continued from page 24
caused by genetically engineered crops, the following steps are necessary: • a full biodiversity assessment of the ecosystem in which the genetically modified organism (GMO) is to be introduced. • assessment of the impact of genetically engineered crop on diverse species including pollinators and soil microorganisms • assessment of the risks of transfer of genetically engineered traits to non-engineered crops through horizontal gene transfer and pollination. None of these essential steps for assessing the ecological risks of GMOs has been carried out in Monsanto's present trials with Bollgard cotton in Karnataka. When Monsanto states that it has had 93% success, it is referring to agronomic performance, not to ecological safety. Further, since the Bt technology is aimed at pesticide production, not yield increases, Monsanto is deliberately distorting facts when it refers to yield-increasing characteristics of Bollgard cotton. Monsanto is also misinforming the public when it states pesticide-producing plants mean no pesticide needs to be sprayed. The primary justification for the genetic engineering of Bt into crops is this will reduce the use of insecticides. One of the Monsanto brochures had a picture of a few worms and states, 'You will see these in your cotton and it is O.K. Don't spray'. However, in Texas, Monsanto faces a lawsuit filed by 25 farmers over Bt-Cotton planted on 18,000 acres which suffered cotton bollworm damage and on which farmers had to use pesticides in spite of corporate propaganda genetic engineering meant an end to the pesticide era.
The inadequacies of present biosafety regulations. The clearance of Monsanto's trials with toxic plants without the democratic consent of concerned governments, from state to local level, and democratic participation of the public in biosafety decisions reveals the loopholes and inadequacies in the present biosafety regulations from both the democratic perspective and the ecological perspective. The biosafety regulations need to undergo dramatic changes through increasing public participation in decisions related to genetic engineering. The clearance for trials of genetically engineered crops and their release needs to be given not just by the central government but by all levels of government, from the state to the local level. Further before any clearance is granted for trials of a particular genetically engineered
hearings need to be organized in the specific villages and districts and states where the trials and introductions are planned. The scientific framework of the ecological impact of genetically engineered crops on biosafety, ecosystem health and public health also needs to be upgraded for dealing with the impact of field trials and deliberate releases under diverse ecological contexts existing in India. If Monsanto and the Indian government fail to fulfill these ecological and democratic criteria for field trials of genetically engineered crops, we will have further evidence the promotion of genetic engineering by corporations like Monsanto can only be based on dictatorial, distorted and coercive methods. In such context, genetic engineering in agriculture must necessarily be antinature and anti-people. Urgent policy imperatives 1. Monsanto's trials for ge-
crop the application for trials should netically engineered crops in forty lobe notified to the public as part of cations in India should be immedicontinued on page 26 the citizen's right to know. Public
PAGE 25