After listening to Maine farmers express why they wanted Bt corn and to the opponents about why they opposed it, I found myself between a rock and a hard place. I have studied and researched genetically modified crops for more than a decade. I have heard how biotechnology will reduce pesticide inputs, save growers money, and feed a growing population through increased yields etc.

Some of that is true. For example, insect resistant cotton has greatly reduced insecticide inputs. However, use of another GM crop technology (herbicide tolerant crops like Roundup-Ready corn and soybeans) has actually led to more herbicides being applied to crops. The reason is that no herbicide controls all weeds. Over time, weeds not controlled well by a specific herbicide tend to populate crop fields leading to higher application rates to maintain control.

If an herbicide is used for too many years, weeds can develop complete resistance to the herbicide. Opponents of Bt corn think the same thing will happen with the insects controlled by Bt. University scientists have worked with industry to develop an insect resistance management plan to prevent this. Growers will have to understand and follow this plan carefully to prevent insect resistance.

I have the unique opportunity to serve on both the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners board of directors and the Maine Board of Pesticides Control. As the university representative on the BPC, I try to provide the board with research-based information so that we can make technically sound decisions. My interest in serving on the MOFGA board is similar. I bring a larger farm perspective than many to the discussions, but I am extremely supportive of their goals of sustainable agriculture, a strong local food network, and farming with minimal pesticide inputs. While it might seem to many that the two boards are grossly different, both are concerned about the long-term sustainability of Maine agriculture.

The BPC’s decision to approve Bt corn was based on farmer need and acceptable human/environmental risk. MOFGA director Russ Libby stated that he didn’t think the BPC had made a case for need. Yet, need is a variable term. Yes, we could continue producing corn in Maine without Bt as we have done for the last nine years.

But as our farms grow larger, and production costs increase, farmers see a greater need to use available tools to prevent major loss. I stated at the meeting that I wish we still had 1,200 dairy farms in Maine, each milking 50 to 100 cows, and that those producers could make a comfortable living on that. But the USDA food policy and farm supports have favored increased farm size, efficiency, and low-cost food. Most of our dairy farmers have taken that road, and they are an effective economic engine. They steward the land, create jobs and produce a local healthy product for Maine families. It is hard not to support their wish to have the tools they believe they need to be effective.

In the end, I doubt the BPC’s decision will radically change Maine’s corn production. I don’t think we’ll see significantly higher yields or radically improved feed quality. But, I think this will be a positive decision if our growers learn how to use the crop, manage Bt corn well, and follow the protocols that will reduce the potential for insect resistance.

If we can help growers reduce personal and public exposure to pesticides that we know are hazardous, I am willing to accept some degree of uncertainty associated with newer technologies.

It’s not particularly comfortable being between a rock and a hard place, but shades of gray are reality and agriculture is no different. Regardless of how you feel about the BPC decision, I hope you will continue to see and value what agriculture does for our state.

John Jemison is an extension professor of water quality and social science at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.