HOW COULD BIG BUSINESS BE CONVINCED TO USE BIODEGRADABLE PACKAGING MATERIALS?

HOW COULD BIG BUSINESS BE CONVINCED TO USE BIODEGRADABLE PACKAGING MATERIALS? This question keeps troubling me: If there are already many alternatives to plastic packaging, why are big businesses still clinging to materials that are clearly destroying our environment? Whose job is it to convince them? And why does it seem like no one is pushing hard enough? Let us be honest. Big business does not move because of moral appeals alone. It moves because of profit, risk, and reputation. If biodegradable packaging is framed merely as an environmental “nice-to-have,” it will remain optional. But if it is presented as a business advantage — lowering long-term costs, attracting eco-conscious consumers, avoiding regulatory risks, and improving brand image — then suddenly it becomes essential. Globally, this shift is already happening. Surveys show that a growing number of consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally responsible products. International investors now look closely at ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) ratings before putting money into companies. In short, sustainability is no longer charity — it is strategy. So why are many large corporations here still dragging their feet? One reason is that the government sends mixed signals. We talk about sustainability, but enforcement is often weak. We promote innovation, but support is fragmented. We praise green behavior, but still make harmful materials cheaper and easier to use. The obvious agency to lead the charge is the DENR, but it does not seem to have enough muscle on its own. The DTI, which directly deals with manufacturers and big industry players, should be at the center of the transition. After all, packaging is a business issue as much as it is an environmental one. Meanwhile, the Department of Finance holds one of the strongest levers of all: incentives. Tax breaks, import duty reductions for eco-materials, and green financing could dramatically change corporate behavior overnight. Then there is the FDA, which must ensure that biodegradable food packaging is truly safe. LGUs play a crucial role through local bans and pilot programs. And the DOST should be aggressively supporting innovation — cassava-based plastics, bagasse packaging, seaweed films — technologies that we actually already see on social media every day. The question is: Is the government seeing them too? It really should not be a guessing game. We already know what works: DENR sets the rules. DTI works directly with industry. DOF provides financial carrots. FDA ensures consumer safety. LGUs enforce locally. DOST drives innovation. Together, they provide both the stick (regulation) and the carrot (incentives). Without both, big business will naturally choose the cheaper, dirtier option. And let us not forget why this is urgent. Every single day, more plastic flows into our oceans. Marine life dies. Fish ingest microplastics. And scientific studies now show that microplastics are entering the human body through food and water. This is no longer just about cleaning beaches. This is now about public health. If corporations truly understood that plastic pollution is now linked not only to dead turtles but to human disease, would they still move this slowly? I also believe the shift does not need to happen all at once. Businesses can start with phased adoption: beverage cups, produce bags, takeout containers — the most visible items first. Pilot programs work. Measurable impact builds confidence. Then scaling follows. So what is really stopping them? In my view, it is not technology. It is not even cost in the long term. What is missing is strong, coordinated leadership from the government — leadership that makes plastic the risky choice and biodegradable packaging the smart one. The clock is ticking. Every delay adds tons of plastic to seas, soil, and our own bodies. If we can regulate tobacco, fuel standards, and pharmaceuticals, why are we still tiptoeing around plastic packaging? Big business will not move just because we ask nicely. It will move when the system makes it the logical, profitable, and inevitable choice. And that, ultimately, is the government’s job. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-27-2026

WHAT? PESTICIDES IN OUR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES?

WHAT? PESTICIDES IN OUR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES? Perhaps we always knew that pesticides were present in our food. But do we really understand how serious the problem has become? The irony is painful. We eat fruits and vegetables to stay healthy — and yet these very foods may also be quietly making us sick. Recent testing in the United Kingdom should make all of us uneasy. Seventeen types of fruits and vegetables were examined, and scientists found 123 different chemicals, including 42 linked to cancer and 21 that disrupt hormones. The worst offenders? Grapes, grapefruit, limes, and bananas. One single sample of grapes contained residues of 16 different pesticides. That’s not a snack anymore — that’s a chemical cocktail. Government agencies insist that almost all these residues fall within “safe limits.” But here’s the catch: these limits are set by testing one chemical at a time. In real life, we don’t eat one pesticide at a time. We eat many at once. Scientists call this the “cocktail effect” — where multiple chemicals combined may become more toxic than each one alone. And the truth is, no one yet fully understands what this long-term chemical mixing is doing to our bodies. This raises uncomfortable questions for us in the Philippines. We know that poultry and livestock are inspected. But are our fruits and vegetables routinely tested for pesticide residues? If they are, the public rarely hears about it. If they are not, should the government not start now — before this turns into another silent public health crisis? I am not suggesting that every shipment be inspected. That would be unrealistic. But random testing, done consistently and transparently, is both practical and necessary. Supermarkets should also be required to conduct their own testing and publish the results. And what about the Bureau of Customs? Shouldn’t imported produce be randomly tested as well, especially when some pesticides banned abroad can still enter through imports? Even so, testing is only damage control. The real solution is upstream — in the way we farm. The long-term answer is clear: we must shift toward organic and low-chemical agriculture. Yes, organic produce is healthier. And yes, it is also more expensive — and that’s the problem. Good health should not be a luxury item. This is where the government must step in. Farmers use pesticides largely because they are cheap, effective, and aggressively marketed. But there are natural, low-cost alternatives — from plant-based sprays to biological pest control. These are not new ideas. What is missing is education, training, and sustained support. Does the Department of Agriculture have a strong, well-funded bureau fully dedicated to organic farming? If it does, we should hear more about it. If it does not, then we already know what must be created. I also believe that organic farming and food safety should be taught early — in public schools. Children should grow food, not just eat it. They should understand what goes into the soil, what goes into plants, and what eventually goes into their own bodies. That is how we build a culture that values clean food, not just cheap food. Some will argue: “Don’t scare people away from fruits and vegetables.” I agree. Fruits and vegetables remain essential to human health. The solution is not to eat less produce — it is to demand cleaner produce. Washing, peeling, and soaking help, but even scientists admit these methods cannot remove chemicals that have already been absorbed into the flesh. In other words, once the pesticide is inside the fruit, it is also inside us. So let me ask the uncomfortable question: Are we still eating for health — or are we slowly dosing ourselves with substances we barely understand? This is no longer just a farming issue. It is a public health issue, a consumer rights issue, and a national food security issue. If we truly care about health, we must start by cleaning the very food that we depend on to stay alive. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-26-2026

WHAT? MICROPLASTICS CAN TRAVEL TO OUR BRAINS?

WHAT? MICROPLASTICS CAN TRAVEL TO OUR BRAINS? I have heard of many horrors caused by plastic pollution — dead whales with stomachs full of sachets, rivers turned into floating garbage dumps, coral reefs smothered in waste. But this one beats them all. Microplastics, we now learn, can travel all the way to our brains. That is about as scary as scary can get. For years we comforted ourselves with the idea that plastic pollution was “somewhere out there” — in the oceans, in landfills, in distant ecosystems. But science is now telling us that what we casually throw away doesn’t stay away. It comes back to us through the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe — and now, even into the most protected organ of all, the human brain. A recent study published in Nature Medicine revealed something chilling: compared with samples from 2016, human brain tissues examined in 2024 showed about 50% higher levels of microplastics. One researcher even estimated that the human brain today could be 99.5% biological tissue and the rest plastic. That may sound like a metaphor — but it is grounded in laboratory measurement using advanced chemical analysis. Even more disturbing, the brains of people who had dementia were found to contain five times more microplastics than those without dementia. Scientists are careful to say this does not yet prove cause and effect. But how can anyone look at that data and not feel uneasy? How did we get so deep into this nightmare? Perhaps we always knew — at least intuitively — that the plastic we discard would someday return to haunt us. But no one imagined it would do so inside our bodies. Fish eat microplastics. We eat the fish. Microplastics enter the bloodstream. And now, studies suggest they can cross the blood–brain barrier — the very wall that is supposed to protect our minds from toxins. Is this nature’s way of collecting on a long-overdue debt? Is this the price of murdering our oceans with convenience and packaging? I do not want to be an alarmist, but I see enough reason for the government to seriously consider treating this as a national health and environmental emergency. This problem is no longer just about turtles and coral reefs. It is about our children’s brains. What should be done? First, we must stop the flow of plastics into the oceans — decisively and visibly. This means strict enforcement of waste laws, real bans on unnecessary single-use plastics, and accountability for major plastic producers. Second, we must conduct random inspections of fish and fish products in our markets to determine microplastic contamination. Consumers have the right to know what invisible toxins they are ingesting. Third, I suggest the creation of two national task forces. One for prevention, led by the DENR — to attack plastic at its source. Another for remediation and health monitoring, led by the DOH — to study exposure, risks, and early-warning indicators in humans. Scientists estimate that the average person may now ingest or inhale up to 250 grams of microplastics a year — about the size of a dinner plate. Let that number sink in. On the individual level, experts advise simple steps: avoid heating food in plastic, use glass or stainless steel containers, filter drinking water, reduce synthetic fabrics that shed plastic fibers, and say no to disposables. These are small acts — but multiplied by millions, they matter. Still, I must admit: this problem is so vast and so baffling that I myself may have run out of ideas. That is why I now issue a call for crowdsourcing. If you have an idea, a solution, a policy proposal, a new technology — let us bring it forward and submit it to the government. This is not just an environmental fight anymore. This is a fight for the integrity of the human mind itself. We once asked if plastic would destroy our oceans. Now we must ask: Will it destroy us from the inside out? BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-25-2026

DOES THE PHILIPPINES NEED AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICE FORCE?

DOES THE PHILIPPINES NEED AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICE FORCE? Let me ask a blunt question: how can we expect environmental laws to be respected when the agency tasked to protect the environment does not even have real police muscle? The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is, by law, our primary guardian of forests, wildlife, rivers, and seas. But let us be honest—DENR today enforces the law mostly with clipboards, confiscation receipts, and endless coordination letters. When things turn dangerous, it must call in the Philippine National Police (PNP) or even the Armed Forces. By then, timber, wildlife, minerals, and even evidence may already be gone. Compare that with other countries. Brazil’s IBAMA has armed enforcement agents. Indonesia has forest police units under its environment ministry. Kenya’s Wildlife Service even has paramilitary rangers. These countries face dangerous, well-funded syndicates, just like we do. And they answered the problem with dedicated environmental enforcers. Here in the Philippines, I am not even proposing a radical new agency. My suggestion is simpler and, I believe, more realistic: create an Environmental Patrol Group (EPG) under the PNP. We already have the Highway Patrol Group. Why not an EPG? I admit this sounds like a desperate idea. But I am desperate—desperate because illegal logging still thrives, wildlife trafficking continues, destructive fishing refuses to die, mining violations recur, and waste management laws are openly ignored in many localities. The DENR has enforcement powers on paper, yes, but not full police powers in practice. It relies on deputized officers and coordination. That fragmentation weakens everything. Some violators are not just “small offenders.” Some have private armies, political protectors, and deep pockets. How do you arrest that with nothing but warning letters? Sometimes, sadly, force must answer force—within the bounds of law, of course. But let me be clear: an Environmental Patrol Group should not be a trigger-happy unit roaming barangays with rifles. In everyday community work, it could focus on education—waste segregation, river protection, anti-littering, compliance with Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), sewage treatment plants (STPs), and sanitary landfills (SLFs). Law enforcement does not always mean handcuffs. Sometimes it means presence, persuasion, and consistency. This also brings us to a bigger question about governance. Interior ministries around the world focus on internal security, law enforcement, disaster response, and local government supervision. The Philippines follows this model through the DILG. The United States is a strange exception—its Department of the Interior is more about land, parks, and indigenous affairs than policing. We copied neither fully. We gave DENR the environment but not the force. We gave DILG the force but not the environment. The result? Gaps. Overlaps. And plenty of violators exploiting both. Of course, critics will say: creating or expanding a police unit costs money. True. There is also the fear of militarizing environmental protection. Also true. But is our current system working? If it were, our forests would not be shrinking so fast, our rivers would not be open sewers, and our seas would not be among the most overfished in the world. So here are my questions: Why must DENR beg for police support every time it enforces the law? Why not professionalize environmental enforcement within the PNP itself? Why not give environmental crimes the same seriousness we give traffic violations? We all say the environment is life. If that is true, then protecting it should never be treated as a weak, optional, secondary function of government. Whether through a full environmental police force or an Environmental Patrol Group under the PNP, one thing is clear to me: the environment needs enforcement with teeth, not just with talking points. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-24-2026

WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL ABOUT POLICE SHOOTING SUSPECTS?

WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL ABOUT POLICE SHOOTING SUSPECTS? Let me begin with a blunt statement that many people may find uncomfortable: there is no international protocol that gives police a blanket authority to shoot suspects. None. Zero. What exists instead are strict global rules that limit the use of firearms and treat every police shooting as an exceptional, last-resort act that must always be investigated. The most widely accepted standard is the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990). These are anchored on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which enshrine the right to life as sacred. The message is simple but firm: Police may only use lethal force to protect life, not to punish, not to arrest faster, not to prevent escape, and certainly not to send a message. Under international law, four principles always apply: necessity, proportionality, precaution, and accountability. Necessity means force may only be used if it is truly unavoidable. Proportionality means the response must match the level of threat. Precaution means police must plan operations to minimize harm to everyone. Accountability means every use of firearms must be reported, investigated, and reviewed. So can police shoot a suspect who draws a weapon? The honest international answer is: it depends on the threat. If a suspect draws a gun but does not aim it or threaten anyone, officers are expected to give warnings, create distance, seek cover, use negotiation, or employ less-lethal weapons if available. Shooting at that stage is not automatically justified. But once a suspect points a firearm or clearly prepares to use it, creating an imminent threat to life, the officer may lawfully shoot — not to kill — but to stop the threat and protect lives. Even then, it must still pass the tests of necessity and proportionality. What is absolutely forbidden under international law is this: You cannot shoot simply to stop a fleeing suspect. You cannot shoot to enforce obedience. You cannot shoot as punishment. And you certainly cannot treat every armed suspect as already “fair game.” Now let’s bring this discussion home to the Philippines. Here, the popular thinking on the street often sounds like this: “If the suspect draws a gun, the police can already shoot.” Many people even go further and say: “The suspect deserved it.” That kind of thinking is dangerous — for the police, for citizens, and for the rule of law. The correct interpretation, even under our own rules of police engagement, aligns with international standards: a drawn weapon alone is not yet an automatic death sentence. What changes everything is the creation of imminent danger — when the suspect clearly intends to use that weapon immediately. This distinction matters. Without it, every encounter becomes a potential summary execution. And international law is very clear: summary executions are a gross human rights violation. Another point often forgotten is this: law enforcement is a civilian service, not a military function. Police exist to protect rights, not suspend them. War logic has no place on the streets of a democracy. I also want to stress accountability. Under international standards, every discharge of a firearm must be investigated — even if the shooting appears justified. This is not anti-police. In fact, it protects good officers from false accusations and protects citizens from abuse. So I ask some hard but necessary questions: Are all police shootings in our country automatically reviewed by independent bodies? Is the public given transparent results of these investigations? Are officers regularly trained in de-escalation, not just in marksmanship? Do they have access to less-lethal options — tasers, shields, pepper spray — before bullets? If the answer to any of these is “no,” then we are not yet fully aligned with global standards. Let me be clear: I am not anti-police. I am pro-life, pro-rule of law, and pro-professional policing. The gun should always be the last resort, not the first reflex. In the end, the real question is not “Can police shoot?” The real question is: Have we built a system where guns are used only when all other options have truly failed — and where truth, justice, and accountability always follow after the gunfire stops? That, not fear, is what defines a civilized democracy. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-23-2026

LET’S SAVE THE ENDEMIC PIJANGA FISH IN LAKE MAINIT

LET’S SAVE THE ENDEMIC PIJANGA FISH IN LAKE MAINIT It is an old story that keeps coming back, and it never ends well. Man destroys a lake, an endemic species disappears, and with it goes the livelihood of everyone who depends on that lake. Today, that story is unfolding once again in Lake Mainit — this time with the slow, painful decline of the pijanga. Pijanga (Glossogobius giuris) is not just another fish. For the people of Agusan del Norte and Surigao del Norte, it is food on the table, cash in the pocket, and part of their everyday culture. Along the highway from Butuan to Surigao, motorists buy dried pijanga “by the piece,” a reminder that the lake is not just scenery — it is survival. But survival is now in question. A recent stock assessment presented by BFAR-Caraga paints a disturbing picture. From a peak catch of about 373 metric tons in 2016 and 2019, total landings fell to about 260 metric tons by 2024 — a decline of more than 30 percent. Worse, there are no signs of recovery. Even more alarming is the biological data: only 18 to 34 percent of the catch in recent years has reached reproductive maturity. That means most of the fish being pulled out of the lake have not even had a chance to reproduce. This is textbook overfishing. Veteran fishermen now catch in one trip what they used to catch in just a few throws of the net two decades ago. From 90 kilos per trip in 2008, some now bring home barely 20 kilos. The number of fishers has grown, fishing gears have multiplied, and enforcement has struggled to keep pace. The result is obvious: too many nets chasing too few fish in a lake that, no matter how deep, is still finite. So I ask: when shall we ever learn? If overfishing is the problem, why are closed seasons not being seriously enforced? If illegal fishing is rampant, why not immediately augment BFAR’s manpower with the Philippine National Police and the Coast Guard? If juvenile fish dominate the catch, why are size limits not being strictly policed at landing sites and public markets? Time is ticking. This is no longer a problem of “someday.” Every small pijanga caught today is one adult spawner lost tomorrow. I commend the local media for sounding the alarm early. Awareness is the first step. But awareness without decisive action is just noise. Are we really content with slow, piecemeal responses while a species found only in Lake Mainit quietly slides toward collapse? Let us be clear: if pijanga disappears, no amount of money, hatcheries, or technology can ever truly bring it back as an endemic species. Extinction is permanent. What should be done now — not tomorrow, not after another study? First, impose an immediate seasonal fishing closure strictly based on scientific spawning periods. Second, enforce minimum size limits with zero political interference. Third, declare core fish sanctuaries within Lake Mainit where no fishing is allowed, ever. Fourth, regulate the number and type of fishing gears. Thirty-six types of gear in one lake is ecological madness. And finally, involve the communities not just as fishers, but as guardians of their own future. Saving pijanga is not just about saving a fish. It is about saving jobs, food security, culture, and ecological balance. It is about whether we are capable, at last, of learning from our own mistakes. If we fail this test, future generations will only know pijanga from old photos, newspaper archives — and our excuses. And that, to me, would be the greatest tragedy of all. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-22-2026

LET DENR ALONE HANDLE THE PROPAGATION AND PROTECTION OF CORALS

LET DENR ALONE HANDLE THE PROPAGATION AND PROTECTION OF CORALS When we talk about coral reefs — those breathtaking underwater gardens that shelter marine life, protect shorelines, and sustain fisheries — who should really be in charge of their propagation and protection? Ideally, there should not be confusion. But in the Philippines, responsibility is shared between the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under the Department of Agriculture (DA). In practice, that shared jurisdiction breeds overlap — and confusion. I believe it is time to draw a clear line: let DENR (through its Biodiversity Management Bureau, BMB) handle coral propagation and protection exclusively. Why DENR — and not DA-BFAR — should lead Coral reefs are not crops, nor are corals equivalent to farmed aquatic species. Coral is an animal — a marine invertebrate, a colony of tiny polyps that build reef structures over decades. They don’t yield “harvestable” produce, and they grow very slowly. Their primary value lies in biodiversity, coastal protection, habitat stability — not in direct agricultural or aquacultural yield. DENR’s mandate is to conserve and steward the environment and natural resources: terrestrial, marine, biological. Under its Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB), DENR already oversees marine biodiversity, coastal and marine ecosystems, protected areas, and reef rehabilitation efforts. Meanwhile, DA-BFAR’s mandate centers on fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic resources that produce food, income, and livelihoods — not on restoring biodiversity or conserving non-harvestable species. Yes — healthy reefs indirectly benefit fisheries. But that link does not convert coral into a “fishery product.” Expecting fisherfolk or farmers to propagate corals because “it helps fish stocks” treats conservation as a burden rather than shared public good. It also risks shifting the responsibility to communities least equipped for it. The danger of institutional “confusion by design” History shows us that shared jurisdiction often leads to loopholes rather than synergy. There is already a joint framework: reef rehabilitation and coastal management guidelines call for coordinated action between DENR, DA-BFAR, local governments, science bodies, and NGOs. But in practice, such collaboration often means diluted responsibility — and delayed action. While coral reefs in the Philippines are under heavy threat (from climate change, coastal pollution, destructive fishing, rubbish), bureaucratic bottlenecks and turf issues slow down conservation. Recent reports categorize many reef areas as “low to moderate” in coral and fish diversity. We cannot afford hesitation. Time does not wait. Coral bleaching, reef degradation, coastal erosion — these are happening now. What a DENR-only governance for corals could look like Clear mandate. Coral propagation, reef rehabilitation, and marine biodiversity protection – managed solely by DENR-BMB/Coastal & Marine Management. Partnership framework. DENR collaborates with LGUs, science institutions (universities, marine research centers), NGOs, and communities for monitoring, restoration, and stewardship — but not as a “fishing livelihood program.” Conservation-first philosophy. Coral reefs managed as public natural heritage, not as economic aquaculture commodities. Support mechanisms for communities. While corals themselves are not farmed for sale, communities can benefit indirectly — through ecotourism, coastal protection (less storm damage), improved fish stocks from a healthy reef base, and potential payments for ecosystem services. This is not to say DA-BFAR has no role — their expertise in fisheries management, aquaculture, and livelihoods remains vital. But their role should be limited to managing fish stocks, regulating sustainable fishing, and improving aquaculture. Coral propagation, reef protection, marine biodiversity — that belongs to DENR. Why this matters Coral reefs are among the most precious — and most vulnerable — ecosystems on Earth. The Philippines, lying at the heart of the Coral Triangle, is globally recognized for its rich marine biodiversity. Conserving reefs is not optional. It is essential for food security, coastal protection, climate resilience, tourism, and heritage. When coral conservation is diluted across agencies, we lose focus and accountability. As we face rising sea temperatures, ocean acidification, and increasing coastal development, we need bold governance: clear mandates, accountable institutions, empowered communities. Let’s not treat coral reefs as mere extensions of fisheries. They are living ecosystems — our natural legacy. Let DENR alone handle the propagation and protection of corals. Let us give corals the guardian agency they deserve. Let’s negotiate not over turf — but over survival. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/10-21-2026