Corn genes

The state’s Pesticide Control Board this morning was expected to consider for the second time in a year whether to allow genetically altered corn to be grown in Maine. Monsanto, which now wants to delay the proceeding, may have concluded as many in the public have that board made a sound choice to reject a similar proposal last December and, because nothing has changed since that time, there would be little reason for the board to reverse its decision now.

Genetically altered foods are becoming commonplace in the United States, with the best-known example in Maine being the Bt potato, which contains the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis, the same naturally occuring pesticide that the altered corn would contain to protect it from the European corn borer. In the last few years, a wide range of foods, from soybeans to strawberries, have had their genetic makeups changed to add some desirable trait, such as resistance to herbicides or to freezing.

When Monsanto feels ready, the board will consider whether there is a significant need for Monsanto’s corn as well as ask whether the corn will cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. For both questions, it will find answers that suggest Maine should continue its ban on the product.

Last December, the board rejected the proposal by Novartis and DEKALB to plant altered field corn because it saw no benefit from the new product. A difference between that proposal and Monsanto’s this time is that Monsanto intends to plant both field and table corn. Keeping the borer away from table corn, for practical and appearance reasons, is important, but the longtime presence of unaltered corn suggests that growers have successfully competed without the help of genetic re-engineering.

Monsanto has the responsiblity of showing that its product will not harm the environment, but that will be hard to do given the fact that final federal approval for Bt foods is still years off. There remains cross-pollination issues to resolve as well as the problem of preventing the widespread use of Bt from allowing insects to build up a resistance to the pesticide.

Though it is not the pesticide’s direct concern, there is also a question of opportunity for Maine. Some potato farmers in Aroostook County used soybeans as a rotation crop this year, including some 400 acres of high quality soybeans suitable for export to Japan. The one catch: The Japanese would not have accepted them if the soybeans had been genetically altered, just as European countries have cancelled U.S. corn exports because genetically altered corn is not sorted from unaltered corn.

Here is an opportunity for Maine. Like the blossoming organic-food business, Maine could market genetically unaltered foods to national and international markets. Being different means the state’s agricultural industry does not have to compete directly against huge western farms yet can still prosper. Uncertainty about what happens when altered crops cross pollinate with unaltered crops, however, suggests that Maine can have one or the other but not both. The genetically altered crops also threaten the organic-food business.

The equation for the use of Bt corn remains unchanged: Small, if any gain vs. a large potential for harm to other growers and to the environment. That’s no deal for Maine, whenever Monsanto decides to show up.