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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Biotech brawl must end for Maine to prosper
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.
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.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The "Silly Season" is upon us
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.
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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Conversation with an organic grower
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.
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.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Maine Board of Pesticides Control has it backwards.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Your radical roots are showing!
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 . . .
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 . . .
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Yogic Flying at the Common Ground Fair
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
