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.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Agriculture Commissioner seeks meeting with Montville selectboard
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.
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.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Montville digs in its heels
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 )
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 )
Friday, April 11, 2008
Montville ban threatens state's economic development plan
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Looking for a job? Maine's truth squad has openings.
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)?
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)
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?
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
