Published with permission from Jean English, Editor of Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA). Article from pages 10-11 of The Maine Organic Farmer & Gardener, June — August 2003, Volume 30 / Number 2.

"I see a roomful of radicals asking you to act conservatively, and a few conservatives asking you to act radically." Lisa Turner, an organic vegetable grower and president of MOFGA, elicited a roomful of cheers and applause with this remark at a hearing on a moratorium on genetically engineered foods in April.

This was a busy spring as MOFGA testified on several state bills relating to agriculture and health. Over 60 members of the organic community came to Augusta to support a proposed moratorium on growing genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops in Maine, while only a few opponents appeared and presented lackluster testimony.

L.D. 1219, "An Act to Establish a Moratorium on Genetically Engineered Plants," sponsored by Rep. Linda Rogers McKee, would establish a three-year moratorium on planting genetically engineered plants in Maine. It also would require the Maine Department of Agriculture to prepare a marketing plan that uses the moratorium as a promotional tool for Maine agricultural products.

McKee introduced the bill by stating that 1,000 to 4,500 acres or more of GE crops grow in Maine, but "we don't know because this kind of information is not public." Secrecy about planting GE crops has made a bill passed last year, to inform growers about distances they must maintain to avoid contaminating non-GE crops, "almost unenforceable," she added.

Planting GE crops is risky, McKee continued, because their long-term effects are unknown; they can contaminate non-GE crops; they are under the control of very few corporations, and those corporations do not allow growers to save seed; and because Monsanto seems to be unwilling to identify a safe buffer zone in writing. The bill is fair, she said, because it will provide time for good, independent research. It also supports organic farming, the only segment of Maine farming that is growing so rapidly.

Almost four hours of testimony followed, with the vast majority supporting the bill. Growers, consumers, and even a bed-and-breakfast owner who did not want the risk of serving potentially allergenic food to his patrons, reiterated McKee's arguments. "A moratorium can be ended. Genetic contamination cannot," said Marilyn Anderson. Ib Barfod said that genetic contamination could jeopardize his plans to transfer his farm to younger people someday. "It would be unfortunate to lose another farm in our community [Warren]."

Lisa Hawkins, a MOFGA member, noted the increase in pest resistance that GE crops may cause, followed by an increase in pesticide use. "Is Maine prepared to pay for the increase in health problems" as more pesticides are used? she asked.

Because some members of the Agriculture Committee were unfamiliar with the differences between traditional breeding and genetic engineering, CR Lawn, founder of Fedco Seeds, explained these briefly.

Organic dairy farmer Spencer Aitel said that the same people who told him two years ago that he would have to use GE crops to survive are now watching the farms that did switch to GE go under. Aitel's Two Loons Farm in China produces some of its own seed and intends to sell some as well. "Don't put us out of business," he demanded. He noted that when Roundup Ready GE corn was brown and dry during last summer's drought, his corn was green. He also noted that USDA rules for field testing GE crops that produce pharmaceuticals and industrial products call for a 1-mile distance from non-GE crops to prevent contamination.

Mark Guzzi, an organic grower and graduate of the University of Maine Sustainable Agriculture Program, said that no solid evidence shows that GE crops help farming systems. Before the hearing, he called two agronomists at the University, and neither recommends using GE crops because they are more expensive to plant than traditional.

Rep. John Piotti asked why people are using Roundup Ready corn. Guzzi answered that companies that supply their products tell growers how easy their lives will be if they use this technology. Lisa Turner, MOFGA's president, added, "GE crops are a technological development, not an improvement, foisted on farmers by PR people." She noted that if only 3,500 acres of Maine's 750,000 acres of tilled and pastured land is planted to GE crops, that's only one-half of one percent. "Clearly there is not much support" for GE crops. Also, she said that the FDA has not required testing of GE plants, and consumers prefer that GMOs not be tested on their children.

Organic grower Dave Colson told the Committee that the Roundup Ready gene can migrate from GE to wild plants in one generation, and that one study showed that transgenes migrate more readily than conventionally-bred genes. Biological pollution, he said, is a new, self-replicating problem.

Tim Seabrook of Five Star Nursery in Brooklin, co-director of Keep Maine Free (which instigated the moratorium bill), said that Keep Maine Free had gathered 250 signatures from conventional and organic farmers, representing 37,785 acres of land, who pledged to keep their land free of GE crops for the next three years. "They've started the process," said Seabrook. "L.D. 1219 would complete it."

Leslie Cummins, also co-director of Keep Maine Free, said that she was testifying on behalf of consumers who shop at food co-ops and are concerned because of the lack of safety testing of GE crops. Dr. Arpad Puzstai's work, she explained, indicated that more safety testing should have been done before these crops were released. The move toward engineering prescription drugs and industrial chemicals into corn and other plants is very worrisome too, in light of the tendency for such traits to escape into food products.

Edee Howland, a holistic health care worker from Little Deer Isle, told the Committee that proteins in food change when they are engineered, and that allergies in children are increasing. Allergies are most commonly caused by proteins. "I don't want to hear, ‘Get Real Sick, Get Maine,’" she said.

Harborside resident Jody Spear emphasized this point. While the federal government and industry have insisted that GE products are "substantially equivalent" to non-GE, "That so-called equivalence was shown to be false last summer, when 141 patients taking the bioengineered drug Eprex had severe immune reactions to a protein in the drug, with the result that their bodies stopped making red blood cells. These patients paid a heavy price for the discovery that some people do not react to GE proteins as they would to natural proteins: They must now depend on blood transfusions to stay alive." Spear listed substances engineered into crops that are being tested in over 300 open-air field trials in secret locations across the United States: industrial enzymes, blood clotters, blood thinners, growth hormones, plastics, detergents, adhesives and contraceptives.

Grower Nancy Chandler said, "Even if I could sell organic foods with [GE] contamination, I wouldn't. My integrity is on the line." She questioned whether GE crops really saved farmers time, since they must rogue out remaining seeds or seedlings in the field after crop harvest, or "that field will be perpetually a GMO field." She told the Committee that according to agricultural researcher Charles Benbrook, growers using GE crops had the same net income as conventional growers.

Deer Isle resident Jane McCloskey, who is chemically sensitive, told the Committee that when she ate organic corn or chocolate, she had no health problems; but when she ate conventional corn or chocolate, she developed "unpleasant bowel symptoms." Responding to anti-moratorium testifiers who said that people are free to choose between organic and GE foods, McCloskey agreed that she's been able to make that choice, "but I spend a lot of money to do it. People who can't afford organic should have a choice." If the moratorium does not pass, she noted that legislators would have to set aside a lot of money to label GE-free foods and to monitor and enforce buffer zones between GE and non-GE crops in order to give such choice to others.

That buffer zone could be huge. Roberta Bailey of Fedco Seeds noted that Fedco requires that its seed growers maintain a 10-mile isolation distance from GMO crops of the same species, because pollen drift is a big concern. She emphasized consumers' desire for GE-free foods by citing the eight-fold increase in organic seed sales at Fedco in the last two years and Fedco's desire to add as many varieties of organic seed as possible.

Others pointed out that a cocktail of chemicals is now needed to make Roundup Ready corn fields weed-free, because of resistant weeds. "Virtually everything that's been sold to farmers to make their lives easier hasn't worked," said one. The fact that growers can hardly keep up with the demand for organic foods makes GE crops seem unnecessary. The doubling of Brazil's exports of soybeans since its moratorium on GE soy was noted, as well as the 30% decline in U.S. soybean exports over the same period. The moratorium provides a chance to prevent Monsanto's lawyers from suing farmers who have GE crops coming up in their fields where they were not planted, as well.

Maine's Agriculture Commissioner John Spear opposed the bill, saying that about 12% of Maine's 26,000 acres of field corn, or about 3,500 acres, grown in 2002 was engineered for herbicide tolerance. A moratorium would be a hardship on the dairy industry and would remove the ability of farmers to supply some of the GE ingredients found in about 80% of supermarket foods, he continued.

Spear estimated that the bill would cost the state $200,000 to promote Maine as a GE-free state.

Chip Angell, owner of the Brooklin Inn and a supporter of the moratorium, suggested that the Department's $250,000 cost for the Get Real, Get Maine campaign is "mutually compatible" with the cost of promoting Maine as GE-free.

Rep. Eder asked, "Is the Department concerned that fewer and fewer companies own the rights to seeds?" Spear answered, "That has no influence on our stand on this bill." Rep. Nancy Smith asked where the Governor stood on the issue. Spear said he would find out for the workshop on the bill.

Jon Olson, executive director of Maine Farm Bureau, opposed the bill because farmers who already grow GE crops would have to change management practices; because the bill does not state that the Department of Agriculture would study GE plants but does ask the legislature to promote them; and because the moratorium would prevent farmers from using products that are not on the market yet.

Donald Flannery, executive director of the Maine Potato Board, and Abbie Holman of the Maine Forest Products Council also cited future GE products as they opposed the moratorium.

When Rep. Ray Pineau asked how many of Maine Farm Bureau’s 5500 members grow GM crops, Olson did not know but said that some Farm Bureau members are organic, so they would not use them. (Two organic growers later testified in favor of the moratorium and noted that they were Farm Bureau members.)

"Do your farmers feel they're getting all the information they need to make these decisions?" asked Pineau. "Any farmer who is still in business has made these management decisions or he would not be in business," Olson responded. Pineau noted that "the potato industry went into GMOs a few years ago, then had to make a hasty retreat."

Knox dairy farmer Galen Larrabee opposed the moratorium because about 90 of his 400 acres of corn are engineered.

William Bell, representing the New England Grain and Feed Council, asked the Committee to respect growers' beliefs that GE crops can reduce tillage and pesticide use and improve water quality.

Cheryl Timberlake, executive director of the Biotechnology Association of Maine (BOM), believes that the moratorium would serve "the opposite to our economic development goals. It sends a negative message to industry, investors, all of Maine." (Chip Angell of the Brooklin Inn later responded that "everyone here has talked about studying this question. That's what [Timberlake's] group does. This legislation would show that we're forward thinking, interested in learning.")

Bob Tardy of Crop Life America denied any evidence of adverse effects to health or the environment from GE crops. He said that a moratorium would be a barrier to marketing safe products in Maine and that the federal government should deal with rules and regulations concerning GE crops. When Rep. Eder asked Tardy whether the USDA had conducted tests on GMOs, Tardy said that he didn't know but suggested, "Let's identify the weaknesses and deal with them."

Douglas Johnson, executive director of the Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau, which is funded by individuals and companies that produce biotechnology crops, claimed to be testifying "neither for nor against" the moratorium but then said that the FDA, the American Medical Association and the Institute of Food Technologists had "looked at" GE crops in relation to human health extensively and found no problems; that studies that had found problems were faulty; that gene flow "is a fact of life already"; and that the Bt in engineered corn is already in the environment. He claimed that a small amount of GE contamination "does not render a crop as not organic." Sharon Tisher later told the legislators that nothing in the federal organic standards says that crops that are accidentally contaminated with GE material can be sold as organic. "The preamble suggests that this might be the case, but [MOFGA's] staff scientist says no."

When Piotti questioned Johnson about whether genes flowed from one organism to another in nature, Johnson responded that "it is wrong to look at a gene as a pig or strawberry gene; it's a gene. A piece of DNA. We are not moving things that were not in nature."

Eder asked whether long-term studies showed that GE crops are not harmful. "Not foolproof studies," Johnson said. "It gets into the question of risk."

When Rep. Smith asked how Johnson balanced a grower's choice to raise organic crops with another's choice to grow a potentially contaminating crop, Johnson again misspoke: "Why is this the only risk organic farmers are concerned with? Why not pesticide drift? There is a legal framework in which this can be resolved to recover lost income." [In fact, pesticide drift is a major concern of organic growers and is addressed closely in organic standards and inspections.]

At a continued work session on April 30, the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture voted a unanimous "Ought to Pass" on a compromise bill. The text was being drafted as we went to press and will be posted at www.mofga.org. Though far from CVU and MOFGA's original moratorium proposal, the bill does focus on the problems of GE crops in Maine and MOFGA strongly supports it. Without changing the existing cross-contamination legislation, it would (1)add a requirement for annual reports by the manufacturer or seed dealer of the total amount of GE seed, by crop type, sold in the state; (2) require the commissioner of agriculture to convene a working group to "develop an approach, evaluate advantages and disadvantages, and make recommendations regarding a marketing initiative to promote Maine agricultural products as free of genetically engineered materials."

Membership in the group is to include the director of agricultural marketing and production, the commissioner (if he chooses), a researcher from the Maine Agricultural Center at the University of Maine, a person with experience in retail food sales, members of the Joint Standing Committee, and a representative from each of the following entities, appointed by the respective executive body or executive director of each: a consumer food cooperative, the Maine Farm Bureau, and MOFGA; and (3) provide for the possibility of enacting in the next legislative session mandatory buffer zones for GE crops. A floor vote will not be necessary if the full committee signs on to the bill as redrafted.

To read MOFGA's complete testimony on the above bills and for updates, please visit www.mofga.org.

Reference excerpts from the Bangor Daily News article (© 2003):

Senate morphs bill to ban GE crops — Sponsor claims process misused

By Sharon Kiley Mack of the News Staff — 19 June 2003

AUGUSTA - Several Maine legislators and the state's anti-genetically engineered crops community said this week they are outraged at the metamorphosis that a bill they backed to ban GE-crops in Maine underwent in the state Senate.

Leaving the Agriculture Committee as a plan to study the feasibility of promoting Maine as a GE-free state, an amendment would instead have changed that study to promote growing GE-crops.

The bill was so substantially changed without a public hearing that its sponsor, Rep. Linda Rogers McKee, D-Wayne, eventually withdrew it, but not before she said her and others' faith in the legislative system was destroyed.

"This is the most disappointing thing I have experienced in seven years in the Legislature," McKee said.

Sen. Richard Kneeland, R-Easton, who proposed the amendment changing the bill, said he did so to provide a more balanced bill and substantially changing the bill outside of the public's eye is just business as usual.

He said Wednesday that bills are routinely amended after they have left their respective committees, and said he made the changes as requested by the Maine Department of Agriculture.

McKee's bill, LD 1219, was submitted as a moratorium on GE-crop production. During Agriculture Committee deliberation, however, it was changed to create a study group that would look into the feasibility of touting Maine as a GE-free state.

The bill left the committee with the unanimous "ought to pass" designation, and supporters felt they had compromised well.

During Senate deliberations, however, Kneeland proposed an amendment, which was passed, reversing the bill.

The amendment also significantly changed the membership of the study group, eliminating anti-GE advocates and including representatives of the GE industry.

McKee said when she first asked Agriculture Committee co-chairman Sen. Bruce Bryant, D-Dixfield, what the amendment was, he told her it was simply a fiscal note to allow legislators on the study group to be paid.

"I learned later that afternoon of the real language," McKee said. "It was a 180-degree turn from what the committee had agreed to do. There was no public hearing held on the proposed amendment."

McKee withdrew the bill.

"The people who brought this bill forward worked for a year to learn the process," McKee said on Sunday. "They felt betrayed. I, myself, was dismayed and felt the amendment was a breach of trust. I never would have turned on the committee like that."

Kneeland said amendments "happen quite often outside of the committee. They can be both good and bad. We just have to be diligent that they are not bad."

"It is incomprehensible to me how they could have simply gutted it," said Jody Spear of Co-Op Voices Unite, an environmental group that worked for months to pass the original legislation. "This is a scandal. Our democratic process was subverted."

"We worked for months on bringing this issue to the public's attention. Our faith in the legislative process is now seriously eroded," Spear said.

McKee agreed. "For me, as co-chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I was very, very discouraged by the lack of respect for the legislative process."

After she *withdrew the amended bill, committee members agreed to ask the Department of Agriculture to study the issue of whether it is worthwhile to promote Maine as GE-free, McKee said.

*NOTE: LD-1219 went to a "Committee of Conference." The Committee was "unable to agree." That was the end of the bill. It simply "died" at that point. Rep. Linda Rogers McKee did not withdraw the bill as reported by the Bangor Daily News.

See additional articles on our website regarding the mutilation of LD-1219.