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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
