Food labeling measure sparks debate

AUGUSTA – Splicing the genes from a jellyfish into a pumpkin to make a glow-in-the-dark Halloween decoration may sound enticing, but to hundreds of people who came Thursday to Augusta to support labeling genetically engineered foods, the technology is frightening and objectionable.

For more than two hours, more than 50 supporters of LD 902, which would require the labeling of all genetically engineered foods, implored members of the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to let Maine be the first state in the nation to adopt the requirement.

The proposal has come before the Legislature three times in the past, and each time was rejected. The recent introduction, however, of nonapproved GE corn into the human food chain through Star-Link corn products, which provide the Taco Bell restaurants and others with tortillas, has raised awareness in the past year. A recent study conducted by the New York Times indicated that 93 percent of consumers want GE foods labeled.

Maine opponents to labeling, however, said such legislation should be passed on the federal level and if adopted here, could have dire economic consequences in Maine. The Maine Farm Bureau, the Maine Department of Agriculture, the Maine Potato Board, the Biotechnology Association of Maine, Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America, all provided testimony Thursday in opposition to the proposal.

“Any move toward mandatory labeling at the state level stands to isolate Maine consumers,” Ned Porter, deputy commissioner of agriculture, said. “National distributors would weigh the cost of labeling the product for one state versus the benefit of sales in Maine.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Paul Volenik, D-Brooklin, disputed the claim, saying that the labeling could be handled in the same way Maine’s ground-breaking bottle bill was.

Peggy Schaffer, a state economic policy specialist, testified that biotechnology is an emerging industry in the state.

“Maine competes in many important areas, and our biotechnology sector is one of the shining stars in our efforts to expand Maine’s economic foothold in the knowledge-based economy,” she said in written testimony against the bill.

The opponents, however, were overshadowed by those who said they were entitled to know what is in the food they consume.

From 9-year-old Winston Washington Lumpkins IV – a home-schooled vegan who charmed the legislators with his opinion on the lack of validity of the scientific testing of GE foods – to an 89-year-old great-grandmother concerned for her heirs, nearly all of the supporters’ opinions were rooted in the freedom of choice.

Chefs, doctors, farmers and scientists testified that although there are a variety of other reasons for bypassing GE foods – such as allergies, religious requirements and possible antibiotic resistance -many people simply want to know when their food has been tampered with.

C. J. Lawn, founder of Fedco Seeds, a seed cooperative in Waterville, called genetic engineering “a giant experiment on our food supply.” He said that if the large corporations producing most of the processed foods had nothing to hide, “they should be using a GE label as a marketing tool.”

Audrey Marra of Wayne said she did not trust the federal agencies that had told her products like DDT, MTBE and polyvinyl chloride were safe, which later was proved untrue.

“In order to protect myself from being used as an unwilling laboratory animal for what looks like a loose experimental cannon, I need to [have the information] so I can make an informed decision about buying that food,” Marra said.

Susan Tisher, president of Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, quoted a Jan. 17 federal Food and Drug Administration report that stated “because GE can introduce genetic material from a much wider range of sources than previously possible, there is a greater likelihood that the modified food will contain substances that are significantly different from, or are present in food at a significantly higher level than counterpart substances historically consumed in food.”

Previously, FDA’s stand on GE foods was that they were substantially the same as their non-GE counterparts.

This shift alone, said Tisher, should prompt mandatory labeling of all GE products.

Anne Walker of Blue Hill pleaded with committee members to think of the impact of GE foods on future generations.

“My instinct, to which I’ve learned to pay heed, is shouting,” she testified. “You have to test. You have to label. You have to.”

Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Kneeland, R-Easton, set Thursday, April 12, for the bill’s work session, allowing the committee time to hold a public hearing on a bill, yet to be printed, that would provide for voluntary labeling of GE foods.