Maine BioBlog

Maine's Biotech Industry is Almost Invisible

2009-10-26T10:37:00.000-07:00

When was the last time you heard someone rhapsodizing about the potential for biotechnology in Maine? It's been awhile hasn't it? Even though biotechnology is one of seven targeted economic sectors in Maine's economic development plan, you hear almost nothing about it. It's like Maine's biotech industry has gone underground.

One problem is the biotech industry's trade association -- the Biotechnology Association of Maine. It doesn't have critical mass. Look at the list of members on the Maine Biotech Website. The list is more notable for who isn't on it than who is. The two 800 pound gorillas of Maine biotech -- Idexx Laboratories and The Jackson Laboratory are nowhere to be found. Why not? That's a question BAM should be asking itself.

Then there's the industry's tradition of omerta -- the code of silence. I've asked a number of biotech CEOs why they don't do more to publicize their businesses. The answer I've heard more than once: "We don't want to attract the attention of regulators in Augusta."

So, biotechnology -- one of the few bright spots in this dismal economy, an industry that is being courted by state economic development hot shots and is lavished with venture investment capital -- is living underground in Maine.

The Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau wants change the way the Maine biotechnology industry sees itself. We're starting with a new home page on our Website that features news content. We will update the page every time there is news to report. We will publish our newsletter, Maine BioNews, more frequently. Our Blog will comment on Maine's biotech sector regularly. (We'll even publish your opinion if you to send it to us.)

What can you do? Come out of hiding. Make some news! A check of a few Maine biotech company Websites finds that the news is a little stale to say the least. Except for the public companies which have reporting requirements, the news being posted on company Websites is months, and in come cases, years old.

When you have some news, send it to us. We'll post it on the Website immediately and put it in the next issue of Maine BioNews.

Seven years ago, an economic study reported that Maine's biotech sector employed 3,690 people and contributed $685 million in economic activity to the state's economy. In the years since then these numbers surely have grown. It's time that people in Maine heard this good news. We can start by sharing this news with each other.

Biotech brawl must end for Maine to prosper

2009-05-05T11:26:00.000-07:00

Like kids in the back seat of the car on a long road trip, proponents and opponents of biotechnology are elbowing each other in an effort to gain advantage in the state house. This biennial struggle began in 1993 when legislation that would have required special labels on food made with biotech ingredients was introduced. In nearly every legislative session since, the two sides have squared off over bills that would reign in or ban the use of biotech-enhanced (also called genetically engineered or GMO) crops in Maine. The result is a hodge-podge of laws governing definitions related to genetic engineering, food labeling, the sale of genetically engineered seeds, limits on lawsuits and even instructions to the Commissioner of Agriculture.

This year offers more of the same. One proposed law would prohibit plants used to manufacture pharmaceuticals from being grown in Maine. Another would require sellers of biotech-enhanced seeds to report their sales to the state. A third law containing the defeated portions of the last session’s battle was introduced, then withdrawn. Another legislator then submitted his own version of the same bill. This year, supporters of biotechnology have struck back with a law that would require organic growers to file plans with the state.

It’s time for this nonsense to stop. To justify their call for legislative action, opponents of biotech crops have offered up doomsday scenarios of food allergies, environmental degradation and “genetic pollution” from biotechnology run amok. None of this has happened. Instead, farmers around the world are adopting biotechnology at astonishing rates. In 2008, 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries planted biotech crops on 125 million hectares.

Meanwhile, Maine farmers are falling behind the technology curve. In 2007, farmers pleaded with the Board of Pesticides Control to approve biotech-enhanced, insect-resistant corn because some of the best yielding corn varieties could not be purchased in Maine. Nine years earlier, under intense pressure from activists, the BPC had turned thumbs down on biotech corn claiming there was no need for it in Maine. This time, over the strenuous objections of activists, the farmers prevailed and the BPC registered seven varieties of insect-resistant field corn.

Maine farmers aren’t the only ones being hurt by the controversy. The state has identified biotechnology as a key industry in the state’s economic development plan. Since 1996, the state has funneled $400 million into research and development, with a good chunk going to build the biotech sector. Yet the state is nationally known for its anti-biotech fervor. Google “Maine” and “gmo” and up pops a host of stories about the struggle to keep biotech crops out of Maine. Surely, an entrepreneur in a startup biotech drug company couldn’t help but notice that the legislature is considering a ban on an important pharmaceutical production technology.

Maine’s history of conflict over biotechnology reveals a shocking anti-science bias among opponents of the technology. Though opponents call for rigorous scientific study of biotech crops, they quickly reject those studies when they confirm their safety. Even the Board of Pesticides Control had to acknowledge that science was on the side of biotech corn when it finally approved seven varieties in 2007.

It is not likely that proponents of organic agriculture in Maine, where the opposition to biotech crops is now concentrated, will embrace genetically engineered crops. Nor will adherents of biotech farming likely become organic growers. But if Maine is to build the diversified economy that economic planners hope for the state, the two sides will have to find a better way to resolve their differences. Battling it out in the legislature every two years is too messy and two public. The only one getting a black eye in this slugfest is the Maine economy.

The "Silly Season" is upon us

2009-03-20T12:17:00.000-07:00

One wag once labeled it the “silly season” – that time of year when residents gather at town meeting to sort through the town’s business. Most of the time the label is ill deserved. But every now an then the label fits, like in the 1980s when anti-nuclear activists used town meetings to pass bans on nuclear missiles.

The problem with political causes at town meetings is they take up valuable time – time better spent deciding which roads to pave, or whether town employees deserve a pay raise. They’re also contentious, raising partisan issues at what are remarkably non-partisan affairs. Toss a political resolution on the table and townspeople head for the doors. Who needs the aggravation?

Last year at town meeting, Montville succumbed to the latest political fad – a drive to block the planting of agricultural crops enhanced using modern biotechnology (also known as genetically engineered crops or GMOs). The local ban effort follows failed attempts to get the legislature to ban biotech crops statewide. Opponents also failed to block the Board of Pesticides Control’s registration of insect-resistant corn. After repeated failures at the state level, anti-biotech activists have turned to town meetings.

The town-ban effort is based on the false premise that the legislature is indifferent to problems with biotech crops. This is untrue. The legislature has taken up numerous bills dealing with GMOs. They’ve passed laws on labeling, cross-pollination, industry reporting and directed the Department of Agriculture to develop a co-existence plan. Last year, the legislature updated Maine’s liability laws regarding GMOs and directed the Commissioner of Agriculture to develop best management practices for biotech crops. The Board of Pesticides Control has been regulating biotech crops since the late 1990s.

There’s another problem with towns banning biotech crops. It’s against state law. Maine has a “right to farm” law. It prohibits towns from enacting ordinances banning farming practices that are considered “best management practices.” When residents in Kennebunk and Kennebunkport submitted a GMO-ban petition for town meeting, the Commissioner of Agriculture wrote town officials and pointed out the conflict with state law. The selectmen in both towns wisely exercised their right to reject citizen’s petitions that conflict with state law and declined to put the issue to a vote at town meeting.

Following Montville’s vote, the Commissioner of Agriculture sent the town a letter declaring the ban “invalid” because it failed to comply with state law. The Director of the Board of Pesticides Control sent a similar letter declaring the ordinance “null and void” for the same reason. So, after several public meetings, a spirited debate at town meeting and a show of hands, Montville’s ordinance is for naught. Town officials are on notice that the ordinance is unenforceable and farmers know that state officials are sworn to protect their right to plant biotech crops.

Biotechnology is one of the industries Maine is betting on for its economic future. State funding from a research and development bond issue is being funneled to biotech companies by the Maine Technology Institute. Biotech innovations, including agriculture, are showing great promise in solving some of the pressing environmental problems we face. A biodiesel consortium in Aroostook County is working to produce transportation fuel from renewable sources. No-till agriculture, made possible by biotech crops, is reducing carbon emissions and soil erosion.

Maine gained brief notoriety around the country when Montville’s ban was reported by national media. Fortunately, the story died quickly. It would be truly unfortunate if Maine’s image was that of an anti-technology backwater and not that of a state on the cutting edge of the biotechnology revolution, led by researchers working at such prestigious institutions as the University of Maine, The Jackson Laboratory and the Maine Institute for Human Genetics & Health.

Conversation with an organic grower

2009-02-16T09:09:00.000-08:00

Shortly after “The Board of Pesticides Control has it backwards” was posted, I received an e-mail from an organic blueberry grower. I thought you might find our e-mail exchange interesting, so I’ve reproduced it below.

Dear Mr. Johnson

I've just read your blog and submission to the BPC regarding sweetcorn, and I find your logic alarming. You appear to be using the organic rule as a blanket justification for a perceived unlimited right to genetic or chemical trespass, and if a nearby organic farm isn't large enough to buffer the trespass that's just tough on the organic farm.

I don't understand this interpretation of "right-to-farm" which refuses to recognize any negative effects on adjacent land as being the responsibility of the farmer whose practice creates the negative effect in the first place. How can it be that your right to maximize private profit from your land by your preferred crop and management philosophy should trump my right to do the same?

There is only one rational, fair, neighborly - dare I say "Maine" - way to approach this problem. The two farmers responsible for their respective fields should negotiate the required buffer space and share it equally. And each should approach the other with mutual respect for the choices they make in their lives, not demonize them for their perceived ignorance, arrogance or unacceptable political slant. We are all Maine farmers. Our common interests should at least balance our conflicting ones!

Sincerely, Peter (I’ve deleted the rest of his name and address to protect his privacy.)

Peter,

You and I agree on at least one thing, the best way to resolve conflicts in agriculture is "over the fence," as they say. On the rest of your comment, I'm afraid we don't see eye-to-eye. First of all, you use the terms "genetic trespass" and "chemical trespass." These are terms cooked up by activists to advance their agenda. They have no foundation in science or law. And yes, an organic farm is required to provide a buffer against prohibited substances. That's the way the NOP rules are written (paragraph 205.202). You can't blame me for that.

Finally, I'm not advancing the notion of a "right to farm" that refuses to "recognize any negative effects on adjacent land." There is a well established body of common law that recognizes an individual's right to recover damages from harm caused by an adjoining farmer.The point in my Blog post is that the Maine Board of Pesticides Control is ignoring NOP rules, agricultural tradition and established law in their proposed rule for Bt sweet corn.

With your permission, I'd like to post your comment to the Blog.

Thanks for taking the time to comment,-- Doug Johnson

Hi Doug,

Well, we could substitute a less catchy phrase like "inadvertent cross-pollination of non-gmo crops by the drift of genetic material from gmo crops" for "genetic trespass", and a similar phrase about pesticides if you prefer. These things happen, even if the terminology was coined by "activists". You of course, being active in defense of your position, presumably are also an "activist" - it's not necessarily a bad thing to be.

So why is it a fair, neighborly and reasonable thing for your chosen system of agriculture to trump mine? I genuinely don't understand why this is felt to be "OK" on a personal level, never mind what the rules say. If you think it's fair and OK to pursue your style of agriculture at the cost of mine, then you are making a value judgment about my values and how I earn my living. Yet if I make such a judgment about you and yours I get to be labeled a luddite activist. Odd.

As a point of detail I'm not sure about your interpretation of the National Organic Rule. While I agree it says that I must provide a buffer, I don't think it cares who owns the land on which it sits. Thus if, whether by mutual agreement or in accordance with BPC rules, if some of that buffer is on your land, I am still "providing" the buffer between your crops and my crops. I think it's a red herring to assert that because my crops have to be buffered I have to own the land that does so!

And sure, post away. I would have done so direct except I was put off by the registration requirement.

Peter

Why don't we call it what it is -- outcrossing. And the problem is not unique to genetically modified crops. Outcrossing is a problem for blue corn growers and producers of plant seeds. Would it be reasonable for me as a blue corn grower to plant an acre of blue corn next to your corn field and ask you to put up buffers so your corn does not pollinate mine, causing white or yellow seeds to appear in my ears of blue corn? Or if I was growing squash for seed, could I plant squash next to your farm and ask that you not plant any squash that could pollinate my seed crop? The answer to both of these questions is no. The grower of the identity preserved crop is responsible for the purity and integrity of the crop. The reason for this is simple. IP crops fetch a premium price, which compensates the IP producer for the added cost associated with maintaining the crop's integrity. The USDA recognized this tradition when it crafted the rules for organic production and required the organic producer to maintain buffers. If you don't think the requirement for the buffer should reside with the organic producer, then ask the USDA to change the regulations.

Meeting YOUR buffer requirement by forcing your neighbor to give up land through a regulatory process is simply "rent seeking" -- using the government to gain an advantage in the marketplace (i.e. shifting your costs to your neighbor). What happened to working this out farmer-to-farmer as you first suggested. -- Doug

No response from Peter.

The Maine Board of Pesticides Control has it backwards.

2009-01-19T11:43:00.000-08:00

Through its rule making authority, the Maine Board of Pesticides Control is seeking to reverse centuries of agricultural tradition and undermine the carefully crafted organic standards set forth by the US Department of Agriculture. On January 23, the BPC is holding a public hearing on proposed rules for the planting of genetically modified insect-resistant (Bt) sweet corn. The draft rule calls for a 300 ft. “Bt-corn-free buffer to non-Bt corn crops.”

The draft rule, which requires Bt sweet corn growers to sacrifice 300 ft of their own land, is being proposed to pacify Maine’s organic community, which has dogged regulators every step of the way with Bt corn registration. Organic adherents are smarting because the legislature has refused to ban genetically modified crops. The BPC delivered a second blow when it finally registered several varieties of Bt field corn. Now, as a last ditch effort to banish genetically modified crops from Maine, fans of organic agriculture are trying to make planting Bt corn difficult and unprofitable.

The problem with the proposed rule is that organic regulations promulgated by the USDA require buffers to be maintained by the organic grower, not the farmer who plants conventional or genetically modified crops. National Organic Program regulation 205.202 states that organic growers must “have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones . . . to prevent the unintended application of a prohibited substance . . . or contact with a prohibited substance applied to adjoining land.”

The Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener’s Association acknowledges this rule in its 2009 Practice Manual. On page 30: “If your organic fields are adjacent to conventional fields or other land uses that pose a contamination risk, you are required to establish a large enough buffer that will protect your organic crops from contamination.”

Centuries of agricultural practice recognize that the producer of the “identity preserved” crop (in this case organic) is responsible for whatever steps must be taken to preserve the identity of the crop. The logic for assigning responsibility to the IP producer is that IP crops bring higher prices in the marketplace. Therefore, the cost of the extra precautions belongs to the person who captures the higher price.

The Board of Pesticides Control is attempting to reverse tradition and overturn accepted organic production rules under the misguided belief that they can pacify the special interests who are attempting to use the board’s regulatory authority to gain an advantage in the marketplace. The BPC would be well served to return to the mission given it by the legislature: “safeguarding the public health, safety and welfare, and . . . protecting natural resources,” and stop trying to appease special interests.

Your radical roots are showing!

2008-09-30T08:02:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has closely followed the battle over biotech crops in Maine knows the opponents of genetic engineering in the state are, well, different. You can spot them easily at hearings with their knit caps and casual, some would say slovenly, dress. Long hair, long beards and long skirts are de rigueur.

Politically they occupy the far left end of the spectrum. When Rob Fish and Meg Gilmartin came to Maine from Vermont to set up GE Free Maine, they arrived with the backing of the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont. The ISE, it turns out, had its roots in the American Communist movement. ISE's founder, Murray Bookchin (now deceased), described himself as a "red diaper baby" (a child of American Communists) and a Trotskyite. GE Free Maine received in-kind and financial support from the Institute for Social Ecology until it folded in 2006 after Bookchin's death.

On September 29, two members of the anti-biotech movement were arrested revealing yet another dimension of the crusade -- radical roots. Meg Gilmartin, one of GE Free Maine's founders, was arrested in Augusta during a protest of the Land Use Regulatory Commission's decision to approve Plum Creek's plans for development in the Moosehead Lake region. Also arrested was Kyla Hersey-Wilson, one of the four people who purchased the plot of land in Thorndike that houses Food for Maine's Future (GE Free Maine's new identity). Gilmartin and Hersey-Wilson locked themselves to two other women with bicyle locks and refused to leave LURC's offices. All four women were arrested for trespassing.

Another familiar face turned up at the fracas -- Logan Perkins -- , though she was not arrested. The women were identified in news stories as members of Maine Earth First! In 1984, Earth First! gained noteriety and were labeled as "ecoterrorists" when they introduced tree spiking. By driving spikes into trees they impeded the logging process as chainsaws incountering the spikes were destroyed. In 1992, according to the FBI, the violent Earth Liberation Front, was founded by Earth First! members. In a news story photograph, Logan Perkins is seen confronting officials in front of the LURC offices.

In retrospect, the radical underbelly of the anti-biotech movement should come as no surprise. In August of 1999, a group calling itself "Seeds of Resistance" destroyed a plot of genetically engineered corn being grown by University of Maine researcher John Jemison. Shortly thereafter, stands of poplar trees in northern Maine were destroyed under the mistaken impression that they too were genetically engineered.

The ultimate irony in all of this is that the anti-biotechnology crusaders have hounded legislators and, more recently, town officials in their effort to pass laws and ordinances banning the planting of biotech crops. But when it comes to obeying laws, well . . .

Yogic Flying at the Common Ground Fair

2008-08-26T07:58:00.001-07:00

Anyone who has attended the Common Ground Fair knows the offerings range from the unusual to, well, the bizarre. The fair bills itself as blending "old-time folkways with progressive ideas." (No kidding!) This year fairgoers could be in for a real treat, a demonstration of "yogic flying," a form of meditation introduced by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (Remember the Beatles?)

Jeffrey Smith, a devote of the Maharishi and accomplished yogic flyer, will be the keynote speaker at Saturday's session of the fair. Unfortunately, Smith is traveling to Maine from Fairfield, Iowa, home of the Maharishi University, not to demonstrate his aeronautical talents, but to sell books -- self-published, pseudo-scientific tracts about the evils of eating food made with biotech-enhanced crops. Smith's talk is based on his latest book "Genetic Roulette," in which he details sixty-five health risks from GMO-containing foods.

Smith's problem is he isn't qualified to shine Watson's & Crick's shoes (they discovered DNA), despite billing himself as "a leading spokesperson on the health dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)." Smith's college degree is in business administration. His last hands-on trip to a science lab was probably in high school biology. But that hasn't stopped Smith from making a living writing books and delivering talks on the evils of biotechnology.

What about the sixty-five "health risks" Smith cites? Scientific experts have demolished the list. For example, Smith claims Arpad Puztai found damage in rats that ate genetically modified potatoes. What he doesn't say is that Nature retracted the publication when experts pointed out flaws in the study design. And the rats with bleeding stomachs caused by eating GMO tomatoes? Experts who examined the data found that both groups of rats, those eating GMO tomatoes and the control group eating regular tomatoes had bleeding stomachs. Turns our tomatoes are not good for rats. And on and on . . .

So why is the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association showcasing Smith? Two reasons. First, MOFGA's campaign to make Maine a GMO-free state is failing. Though MOFGA has won some small battles, it is losing the war. Maine farmers are planting more and more biotech crops. This year for the first time, dairy farmers were cleared to plant insect-resistant corn, a major blow to MOFGA. With the legislature, and now the regulators, showing no signs of blocking biotech-enhanced crops, MOFGA is getting desperate.

The second reason is more insidious. People buy higher-priced organic foods because they believe they are safer, more nutritious and growing them is better for the environment. Problem is, there is no scientific data to back that up, a fact confirmed by a study just published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. So, marketers of organic foods have turned to bashing traditional foods and GMO-containing foods in particular. It's no accident that Smith's home town, Fairfield, Iowa, is the home of Maharashi Vedic City where only organic food is sold and Maharishi Verdic Organic Products are produced.

For nearly 20 years, MOFGA has had it both ways. They have demanded solid scientific evidence from promoters of biotech crops, while relying on junk science to promote the virtue of organic foods. Inviting Jeffrey Smith to speak at the Common Ground Fair is the latest example. MOFGA needs to clean up its act. Talking out of both sides of your mouth may work for consumers, but the legislators, administrators and regulators MOFGA relies on to advance the organic agenda on a statewide level are beginning to notice.

Agriculture Commissioner seeks meeting with Montville selectboard

2008-06-12T06:16:00.000-07:00

There could be a break in the standoff between the Town of Montville and the State of Maine over the town's ordinance banning the planting of genetically modified crops (GMOs). The Maine BioBlog has learned that Agriculture Commissioner Seth Bradstreet, III, is interested in meeting with the Montville selectboard to discuss the town's ordinance and the possible consequences of defending its legality.

Reached last night (June 11), Montville First Selectperson Jay LeGore said he was unaware of the Commissioner's interest in meeting with town officials. Asked it the selectboard would meet with the Commissioner, LeGore replied, "I don't see why not."

In April, Bradstreet sent a letter to the town advising them that the GMO ban passed at town meeting in March violated the states "right to farm law" and declared the ordinance to be "invalid." The Town responded with a letter to the Commissioner outlining why, in their view, the town's ordinance did not violate state law. (See previous Blog article "Montville digs in its heels."

The question of whether the town ordinance is invalidated by Maine's pesticide statutes is still unanswered. Also in April, Henry Jennings, director of Maine Board of Pesticides Control wrote to town officials saying they had failed to notify the Board in advance of the vote as required by law. Accordingly, Jennings letter stated the GMO ban ordinance is "null and void."

Asked whether the town has responded to Jennings, LeGore would only say that the town has sent Jennings a copy of the ordinance. LeGore would not say whether the selectboard has developed a rational as to why the GMO ban is valid, in spite of Jennings "null and void" ruling.

Montville digs in its heels

2008-05-22T08:11:00.001-07:00

The town of Montville, which passed an ordinance at town meeting banning the planting of biotech-enhanced crops, is girding for battle with the state. In April, the Department of Agriculture and the Maine Board of Pesticides Control sent letters to the town advising them the ordinance violated several provisions of state law. On May 13, Montville selectmen responded to Agriculture Commissioner Seth Bradstreet claiming Maine's right to farm law does not apply to the ordinance. In their view, Montville enacted a "valid municipal ordinance" in an exercise of "municipal sovereignty." The town has not responded to the Board of Pesticides Control.

Commissioner Bradstreet's letter of April 10 stated that 17MRSA 2805(4) requires the town to send the department a copy of the ordinance for review 90 days before the scheduled vote. Since that did not take place, the ordinance is "invalid" in the eyes of the state.

The letter from Henry Jennings, director of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, advised the town it had a responsibility to submit the proposed ordinance to the BPC seven days in advance of the vote under 22 MRSA, Section 1471-U. The BPC has jurisdiction because one of the banned biotech crops is insect-resistant corn, a plant that is regulated in Maine as a pesticide. As a result, Jennings declared the ordinance to be "null and void."

In its letter, Montville officials advanced the interesting theory that the state right to farm law prohibits towns from banning "farm operations," whereas the ordinance banned "products." And since the law requires advance notice of ordinances that impact farm operations, advance notice of an ordinance banning a product is not required. Since the statute makes a clear distinction between "products" and "operations," the selectmen concluded, "we believe the statute was not intended to apply to 'products.'"

The town's response begs the question of the Board of Pesticides Control's ruling that the ordinance is "null and void," but it is clear, Montville does not intend to cave in as other towns have done on this issue.

(For more information on this controversy, go to www.mainebioinfo.org )

Montville ban threatens state's economic development plan

2008-04-11T06:45:00.000-07:00

Activists, desperate for a win after a series of setbacks in their drive to rid Maine of biotech-enhanced crops, have found a new venue — town meetings. At town meeting (March 29), the residents of Montville voted overwhelmingly to ban the planting of genetically engineered plants within the town. The selection of town meetings to carry on the fight is no accident. The message is easily controlled. Outsiders, who might have some knowledge are unwelcome at town meetings. Debate is limited. And the populist appeals of the anti-biotechnology crowd, built on a distrust of corporations and science, resonate with the residents of Maine’s small towns, hard hit by the state’s flagging economy.

In the grand scheme of things, the action in Montville won’t amount to much. The ordinance clearly violates Maine’s right to farm law which plainly states “A method of operation used by a farm or farm operation located in an area where agricultural activities are permitted may not be considered a violation of a municipal ordinance if the method of operation constitutes a best management practice as determined by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources.” (17 M.R.S.A., 2805) The Department of Agriculture, which considers biotech crops to be part of best management practices, has said it will ask the Attorney General for an opinion on Montville’s ordinance. The Maine Farm Bureau, which in the past has aggressively defended farmers’ rights to farm as they see fit, will undoubtedly join the fight. Other Maine farm organizations can be expected to follow suit.

The problem for Maine officials, though, is this isn’t a fight over what may or may not be grown in Montville. It’s a battle over the public’s acceptance of science in shaping the future of agriculture. Many Mainers have bought into the organic farming mystique, which is rooted in the unscientific premise that nitrogen from cow manure is better for plants than nitrogen from the air, or that chemical pesticides synthesized by plants are safer than chemical pesticides synthesized by man. Framing the contest as one between organic farming and biotech farming neatly sidesteps the scientific debate. In fact, the path to victory for opponents of biotech lies in an outright rejection of science. As Diana George Chapin, who led the Montville ban effort wrote, “While many answers to securing our future lie in the investigations and developments of science, I believe GMOs do not improve the quality of our lives.” (Oddly enough, Chapin has a master’s degree in soil and environmental science.)

The rejection of science in the debate over biotech crops should be setting off alarm bells in the statehouse and at campuses across the state. Maine has hitched its economic future to the triumph of science. State officials have upped spending on research and development and repeatedly urged voters to pass R&D bond issues. All of this is based on solid research showing higher incomes in states that spend heavily on scientific research. A rejection of science on the local level threatens the very heart of the state’s economic development plan.

State officials, from the governor’s office to the chancellor’s office in Orono, are betting that setbacks like the one in Montville won’t chill the voters ardor for R&D spending. They may be right. But Maine’s spending on R&D is not based on the premise that the state can spend its way to prosperity. It is based on the expectation that private investment will flow into the state to leverage state spending. And venture investors, who invested over $9 billion last year in life science companies, do pay attention to little things like Montville. Who wants to risk their money in a state that rejects the very thing they are investing in? No matter how many R&D bonds the voters approve, without private investment the state’s plan will fail.

And private investors will be hearing about Montville soon, if they haven’t already. What Maine’s public officials have failed to grasp is that the real goal of the anti-biotechnology activists in Maine is PUBLICITY. Who cares what is or isn’t grown in a Maine town with a population of 1,000. But when a Maine town becomes the “First town outside of CA to pass moratorium on GMOs,” as the activists spun it, the world will take note. As Rob Fish, the founder of GE Free Maine (since renamed Food for Maine’s Future) crowed in an e-mail to me, “Did you see the national media on Montville?”

What should Maine officials do? First, they should end their silence on this issue. For years, activists have disparaged biotechnology and the farmers who use it without a peep from elected officials or scientists in the state who know better. Then, Maine officials, starting with the Governor, should role up their sleeves and start defending biotechnology. Here’s a to do list:

1. The governor’s science advisor should issue a statement denouncing the action in Montville as being unscientific and contrary to the best interests of Maine farmers and the state.
2. The governor should convene a blue ribbon panel to make recommendations on how best to integrate biotechnology into the state’s economy.
3. The University of Maine should update its biotechnology White Paper series issued between April and December 1999.
4. The University of Maine should convene a panel of experts on agricultural biotechnology and host a series of public debates at locations around the state.
5. Then the university should publish and distribute the proceedings of the expert panel.
6. Individual scientists around the state, in both the public and private sectors, should engage in the public debate through public lectures, panel discussions and in newspaper columns and letters to the editor.

If leaders around the state undertake even a portion of the steps outlined above, the recent action in Montville will fade into obscurity as Maine claims its rightful place in the 21st century. If state officials and scientists remain silent, the residents of Montville will get their wish as the state slips quietly back into the 19th century.

Looking for a job? Maine's truth squad has openings.

2008-04-08T14:10:00.000-07:00

Help Wanted: Anti-sales representatives to travel the state of Maine to talk with doctors and health care providers in order to counter what pharmaceutical sales representatives are telling them. Competitive salary, generous fringe benefits, state car and credit card. Position reports to Winston Smith in the Ministry of Truth.

I’m making this up, right? NOT! (Well, I did make up the part about Winston Smith and the Ministry of Truth. That came from George Orwell’s novel 1984.) According to LD 839, which was passed by the Maine legislature last year, the state is supposed to have an “academic detailing” program up and running by January 1, 2008. The purpose of the law, according to the preamble, is to “enhance the health of the residents of the State” and “improve the quality of decisions regarding drug prescribing.”

The program components include “outreach and education” including “personal visits from program staff.” There it is, the smoking gun. The state is going to hire people to go out and PERSONALLY visit doctors in order to “improve” the decisions they make. Just what we patients are looking for, a doctor whose decision making has been “improved” by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. For those who have forgotten, these are the same people who engineered the Medicare billing fiasco that sent $56 million of your tax dollars into a black hole.

Who’s paying for this Orwellian scheme? Pharmaceutical manufacturers doing business with the state must pay a $1,000 annual fee. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America list 65 member companies on their Website. Assuming all of these companies do business in Maine (which they don’t) that’s $65,000 into the kitty each year. With salary, benefits and expenses, that would support about one truth teller a year. Where’s the rest of the money going to come from? You guessed it, the General Fund — your tax dollars at work. So, not only is DHHS sending out a truth squad to “improve” you doctor’s decision making, but you are footing the bill!

There are two messages here, one for business owners in Maine, the other for consumers. If you are a business owner pray that your sales practices don’t catch the attention of a legislator. Should you run afoul of the legislature, you could find your sales representatives being shadowed by a taxpayer-funded truth squad to “improve” the decisions made by your customers. And for consumers, the next time you see your doctor ask yourself, is the decision your doctor just made guided by that Harvard Medical School diploma on the wall or did it originate in the Ministry of Truth in Augusta?

When we moved our public relations business to Maine we were astonished when CEO after CEO told us they didn’t want the name of their company to appear in newspaper stories. “It only brings the regulators from Augusta to mess around in our business,” they told us.
Maine has the 48th worst business climate in the nation. A well deserved ranking from the look of it.

Postscript Before posting this article I called DHHS and asked to talk with someone familiar with this program. I was promised a call back. Four days later nobody has called. Either they don’t know what is going on or they don’t want to talk about it. My money’s on the latter.
February 6 Update I received a call from Jude Walsh in Governor Bladacci’s Office of Health Policy where she is Director of Pharmacy Affairs. Walsh said the program startup has been delayed because Maine is working with Vermont and New Hampshire, where similar programs are in the works. The three states have received a planning grant and will be meeting next Monday (Feb. 11) with an expert from Harvard Medical School to begin working on a curriculum for the academic detailers. The academic detailing program in Pennsylvania will serve as a blueprint for the three-state initiative. Rules for Maine’s program have been drafted but are not yet available to the public.

(Originally posted 1/25/2008)

Will biotech get mugged (again)?

2008-04-08T13:29:00.000-07:00

Nine years ago the Maine Board of Pesticides Control turned thumbs down on several registration applications for insect-resistant corn containing the naturally occurring pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt. The reason: the applicants failed to demonstrate a need for the products as required by law. The hearings were contentious and messy with biotech opponents sounding off about technology run amok, corporate greed and all manner of things unrelated to the technology. Seed manufacturers were so disheartened by the process that a full nine years would pass before they could be persuaded to resubmit their applications. Meanwhile, the opponents of agricultural biotechnology claimed bragging rights when the action made Maine the only state in the nation to prohibit the planting of Bt corn.

Fast forward to 2007. In July, the BPC reversed itself and approved seven varieties of Bt field corn. Need for the products was documented by field trials and thoughtful testimony from farmers who claimed they would plant the corn. Scientific questions were addressed by a Technical Committee which submitted a 34 page report to the Board. Though testimony from opponents was as wild and wooly as ever (Rep. David Miramant claimed modern farming methods were the cause of all the cancer we see), against the backdrop of the Technical Committee’s report, the unsubstantiated claims of harm from Bt corn couldn’t gain any traction. The BPC voted unanimously (with one abstention) to approve the registrations.

Now the process seems poised to come unglued as the BPC tackles rule making for the use of the products. The draft rule is a hodgepodge of initiatives that lack not only a scientific underpinning, but make no sense. For example, the rule proposes that farmers who plant Bt corn be licensed as pesticide applicators, never mind that the same farmer could buy unlimited amounts of Bt itself and apply it without any license. The draft rule also defines the plant itself as a pesticide, not just the active ingredient. That’s like calling a bottle a pesticide because it happens to contain one. Some of the rule, training for farmers who plant Bt corn, for example, seems reasonable, but the jury is very much out on how the final rule will read.

The public hearing on the draft rule, held November 16, was a spectacle. BPC members politely listened to four hours of testimony, much of it redundant and most of it completely unrelated to the draft rule. The same familiar faces stood before the board and made the same wild and unsubstantiated claims about biotechnology. Someone even launched a gratuitous attack on the Board claiming they were on the take for having granted the registrations in the first place. Supporters of the registrations stayed focused and narrowly commented on the draft rules. It was as if the two opposing sides were from different planets.

How did we get here? How do we find ourselves deep in the middle of a very serious governmental process where an elected official states (unopposed) that our farmers are killing people. Or where a person levels a charge of corruption against public officials without a shred of evidence and is not held accountable.

WE GOT HERE BECAUSE WE LET IT HAPPEN. Reasonable, knowledgeable people have left the process. Scientists no longer testify at legislative hearings or rulemaking sessions because no one listens to them. And they are tired of taking abuse from unhinged critics in public meetings. An agronomist who has volunteered considerable time to help the BPC told the Board at the last meeting he would no longer donate his time because nobody was listening to him. Business people have also left the room. A plea to the Biotechnology Association of Maine to engage in the rulemaking process went unanswered.

It remains to be seen whether the rulemaking process will spin out of control or whether reason and science will prevail in the end. But which ever way it goes, Maine has lost. For a state that touts the “Creative Economy” and courts biotechnology as a “targeted economic sector” the public flogging of agricultural biotechnology throughout this process is an embarrassment.

(Originally posted 12/03/2007)

Of butterflies and caddisflies -- what's a regulator to do?

2008-04-08T13:25:00.000-07:00

Yoggi Berra called it “deja vu all over again” — the feeling that you’ve been there done that. For biotech supporters, the recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is causing flashbacks to 1999. That’s the year when a paper published in The Lancet showed you could kill Monarch butterfly larvae by feeding them gobs of pollen from Bt corn — corn genetically engineered to express a naturally occurring pesticidal protein. To activists it was the “smoking gun” they desperately needed to end the advance of biotechnology in agriculture. Soon, Monarch butterflies were everywhere, marching in front of supermarkets, flying around Web pages — the Monarch butterfly quickly became the symbol of the anti-biotechnology movement.
There was only one problem. John Losey, the researcher who published the study, fed the pollen to the Monarch larvae in the laboratory. Critics of the study said the levels of pollen needed to kill the larvae were way higher than those found in corn fields. Sure enough the critics were right. After several years of actual field studies, researchers at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service concluded “There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn.” To this day there is a USDA Website devoted to the controversy.

The study just published in PNAS claims that Bt corn byproducts and pollen are toxic to caddisflies, small insects that live in streams. When these streams flow near corn fields planted with Bt corn, some of the stalks end up in the streams where they are eaten by the caddisflies. This led the authors to conclude that “Bt corn byproducts may have negative effects on the biota (read caddisflies) of streams in agricultural areas.”

The parallels between the 1999 study and the recent PNAS study are eerily similar. Both the Monarch larvae and the caddisflies were killed by pollen administered in the laboratory. Both authors qualified their results with words like “may have” or “potentially” when suggesting Bt corn was harming the environment. Experts in the field were strongly critical of both studies. Both times, the media ignored the qualifiers and the critics when reporting on the studies. And both times the activists seized on the studies as the long sought “smoking gun” they were looking for.
The criticism of the caddisfly study is persuasive. The concentrations of Bt needed to cause mortality were way higher than that found in the field. From the way the study was designed, you can’t know for sure what was killing the insects. And most importantly, the study didn’t look at the effect of Bt on caddisflies under actual field conditions.

Several things we know for sure. More work will be done, but this time it will be carefully done under actual field conditions, just as with the Monarch butterfly. We can be certain that activists, undaunted by their past embarrassments, will seize on the research to press their case with regulators and legislators. What we won’t see is activists parading in front of supermarkets dressed as caddisflies — they are ugly little devils.

It will take some time to resolve this issue. Good science takes time. In the meantime, Maine regulators and legislators can do little but wait and watch. Taking action on the basis on one scientific study is not only bad policy, it shows a profound lack of understanding of science itself.

(Orginally posted 11/09/07)

Maine R&D spending: Mid-course correction

2008-04-08T13:19:00.000-07:00

By all accounts, for the past ten years Maine has been on a research and development spending binge. The start of the spending spree can be traced back to Joel Russ when he headed the now defunct Maine Science and Technology Foundation. In 1998, Russ talked the legislature into floating a $20 million R&D bond that, when passed by voters, funneled research money into the University of Maine and the MSTF. Russ’s argument: R&D spending boosts incomes.
Two years later, Evan Richert, Governor Angus King’s choice to head the Maine State Planning Office, upped the ante with his “30 and 1,000″ plan. Richert’s vision was that by the year 2010, 30 percent of Maine’s adults would have college degrees and R&D spending would reach $1,000 for every working person in the state. The legislative spigot opened further and a succession of R&D bonds followed.

But something happened on the way to the party: the way those R&D funds were allocated changed. The 1998 bond earmarked $3 million for the private, industrial sector and $1.5 million for Maine’s nonprofit research sector: two-thirds industry; one-third nonprofits.
Following the 1998 bond, the next legislature escalated R&D spending spree with a $10 million appropriation, but it dedicated the money to a newly created Maine Biomedical Research Fund. To get money out of the fund you had to be a “Maine-based private nonprofit biomedical research institution or academic medical center or medical school.” With that, Maine’s nonprofit R&D institutions had a lock on the funds. In 2003, Maine voters plowed $20 million into the fund and in 2005 added another $8 million. Since its inception, $52.5 has passed through the Maine Biomedical Research Fund.

Meanwhile, the private sector was receiving far less. For example, from the $60 million R&D bond that added $20 to the Biomedical Research Fund, the private sector got $2 million through grants to various “technology sectors.”

Shortly after the spending spree began, the legislature commissioned a study to look at R&D spending to see if the state was getting a proper bang for its buck. The first study was encouraging, though not enough time had passed to draw meaningful conclusions. The law required the study be repeated in five years. The first five-year analysis was published on February 6, 2007. And it was an eye-opener.

Not surprisingly, the study found that the $297 million Maine has spent on R&D since 1996 has “contributed to consistent growth in Mane’s economy and has increased competitiveness relative to other states.” The study also found R&D spending has created jobs and boosted incomes. Maine’s median income has been creeping up relative to the rest of the U.S., due in part to better paying R&D jobs.

But four paragraphs into the report the tone turns sour. “There is, however, a serious mismatch between the investment in R&D and the resulting performance,” the report states. R&D spending on the nonprofit sector caused it to grow by 211 percent, while nationally the nonprofit sector grew only 89 percent. Meanwhile, despite investing 22.5 percent of the R&D funds in private industry, the sector shrunk by 30 percent.

“The question is, do we care about these allocations? The answer is we do. While increased R&D is in and of itself a good thing, its real impact on the economy is when the knowledge produced is commercialized. The overwhelming finding from this report is that the academic and nonprofit sectors are not commercializing much of the new knowledge acquired through the state-funded R&D, while industry is commercializing at a high rate. Therefore, the state’s investment is not creating the maximum possible impact.”

Ouch!

The good news is that legislators apparently read the report. This November voters will decide on a $55 million R&D bond issue. If it passes, $50 million will go to the Maine Technology Institute to be parcelled out to private industry and nonprofits on a competitive basis, with no earmarks! This means the private sector and the nonprofits will be on an equal footing when they line up for state R&D funds.

Under the new system, the winners will be the researchers with the best ideas . . . and the people of Maine.

(Originally posted 10/26/2007)

Pesticide Board Threatens to Undercut Insect-Resistant Corn Registrations

2008-04-06T05:14:00.000-07:00

Maine farmers scored a huge victory on July 27 when the Maine Board of Pesticides Control voted to register seven varieties of biotech-enhanced, insect-resistant field corn. Nine years earlier, the BPC turned thumbs down on similar applications claiming there was no need for the products in Maine. This time the farmers were prepared. A study showing that the bugs the corn resists are active in Maine was presented to the BPC. At the hearings, farmers came out in numbers to testify that the corn was in fact needed and without it Maine farmers would lose access to better yielding varieties of field corn. The BPC listened and voted unanimously (with one abstention) to register the products.

Now, the BPC seems poised to take all that away. Draft rules for the regulation of insect-resistant corn are so burdensome that manufacturers of the products are likely to withdraw their registrations and write off the Maine market. If this happens Maine’s dairy farmers, who need the corn to feed their cows, will be the losers. Their competitors in every other state in the nation can plant the higher-yielding varieties, and thus will have an economic advantage.

What’s going on? The health and environmental safety issues have long been resolved in favor of insect-resistant corn. Even the BPC itself found nine years ago that the products posed no dangers to health and safety in Maine.

What’s happening is that a well organized lobby of organic farmers and backyard gardeners are trying to gain through rulemaking what they could not achieve in the approval process. A letter from Russ Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, to the BPC contains a blueprint for the rules. The draft rules published after Libby’s letter was received follow his recommendations, almost to the letter: required pesticide licenses for farmers who plant the corn, mandatory buffers between insect-resistant corn and other corn and pesticide licenses for seed dealers who sell the corn seed.

The requirement that seed dealers who sell and farmers who plant the insect-resistant corn obtain a pesticide license is regulatory overkill. The 191 page manual, on which the licensing exam is based, contains not a single piece of information relevant to the planting of the corn. The mandated 660 ft. buffer between insect-resistant corn and other varieties ignores the findings of the BPC’s own technical committee and the research of one of its members who found that beyond 100 ft., cross-pollination by corn was minimal.

But all of this misses the point. The Board of Pesticides Control is charged by Maine law with “assuring to the public the benefits to be derived from the safe, scientific and proper use of chemical pesticides while safeguarding the public health, safety and welfare, and for the further purpose of protecting natural resources of the State.” The BPC has already determined there are no public or environmental health or safety issues with insect-resistant corn. The pursuit of a burdensome rulemaking effort at the urging of activists who failed to make a scientific case sufficient to block registration should stop. Otherwise, the BPC will fail in its responsibility to provide to the public the benefits to be derived from the safe, scientific and proper use of the seven, insect-resistant strains of corn it already has approved.

(Originally published on October 11, 2007)