AUGUSTA, Maine - Supporters and opponents of bills that would implement food labeling to disclose the presence of genetically modified organisms were back at the State House Thursday for another showdown on the volatile issue.
Two years ago, lawmakers passed a compromise bill requiring GMO labeling, on the condition that five contiguous states approve similar legislation by 2018. Critics now say the five-state approval threshold is too high and Maine must be prepared to move forward with or without the support of other states.
The hard-fought compromise that Maine lawmakers reached two years ago was intended to send a strong message: Consumers have a right to know whether the foods they're eating are produced through genetic engineering. But the Maine law was approved on the condition that five contiguous states also enact similar legislation.
Further complicating the issue, said some, was that Maine only shares a contiguous border with New Hampshire and therefore was completely dependent on the Granite State to make its legislation meaningful. Connecticut passed a law similar to Maine's, but only Vermont has passed a bill that doesn't take rely on reciprocal action by other states. It's also been sued by four large food distribution companies.
But proponents of GMO labeling, such as Rep. Dillon Bates, a Westbrook Democrat, are undeterred by legal threats. They say Maine needs a bill that will protect consumers now. "This has been an issue that so many people have worked on for so very, very long, and between us, it's about damn time," Bates says.
More than 100 supporters turned out to speak in favor of a bill before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee that would amend Maine's two-year GMO labeling law in two strategic ways: Not only would the measure eliminate the law's automatic repeal if five contiguous states fail to sign onto to the measure by 2018 - it eliminates the need for contiguous state approval altogether, clearing the way for Maine to go it alone and make its GMO labeling law effective immediately.
Rep. Michelle Dunphy, the bill's sponsor, says consumers have a right to make a choice about whether or not they want to purchase GMO foods.
"The impetus for my bill was an article in a local newspaper touting genetically modified apples would be coming to Maine this summer, and in my mind, that's just simply wrong," Dunphy said. "The fall in Maine is when I have fond memories of apple picking as a child and taking my daughter to a nearby orchard for the first time when she was a baby. Apples are one of the things that people associate with the state of Maine. When apples are so plentiful, how are we going to know a genetically modified apple when we see it?"
Supporters of the GMO labeling now bill received some high-profile support from
. Emord said the intent of Maine lawmakers who supported the labeling bill two years ago will face significant opposition from large agricultural products companies such as Monsanto who oppose the measure.
And Emord says there's no reason for seed producers to conceal the presence of supposedly superior GMO engineering. "They don't want you to know these superior foods, they don't want you to know what they are - they want you to guess," Emord said. "If they're right that the foods are superior, or that they're indistinguishable from natural foods, then why not tell us?"
"The debate today is not about labeling of products, the debate today is about undermining a thoughtful, deliberate compromise," said Shelly Doak, a lobbyist for the Maine Grocers and Food Producers Association, which opposes the bill.
Doak says there are strong reasons why the varied stakeholders in the GMO labeling debate were able to unite around the state's current law. She says large food producers are not required to sell their products in a small state like Maine and that's why Maine needed the support of the other New England states. Without that block of support as a single market, Doak says food distributors will simply by-pass Maine.
Doak and other opponents of the bill were still addressing lawmakers at air time.
