Testimonies to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry of Maine

MOFGA Testimony (below)

Organic Consumers Association Testimony

MOFGA strongly supports L.D. 1219. When Maine becomes the nation's first "GMO free" state, it will significantly enhance consumer demand for Maine products. It will also send a strong message to Washington that we need to address critical regulatory deficiencies and scientific uncertainties before Americans can trust that our food system and our cropland are in good hands.

There are four fundamental reasons to support a three year moratorium on genetically engineered plants:

1. To give the federal agencies time to develop an effective regulatory framework. GE technology was born in the Reagan era of "regulatory reform," and its minimalist approach has ill-served the challenges of insuring health and ecological integrity. The inadequacies of the regulatory system was explored in an article in the Maine Law Review by Dr. Christie C. Vito, entitled "Biotechnology Oversight: The Junction of Law and Public Policy" (Volume 45, Number 2, 1993). In April, 1994, the 116th Legislature authorized the creation of the Commission to Study Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. I served on that Commission, chaired by Senator Pingree and Representative Daggett, and including representatives of industry, academia, the Bureau of Health, and environmental organizations. Our work included a day-long meeting with chief of the biotech program for the FDA. The Commission's March, 1996 final report to the legislature confirmed Dr. Vito's observations that there were a number of gaps and deficiencies in the federal system of particular concern to Maine (including inadequate regulation of fish and shellfish).
   
   To this day, there is still no mandatory safety testing for most GE foods, and despite planting tens of thousands of acres with GE crops, no agency has prepared an Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
   
   In April, 2000, the National Academy of Sciences released its report on genetically engineered plants engineered to incorporate pesticides, "Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation," (www.nap.edu/html/gmpp) While the report cautiously states that "the committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification, " it acknowledges that "there is the potential...for adverse health effects." The report clearly demonstrates that tests of both health and environmental impacts have to date been insufficient to reach a scientific determination of safety, and is replete with strong recommendations for further research, including "assess[ing] gene flow and its potential consequences," and "monitor[ing] ecological impacts of [GE] crops on a long term basis to ensure the detection of impacts that may not be predicted from tests conducted during the regulatory approval process."
   
   In 2000, a federal agency reached conclusions reminiscent of the findings four years previously by the Maine Commission, and even more critical of federal oversight. The Interior Department undertook a review of the adequacy of federal oversight of biotechnology, focusing on the threat that GE plants and animals will become invasive species. William Brown, former Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior, reported that the Department found biotech federal oversight to be a "tangle of inadequate laws and programs," creating a system that was "deficient, beyond public comprehension, and in one major respect contrary to the statutes upon which they are based." (Environment Forum (Sept/Oct. 2001)). Interior recommended a complete legislative overhaul of health, safety, and environmental review of biotech products - a proposal resisted by the FDA and USDA. USDA biotechnologist Margaret Jones reported to a Bangor audience last November that the USDA was continuing to work with Interior and that a proposal for new federal legislation to address these concerns was "in the works." www.mofga.org/news20021119.html)
   
   In August, 2002, the National Academy of Sciences released its report "Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science Based Concerns," which once again echoed the concerns expressed by the Maine Commission six years previously, regarding the risks of release of GE organisms and inadequate oversight. In his briefing on the report, Committee Chair Dr. John Vandenbergh observed: "The responsibilities of federal agencies for regulating animal biotechnology are unclear. In addition to the potential lack of clarity about regulatory responsibilities and data collection requirements, we also had a concern about the legal and technical capacity of the agencies to address potential hazards, particularly in the environmental area." (www4.nationalacademies.org/news) MOFGA contends that precisely the same problems exist for genetically engineered plant regulation.
   
   And in August, 2002, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy responded tepidly to burgeoning concerns by proposing new rules that would recommend preliminary safety assessment by the FDA or the EPA of new GE crops. The testing would not be required, only recommended, and would not apply to trials that were already underway or previously approved crop. Even the pro-industry Grocery Manufacturers of America commented that it "would have preferred the safety assessment be made mandatory to send a stronger signal to consumer". (Pollack, Andrew, "Earlier Safety Reviews Proposed for Gene-Altered Crops," August 2, 2002 New York Times)
   
   MOFGA believes that we should wait until these myriad issues have been addressed on the federal level, before continuing to permit release of GE plants on our farmland.
   
   
2. To put Maine agriculture on the map, and give real meaning to "Get Real, Get Maine!" Consumers want the choice not to buy GE food. Without a system of mandatory federal GE labeling, there's little option other than buying organic to exercise that choice. As Governor Baldacci noted, "The silver lining of GMO use may be that Maine's blossoming organic agriculture industry will grow to an increasingly valuable segment of our rural economy as consumers seek out GMO-free produce." (Sept. 19, 2002 position paper) Indeed, in response in part to concern about GE ingredients, as well as pesticide residues, the demand for organic food has been growing by 20 per cent or more per year for the past decade, five times faster than food sales in general. When "Made in Maine" means "GMO free," all Maine farmers will benefit.
   
   
3. To send a strong message to Washington that we want GE labeling. The Maine Commission to Study Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering recommended mandatory federal labeling of GE foods in 1996. Repeated efforts to legislate labeling in Maine have failed, not because the legislators don't support the consumer's right to know, but because they feel it should be done federally. The European Union is expected to approve rules next month that will require a GMO label on any food containing more than 0.9% GMO material. (Science, Dec. 13, 2002). Recent research conducted at the University of Maine found that "almost all participants wanted genetically modified foods labeled because consumers have a right to know what goes into their bodies." (Teisl, et. Al, "Designing a Labeling Policy for Genetically Modified Food," MAFES Technical Bulletin 185, Oct. 2002) Governor Baldacci was a co-sponsor of the federal Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act and pledged to encourage Maine's congressional delegation to support this legislation and push for its passage. (September 19, 2002 position paper) If nothing else gets Washington's attention on GE labeling, making Maine the first GMO free state just might.
   
   
4. To ensure the integrity of Maine's organic production. Consumers suspicious of genetically modified foods trust that organic products are free of GMO contamination, and that organic livestock and dairy herds are not fed with GMO grains. Several Maine seed companies are developing national markets for organic seeds, but have concerns about their ability to produce some varieties of seed without threat of cross-contamination. Similarly Maine's certified organic dairy farmers, representing 12.6% of Maine dairy farms, are threatened by the risk that their field corn could be contaminated by pollen from the roughly 1000 acres planted with GE corn in Maine. Legislation enacted in 2001 (7 MRSA sec. 1051) required GMO manufacturers to instruct farmers in ways to minimize potential cross-contamination, including adequate buffer zones. Organic farmers have expressed serious concerns about inadequate enforcement of the legislation. (Sept/Nov 2002 The Maine Organic Farmer & Gardener, 13).
   
   To enable you to evaluate the adequacy of enforcement of the GE cross-contamination legislation unanimously endorsed by this Committee two years ago, we attach to this testimony: (1) a copy of 7 MRSA sec. 1051; (2) Monsanto's 2002 "compliance" with this legislation; (3) MOFGA's June 20, 2002 letter to Commissioner Spear regarding the inadequacy of this compliance; and (4) Commissioner Spear's June 28, 2002 response; (5) My subsequent e-mail communication with USDA biotechnologist Margaret Jones.
   
   The major contention of the Commissioner's response is that Monsanto believes it is not required to specify buffer zones for GE crops, the Maine legislation notwithstanding, until the USDA adopts buffer zones; and that the Department does not disagree with Monsanto's position. MOFGA believes this reasoning ignores the intent and plain meaning of the Maine statute. Even if this were a correct reading of the statute, moreover, the Department learned in November that the USDA had in fact established buffer zones for GE crops, and has done nothing since to mandate that Monsanto come into compliance with the Maine statute. At the Department's November 14 forum on biotech crops in Bangor, USDA biotechnologist Margaret Jones stated that the USDA had buffer requirements for GE crops - 660 feet for corn. www.mofga.org/news20021119.html) MOFGA's subsequent inquiry to her in this regard confirmed this, and directed us to www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/biotech/isolate.html, which provides isolations distances for Agricultural Biotechnology for various crops, including, for corn, 660 feet. Even in the absence of state legislation mandating this in Maine, it is astonishing that Monsanto has not advised its farmers of these requirements. In any event it seems that Monsanto has mislead the Department about the existence of USDA guidelines and the Department, when it learned of this, should have proceeded accordingly to enforce the law.
   
   Both Monsanto's and the Agriculture Department's evident unwillingness to take 7 MRSA 1051 seriously and in good faith reinforces the need for this Committee to proceed to halt the insufficiently regulated invasion of GE seeds and crops in this state.

As agricultural economist Charles Benbrook commented in the November 14, 2002, Department of Agriculture forum on biotechnology, "It's probably inevitable that GMO growth will be at the expense of the organic sector, and vice versa...Maine is one of the few states where there is an option to make the decision [not to plant GMOs]...where the presence and role of GMOs is so modest that it would not take much if the consensus was to take a different route." (www.mofga.org/news20021119.html)

We believe that different route spells the greatest hope for all of Maine agriculture.

Sharon S. Tisher, J.D.
Chair, Public Policy Committee
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association