The GMO-Free Negros Coalition — composed of Negrense farmers, organic agriculture advocates, Indigenous Peoples Organizations, civil society groups, church leaders, scientists, communities, consumers, organic certifying bodies, academe, and like-minded individuals— vehemently opposes the proposed “Ordinance Providing for the Rules and Guidelines on the Research, Development Handling, Use Transboundary Movement, Release into the Environment, and Management of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Province of Negros Occidental, and for Other Purposes”.
I. NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK
The Provincial Government of Negros Occidental (PGNO) is under no legal obligation to amend its landmark anti-living GMO ordinance to conform with Joint Department Circular (JDC) No. 01, Series of 2021.
The JDC is merely an administrative issuance that sets minimum national standards on the release of GMOs—it does not prescribe or require any alignment from LGUs. Likewise, it does not, and cannot, override the constitutional and statutory authority of provinces to impose stricter safeguards, including outright bans.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals, in granting the Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus against GMO golden rice and Bt eggplant, explicitly found JDC 2021 insufficient.[1] The Court of Appeals cited that “it is too broad or general, and it fails to specify the manner in which the said monitoring is to perform.” In addition, the appellate court ruled that there was no concrete mechanism adopted to monitor all activities under the JDC 1-2021. This Writ of Kalikasan against GMO Bt eggplant and GMO golden rice remains in effect to this day. As the court noted, this raises serious concerns about long-term accountability and environmental risk. It ordered the review and strengthening of its monitoring mechanisms, which until now GMO proponents have failed to demonstrate a robust, realistic, and enforceable biosafety mechanism; thus, restraint, not deregulation, is the prudent course.
II. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY
GMOs and their derivatives have no place in organic food and farming systems. The irresponsible environmental release of GMOs has caused, and continues to cause, a significant reduction in biodiversity, soil fertility, human and animal nutrition and health, and overall ecosystem damage. (IFOAM Organic International)
The studies cited to prove GMO safety are either short-term (45 or 90-day experiments long before the development of illness), while long-term studies (lifetime and progenies of experimental animals) show many unexpected illnesses (Jneid et al., 2023; El-Shamei et al., 2012; Finamore et al., 2008). The Precautionary Principle, endorsed by international institutions, governments and independent scientists, requires us to protect people and ecosystems from irreversible harm. (Cartagena, 2000)
One of the most persistent risks of GMO agriculture is genetic contamination, which is the unintentional spread of genetically modified material into food, seed stocks, and the environment. Once contamination occurs, it is virtually impossible to reverse, threatening both ecological integrity and farmers’ control over their seeds. (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, n.d.)
Contrary to claims that GMO crops “support biodiversity,” evidence worldwide shows GMOs promote monocropping, pesticide dependence, and genetic contamination that threaten people and the environment.
Cross-pollination. Coexistence between GMO and organic is not possible because of cross-pollination, through wind or insects, seed-mixing, and no segregation and labels. Thus, the most effective and economical way to prevent contamination is to prevent its introduction to an island. Uncertainty regarding the fate of engineered genetic materials, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm to other life forms are enshrined in the Precautionary Principle. The Court of Appeals, after hearing the evidence from both sides, acknowledged that it “cannot rule out the possible serious risks.”
Lack of buffer zones. Claims that GMOs can coexist with organic and traditional farms are a dangerous myth. In the Philippines, where most farmers till less than three hectares, there is no space for buffer zones. GMO pollen can travel far: GM corn pollen by wind up to half a kilometer, and bees carrying GM eggplant pollen up to 4 kilometers easily contaminating hundreds of farms around a single GMO field. Even rice has shown contamination. Once it happens, farmers lose their organic certification, their markets, and their livelihoods. For Negros, contamination would destroy the very foundation of its vision as the country’s organic food bowl. This is why the GMO ban must remain firmly in place.
European countries like Germany, France, Greece, Hungary Austria, Luxembourg have banned the cultivation of GMOs in their territories. More importantly, we cannot compare EU, US, and Canada to the Philippines because they have hundreds to few thousand hectares per farmer, while in the Philippines, 89% of farmers have 3 hectares or less (57% have 1 hectare or less). Thus, there is no place to build buffer zones. In the Philippines, a 1-kilometre radius from GMO field may contaminate more than a hundred farmers’ fields.
The Court of Appeals acknowledges the “non-compliance with monitoring provisions” by the DA-BPI over Bt corn and Bt talong activities in Luzon. Negros Occidental must demand better. The Biosafety Committee that has to be established needs financial support and specialized technical capabilities. Is the province equipped with the necessary resources at the moment?
IV. FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AND SEED OWNERSHIP
Food sovereignty is more about farmers’ control and local autonomy.
Food sovereignty’s greatest element is local control of seeds, food, and farming. GMO farming is all controlled by biotech, seed, and chemical companies. Even marketing is controlled by them. GMO brings dependency and the surrender of farmers’ rights – the exact opposite of food sovereignty.
Economically, GM corn production in particular is more than 40% costlier than conventional varieties, yet provides no statistically significant yield advantage (MASIPAG 2013, Afidchao et al. 2014, FAO, 2023; USDA). Farmers are trapped in cycles of debt, bankruptcy, and land loss.
How did the Provincial Government come up with GMO as the solution to this shortfall of corn? Can the provincial leaders provide us with the data on how “food insecure” the Province of Negros Occidental is? Is there something that our leaders know that we do not know? This runs counter a 2024 data, where Negros Occidental is the highest contributor to corn production in Western Visayas, contributing 34,368 hectares (46.1%) to the region’s total corn area harvested. (Data coming from the PSA Region VI)
V. PUBLIC HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL SAFETY
The risks of GM corn are already visible in the country. MASIPAG’s 2017 Capiz case study revealed glyphosate residues, a cancerogenic herbicide, were found in drinking water sources, soil, and even the urine of farmers who cultivate GM corn in the area.
Concerns about herbicide-linked health risks remain unresolved, with evidence suggesting long-term exposure threatens children and vulnerable groups. (Washington Post)
Several studies found that GM crops pose risks to environment, including secondary pests, biodiversity impact, potential resistance, and ecological imbalance from large-scale monocropping.
A scientific study found that pesticide use in Bt corn resulted to the emergence of secondary pests not targeted by Bt protein, and possible resistance development in corn borers. (Villacorta & Javier, 2011, UPLB; Greenpeace SE Asia, 2002)
These local experiences are echoed by global research. Genetically modified crops, rather than reducing chemical dependence, have led to greater pesticide use, expansion of monocultures, and increased ecological vulnerability (Journal of Agrarian Change, 2025). Herbicide-tolerant crops encouraged wider use of glyphosate, while pest adaptation in Bt cotton drove farmers to apply more, not fewer, insecticides over time. Instead of efficiency or resilience, GM technologies have deepened dependency and environmental harm. (Flachs et al., 2025)
Even regulatory bodies in the Global North are acknowledging these failures. In 2020, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not known for being critical of GMO farming systems, proposed the phase-out of many genetically modified crops, such as Bt corn and Bt cotton varieties, due to widespread resistance among plant pests. Long-term analysis confirmed that GM crops intensified pesticide use and created new pest resistance problems, rather than resolving them. (EPA, 2020; Unglesbee, 2020)
VI. CULTURAL AND MORAL COMMITMENT TO BEING GMO-FREE
Negros Occidental’s identity as an organic province is both an economic advantage and a cultural heritage. Allowing the entry of living GMOs undermines this reputation and risks our farmers’ livelihoods. Governor Bong Lacson himself, during the province’s bid in Taiwan in December 2024 to host the 2027 IFOAM Organic World Congress, has this to say,
“As governor of the Sugar and Organic Food Bowl of the Philippines, I proudly represent Negros Occidental in bidding to host the 2027 Organic World Congress. The aspiration to host this esteemed congress is something we consider not just a privilege but a calling, aligned with humanity’s shared aspiration for better health, ecology, fairness, and care. Hosting the IFOAM Organic World Congress in Negros Occidental is not just an event for us. It is an opportunity to amplify the organic movement, inspire policy reforms, and empower farmers worldwide.”
Across the world, farming communities are resisting GMO imposition. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Ecuador and even Bhutan reject GMO. In Colombia, indigenous “seed guardians” defend ancestral maize against agribusiness control, showing how GMOs threaten biodiversity and cultural survival. (The Guardian)
Despite strong lobbying and pressure from Monsanto/Bayer and the US government, Mexico has banned GMO corn. Peru has a 10-year ban on Monsanto.
GMO corn fields have loosened soil structure, making it more prone to erosion. The lack of soil cover due to herbicides, along with alterations in biotic diversity, contamination of environmental resources, and genetic contamination of related species, are other negative impacts.[2]
VII. CONCLUSION
The recent court case on GMO golden rice in the Philippines exposed what farmers and scientists have long warned: that the country’s biosafety regulatory framework is weak, fragmented, and incapable of rigorously assessing the risks and appropriateness of genetically engineered crops. To open Negros to GMOs under such conditions would be reckless, putting farmers, ecosystems, and future generations at grave risk.
This evidence reinforces what farmers in Negros already know: GMOs erode autonomy, biodiversity, and food sovereignty. The local ban remains a critical safeguard- a people-led biosafety framework that protects farmers, consumers, and ecosystems from corporate interests.
We assert that defending the ban on living GMO crops and animals is not merely about policy but about protecting the agricultural future of the island and its people. To repeal it would be to concede democratic governance to corporate agribusiness and to sacrifice food sovereignty, ecological justice, and national dignity.
Negros Occidental must not abandon its leadership in agroecology, organic farming, and its identity as the “Organic Capital of the Philippines” and “Organic Food Bowl of Southeast Asia.”
VIII. OUR CALL
We call on the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental to:
- Ensure the proper implementation of Provincial Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2007 (The Safeguard Against Living Genetically Modified Organisms), Provincial Ordinance No. 007, Series of 2011 (An Ordinance Institutionalizing, Promoting and Developing Organic Agriculture in Negros Occidental), and Provincial Ordinance No. 004, Series of 2017 (An Ordinance Creating the Organic Farming Development and Promotions Division) and resist pressures to dilute it.
- Strengthen and support organic agriculture and agroecology as Nature-based solutions to climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity.
- Address the existing food production issues like processing facilities, supply and value chain bottlenecks, and market support, among others.
- Protect the rights of farmers to seeds, health, and sustainable livelihoods, free from corporate control.
- Uphold the constitutional rights of Negrosanon to a balanced and healthful ecology, in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Negros Occidental must remain a GMO-free province. Let us defend our heritage and safeguard the future of the next generations.ns.
