin- fro" the fore-oin- pre"ises, therefore, becase oneconnct ri-ht in the +hole #onstittional -arantee is factally and isndobtedly at risk, and the other still factally ncertain, the entireconstittional ri-ht of the 9ilipino people to a balanced and healthflecolo-y is at risk. @ence, the issance of the +rit of aliasanand thecontinin- +rit of "anda"s is stified and+arranted.2=%$dditionalEmp#asis supplied.&

$e44o;er6 Ar:me;46

G.R. No. 209271

!$$$ advances the follo+in- ar-"ents in spport of its petitionC

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * R?9U!*( T5 D!M!!

T@? PE,I,IO$ &OR RI, O& *O$,I$I$G M+$/+M! +$/ RI, O&0+1I0+!+$#5*!D?R*( T@$T T@? !$M? ! $R?$DE M55T $*D$#$D?M#.

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * R?9U!*( T5 D!M!!T@? PE,I,IO$ &OR RI, O& *O$,I$I$G M+$/+M! +$/ RI, O&0+1I0+!+$#5*!D?R*( T@$T T@? !$M? R$!?! )5T#$LU?!T5*!.

$. * !??F*( T5 #5M)? T@? R?(U$T5RE $(?*#?! 4T5!UMT $* $##?)T$? DR$9T 59 T@? $M?*DM?*T 59 T@?*$T5*$ 5'!$9?TE 9R$M?K5RF 59 T@? )@))*?!, $*DD$ $DM*!TR$TH? 5RD?R *5. 0=,4 $*D * )R$E*( T@$TT@? #5URT 59 $))?$! 4R?#5MM?*D T5 #5*(R?!!#UR$TH? ?(!$T5*!,4 R?!)5*D?*T! !??F T5 R?H?KT@? K!D5M 59 T@? )@))*? R?(U$T5RE !E!T?M 95R(M5!, K@#@ T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! ! KT@5UTBUR!D#T5* T5 D5 !5.

. K5R!?, T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! ?H?* @?D T@$T T@?R? $R?*5 $K! (5H?R**( T@? !TUDE, *TR5DU#T5* $*D U!? 59(M5! * T@? )@))*?! $*D #5M)?T?E D!R?($RD?D?.5. *5.


14/111

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * R?9U!*( T5 D!M!!T@? PE,I,IO$ &OR RI, O& *O$,I$I$G M+$/+M! +$/ RI, O&0+1I0+!+$#5*!D?R*( T@$T R?!)5*D?*T! 9$?D T5 ?@$U!T

$DM*!TR$TH? R?M?D?!.

H

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * R?9U!*( T5 D!M!!T@? PE,I,IO$ &OR RI, O& *O$,I$I$G M+$/+M! +$/ RI, O&0+1I0+!+$#5*!D?R*( T@$T )RM$RE BUR!D#T5* 5H?R T@?!$M? ?! KT@ T@? R?(U$T5RE $(?*#?!.

H

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! ?@T?D $! $*D )$RT$TE $*D)R?BUD(?D T@? *!T$*T #$!? K@?* T R?*D?R?D T@?$!!$?D/E*I!IO$D$T?D 17 M$E 2013 $*D RE!O1,IO$D$T?D 20!?)T?M?R 2013.

H

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * (R$*T*( T@? KRT 59F$F$!$* * 9$H5R 59 R?!)5*D?*T!.

$. T@? ?HD?*#? 5* R?#5RD !@5K! T@$T T@? )R5B?#T)R5)5*?*T! 59 T@? %, ,+1O$G &IE1/ ,RI+1!#5M)?DKT@ $ ?*HR5*M?*T$ $K!, RU?! $*D R?(U$T5*! *5RD?R T5 ?*!UR? T@$T T@? )?5)?6! R(@T T5 $ $$*#?D$*D @?$T@9U ?#55(E $R? )R5T?#T?D $*D R?!)?#T?D.

. T@? ?HD?*#? 5* R?#5RD !@5K! T@$T T@? %,,+1O$G9?D TR$! D5 *5T #$U!? ?*HR5*M?*T$D$M$(? $*D D5 *5T )R?BUD#? T@? 9?, @?$T@ $*D)R5)?RTE 59 *@$T$*T! 59 TK5 5R M5R? )R5H*#?! 5R#T?!.

#. T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * $))E*( T@?)R?#$UT5*$RE )R*#)? * T@! #$!? D?!)T? T@? 9$#TT@$T R?!)5*D?*T! 9$?D T5 )R?!?*T $* 5T$ 59?HD?*#? T5 )R5H? T@?R #$M.

H

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! (R$H?E ?RR?D * (R$*T*( $ KRT 59#5*T*U*( M$*D$MU! $($*!T )?TT5*?R !$$$.

H

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$!6 D?#!5* D$T?D 17 M$E 2013$*D RE!O1,IO$D$T?D 20 !?)T?M?R 2013 ! $* $99R5*T T5$#$D?M# 9R??D5M $*D !#?*T9# )R5(R?!!.2#hanRoblesHirtala+libraryG.R. No. 209276


15/111

)etitioners ?M, ) and 9)$, represented by the 5ffice of the !olicitor(eneral %5!(& assails the #$ Decision -rantin- the petition for +ritof aliasanand +rit of continin- "anda"s despite the failre of(reenpeace, et al. %respondents& to prove the reisites for their

issance.

)etitioners contend that +hile respondents presented prportedstdies that spposedly sho+ si-ns of to8icity in -enetically en-ineerede--plant and other crops, these stdies are insbstantial as they +erenot pblished in peer'revie+ed scientific ornals. Respondents thsfailed to present evidence to prove their clai" that the %t talongfieldtrials violated environ"ental la+s and rles.

$s to the application of the precationary principle, petitionersasserted that its application in this case is "isplaced. The paper by)rof. !eralini +hich +as relied pon by the #$, +as not for"allyoffered in evidence. n volnteerin- the said article to the parties,petitioners la"ent that the #$ "anifested its bias to+ardsrespondents6 position and did not even consider the testi"ony of Dr.Davies +ho stated that 4!eralini6s +ork has been refted by

nternational co""ittees of scientists430

as sho+n by pblished

articles critical of !eralini6s +ork.

)etitioners aver that there +as no da"a-e to h"an health since

no %t talong+ill be in-ested by any h"an bein- drin- the field trialsta-e. esides, if the reslts of said testin- are adverse, petitioners+ill not allo+ the release of %t talongto the environ"ent, in line +iththe -idelines set by ?5


16/111

)etitioner U)9 ar-es that respondents failed to addce theant" of evidence necessary to prove actal or i""inent inry tothe" or the environ"ent as to render the controversy ripe for dicialdeter"ination. t points ot that no+here in the testi"onies drin- the

4hot'tb4 presentation of e8pert +itnesses did the +itnesses forrespondents clai" actal or i""inent inry to the" or to theenviron"ent as a reslt of the %t talongfield tests, as they spoke onlyof inry in the speclative, i"a-ined kind +ithot any factal basis.9rther, the petition for +rit of aliasanhas been "ooted by theter"ination of the field trials as of $-st 10, 2012.

9indin- the #$ decision as a d-"ent not

based on fact, U)9"aintains that by reason of the natre, character, scale, dration,desi-n, processes ndertaken, risk assess"ents and strate-iese"ployed, reslts heretofore recorded, scientific literatre, thesafe-ards and other precationary "easres ndertaken and applied,the %t talongfield tests did not or cold not have violated the ri-ht ofrespondents to a balanced and healthfl ecolo-y. The appellate cortapparently "isapprehended the natre, character, desi-n of the fieldtrials as one for 4cons"ption4 rather than for 4field testin-4 asdefined in D$5 0='2002, the sole prpose of +hich is for the 4efficacy4of the e--plant variety6s resistance to the 9!.

$-ainst the respondents6 bare alle-ations, U)9 sb"its thefollo+in- 4specific facts borne by co"petent evidence on record4

%ad"itted e8hibits&31C

11=. !ince the technolo-y6s inception


17/111

-enetically "odified cropssi-nificantly redce the se of

pesticides in -ro+in- plants thslessenin- pesticide poisonin- inh"ans, redcin- pesticide load inthe environ"ent and encora-in-"ore biodiversity in far"s.

120. (lobal +ar"in- is like+ise redcedas "ore crops can be -ro+n.

121. Trans-enic acills thrin-ensis %%t&cotton has had a "aor i"pact on

the $stralian cotton indstry bylar-ely controllin- epidopteranpests. To date, it had no si-nificanti"pact on the invertebrateco""nity stdied.

122. 9eedin- on *ryl+ccconta"inatednon'tar-et herbivores does nothar" predatory heteropterans and,therefore, cltivation of %tcotton"ay provide an opportnity forconservation of these predators in

cotton ecosyste"s by redcin-insecticide se.

123. The %tprotein in %tcorn only


18/111

affects tar-et insects andthat %tcorn pollens do not

ne-atively affect "onarchbtterflies.

12. The field trials +ill not case4conta"ination4 as feared by thepetitioners becase fli-ht distance

of the pollinators is a deterrent tocross pollination. !tdies reveal thatthere can be no cross pollination"ore than a fifty %


19/111

10. n separate revie+s by the?ropean 9ood !afety $-ency

%?9!$& and the 9ood !tandards$stralia and *e+ Nealand%9!$*N&, the 4+ork4 of one )rof.!eralini relied pon by:respondents; +as dis"issed as4scientifically fla+ed4, ths

providin- no plasible basis to theproposition that %t talongisdan-eros to pblic health.

11. n a learned treatise by Ba"es #liveentitled 4(lobal !tats of

#o""erciali/ed iotechI(M #ropsC2011,4 the )hilippines +as cited tobe the first contry in the $!?$*re-ion to i"ple"ent a re-latorysyste" for trans-enic crops %+hichincldes D$5 0=':2;002&.

$ccordin-ly, the said re-latorysyste" has also served as a "odelfor other contries in the re-ion andother developin- contries otsideof $sia.

5n the precationary principle, U)9 contends that the #$"isapplied it in this case. The testi"onial and doc"entary evidenceof respondents, taken to-ether, do not a"ont to 4scientifically

plasible4 evidence of threats of serios and irreversible da"a-e to theenviron"ent. n fact, since ) started re-latin- (M crops in 2002,they have "onitored 171 field trials all over the )hilippines and saida-ency has not observed any adverse environ"ental effect cased bysaid field trials. )lainly, respondents failed to sho+ proof of 4specificfacts4 of environ"ental da"a-e of the "a-nitde conte"plated nderthe Rles of )rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases as to +arrant


20/111

sanctions over the %t talongfield trials.

astly, U)9 avers that the %t talongfield trial +as an e8ercise of theconstittional liberty of scientists and other acade"icians of U), of

+hich they have been deprived +ithot de process of la+. !tressin-that a possibility is not a fact, U)9 deplores the #$ decision6sprononce"ent of their -ilt despite the preponderance of evidence onthe environ"ental safety of the field trials, as evident fro" itsdeclaration that 4the over'all safety -arantee of %t talongre"ains tobe still nkno+n.4 t ths asks if in the "eanti"e, petitioners "stbear the dicial sti-"a of bein- cast as violators of the ri-ht of thepeople to a balanced and healthfl ecolo-y for an inry orda"a-e unsu"stantiatedby evidence of scientific plasibility.

G.R. No. 209430

)etitioner U) reiterates U)96s ar-"ent that the %t talongfieldtestin- +as condcted in the e8ercise of U)6s acade"ic freedo",+hich is aconstitutional rig#t

. n this case, there is nothin- based onevidence on record or over+hel"in- pblic +elfare concern, sch asthe ri-ht of the people to a balanced and healthfl ecolo-y, +hich+old +arrant restraint on U)6s e8ercise of acade"ic freedo".#onsiderin- that U) co"plied +ith all la+s, rles and re-lationsre-ardin- the application and condct of field testin- of (M e--plant,and +as perfor"in- sch field tests +ithin the prescribed li"its of D$5

0='2002, and there bein- no har" to the environ"ent or predicethat +ill be cased to the life, health or property of inhabitants in t+oor "ore cities or provinces, to restrain it fro" perfor"in- the said fieldtestin- is nstified.

)etitioner like+ise obects to the #$6s application of the precationaryprinciple in this case, in violation of the standards set by the Rles of)rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases. t points ot that the %t

e--plantsare not yet intended to be introdced into the )hilippine ecosyste" norto the local "arket for h"an cons"ption.

#ited +ere the testi"onies of t+o e8pert +itnesses presented beforethe #$C Dr. *avasero +ho is an ento"olo-ist and e8pert in inte-ratedpest "ana-e"ent and insect ta8ono"y, and Dr. Davies, a "e"ber ofthe faclty of the Depart"ent of )lant iolo-y and @orticltre at#ornell University for 3 years and served as a senior science advisorin a-ricltral technolo-y to the United !tates Depart"ent of !tate.oth had testified that based on -enerally accepted and scientific"ethodolo-y, the field trial of %t

crops do not case da"a-e to theenviron"ent or h"an health.

)etitioner assails the #$ in relyin- instead on the conectralstate"ents of Dr. Malayan-. t asserts that the #$ cold not spportits Decision and Resoltion on the pre conectres and i"a-ination ofone +itness. asic is the rle that a decision "st be spported byevidence on record.

Re6=o;


21/111

Respondents aver that %t talongbeca"e the sbect of pblic protestin or contry precisely becase of the serios safety concerns on thei"pact of %t talongto8in on h"an and ani"al health and the

environ"ent thro-h field trial contamination. They point ot that theinherent and potential risks and adverse effects of (M crops arereco-ni/ed in the #arta-ena )rotocol and or biosafety re-lations %?5


22/111

serios health risks are stren-thened by the findin-s of a revie+ of thesafety clai"s in the M$@E#5 Dossier athored by )rof. David $. $ndo+of the University of Minnesota, an e8pert in environ"ental assess"entin crop science. The revie+ +as "ade pon the reest in 2010 of @is

@onorable !hri Baira" Ra"esh of the Ministry of ?nviron"ent and9orests of ndia, +here M$@E#5 is based. M$@E#5 is the corporatecreator and patent o+ner of the %t

-ene inserted in %t talong.

The conclsions of health ha/ards fro" the above stdies +ere

s""ari/ed32

by respondents, as follo+sC

S4


23/111

srface proteins inthe "ose s"all

intestine. Theses--est thate4remec34o; 6rereoo< 63>e4@co;cer;6 3;r4er;?e64:34o;.

Dr. Ro"eo LianoA Dr. Kency Fiat,

Br.

nterpretin- )rof.!eralini6s findin-s,

the altered conditionofrats6@m=4om34c3@ ;


24/111

M$@E#56s food safetyassess"ent does not

co"ply +ithinternationalstandards and thatM$@E#5 relied ondbios scientificass"ptions and

disre-arded realenviron"entalthreats.

$s to environ"ental effects, respondents said these inclde thepotential for livin- "odified or-anis"s, sch as %t talongtested in thefield or released into the environ"ent, to conta"inate non'(Mtraditional varieties and other +ild e--plant relatives and trn the"into novel pests, otco"pete and replace their +ild relatives, increasedependence on pesticides, or spread their introdced -enes to +eedy

relatives, potentially creatin- sper+eeds, and kill beneficial insects.

Respondents then -ave the follo+in- tablated s""ary33

of field

trial contamination casesdra+n fro" varios ne+s reports and so"escientific literatre sb"itted to the cortC

-343==e;eand it islikely that

the (?conta"ination reachedthe food

?8ports ofpapaya to?rope havebeen hit

becase offears thatconta"ination cold havespread. TheThai-overn"entsaid it +astakin- actionto destroytheconta"inated trees.

(?papaya isnot -ro+nco""erciallyin Thailand,

so it +as clearthat theconta"inationori-inatedfro" the-overn"entstatione8peri"entally breedin- (?papaya trees.Tests thatsho+ed thatone third of

papayaorchardstested in theeastern


27/111

chain. province ofRayon- and

the north'easternprovinces ofMahasarakha",#haiyaph"

andFalasinhad(?'conta"inatedpapaya seedsin Bly 200


28/111

soybeancrops.

to preventsto"ach

psets inpi-lets.)rodi-enea-reed topay a fine ofO2


29/111

rice eventt>3 +as

fond inbaby foodsold ineiin-,(an-/hoand @on-

Fon-. n late200>, (?rice t>3+as fond tobeconta"inatin- e8portsin $stria,9rance, theUF and(er"any. n2007 it +asa-ain fond

in ?Ui"ports to#yprs,(er"any,(reece, talyand

!+eden.

co"plsorycertification

for thei"ports of#hinese riceprodcts thatcold containthe

nathorised(? ricet>3.

The #hinese-overn"enttook several"easres totry to stoptheconta"ination, +hichinclded

pnishin-seedco"panies,confiscatin-(?seed,destroyin-

(?rice -ro+nin the fieldandti-htenin-

co"panies in#hina fond

to have sold(?rice hybridseed tofar"ersoperateddirectly nder

the niversitydevelopin-(M rice. thas beenreported thatthe keyscientist saton the boardof one(?seedco"pany.


30/111

control overthe food

chain.

n 200


31/111

t11 doesnot.

$ccordin- totheinternational#ode8$li"entaris(ideline for

#ondct of9ood !afety$ssess"entof 9oodsDerivedfro"Reco"binant'D*$C)lantsC6$ntibioticresistance-enes sedin food

prodctionthat encoderesistance toclinicallysedantibiotics

shold notbe presentin foods6becase it

co"paniesdevelopin-

t11 varietiesadopted "oresophisticatedanalyticaltechnies.


32/111

increasesthe risk of

antibioticresistance inthepoplation.

Reftin- the clai" of petitioners that conta"ination is nil or "ini"al

becase the scale of %t talongfield trial is isolated, restricted and that4each e8peri"ent per site per season consists of a "a8i"" net areaplanted to %te--plant of bet+een =0 s. "eters to 1,0=0 s.

"eters,43

respondents e"phasi/e that as sho+n by the above,

conta"ination kno+s no si/e and bondaries in an open environ"ent.

Kith re-ard to the reired -eo-raphical covera-e of environ"entalda"a-e for the issance of +rit of aliasan, respondents assert that+hile the %t talongfield trials +ere condcted in only five provinces,the environ"ental da"a-e predicial to health e8tends beyond the

health of the present -eneration of inhabitants in those provinces.

5n petitioners6 insistence in de"andin- that those +ho alle-e inry"st prove inry, respondents said that biosafety evidence cold notbe readily contained in a corpus delicti

to be presented in cort.ndeed, the inherent and potential risks and adverse effects bro-htby (M5s are not like dead bodies or +onds that are i""ediately andphysically identifiable to an eye+itness and +hich are resltin- fro" aco""on cri"e. )recisely, this is +hy the #arta-ena )rotocol6sfondation is on the precationary principle and develop"ent of sondscience and its links, to social and h"an ri-hts la+ thro-h itsele"ents of pblic a+areness, pblic participation and pblic ri-ht tokno+. This is also +hy the case +as bro-ht nder the Rles of)rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases and not nder ordinary or otherrles, on the -ronds of violation of the ri-hts of the 9ilipino people tohealth, to a balanced and healthfl ecolo-y, to infor"ation on "attersof national concern, and to participation. The said Rles specificallyprovides that the appreciation of evidence in a case like this "st be-ided by the precationary principle.

$s to the non'e8hastion of ad"inistrative re"edies bein- raised by

petitioners as -rond to dis"iss the present petition, respondents saidthat no+here in the 22 sections of D$5 0='2002 that one can find are"edy to appeal the decision of the D$ issin- the field testin-per"it. Khat is only provided for is a "echanis" for applicants of aper"it, not stakeholders like far"ers, traders and cons"ers to appeala decision by the )'D$ in case of denial of their application for fieldtestin-. Moreover, D$5 0='2002 is silent on appeal after the issance


33/111

of the biosafety per"it.

9inally, on the propriety of the +rit of continin- "anda"s,respondents ar-e that ?5


34/111

"aterials and protection of a-ricltral crops fro" pests and diseases.n bypassin- the ad"inistrative re"edies available, respondents notonly failed to e8hast a less costly and speedier re"edy, it alsodeprived the parties of an opportnity to be heard by the ) +hich

has pri"ary risdiction and kno+led-eable on the isses they so-htto raise.

Reectin- the scientific data presented by the respondents, petitionersfond $nne8 4$4 of the #onsolidated #o""ent as irrelevant becase it+as not for"ally offered in evidence and are hearsay. Maority of thoserecords contain inco"plete infor"ation and none of the" pertain tothe %t talong. Respondents like+ise presented t+o "isleadin- scientificstdies +hich have already been discreditedC the 2013 stdy by .).Me//o"o, et al. and the stdy by )rof. !eralini in 2012. )etitionernotes that both articles have been +ithdra+n fro" pblication.

!$$$ frther describes $nne8 4$4 as a "ere co"pilation of records offla+ed stdies +ith only 12> sable records ot of the 33= records. ncontrast, petitioner cites the +ork of *icolia, $., $. Man/o, 9. Heronesi,and D. Rosellini, entitled 4+n overvie' of t#e last 56 years ofgenetically engineered crop safety researc#.4 The athors evalated1,7=3 scientific records of (? crop safety research papers, revie+s,relevant opinions and scientific reports fro" 2002'2012. Their findin-sconclded that 4the scientific research condcted so far has notdetected any si-nificant ha/ards directly connected +ith the se of (?

crops.4 n the article 4Impacts of GM crops on "iodiversity,4 in +hichscientific findin-s conclded that 4:o;verall, 8 8 8 crrentlyco""erciali/ed (M crops have redced the i"pacts of a-ricltre onbiodiversity, thro-h enhanced adoption of conservation tilla-epractices, redction of insecticide se and se of "ore environ"entallybeni-n herbicides and increasin- yields to alleviate pressre to convertadditional land into a-ricltral se.4

Debnkin- the spposed inherent risks and potential dan-ers of (M5s,petitioner cites ER 7889:-+ decade of E-funded GMO researc#

(7665-7656), conclded fro" "ore than 130 research proects,coverin- a period of 2< years of research, and involvin- "ore than


35/111

Mai


36/111

=roce


37/111

of %t talong6s co""erciali/ation in the ftre is bt incidental to, andfrit of the e8peri"ent.

$s to the 4co""issioned stdies4 on %t

corn in the )hilippines,

petitioner asserts that these are inad"issible, hearsay and nreliable.These +ere not for"ally offered in evidence self'servin- as it +ascondcted by respondents (reenpeace and M$!)$( the"selves thepersons +ho prepared the sa"e +ere not presented in cort to identifyand testify on its findin-s and the "ethods sed in the investi-ationand research +ere not scientific. !aid stdies failed to establish anycorrelation bet+een %tcorn and the prported environ"ental andhealth proble"s.

G.R. No. 209276

?M, ) and 9)$ oined in obectin- to $nne8 4$4 of respondents6consolidated co""ent, for the sa"e reasons -iven by !$$$. Theynoted that the affidavit of )rof. !eralini, and the oint affidavit of Dr.Fiat and Dr. Liano +ere denied ad"ission by the #$. (iven thefailre of the respondents to present scientific evidence to prove theclai" of environ"ental and health da"a-es, respondents are notentitled to the +rit of aliasan.

)blic petitioners reiterate that in issin- the iosafety )er"its toU), they "ade sre that the latter co"plied +ith all the

reire"ents nder D$5 0='2002, incldin- the condct of riskassess"ent. The applications for field testin- of %t talongthsnder+ent the follo+in- procedresC

@avin- co"pleted the contained e8peri"ent on the %t talong, U)filed +ith ) several applications for issance of iosafety )er"its tocondct "lti'locational field testin- of %t talong. ?ven before theproponent sb"itted its application, petitioner ) condcted aconsltative "eetin- +ith the proponent to enli-hten the latter abotthe reire"ents set ot by D$ $5 *o. =.

Thereafter, petitioner ) evalated U)6s applications vis-a-visthereire"ents of !ection = of D$ $5 *o. = and fond the" to besfficient in for" and sbstance, to 'itC&irst. The applications +ere in the proper for"at and contained all ofthe relevant infor"ation as reired in !ection = %$& %1& of D$ $5 *o.0=.

!econd. The applications +ere acco"panied by a %i& #ertification fro"the *#) that the re-lated article has nder-one satisfactory testin-nder contained conditions in the )hilippines, %ii& technical dossier

consistin- of scientific literatre and other scientific "aterials reliedpon by the applicant sho+in- that %t talong+ill not pose anysi-nificant risks to h"an health and the environ"ent, and %iii& copy ofthe proposed )! for 9ield Testin- as prescribed by !ection = %$& %2& ofD$ $5 *o. 0= and

,#ird. The applications contained the ?ndorse"ent of proposal for field


38/111

testin-, dly approved by the "aority of all the "e"bers of therespective nstittional iosafety #o""ittees %IBC&, incldin- at leastone co""nity representative, as reired by !ection = %?& of D$ $5*o. 0=.

a. Under !ections 1 %& and = %D& of D$ $5 *o. 0=, the # isresponsible for the initial evalation of the risk assess"ent and risk"ana-e"ent strate-ies of the applicant for field testin- sin- the*#) -idelines. Te IBC 63 4e 4e re:34e< 3r4ce.n "akin- thedeter"ination, the IBC 63 e;6re 434 >e< 4e64;: c3;4 r66 4o m3; e34 3;< 4ee;?ro;me;4. The # "ay, in its discretion, reire the proponent toperfor" additional e8peri"ents nder contained conditions beforeactin- on the field testin- proposal. The # shall either endorse thefield testin- proposal to the ) or reect it for failin- the scientific riskassess"ent.

b. Relatedly, U) had previosly co"plied +ith !ection 1 %& of D$ $5*o. 0= +hich reires an applicant for field testin- to establish an #in preparation for the field testin- of a re-lated article and +hose"e"bership has been approved by the ). !ection 1 %& of D$ $5 *o.0=, reires that the # shall be co"posed of at least five %


39/111

)etitioners "aintain that !ections 2> and 27 of the ocal (overn"ent#ode are inapplicable to the %t talongfield testin- considerin- that itssbect "atter is not "ass prodction for h"an cons"ption. Theproect entails only the plantin- of %t

e--plants and cltivation in a

controlled environ"ent indeed, the condct of a field trial is not a-arantee that the %t talong+ill be co""erciali/ed and allo+ed forcltivation in the )hilippines.

5n the non'e8hastion of ad"inistrative re"edies by the respondents,petitioners note that drin- the period of pblic consltation nderD$5 0='2002, it is ) +hich processes +ritten co""ents on theapplication for field testin- of a re-lated article, and has the athorityto approve or disapprove the application. $lso, nder !ection = %)&,) "ay revoke a biosafety per"it issed on the -rond of, a"on-others, receipt of ne+ infor"ation that the field testin- posessi-nificant risks to h"an health and the environ"ent. )etitionersassert they +ere never re"iss in the perfor"ance of their "andatedfnctions, as sho+n by their i""ediate action +ith respect to thedefective certification of postin- of )! in Fabacan, *orth #otabato.Upon receivin- the letter'co"plaint on Banary 2, 2012, ) readilyordered their re'postin-. The sa"e incident occrred in Davao #ity,+here ) refsed to lift the sspension of biosafety per"its ntil4rectification of the conditions for pblic consltation is carried ot.4

To nderscore respondents6 blatant disre-ard of the ad"inistrative

process, petitioners refer to doc"ented instances +hen respondentstook the la+ in their o+n hands. (reenpeace bar-ed into one of the %ttalongfield trial sites at -y. )aciano Ri/al, ay, a-na, forciblyentered the entrance -ate thro-h the se of a bolt ctter, and thenproceeded to proot the e8peri"ental crops +ithot per"ission fro") or the proect proponents. )etitioners sb"it that the non'observance of the doctrine of e8hastion of ad"inistrative re"ediesreslts in lack of case of action, one of the -ronds nder theRles of#ort stifyin- the dis"issal of a co"plaint.

$e44o;6#;#I;4er?e;4o;

$ro %ife P#iliines& 'n".%Cro= L>e&

#rop ife is an association of co"panies +hich belon-s to a -lobal%#rop ife nternational& as +ell as re-ional %#rop ife $sia& net+orksof "e"ber'co"panies representin- the plant science indstry. t ai"sto 4help i"prove the prodctivity of 9ilipino far"ers and contribte to)hilippine food secrity in a sstainable +ay.4 t spports 4innovation,research and develop"ent in a-ricltre thro-h the se of biolo-y,

che"istry, biotechnolo-y, plant breedin-, other technies anddisciplines.4

5n procedral -ronds, #rop ife assails the #$ in renderin- d-"entin violation of petitioners6 ri-ht to de process becase it +asprevented fro" cross'e8a"inin- the respondents6 e8pert +itnessesand condctin- re'direct e8a"ination of petitioners6 o+n +itnesses,


40/111

and bein- an evidently partial and prediced cort. t said the petitionfor +rit of aliasanshold have been dis"issed otri-ht as iteffectively asks the #ort to en-a-e in 4dicial le-islation4 to 4cre4+hat respondents feel is an inadeate re-latory fra"e+ork for field

testin- of (M5s in the )hilippines. Respondents also violated thedoctrine of e8hastion of ad"inistrative re"edies, and their petition isbarred by estoppel and laches.

#rop ife concrs +ith the petitioners in ar-in- that respondentsfailed to specifically alle-e and prove the particlar environ"entalda"a-e resltin- fro" the %t talongfield testin-. t cites the scientificevidence on record and the internationally accepted scientificstandards on (M5s and (M5 field testin-, and considerin- thee8perience of varios contries en-a-ed in testin- (M5s, tellin- sthat (M5 field testin- +ill not da"a-e the environ"ent nor har"h"an health and "ore likely brin- abot beneficial i"prove"ents.

#rop ife like+ise assails the application of the )recationary )rincipleby the #$ +hich erroneosly eated field testin- of %t talong+ith %ttalongitself failed to reco-ni/e that in this case, there +as noparticlar environ"ental da"a-e identified, "ch less proven reliedpon the article of )rof. !eralini that +as retracted by the scientificornal +hich pblished it there is no scientific ncertainty on theadverse effects of (M5s to environ"ent and h"an health and didnot consider respondents6 failre to prove the insfficiency of the

re-latory fra"e+ork nder D$5 0='2002.

5n policy -ronds, #rop ife ar-es that reirin- all or-anis"sIplantsto be considered absoltely safe before any field testin- "ay beallo+ed, +old reslt in per"anently placin- the )hilippines in theshado+s of "ore developed nations %+hose econo"ies rest one"er-in- "arkets i"portin- prodcts fro" the"&. t points ot thatthe testin- of %t talongspecifically addresses defined proble"s sch asthe need to crb the "isse of che"ical pesticides.

(iote"#nolog) $oalition of t#e P#iliines *($P+

#) is a non'stock, non'profit "e"bership association, a broad'based"lti'sectoral coalition of advocates of "odern biotechnolo-y in the)hilippines.

Reversal of the #$ rlin- is so-ht on the follo+in- -rondsC

.

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$! ?RR?D * T$F*( #5(*N$*#? 59

T@? 0+1I0+!+$)?TT5* * T@? $!?*#? 59 $*E BU!T#$?#5*TR5H?R!E.

.

?!T*( ?(!$T5* $*D $DM*!TR$TH? R?(U$T5*!


41/111

$R?$DE *#5R)5R$T? T@? )R?#$UT5*$RE )R*#)? $! $(UD*( )R*#)? * R?$T5* T5 (M5s.

.

T@? #$ D?#!5* $*D T@? #$ R?!5UT5* M)R5)?RE $))?DT@? )R?#$UT5*$RE )R*#)?.

H.

T@? #5URT 59 $))?$!6 ?RR5*?5U! $))#$T5* 59 T@?)R?#$UT5*$RE )R*#)?, 9 !U!T$*?D, K5UD )R5DU#? $D$*(?R5U! )R?#?D?*T T@$T ! $*T')R5(R?!!, $*T'T?#@*55(E $*D, UTM$T?E, D?TRM?*T$ T5 T@? 9)*5)?5)?.37#hanRoblesHirtala+library

#) ar-ed that in the -ise of takin- on a spposed sticiablecontroversy, despite the %t talongfield trials havin- been ter"inated,the #$ entertained a prohibited collateral attack on the sfficiency ofD$5 0='2002. Tho-h not invalidatin- the issance, +hich the #$kne+ +as hi-hly i"proper, it nonetheless -ranted the petition for +ritof aliasanon the theory that 4"ere biosafety re-lations4 +ereinsfficient to -arantee the safety of the environ"ent and the healthof the people.

$lso reiterated +ere those -ronds for dis"issal already raised by the

petitionersC failre to e8hast ad"inistrative re"edies and finality offindin-s of ad"inistrative a-encies.

#) frther asserts that the application of a stringent4riskassess"ent4 process to re-lated articles prior to any release in theenviron"ent for field testin- "andated by $5 *o. = sfficientlyco"plies +ith the rationale behind the develop"ent of theprecationary principle. y i"ple"entin- the strin-ent provisions ofD$5 0='2002, in connction +ith the standards set by ?5


42/111

intricate +orld of plants by h"ans certainly appears to be anecolo-ically i"balancin- act,4 a"on- others. #) finds that thisprononce"ent of the #$ constittes an indict"ent not only a-ainst %ttalongbt a-ainst all (M5s as +ell. The appellate cort6s opinion is

ths hi-hly speclative, s+eepin- and laced +ith obvios bias.

There bein- no credible sho+inin the record that the condct of %ttalongfield trials entails real threats and that these threats pertain toserios and irreversible da"a-e to the environ"ent, #) "aintainsthat the precationary principle finds no application in this case. KhileRle 20 of the Rles of )rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases states that4:+;hen there is a lack of fll scientific certainty in establishin- acasal link "et'een #uman activity and environmental effect, the cortshall apply the precationary principle in resolvin- the case before it,4the #$ failed to note that the ele"ent of lack of fll scientific certaintypertains "erely to the causal linbet+een h"an activity andenviron"ental effect, and not the e8istence or risk of environ"entaleffect.

#) la"ents that sstainin- the #$6s line of reasonin- +old prodce achillin- effect a-ainst technolo-ical advance"ents, especially those ina-ricltre. $ffir"in- the #$ decision ths sets a dan-eros precedent+here any and all h"an activity "ay be enoined based onnfonded fears of possible da"a-e to health or the environ"ent.

I66e6

9ro" the fore-oin- sb"issions, the #ort is presented +ith thefollo+in- isses for resoltionC

1. e-al standin- of respondents

2. Mootness

3. Hiolation of the doctrines of pri"ary risdiction and e8hastionof ad"inistrative re"edies

. $pplication of the la+ on environ"ental i"pactstate"entIassess"ent on proects involvin- the introdction andpropa-ation of (M5s in the contry


43/111

Te Cor46 R;:

%egal Standing

1ocus standi

is 4a ri-ht of appearance in a cort of stice on a -iven

estion.43=

t refers particlarly to 4a party6s personal and sbstantial

interest in a case +here he has sstained or +ill sstain direct inryas a reslt4 of the act bein- challen-ed, and 4calls for "ore than st a

-enerali/ed -rievance.43

@o+ever, the rle on standin- is a "atter of procedre +hich can berela8ed for non'traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citi/ens, ta8payers,and le-islators +hen the pblic interest so reires, sch as +hen the

"atter is of transcendental i"portance, of overreachin- si-nificance to

society, or of para"ont pblic interest.0

The #ort ths had

invariably adopted a liberal policy on standin- to allo+ ordinaryciti/ens and civic or-ani/ations to prosecte actions before this #ortestionin- the constittionality or validity of la+s, acts, rlin-s or

orders of varios -overn"ent a-encies or instr"entalities.1

Oposa v. &actor an >r.2

si-naled an even "ore liberali/ed policy on

locs standi in pblic sits. n said case, +e reco-ni/ed the 4pblicri-ht4 of citi/ens to 4a balanced and healthfl ecolo-y +hich, for thefirst ti"e in or nation6s constittional history, is sole"nly incorporatedin the fnda"ental la+.4 Ke held that sch ri-ht need not be +ritten inthe #onstittion for it is ass"ed, like other civil and political ri-hts-aranteed in the ill of Ri-hts, to e8ist fro" the inception of "ankindand it is an isse of transcendental i"portance +ith inter-enerationali"plications. !ch ri-ht carries +ith it the correlative dty to refrainfro" i"pairin- the environ"ent.

!ince the Oposa ruling, ordinary citi/ens not only have le-al standin-

to se for the enforce"ent of environ"ental ri-hts, they can do so inrepresentation of their o+n and ftre -enerations. ThsC

)etitioners "inors assert that they represent their -eneration as +ellas -enerations yet nborn. Ke find no difficlty in rlin- that they can,for the"selves, for others of their -eneration and for the scceedin--enerations, file a class sit. Ter =er6o;34@ 4o 6e ; be3> o>4e 6ccee;4er:e;er34o;3 re6=o;6b4@ ;6o>3r 36 4e r:4 4o 3b33;ce< 3;< e34> ecoo:@ 6 co;cer;e


44/111

+ell as ftre -enerations. *eedless to say, every -eneration has aresponsibility to the ne8t to preserve that rhyth" and har"ony for thefll enoy"ent of a balanced and healthfl ecolo-y. )t a littledifferently, the "inors6 assertion of their ri-ht to a sond environ"ent

constittes, at the sa"e ti"e, the perfor"ance of their obli-ation toensre the protection of that ri-ht for the -enerations toco"e.3%Emp#asis supplied.&The liberali/ed rle on standin- is no+ enshrined in the Rles of)rocedre for ?nviron"ental #ases +hich allo+s the filin- of a citi/en

sit in environ"ental cases.

The provision on citi/en sits in the

Rles 4collapses the traditional rle on personal and direct interest, onthe principle that h"ans are ste+ards of natre,4 and ai"s to

4frther encora-e the protection of the environ"ent.41

ndependent stdies condcted +ent as far to conclde that

(M food and feed are 4inherently ha/ardos to health.4>2

$ +idely reported case is that of the ra/il nt -ene e8pressed insoybean in order to increase the "ethionine content for ani"al feed.

The protein +as sbseently sho+n to be an aller-en and the prodct+as never "arketed. (enetically "odified foods can introdce novelproteins into the food spply fro" or-anis"s that are never cons"edas foods, +hich "ay pose a health risk. This "ay elicit potentially

har"fl i""nolo-ical responses, incldin- aller-ic hypersensitivity.>3

$ feedin- e8peri"ent condcted by Dr. $rpad )s/tai alsode"onstrated that potatoes -enetically altered to prodce lectins,natral insecticides, to protect the" a-ainst aphids, da"a-ed theani"als6 -t, other or-ans, and i""ne syste". Dr. )s/tai fond that

4the da"a-e ori-inated not fro" the trans-ene and its e8pressedprodct bt fro" the da"a-e cased by the insertion of the trans-ene,

probably de to insertional "ta-enesis.4>

f confir"ed, )s/tai6s

conclsions +ill reinforce concerns that -ene insertion itself "ay createne+ to8ins it +ill also i"plicate the to8in co""only sed in other-enetically en-ineered crops ' the %tto8in +hich, )s/tai says, is also

a lectin.>

(lyphosate, the active in-redient in Monsanto6s RondpQ herbicide,has been fond to +orsen "odern diseases. $ report pblished in theornalEntropy

ar-es that -lyphosate resides, fond in "ostco""only cons"ed foods in the Kestern diet cortesy of -eneticallyen-ineered s-ar, corn, soy and +heat, 4enhance the da"a-in- effectsof other food'borne che"ical resides and to8ins in the environ"ent to

disrpt nor"al body fnctions and indce disease.4 $nother researchde"onstrated a connection bet+een increased se of Rondp +ith

risin- atis" rates in the U!.70

+dverse Effects of GMOs to t#e Environment

(enetically "odified crops affect the environ"ent in "any +ays schas conta"inatin- non'(M5 plants, creatin- sper +eeds and sperpests, har"in- non'tar-et species, chan-in- soil "icrobial andbioche"ical properties, and threatenin- biodiversity.

There are t+o pri"ary types of technolo-y so far deployedC insectresistance %%t

& and herbicide tolerance %@T&. oth have drastic "odesof action to kill the tar-et species at hi-h efficiency. %t

crops contain ato8in lethal to certain insects, and %tsprays have been sed byor-anic far"ers as a last option to deal +ith certain pests like the cornborer. t is feared that -enetically "odified %t

crops +ill speed p

resistance to %t

, thereby renderin- the or-anic spray ineffective.71

ab

and field tests also indicate that co""on plant pests sch as cottonboll+or"s, livin- nder constant pressre fro" (? crops, +ill soon

evolve into 4sperpests4 co"pletely i""ne to %t

sprays and other

environ"entally sstainable biopesticides.72

n the case of @T, the

technolo-y involves the co"bined se of a che"ical herbicide and a(M plant. The herbicide is -enerally a broad spectr" herbicide%co""only -lyphosate or -lfosinate& +hich kills +eeds +hile leavin-the crop plant alive as it is -enetically en-ineered to be resistant to the


52/111

herbicide. The herbicide acts to inhibit an essential en/y"e that isfond in all plants and as a reslt is able to eli"inate all +eeds+hereas "ost conventional herbicides are selective in their action andtar-et a li"ited n"ber of +eeds. #oncern has been raised re-ardin-

over'reliance on se of one or t+o herbicides in increased a"ontsover ti"e +hich leads to the e"er-ence of herbicide resistant +eeds.$lso, the transfer of an herbicide'resistance -ene into a +eed canconvert it into a sper+eed. )ests and +eeds +ill e"er-e that arepesticide or herbicide resistant, +hich "eans that stron-er, "ore to8ic

che"icals +ill be needed to -et rid of the pests.73

t is a +ell'accepted fact that -enetically en-ineered plants can "ove

beyond the field sites and cross +ith +ild relatives.7

t is by natre a

desi-n of plants to cross pollinate to spread -enes frther afield.Mai/e, oil seed rape, s-ar beet, barley, a"on- others, are +ind andinsect pollinated, allo+in- pollen to travel lar-e distances. n (M cropfields, pollen drift and insect pollination create obvios proble"s for

nearby non'(M or or-anic crops.73e< 4o 46o *o increase in yields or si-nificant redction in herbicide andpesticide se

o United !tates lost an esti"ated O12 billion over (M crops a"id+orld+ide reection


83/111

o Massive crop failres of p to 100G reported in ndia

o @i-h risk ftre for a-biotechC 4Monsanto cold be another disaster

+aitin- to happen for investors4

2. G' cro=6 =o6;: e6c334;: =robem6 o; 4e >3rm

o Trans-enic lines nstableC 4"ost cases of trans-ene inactivationnever reach the literatre4

o Triple herbicide'tolerant volnteers and +eeds e"er-ed in *orth$"erica

o (lyphosate'tolerant +eeds pla-e (M cotton and soya fields,atra/ine back in se

o %tbiopesticide traits threatenin- to create sper+eeds and bt'resistant pests

3. E4e;6?e 4r3;6:e;c co;43m;34o; ;3?o. D3;:ero6 :e;e =rooo< cro=6

o %tproteins, incorporated into 2


84/111

har"fl to "any non'tar-et insects, and so"e are potent i""no-ensand aller-ens for h"ans and other "a""als

o 9ood crops are increasin-ly sed to prodce phar"aceticals and

dr-s, incldin- cytokines kno+n to sppress the i""ne syste", orlinked to de"entia, neroto8icity and "ood and co-nitive side effectsvaccines and viral seences sch as the 6spike6 protein -ene of the pi-coronavirs, in the sa"e fa"ily as the !$R! virs linked to the crrentepide"ic and -lycoprotein -ene gpl76of the $D! virs that coldinterfere +ith the i""ne syste" and reco"bine +ith virses andbacteria to -enerate ne+ and npredictable patho-ens.

7. Term;34or cro=6 6=re3< m3e 64er4@

o #rops en-ineered +ith 6sicide6 -enes for "ale sterility, pro"oted asa "eans of preventin- the spread of trans-enes, actally spread both"ale sterility and herbicide tolerance traits via pollen.

=. Bro3


85/111

virses that have never e8isted in billions of years of evoltion

o Disease'casin- virses and bacteria and their -enetic "aterial arethe predo"inant "aterials and tools of -enetic en-ineerin-, as "ch

as for the intentional creation of bio'+eapons.

10. Tr3;6:e;c DNA ; >oo< 43e; = b@ b3c4er3 ; m3; :4

o Trans-enic D*$ fro" plants has been taken p by bacteria both inthe soil and in the -t of h"an volnteers antibiotic resistance"arker -enes can spread fro" trans-enic food to patho-enic bacteria,"akin- infections very difficlt to treat.

11. Tr3;6:e;c DNA 3;< c3;cer

o Trans-enic D*$ kno+n to srvive di-estion in the -t and to "pinto the -eno"e of "a""alian cells, raisin- the possibility fortri--erin- cancer

o 9eedin- (M prodcts sch as "ai/e to ani"als "ay carry risks, notst for the ani"als bt also for h"an bein-s cons"in- the ani"alprodcts

12. C3'V /5S =romo4er ;cre36e6 oro;43 :e;e 4r3;6>er

o ?vidence s--ests that trans-enic constrcts +ith the #aMH 33e< 4o 46 3;< 3re=o6;: e6c334;: =robem6 o; 4e >3rm. Tr3;6:e;cco;43m;34o; 6 ;o e. O; 4e co;4r3r@, 6>>ce;4 e?e4@ co;cer;6, 434 > :;ore< co< re64 ;rre?er6be


86/111

cltral +ell bein- to local co""nities every+here. There is anr-ent need for a co"prehensive -lobal shift to all for"s of

sstainable a-ricltre.11=

n 200=, a (lobal Report11

+as released by the nternational

$ssess"ent of $-ricltral Fno+led-e, !cience and Technolo-y forDevelop"ent %$$!TD&, a three'year international collaborative effort%200e4@

$s scientists, physicians, acade"ics, and e8perts fro" disciplinesrelevant to the scientific, le-al, social and safety assess"ent aspects of-enetically "odified or-anis"s %(M5s&, +e stron-ly reect clai"s by(M seed developers and so"e scientists, co""entators, andornalists that there is a 4scientific consenss4 on (M5 safety andthat the debate on this topic is 4over4.

Ke feel co"pelled to isse this state"ent becase the clai"ed

consenss on (M5 safety does not e8ist. The clai" that it does e8ist is"isleadin- and "isrepresents the crrently available scientificevidence and the broad diversity of opinion a"on- scientists on thisisse. Moreover, the clai" encora-es a cli"ate of co"placency thatcold lead to a lack of re-latory and scientific ri-or and appropriatecation, potentially endan-erin- the health of h"ans, ani"als, andthe environ"ent.


87/111

!cience and society do not proceed on the basis of a constrctedconsenss, as crrent kno+led-e is al+ays open to +ell'fondedchallen-e and disa-ree"ent. Ke endorse the need for frther

independent scientific iniry and infor"ed pblic discssion on (Mprodct safety and r-e (M proponents to do the sa"e.

!o"e of or obections to the clai" of scientific consenss are listedbelo+.

1. Tere 6 ;o co;6e;66 o; G' >oo< 63>e4@

Re-ardin- the safety of (M crops and foods for h"an and ani"alhealth, a co"prehensive revie+ of ani"al feedin- stdies of (M cropsfond 4$n eilibri" in the n"ber :of; research -rops s--estin-,on the basis of their stdies, that a n"ber of varieties of (M prodcts%"ainly "ai/e and soybeans& are as safe and ntritios as therespective conventional non'(M plant, and those raisin- still seriosconcerns4. The revie+ also fond that "ost stdies concldin- that (Mfoods +ere as safe and ntritios as those obtained by conventionalbreedin- +ere 4perfor"ed by biotechnolo-y co"panies or associates,+hich are also responsible :for; co""erciali/in- these (M plants4.

$ separate revie+ of ani"al feedin- stdies that is often cited assho+in- that (M foods are safe inclded stdies that fond si-nificant

differences in the (M'fed ani"als. Khile the revie+ athors dis"issedthese findin-s as not biolo-ically si-nificant, the interpretation of thesedifferences is the sbect of continin- scientific debate and noconsenss e8ists on the topic.

Ri-oros stdies investi-atin- the safety of (M crops and foods +oldnor"ally involve ani"al feedin- stdies in +hich one -rop of ani"alsis fed (M food and another -rop is fed an eivalent non'(M diet.ndependent stdies of this type are rare, bt +hen sch stdies havebeen perfor"ed, so"e have revealed to8ic effects or si-ns of to8icity

in the (M'fed ani"als. The concerns raised by these stdies have notbeen follo+ed p by tar-eted research that cold confir" or refte theinitial findin-s.

The lack of scientific consenss on the safety of (M foods and crops isnderlined by the recent research calls of the ?ropean Union and the9rench -overn"ent to investi-ate the lon-'ter" health i"pacts of (Mfood cons"ption in the li-ht of ncertainties raised by ani"al feedin-stdies. These official calls i"ply reco-nition of the inadeacy of therelevant e8istin- scientific research protocols. They call into estionthe clai" that e8istin- research can be dee"ed conclsive and the

scientific debate on biosafety closed.

2. Tere 3re ;o e=ec46 o> G' >oo< co;6m=4o; o; m3; e34

t is often clai"ed that 4trillions of (M "eals4 have been eaten in theU! +ith no ill effects. @o+ever, no epide"iolo-ical stdies in h"an


88/111

poplations have been carried ot to establish +hether there are anyhealth effects associated +ith (M food cons"ption. $s (M foods arenot labelled in *orth $"erica, a "aor prodcer and cons"er of (Mcrops, it is scientifically i"possible to trace, let alone stdy, patterns of

cons"ption and their i"pacts. Therefore, clai"s that (M foods aresafe for h"an health based on the e8perience of *orth $"ericanpoplations have no scientific basis.

/. C3m6 434 6ce;4>c 3;< :o?er;me;43 bo


89/111

. E" re6e3rc =roHec4


90/111

of the stdies -ive serios case for concern and shold be follo+ed pby "ore detailed investi-ations over an e8tended period of ti"e.

. Tere 6 ;o co;6e;66 o; 4e e;?ro;me;43 r66 o> G'

cro=6

?nviron"ental risks posed by (M crops inclde the effectsof %tinsecticidal crops on non'tar-et or-anis"s and effects of theherbicides sed in tande" +ith herbicide'tolerant (M crops.

$s +ith (M food safety, no scientific consenss e8ists re-ardin- theenviron"ental risks of (M crops. $ revie+ of environ"ental riskassess"ent approaches for (M crops identified shortco"in-s in theprocedres sed and fond 4no consenss4 -lobally on the"ethodolo-ies that shold be applied, let alone on standardi/edtestin- procedres.

!o"e revie+s of the pblished data on %tcrops have fond that theycan have adverse effects on non'tar-et and beneficial or-anis"s 'effects that are +idely ne-lected in re-latory assess"ents and byso"e scientific co""entators. Resistance to %tto8ins has e"er-ed intar-et pests, and proble"s +ith secondary %non'tar-et& pests havebeen noted, for e8a"ple, in %tcotton in #hina.

@erbicide'tolerant (M crops have proved eally controversial. !o"e

revie+s and individal stdies have associated the" +ith increasedherbicide se, the rapid spread of herbicide'resistant +eeds, andadverse health effects in h"an and ani"al poplations e8posed toRondp, the herbicide sed on the "aority of (M crops.

$s +ith (M food safety, disa-ree"ent a"on- scientists on theenviron"ental risks of (M crops "ay be correlated +ith fndin-sorces. $ peer'revie+ed srvey of the vie+s of >2 life scientists onthe environ"ental risks of (M crops fond that fndin- anddisciplinary trainin- had a si-nificant effect on attitdes. !cientists +ith

indstry fndin- andIor those trained in "oleclar biolo-y +ere verylikely to have a positive attitde to (M crops and to hold that they donot represent any nie risks, +hile pblicly'fnded scientists+orkin- independently of (M crop developer co"panies andIor thosetrained in ecolo-y +ere "ore likely to hold a 4"oderately ne-ative4attitde to (M crop safety and to e"phasi/e the ncertainty andi-norance involved. The revie+ athors conclded, 4The stron- effectsof trainin- and fndin- "i-ht stify certain instittional chan-esconcernin- ho+ +e or-ani/e science and ho+ +e "ake pblic decisions+hen ne+ technolo-ies are to be evalated.4

7. I;4er;34o;3 3:reeme;46 6o r66 =o6e< b@ G' >oo> -overn"ents +orld+ide that seeks toprotect biolo-ical diversity fro" the risks posed by (M technolo-y. t


91/111

e"bodies the )recationary )rinciple in that it allo+s si-natory statesto take precationary "easres to protect the"selves a-ainst threatsof da"a-e fro" (M crops and foods, even in case of a lack of scientificcertainty.

$nother international body, the U*6s #ode8 $li"entaris, +orked +ithscientific e8perts for seven years to develop international -idelines forthe assess"ent of (M foods and crops, becase of concerns abot therisks they pose. These -idelines +ere adopted by the #ode8$li"entaris #o""ission, of +hich over 1>0 nations are "e"bers,incldin- "aor (M crop prodcers sch as the United !tates.

The #arta-ena )rotocol and #ode8 share a precationary approach to(M crops and foods, in that they a-ree that -enetic en-ineerin- differsfro" conventional breedin- and that safety assess"ents shold bereired before (M or-anis"s are sed in food or released into theenviron"ent.

These a-ree"ents +old never have been ne-otiated, and thei"ple"entation processes elaboratin- ho+ sch safety assess"entsshold be condcted +old not crrently be happenin-, +ithot+idespread international reco-nition of the risks posed by (M cropsand foods and the nresolved state of e8istin- scientific nderstandin-.

#oncerns abot risks are +ell'fonded, as has been de"onstrated by

stdies on so"e (M crops and foods that have sho+n adverse effectson ani"al health and non'tar-et or-anis"s, indicated above. Many ofthese stdies have, in fact, fed into the ne-otiation andIori"ple"entation processes of the #arta-ena )rotocol and #ode8. Kespport the application of the )recationary )rinciple +ith re-ard tothe release and transbondary "ove"ent of (M crops and foods.

Co;c6o;

n the scope of this doc"ent, +e can only hi-hli-ht a fe+ e8a"ples

to illstrate that t#e totality of scientific researc# outcomes in t#e fieldof GM crop safety is nuanced comple often contradictory orinconclusive confounded "y researc#ers c#oices assumptions andfunding sources and in general #as raised more ?uestions t#an it #as

currently ans'ered .

Khether to contine and e8pand the introdction of (M crops andfoods into the h"an food and ani"al feed spply, and +hether theidentified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involvesocioecono"ic considerations beyond the scope of a narro+ scientificdebate and the crrently nresolved biosafety research a-endas.

These decisions "st therefore involve the broader society. Theyshold, ho+ever, be spported by stron- scientific evidence on thelon-'ter" safety of (M crops and foods for h"an and ani"al healthand the environ"ent, obtained in a "anner that is honest, ethical,ri-oros, independent, transparent, and sfficiently diversified toco"pensate for bias.


92/111

Decisions on the ftre of or food and a-ricltre shold not bebased on "isleadin- and "isrepresentative clai"s that a 4scientificconsenss4 e8ists on (M5 safety.123#hanRoblesHirtala+library5ne of the "ost serios concerns raised a-ainst (M crops is that

e8pressed by one of or political analysts no+ servin- in#on-ress, vi


93/111

In t#e event open field trials are permitted '#at protocol s#ould "efollo'ed and conditions if any t#at may "e imposed "y t#e *ourt for

implementation of open field trials.4 The #ort also directed that theT?# +old be free to revie+ report or stdies athored by national and

international scientists if it +as necessary.

n its nteri" Report dated 5ctober 17, 2012, the T?# reco""endedthat, in vie+ of its findin-s, all field trials shold be stopped ntil

certain conditions have been "et. $ 9inal Report12>

+as eventally

sb"itted to the #ort +hich noted +eaknesses in the conditionsi"posed by the re-latory a-encies for condct of field trials, asfollo+sC 1& post'release "onitorin-, an i"portant aspect ofenviron"ental and health safety %if the (? crop is cons"ed as food&is not -iven adeate attention 2& the i"portance of need and socio'

econo"ic i"pact assess"ent of (M prodcts as one of the criteria thatshold be applied in the evalation at an early sta-e and 3& need foradditional tests not crrently done sch as lon-'ter" feedin- stdiesfor assess"ent of chronic and inter-eneration to8icity in s"all ani"als,-eno"e+ide e8pression analysis in the to8icity stdies to screen forpossible nintended effects on host physiolo-y. t +as reco""endedthat a "oratori" on field trials of herbicide tolerant crops ntil theisse had been e8a"ined by an independent co""ittee, and alsonoted that said technolo-y "ay not be sitable in the ndian socio'econo"ic conte8t de to possible i"pact of e8tensive se of broad

spectr" herbicides on the environ"ental biodiversity and s"alleravera-e far" si/e. ?8a"ination of the safety dossier of %t"rin=al

indicated certain concerns on the data, +hich had not beenaddressed in the corse of re-latory testin- leadin- to approval deto lack of fll'ti"e alified personnel for the prpose. 5verall, it +asfond that the ality of infor"ation in several of the applications isfar belo+ +hat +old be e8pected and reired for ri-oros evalationby a re-latory body and is nlikely to "eet international re-latory-idelines.

5n the "echanis" of *ryl+cproteins, the T?# cited stdies sho+in-

that it is possible nder certain conditions for *ryl+cprotein to killinsects that lack the cadherin receptor. $lso, +hile it is -enerallybelieved that #ry to8ins do not e8ert an effect on vertebrates asvertebrates lack the receptor for #ry to8ins, t+o stdies %one in "iceand the other in co+s& have provided evidence that #ry proteins canbind to "a""alian intestinal epithelial cells. The report also discssedthe e"er-ence of resistance in insect pests, health and food safetyof %t

trans-enics, and herbicide tolerant crops and their effect onbiodiversity and the environ"ent. !pecific reco""endations +ere"ade to address the fore-oin- isses and the report conclded thatC

The release of a (M crop into its area of ori-in or diversity has far-reater ra"ifications and potential for ne-ative i"pact than for otherspecies. To stify this, there needs to be e8traordinarily co"pellin-reasons and only +hen other choices are not available. (M crops thatoffer incre"ental advanta-es or soltions to specific and li"itedproble"s are not sfficient reasons to stify sch release. The T?# did


94/111

not find any sch co"pellin- reasons nder the present conditions.The fact is that nlike the sitation in 1>0s there is no desperateshorta-e of food and in fact ndia is in a reasonably secre position.The T?# therefore reco""ends that release of (M crops for +hich

ndia is a centre of ori-in or diversity shold not beallo+ed.127#hanRoblesHirtala+libraryn 2010, respondin- to lar-e'scale opposition to %tbrinal6sintrodction in ndia, for"er environ"ent "inister Baira" Ra"eshplaced an indefinite "oratori" on its frther field testin-. This +asdone after discssions +ith scientists, both pro and anti'(M crops,activists and far"ers across the contry.

G, ield rials in t#e P#iliines

$s earlier "entioned, the condct of field trials for (? plants and cropsin or contry is -overned pri"arily by D$5 0='2002 and i"ple"entedby the D$ thro-h the ). )etitioners ?M, ) and 9)$ all "aintainthere +as no nla+fl deviation fro" its provisions and thatrespondents so far failed to present evidence to prove their clai"that %t talongfield trials violated environ"ental la+s and rles.

Kithin the D$'), it is the !cientific and Technical Revie+ )anel%!TR)& +hich, as an advisory body, +as tasked to 4evalate thepotential risks of the proposed activity to h"an health and the

environ"ent based on available scientific and technical infor"ation.4Under D$ !pecial 5rder 21 and 3= %2002& the !TR) "e"bership+as e8panded to inclde 4an independent pool of e8perts...tapped bythe :); to evalate the potential risks of the proposed release of(M5s for field testin-, propa-ation, food, feed to h"an health andthe environ"ent based on available scientific and technicalinfor"ation.4

D$5 0='2002 spple"ents the e8istin- -idelines on the i"portationand release into the environ"ent of prodcts of "odern biotechnolo-y

by instittionali/in- e8istin- operational arran-e"ents bet+een D$')and the *#). ?ffective Bly 2003, applications for field test arereceived and processed by D$'), bt the approval process forproects on contained se re"ains nder the spervision of *#). $"andatory risk assess"ent of (M plant and plant prodcts is reiredprior to i"portation or release into the environ"ent. ?8peri"ents "stfirst be condcted nder contained conditions, then the prodcts aretested in field trials the prodct is revie+ed for co""ercial release.Risk assess"ent is done accordin- to the principles provided for by the#arta-ena )rotocol on iosafety. Risk assess"ent is science'based,carried ot on a case by case "anner, tar-ets a specific crop and its

transfor"ation event, adopts the concept of sbstantial eivalence inidentifyin- risk, allo+s revie+, and provides that the absence ofscientific infor"ation or consenss shold not be interpreted to

indicate the absence or presence and level of risk.12=

(reenpeace, ho+ever, clai"s there is actally only a co""ittee of


95/111

three to five "e"bers +hich condcts the risk assess"ent, and isaided by an infor"al -rop, the D$6s iotech $dvisory Tea" %$T&, ofrepresentatives fro" -overn"ent biotech re-latory a-enciesC ),$, 9)$, D?*R, D5@ and D5!T. t also assails the -overn"ent

re-latory a-encies for their refsal to open to scrtiny the na"es andalifications of those inchar-e of re-lation and risk assess"ent, andfor allo+in- the entry and se of all

(M5 applications reested by

"ltinational co"panies.12

t "st be stressed that D$5 0='2002 and related D$ orders are notthe only le-al bases for re-latin- field trials of (M plants and plant

prodcts. ?5 +hich readsC

2.> sing Pre"a!tion. 'n accordance +ith )rinciple 1< of the RioDeclaration of 12 and the relevant provisions of the #arta-ena)rotocol on iosafety, in particlar $rticles 1, 10 %par. >& and 11 %par.=&, the precationary approach shall -ide biosafety decisions. Theprinciples and ele"ents of this approach are hereby i"ple"entedthro-h the decision'"akin- syste" in the *9

The *9 contains -eneral principles and "ini"" -idelines that theconcerned a-encies are e8pected to follo+ and +hich their respectiverles and re-lations "st confor" +ith. n cases of conflict inapplyin- the principles, the principle of protectin- pblic interest and+elfare shall al+ays prevail, and no provision of the *9 shall beconstred as to li"it the le-al athority and "andate of heads ofdepart"ents and a-encies to consider the national interest and pblic


96/111

+elfare in "akin- biosafety decisions.133:rc4r3 3;< >6ere6 co;c6, ;>ec4e< 3re36 63 be4e


100/111

D$5 0='2002 shold be declared invalid.

!i-nificantly, +hile petitioners repeatedly ar-ed that the sbect fieldtrials are not covered by the ?! la+, ?5

?ven +ithot the issance of ?5


101/111

the #$ are herein otedC

8 8 8 8

$TTE. !5R$*5CchanRoblesvirtala+library

et s -o back Mr. Kitness to yor ans+er in Lestion *o. < re-ardin-the list nder the )?!! la+. (rantin- Mr. Kitness that a certainproect or ndertakin- is not classified as environ"entally criticalproect, ho+ +old yo kno+ that the %,talongfield testin- is notlocated in an environ"entally critical area this ti"e

$TTE. $#$*T$D5CchanRoblesvirtala+library

5bection Eor @onor, ar-"entative.@5*. B. D#D#$*CchanRoblesvirtala+library

Kitness "ay ans+er.

$TTE. !?(UCchanRoblesvirtala+library

$s far as "y recollection can serve "e, in a readin- of the )etitionitself, so"e+here alon- the )etition, petitioners never alle-ed that theproect, the sbect "atter rather of this instant petition, is +ithin an

environ"entally critical proect.


Eor @onor the Kitness did not ans+er the estion.

@5*. B. D#D#$*CchanRoblesvirtala+library

)lease ans+er the estion.


)ersonally have conferred +ith or personnel fro" the ?nviron"ental"pact $ssess"ent Division and they inti"ated to "e that thelocations of the proect, rather of this sbect "atter of the instantpetition, not +ithin any declared environ"entally critical area.

@5*. B. $RR5!CchanRoblesvirtala+library

n other +ords, yo are a+are of the area +herethe %, ,along eperiments are "eing conducted. Is t#at t#e premise@


Bd-in- fro" previos discssions +e had . . . d-in- fro" the)etition, and sho+in- it to the as said personnel fro" ?nviron"ental"pact Division at or office, as said they inti"ated to "e that it6snot +ithin declared environ"entally critical area.


102/111

@5*. B. $RR5!CchanRoblesvirtala+library

That bein- the case, yo did not act frther J)oK r4er e?334o;, o; e4er 4e 3c4?4@ 36 3;e;?ro;me;43 m=3c4s that the correct pre"ise


Kell Eor @onors "ay be the #hief of the e-al Division of the ?M, handle "ore of the le-al aspects of the rea6s affairs. t +hen itco"es to hi-hly technical "atters, have to rely on or technicalpeople especially on environ"entally i"pact assess"ent "atters.


+ill st ask hi" another estion Eor @onors. !o did theDepart"ent of $-ricltre Mr. Kitness coordinate +ith yor 5ffice +ithre-ard the field testin- of %, ,along@


6" sorry Eor @onors a" not privy to that personally.


Mr. Kitness, the estion is did the Depart"ent of $-ricltrecoordinate +ith yor 5ffice +ith re-ard the field testin-of %, ,along as re?uired under t#e la'@


$lready ans+ered yor @onor, obection.


The +itness in effect said he does not kno+, he6s not in a position toans+er.

8 8 8 8


Did the ?M Mr. Kitness perfor" sch evalation in the caseof %, ,along field testing@

$TTE. $#$*T$D5CchanRoblesvirtala+library

Eor @onor that is speclative, the +itness has st ans+ered a +hilea-o that the ?M has not yet received any proect +ith respect to thatEor @onor. !o the +itness +old not be in a position to ans+er thatEor @onors.


103/111


ay the basis first.


The earlier ans+er Eor @onor of the +itness is in -eneral ter"s. Mysecond estion, "y follo+'p estion is specifically Eor @onorthe%, talong field testing.


Kell fro" +here sit Eor @onors, it +old appear that it cold becate-ori/ed as nclassified...

@5*. B. H$?*NU?$CchanRoblesvirtala+library

Unclassified


$s the section +ill initially provide. t there "st be prior ... "ay contine to harp on that Eor @onors. There "st be prior ... let6s sayconditions ... there "st be prior evalation and assess"ent st thesa"e by the ?M.


)rior to +hat Mr. Kitness


Ke +ill cate-ori/e it as nclassified bt there "st be ... %interrpted&


!o initially yo call it nclassified and then yo say prior to...

ISAAA v. Greenpeace

Documents

Transcript of ISAAA v. Greenpeace