COM 0212.129 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

S~~m, ~-I-~(~( - ~1~1~f b~ ~~I~f~ The following questions need to be addressed and adequate answers furnished before the CJ'f{cGl - Council makes a decision concerning the appropriateness of spending $2 million of Hawaii %i~t' ~ County taxpayers' monies in support of apost-harvest irradiation treatment facility project. 1) What is the $2 million to be used for? Rumors abound, but nothing in writing has been offered to the public. Under Hawaii's sunshine law, the express purpose of this appropriation must be released in writing six working days in advance of the Council's vote on this matter. 2) What size irradiation facility is being constructed and where will it be sited? These factors must be known in order to anticipate pre-construction costs such as an EIS. What is the minimum annual throughput required (in pounds of fruit) to achieve the economies of scale necessary for minimizing average total costs? 3) What analyses do the County Council members have in their hands which gives abenefit/cost ratio for this project? How many years will the County have to subsidize this facility? When (in terms of years) will the County receive additional revenues as a result of the indirect multiplier effects of this expenditure of public funds? if the County Council possesses such analyses, were they done independently of the County? Did Isomedix perform the analyses? 4) Hasn't the County Council, as a body, received briefings from individuals and agencies whose interest it is to promote and support irradiation? In all fairness, shouldn't the Council, as a body, also receive briefings from a group of qualified agriculturalists and economists who do not support the passage of a $2 million appropriation to be used to prop-up an irradiation facility? 5) What hard data exists concerning the test trials conducted at the Isomedix facility in Morton Grove, IL, on the 34 shipments of fruit from Hawaii? Which fruits were tested? According to cooperative extension agents working in conjunction with the Food Technology Services plant in Florida, results of testing have repeatedly shown that the effects of irradiation are specific to, not only the type of fruit, but to the variety as well. Experiences with the Florida food irradiation facility were nel,~tive (items dried-up and/or fumed brown) with leafy vegetables and some flowers when attempts were made to use irradiation to delay maturation. The Florida facility never used irradiation on legumes (peas and beans). The Florida facility never attempted to inhibit sprouting on edible ginger using irradiation, but tests done by CTAHR have shown that irradiation does not inhibit sprouting of ginger. 6) What data does the County have which allows the County Public Information Officer, Marcia Reynolds, to claim that "consumer acceptance has been excellent" (Hawaii Tribune Herald, 4/15/9'7)? If this claim is based on the product demos conducted in the context of the 34 test shipments of fruit sent to Morton Grove, what methodology was followed in procuring the results of this marketing promotion effort. In order to generalize results from demonstrations conducted at specific locations to the greater public, certain methodology must be followed in order to assure statistically significant conclusions. Are these assurances of consumer acceptance based on sound and professionally conducted market research studies? Were efforts made not to introduce bias? 7) According to a spokesperson for the Food Technology Services plant in Florida, the biggest component of operating costs for an irradiation facility is the Cobalt 60. Has the Council considered