WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF CULTIVATED MEAT?

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF CULTIVATED MEAT? When news broke that Believer Meats—one of the most advanced cultivated-meat companies in the world—had suddenly ceased operations, it sent shockwaves through the food-tech community. Here was a startup with everything going for it: regulatory approval from both the FDA and USDA, a massive production plant in North Carolina capable of producing 12,000 metric tons of cultivated chicken annually, and hundreds of millions in funding. And yet, despite all that, it still shut down. But let’s be clear: the death of one company is not the death of an industry. Cultivated meat is still very much alive. For me, this is more than a business story — it’s a food security issue. We should pay attention to global developments, but ultimately, we must decide for ourselves what kind of protein future we want. I am open to the idea of cultivated meat because it could represent a clean, sustainable, future-proof source of protein, but with some reservations. At the same time, I am also concerned about the livelihoods of our poultry and livestock farmers. But right now, that threat appears to be minimal — especially since we already import part of our animal protein supply. More importantly, we should approach cultivated meat with caution, because some evil companies might abuse the opportunities and use some ingredients that are harmful to human health. One key question stands out: Will cultivated meat become cheaper? If it eventually costs less than poultry or pork, this could dramatically improve nutrition among Filipino families. Affordable protein changes lives. but then again, price should not be the only criteria, because safety and quality are more important concerns, Why Believer’s Fall Isn’t the End Believer Meats had impressive credentials: operations in the US and Israel, major investors including Tyson Ventures and ADM, and the rare distinction of having regulatory approvals in place. Yet it reportedly struggled with more than $34 million in unpaid bills. This reveals a fundamental truth: building large-scale biomanufacturing facilities is extremely expensive, and the economics of cultivated meat are still evolving. Many experts say a “shake-out” was inevitable—similar to what happened in the early days of solar energy, electric vehicles, and biotech. Industry leaders like Aleph Farms and Mosa Meat are now adopting slower, more strategic paths: delaying big capital expenditures, focusing on profitability, and refining the science before rushing to scale. Meanwhile, newer players are developing “minimum viable facilities” and cheaper bioreactors, aiming to avoid the financial traps that early pioneers fell into. What the Industry Says Suzi Gerber of the Association for Meat, Poultry & Seafood Innovation reminds us that 2025 was still a “banner year” for cultivated meat, with multiple regulatory approvals worldwide. Technically, tremendous progress has been made—just not at the speed investors hoped for. Others point out that food production is not like software. You can’t scale rapidly by throwing money at the problem. You must refine the science, lower costs, and make the process commercially realistic — especially because food margins are razor thin. What This Means for the Philippines If cultivated meat becomes a major global protein source — and it could possibly be — then we cannot afford to be passive observers. We should develop our own cultivated-meat research program, not wait for foreign companies to hand us solutions. Here is a possible national blueprint: DOST – Lead scientific research and local bioprocess development DA – Plan how cultivated meat fits into food production and farm livelihoods DTI – Build commercialization pathways and future export strategies DFA – Engage Filipino scientists abroad for short-term collaborations Why not aspire to become an exporter of cultivated meat someday? The Road Forward Cultivated meat is not a fad. It’s a long-term technological shift that will take patience, investment, and careful strategy. Yes, there will be failures like Believer Meats. But these setbacks don’t erase the progress being made around the world. Rome wasn’t built in a day — and neither is a new food system. If we start now, we can help shape the future instead of merely consuming it. Meanwhile, we should pay attention to the warnings in mass media and social media about reports that some banned chemicals are being used as ingredients of cultivated meat. Whatever happens next, I believe that food safety is more important than food security. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-11-2026

FISHPOND LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN COASTAL AREAS

FISHPOND LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN COASTAL AREAS When we talk about livelihoods for Indigenous Peoples (IPs) in our coastal barangays, it’s not enough to merely acknowledge their existence. We must ask: are we really empowering them, or just paying lip service? Consider this: the Philippines already has a legal framework for Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) — a 25-year renewable lease that lets individuals, cooperatives, or corporations legally occupy and develop public fishpond lands for aquaculture. This is enshrined in the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and its implementing rules, which set out clear conditions, lease terms, and obligations for leaseholders. It even gives preference to qualified cooperatives or fisherfolk associations when issuing new or expired FLAs. If such a mechanism exists, why aren’t we actively using it to uplift IP communities living by our shores? Indigenous Peoples: Coastal Stewards, Not Spectators There are many IP groups in the Philippines whose lives and cultures are deeply intertwined with coastal waters. The Badjao (Sama Dilaut) are known throughout Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago as sea-based people with traditional fishing and seafaring expertise. In Palawan, groups like the Molbog have long sustained themselves through fishing and other marine livelihoods. Yet despite these rooted connections to aquatic resources, IPs are frequently marginalized, often among the poorest sectors in the country alongside fisherfolk and farmers. Recent reports suggest these groups experience persistently high poverty rates — reminding us that access to sustainable livelihood remains elusive. The Big Question So here it is, bluntly: why aren’t we helping coastal IP communities apply for FLAs and become fishpond operators themselves? Especially when the legal basis has been in place for decades. This isn’t just about handing out leases like candy. It’s about building justice, restoring dignity, and opening doors to economic opportunity for people who have lived by the sea long before modern development arrived. A Proposal Worth Thinking About Here’s a proposal grounded in practicality, not rhetoric: Make FLAs part of Local Development Council agendas. Most municipalities with IP populations already have Mandatory Indigenous Peoples Representatives (IPMRs) serving in development councils. These councils should be where this initiative takes root — not in isolated memos or wish lists. Form a Joint Task Force. Bring together DILG, DENR, DOST, DA-BFAR, and NCIP — agencies with the legal, environmental, technical, and cultural mandates to help IP communities plan, apply for, and implement FLA-based aquaculture projects. Capacity Building + Technical Assistance. DOST and BFAR can provide training on sustainable fishpond management (including mangrove-friendly aquaculture), while LGUs help navigate paperwork and BFAR requirements. FLAs come with obligations — like developing the area commercially within a set time and maintaining environmental safeguards — and communities will need support to fulfill them. Financing Options. Landbank and other rural financial institutions could extend loans tailored to IP groups undertaking fishpond ventures. Municipalities with stronger fiscal capacity might even establish matching funds or grant support. Collective, Not Individual, Leases. Instead of pushing individual IPs into isolated leases, communities could apply collectively — either as cooperatives or community associations — preserving customary governance and social solidarity. The Win–Win Imagine coastal barangays where IP communities operate commercially viable fishponds — producing milkfish, mudcrabs, or seaweeds — while responsibly managing mangroves and nearshore ecosystems. Not only would this diversify their income beyond traditional fishing and foraging, but it also aligns with sustainable resource use and community stewardship. At its heart, this idea isn’t just about fishponds — it’s about enabling Indigenous Peoples to shape their own economic futures with dignity and agency. With the proper frameworks, support systems, and political will, we can turn a long-standing legal tool into a vehicle for real community empowerment. That’s not just policy talk — that’s impact. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-10-2026

IS UNIVERSAL EYECARE POSSIBLE?

IS UNIVERSAL EYECARE POSSIBLE? You’ve probably heard the good news by now: cataract surgery is covered by PhilHealth — and not just barely. After years of minimal reimbursement, the state insurer has finally updated its coverage in a meaningful way to help Filipinos regain their sight without going broke. But before we pop the champagne, let’s ask the bigger question: Is universal eye care actually possible? And what would it take — beyond good policy language — to make it a lived reality for every Filipino in need? A Boost in Benefits — Finally First, the numbers: as of January 30, 2025, PhilHealth rolled out its enhanced cataract surgery benefit under Circular 2025-0001. For adults, basic cataract removal starts at around ₱20,200 per eye, with standard monofocal lens implants covered up to ₱28,300. If you need more advanced lens types — toric or multifocal — coverage may go up to ₱80,900 per eye. For our littlest patients (children), coverage can reach as much as ₱187,100 per eye. This is a monumental shift from the old flat rate of ₱16,000 per eye that stood for over a decade and barely scratched the surface of what modern eye surgery costs. So on paper, PhilHealth is stepping up — and in a big way. But Here’s the Catch… Coverage doesn’t always translate automatically into access. Yes, the benefit pool has grown, but not everyone qualifies equally. Eligibility issues, documentation requirements, and facility accreditation can still block the pathway to care. Even when coverage is available, some patients sometimes still pay out of pocket for items like premium lenses, upgraded OR materials, or non-covered meds — unless they are admitted under specific policies like Zero Balance Billing (ZBB) or No Balance Billing (NBB) in government facilities. The policies aim to wipe out all costs beyond what PhilHealth pays, but they don’t automatically apply in every hospital or for every patient. The lingering question is: Why is access still uneven if the coverage is there? Historical Baggage and Public Trust It’s understandable why PhilHealth has to act cautiously. The infamous cataract scam years ago burned a lot of trust. Some unscrupulous providers and middlemen managed to exploit the system, claiming phantom surgeries and bogus procedures. That misconduct didn’t just cost money — it eroded confidence. In theory, most doctors are ethical and dedicated. In practice, a scandal makes everyone more wary — and rightly or wrongly, that caution can slow down innovation and widen gaps in access. But we must ask: Can we let past corruption redefine the future of Filipino healthcare? I say no. A Path Forward: Local Government + PhilHealth One idea worth exploring is a public-private partnership at the LGU level: Local governments could identify patients with visual impairment early on through barangay health workers or city health units. These patients can be pre-registered and referred to PhilHealth-accredited hospitals for cataract surgery — ensuring eligibility checks are done upfront. Where PhilHealth’s benefit doesn’t fully cover the treatment (e.g., premium lenses), LGUs could help subsidize the gap, especially for indigent patients. Imagine a system where barangays don’t just refer, they facilitate the entire process — tracking patient profiles, managing comorbidities (like diabetes or hypertension), and coordinating the actual referral for surgery. That’s not just universal care on paper — that’s practice. Eye Care Is Not New — And Shouldn’t Be Elusive We shouldn’t forget — eye care has long been practiced in the Philippines. Even Jose Rizal performed cataract surgery on his mother in the 19th century. Why then, in 2025, are we still debating access for the poor and elderly? Universal eye care isn’t just a health goal; it’s a moral imperative. Vision loss shouldn’t be a sentence of poverty or isolation. With the current PhilHealth expansions, we do have tools in place — but tools alone aren’t enough without commitment, coordination, and transparency. So, Is Universal Eye Care Possible? Yes — but it takes more than just coverage. It takes a system that leaves no one behind, from barangay to hospital. From policymaker to patient. From coverage to execution. Let’s not settle for “available in theory.” Let’s make eye care universal in reality. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-09-2026

IS PLASTIC RECYCLING A MERE ILLUSION?

IS PLASTIC RECYCLING A MERE ILLUSION? We’ve all seen that chasing-arrow recycling symbol on bottles and bags. It feels reassuring — like we’re doing our part by tossing plastics into coloured bins. But is plastic recycling real, or just a comforting illusion? I say it’s an illusion because we think plastic recycling exists in practice… but in reality it scarcely does. Let’s Define Our Terms Before we go further, clarity matters: Recycling — when a plastic product is processed or reused for the same purpose it was originally made for. Upcycling — when plastics (even those that are not recyclable) are transformed into new, useful products with different functions. Most of us conflate the two, but they’re very different in what they actually achieve. By the Numbers: The Hard Truth You might have been told that recycling rates are improving — that we recycle more plastic every year. But data paints a starkly different picture: Globally, only about 9–10% of plastics are made using recycled materials — meaning the vast majority of new plastic is still virgin material, made from fossil fuels. Of all the plastic ever produced in human history, only a tiny fraction has actually been turned into new plastic products multiple times. Around 27–28% of plastic waste is sent for potential recycling, but only half of that actually gets recycled — the rest is burned or landfilled. If you do the math, that means at best about 1 in 10 plastics ever gets truly recycled — and the real figure for plastics recycled back into the same product or material is even smaller. We often put recyclables in bins and think they get turned into new items… but much still ends up incinerated, disposed of, or sent abroad. So yes — plastic recycling exists in theory…but in practice? It’s more myth than machine. Why Recycling Fails There are several structural barriers: 🔹 Only a few plastic types are recyclable at scale. PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) are the easiest, but most plastics (PVC, PP, multilayers like sachets) are too complex, contaminated, or costly. 🔹 The plastics industry marketed recycling heavily to shift blame to households, even though they knew the infrastructure couldn’t keep up. 🔹 Plastic degrades each time it’s recycled, requiring mixing with virgin plastic to maintain quality. That’s not true recycling — it’s downcycling. Upcycling: The Brighter Side Here’s where hope glimmers: Upcycling doesn’t depend on neat sorting or pure polymer streams. It accepts any kind of plastic — including films, sachets, and multi-layer packaging — and transforms them into new products with value. Already, innovators are turning what was once waste into: Furniture and housewares Building materials Eco-bricks Artistic installations And that’s just the beginning. In many cases, upcycling can accept the “non-recyclables” that traditional recycling refuses. In comparison, upcycling could, in theory, work for 100% of plastics, while true recycling will probably never exceed 10%. That’s not a guess — that’s where the data and the material realities point us. My Take So, let’s revisit that opening question: Is plastic recycling a mere illusion? Yes — if by “recycling” you mean the idea that all plastics we throw in bins are magically reborn into new bottles or bags. That’s a comforting myth — one that’s been sold to the public and recycled back to industry as a kind of collective guilt relief. But no — if we consider broader transformations like upcycling, material substitution (think mycelium, algae-based materials, bamboo, or starch polymers), and design that avoids waste from the start. Recycling isn’t a hoax — it’s just overhyped and underbuilt. The illusion is believing that recycling alone can keep up with a system designed for ever-increasing throw-away consumption. The real solutions lie beyond simple recycling: upstream redesign, reuse systems, community-based circular models, and turning waste into opportunity — not just burying it or burning it. It’s time to stop clinging to illusions and start building systems that actually work. Would you like help exploring practical models for upcycling in communities — or comparing promising alternatives like mycelium and algae materials? Just let me know. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-08-2026

POROUS BORDERS AND CORRUPT BORDER PATROLS

POROUS BORDERS AND CORRUPT BORDER PATROLS Porous borders and corrupt border patrols are a dangerous combination. One is already a big problem by itself; together, they become a national security nightmare. Sadly, this is exactly the situation the Philippines finds itself in today. We are an archipelago of more than 7,600 islands, with one of the longest coastlines in the world—over 36,000 kilometers. Geography alone guarantees that our borders will always be difficult to secure. Small boats can slip through countless maritime routes, especially in the south, where provinces like Tawi-Tawi and Sulu sit just a few hours away from Malaysia and Indonesia. That reality will never change. But corruption? That is entirely man-made—and entirely fixable. Recent rescues in Tawi-Tawi of women trafficked under false job offers, armed with fake documents, show how syndicates exploit weak maritime controls. Human trafficking is now one of the fastest-growing transnational crimes globally, and the Philippines is both a source and transit country. The UN has long warned that porous borders, combined with complicit officials, are a trafficker’s best friends. What makes this situation more alarming is that corruption is not a rumor—it is documented. The Bureau of Immigration has been repeatedly rocked by scandals, from “pastillas” bribery schemes at airports to cases involving fugitives slipping through checkpoints. In one recent case, several BI personnel were implicated in the trafficking of more than 200 Filipinos who ended up trapped in online scam operations in Myanmar. These are not passive failures. These are active acts of betrayal. Smuggling and terrorism risks are riding on the same routes. Illegal drugs, firearms, and even extremist elements have historically moved through the Sulu-Sulawesi seas. This is why the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia established trilateral maritime and air patrols as early as 2017. On paper, it is a sound idea. In practice, limited assets, overlapping mandates, and—again—corruption blunt its effectiveness. Every scandal further erodes public trust. How can citizens believe in border protection when the very agencies tasked with guarding our entry points are seen as collaborators rather than gatekeepers? We often hear the excuse that “we lack resources.” That is only half true. Yes, we need more patrol boats, better radar systems, satellite monitoring, and digital passenger tracking. Technology matters. But no amount of technology will work if the person operating it is on a syndicate’s payroll. So what can be done? First, border agencies must be treated as national security institutions, not just revenue or administrative offices. That means lifestyle checks, regular rotations, and swift prosecution—not quiet transfers—of erring personnel. Second, we need stronger civilian and congressional oversight. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant. Third, coastal communities should be empowered as partners. Fisherfolk know when something is wrong; they just need safe channels to report it. We cannot change the fact that we are an archipelago. But we can decide whether our borders are merely porous—or deliberately sold. In the end, this is not just a border problem. It is a governance problem. Until corruption is treated as a threat equal to smuggling, trafficking, and terrorism, our maritime borders will remain open—not because they must be, but because someone allows them to be. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-07-2026

WHY BAN SOCIAL MEDIA FOR TEENAGERS?

WHY BAN SOCIAL MEDIA FOR TEENAGERS? Australia’s decision to ban social media for children below 16 has reignited a global debate that every parent, educator, policymaker, and technology company can no longer avoid. Do we protect young people by cutting them off from digital platforms—or by teaching them how to live safely and responsibly within them? I am not convinced that a blanket ban is the right answer. The concerns behind such policies are real and serious. Numerous studies have linked heavy social media use among teenagers to higher levels of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and sleep disruption. Adolescents are especially vulnerable to body image pressures amplified by algorithm-driven content. Late-night scrolling competes with rest, while endless notifications compete with attention, learning, and real-world interaction. Add to that the risks of online grooming, cyberbullying, hate speech, and the aggressive harvesting of personal data, and it becomes clear why governments feel compelled to act. But banning is the bluntest of tools. Bullying, after all, existed long before smartphones. Predators existed before social media. Unrealistic beauty standards were around long before filters. The internet did not invent these problems; it magnified them. The question is whether banning access solves the root causes—or merely pushes them elsewhere, or underground. There are fundamentally two ways to manage children’s access to social media: parental control and server control. Parents should be the first line of defense. Teaching children what to watch, when to watch, how long to watch, and—most importantly—how to think critically about what they see is part of modern parenting. This is no different from teaching children how to cross the street, interact with strangers, or manage money. We do not ban streets or cash; we teach judgment. Server-side controls can help, but they are far from perfect. Platforms can restrict accounts by age, time, location, or content category. But prohibited content is a moving target. No company can honestly claim it knows every porn site, hate site, or harmful trend at any given moment. And once governments mandate blanket blocking, surveillance becomes normalized. Today it is minors; tomorrow, who else? Australia’s policy—hailed by supporters as a bold child-protection move—has also raised difficult questions. Will teenagers lose access to online peer-support communities, mental health resources, and educational content? Will enforcement push young users to fake identities, making them even harder to protect? And should private corporations be forced into the role of digital police, with massive fines hanging over them? From a systems-thinking perspective, this is not just a child-safety issue; it is a governance design problem. How do we balance protection with freedom, regulation with education, and safety with trust? The internet is like air. Some parts of it are polluted, yes, but we still need air to live. The solution is not to stop breathing, but to clean the air, set standards, and equip people with masks when needed. Instead of bans, why not require age-appropriate platform designs, stronger default privacy settings for minors, transparent algorithms, and serious penalties for companies that knowingly promote harmful content? Why not invest more in digital literacy for parents and children alike? Why not treat this as a permissions issue—where what parents permit, platforms allow, and governments oversee responsibly? Protecting teenagers is essential. But teaching them how to navigate the digital world safely may be more sustainable than pretending we can lock that world away. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-06-2026

SHOULD WE BRING BACK THE PROFESSIONAL CAREER UNDERSECRETARIES?

SHOULD WE BRING BACK THE PROFESSIONAL CAREER UNDERSECRETARIES? What is supposed to be the design of our bureaucracy is not always what we see in practice. On paper, the Philippine civil service is built on professionalism, merit, and security of tenure. Undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and directors are supposed to be career officials, rising through the ranks based on competence and experience. In reality, many departments now look like revolving doors—every time a new Secretary arrives, a new set of undersecretaries seems to come with him or her. This is not how a serious bureaucracy is supposed to work. In many countries, only the Minister is political. Everyone else is professional. In some systems, there is even a Permanent Secretary, a career official who remains in place regardless of who the Minister is, supervising undersecretaries and safeguarding institutional memory. The logic is simple: elected leaders set direction and policy; career officials ensure continuity, execution, and technical rigor. Here, however, the reverse appears to be happening. Political appointments have crept deeper into the bureaucracy, overshadowing career officials who are supposed to provide stability. We already have the laws to protect career service—what seems lacking is the will to implement them consistently. Why does this matter? First, institutional memory. Career undersecretaries carry with them years—sometimes decades—of knowledge about programs, past reforms, legal pitfalls, and operational realities. When they are replaced wholesale, agencies suffer a “reset effect,” relearning old lessons at great cost to taxpayers. Second, technical expertise. Departments like the DFA, DOH, DPWH, and NEDA are not entry-level organizations. Diplomacy, public health, infrastructure, and economic planning require deep specialization. Career officials are trained precisely for this. Political loyalty cannot substitute for technical competence. Third, meritocracy and morale. When senior positions are filled primarily through political connections, what message does that send to rank-and-file civil servants? That excellence does not matter? Does loyalty matter more than skill? This quietly erodes motivation and encourages short-term thinking. Fourth, continuity of service. Governments change, but public services should not lurch violently every three or six years. Career undersecretaries provide the ballast that keeps programs moving during transitions, budget delays, or leadership reshuffles. Fifth, corruption risk. A bureaucracy dominated by political appointees is more vulnerable to patronage and rent-seeking. Career officials, protected by tenure and professional norms, are better positioned to say no—to illegal orders, dubious projects, or pressure from vested interests. We already know this works. In 2022, the Department of Foreign Affairs deliberately appointed an all-career lineup of undersecretaries, emphasizing professional diplomacy and continuity. Contrast this with agencies that have seen waves of political appointments and recurring controversies. The pattern is not hard to see. Other countries offer useful models. The United Kingdom’s permanent secretaries outlast ministers and ensure policy continuity. Singapore relies heavily on career technocrats at the highest administrative levels. Even in the United States—often cited as highly political—the Senior Executive Service exists precisely to stabilize operations beneath political leadership. So the question is not whether we need new laws. We don’t. The question is: why are we not enforcing the laws we already have? Bringing back professional career undersecretaries is not anti-politics. It is pro-governance. Let Secretaries define vision and priorities. Let career officials run systems, manage people, and remember what worked—and what failed. If we want a bureaucracy that learns, adapts, and resists decay, we need a career backbone that survives politics. Without it, every administration starts from scratch—and the public pays the price. BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/11-05-2026