A struggle for control beyond the facts: examining constructs of GM technology in Philippine opinion columns

ABSTRACT

GM technology has constantly faced opposition in the Philippines. The debate heightened in 2016, when the Supreme Court halted the field testing of Bt eggplant, which triggered a public debate. This ruling was overturned, but GM technology remained in the public consciousness because of the general visibility of science, health, and food security issues. The researcher analyzed opinion columns in major Philippine news outlets from 2016-present to examine candid framings of the GM debate. Through inductive analysis, the researcher found that the debate represents a struggle for control. The crops are not so much monsters as they are hyperbolic jokes that do not meet their promises; they too, represent a foreign industrial invader that can be countered only by contextualized and localized farming. These findings add nuance to our understanding of the GM debate in the Global South.

Keywords:

• Opinion columns
• opinions on GMOs
• opinions on GM technology
• philippines and GMOs
• risk communication
• science communication

Introduction

The Philippines has long grown genetically modified crops, but this acquaintance with crops met with its most public pause in late 2015. At that point, the country’s Supreme Court announced what appeared to be a final decision on the field testing of genetically modified eggplant. The ruling seemed to be a blanket ban on all GM crops – and it prompted scientists to defend themselves, activists to speak out, and farmer groups to join in the protest. While Bt corn once cleared the country’s regulatory barricades years before, Bt eggplant was met with opposition; the Supreme Court applied the Precautionary Principle readily, citing lack of full scientific certainty in the crop. It was this absolute demand that echoed the call of protesters, but which was already studied as a means of misinterpreting the nature of science in previous research.¹ In response to the outcry from the scientific community, lawyers said that there was no ban, only a cease in activities pending improvement of approval and regulation procedures. This was still inimical to the livestock and agriculture industry, because the ruling included Bt corn, which is already in wide use. In 2016, the SC reversed its order, and GM crops were planted once again.

Years later, the issue of GM crops has still not died down, and it sometimes emerges when food-related issues come to the fore, or where agriculture becomes an issue worthy of both journalistic attention and political campaigning. The pandemic was actually quite a time for science to be in the spotlight; prior to COVID, Philippine media outlets were not as interested in science, and schools were at a loss as to how to remedy low science and math test scores in the student population. The lack of general interest in science could suggest, however, that in general, audiences might turn to media as their source of scientific knowledge.

In recent years, however, the Philippines has become ground zero not only for fake news, but for mistrust in broadcast and mainstream media. The 2022 elections were one such battlefield, where newspapers had to contend with fake news purveyors online who called the media biased. In such an atmosphere, scientific information has to fight against a population that no longer trusts what is labeled as fact, and instead follows what adheres closely to previous beliefs and deeply-held emotions.

What has changed in the GMO communication arena, in this age of reliance on social media and even TikTok? Previous work in communicating GMOs has assumed public knowledge deficits, but newer research considers the construction of knowledge as it is set against both society and risk.² Indeed, previous research often assumes that people simply lack information, that misinformation is the root of the problem, and that they simply need to be given more information by the experts. But there, too, is merit in examining how the issue is framed by those who operate outside the media attention cycle, and who are still trusted by people because of how they argue for or against a topic: the opinion columnist.

Studying opinion columns for a variety of audiences can allow us insight into the constructs of GM that pervade in a post-COVID world, where news media is not always trusted, and where thought leaders can provide a systematic narrative through which we can derive information on what people are exposed to. Whether or not such thought leaders are influential is not the point of such a study. Instead, the study aims to examine GMO constructs in opinion columns of mainstream and farmer media outlets, as these can be of importance to both policy makers and farmers – and as these can allow us to see how the nature of GMO communication has changed via those who choose to write about it.

The researcher therefore asks: How do opinion columnists in Filipino newspapers discuss the GMO issue? This all-encompassing research question covers the 2016 period, when the Supreme Court ordered a halt to field trials of Bt eggplant; and the 2020 period onwards, where a variety of issues, including the COVID-19 pandemic and a new halt to field trials, took place.

This paper will begin with a review of the literature, which looks at research on the nature of writing and how it has been studied, especially as it pertains to science, and in a variety of styles. Then, the researcher will discuss Nisbet’s Bottom-Up framing, now used in the framework of constructivism, as the theoretical framework of this study. This will be followed by a discussion of the methods used. Then, the researcher will provide a Results and Discussion section, which takes into account the major themes in how GMOs are talked about in opinion columns. Finally, the researcher will close with a Conclusion subheading, which summarizes the paper and provides implications and recommendations for future study.

Review of Related Literature

This review of related literature first examines research on writing and style, then the GM debate and how it has manifested and been studied in written pieces, across different platforms. Finally, the review examines research on writing about GM in the Philippine context. This review aims to provide a scholarly base to both guide discussion of findings later, and examine gaps in how GM writing has been understood in the developing world.

Writing and Styles in General

The act of writing is that of expression, but its product can reveal a variety of ideologies, attitudes, cultures, and stances that have long been studied in the literature. What is written reveals an author’s opinion, which can come from a mental model that comprises the author’s attitudes.³ To some researchers, writing pushes an agenda driven by one’s worldview.² Research indeed shows that well written narratives can draw sympathy from readers, which can then translate to attitudes later.⁴ Writing is divided into a wide range of overlapping genres. Research writing, for instance, is characterized by its tentativeness, which scientists use as a way to show humility while presenting untested claims with caution, as well as to encourage debate and discussion that is characteristic of the scientific enterprise.⁵ Some researchers might call this hedging, and it might include admitting the limits of one’s research, knowledge, framework, and methods, or expressing uncertainty about a current, volatile situation.^5,6 Journalistic writing, on the other hand, focuses on what is final and sure, and seeks to remove doubt.⁷

Academic writing is often characterized as that imbued with jargon; however, its construction and content are consistent with the nature of science: scientists use the standards of academic writing to portray both the tentativeness of science and the process by which results were obtained, with a structure that goes from abstract notions to the research findings, and then back once more to abstractions. Popular writing, on the other hand, removes this jargon and concentrates on results and implications, moving from specific examples, to the research, and back to specific examples to root the research in everyday experience.⁷ Both these types of writing can be confusing to read for their non-target audiences. Academic writing, in particular, has an impersonal voice that draws attention to the science and its process, rather than to who the science can apply to.

Narratives and storytelling follow another structure: they aim to transport audiences into a story by connecting them to characters, and, in so doing, possibly induce behavior change.⁴ Such a technique has been used in health communication, as it can make messages look less threatening and deliberate.

Research into writing and its characteristics takes multiple strategies. Thematic analysis can help researchers uncover meanings within the text, so that interpretation is based on the data.² Similar to this is grounded theory, which uses the data to uncover a variety of constructs, such as identifying actors and characterizing them, theorizing portrayals, or examining constructs of an abstract concept.¹ Researchers have also examined metaphor groups,⁸ or have linked the formal structures in the text to the context in which the text is surrounded.³ Researchers have also sought out specific stances in text, though they recommend a grounded approach to look for new stance constructions in order to remove limits on findings.⁶

Writing in Mainstream Media

Popular writing can help give science a boost in the national consciousness, considering how people rely on broadcast media for their information needs, and how trust is still high in media as a source.^9,10 Research indeed shows that media reporting can influence and reflect consumer attitudes and perceptions.^9,11–13 By extension, popular science writing can both inform people and shape how they view science as a field.⁷ Science, therefore, has to actively be a part of the public discourse, and scientists might need to talk in public, now more than ever.¹⁰

Some assumptions have been made of the nature of writing and how it can help decision making in GMO policy. Lore,⁹ for example, assumes that a neutral tone can spur people to make decisions, and that simply getting language experts to translate scientific terms for local newspapers will be enough to fashion a source attuned to an audience’s needs.

Writing about GMO science, however, is a complex process, and both journalists and scientists feel the pressure.¹⁴ Practitioners have recommended explaining the process, providing the public with a glossary to understand the science, bringing science to the forefront, using figures of speech while minimizing jargon, and training scientists to talk to the public.^10,13,14 Researchers also call for more research in how GM risk is expressed in the news¹⁵

The GM Debate

The GM debate has changed over decades, and both research and practice have examined different foci. For some researchers, the debate is that of ending world hunger vs. major health risks¹⁶; the patriotism associated with patronizing science in Europe vs. the ideology and politics of food in the US¹⁷; and individual vs. community preferences.¹⁷ These debates have been explored in research.

Newspapers

There is little research on how GM is covered in the press,¹⁶ which is surprising, given how people still turn to traditional media outlets for information even with social media being readily available.¹⁸ Newspapers remain an important and trusted source of coverage, as the leaders and political elite use them to gain insight that can help inform policy, and as readers use their content as their source of discussion, bringing issues to the public sphere.^11,16

Reporting about science is almost always tied to breaking news or an event that will need science for context. For some countries in the world, biotech coverage is difficult because sites of scientific happenings are far away, and there is no chance to talk about biotech unless outrage is raised.¹⁰ For journalists, however, the challenge is not simply about how to frame a story, but how to work within editorial guidelines, house rules, and journalistic conventions.¹⁰

Not all these conventions are interpreted correctly or exercised well: journalistic balance is often falsely created when scientists of opposing views are pitted against each other to provide the illusion of equality, even as one view might be fringe or of the minority^10,19; claims are often written with finality, using a single source, with no context, and a hyperfocus on the product rather than the process of science^10,20; and journalists often write short articles that lack an in-depth coverage of the issue.⁹ Journalists might also lack knowledge and training in science²¹ all while managing the debate between information and covering the views of varying stakeholders.¹⁰

That is not to say that journalists are the only ones to blame. From the view of journalists, scientists do not understand the nature of a good and timely story, cannot communicate, and often meddle in coverage.¹⁰ While scientists want wide coverage, journalists might select only frames, or foci that help people understand complex ideas: a frame emphasizes some parts by talking about them at length, and excluding others.²² Through frames, researchers can glimpse the agenda being set by a media outlet, or can see a framing contest in action, such as when news outlets try to set the definition for a specific issue in order to edge out other points of view.²²

Overall, researchers tend to look at the content and slant of GM news, and the approaches are often quantitative, with some studies focusing on the nature of the technology, others examining risks vs. benefits, and still others labeling the players in the issue as vandals, capitalists, or radicals.¹

Framing research has been used a good deal in studying how GM is covered in the press, since frames can have an influence on public attitudes.^10,18 The research goes beyond simply counting words and photographs, as powerful frames do not always need repetition.²²

Research into how GM science is written about also shows a changing landscape: some newspapers used to reference manipulation, which carries with it negative connotations, before shifting to GMO as a blanket term.²³ For newspapers in northern California, most news covers the points of view of scientists, government agencies, and industry, and not many other stakeholders.²² Swedish agricultural newspapers tend to be vague on what GMOs are for.²³ Russian news outlets write of GM as an economic weapon of the west, which Russia counters by crafting the image of Russian agriculture as the alternative, a tactic used by Russian media even when talking about non-GM issues.²⁴ China’s Communist Party-supported newspapers focus largely on GM benefits and health issues, with the media used to popularize science in order to reflect government action, provide education while erasing any notion of debates, and therefore allay public unease.¹¹

Research into visual representations of GM is sparse, though images can catch attention and might even be perceived as more salient, and difficult to argue against.⁴ On their own, however, visuals are not as powerful unless accompanied by a good narrative that transports people into a story, with characters with whom they can sympathize, and whose attitudes they can later adopt.

Research into the machinery of the press itself shows that for many news articles, the writing is out to please an industry if the same industry has a strong PR machinery in place to promote and defend itself.²⁰ Crawley,²² like Latham,²⁰ is critical of news media, seeing them as the guard dogs that maintain the status quo for the elites, though Crawley adds that news media help keep the community spirit for smaller, homogeneous groups.

Much research has been done on the elite press, but local news is fast becoming a source of insight, since local news can exert greater influence on government and policy.²² There, too, is less research on GM coverage in the global south. The few that emerge do provide an interesting picture of GM as an issue. Analysis of metaphor use in Filipino newspapers show that the narrative began with fear but shifted toward science-based reporting.⁸ News in Ghana and Nigeria was overwhelmingly negative, with articles drawing from industry and politicians¹⁴; the GM coverage was sometimes sourced from foreign outlets, so that the public might have perceived that science is only for developed countries.²¹ In Uganda, both coverage and perception of the issue were influenced by perceptions of capitalism, mistrust in the government, and misinformation.¹⁰

Kenya has been well studied in terms of GM coverage. Kenyan newspapers focused on benefits rather than risks, but when a big issue came about, risks came front and center; the newspapers also tended to reference scientists.¹⁵ After the GM ban, there was less coverage, which Ligami²⁵ associates with lower public awareness and knowledge. Studies of local language newspapers in the country showed that there was lower GM coverage, and that GM coverage had no scientific basis presented for the claims being made.⁹ Most coverage comprised a largely positive agricultural frame but rarely quoted farmers. The coverage also tended to be based on government press releases alone, which deprives people of the right to know information that might otherwise be learned from investigative reporting.

Researchers have also compared GM coverage between industrialized and developing countries. In a framing study comparing China, the US, and the UK, Ruan et al.¹⁸ found that factual, human interest, conflict, and regulation frames were most common across the countries. The responsibility for regulation, however, was framed differently: China wanted the government to act as regulator, the US turned to industry, and the UK placed the burden on the EU. Chinese news was also overwhelmingly positive, with a focus on the human interest frame; the same frame was negative for UK and US papers because they tended to cover people who opposed GM technology.

A study across countries showed that close to a tenth of articles published from 2019–2021 in the news media was negative and filled with misinformation, and that this figure was highest in Africa.¹⁹ Another cross-country study also found that GM coverage often focused on the vulnerable sectors of society: countries with higher poverty rates, more people, lower access to water, and a greater volume of agricultural land also tended to have more favorable GM coverage.¹⁶

Social Media

Social media can cover a variety of sites that supposedly reach out to a variety of audiences and that can ideally encourage debate.¹⁰ Social media, however, is governed by algorithms, so that at any one time, a user can see the news that they have trained the algorithm to see; rarely are people treated to a variety of views. In recent years, trolls and bots have made issues more visible on social media, giving them artificial popularity.¹²

Research on social media coverage of GM has shown that GM is hardly talked about online, while traditional media has tripled its coverage of the issue.¹² Organic foods do make the social media headlines, and research on comments on articles about them shows that information-based articles do not change people’s minds about organic foods – cost was not as grave a concern, because scaling up organic production was also considered modern farming, which organic food enthusiasts rejected.²⁶ The findings of a link to ideology were likewise reflected in a study of GM related topics in election-related materials in Mendocino County, California, where GM found itself in the same venting space for issues as diverse as globalization, private property rights, and public health and safety.²⁷

Editorial and Opinion Writing

The editorial section of the newspaper represents a break that newspapers once made from their ties with political parties.²⁸ The editorial separates the factual journalism from opinion; but it, too, is the space through which public intellectuals of varying voices can speak to promote public debate, encourage policy change, influence public opinion, and even push for desired outcomes in an election.^28–30 The editorial section, in particular, is the heart of the newspaper: it is the one place today where a newspaper can explicitly place its views as an organization, such that both the public and policy-makers are addressed.^28,30 Although some authors claim that the editorial is a newspaper’s way of speaking out against the government, research into war editorials in the US shows that editorials are often a reflection of government stance rather than a challenge of it.³¹

Editorials tend to follow a common flow²⁸: they state the newspaper’s position, define the issue in a specific way so that the editorial elucidates the problem, define what the consequences are of not solving the problem, identify the causes, and recommend treatment. In some cases, an editorial might provide a localized perspective of a global issue.³¹

Within the opinion section are columns: they are written for specific popular topics, but do not necessarily represent the position of the newspaper.³² Columns are written to be persuasive, to align the reader with the author’s position by adding to their knowledge or appealing to their beliefs.⁶ This is where editorials and columns can exert great power, since media becomes a source of information when readers are not well educated about an issue.²⁸

Newspaper reading, however, has diminished in recent years. In the 1990s, over half of all people read the newspaper and its editorials, but even then, older and elite readers were their primary audience – though this should come as no surprise, as they are the ones assumed to have both the power and influence to change policy.²⁸ In recent years, policy makers are the ones that pay editorials much attention.¹⁰

Research into editorials, though sparse, is valuable, because some issues might land in the editorial or opinion pages when the news cycle is extremely congested. These issues might include problems that minority groups have, or issues that do not benefit from large-scale PR machinery, or even research findings.¹⁰ While opinion writers are assumed to have their own views, research shows that some newspapers are awash in the same viewpoint, so that readers are presented with varying views of the same opinion.^28,29

In terms of writing, editorials have become more forceful in their advocacy.²⁸ An analysis of American vs. Iranian columns regarding the US’ role in Iran shows that Americans tend to be more personal in trying to identify with their readers, while Iranian writers tend to ask rhetorical questions.³² An analysis of columns in Turkey regarding GM technology, on the other hand, shows how the technology is tied to ideology and even Jewish ownership – quite a contentious issue in a predominantly Islamic country.²

When placed in the opinion section, science and risk, as fields, tend to be argued in a variety of ways, and researched in ways that are not always trustworthy. Rodriguez and Lee¹⁴ found that editorial writers would simply do quick Google searches to inform their work. In general, much of the negativity in coverage comes not from news, but opinion columns and letters to the editor.³³ As a result, some researchers encourage scientists to write opinion pieces.²¹

COVID is a good example of how opinion columns can be indicators of the state of how people regard science as a field. In a study of Nigerian editorials, Umukoro and Ogwezi³⁰ found that various frames were used to explain problems with COVID, with the largest being policy and health and safety. Shen et al.⁶ found that both editorials and medical research articles were tentative in how the spoke about the pandemic, which is to be expected, given its uncertainty and unpredictability.

In terms of GM research, Kenyan columns were pro-GM, and they formed part of a large voice amongst newspapers that brought the debate to the public sphere.²⁵ In Mendocino County, California, editorials were balanced in their treatment of the issue, though the GM-related content showed a lack of knowledge of GM and a concentration on anti-corporation sentiments.²⁷

Research on the Philippines

Research on the Philippines has shown that the media is a popular source of information and informal learning.⁸ Many news outlets, however, do not cover science extensively, which might lead people to look to opinion columns or feature articles for information.¹ This has led researchers to assume that media sets the agenda, and that science as portrayed in the press can impact public understanding and policy – but will these assumptions hold in a time post-COVID, and with changed media habits?

In general, educated audiences follow the elite press,³⁴, and in the Philippines, this is a very small fraction of the population: only a tenth read newspapers, but close to half of the population has access to the Internet and might source news through social media platforms such as Facebook.¹ GM crops are covered in varying ways, though the English language news tends to cover it negatively in the country.¹²

The latest hurdle to GM crop commercialization came in 2013, when the Supreme Court used the Writ of Kalikasan to hold back on planting Bt eggplant on the grounds that the crop violated the right of people to live in balance and harmony with nature. In response, scientists wrote about the crop’s safety. Previous research on coverage during this time showed that science was constructed as a field that looked for absolutes and proof, but was also discredited for acknowledging the limits of research.¹

In 2016, the ruling was reversed, and Bt eggplant field trials continued. But what information and opinions were people exposed to, and what narrative can they tell of the travails of GM crops in the country? Such research would provide insight into the emerging constructs of the technology, and it would require nuance by examining opinion columns in order to examine candid views that are not curtailed by editorial constraints.

Theory

This research assumed that the columns were candid expressions of opinions and representative of mental constructs of the concept of GMOs. To guide the unearthing of these mental constructs, the researcher used Nisbet’s³⁵ Bottom-Up Framing, which has been applied to studies of public framing of issues such as climate change.

A frame is a way to make sense of the world, and employing frames allows writers to parse information so that it is salient to specific groups. Journalists use frames to focus on a part of an issue that they believe is important to public understanding. Opinion columnists, too, can frame their arguments for or against GM technology in specific ways, and their writing can reveal not only these frames, but what these frames represent in terms of constructs.

Methods

The researcher used an inductive approach to unearth themes in the data that correspond to the columnists’ constructs of GM technology, and therefore its emergent narrative. The inductive approach relies on a close reading of the data rather than a predictive/prescriptive theoretical framework.³⁶ Using such an approach lifts limits on research, so that researchers can see themes that have not yet been elucidated by previous literature.

The researcher visited the websites of the top news outlets in the country: the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Philippine Star, and Rappler. The Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star are both broadsheets that enjoy wide readership; Rappler is an online-only outlet founded by Nobel Prize Laureate Maria Ressa. The researcher also searched through two other broadsheets with wide readership: The Manila Bulletin, whose website and Google search did not yield search results for opinion columns with references to GMOs; and Businessworld, whose articles were behind a paywall, and which therefore would not be accessible to anyone who would want to see the constructs of GMO technology in Philippine opinion columns.

The researcher used the search engine of each newspaper to look for “opinion” and “GMO.” The researcher also used Google to search the archives, adding “Name of Outlet” and “opinion” plus “GMO,” which yielded more results. The researcher selected only columns that were written after the 2016 ruling to continue Bt eggplant field trials, all the way to the present. Each article from the search was placed in a separate word processing file.

The researcher treated the data set as a whole, but took note of which article contained which data in case there would be significant differences found later on. The researcher analyzed the articles using Hatch’s³⁶ inductive analysis protocol. Similar in aims to Glaser and Strauss’ grounded analysis, this method aims to unearth themes from the data, and can be adapted to a variety of paradigms depending on its use. Hatch’s protocol is useful when data is gathered with broad focus, involving constant, close reading of the data, so that researchers can check if their themes are indeed grounded in the data. In this research, Hatch’s protocol was used to unearth themes which correspond to the constructs of GM in Philippine opinion columns.

The researcher first read through all the articles as a whole. Then, the researcher listed keyphrases or keywords in the data, which represented an aspect describing GM technology. These keyphrases and keywords are collectively called the frames of analysis. The researcher organized these keywords and keyphrases into semantic domains, which are classificatory phrases or sentences that provide a first layer of meaning in the data. Then, the researcher coded the data set according to the semantic domains. Once the data was grouped under semantic domains, the researcher analyzed data within each domain, and then across all domains, looking for patterns (repeats), relationships (links), and themes (overarching ideas). The researcher used these patterns, relationships, and themes to assemble a master outline, which represented the constructs of GM after the restoration of field testing in the country. The researcher used this master outline to code the entire data set, taking care to include both confirming and disconfirming data. This master outline also served as the subheadings of the Results section of this paper, which allowed the researcher to both provide evidence of the theme as substantiated by the data, and discuss the themes in light of previous research in the Discussion later.

The researcher used only publicly available columns, and did not interview authors or researchers. Constructivism relies on the constructs that are present in expression, rather than their origins. The columns are assumed to be written as genuine expressions of opinions, rather than those written as vetted by an editorial board.

Results

The researcher filtered only opinion columns that were about or mentioned GMOs in selected news outlets. The researcher found 8 columns from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 9 from the Philippine Star, and 3 from Rappler. Interestingly, there were no columns on GMOs in these three outlets from 2018–2019. These columns are listed, with their titles and general slant, below:

1. The Philippine Daily Inquirer

   1. Doctor, J. A. S. (March 3, 2016). Scientists broke biosafety law in releasing “Bt talong” – negative

   2. Lynas, M. (July 29, 2016). Boost for Bt Talong – positive

   3. Pulumbarit, A. Golden Rice: A Dengvaxia fiasco waiting to happen. (December 29, 2017). – negative

   4. Doyo, M. C. P. (December 3, 2020). Creepy conspiracy theories and the vaccine – neutral

   5. Butuyan, J. R. (November 15, 2021). An unrecognized environmental disaster – negative

   6. Butuyan, J. R. (April 26, 2021). 7 Reasons Why Government Fears Community Pantries – negative

   7. Diaz, G. (December 18, 2021). What’s so Golden About Golden Rice? – negative

   8. Tan, M. L. (April 26, 2022). Genetics, elections, pinakbet – positive

2. The Philippine Star

   1. Fernandez, R. (January 23, 2016). GM crops crucial to Philippine agri-security – positive

   2. Quejada, B. M. (February 3, 2016). Mga Reklamador Laban sa GMO (The Complainers Against GMO) – positive

   3. Quejada, B. M. (March 11, 2016). Ayos ang problema ng GMO sa Philippines my Philippines (The Problem of GMOs has Been Solved in the Philippines) – positive

   4. Quejada, B. M. (March 18, 2016). Ang GMO at SC (The GMO and the SC) – positive

   5. Ballescas, C. P. (September 5, 2020). Keep Bohol GM Free – negative

   6. Ballescas, C. P. (April 4, 2021). Help sustain GM free Bohol – negative

   7. Juan, C. U. (September 3, 2022). Is eating a political act? – negative

   8. Pamintuan, A. M. (December 2, 2022). Agriculture miracle – positive

   9. Ballescas, C. (April 22, 2023). Invest in Our Planet – negative

3. Rappler

   1. Rasco, E. (January 20, 2016). The SC’s Bt talong Decision: Error in Precaution? – positive

   2. Maslog, C. (May 30, 2021). Golden Rice Promise in Peril – negative

   3. Bouis, H. (August 4, 2021). More health-giving, life-saving vitamins and minerals through rice – positive

The researcher read through the articles as a whole and gathered 108 frames of analysis. These frames clustered into 19 semantic domains, all of which were retained after being used to code the data. The researcher then extracted patterns, relationships, and themes from the coded data under each semantic domain; and then examined all coded data across all 19 domains to extract patterns, relationships, and themes to encompass all domains. The researcher assembled these patterns, relationships, and themes within and across domains into a master outline, each heading of which contributes to the articulation of constructs of GM in opinion columns by Filipino columnists from 2016 to the present. The researcher used this Master Outline’s major headings to code the data, and found confirming, though very few disconfirming passages that allowed for a broader portrait of these constructs.

The researcher found four major themes in the data:

1) The Big World of the Commercial and the Small World of the Close: Establishing Control a. People Are Being Made to Do or Accept Things Without Their Knowledge and Against Their Will b. The Enemy of Farmers is a Machinery Over Which No One Has Control c. The Solutions Presented Do Not Address the Real Problems, and Are Often Crafted By Those in Power Who Do Not Understand the Poor d. Opposition to Technology is Not Anti-Science, But Acting Out Against Wide-Scale, Industry-Driven Disrespect for the Value of What is Contextual and Local 2) Boundaries Must be Drawn to Protect the Country 3) Scientists as Contrasting Automatons a. The Nature of Proof is Bound by Time: Scientists Look at Past Trends to Project the Future, But Non-Scientists Look at the Future and See Everything That is Lacking b. Scientists Fail at Basic Things, Even Those They Should Know About and are Trained In, And Do Not Have a Sense of Control 4) GM Crops Go from Projected Invaders Opening an Uncertain Future, to Hyperbolic Horrors that Do Not Meet their Promises.

In general, these themes and subthemes articulated a GM debate that was founded on establishing control, whether writers were for or against GM crops. For those against GM crops, control was meant to speak up against large scale commercial enterprises, which were encroaching on local contexts. For those siding with GM crops, control was needed to push crops through uncertain times and to ensure food security. It was the anti-GM voice, however, that predominated in its near singular tone of speaking out against industry and placing value on smaller, controlled spaces where local agriculture could thrive.

These themes and their subthemes are discussed, following the flow of the Master Outline in the Results section of this paper. The theme and subthemes are supported by extracts from the data labeled according to their author, year published, and outlet. The extracts have been edited for brevity, without losing their spirit: three-point ellipses (…) denote removal of words, while four-point ellipses (… .) denote removal of sentences. Passages in brackets indicate translation from the original Filipino vernacular, courtesy of the researcher.

The presentation of themes, subthemes, and supporting data is followed by a Discussion section, which relates the findings to previous literature and theory, and which articulates the construct of GM as unearthed from opinion columns.

The Big World of the Commercial and the Small World of the Close: Establishing Control

The arguments presented by the pro-GM camp are often laden with data, which assumes that a lack of knowledge of the scientific basis and advantages of GM crops is what drives the arguments of the anti-GM side. When the opposition’s claims become preposterous, the pro-GM camp labels the other party superstitious and ignorant.

This research, however, shows a much deeper argument: those who speak out against GM crops are actually asserting their independence, and are trying to find a means to control something that is being introduced from a wider world that apparently has neither regard for nor knowledge of the context of the Philippines.

This assertion stems from alienation, a critical theory concept that speaks of one’s isolation from one’s existence, such that one does not feel that they have control over what they do or make. In the columns, this was manifested in the view that both scientists and the public had no actual agency, that victimization meant control by larger entities that worked in the sidelines or background, and that the solutions being presented were not truly cognizant of the situation of the marginalized.

People Are Being Made to Do or Accept Things Without Their Knowledge and Against Their Will

Both the pro and anti-GM camps named three groups as victims: farmers who are forced to grow crops despite damage to their health and livelihood, consumers who are forced to accept GM often without consent, and scientists who are pushed to produce research because of public demand. The argument was the same from 2016, though scientists as a victim group were more apparent post-2016.

Lynas, 2016:farmers are forced to spray toxic insecticides up to 70 times during the growing season to prevent insect damage and make [Bt eggplant] marketable.

Doctor, 2016:the NBF additionally requires that the public be informed and be allowed to decide if they want bacteria-infested foods into their digestive systems and their surroundings.

Pulumbarit, 2016:In China, the public was outraged when grade school children were subjected to golden rice feed studies. Three Chinese officials were sacked for allowing the said feeding trials without informed consent among the parents or schoolteachers.

Butuyan, 2021:The unsuspecting offenders are subsistence farmers who have been driven to the hills and mountains where they slash and burn public land in order to turn them into upland cornfields.

Juan, 2022:We consumers are so spoiled we want our mangoes everyday, we want strawberries any month of the year and so we force our scientists to adopt what other GMO-believing countries have done.

The Enemy of Farmers is a Machinery Over Which No One Has Control

The farmers were perhaps those most named as the victims by both the pro and anti-GM camps. The farmers’ alienation came in the form of being forced to find ways to keep their livelihood intact, all because a greater power (consumers for their demands, industry for their profit, even the judiciary for wrong judgment on the Bt eggplant case) has control over farming practices. The most prevalent force was the push for commercialization, as though the agricultural industry itself were exerting direct pressure. This was true across the time period: to the pro-GM camp, the enemy was conventional farming, or even organic farming, whose advocates were limiting farmers’ choices.

Fernandez, 2016: Researchers have expressed concern that the use of child labor has become widespread in the country’s “pesticide-laced” eggplant industry … .One practice in which children are exposed to the hazards of the now multi-billion-peso industry is the use of “pesticide cocktails”, where maturing or ready-to-harvest eggplant fruits are dipped to protect them from pests.

Quejada, 2016:[That’s why I believe in “organic farming” but maybe we shouldn’t limit our farmers’ choices on the way they want to plant their crops]

The anti-GM columnists were constant in their naming of industry giants, which were referred to as Trojan horses across the time period.

Pulumbarit, 2017:Interestingly, while golden rice is planned to be distributed among farmers royalty-free, its patents are still owned by agrochem giant Syngenta, a Switzerland-based company whose products include genetically modified crops and pesticides. Syngenta was recently bought off by ChemChina, one of the largest chemical corporations in China. Golden rice is said to be a Trojan Horse that will further open our agricultural sector to seeds and inputs owned by huge agrochemical transnational corporations, including Syngenta and ChemChina.

Diaz, 2021:Led by the Department of Agriculture’s Philippine Rice Research Institute, the project appears to have the backing of the entire agriculture bureaucracy, not to mention the International Rice Research Institute and Swiss agrochemical giant Syngenta, owned by ChemChina … . Already one of the perennially poorest, most marginalized sectors in the country, our farmers were contending with a market flooded with imported rice when the pandemic hit. The push to put Golden Rice into our soil and markets thus struck me as misguided at best and opportunistic at worst.

The nature of oppression existed on different levels: what the farmers planted, where they could plant, how much they were allowed to earn, even how they could provide feedback on GM crops. Diaz, for example, talked about how indigenous people and local farmers were expected to respond in ten days, online, to the bid to plant GMOs in their province – a tall order for farmers who live in far flung areas, where there is no internet connection.

The Solutions Presented Do Not Address the Real Problems, and Are Often Crafted By Those in Power Who Do Not Understand the Poor

In addition to alienation by industry, the anti-GM camp claimed that the solutions being presented did not address real problems, and belie a lack of understanding of the true plight of the poor.

Diaz, 2021:Zen Soriano, national chair of the Amihan National Federation of Peasant Women, traced the problem of malnutrition to more fundamental issues, like poverty and landlessness. “[It’s true that we don’t get enough vitamins from the food we eat and food that are rich in vitamins are all around us, but the problem for the poor is not having access to land],”she said.

Pamintuan alludes to many of the larger-scale problems, which appear to be structural rather than micro-scale in nature.

Pamintuan, 2022: Most of the problems call for sustained, long-term structural reforms that enable marginalized farmers, fisherfolk and agroforestry workers to have sustainable livelihoods that lift them out of poverty and break their dependence on political patrons for their survival.

Ballescas, though referring to a combination of both GM and land reclamation, puts the two together as problems that seem to have a common theme: those in power not investing in people.

Ballescas, 2023: Everyone is enjoined to unite and support the call for governments to implement “real climate solutions, not reclamation,” and to invest in and prioritize our people, our province, our country, our planet.

Opposition to Technology is Not Anti-Science, But Acting Out Against Wide-Scale, Industry-Driven Disrespect for the Value of What is Contextual and Local

It is no wonder, then, that when the pro-GM camp provides information, they simply come across as accusing the anti-GM camp of being anti-science, irrational, and superstitious. The arguments the pro-GM camp use are data-driven, gathered over long periods of time in large swaths of land across the world – true to the form of quantitative scientific research, which places value on generalizability and replicability.

Bouis, 2021: Golden Rice has been thoroughly studied and poses no safety threat to humans or the environment. Currently, GMO crops are grown by more than 15 million farmers on 190 million hectares in 29 countries, including the Philippines.

Bouis, Lynas, and Quejada all call for scientific information to be brought to the fore. But what is this data supposedly pushing back against? One would think that the anti-GM camp is explicitly calling for more information. What the anti-GM camp is asking for, however, is not so much more data, but data that is local and contextual. It is a pushback of asserting boundaries – a pushback that demands nuancing of data, not more data from other places.

In particular, authors called out scientists for not respecting local customs, and for not involving locals in discussions.

Doctor, 2016:To comply with the legal requirement for public participation, Bt talong proponents simply posted a document the size of bond paper in barangay announcement boards. Then they asked the barangay captain and the municipal mayor to sign a certificate that public participation had taken place …

Ballescas has been highly assertive in this respect, and touts the province of Bohol and its assertion of its boundaries. This is constant across Ballescas’ work, in promoting what appears to be a local brand of agriculture, rather than one that bends to international demands. Ballescas calls for enhancement of programs for smaller communities, projecting this local effort as something that will be “for the world”.

Ballescas, 2020:This legal instrument remains a landmark achievement for Bohol, oft-cited and benchmarked by other local government units in their bid to prevent the introduction of GMO production in their towns and provinces … Bohol’s food revolution will be ultimately Bol-anon, and it will be GMO-free.

Ballescas, 2021:May all continue to protect Bohol’s people and environment especially Bohol’s pride as “a bailiwick, a haven and role model for safe, clean, healthy food for all, people and planet!”

Diaz, Butuyan, Ballescas, and Juan also tout the merits of agriculture carried out on a smaller scale. In particular, Diaz references the idea of “food sovereignty.” Butuyan calls for replacing corn with crops that do not use wide hectarage and larger volumes of water, and replacing large scale crops with local cash crops and vegetables. Butuyan expands this argument from its local context, to something that can be exercised on a wide scale to solve larger problems – in contrast to what appears to be a scientific approach, which uses large scale data to solve problems in smaller contexts.

Butuyan, 2021:The national government must support and promote the bold initiatives of local governments like Alcala. They’re providing solutions to our very serious problems of environmental devastation and rural poverty.

Ballescas lauds organic backyard gardening as a sustainable solution, one that excludes GMOs and that can lead to local progress. The author also calls constantly on the local government to help local farmers, and even speaks out against large-scale agriculture.

Ballescas, 2020:… must veer from grandiose industrialist agriculture solutions and should be oriented towards the development of resilient, sustainable and equitable food systems that are attuned to the local context, culture, and natural biodiversity.

Juan Explains the Process of Local Farming in Greater Detail.

Juan, 2021: The idea of Community-Supported Agriculture or CSA has to catch fire in the country. In this model, local farmers produce what they do best and a cluster of them are brought to market through subscription boxes … .But there has to be a community leader or group to organize the farmers, make sure they grow an assortment of vegetables and finally get subscribers to sign up to ensure the destination of the produce. This could be a model that the Department of Agriculture can start in local government units (LGUs) or an order the Secretary of Agriculture (aka the President) can give to his regional offices.

Juan is also particular about local constructs, such as seasonality; allowing fruits to be grown and eaten only in their season is a “sign of respect,” or at least a sign that one is observing rather than imposing on “Mother Nature.” Juan lumps GMOs with imported fruits and vegetables, a Western diet, and food waste – laying them all under the umbrella of problems that have to do with adopting modern ways that might not necessarily translate to Filipino contexts.

Quejada, however, also brings forth local contexts and welcomes more local participation. Quejada, moreover, brings in the voices of local farmers who eventually adopted Bt corn.

Quejada, 2016:[This Bt corn, they used to stop it from going to market because it was supposedly poisonous and bad for the body and the environment. Now, Bt corn is what strengthens our yellow corn crop, which is the primary product in our feedmills. Corn farmers now don’t want to plant any other variety if it’s not Bt].

It should be noted, however, that corn is a large scale crop – and the contrast still remains. Even with this local context, there seems to be a push for smaller, localized farming in response to what feels like a pressure from industry – not a pressure from science per se.

Boundaries Must Be Drawn to Protect the Country

This assertion of boundaries is meant to preserve local contexts, prevent contamination, and regulate movement and activity. These boundaries are both legal and physical. This boundary drawing takes different forms among pro and anti-GM writers. Quejada takes an early skeptical tone, comparing the Philippines to Bangladesh, where Bt eggplant went to market without having to undergo legal hurdles, and on the basis of scientific research. Later, Quejada sounds more exasperated when the regulatory mechanisms are laid:

Quejada, 2016:(Maybe the debates about GMO will finally be laid to rest, because the government itself has taken measures to strengthen the regulatory processes for them in the country)

Other writers, however, push the regulations because of possible “contamination.” Pulumbarit discussed the dangers of Golden Rice and compares the perceived lack of government regulations to that which occurred during the Dengvaxia controversy, when several Filipino children died because of purportedly receiving a dengue vaccine that triggered a fatal immune system reaction.

Pulumbarit, 2017:We should learn our lessons from the current Dengvaxia controversy, where the health of the people has been put at risk because the proper safety processes were not observed by the very authorities who should have been safeguarding our health. We implore our regulatory bodies to not commit the same mistake that might result to even graver harm to the people.

Ballescas, years later, touts tighter, provincial regulations as “landmark achievement[s]” that other local governments cite and use as benchmark. Any bid to reintroduce GMOs appears to be invasive.

Ballescas, 2020: … directly violative and desecrates the very intent of Bohol’s GMO-Free ordinance to protect and ensure the health of both our people and the environment from the negative threats and impacts of GMO cultivation

Ballescas, 2021: … now pro-actively calling for a unified stand to protect and preserve GMO-Free Bohol Provincial Ordinance No. 2003–010 … .instituting stringent measures to safeguard the health of the Boholanos and protect the ecological soundness of the Province of Bohol from the possible disastrous ill-effects of genetically modified organisms

These arguments provide more nuance to the deep-seated nature of the debate. The arguments represent a resentment of industry, a response to the invisible hand of Western economies on the Global South, and a call for smaller farms to rise up. There is not so much a protest against scientific research and thought. If there is reference to science, it is more so to the character of scientists, and how this character contrasts with what is expected of them.

Scientists as Contrasting Automatons

In previous research on media coverage of the GMO issue, researchers found that science was often misunderstood to be a field of absolute certainty, where scientists were forced to admit wrongdoing if they ever chanced to speak about not being “sure” of something. In columns across the 2016–2023 range, scientists also appeared to be alienated from their work, so that they seemed to be working under the forces of human greed, industry, and their own oppressive field. These were manifest in concepts such as time and habits.

The Nature of Proof is Bound by Time: Scientists Look at Past Trends to Project the Future, But Non-Scientists Look at the Future and See Everything That is Lacking

Most arguments defending GM crops have been about their safety as demonstrated by years of studies and trials. This argument encapsulates the nature of science itself: that scientists look at what is seen in past trends to project the future. This argument appears across the pro-GM columns, as though in answer to the question, “What can GM crops do?”

The anti-GM camp, however, while asking the question, also has a different view of the role of research. In their case, they look at past data to see what is not manifest; and in so doing, they project an uncertain and dangerous future. This takes two forms in the 2016 columns. In one form, the columnists recognize previous research, but look at unfulfilled promises, or what is shown to be lacking – even if that previous research is not given a name or credentials. This lack is then used to project a future filled with indefinable hazards.

Doctor, 2016: … independent scientific studies revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic benefits from Bt crops and plants, adverse effects on the environment associated with use of GM technology in agriculture, and serious health hazards from consumption of GM foods. For a biodiversity-rich country like the Philippines, the natural and unforeseen consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.

The lack takes a second form: the anti-GM camp asks for more research, so that whatever research is presented does not stand against the research that has yet to be done. The columns under this cluster also tend to talk about worries based on this lack.

Pulumbarit, 2016: In a public dialogue held by the National Anti-Poverty Commission last August, medical doctors warned that there are not enough data presented to establish safety of golden rice to human health thus warranting the disapproval of human feed trials. They are saying that more information is needed as the risks of eating golden rice are not yet known … Farmers are worried that the trait can transfer to other rice varieties or weedy relatives through cross-contamination once the open field testing is approved.

This is in stark contrast to pro-GM columns, where previous research is examined for what it demonstrates in order to project what can be achieved.

Lynas, 2016: Preliminary data from Bangladesh show that Bt eggplant farmers in that country have cut insecticide use by 80 percent or more, dramatically reducing environmental damage and improving farmers’ health. It also improves livelihoods as smallholder farmers spend less on chemicals and so get more profit from their crop.

Quejada, 2016: [Even the Philippine National Academy of Science and Technology released a statement that says that using GMOs is not dangerous, especially since they are the products of years of research. Bt corn has been used in the US for 30 years, and is now being used by a lot of farmers who plant yellow corn … Bt corn has also been around for over a decade in the Philippines, and to this day, we haven’t seen any bad effects on one’s heath – so if we use the technology correctly, surely we won’t affect our environment as well]

Rasco, 2016: Researchers on Bt talong from the University of the Philippines Los Baños have experimentally demonstrated that it is effective, and the use of this technology can dramatically reduce the current use of toxic chemical insecticides. The safety of Bt talong is strongly supported by experimental and other evidences.

Rasco, in particular, goes on to scold the Supreme court for judging adverse effects based on the law rather than on an evaluation of scientific research.

Later columns follow the same tack for anti-GM groups, though in the case of Maslog, with surprising irony: Maslog decries the volume of research that is being done, while at the same time criticizing the lack of research on aspects that the anti-GM camp wants more focus on.

Maslog, 2021: More “pilot-scale deployment of Golden Rice to selected communities for further research” means years, even decades, of additional research. People and funding agencies now have a right to ask: how much longer and how many more millions of dollars will it take? Is the end worth it?

Maslog is critical of the two-decade wait for Golden Rice, calling it an over-promise that is taking too long to fulfill. Though Maslog acknowledges the nature of scientific research, Maslog’s column hints at what appears to be impatience, as scientists have not put a date on when Golden Rice will be available, and as Maslog repeatedly talks about the crop falling short of its promises of nutrition and yield.

Maslog 2021: Have the Golden Rice scientists over-promised? One clear lesson here which caused disappointment is the way the scientific community overhyped the technology but failed to communicate clearly that the “soon” can translate to more than two decades.

Bouis and Pamintuan, in contrast, still focus on large amounts of research and what it says about the efficiency of GM as a strategy. Bouis talks about the wide hectarage of GM crops planted in many other countries, while Pamintuan focuses on the timeline of GM crop approvals in other countries.

The differing concepts of the nature of research are tied to differing understandings of the concept of time. To the pro-GM camp, the long time spent in both the laboratory and the field have also allowed GM crops to prove their worth. However, to the anti-GM camp, this long time of research stands in stark contrast to the extremely short time that scientists have given to participatory processes.

Newer, anti-GM columns also use the concept of time to talk about how science forces it, rather than accedes to it. Juan, for instance, lauds seasonality as a contrast to GM technology.

Juan, 2022: … if we listen and observe Mother Nature, every fruit has its time and season … Yet, we force the seasons and ask for fruits that are not in their prime. Because we want them on command or as we want, not as we need.

While scientists are preoccupied with proving the safety of speed and efficiency, the anti-GM camp actually sees time as consequential to crops, but not to research that goes into them. It is as though scientists were as inhuman as the crops that they are developing.

Scientists Fail at Basic Things, Even Those They Should Know About and are Trained In, And Do Not Have a Sense of Control

In previous research on coverage of GM crops, scientists appeared to be admitting wrongdoing, or at least working in a field that was not manifesting the perceived qualities of scientific work. In the opinion columns analyzed, scientists appeared to be alienated from their tasks, failing at what appeared to be common sense – as though they were in a world of their own.

Doctor, 2016: Despite claims by scientists that Bt eggplant is completely safe, its proponents as well as regulatory agencies failed to conduct independent risk assessments as required by the NBF … . who admitted that the agency lacked funds and the competence to conduct these assessments.

Pulumbarit was even more critical of scientists, laying their battle out against a “vigilant” public that was fighting back against authorities who were not doing their job.

Pulumbarit, 2017: Many times the golden rice proponents, and even government regulators, have assured the public of the safety and efficacy of the genetically modified crop and putting paramount importance to Filipino’s health and the environment. However, if not for the vigilance of the public, golden rice would have been approved as early as 2015.

In post-2016 columns, scientists still seemed to be doing things that defied common sense. Doyo (2020) called for scientists to debunk conspiracy theories that were then circulating about COVID. Diaz (2021) repeated that the public had too short a time to comment on the release of GM crops, so that scientists appeared uncaring.

Diaz, 2021: With so many objections left unanswered, there is a jarring disconnect between the smug celebratory tone of Golden Rice proponents about the push for its commercialization … and the continuous but unheeded demand by farmers and other stakeholders for more transparency and rigor in the process … The least that proponents can do is to be open and transparent about something that may pose a very real threat to our food systems

Other authors were more sober about the attitudes of scientists. Quejada (2016) for example, credited enlightenment regarding GM crops to the explanations of scientists. Maslog (2021) spoke about how scientists really could never speak with certainty, despite the judiciary’s need for certainty.

GM Crops Go from Projected Invaders Opening an Uncertain Future, to Hyperbolic Horrors That Do Not Meet Their Promises

In the 2016 columns, GM crops were generally framed as possibly invasive species. Doctor (2016), for example, used phrases such as “unforeseen consequences of contamination and genetic pollution” as well as “disastrous and irreversible.” Pulumbarit (2017) painted a dire picture of Golden Rice as something that would harm “unknowing populations” with “potential risks” for which scientists had no certainty. Even Quejada (2016), in two separate columns, talked about the beliefs at that time, that GMOs could make people gay or that GM crops could be likened to invasive aliens.

As though in response, Lynas (2016) called the protests “superstitious.” Quejada was more pointed in scolding those who protested loudly against GM crops:

Quejada (2016): [[The complainers] are the same people that go to restaurants that serve fries, tofu, and other foods whose main ingredients are GMOs].

These might have been contrasted by Pulumbarit’s referencing of research from India, which supposedly showed that Golden Rice was unfit for wider cultivation, but there was no precise reference for this research. Instead, Pulumbarit went on to talk about the worries of farmers about trait transference in open fields, and brought in the argument of an invasive corporation (a Trojan horse) rather than an invasive crop alone.

After 2016, however, GM crops were framed not as monsters, but as sentient sentries that came on the heels of government and industry. Butuyan (2021) bewailed the wide hectarage of yellow corn, and spoke of GM corn as part of the problem. Diaz (2021) saw the push for Golden Rice as “misguided … and opportunistic.” The culprit was government, which had created a joint department circular that did not provide avenues to control possible contamination, concrete penalties for wrong usage of the crop, and rules for independent risk assessment.

GM crops were also framed as failures. The failure was primarily that of nutrition, in that Golden Rice had too little beta carotene to be of any use (As mentioned by opinion columnists Diaz and Maslog, both columns of whom were published in 2021). Also notable were mentions of Golden Rice producing too low a yield to be deemed ready for commercialization.

Interestingly, GM Crops Still Suffered from Some Form of Labeling as Monsters, but the Claims Were so Outlandish, the Writers Themselves Ridiculed Them.

Doyo, 2020: The ones recently forwarded to me argued how the [COVID] vaccine would alter people’s DNA, making them akin to GMOs

Butuyan, 2021: 5. The government has discovered that vegetables distributed in community pantries contain genetically modified organisms developed by communist rebels. When consumed by the masses, they become communist zombies mouthing “Makibaka! Huwag matakot!”

(Fight! Don’t be afraid!)

Tan, 2022: Some of the fears are exaggerated, even concocted – I smile when I see labels like “non-GMO oatmeal” because there is, in fact, no GMO oatmeal.

Tan followed with a sobering reminder that he would be more worried about pesticides rather than GMOs.

Only Juan (2022) seemed to still equate large fruits with GM technology, and spoke about oversize but flavorless mangoes, custard apples, and cotton fruit, as well as off-season strawberries, which were supposedly genetically modified – but “supernatural, almost weird tasting.” There are no GM mangoes, custard apples, cotton fruit, or strawberries, however – but Juan used GMOs to, in effect, speak about industries that were trying to defy seasonality and time to simply make a profit.

Discussion

Opinion columns are candid rather than solicited-and-pressured opinions: they reflect mental models encapsulating author attitudes, worldviews, and agenda.^2,3 The opinion columns analyzed in this study reveal a debate that appears to be about voices speaking over each other and asserting control for one side, rather than a virtual Question-Answer that serves to show how each side responds to the other’s concerns.

The Philippine GM debate, moreover, is ideological in nature: both sides seem to be advocating for farmers, and both seem to be calling for farmers to be lifted out of their marginalization. However, this advocacy is no mere call for charity, but a demand for control by identifying GM with big industry that tries to provide safety that smaller farms cannot (pro) or that oppresses farmers by keeping them from enjoying the fruits of their labor (anti). The anti-GM camp, moreover, calls for context driven agriculture, which seems to also show a need for control via regulations, boundary drawing, and shortening the food distribution process.

This presents a different GM debate. In other parts of the world, the debates centered on hunger vs. health risk,¹⁶ patronizing local scientists,¹⁷ or individual preferences vs. the community.¹⁷ The need for control resembles Russian portrayals of GM as an economic weapon of the West that can be countered with local agriculture,²⁴ although this now appears to be a countering with localized agriculture that is smaller in its scope. GM’s conflation with globalization and anti-corporation sentiments also resembles findings from Giusti et al.²⁷ for election-related materials in California.

This analysis adds nuance to findings from Africa, where GM coverage was sourced from foreign outlets and therefore might have fueled the perception that GM is only for developed countries, or is a product of a government not to be trusted.^10,21 In the Philippine case, opinion columns were used to forward the perception that the technology itself was housed by large corporations in China and the West – large capitalist bases that could override Philippine agriculture as a tradition, not a trade.

The opinions have not changed, but have simply evolved in their focus. Where GM was once an invasive technology, it is now placed alongside ridicule and hyperbole, as a crop that has become a scare tactic that has met none of its promises. While early research in the Philippines shows that metaphors evolved toward science-based reporting,⁸ these columns show that the science is not as important as the industry that authorizes its use, and it is this kind of opinion that presumably dominates coverage given the lower popularity of mainstream news post-elections.

There, too, are similar themes to previous research. As with Chinese press,¹⁸ there was some expectation that regulation was a government responsibility. Unlike Pollock et al.,¹⁶ however, opinion columns tended to be less favorable toward GM despite the higher poverty rate and focus on vulnerable sectors of society.

Previous research on Philippine news has also shown that science was thought of as a field of proof and absolutes,¹ but opinion columns show another dimension: scientists are apparently laboring under an oppressive regime that curtails their freedoms and keeps them from operating as sensible human beings. This apparent infantilization of scientists is something that warrants future investigation in other outlets.

Conclusion

The Philippines is one of the pioneers of GM commercialization in Asia, but GM crops have constantly faced skepticism and backlash from a variety of parties. One of the most recent and major obstacles is 2016’s Supreme Court ruling that called for a stop to field trials of Bt eggplant. This was repeated, though with far less publicity, in 2023. The researcher examined opinion columns on GM technology from 2016 through to the present, to see how GM was constructed and talked about in a time when science is at the forefront of public discourse and consciousness. Opinion columns represent both writers’ frameworks of understanding an issue, and are an independent segment of newspapers that should be venues for thoughts and perspectives that might be more candid because they are ideally not aligned with partisan views.

The researcher found that the debate on GMOs was not a battle of who had more legitimate information, but was that of a struggle for control. This was especially pronounced in later columns, where anti-GM columnists lauded contextualized agriculture and small-scale farming because of its closeness to what was constructed as natural cycles of seasons and time. There was a sense of alienation of all parties involved, whether they were scientists who were being forced to create GM technology because of public demand, or farmers who were being forced to accept GM technology in desperation. In all these cases, GM became an exploitative technology that did not live up to its commercial promises, and was then likened to a hyperbolic joke. Scientists, for their part, differed greatly from non-scientists in their treatment of the concept of proof, and were framed as awkward humans who did not know how to function in commonsense ways.

This research articulates constructs of GMOs and GM technology, via the opinions of thought leaders in the Global South, both at a time when GMOs were in the spotlight and when they were not. This research also provides emergent constructs at a time of online misinformation and disinformation, and parses the deeper structural and philosophical assumptions of the GM debate, as a whole. The debate is undergirded, it appears, and on both sides, by power struggles as well as concern for the well-being of farmers. The nature of the power struggles can allow researchers to see beyond the limiting assumption of who has knowledge vs. who has none, and give a glimpse into how policymakers might view the debate, given that they are the most common readers of opinion columns.

These findings have implications for how we understand the GM debate. Pro-GM columnists have tended to use knowledge as their main weapon of counteracting misinformation about GM crops, but this does not address the deeply ideological stance that anti-GM columnists are employing. This stance reveals itself in how these columnists conflate GM technology with the invasion of foreign commercial entities (and not simply Western ones) that are seeking to disrupt local systems. As it stands, there is not so much a debate on the technology’s safety alone, but safety as it stands in the shadow of large industries that are assumed to carry a reputation of being careless with the places that they invade, and do not solve the problems that truly beset those that have to live with their technology.

The debate, too, tends to construct all players as being under pressures from a variety of places, and it is this shared construct that might allow the debaters to find common ground. The use of “facts,” therefore, is empty when it does not consider the concept of perceived pressures: industry upon farmers, consumer demand upon scientists, government upon consumers. Whether these pressures are real or not is immaterial; it is their perception that drives the advocacy for both parties, whether pro-GM (GM to relieve pressure on farmers to yield good crops in a short amount of time) and anti-GM (localized agriculture to relieve pressure to accept foreign technology). This then has implications for future debates, and the pressure construct might require further study in other country contexts.

This shared sense of pressures among scientific experts, farmers, and advocacy groups, moreover, can allow these opposing voices to find common ground, which might make discussions among them more fruitful. These discussions might aim to find ways by which these players can agree on ways to define and resolve these pressures, which can inform the crafting of policies that have to do with GM regulation, the process of GM testing, and rules on the role of farmers in adopting GM technology. Policy-making, therefore, does not rest on the views of scientists and facts alone, but on the shared voices of all stakeholders in the GM issue.

The debate also constructs the image of scientists as being alienated from their tasks, as though the facts were separate from the scientists that measured and reported them. This, too, must be considered when analyzing arguments for or against GM crops, as they have implications for how the role of science in society is understood. Again, research should look into constructs of scientists in science debates in the public sphere.

This research, however, used only opinion columns in major news outlets in the Philippines. There were no columns from newspapers that did not have a systematic archive for their articles or that were behind a paywall. There were also no columns taken from provincial or even farmer-focused newspapers, but these also had no searchable archives from which these columns could be downloaded. The current sample represents globally available opinion columns, which can readily be viewed across the world should anyone wish to explore the Philippine GM debate. Nevertheless, future research should also consider more opinion columns across a wider variety of outlets.

The columns were also drawn from a short period, representing a time when GM crops were at the center of news coverage. Future research should consider more opinion columns across a longer time frame, even when science is not the main topic of coverage. Such research might reveal more links to ideology, as the GM debate would have to be linked to current, more pressing events.

New research into the constructs present in GM-related opinion pieces can likewise apply the Bottom-Up Framing framework as a means to examine embedded constructs, and then use Inductive Analysis to unearth patterns, relationships, and themes that represent the science-related constructs in these pieces. New research could include national vs. regional newspapers, newspapers vs. magazines of farmers or advocacy groups, or even video-recorded opinions of online influencers. This in-depth approach can be applied in a variety of settings and add nuance to scholarly understanding of the GM debate, as well as help inform the crafting of inclusive policies.

The GM debate is still evolving, and its evolution is interesting in the wake of COVID, vaccination, and continuing public interest in health-related topics. The pandemic has also brought to light issues such as food security and sustainability, and GM technology finds itself mentioned alongside, even conflated, with these issues. A detailed understanding of these conflations between science and social problems, society and industry, and consumers and scientists might reveal deeper currents and more dimensions in this ongoing debate.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This publication was made possible through funding from Ateneo de Manila University’s Office of the Associate Vice President for Research, Creative Work, and Innovation and the Rizal LIbrary Open Access Publication Grant