COM 0212.450 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- Good Morning, My name is Kevin Hopkins and I am a associate professor in the College of Agriculture at UH-Hilo. 2 wish to thank you for this opportunity to express my personal views on Bill # 262. A $2 million dollar investment of public funds deserves considerable scrutiny. You are being bombarded with large amounts of information and misinformation. I would like to provide some suggestions on how you may deal with that information. 1. Take an hour to view a view a video entitled Irradiation of Meat. Although it is pro-irradiation, it will provide you with the basic information needed to understand the arguments of both the proponents and opponents of irradiation. 2. Much of the information relates to the safety or danger of irradiated foods. But neither you nor 2 are in the position to properly evaluate the safety of irradiation. But we can evaluate the motives and credibility of the opposing sides. 3. Who are the proponents of irradiation? Farmers who can develop new markets, Isomedix and other pro-development groups. They all have a potential financial gain. But why do USDA, FDA, and the World Health Organization support irradiation? 4. What about the opponents? At the top of the list is Food and Water, Inc. It is a mainland-based group whose whole existence seems to revolve around fighting irradiation and fund-raising. The second group of opponents are people who are opposed to any "nuclear" facility on the Big Island. But their opposition to a food irradiation facility is a mystery to me because I did not see them picketing the hospital's irradiation facility. And we have some local farmers who are justifiably worried that their existing markets might be jeopardized by actions threatened by Food and Water, Inc. 5. Whose arguments regarding safety are to be believed? The USDA, FDA, and the World Health Organization or Food and Water? The former are much more credible than Food and Water, Inc. 6. Will consumers eat irradiated fruit? A11 test studies so far show that irradiated fruit is actually preferred because it looks and tastes better because it can be tree-ripened. The reason Food and Water must resort to threats is that many consumers will purchase irradiated products if they can exercise their freedom of choice. 7. Will consumer boycotts organized by Food and Water have a significant impact on our existing mainland fruit markets? A key point to remember is that other than papaya, we essentially have no fruit markets on the mainland. Although protecting that market is a major concern, there is an enormous potential for other tropical fruits. And consumer tests in California showed a clear preference fox irradiated papaya over double-dipped papaya. 8. Even with all their efforts, Food and Water has not been able to shut down the stores that sell irradiated foods. The easiest way to offset the effects of a boycott is to fund a public education campaign supporting the safety of irradiated foods. LL'' RECEIVED ° DTYr ~ ~ Z ' T SO Time.-..--•-----•---~-, ~t°----~._ 711 I(a County Council 1 FG 4bt F~esented F c lteY. Date 2 Q ~a~