An Open Letter to Secretaries Proceso J. Alcala, Ramon J.P. Paje, Janette P.

Loreta-Garin, Mel
Senen Sarmiento; and Mario G. Montejo on the
DOST-DA-DENR-DOH-DILG Joint Department Circular No. 1, Series of 2016
We, civil society and peoples organizations, call on the Honourable Secretaries to extend,
expand and improve the on-going consultation and approval of the DA-DOH-DENR-DOST-DILGDTI-DFA Joint Department Circular to replace the Department of Agriculture Administrative
Order No. 8 (DAO No. 8) series of 2002 to ensure informed, substantive, adequate and
meaningful participation of all stakeholders. Otherwise, the approval of the current draft, set
on Feb. 23, by the Honourable Secretaries, will defeat the decision of our Highest Court and
violate the Filipinos Constitutional rights to health, a balanced and healthful ecology,
information, and public participation.
In December 2015, the Supreme Court passed judgement to permanently ban the field-testing
of Bt talong, and temporarily ban all applications for contained use, field testing, propagation,
commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) pending new
rules that will replace the flawed DAO No. 8. This was after the Highest Courts finding that in
the face of the uncertainty, and the possibility of irreversible and serious harm of GMOs based
on the evidence on record, and current state of GMO research worldwide, the governments
regulatory agencies failed to operationalize the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) in the DAO
No. 8, and failed to implement the NBF in the crucial stages of risk assessment and public
consultation, including the determination of applicability of environmental impact assessment
to GMO field testing thus compelling the application of the precautionary principle.
However, the very flaws of DAO No. 8 have not been corrected in the the draft JDC and the
limited, fast-tracked consultation for the JDC once again leaves the Filipino public behind in the
decision making.
Call for scientific studies and robust, independent assessments
The JDC continues to presume that GMOs are the same as their conventional counterparts and
so requires no actual tests on their safety as food or feed despite lack of scientific consensus for
this presumption and approach. As a precaution, we ask that the JDC provides for more
scientific studies on the safety and actual and long-term impacts of GMOs; environmental
impacts assessment; and social and other risks assessment.
We further ask for requirements for health studies; for regulatory standards, and definition of
the responsibilities, duties and capacity of each regulatory body.
In the current draft, the DOH for example, is tasked with determining safety without
elaboration; the environmental impact assessment is still not required; and safeguards are
inadequate to protect the independence of regulators. Also, some sections still need to be
clarified, substantiated and agreed on to operationalize the requirements of the NBF and the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Provide for liability and redress mechanisms

We further ask the Honourable Secretaries that there should be provisions in the JDC for the
following: notice and hearing of stakeholders opposition to GMOs application; appeal to a
decision on application; protection and compensation of farmers whose farms get
contaminated with unwanted GMOs; continuous impacts monitoring on health and
environment considering that the negative effects of GMOs may take time before they
manifest; labelling, for effective impacts monitoring; protection for scientists and researchers
whose studies and experiments yield findings and recommendations against, or inconclusive
for, GMOs; and protection and compensation for those whose health is harmed or when the
environment is adversely affected by GMOs.
These are fundamental issues that were not covered or adequately discussed due to the limited
and fast-tracked consultation afforded to the public.
We humbly urge the Honourable Secretaries to take this as an opportune moment to improve
and strengthen the Philippine biosafety regulation through a careful, inclusive and transparent
process.
Signed:
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP)
Consumer Rights for Safe Food (CRSF)
Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)
Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT, Inc.)
Greenpeace
RESIST Agrochemical TNCs!
Green Action PH
Philippine Network of Food Security Programmes (PNFSP)
Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)
Center for Health Initiatives and Management of Eco-System (CHIMES)
Pesticide Action Network Philippines, (PAN-Phils)
Maharlika Artists and Writers Federation
TEBTEBBA
No2GMOs
Save the Coconut Movement
Green Convergence
Lucban Organic Farmers Marketing Association
Miriam Peace
Teddy Casio