18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

31
32
33

35
36
37
38
39

41
42
43
45
a7

49

“S* 7
¥ RECEIVED

3
=
ME:

\ 2,

Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL No. hE

Introduced by
BAYAN MUNA Representatives, EUFEMIA C. CULLAMAT,
CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE and FERDINAND R. GAITE,
ACT TEACHERS Party-List Representative FRANCE L. CASTRO,
GABRIELA Women’s Party Representative ARLENE D. BROSAS
and KABATAAN Party-List Representative SARAH JANE I. ELAGO

AN ACT
PROHIBITING THE USE OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMO) ON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE
COUNTRY, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) technology, particularly on food has been introduced
globally by giant agro-chemical transnational corporations (agro-chem TNCs) and international
institutions such as the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). GMO proponents claim that
its uses range from biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs,
experimental medicine and agriculture. Living organisms such as microbes, plants, animals and
crops are being tweaked using genetically modified (GM) and genetically engineered (GE)
technology. From research and development funding to distribution and sales profit, the role of
transnational and multinational corporations has been apparent in the proliferation of GMO crops
and products.

‘The Convention on Biological Diversity defined “biotechnology” as “technological application
that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products
or processes for specific use.” The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety meanwhile defines “modern
biotechnology” as (a) in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or (b) fusion of cells beyond
the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers
and are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. An example of this is genetic
engineering which is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology.

GMO crop (genetically modified food crops) proponents in the country have always invoked
adequate food production and the fight against poverty, hunger and malnutrition as the ultimate
goals for the introduction of such technology. But itis not the real solution. Filipino farmers and
scientists across the country assert that GMO in Philippine agriculture is not a solution but in fact,
a serious problem.


‘The national farmers organization, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP, Peasant Movement
of the Philippines), and the Resist Agrochemical TNCs Network (RESIST), an alliance of farmers,
scientists, and consumer groups, are firm on their position that GMO crops have no positive
contribution in local agricultural production and in the eradication of hunger and poverty.

Fundamentally, rice productivity does not depend on the variety of rice but on a comprehensive
system which includes, among others, infrastructure that is supposed to facilitate the growth and
development of the Philippine rice industry and agriculture in general. In the current state of such
a system, the presence of GMO in Philippine agriculture is beyond the range of acceptable options.

False claims that GMO crops would solve or even contribute to solving poverty, hunger and
malnutrition in the country are all superficial, given the lingering problems in Philippine
agriculture, one major aspect of which is the continuing failure of the state to implement genuinely
redistributive agrarian reform.

Hunger is brought about by extreme poverty, and in the countryside, farmers are extremely poor
due to landlessness and lack of support from government. Without resolving landlessness, hunger
and its consequence, malnutrition, would not be thoroughly addressed.

Amplifying yield production does not lead to the upliftment of the socio-economic status of the
poor farmers as production is generally controlled by the local landowning class and its foreign big
business partners. Moreover, production yield increase is price tagged with the extensive
utilization of agro-chemical inputs. This translates into huge profits for the transnational
corporations who provide these inputs in addition to providing the seeds to begin with.

Fortunately, the Filipino people are aware of the uncertainties of the GMO products, as several
local government units have approved resolutions that prohibit such products in their localities:

a In Bohol, Resolution 2003-235 was unanimously passed by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan declaring the province free of GMO to protect the ecological balance
of the province and health safety of Boholanos from the adverse effects of GMOs.
‘The resolution was followed by Provincial Ordinance 2003-010, known as the
“Safeguards against GMOs,” which enumerated the conditions against the entry

of Genetically Modified (GM) plants, animals and microorganisms into the
province.
b. The provinces of Mindoro Oriental and Marinduque, both parts of the “Organic

Haven Islands” of MIMAROPA, have institutionalized their respective Provincial
Environmental Codes and Administrative Orders banning the entry of GMOs in
their areas.

c. In 2007, Negros Occidental passed Provincial Ordinance 2007-007 or “The
Safeguard Against Living Genetically-Modified Organisms” in line with the
province’s goal of becoming the “Organic Food Bowl of Asia.” Along with Negros
Oriental, Negros Occidental signed a memorandum of agreement committing to a
10% organic island-wide production by the year 2010 and to the banning of
GMOs.

d. Some towns in Iloilo and have expressed their apprehension with the ongoing field
testing in their areas and have called for the suspension of the production of BT
Bacillus thuringiensis) eggplant, a genetically modified crop.


€. In Davao City, a city resolution was passed in 2011 banning BT eggplant. Sectors
are also clamoring to declare Davao City as a GMO-free zone.

Aside from LGUs banning GMO crops in their localities, people’s organizations and non-
government organizations have sustained their opposition to GMO crops, such as the KMP and
its regional chapters and affiliate organizations, RESIST, Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-
unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG, Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development). Local people’s
and farmers” organizations have also intensified their opposition to GMO projects such as the BT
‘eggplant trial farms in the Mindanao and Los Bafios campuses of the University of the Philippines,
and the Golden Rice trial farm in Pili town, Camarines Sur.

‘During the 2014 National Peasant Scientist Conference (NPSC) organized by farmers, scientists
and non-government organizations, it was emphasized that during the IRRI Green Revolution in
the 1970s, agriculture started to be tightly tied to the monopoly of agro-chemical ‘TNCs. The said
program promoted the heavy use of inputs that led to the depletion of soil fertility, ecosystem
imbalance and decrease of biodiversity. Decades later, the IRRI is now aggressively pushing for a
so-called Gene Revolution despite the fact that purported scientific development under such a
program does not at all equate to tangible benefits for Filipino peasants but, especially with the
involvement of foreign monopolies, would only perpetuate the cycle of poverty and indebtedness.

‘The NPSC fasther stated that the incorporation of Vitamin A in Golden Rice serves only as
sugarcoating to divert public attention from the issue that points to the environmental and health
risks that the promotion of GMOs entails. ‘The current methods to solve Vitamin A deficiency,
like breastfeeding and the diet of green leafy vegetables and other natural food such as malungeay,
according to the NPSC would suffice and are devoid of hazards that GMOs bring.

‘The GMO debate is also far from over in the international arena. There is thus no compelling
justification for the country to intensify GMOs entry in local agriculture, contrary to the
suggestion of the Philippine government as regards the IRRI’s Golden Rice field testing with agro-
chem company Syngenta.

In the European Union, 4,713 local govemments in 123 provinces or intermediary regions, in 169
regions of 29 countries have banned GMO crops and products in theit territories. These include
Greece, Poland, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy among others.

While practically the whole world has either banned or placed strong regulations on GMO crops,
the State must fulfil its task to protect the Filipino people from being subjected and exposed to
critical uncertainties that could endanger the population and the environment.

Moreover, Republic Act No. 10068 or the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 actually excludes GMO
crops while promoting the further development and implementation of organic agricultural
practices in the country.

In May 2013, the Philippine judiciary has likewise made a milestone assertion in this regard when
the Special Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals ordered the Bureau of Plant Industry
(BPI) and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) under the Department of Agriculture (DA),
and the Environmental Management Bureau under the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and other related institutions, to permanently stop the multi-location field
trials of BT eggplant and protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment in the affected
sites.


However, as the Court of Appeals itself has recognized, Philippine laws still lack specific provisions
that directly take up the GMO issue. While there are laws that address the need for the protection
of the public from hazardous food, drugs, cosmetics and other commodities such as RA 3720, or
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the RA 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines,
there is still no definitive legislation that particularly concerns itself with GMOs — a compelling
legal blank that this legislative measure earnestly aims to fill.

In December 2015, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement permanently banning the
field-testing of BT ‘along, and temporarily banning all applications for contained use, field testing,
propagation, commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms pending the
approval of new rules that will replace the flawed DA Department Administrative Order No. 8
(DAO No. 8). This was after the Supreme Court’s finding that in the face of 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 government's 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.

But in early 2016, the DA, together with the DENR, the Department of Health (DOH), and the
Department of Science and ‘Technology (DOST) rushed the approval of the questionable Joint
Departmental Circular (JDC) No. in compliance with a Supreme Court requirement in lifting a
temporary ban on GMOs. Not only did the government railroad public and stakeholder
consultations with the JDC, it also left out some of the most critical provisions such as risk
assessment, food safety test, lability and redress. ‘The DA is currently facilitating new applications
of biotechnology firms such as Monsanto Philippines, Inc. and Bayer Philippines, Inc. to breed
and import GM seeds and crops under the JDC.

‘The authors of this bill emphasize that the introduction of GMO crops shall not in, any significant
way, positively propel agricultural production in the country as vital social requirements are yet to
be accomplished. Unless the problems engendered by the continuing landlessness of the
countryside population and other forms of exploitation are decisively addressed, any promise of
hunger eradication that GMO crops proponents put forward shall always prove empty. Unless the
urban poor sectors are freed from the bondage of low wages, irregular work and the absence of
social services, GMO crops shall not sustainably lessen poverty by any degree.

‘This bill was first filed in the 15" Congress by Anakpawis Rep. Rafael “Ka Paeng” Mariano and
was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Food. It was again filed in the 16" Congress by
Anakpawis Rep. Fernando “Ka Pando” Hicap. It was then refiled in the 17" Congress by
‘Anakpawis Rep. Ariel “Ka Ayik” Casilao, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate, Gabriela Reps.
Emmi De Jesus and Arlene Brosas, ACT Reps. Antonio Tinio and France Castro, and Kabataan
Rep. Sarah Jane Elago and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Food.

Furthermore, science and technology should serve the people and not the interests for profit of
foreign monopolies. There is a need for the State to define how it should go about protecting and
advancing the right of the people to a safe, poison-free agriculture, secure livelihood, and a
balanced and healthy ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature—all of which are
expected to be undermined by the introduction of existing GMO technology.


CeaVansune

10

12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
2a
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Approved,

oyna
REP. EUFEM! CULLAMAT
Bayan Muna Partylist

Bayan Mama Tata Byit

REP. F!

fachers P,

RO
ist

REP. SAI

JAl
sbataan

RDINAND R. GAITE
Bayan Muna Partylist

GABRIELA Women’s Party

1. ELAGO
vist


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
5337

HOUSE BILL NO.

Introduced by
BAYAN MUNA Representatives EUFEMIA C. CULLAMAT,
CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE and FERDINAND R. GAITE,
ACT TEACHERS Party-List Representative FRANCE L. CASTRO,
GABRIELA Women’s Party Representative ARLENE D. BROSAS
and KABATAAN Party-List Representative SARAH JANE I. ELAGO

AN ACT
PROHIBITING THE USE OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMO) ON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE
COUNTRY, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the “GMO-Free Agriculture Act of 2019.”

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared that the policy of the State to protect and
advance the right of the people to a safe and poison-free agriculture, health and livelihood security,
and a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

‘To this end, the State shall follow the precautionary principle in relation to the field testing
of genetically-engineered crops and the processing and distribution of seeds, crops and food
products consisting of, containing or derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) so as
to protect the people, the country’s agriculture and environment for the sake of present and future
generations. The possible harmful effects of genetically modified crops and food on human health
and environment are irreversible. Thus, the burden of proof as to the safe use of GMOs must be
on the proponents of genetic engineering in agriculture.

Section 3. Scope. This Act shall cover the release, field testing, processing and sale of crops and
food products containing genetically modified organisms in the country.

Section 4. Definition of Terms. For pusposes of this Act, the following terms shall be
understood as follows:

1. “DNA” refers to deoxyribonucleic acid, a very long molecular structure, consisting
of a string of units or genes that encode all the information regarding the structure
and functioning of a living organism for its entire lifespan, as well as biological
information that is passed on from one generation to the next.


eld Testing” refers to the deliberate release or intentional introduction of a GMO,
or a combination of GMOs, into a controlled environment with provisions for
containment such as physical barriers, or a combination of physical barriers together
with chemical and/or biological barriers used to limit their contact with the general
population and the environment.

3. “Genetically modified organism” (GMO) means an organism in which the genetic
‘material has been altered or modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating
and/or natural recombination.

4. “Genetically modified crops and products” refer to the harvests and commodities consisting
of, or containing a GMO, or a combination of GMOs.

5. “Genetic engineering,” also called genetic modification, is the term given to the
laboratory manipulation of a living organism’s genetic code involving the
introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the said organism.

6. “National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines” refers to an attached agency of the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) created by virtue of Executive
Order 430 (s. 1990) and tasked, among others, to identify potential risks associated
with experiments involving GMOs and to recommend measures to minimize such
risks.

7. “Omunism” means any biological entity capable of replication or of transferring
genetic material.

8. “Precautionary principle” is a precept that any action should not be pursued if the
consequence is not certain or potentially dangerous.

9. “Processing” means the breeding, preparation and other activities which through
physical, chemical, or biological processes alter the exterior texture or form or inner
substance of a product in such manner as to prepare it for special use to which it
could not have put in its original form or condition.

10. “Precautionary risk assessment” means to identify and evaluate the potential adverse
effects of living modified organisms which the deliberate release of GMOs into the
environment may pose. It should be carried out in a scientifically sound and
transparent manner.

11. “Sake” refers to the act of selling and/or supplying and/or making a product
available to other parties.

SECTION 5. Prohibition. The release, laboratory and field testing, processing, sale and similar
acts, of crops and food products consisting of, containing or derived from genetically modified
‘organisms, shall be prohibited in the country.

SECTION 6. Exempting Clause. Studies on crops and products containing genetically modified
organisms by an independent panel of scientists to be selected and supervised by the National
Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) and Food and Drugs Administration (FDA)
together with concerned non-government and people’s organizations shall be exempted from the
prohibition.


SECTION 7. Existing GMO Products. The NCBP, in coordination with the Department of
‘Agriculture (DA), FDA and non-government organizations involved in monitoring genetically
modified crops and products, is hereby directed to determine existing GMO products at its various
levels: under laboratory testing, pilot testing, multiple location testing, and to determine if such
products are already being commercially distributed in the Philippines prior to the effectivity of
this Act, and thereafter issue a list of said products to the public, make a precautionary risk
assessment of the same and come out with recommendations on the proper disposition of such
products. The subsequent sale, processing, laboratory and field testing, release and similar acts, of
such products in the list shall be prohibited indefinitely until such time that said products have
been declared free from genetically modified organisms.

SECTION 8. Monitoring. A monitoring committee composed of the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTD), DA, Department of Health (DOH), Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Bureau of Customs (BOC), non-
government organization/s and people’s organization/s shall closely monitor the sale, processing
of products consisting of, containing or derived from genetically engineered organisms. ‘The
monitoring committee shall recommend for disposition any product found to be containing
genctically-engincered organisms.

SECTION 9. Penalties. Any person or persons found violating the provisions of this Act shall
be penalized with imprisonment of not less than five (5) years and not more than fifteen (15) years
and a fine of not less than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 100,000.00) but not more than
One Million Pesos (PhP 1,000,000.00), at the discretion of the court depending on the gravity of
the offense. Repetition of the offense shall entail maximum limit of the penalty and fine.

SECTION 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. Within ninety (90) days from the
effectivity of this Act and after initiating a highly consultative process involving sectoral
representations, the NCBP, DA, DENR, and the FDA shall formulate and publish the
implementing rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act.

SECTION 11. Separability Clause. If for any reason that any section or provision of this Act
shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions which are not affected thereby
shall remain valid.

SECTION 12. Repealing Clause. Al laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and
other issuances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.

SECTION 13. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication
in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.