research paper about issues on philippine biosafety policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Appl Biosaf
• v.26(4); December 2021

Assessment of the Biosafety and Biosecurity Landscape in the Philippines and the Development of the National Biorisk Management Framework

Raul v. destura.

1 National Training Center for Biosafety and Biosecurity, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines-Manila, Manila, Philippines.

Hilton Y. Lam

2 Institute of Health Policy and Development Studies, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines-Manila, Manila, Philippines.

Rohani C. Navarro

Jaifred christian f. lopez, reneepearl kim p. sales, ma. ida faye a. gomez, angelo dela tonga, gianne eduard ulanday.

Introduction: The emergence of biological threats that can potentially affect millions emphasizes the need to develop a policy framework in the Philippines that can mount an adequate and well-coordinated response. The objective of the study was to assess, strengthen, and harmonize efforts in biorisk management through the development of a National Biorisk Management Framework.

Methods: The development of the National Biorisk Management Framework was carried out in two phases: (1) assessment of the current biosafety and biosecurity landscape and (2) framework development.

Results: This study identified policy gaps in the incorporation of biosafety in course curricula, professional development, and organizational twinning. The desired policy outcomes focus on increasing the capacity and quality of facilities, and the development of the biosafety officer profession. The tabletop exercises revealed weak implementation of existing protocols and unclear coordination mechanisms for emergency response. Based on these, a framework was drafted composed of eight key areas in biosafety and biosecurity, and four key contexts in risk reduction and management.

Discussion and Conclusion: Reforms in biosafety and biosecurity policies are expected to improve coordination, ensure sustainability, capacitate facilities, and professionalize biosafety officers. Because of the complexity of reforms necessary, success will require a consistent and coherent policy framework that (1) provides well-coordinated mechanisms toward harmonized risk reduction and management, (2) establishes and enforces guidelines on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management, (3) regulates facilities essential for occupational safety and public health, and (4) is financed by the General Appropriations Act as part of the national budget.

Introduction

The Philippines is the first country in Southeast Asia to adapt a national biosafety guideline. The guideline, published in 1991, focuses on genetic engineering and other activities that require the importation, introduction, field release, and breeding of nonindigenous organisms. 1 The country signed into the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2000. The protocol aims to “ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.” 2 After this, a national biosafety framework was developed in 2004 and formally established through executive order (EO) 514 in 2006. The framework applies to products of biotechnology and exotic and invasive alien species, with focus on their research, development, handling, use, transboundary movement, release into the environment, and management. 3

Despite the progress made in the mentioned areas, there are issues included within the field of biosafety and biosecurity that needs to be given attention in the Philippines similar to how they are considered in other countries. In developed countries, this involves the regulation of dual use of research concern (DURC). 4 Scientific research has benefited the world population through the development of health, agriculture, and environment technologies. 5 , 6 However, there continues to be a concern regarding the potential of biological research to be misused. Research with high misuse potential include those that (1) manipulate pathogenicity or virulence; (2) synthesize pathogens and toxins without cultivation of microorganisms; (3) identify new mechanisms to disrupt the healthy functioning of humans, animals, or plants; and (4) develop novel means of biological agents and toxins delivery. 7 Management approaches to DURC have focused on policies that govern research mechanisms, funding agencies, journal publishers, codes of conduct and ethics, and education initiatives for a wide range of audiences. 7–13

In the Asia–Pacific region, the idea of biosafety and biosecurity holds stronger ties to agricultural security, biodiversity, and public health over national security concerns such as biological warfare or terrorism. In particular, outbreaks of zoonotic viruses over the past two decades have given way for governments to prioritize the public health aspect of biosafety and biosecurity through the lens of agricultural and animal farming practices. 14 The quick spread of these outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] in 2003, Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 [H5N1] in 2005, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 [H1N1] in 2009, and coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] in 2020) has highlighted the need to consider biosafety and biosecurity as a national and even global issue. 15–18

As the bioscience and laboratory industry grows in Asia, so does the need to consider the industry's role in national biosafety, biosecurity, and the larger global health security. 19 Handling pathogenic organisms requires good laboratory practices, risk assessments, and biorisk measures to prevent accidental or deliberate infection. 20 Between 1982 and 2016, 27 laboratory-acquired infections (LAIs) were published in the Asia–Pacific. Fifty-two percent of the LAIs occurred in research laboratories. 20 These LAIs occurred amid an ongoing lack of specialist-level training for biosafety and biosecurity protocols in the region. In a 2010 survey of 197 life science degree courses from 58 Asian universities, it was found that only 2% had biosecurity modules, 18% had biosafety modules, and 10% had topics on the dual use of science. 14 It is important to note that 78% of the reported LAIs in Asia–Pacific were from developed countries, who likely report LAIs as part of both national and international standards compliance. 20

In addition, the perceived weakest link among developing countries in biosafety is that many facilities that handle infectious agents were built >10 years ago and designed with limited consideration for biosafety and security. 4 A 2007 survey on bioscience research practices in Asia found that 20% of scientists do not use personal protective equipment, 50% of facilities do not have an autoclave, 50% do not restrict laboratory access at all times, and up to 33% lack training on biosafety protocols. 21

The emergence of biological threats that can potentially affect millions emphasizes the need to develop a policy framework that can mount an adequate and well-coordinated response. The objective of the study was to assess, strengthen, and harmonize efforts in biorisk management through the development of a National Biorisk Management Framework.

Methodology

This initiative was funded by University of the Philippines Manila National Institutes of Health and U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency-Biological Threat Reduction Program. This study did not require ethics approval as it did not involve any studies with human or animal subjects. The development of the National Biorisk Management Framework was carried out in two phases ( Figure 1 ): (1) assessment of the current biosafety and biosecurity landscape and (2) framework development.

Methodology process.

Phase 1: Assessment of the Current Landscape

Policy review.

This step entailed a rapid scan and review of existing policies related to biosafety and biosecurity in the Philippines. Policies were searched in the laws and policies databases of six concerned government institutions. After retrieval of policies, a data extraction table was made to map the policies. Data extracted from the policies included title of policy, entity or subject covered by the policy, date published, type of policy, agency that published the policy, and its objectives.

The review and analysis of the policies were anchored to the nine categories for developing sustainable capacity for biosafety and biosecurity in low-resource countries: (1) country-/region-specific regulatory framework and guidelines or standards, (2) biosafety and biosecurity awareness, (3) infrastructure, (4) equipment, reagents, and services, (5) management and administrative controls, (6) biosafety curricula, (7) training, (8) biosafety associations, professional competency, and credentialing, and (9) individual mentoring and organizational twinning. 22

Stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder analysis is “a process of systematically gathering and analyzing information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and/or implementing a policy or program.” 23 This analysis is conducted before policy is implemented for policymakers to detect and act to prevent potential misunderstandings about and/or opposition to the policy or program.

Forty-six participants were involved in the stakeholder analysis activity. The participants, majority of whom are biosafety officers, were divided into seven groups categorized as academe (3), clinical (2), research (1), and associations and private sector (1). Each group was first asked to identify stakeholders with the following guide questions 24 :

• Who will be affected?
• Will the impact be local, national, or international?
• Who has the power to influence the outcome?
• Who are the potential allies and opponents?
• Are there people whose voices or interests in the issue may not be heard?
• Who will be responsible for managing the outcome?
• Who can contribute financial or technical resources?

After stakeholder identification, each group was tasked to fill in a stakeholder analysis table designed to provide the following information:

• Stakeholder involved
• Ideal roles of the stakeholder
• Basis of each ideal role
• Resources available to stakeholder
• Adequacy of resources available to the stakeholder
• Possible reaction of the stakeholder to a biosafety framework for nongenetically modified organism (GMO) facilities

Groups presented their outputs to the plenary, followed by a synthesis to verify, consolidate, and agree upon the identified stakeholders, and their roles, resources, and reactions to the policy framework being developed.

Policy outcome activity

Policy outcomes are short- or long-term changes after policy implementation and the extent to which those changes can be attributed to the policy. 25 As part of the policy process, early identification of desired outcomes and its evaluation may inform and improve policy development, adaption, implementation, effectiveness, and build evidence for policy interventions. 26

Thirty-eight participants were involved in the activity. The participants, majority of whom are biosafety officers, were divided into six groups: academe (3), clinical (2), and research, associations, and private sector (1).

Each group was tasked to come up with a list of their desired policy outcomes with this question in mind: “What does success look like for this policy framework?” The lists were collected and synthesized by the moderator then presented to the plenary for validation. As a plenary, the pros and cons of each desired policy outcome were identified.

To identify the top three desired policy outcomes, each participant was allotted three votes. Participants could distribute their three votes equally to their top three choices, limit themselves to two choices by preferring one over another, or give all their three votes to one desired policy outcome. A secret ballot method was used to ensure anonymity of choices by the participants. The casting of votes by each participant was overseen by two moderators to ensure each participant did not exceed their three-vote limit.

Tabletop exercise and gap analysis

A tabletop exercise makes use of the participatory approach and calls on key emergency response personnel to discuss a given simulated emergency situation. Participants usually discuss which specific steps to take and what roles are assigned at each stage of the emergency. 27 Tabletop exercises provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of public health emergency preparedness and address these gaps by assessing capabilities, training staff, and forging relationships. 28

Fifteen participants in total were involved in the tabletop exercise, representing government agencies and academe. Two groups were formed, one group with eight members and another with seven members. Both groups were tasked to discuss existing response mechanisms activated and communications required in all phases and subevents in a scenario involving a suspected disease outbreak of African swine fever in a setting similar to the Philippines ( Table 1 ). Discussions were facilitated within each group as each phase of the biological incident was presented. If a capability or communication was considered a necessity by the circumstances outlined in the scenario but was not a real-world capability, it was thus identified as a gap.

Events and subevents in the tabletop exercise

ASF, African swine fever; RADDL, Regional Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory.

Phase 2: Framework Development

Key assessment results from Phase 1 were used to draft the National Biorisk Management Framework. A Charter Working Group (CWG) was formed to aid in framework development. Representatives were rigorously chosen based on their authority and expertise in the field of agriculture, health, laboratories, industry, and security.

Three consultations were held on November 5, November 28, and December 3, 2018. During the series of meetings, the CWG members were presented the draft biorisk management framework and asked to investigate the framework in detail, provide feedback, identify key issues, and provide valuable technical input relevant to their area of expertise.

Policy Review

The search strategy yielded a total of 41 issuances composed of 22 administrative orders, 6 republic acts, 7 guidelines, 2 department circulars, 2 EOs, 1 manual, and 1 United Nations Resolution. Biosafety and biosecurity in the Philippines is mainly anchored on four policies ( Table 2 ).

Four main policies and their objectives

EO, executive order.

The policies and issuances scoped cover 27 regulatory subjects, which include health products, facilities, animals, plants, and drugs, among others. Issuances covering each regulatory subject were analyzed according to the nine categories for developing sustainable capacity for biosafety and biosecurity in low-resource countries ( Table 3 ). 22

Summary of policies and regulatory subjects covered according to nine categories for developing sustainable capacity for biosafety and biosecurity in low-resource countries

Heckert et al. 22

EVD, Ebola virus disease; GMOs, genetically modified organisms; HFMD, hand, foot, and mouth disease; MERS-COV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus; TB, tuberculosis.

Country-/region-specific regulatory framework and guidelines or standards

Seventeen of the 27 entities follow a specific regulatory framework, guideline, or standard. These are determined by a government agency, a committee or board, or follow existing international guidelines. The frameworks are usually concerned with regulation of an entity and include establishment of standards, practices, and monitoring and evaluation plan.

Biosafety awareness

Three out of the 27 entities have policies that discuss awareness. It includes mandates on biosafety promotion, participation, and development of advocacy materials and risk communication plans. It also states the need for policymakers to be aware and provided with sufficient and current information on biosafety.

Infrastructure

Sixteen of 27 entities have policies related to infrastructure. The level of detail provided in the guidelines for infrastructure varies between entities. Some entities, such as animal facilities and clinical laboratories, are provided with broad guidelines. Conversely, guidelines for GMOs provide detailed information for physical containment according to four biosafety levels.

Management processes and administrative controls

Nineteen of the 27 entities are provided with governance mechanisms through a policy. A government agency, a network of agencies, or a committee created through an issuance oversees the implementation of a policy framework, guidelines, or standards. These policies also outline the responsibilities of municipal, city, and regional counterparts of national offices, when applicable.

Eight of 27 entities are provided with training guidelines in their handling, transport, and use for staff. The policies outline capacity-building programs, continuing education programs, and minimum training and skill requirements for staff.

No mandates were found for the following categories: biosafety curricula; biosafety association, professional competency, and credentialing; and individual mentoring and organizational twinning.

Stakeholder Analysis

A total of 28 stakeholders were identified by the participants. Twenty-two of the 28 identified stakeholders were government institutions. Six stakeholders identified include academic institutions, training centers, associations, and civil society organizations. Identified stakeholders were further analyzed according to ideal roles, basis for ideal role, resources available and adequacy, and reaction to framework.

Ideal roles and basis for ideal role

Ideal roles identified by the participants closely follow current functions that the various stakeholders already perform. Most roles are concerned with the integration or strengthening of existing rules and regulations for biosafety and biosecurity. Twenty-four out of 28 stakeholders have a legal mandate as basis for the roles identified to them by the participants ( Table 4 ).

Ideal roles of identified stakeholders

BMC, biological materials of concern.

Resources available and adequacy

Commonly identified resources available to the stakeholders were legislation, funding, capacity building, manpower, and facility/technology/machinery ( Table 5 ).

Resources available and adequacy of identified resources

Possible reaction of stakeholder to being included in proposed policy framework

Participants strongly linked receptiveness with the ideal roles identified to the stakeholders. Stakeholders who are currently performing their ideal roles or have the resources to perform them were perceived to be more receptive. Stakeholders with unfamiliar functions or mandates to participants were less likely to be perceived as receptive ( Table 6 ).

Possible reaction to inclusion in framework

Policy Outcome Activity

A total of 114 votes were cast by 38 participants ( Table 7 ). The top three desired policy outcomes were (1) capacitating existing facilities to comply with the proposed policy, (2) professionalization of biosafety officer/creation of plantilla (a government-approved regular position), and (3) enhancing quality of laboratories.

Policy outcome activity results

ABOT, Advanced Biosafety Officer Training; CPD, Continuing Professional Development.

The desired policy outcomes were concerned with improving responsiveness and equity of facilities. This is manifested in the identified pros and cons of the outcomes. Pros include improved quality, increased client satisfaction, conduct of safe research, and increased employee satisfaction and retention. Cons identified include lack of budget, unrealistic timelines, lack of accountability, decreased access to facilities due to shutdowns, worker fatigue, and lack of manpower.

Tabletop Exercise and Gap Analysis

Based on the discussions, current response mechanisms are initiated with (1) an investigation and preparation of a case report by the lead veterinarian, (2) handling and transport of samples to the designated Regional Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, (3) coordination between animal and human health response, (4) activation of reporting mechanisms to the local government unit and other concerned agencies, (5) monitoring and surveillance of other farms in surrounding areas, (6) quarantine efforts, (7) interagency coordination at the local level, (8) channeling of information from local to national actors, and (9) media and press relations.

Across the existing response mechanisms already mentioned above, the following common gaps were revealed ( Table 8 ): weak implementation or noncompliance to existing standards and protocols, unclear coordination mechanisms for emergency response, lack of training and education, and limitations in human resources and infrastructure.

Gap analysis results

HR, human resource; SOPs, standard operating protocols.

Framework Development

Discussions in the three CWG meetings resulted to feedback on (1) framework design and (2) political strategy. Key recommendations are described hereunder.

To reconsider the formation of a new agency

Early drafts of the framework incorporated the establishment of the Biorisk Management Coordinating Agency, but the CWG advised against putting up a new agency, as it creates more bureaucratic processes. Instead, clarifying roles, capacitating existing institutions, and harmonizing existing efforts were recommended.

To anchor on key functions in biosafety and biosecurity

The design must be based on functions that need to be fulfilled in terms of biosafety and biosecurity, adopting a bottom-up approach, and incorporating inputs from frontline actors. These functions form the key areas of the framework in its current form.

To incorporate the four pillars of disaster risk reduction and management in the context of biohazards

Early drafts of the framework lacked proper emphasis on disaster risk reduction and management. The CWG advised the incorporation of the four pillars of disaster risk reduction and management, namely prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and rehabilitation and recovery, as the key contexts of the framework in its current form.

To consider the pivotal role of the Office of Civil Defense under the Department of National Defense

As the secretariat of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, the Office of Civil Defense has the power to direct various agencies when facing a threat. Thus, it was discussed as strategic to house biosafety and biosecurity functions under this office.

To consider the better policy route

The framework may be passed into law through a senate bill, house bill, or an EO signed by the president. It was agreed upon by the CWG that an EO would be the most strategic pursuit for this policy.

To address funding gaps in policy and implementation

There is a possibility that the bill may be passed into law, but not funded and thus, not properly implemented. The CWG emphasized the importance of stating clear funding mechanisms in the document.

Based on these results of the Phase 1 assessment and recommendations of the CWG, a National Biorisk Management Framework was formulated ( Figure 2 ). The proposed framework is composed of eight key areas in biosafety and biosecurity and four key contexts in risk reduction and management.

Proposed National Biorisk Management Framework.

In an increasingly connected world, emerging or re-emerging diseases and the deliberate or undeliberate release of infectious agents hold greater potential to affect populations across borders. 29 Global experience with SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009), and COVID-19 (2019) shows that pandemics have extensive health, social, and economic impact that has made the importance of biosafety and biosecurity preparedness more evident. 30–34 Advances in biotechnology has also leaped the application of biological sciences in the fields of health, agriculture, and environment, among others. However, this advancement comes with an increased risk for DURCs. 35 , 36 Although there are obvious benefits to biological research, the increased DURC risk has created a moral and ethical dilemma for the life sciences: do the benefits of the research outweigh the risks? 37 Creating a biosafety and biosecurity framework, therefore, presents the challenge of striking a balance between protecting public health while creating a sound regulatory environment necessary for research and innovation. 32 , 38

Expanding the Concepts of Biosafety and Biosecurity

The current Philippine National Biosafety Framework, EO 514, was part of a UN Environment Programme-Global Environment Facility initiative to assist countries in developing a national framework after the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Philippines EO 514 definition of biosafety suggests that biosafety policies may apply to multiple sectors related to biosafety. However, the scope of the framework is limited to products of modern biotechnology, exotic species, and invasive alien species, leaning heavily toward the agriculture and environment sector.

This concern was also raised by participants during the stakeholder analysis. First, established policies that have already defined “biosafety” may mean that a different terminology should be used in the framework being proposed that encompasses all activities related to biosafety, extending to public health, laboratory management, and outbreak response. Second, the current definition in EO 514 focuses on the potential harm of regulated articles. However, there is a growing recognition that access to information, processes, practices, and equipment is equally important as having access to a biological or hazardous material. 39 An expanded concept may be necessary that balances the perspectives of science, security, prevention, and preparedness beyond laboratory work. 15

Adopting Principles of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

Consistent with the definitional limitation, the current policy framework lacks emphasis on risk reduction and management functions in response to the rise of complex biological threats, regardless of the cause. The integration of biosafety and biosecurity efforts to prepare for and respond to these threats should be found at the heart of biorisk management, broadly defined as the assessment of risks, identification of measures to reduce risks, and development of processes to implement and review risk-reduction measures. 40 Although existing regulatory processes already form a significant part of risk prevention and mitigation, there should be improvement in how these functions tie up alongside other efforts in the country's overall disaster risk reduction and management framework, particularly in risk preparedness, response, rehabilitation, and recovery.

Limited Institutional Capacity and Sustainability for Regulatory Systems

The debate on whether regulation impedes innovation persists today as new technologies, particularly in the field of biological sciences, generate calls for application of the precautionary principle. 41 The precautionary principle is an approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge is lacking. 42 The relationship between regulation and innovation is complex and different regulatory instruments have varying effects on technological progress. 41 Although international legal frameworks for biosafety and biosecurity exist, these provide limited guidance on what constitutes a functional national regulatory framework. It is the responsibility of national governments to produce and implement evidence-based policies that apply the precautionary principle emphasized by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 36

Spearheaded by the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, the implementation of policies related to biosafety is a task shared by four government agencies. The Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Health, and Department of Science and Technology have multifaceted roles that involve biosafety and biosecurity policy development, accountability, and capacity building. This current system utilizes a combination of network and traditional command and control regulation. These agencies regulate overall biosafety activities in the country while also being the sole regulatory arm of entities under their mandate.

Results of our policy review shows that the four agencies have developed policies to regulate biosafety through enforcing guidelines and standards ( Table 2 ). Although these policies have been implemented, stakeholder analysis results show limited capacity of regulators to maintain this ( Table 5 ). Insufficient institutional capacity manifests in the limited training of regulatory personnel and variations in the level of detail between and within biosafety policies of different agencies. Current policies in training refer to continuing education for facility workers in relation to biosafety but do not include regulatory personnel. This is consistent with stakeholder analysis findings, wherein participants noted that some agencies should but do not currently have the technical expertise to develop or implement policies on biosafety and biosecurity.

The lack of consensus for some agencies also shows the need to determine their structure, current competencies, and how regulators are regulated. In appointing a regulator, there should be consideration that the regulator should be as informed as the regulatees. The question of “Who regulates the regulators?” must examine which external bodies or individuals have the authority to reconsider the decisions made by the regulators. 43

Responsive regulation maintains that regulators are more likely to succeed by using mechanisms that are responsive to the context, conduct, and culture of those being regulated. 44 A command and control approach, as is currently applied in the Philippines, is an appropriate form of regulation when all parties agree to minimum standards of quality. 45 However, there is currently little involvement of the general public in regulatory functions. The Philippine National Biosafety Framework limits public participation to information related to biosafety decisions and begins only from the time an application is received. There is still a need for collaboration in disseminating regulatory standards and establishing the state's authority as a regulatory body.

Coordination Mechanisms for Emergency Response at the Local Level

The gap analysis shows that at the local level, there are existing scenario-based protocols at each phase of the emergency response to potential disease outbreaks, but harmonization is lacking. Based on the findings of the tabletop exercise, efforts in the implementation of protocols in laboratory testing and operations; monitoring and surveillance; quarantine response; veterinary and clinical disease investigation; waste disposal and decontamination, media, and; law enforcement are concrete but uncoordinated.

In an ideal setting, these mechanisms are implemented by local responders from the Bureau of Fire Protection and Philippine National Police. However, clear coordination mechanisms required to bridge the gap between public health and national security are either lacking or slow in activation. To set up a robust response strategy, multidisciplinary networks with diagnostic capabilities in law enforcement and public health, including environmental, agricultural, food, veterinary, and clinical institutions, are necessary to handle both intentional and unintentional biorisk incidents. 46

A common framework for biosafety and biosecurity must be created to accurately assess the risks posed by biological threats and ensure understanding of multidisciplinary strategies needed to mitigate them. This can be achieved by considering four key points 40 : (1) difficulty in estimating likelihood and consequences of a biological threat, (2) the need for broad and comprehensive definitions of biosafety and biosecurity to bridge the gap between national security, life sciences, and public health communities, (3) inaccurate perception of risk and its implications in the response, and (4) synergy in research and formulation of policy.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Reforms in biosafety and biosecurity policies are expected to improve coordination, ensure sustainability, capacitate facilities, and professionalize biosafety officers. Because of the complexity of reforms necessary, success will require a consistent and coherent policy framework that (1) provides well-coordinated mechanisms for multidisciplinary and multilevel communication and interaction toward harmonized risk reduction and management; (2) establishes, benchmarks, develops, implements, and enforces guidelines on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management; (3) regulate facilities where implementation of such guidelines is considered essential for occupational safety and the health of the public; and (4) is financed by the General Appropriations Act as part of the national budget.

The COVID-19 pandemic has manifested the gaps identified in this study. Policies and support mechanisms that focus on workforce development, particularly on trainings and workshops, provide a low-investment but high-impact solution in reaching the reform goals. An effective training program provides a cost-efficient longer term solution for lower to middle-income economies as heavy reliance on infrastructure and engineering safeguards involves overhead costs being accrued over time, impeding local acceptance and sustainability. Awareness-level trainings to policymakers also provide a common language among stakeholders and start an avenue for collaborative discussions. These introductory trainings allow engaging champions from various sectors, increasing the likelihood of program sustainability and accelerating simultaneous capacity building among stakeholders. The multidisciplinary approach enables collaboration and linkage among agencies and other concerned entities to prepare for and respond to a biological event of any scale in a timely and consistent manner.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This study was funded by the University of the Philippines-National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency-Biological Threat Reduction Program.

• Privacy Policy
• Login/Register

Search form

FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP)

• Policy Articles
• Policy-Related News
• Accepted Manuscripts
• About E-Journal
• External Links

You are here

Philippine biosafety regulatory gaps and initiatives.

The Philippine Biosafety Regulations started out strong in biotechnology and leads the Southeast Asian Region. However, regulatory issues and concerns surfaced that slowed down the progress of the country. Initiatives are currently being done to answer and bridge the gaps. There is a need to establish a liability and redress mechanism to address potential damage from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However, ratification to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress is yet to be considered as the Philippines still lacks the capacity to implement such the Supplementary Protocol. The proposed change in language of the inclusion of socio-economic considerations (SECs) from “shall take into account” into “may take into account” aligns the regulation with the language in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, while also limiting the possibility of politicization which is experienced in countries with regulation shaped by SECs. Finally, the emergence of New Breeding Techniques allowed the regulation to be product-based, as compared to the previous process-based regulation of genetic engineering products. Further steps in regulatory reform should then be sensitive to scientific development, while also aiming for international regulatory harmonization. The initiatives will be important as the Philippines prepare for future biotechnology developments.

Keywords: liability and redress, socio-economic considerations (SECs), New Breeding Techniques (NBTs)

INTRODUCTION

The development of biosafety guidelines was prompted by the discovery and use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology in biotechnology research in the early 1970s in recognition of their potential hazards to the human health and the environment. The first set of biosafety guidelines was crafted and used for self-regulation of rDNA biotechnology researches at the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). As the use of rDNA biotech spreads to the national research network, the scientists prepared a proposal to establish the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) in 1990 through Executive Order 430. The NCBP formulated and published the Philippine Biosafety Guidelines Series 1 in 1991. Since then, NCBP has been serving as the national authority as regards the development of biosafety policies and guidelines in coordination with the concerned agencies and department, for activities involving modern biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (NAST, 2009). The Philippines has also ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), which requires the regulation of GMOs before they are subject to transboundary movements.   

A science-based regulation permitted the Philippines to be the first in Asia to have a GM crop commercialized in 2002—the Bt Corn. By 2006, the spread of cultivation enabled the country to join the ranks of biotech mega-countries (growing at least 50,000 hectares as reported by ISAAA 2016). To this date, the Philippines leads in Southeast Asia in GM crop cultivation. While the country had a strong start in GM research and production, progress has been evidently slower during the last decade especially with the shift in the biosafety policy from the Department of Agriculture Administrative Order no. 8 (DA-AO8) to the Joint Department Circular no. 1 (JDC-1) in 2016. This was the aftermath of a dispute over Bt Eggplant wherein local and internationally backed anti-GMO groups vandalized the field trials. The gap year in 2015 while the AO8 was under review suspended all ongoing and approved applications and forced them to resubmit under the new system of the JDC-1 (USDA-FAS 2020). Constraints in the regulatory process delayed the development of Bt Eggplant despite being on the brink of commercialization. As the national governments were busy with reforming DA-AO8 and crafting JDC-1, such has actually diverted their attention from other pressing issues such as the potential damage from GMOs, new breeding techniques, and socio-economic considerations. 

  The Cartagena Protocol opened the negotiations for establishing a legally binding international instrument for liability and redress, addressing potential damage from the transboundary movement of GMOs. However, the Philippines has not made any move on the international instrument, even if the country is one of the negotiators. Considering that damage may arise from the use of counterfeit seeds, which can be described as the unauthorized production and sale of GM corn seeds, there might be a need to consider ratifying the international instrument.

Another concern is whether the products of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) will be subject to regulation. NBTs are emerging technologies with wide applications in agricultural research, and the existing regulatory systems (not just in the Philippines but also in many other countries). Through SDN1 and SDN2 of NBTs, it is possible to develop genetically edited plant varieties that do not possess a foreign gene. By virtue of the absence of a foreign gene, scientists argue that such products are equivalent to conventionally developed varieties although the process falls under genetic engineering. However, the definition for GM and regulated articles are process-based and therefore guidelines have to be revised.

Lastly, the commitment of the Philippines to the Cartagena Protocol prompted JDC-1 to include socio-economic considerations (SEC); this too needs to be revisited. While SECs include the social, ethical, and economic concerns that can potentially cover the broader risks posed by the GM product, the question remains on whether SECs should be a mandatory requirement.

This paper discusses the above regulatory issues and concerns that need to be addressed by the Philippine regulatory system. There are already some initiatives being undertaken, and options which the country can pursue in moving forward.  The first section tackles the gap on mechanisms for liability and redress in addressing damage from LMOs. The second section discusses the emergence of NBTs and how this fits with the regulatory system. Finally, the last section looks at the implications of including/excluding socio-economic considerations.

GAP ON LIABILITY AND REDRESS

The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol

Article 27 in the Cartagena Protocol provided the opportunity for countries to establish laws and procedures addressing damage arising from the transboundary movement of GMOs, materializing into the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. The Supplementary Protocol puts persons (termed as operators) liable or responsible for damage caused by GMOs, ensuring they will undertake measures that will redress/remedy the damage (CropLife International, 2013). To be considered as damage, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or human health should be affected first, characterized by an adverse, measurable and significant effect (Nijar, 2012). There are two pathways to deal with the damage. First, in the administrative approach, a national authority has the power to identify and require the operator to take measures for the damage, or even implement response measures itself. Second, the civil liability approach defers to the domestic laws to settle the damage. The Nagoya-KL Supplementary Protocol has been open for signature and ratification since 2010 and as of October 2020, there are already 48 countries ratified to the Supplementary Protocol. However, the Philippines has not made a move to sign the Supplementary Protocol. As the Philippines continue to deal with GMOs, it may be worthwhile to consider having a liability and redress mechanism, but the limitations in adopting such mechanism should be also understood first. The next few sections weighs in on the factors at stake for the Philippines in ratifying the Supplementary Protocol.

Benefits of the Supplementary Protocol

With an established mechanism for liability and redress, it may promote an enabling environment for maximizing the benefit from GMOs. The mechanism will serve as fall back in the event of damage. In particular, countries with insufficient resources and are biological diversity hotspots will have more incentives to establish a liability regime (Santoso 2016). The Supplementary Protocol may also help implement the polluter who pays principle, where the cost of damage repair is shifted on the person liable and not on the society (Santoso et al., 2018). While that principle is already applied with regards to environmental damage, the Supplementary Protocol makes it relevant in the context of GMOs (de Guzman, 2001). Furthermore, many provisions, especially the article on civil liability procedures, defer to the domestic law which imposes a sense of flexibility on the countries. After all, the instrument was made a Supplementary Protocol instead of an amendment to the CPB to allow countries to assess whether ratification would align with their national priorities and interests, and to decide their own procedures for pursuing response measures (Jungcurt and Schabus, 2010). This provides room for the rules and procedures to fit in the context of the countries for easier implementation. The Supplementary Protocol may also provide an incentive to comply with environmental norms (Santoso et al,. 2018). The possibility of being liable to a damage and the burden for undertaking response measures may influence the operator to take more precautionary and preventive measures during its activities. In this sense, the extra caution to be exercised may generally lessen the possibility of damage occurrence.

Underlying issues of the Supplementary Protocol

There are challenges in the implementation of the Supplementary Protocol. First, the provisions are largely administrative in nature, owing to the lone article dedicated for the civil liability. Consequently, developing countries that are unfamiliar with the administrative approach may struggle in the implementation of the Supplementary Protocol. Second, substantial resources are needed to implement the Supplementary Protocol. During the negotiations, the financial guarantee is particularly a major point of discussion (Gupta and Orsini, 2017). This issue is particularly relevant when small operators become liable to large damage that is beyond their capacity to compensate. In the event that the operator fails to provide remedy, countries must be financially prepared to ensure that compensations or response measures will still happen. Financial resources are also needed in determining the occurrence of damage. For example, a baseline data is required in order to establish the occurrence of damage (Santoso et al.. 2018). Conducting the baselining activity, and even up to the monitoring and detection of damage, would require financial resources, and manpower as well.

The problem of counterfeit seeds

Damage can still occur through the use or movement of GMOs within the national boundary. However, the Nagoya-KL Supplementary Protocol was formulated to address only the potential damage coming from the transboundary movement of GMOs. Nevertheless, the principles and procedures in addressing damage provided in the Supplementary Protocol are still applicable to domestic damage. This can be the opportunity to establish a mechanism in addressing domestic damages, especially for countries already using GMOs without a formal liability regime. In the context of the Philippines, the issue of counterfeit seeds may be relevant in the discussions on the ratification to the Supplementary Protocol.

Counterfeit seeds contain the traits of a GM Corn that did not undergo the rigorous regulatory process, and are produced and sold by unauthorized people. Counterfeit seeds come in two forms: “ukay-ukay” seeds and “sige-sige” seeds. “Ukay-ukay” seeds are pilfered seeds from production areas, while “sige-sige” seeds are the offspring of the F1 GM seeds, consequently losing the vigor of the resistance trait (Aguiba, 2018). Counterfeit GM seeds are sold as conventional seeds, and thus, do not come with a refuge system as required for insect resistance management (IRM). The seed industry reported that the proliferation of counterfeit GM Corn seeds resulted in a decline of 18.6% in the adoption rate of GM corn in 2016 (Arcalas, 2018).

The inadequate implementation of the refuge system could encourage the evolution of the target pest resistance to the Bt toxin in GM corn, possibly compromising the effectivity of the GM technology and discouraging adoption by farmers (Bourguet et al., 2005). Superior pest populations may develop that will make pest management methods ineffective, and could adversely affect and damage biodiversity in the long run (Dhillon et al., 2011).

While there is no evidence yet to prove damage from counterfeit seeds, the potential of these seeds, and of GMOs in general, to cause damage should not be undermined. The need for a liability and redress mechanism is recognized, but necessary preparation in terms of financial resources and manpower is required to implement such mechanism. The Philippines may not be adequately equipped with the requirements for the implementation, considering that the country has not made a move on the Supplementary Protocol for several years. Nevertheless, the Philippines should still prepare for the possibility of ratification considering that there will be more engagement on biotechnology activities as indicated by the ongoing review of the existing regulatory system.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Legal basis of SECs

Regulatory oversight under the Cartagena Protocol largely focuses on the science-based risk assessment of GM products in relation to the human health and environment. However, Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol also leaves the possibility for countries to include the broader concerns of the public during the assessment, such as socio-economic considerations (Falck-Zepeda, 2009). The Protocol did not formalize the procedures in implementing SECs, which leaves flexibility for countries. In response, several countries including the Philippines, Brazil, and Kenya have expressed their willingness to include SECs in their frameworks (Falck-Zepeda 2009). Nevertheless, compliance with including socio-economic considerations in the decision making has been controversial among countries, and still remains as a major point of contention up to now. 

In the Philippines, SECs are reflected in the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) and JDC-1. The NBF required the issuing of guidelines for the conduct of socio-economic assessments, in which the effects on small farmers, indigenous people, and women among others will be accounted for. SECs are incorporated in the JDC-1 through the application process where a questionnaire regarding the potential socio-economic impacts of the product are answered and submitted. The SEC submissions are then evaluated by a biosafety committee, which may tap specially-appointed experts. However, proposals in the ongoing review of the JDC shifts the language of SEC inclusion from “shall take into account” into “may take into account” suggesting that SECs will now be optional and not mandatory. This aligns with the language provided in the CPB. Public consultations will be the avenue to account for SECs instead the application process. 

Benefits and implications of SEC inclusion

Some countries like Norway, Mexico, Thailand, and Egypt have increasingly incorporated SECs into their frameworks, moving away from science-based assessments and towards the broader and less quantifiable issues such as the societal and ethical concerns (Smyth and Phillips, 2014). Arguments for supporting the inclusion of SECs point out their relevance in protecting the rural and indigenous communities and their livelihoods against the negative impacts of GMOs to (Falck-Zepeda, 2009). The discussion regarding SECs is particularly relevant in countries that are biodiversity hotspots (Catacora-Vargas, 2012). Furthermore, there is a recognition that responsibility for each technological intervention does not end in the confinement of laboratories, and that developers have a social responsibility to fulfill once their products enter the market (Catacora-Vargas, 2012).

Inclusion of SECs will have several implications in the regulation. First, they may complicate the current biosafety regulatory process, especially in the decision-making (Mampuys, 2018). Scenarios may occur where the product is determined to be safe during the biosafety assessment but fails during the socio-economic assessment. It begs the question of how SECs will weigh against scientific evidence in reaching a decision for approval of the product. Second, clear rules and procedures must be in place to establish a predictable regulatory system. The imparted certainty and robustness can boost the interest of developers and encourage them to invest more in product development.

Lastly, there is also a corresponding increase in the regulatory cost and delays for each assessment which vary depending on the scope of the study (Falck-Zepeda and Zambrano, 2011). More resources and specialized personnel will be required for conducting such assessments, in which countries with insufficient capacity will experience difficulties. Higher cost may force public institutions with less available resources to explore other non-regulated technologies, potentially reducing the number of technologies to be released for the public (Falck-Zepeda and Zambrano, 2011). While the added cost will have direct impacts, a study has shown that delays will even have more impact in decreasing net benefits compared with the cost (Bayer et al,. 2010).

Politicization of SECs

While there are perceived benefits for society, experience shows that the societal dimension may not be the only focus of the SECs. As socio-economic considerations take on a bigger role in the regulation, product assessments tend to be more subject to politicization. Decisions will then be impacted more by the pressure exerted by environmental non-government organizations (eNGOs) lobbying against GMOs (Smyth and Phillips, 2014). Experience from countries that shaped their regulatory system using SECs such as in the European Union and Norway demonstrate how the political dimension is exploited in decision-making. In the EU, politicization is apparent where the precautionary principle is used as an excuse by politicians for banning GMOs despite having science-based information on the safety of GMOs (Aerni 2019). In Norway, GM Corn was prohibited in the country because of the skepticisms expressed by the public, particularly from non-government organizations and farmer unions, even if the product did not represent negative effects on health (Myskja and Myhr, 2020). These examples demonstrate how political pressure can be decisive in the decision-making for GM approval with little regard to scientific evidence.

Looking forward

The potential benefits of the inclusion of SECs in the decision making are already recognized internationally and our country has already expressed its interest. However, partaking in such direction entails rigorous preparation in terms of the capacity to implement and incorporate such assessments in the regulation. The inclusion of SECs in regulation also makes decision-making prone to political pressure, even if the biosafety assessments prove the safety of the products. Considering the ongoing JDC-1 reform that shifts the implementation of SECs to optional, SECs will have a limited role in decision-making which reduces the possibility for politicization of the regulation, while also promoting a science-based regulation. The reform also helps shape a more manageable system considering that the Philippines already lacks the needed resources to conduct socio-economic assessments. In hindsight, the reform on SECs may prove advantageous to the Philippines as it engages deeper in biotechnology.  

UNCERTAINTY AROUND NEW BREEDING TECHNIQUES

New plant breeding innovations

For many years, genetic engineering has been the premier molecular technique for plant breeding, which was also the basis for the establishment of regulation worldwide. However, science has come a long way as new and more sophisticated techniques based from the increased understanding of plant breeding has emerged in the past decade. The collection of these new techniques is termed as New Breeding Techniques.

NBTs shows promise as a tool for crop improvement by inducing genetic change not possible before. First, while genetic engineering allows the insertion of foreign DNA into cells, gene editing is capable of imparting genetic modification using the target organism’s own genome without having to transfer a whole gene from a different organism. Second, the highly precise nature of NBTs allow changes at specific sites in the genome with minimal unintended modifications, compared with the random, and consequently prone to off-site changes of genetic engineering techniques (Wolter et al,. 2019). Lastly, genetic engineering can only modify single traits, but NBTs allow simultaneous manipulation of multiple traits (Wolter et al,. 2019). The use of NBTs makes it advantageous to work with traits relevant to improving agricultural productivity such as disease resistance, insect resistance, and abiotic stress tolerance.

NBTs result to a large spectrum of products that fall between the products of genetic engineering and conventional breeding. Some techniques are only an improvement of conventional techniques (SDN1, SDN2), consequently inducing changes that are commonly found in nature or from techniques with a proven history of safe use (Sprink et al., 2016). Furthermore, those techniques result to final products without gene insertions, escaping the GM regulation (Araki and Ishii, 2015). Other techniques insert genes (SDN3) resulting to transgenic products or GMOs, qualifying for GM regulation. The heterogeneity of NBT products is the main challenge for regulation.

The problem of regulation

The existing GM regulation is process-based, where all products derived through genetic engineering are regulated, irrelevant of the characteristics of the final product. This is because the regulation was established in response to genetic engineering. Since similar products should be given the same level of regulatory oversight, it is logical that NBT products similar to their conventionally-bred counterparts should not trigger GM regulation (Conko et al,. 2016). However, the existing regulation does not distinguish these NBT products, and would instead classify them under the regulation. Therefore, the existing GM regulation is unfit for giving the NBT innovations commensurate regulatory oversight (Davison and Ammann, 2017). This posits the need to update the regulation into a product-based regulation.

The concept of a product-based regulation is aligned with the accumulated scientific development and experience in the past decades. Using the studies already conducted, the scientific community has reached a conclusion that the process used to produce an organism, whether it would be genetic engineering or any molecular tools, is unrelated to the level of risk of the resulting product (Conko et al., 2016). Therefore, in order to formulate a scientifically sound regulation, the product should be the primary consideration in deciding its regulation and not the process used to obtain the product (McHughen, 2016). Initiatives to address these NBTs through a product-based regulation have already started in the Philippines, which will be discussed in the next section.

Regulatory status of NBTs in the Philippines

In 2018, a team composed of Dr. Reynante L. Ordonio, Atty. Paz J. Benavidez II, Atty. Edmund Jason G. Baranda and Dr. Ruben L. Villareal was commissioned to review the research and regulatory landscape of NBTs and come up with a material that will help regulators formulate the appropriate framework. For the purpose of the study, the team set a criterion for determining regulation and consequently reviewed the known techniques as of 2018 whether they would give rise to products that will be regulated.

In the existing biosafety regulation, the articles produced using modern biotechnology and in possession of novel combinations of genetic materials will be subject to regulation, in which the term “novel combinations” is not defined. For the purpose of the study, the team came up with the definition as “those not likely formed in nature or not possible through conventional breeding” (Baranda et al., 2018). The proposal is well aligned with the scientifically-sound product-based regulation, as the regulation will only be triggered if the final products contain novel combinations.

In the same material, a fragment length threshold was also proposed where introduction of fragments shorter or equal to 19-base pairs (bp) can be considered as native sequences and thus would not be regulated, while sequences with at least 20-bp will trigger a review if the product falls under the regulation. However, in the update presented by Dr. Cariño last October 13, 2020 in the webinar “Regulation and Genome Edited Plants” organized by CGIAR, this rule was not mentioned in the current regulation update in the Philippines and might have been dropped. Nevertheless, the proposed definition for the novel combinations was retained. The updates to the Philippine regulation are expected to be released in the near future.

Rapid development in science for only a few years resulted to the current plethora of NBTs, and scientific progress is expected to be faster in the coming years. The emergence of NBTs exposed the problem that the existing legal framework has been outpaced and outdated by the scientific progress, causing a growing gap between innovation and regulation. Policy development will then be critical as it would influence the next generation of researches and innovations. This includes the technology transfer from the international scene into the country as well. Considering that local development alone would not support biotechnology development in the country, the Philippines should then work towards a more science-sensitive regulation, where the global scientific understanding on biotechnology is recognized and accommodated. This would encourage and permit knowledge-sharing, technology transfer, and trade of biotechnology innovations with other countries. Moving forward, as we continue to engage deeper in biotechnology, regulatory reforms should also be directed towards international harmonization.

There is an opportunity to address the pressing issues surrounding the GM regulation. Complying with the obligations on the Cartagena Protocol regarding liability and redress and SECs would require resources that the Philippines does not adequately have, which poses a challenge to their implementation. The country will have to delay its ratification to the Supplementary Protocol, but the need for a liability and redress mechanism should be considered in the future. The implementation of SECs will have to settle on a limited role as provided in the ongoing JDC-1 reform, emphasizing a science-based regulation. The regulatory update to accommodate NBTs through a product-based approach is scientifically sound, but further steps should be directed towards regulatory harmonization. The current initiatives will not only help the Philippines regain its momentum, but also help sustain engagements in biotechnology in the coming years.

Aerni, P. (2019). Politicizing the Precautionary Principle: Why Disregarding Facts Should Not Pass for Farsightedness. Front. Plant Sci, 10(1053). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01053

Aguiba, M.M. (2018). Monsanto asks government to regulate proliferating counterfeit Bt corn seeds. Manilla Bulletin. Retrieved May 13, 2020 from https://business.mb.com.ph/2018/02/02/monsanto-asks-government-to-regula...

Araki, M., & Ishii, T. (2015). Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends Plant Sci, 20. 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.01.010

Arcalas, J.Y. (2018). Flaw in law threatens to slow seeds sector’s success. Business Mirror. Retrieved March 10, 2020 from https://businessmirror.com.ph/2018/06/06/flaw-in-law-threatens-to-slow-s...

Baranda, E.J.G., Benavidez, P.J., Ordonio, R.L., & Villareal, R.L. (2018). A Review of the New Plant Breeding Techniques (NBT) from the Viewpoint of Regulation. Biotechnology Program Office, Department of Agriculture. 

Bayer, J.C., Norton, G.W., & Falck-Zepeda, J.B. (2010). Cost of compliance with biotechnology regulation in the Philippines: Implications for developing countries. AgBioForum, 13(1), 53-62.

Bourguet, D., Desquilbet, M., and Lemarié, S. (2005). Regulating insect resistance management: the case of non-Bt corn refuges in the US. Journal of Environmental Management, 76(3), 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.019

Catacora-Vargas, G. (2012). Socio-Economic Considerations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Insights for Effective Implementation. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 14(3), 1-17.

Conko, G., Kershen, D.L., Miller, H., & Parrott, W.A. (2016). A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nature Biotechnology, 34(5), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3568

Croplife International. (2013). Implementation Guide to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Retrieved March 24, 2020 from https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Implementation-Guide-to-...

Davison, J. & Ammann, K. (2017). New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology. GM Crops & Food, 8(1), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1289305

De Guzman, P. G. (2001). “Polluter Pays” Principle. Economic Issue of the Day, 2(3). Retrieved October 22, 2020 from https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidseid0103.pdf#:~:text=Th... .

Dhillon, M.K., Gujar, G.T. & Kalia, V. (2011). Impact of Bt cotton on insect biodiversity in cotton ecosystem in India. Pak. Entomol, 33(2), 161-165.

Falck-Zepeda, J.B. (2009). Socio-economic Considerations, Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: What are the Issues and What is at Stake? AgBioForum, 12(1), 90-107.

Falck-Zepeda, J.B. & Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: The Cartagena Protocol and national biosafety frameworks. Review of Policy Research 28(2), 171–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00488.x

Gupta, A. & Orsini, A. (2017). Liability, redress and the Cartagena Protocol. In E. Morgera & J. Razzaque (Eds.), Biodiversity and Nature Protection Law (pp. 445-454).

ISAAA (2006). ISAAA Briefs No. 32-2004. Retrieved August 27, 2020 from http://www.isaaa.org/kc/CBTNews/press_release/briefs32/ESummary/ES_Brief... )%2C%20Paraguay%20with%201.2%20million

Jungcurt, S. & Schabus, N. (2010). Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. RECIEL, 19(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2010.00677.x

Mampuys, R. (2018). Socio-economic Considerations in Regulatory Decision-making on Genetically Modified Crops. Collection of Biosafety Reviews, 10, 8-34.

McHughen, A. (2016). A critical assessment of regulatory triggers for products of biotechnology: Product vs. process. GM Crops & Food, 7(3-4), 125-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2016.1228516

Myskja, B.K. & Myhr, A.I. (2020). Non-safety Assessments of Genome-Edited Organisms: Should They be Included in Regulation? Sci Eng Ethics, 26(5), 2601–2627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00222-4

NAST. (2009). Biosafety Regulations in the Philippines: A Review of the First Fifteen Years, Preparing for the Next Fifteen. Submitted by the Philippines National Academy on Science and Technology (NAST) to the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), for the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) and the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS). Taguig

Nijar, G.S. (2012). The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis and implementation challenges. Int Environ Agreements, 13, 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9187-9

Santoso, W.Y. (2016). Bridging the Implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress in Indonesia. Indonesia Law Review, 1, 58-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v6n1.169

Santoso, W. Y., Sunarto, Martono, E., & Supriyono, H. (2018).  Designing the Implementation of Liability and Redress for Biosafety in Indonesia. European Food and Feed Law Review, 13(2).

Smyth, S.J., & Phillips, P.W.B. (2014). Risk, regulation and biotechnology: The case of GM crops. GM Crops & Food, 5(3), 170-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.945880

Sprink, T., Eriksson, D., Schiemann, J., & Hartung, F. (2016).  Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep, 35, 1493–1506. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2020. Philippines Agricultural Biotechnology Annual 2020. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report Number: RP2019-0036. 11 February 2020. Retrieved February 17, 2020 from https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/philippines-agricultural-biotechnology-ann...

Wolter, F., Schindele, P. & Puchta, H. (2019). Plant breeding at the speed of light: the power of CRISPR/Cas to generate directed genetic diversity at multiple sites. BMC Plant Biol, 19(176). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-019-1775-1

• Please login to bookmark this post

You may also like

Policies on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Products in Indonesia

The gap labels system of taiwan, magna carta for science & tehnology personnel: bridging the gap to keep the filipino s&t workers.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Assessment of the Biosafety and Biosecurity Landscape in the Philippines and the Development of the National Biorisk Management Framework

Affiliations.

• 1 National Training Center for Biosafety and Biosecurity, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines-Manila, Manila, Philippines.
• 2 Institute of Health Policy and Development Studies, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines-Manila, Manila, Philippines.
• PMID: 36034094
• PMCID: PMC9134340
• DOI: 10.1089/apb.20.0070

Introduction: The emergence of biological threats that can potentially affect millions emphasizes the need to develop a policy framework in the Philippines that can mount an adequate and well-coordinated response. The objective of the study was to assess, strengthen, and harmonize efforts in biorisk management through the development of a National Biorisk Management Framework. Methods: The development of the National Biorisk Management Framework was carried out in two phases: (1) assessment of the current biosafety and biosecurity landscape and (2) framework development. Results: This study identified policy gaps in the incorporation of biosafety in course curricula, professional development, and organizational twinning. The desired policy outcomes focus on increasing the capacity and quality of facilities, and the development of the biosafety officer profession. The tabletop exercises revealed weak implementation of existing protocols and unclear coordination mechanisms for emergency response. Based on these, a framework was drafted composed of eight key areas in biosafety and biosecurity, and four key contexts in risk reduction and management. Discussion and Conclusion: Reforms in biosafety and biosecurity policies are expected to improve coordination, ensure sustainability, capacitate facilities, and professionalize biosafety officers. Because of the complexity of reforms necessary, success will require a consistent and coherent policy framework that (1) provides well-coordinated mechanisms toward harmonized risk reduction and management, (2) establishes and enforces guidelines on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management, (3) regulates facilities essential for occupational safety and public health, and (4) is financed by the General Appropriations Act as part of the national budget.

Keywords: biorisk management; biosafety; biosecurity; policy analysis; policy gaps.

© Raul V. Destura et al. 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Methodology process.

Proposed National Biorisk Management Framework.

Similar articles

• A Cross-Sectional Survey to Assess Biorisk Management System in Research and Diagnostic Laboratories in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Muhammad J, Sarwar S, Khan T, Qasmi SA, Ikram A, Ahmad G, Zahid M, Durrani RH, Ahmed F. Muhammad J, et al. Front Public Health. 2021 Dec 17;9:766162. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.766162. eCollection 2021. Front Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34976925 Free PMC article.
• A Mentorship Program to Develop Biorisk Manuals for Laboratories in Pakistan. Sarwar S, Moreno MMN, Chaudhri M, Aamir UB, Ikram A. Sarwar S, et al. Appl Biosaf. 2022 Dec 1;27(4):219-224. doi: 10.1089/apb.2022.0007. Epub 2022 Nov 23. Appl Biosaf. 2022. PMID: 36761992 Free PMC article.
• Strengthening Biorisk Management Capacities in Burkina Faso: Contribution of the Global Health Security Agenda. Dama E, Orelle A, Nikiema A, Mandingar PD, Naby A, Bationo GB, Kéita MS, Pierson A, Sawadogo C, Koné RG. Dama E, et al. Health Secur. 2022 Nov-Dec;20(6):479-487. doi: 10.1089/hs.2019.0069. Epub 2022 Nov 18. Health Secur. 2022. PMID: 36399610 Free PMC article.
• Biosafety and biosecurity measures: management of biosafety level 3 facilities. Zaki AN. Zaki AN. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010 Nov;36 Suppl 1:S70-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2010.06.026. Epub 2010 Aug 30. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010. PMID: 20801002 Review.
• [Biorisk Management for Clinical Diagnostic Laboratories]. Shigematsu M. Shigematsu M. Rinsho Byori. 2016 Nov;64(11):1279-1289. Rinsho Byori. 2016. PMID: 30695310 Review. Japanese.
• National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines. Philippine Biosafety Guideline, Series 1. Manila, Philippines: NBCP; 1991.
• Conference of the Parties to the Convention. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Quebec, Canada: United Nations; 2003.
• Republic of the Philippines. Establishing the National Biosafety Framework, Prescribing Guidelines for Its Implementation, Strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes. No, 514, s, 2006. Manila, Philippines: Republic of the Philippines; 2006.
• Chua T. Biosafety & Biosecurity Challenges in the Asia Pacific Region. Geneva, Switzerland: Asia Pacific Bisoafety Association; 2008.
• Millet P. Gaps in the International Governance of Dual-Use Research of Concern. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Biosafety Regulatory Approach and Governance Mechanism of GM Crops in the Philippines

2019, Iapa Proceedings Conference

Related Papers

International Journal of Scientific and Management Research

Angela Austria

This study was conducted to narrate the experiences of farmers and local government unit (LGU) employees in the Municipalities of Villasis, Pangasinan and Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) particularly GM crops. This study also sought to identify the challenges encountered by the farmers and the LGUs in using GM crops and it also determined how the LGUs monitor and help the farmers in GM crop production. The findings of this study served as the basis for creating possible courses of action that the LGUs could do to help the farmers, especially the low-production farmers, maximize their production by using GM crops. The researchers employed qualitative research design, particularly the narrative approach through the conduct of one-on-one interviews with farmers and focus group discussion with LGU employees then specific themes were formulated to describe the experiences and challenges encountered by the farmers and the LGUs and how the LGUs monitor and help...

Lex Publica

Saida Talukder Rahi

Multiple challenges of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have led different countries to adopt quite different approaches for GM foods and crops. Among Developing Countries, In Bangladesh, commercial cultivation of GM crops is poised to receive approval, but the country faces constraints in reducing risks associated with the release and handling of GMOs. The primary goal of this study is to examine the various laws, policies, and regulations that Bangladesh has to regulate issues related to GM foods and to determine how current laws are applied to assess and manage risks associated with the introduction of GM crops. An analytical and qualitative approach was applied in this regard. In general, the concepts of intellectual property rights, trade, food safety, labeling, and public policy are relevant to GMOs. It is found that there are currently no laws enacted particularly to address the biosafety of GM crops and foods. Only the Biosafety Guidelines, a non-binding document, cover...

International Journal of Scientific World

Jacqueline Bagunu

Susana Carro-Ripalda , Joanildo Burity , brian wynne , Phil Macnaghten , Susana Carro

MARINA ABDUL MAJID

Malaysia's Biosafety Act 2007 proposes to address socio-economic considerations of Genetically Modified Organisms(SECGMOS) under Section 35 which mirrors Article 26(1) of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety(CPB). There exists a disagreement among parties to the CPB concerning the scope of SECGMOS under Article 26. Past negotiations of the CPB indicates that developing countries such as Malaysia and the African block had proposed for SECGMOs for fear that the introduction of GMOs would pose as a threat socially, economically and culturally to developing countries. SECGMOS complements social development, an aspect of sustainable development. Without a parameter for the scope of SECGMOS within the CPB, Malaysia will use its own discursion to implement Section 35 of its Biosafety Act 2007. This paper seeks to identify the means in enabling Malaysia to implement Section 35 of the Biosafety Act 2007. The methodology adopted in this study combines relevant references such as legislatio...

Woldeyesus Sinebo

The regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops is a topical issue in agriculture and environment over the past 2 decades. The objective of this paper is to recount regulatory and adoption practices in some developing countries that have successfully adopted GM crops so that aspiring countries may draw useful lessons and best practices for their biosafatey regulatory regimes. The first 11 mega-GM crops growing countries each with an area of more than one million hectares in 2014 were examined. Only five out of the 11 countries had smooth and orderly adoption of these crops as per the regulatory requirement of each country. In the remaining 6 countries (all developing countries), GM crops were either introduced across borders without official authorization, released prior to regulatory approval or unapproved seeds were sold along with the approved ones in violation to the existing regulations. Rapid expansion of transgenic crops over the past 2 decades in the developing world was a result of an intense desire by farmers to adopt these crops irrespective of regulatory roadblocks. Lack of workable biosafety regulatory system and political will to support GM crops encouraged unauthorized access to GM crop varieties. In certain cases, unregulated access in turn appeared to result in the adoption of substandard or spurious technology which undermined performance and productivity. An optimal interaction among the national agricultural innovation systems, biosafety regulatory bodies, biotech companies and high level policy makers is vital in making a workable regulated progress in the adoption of GM crops. Factoring forgone opportunities to farmers to benefit from GM crops arising from overregulation into biosafety risk analysis and decision making is suggested. Building functional biosafety regulatory systems that balances the needs of farmers to access and utilize the GM technology with the regulatory imperatives to ensure adequate safety to the environment and human health is recommended.

kavita Gupta

World Journal of Advance Research and Reviews

Sanjay Prakash Srivastava (Professor, Law)

The production of genetically modified crops for commercial release and agriculture resulting in a number of changes in the life style of an individual and farmers particularly. Scientists who analyze the impact of agricultural biotechnology from the socio-legal perspective; looked the tall claim of genetic engineering with suspicion. They claim alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or may have down side effect on external environmental factors. This research paper tries to explore and examine the concerns raised from the socio-legal perspective as society should have minimum scientific knowledge in reference to use of GMOs and its derivatives. It is concluded with the finding that a reasonable policy with regard to their use by the farmers and others stake holders need to be prepared.

Joanildo Burity , Phil Macnaghten

Susana Carro-Ripalda

Unless we examine why GM crops have not been universally ac- cepted as a public good, we will fail to understand the conditions under which ‘GM crops can help to feed the world’. The rise of genetically modified (GM) crops has been dramatic, but their uptake has not been the smooth nor universal transition predicted by its advocates. Controversy is present even in countries, such as the US, where approvals have been impressively rapid. All too commonly the regulation of GM crops has been challenged as inadequate, even biased. While public and regulatory debates about GM crops have been grid-locked in many parts of the world including the UK and EU, there are lessons to be learned from the global ‘rising powers’ who have experienced similar chal- lenges in governing GM, within their own cultural contexts. This research, undertaken by Durham University, in partnership with local research teams in Mexico, Brazil and India, and funded by The John Templeton Foundation under the banner ‘Can GM crops help to feed the world?’, reveals a diverse variety of factors that influence decisions surrounding the adoption of GM technologies, many of them cross-cultural and of global significance.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

The Journal of Peasant Studies

Tomas Larsson

Peter Newell

Madeline Suva

Godfrey Ramon

Journal of agricultural and Environmental Ethics

Anne I Myhr

World Development

Monika Szkarłat

Maite Salazar

Economic & Political Weekly

Krishna Ravi Srinivas

Daniel Valenzuela

Ronald Herring

Yaroslav Blume

ceri-sciences-po.org

Yves Tiberghien

Saturnina Halos

Ifpri Discussion Papers

Simon Mevel

International Journal of Engineering & Technology

Mohamad Hafis Aliaziz

Pablo Pellegrini

Kertha Patrika

orima davey

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

HealthTech in the Philippines

Quintus Lim

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark warning to the Philippines and the rest of the world: Good health is critical to economic and societal functioning, and countries that neglected their health sectors have reaped the consequences. At the same time, societal, medical, and regulatory attitudes toward health innovations such as telemedicine were upended, and the possibilities seemed limitless, if only for a few years. As priorities in 2024 turn toward economic recovery, it falls on health systems to retain their learnings from the pandemic and invest more heavily in technologies to strengthen health and care in the long term.

In the Philippines, matters of health care are often tethered inextricably to local politics. Concurrently, the humility and candidness of public discourse can be advantageous. Politicians, academia, and nongovernmental organizations alike are explicit on what needs to improve, and even government reports can be unusually blunt about their own performance. This clear-eyed view has partly translated into a steady improvement in health system capacity over the years.

Barangay (district) health stations have proliferated since 2004, and under-five mortality has halved since 1993. Sin taxes bring in revenue larger than the entire health budget, providing much-needed funding for UHC. Malaria has been suppressed, and additional laws on reproductive health, cancer, occupational safety, mental health, and integrated health services and financing have been passed.

In particular, the 2019 UHC Act marked a major milestone in equalizing access to health care. From a meager 38 percent coverage in 2000, all Filipinos will now be automatically enrolled, with health care increasingly delivered at the community level, focused on prevention, and integrated with the rest of the health system. The Department of Health (DOH) aims for Filipinos to be “among the healthiest people in Asia by 2040.”

Despite these advances, lifespans in the Philippines have risen relatively slowly since 1990 (Figure 1), and widespread stunting of children’s growth will continue to slow future advances in healthy life expectancy. This is not entirely an issue of income or geography—poorer countries such as India and larger archipelagoes such as Indonesia have lengthened lifespans more despite spending less. Such sobering statistics represent the unfinished work in Philippines health and care.

Related Content

Towards successful aging in asia.

Investing in America's Future: 2021 Policy Priorities and Solutions

Key Trends in Health at Milken Institute Global Conference 2023

Employer Investments in Digital, Whole-Person Health for Substance Use Disorders

Misophonia - A Giving Smarter Guide

Models for Financing Antibiotic Development to Address Antimicrobial Resistance

The Future of Aging

The price women pay for dementia: strategies to ease gender disparity and economic costs.

Racial Equity and Mental Health in the Workplace: Actions to Drive Systems Change