Counter-Revolutionaries in Montville
On March 29, a distant echo of the American Revolution’s idealism and independence reverberated through the rolling, wooded hills of Montville.
Warmed by a woodstove and sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with their neighbors in the town’s 200-year-old meetinghouse, members of the community came together to exercise their fundamental right in a pure democracy. By casting their vote with a show of hands, they enacted an ordinance that places a 10-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops (GMOs) in town.
Among Montville’s earliest settlers were farmers, woodsmen and craftsmen who united against the most powerful government on earth during the American Revolution to assert their belief in self-determination. Their courage, conscience and creativity carved this community out of the wilderness. The essence of their convictions resonates with people who live here today.
The people whose voices were heard at the meeting expressed deep concern about the safety of their food and the security of their food system. In solidarity with others across the world, they expressed a desire to protect a common natural heritage that is represented by the diversity and purity of seed, the source of life-giving food.
As the moderator read the warrant article at the town’s annual meeting, a farmer moved that the ordinance be accepted as written. But the discussion that followed was immediately led by consumers.
A retired schoolteacher, whose long-standing tenure in the community has earned her respect as a nurturing caregiver, spoke of her concerns about the affects of GMOs on human health, the local farming economy and the environment. A retired military serviceman and computer executive spoke about his findings while researching genetic engineering, and the resulting apprehension he feels about the crops after reading about devastating effects on corn in Spain. A nurse and an avid gardener voiced unease about the potential for cross-contamination with traditional crops and cited situations in Canada and Mexico where cross-contamination has occurred.
A young father, a registered Maine Guide who has lived in Montville his entire life, was particularly passionate in his expression of support for the ordinance, saying consumers need to stand up for their right to choose what they eat.
The vote to enact the GMO ordinance in Montville was an emphatic statement of consumer preference. What our town said is this: Genetically modified organisms provide no benefit to our families; genetically modified organisms provide no benefit to our community; genetically modified organisms compromise the integrity of our food system and our environment.
Corporations that have placed genetically modified foods on the supermarket shelves and, in turn, in our household cupboards without our consent will not silence the people of Montville. We believe we have the right to choose what we eat. We stand against this assault on our democracy. We state, quite simply, “This is not the right thing to do.”
Indeed citizens everywhere have a right to know what they eat. With less than 2 percent of the U.S. population actively engaged in the production of food and the other 98 percent totally dependent upon others for their food supply, the integrity of our food system is of primary importance. While it is difficult for the modern consumer to follow the complexities of our food system, the public has a rightful role in choice.
For more than 50 years, four generations of our family have farmed in Montville, producing livestock, vegetables and horticultural crops. For over 26 years we raised sheep and observed first-hand their behavior. If a shepherd tries to drive sheep, they scatter but if led, sheep complacently follow. This bit of country wisdom can be applied to the revolutionary change taking place in our food system that has introduced genetically modified organisms without the consuming public’s consent.
We are not sheep. We are a free people whose scattered voices are being heard throughout the world, and whose cries for a different sort of revolutionary change are speaking out for a future world that preserves, propagates and protects open access to pure seed.
The firebrands of Montville have set the spark. Let others kindle a flame that spreads across this nation. Let that flame find fuel within our democracy to protect the genetic integrity of our food system.
In Montville, we have voted our conscience and we encourage others to do the same.
Sandy George and Diana George Chapin own and operate The Heirloom Garden of Maine in Montville and are members of a national network of farmers and gardeners who save seed to preserve, propagate and perpetuate heirloom varieties for future generations.
© 2008 The Bangor Daily News
no gmos in town. bully for you. now move on to something important. (to cd editors: I know there’s better stuff out there than this to report on; give us a break, eh?)
Um, Greg, before you claim that the unfettered use of genetically modified seed is “unimportant,” you might want to check out the ramifications. There’s a reason why there are so many organizations around the world that are trying to stop GM crops before they get completely out of control.
You could start at www.worc.org.
Keep up the great work! Any town that organizes to fight back against the corporate takeover of our seeds deserves support, and reporting. This is inspirational.
And keep up the great work Common Dreams! i read the site every day, and i am always happy to see reporting and analysis of ecological, food and farming issues here, which are extremely important. Especially when they are about grassroots resistance to the corporate takeover of life itself.
i know the articles about political candidates always get more comments, but count me as another reader who wants you to continue with reporting on much more than just party politics.
Are you kidding us or something? At least 80% of all - that’s ALL - corn, soy beans, and rapeseed (canola) grown in the USA and Canada are already GMOS, aka transgenic mutant organisms.
Understand? And, with the expected drifting of said TMO’s, it’s just a matter of time before the aforementioned crops, as well as rice and wheat, are 100% mutant.
In the latest Big Corp Ag Welfare Bill, “farmers” are offered even more “tax breaks” if they use only GMOs, especially for “biofuel” corn production, because, well, it turns out people refuse to eat the shit. As a result, Monsanto’s profits are booming.
One town says no to something they simply cannot stop unless they dome themselves off from the rest of Earth. And “The Simpsons Movie” proved just how bad an idea that is…
Of course, now that Montville has proclaimed itself eco-terrorist supportors - the number one terrorist threat in American, according to the FBI - they can all consider themselves “persons of interest.”
I wish somebody could explain to me how GMOs could be harmul to our health. To the environment maybe, but to our health? ridiculous.
Smart-people in Montville (some will live to their normal life-expectancy, now).
[Damn-shame the corporate-Owned USDA doesn’t ‘take a clue’, huh?]
And to ALL of you ‘naysayers’…
There is a good-Reason those elite-bastards ponied-up their Billions to build THEIR nuke-proof Vault for heritage seed-stocks in remotest-Norway…[there is ALWAYS a ‘good-Reason’ for what those Bilderberger’s do!].
HINT: It ain’t because Monsanto desperately wants to ‘feed the world’s poor’…!
hbramanti
Guess only time will tell. Of course no one here may be around to see how GMOs could be harmful to our health - or otherwise. We can leave that to our children and grandchildren with the national debt, the nuclear landfills, and all the rest.
Better put that retired schoolteacher and the Maine guide on a no fly list along with Mandela.
I thought you’d like to check out the political allegory of mine that I just found a literary agent for. It’s a story set in the context of a teacher discussing with his class all of the evidence that the Bush administration is as corrupt as it is incompetent….and how to rectify the Constitutional crisis we face. It’s couched in a discussion about the urgent need to stop abusing Mother Nature. I wrote in 3 dozen celebrities to play the students, so it’s very funny despite how infuriating it is. You can read it at www.stoplittering.com/theswitch.htm and, yes, StopLittering.com is my site.
hbramanti
Your explanation has arrived
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/report_class.php
Greg……Who owns the food………owns the WORLD!
Yes, let’s go back to 40 bu/acre corn in the 1940’s (today it’s 180 bu/acre), two row corn planters, and huge amounts of wasted fuel and labor. If you really want to go back to corn before it was “genetically modified” you’d have to back to Central America hundreds and hundreds of years ago. I know some of you hate modern agriculture with an absolute passion but it has fed millions that would’ve otherwised starved. It is an efficient way of producing food cheaply (up till now). Even the story above says: “…less than 2 percent of the U.S. population actively engaged in the production of food and the other 98 percent totally dependent upon others for their food supply”
What does that tell you?
Greenhornet thanks for sharing I already saw the info ,but couldn’t recall it.
Dumbing down by the system I guess ?
We’re screwed!
hbramanti
Just a short summary of why GMO’s are harmful to your health:
DANGERS OF (GM) FOODS
1) Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (bleeding stomachs) and seven out of the forty died within two weeks.
Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) pp. 347-372. CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK
2) A UK government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth (1), damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles(2) .
(1) Ewen, SWB & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354, 1727-1728. (2) Jeffrey Smith’s personal communication with Dr Arpad Pusztai
3) Rats fed GM maize had problems with blood cell, kidney and liver formation.
French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn (24/4/2004), www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308, Translation of Le Monde article “L’expertise confidentielle sur un inquiétant maïs transgénique,” Confidential report on a worrying GM corn by Herve Kempf, 22.04.04, www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-362061,0.html. Also see Spilling the Beans, June 2005, www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm
4) Mice fed GM soya had problems with liver cell formation.
Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean”. Cell Structure and Function Vol. 27 (2002), No. 4, pp. 173-18. www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622
5) Mice fed GM soya had problems with pancreatic function.
Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 p. 409, November 2002
6) The livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advice on a notification for marketing of herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape, www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice36.pdf
7) Pigs fed GM maize on several American Midwest farms developed false pregnancies or sterility. www.savejerryscorn.org/
Report for the Chardon LL Hearing, Non-Suitability of Genetically Engineered Feed for Animals, Dr. Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002, www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/animalfeel_all.pdf
9) Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK , soya allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.
Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999
10) A gene from a Brazil nut inserted into soyabeans made the soya allergenic to those who normally react to Brazil nuts (this was never commercialised).
J Ordlee, et al, “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,” The New Englandd Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996
11) The most common allergen in soya is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soya contains significantly more trypsin inhibitor compared with natural soya. Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Data was taken from the journal archives, as they had been omitted from the published study. It was reported by Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé, “Some Food for FDA Regulation,” Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2001)
From: Protect Yourself from Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M Smith author of Seeds of Deception http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/32.doc
kman2
You are talking nonsense.
The first GMO crops came on the market in 1994. Breeding before that was by cross breeding, natural selection and hybridisation. GMO’s are created in a laboratory. However a large portion of seeds are still conventionally bred, i.e thay are not GMO, and many countries will not allow GMO seeds.
400 experts from around the world have just pointed out that the world can be better fed without industrial agriculture and GMO’s. Modern agriculture is a failure.
See
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/16/8327/
Or maybe you don’t believe in expert opinion?
kman2
finished with “what does that tell you?”
It should tell 98% of the country they better start gardening or supporting small organic farms unless they enjoy being feed POISON!
“If you really want to go back to corn before it was “genetically modified” you’d have to back to Central America hundreds and hundreds of years ago.”
A linguistic fallacy that does not even rise to the level of a joke.
I shall issue the challenge yet again for GM proponents to show double-blind placebo-controlled, independent, long-term health studies for humans eating GMOs. And if such studies are ever done (they have not yet), then let’s see studies focusing on sensitive groups like the young and elderly and people with compromised immune systems.
The argument of expanding GMO for higher crop yields has been shown to be a bit weak, with crops other than corn showing reduced yields after the first year… but more important to me is the suggestion that the larger crops are saving the masses who would have starved otherwise. There is an inherent flaw in that argument. It has been shown throughout history that populations grow to the limits of-and-just beyond their available food supplies. As world food supplies have increased (carrying their burden of multiplied use of fuel and chemical fertilizers, as well as the deforestation, water depletion, and soil erosion that huge agriculture tracts cause) - the world population has increased exponentially. History shows us that as food supplies decrease - populations do not grow as quickly.
We are deluded into corporate farming “benefits” through our concern for the destitute.
It is not as though agribusiness donates their crops to the needy! The World Bank and WTO have indentured 3rd world nations as payment for the harvests that are “given” them. Their resources are privatized and shipped away from the people to be sold for a profit to the less unfortunate…
IMHO with passing time, a definite correlation will be found linking obesity, learning disorders, and other nutritionally affected physiological disorders with the vitamin/nutrient/trace element deficiencies of corporate agriculture… Until that “proof” is determined, I believe it is already clear that GM foods affect our health by diminishing the quality of life; polluting water sources, destroying small family farming, and removing land from wilderness and ecological purpose.
Mainstay-I’m a gm grower and a mild advocate. That said, I thought your comments were quite above average in advocating against gm. Gm has its downsides and potential problems. I believe, however, that the benefits and especially the potential for new benefits is compelling enough to maintain and expand this technology. Of course it’s good for people like you to keep government regulators alert to potential dangers. Personally I am put off by opinionators who spout drivel and Frankenfood ad naseum. I hope people like yourself will use a more thoughtful approach to keeping corporations as honest as is possible in their money-making quests.
Andrew Taynton has made the points: GM foods do things we do not understand. Plants and animals evolved alongside each other for millions of years. For the most part, animal digestion and food processing has become fine tuned to plants the way they are and adjusts (or does not adjust) to evolutionary change which is usually slow and infrequent.
Quickie introduction of GM foods into the ecosystem without extensive testing is nuts. It is an expedient but poorly thought out approach to food needs. It mostly serves specific agribusinesses with little concern for the big picture or the future. We do not know the unintended consequences.
Better to spend the time and effort on distributing agriculture closer to users and getting food to those who need it.
Greg R
You say “Personally I am put off by opinionators who spout drivel and Frankenfood ad naseum.”
I guess you are including geneticist Prof David Suzuki who says any politician or scientist who tells you GM foods are safe is either lying or very stupid.
And of course you close your eyes to theis World Scientists Statement calling for a moratorium on GM crops and a ban on patents, read the statement signed by 136 scientists from 27 countries at:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/world-cn.htm
Greg R, according to the above information you are out of line.
STOP GM FOOD
This is a lot of very interesting of reading, but read/scroll down and find how “Grassroots Consumer Action Could Halt Use of GM Crops in US”
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10691.cfm
Andrew-136 scientists in 27 countries is a very small minority. The more study on all this the better. My point is to keep the science uppermost and the histerics more low key. There’s tremendous potential for good in this technology.
Greg
I could not agree with you more when you say - “My point is to keep the science uppermost and the histerics more low key.”
I suggest visiting “Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST)” on the topic of Safety problems with Genetically Engineered (GE) foods http://www.psrast.org/
The best book I know on the scietific scullduggary in getting GM foods approved which documents how scientists were offered bribes or threatened, evidence was stolen, and data ommitted or distorted is “Seeds of Deception” from www.seedsofdeception.com
“My point is to keep the science uppermost and the histerics more low key.”
Is there something hysterical in my repeated challenge to proponents like yourself to provide evidence of independent, double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term human testing with attention paid to vulnerable groups? So far the only response has been the suggestion of reversal of burden of proof and a factually incorrect(and scientifically disproved) red herring from a libertarian nutjob whose only positive contribution to this site was to leave it.
It seems to me that one can no more say that “[t]here’s tremendous potential for good in this technology” than there is tremendous potential for disaster in this technology when adequate testing for environmental and human health safety has not been adequately addressed and the entire technology rests on Watson’s incorrect interpretation of the Central Dogma of genetics.
Greg
You need to learn some market fundamentals.
Consumers in Europe have rejected GMO’s. They just don’t want them, they can see through the fake science presented by proponents. The more consumers in America find out about GMO’s the less they want them. Are you as a farmer going to give consumers what they want or are you going to become extinct like the dinasaur?
Andrew-Consumers are paying me tremendous prices for my gm crops. If they change their minds and don’t want what I grow, then I will be forced to change. If it happens, that will be a sad day for me. I will be forced to use more fuel. I will be forced to use more chemicals. I will be forced to overwork the ground and increase erosion. You are free to pretend that these realities are unnecessary, but I have farmed for a lot of decades and have developed a fair bit of expertise.
Greg
US farmers have lost millions of dollars in exports due to switching to GMO’s.
A tipping point is being reached with rBST hormones in milk production in the US. US consumers don’t want it, and as US consumers become more educated they will start to reject GM food as they did in Europe.
Demand for organic production is growing at 30% per year globally. Research shows organic yields are similar to industial agriculture and organic production is all about improving the soil.
Maybe its time to improve your expertise?
Greg
In addition, organic agriculture can use up to 50% less fossil fuels, no harmful GM seeds, no synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and you can demand more from your produce. An honest fellow like you should be leading the organic revolution.
Comment re: the challenge issued for studies showing harm from gmo’s - also the comment that no such studies have ever been done.
Assume that is true - then gmo’s should not be on the market since they are an unknown
terms of health risk.
oystercatcher, this is what sober scientists are saying.
At any rate, I urge you not to believe me and search for independent, peer-reviewed long-term human trials yourself. Your search will likely take you past some rather disturbing facts regarding GMOs.
If you want, I can point you to a few papers to get you started.
Douglas and oystercatcher
Vision of a ‘GM-Free America’
I agree with you about the shoddy science/lack of science on GMO safety. Sane people don’t put something on the market until the science is done, not take it off once it is evetually proven to be harmful.
Unfortunately, the FDA and most governmetal regulatory authorities fall under the influence of vested interests.
Usually ordinary citizens don’t have the clout to influence governments the way corporations do. We have to hound GM foods off the supermarket shelves Thats is what they did in Europe.
*That is why I posted this earlier - “Grassroots Consumer Action Could Halt Use of GM Crops in US”
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10691.cfm
I think its time the US public mobilised on how to achieve a ‘GM-Free America’, its the only answer.
Andrew, we already know that most people do not want GM food. The only reasons they eat the stuff are that they don’t know they are eating it or have no alternative, with the first case being the most common. Also, there would not be an issue of GMOs, I think, if North Americans could appreciate good food. Comparing the food available here to what I see in Japan and Europe, we eat horrible food for the most part.
Under my current living conditions, I gather as much wild food as I can. But by this time next year, I aim to be the producer of 90% or more of my own food.
Douglas I understand and agree.
But Americans are waking up to the hazards of rBST being used in milk production, and more and more dairies and orgnisations are listening to consumers and demanding rBST free milk from producers. Most recently Wal Mart as far as I know said it would stock rBST free produced milk.
Eventually a tipping point is reached where it is too difficult for producers to use rBST and it no longer becomes viable for Monsanto to produce it. End of rBST.
Now with GM foods you don’t need to get every American to reject it, but some brands are now starting to guarentee non-GM food. If a big brand realises it may loose just a small percentage of market share by using GM grains, it must switch to maintain market share. So don’t worry about the majority of people. The tipping point can be reached by a small minority.
That is why Jeffrey Smith’s strategy is so critical, “Grassroots Consumer Action Could Halt Use of GM Crops in US”
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10691.cfm
No company wants to loose even a small percentage of market share they have worked so hard to establish, so once there are enough alternative brands, other brands must follow.
In Europe in April 1999, Unilever announced they were going GM free, within one week all major food manufacturers in Europe made the same announcement. GM foods fell like a house of cards.
I think sooner or later the same will happen in America, and the rBST case makes me believe it will.
Once GMO crops are rejected in America, they will dissappear the world over.
“[Modern agriculture] is an efficient way of producing food cheaply (up till now).”
No, it hasn’t. It is simple mathematics: Modern agriculture uses ten calories of energy to produce one calorie of food energy. This is a textbook example of unsustainability.