|
THE development of genetically engineered rice alone will not
address the looming rice crisis in the face of the global economic
crisis and impacts of climate change. Instead of developing
genetically engineered rice, focus should also be given on
formulation of solutions based on the real problems that beset the
country’s rice economy, Oscar Zamora, a professor of the
University of the Philippines-Los Baños (UPLB) College of
Agriculture in Laguna stressed.
Scientists led by the Los Baños-based
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Philippine Rice
Research Institute (PhilRice) based in the science City of Muñoz,
Nueva Ecija, are developing improved rice varieties, to address
problems such as the chronic malnutrition suffered by millions of
women and children across the globe, food production shortage
brought about by various factors such as low yield, post-harvest
losses, vis-à-vis the country’s growing population and
diminishing land area devoted to food production.
Among the genetically engineered rice varieties
scientists are working on are the “Golden Rice” which aims to
solve the chronic malnutrition problem suffered by millions of women
and children across the globe, a high-yielding, disease- and
pest-resistant rice variety and lately, drought-resistant rice
variety engineered to cope with the impacts of climate change, which
is predicted to severely affect the country’s agricultural
production.
“The use of rice shortage in developing
countries as a justification for this new bioengineered rice betrays
insensitivity, ignorance and the lack of understanding of developing
country’s agricultural, socioeconomic and political systems,”
Zamora said.
He cited a 1999 study of the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (ETH) in cooperation with the UPLB College
of Agriculture entitled “Public acceptance of genetically
engineered food in developing countries: The case of the
Philippines” which investigated the perception of the problems in
the Philippine rice economy and the potential of economic
engineering in solving them.
The questionnaire was answered by 65
respondents—all key stakeholders of the rice economy—who are all
active in the debate on genetic engineering, from 46 different
organizations or institutions. The respondents were asked to assess
the importance of the problems of the Philippine rice economy
according to a scale of 1 being the least important to 5 being the
most important. The same scale was used to assess the potential of
genetic engineering for solving the problems.
A total of 19 problems was listed and were found
important to the Philippine rice economy. Market conditions (4.48),
lack of irrigation facilities, (4.46) inadequacy of post harvest
facilities (4.33) problem of indebtedness due to high input costs
(4.25), weak support services (4.21), typhoon (4.2), inefficient
transport network (4.19), and unequal land distribution (4.13) were
the top eight perceived problems to be the most serious.
“Five out of the eight most important problems
are related to market and infrastructure conditions. Any attempts to
improve the rice economy should necessarily address these
problems,” Zamora said.
Meanwhile, he said the potential of genetic
engineering for solving such existing problems is highest in
controlling plant diseases (3.95), and pest infestation (3.83),
improving food quality (3.62), reduced use of pesticides (3.58)
stabilizing fluctuating yield (3.56) and developing drought
tolerance (3.36).
Zamora noted that there is a mismatch in the
perceived problems and the potential of genetic engineering in
solving them, such as the potential of genetic engineering being
highest in problems that were perceived to be minor problems. “If
the perception is correct, it appears that the amount of money being
invested in genetic engineering in rice is disproportionate to its
importance in the case of the Philippines,” he said.
He noted that the use of genetic engineering as
a response to the problem of the rice economy is like “a perfect
landing of an airplane at the wrong airport.” Hence, at the very
least, organic agriculture should be given as much support as
genetic engineering in addressing the problems of the rice economy
in the Philippines, he said.
An organic farming advocate, Zamora said
strengthening Philippine agriculture which requires construction of
more farm-to-market roads, post-harvest facilities, repair and
rehabilitation of existing and constructing new irrigation
facilities, providing and training and other support services
aligned with the massive shift from conventional farming to the more
sustainable organic farming is more appropriate.
Zamora, a convenor of Go Organic! Philippines, a
consortium of non-government organizations led by the Philippine
Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) and La Liga Policy Institute (LLPI)
said organic farming, which makes use of farmer-produced organic
amendments instead of expensive chemical fertilizer, offers a
lasting solution to the farmers’ woes, particularly the
skyrocketing cost of chemical fertilizer which is now pegged at
P1,200 to P1,500 per 50-kilo bag.
A one-hectare rice field requires eight to 10
bags of chemical fertilizer to produce an average of 80 to 100 sacks
of rice, net of pests and other post-harvest losses.
Zamora said farmers should be able to produce
their own organic fertilizer from indigenous raw materials found in
their farms to lower farm production costs, thereby substantially
increasing their income.
A recent study conducted by a team of experts
from UPLB in Baao, Camarines Sur, and Alaminos City, Pangasinan,
revealed that farmers producing their own organic fertilizer could
actually increase their income without necessarily sacrificing
yield.
Organic farming, Zamora added, is beneficial to
farmers and consumers not only in terms of income, but to health and
the environment.
Unlike often harmful chemical fertilizers that
pollute the air, soil and water and cause farmers exposed to such
toxic substance to fall ill, organic fertilizer produced from animal
manure, carbonized rice hull, rice straw and other biomass, is not
as harmful. The excessive use of chemical fertilizers is partly
being blamed for global warming, which triggers climate change that
brings about extreme weather events such as super typhoons,
flashfloods, landslides, and drought, which severely affects
agricultural production. Agriculture contributing 33 percent of the
greenhouse gasses being emitted into the atmosphere, which causes
global warming and climate change.
Organic fertilizer helps build soil nutrients
the plant need for enhance growth and yield, at less cost to farmers
whose primary problem hinges on lack of capital, to start with,
Zamora said.
Go Organic! Philippines is pushing for the
implementation of programs designed to make the country’s
agriculture sustainable through organic farming and change in
lifestyle primarily to help fight global warming and climate change.
|
