My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0883.041 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0883.041 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 4:30:48 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 7:00:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0883
Point
041
Author
Stephanie Whalen
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Presented: Council - 1/24/08
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2008/01/24 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
RES 463 Draft 01 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Resolutions\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> OU7 <br /> JAN-23-2008 12:39 HARC 80849660,0 <br /> <br /> are not willing, those seek protection. A point to be made here is that the Chair of The <br /> Department of Agriculture has already stated that no field testing of coffee shoul f be <br /> allowed without first a study on the pollen movement of coffee. That research has nit he <br /> done nor is it even been proposed by anyone. So what is the issue? There is none! <br /> <br /> The questions for this Council are: <br /> Has the risk been demonstrated sufficiently to you for you to be proposing supprat <br /> to pass a LAW to protect a market? <br /> Is there a product in the pipeline that has a trait that someone is interm:(d ii <br /> enough to pay the costs of technology transfer? <br /> If so, how many more years are needed for it to be deregulated? <br /> Is there any verifiable evidence that the Kona market is being threatened )y <br /> customers unwilling to buy their product because of the fear of possible presence <br /> of a few genetically engineered beans? <br /> Now as I mentioned earlier, I would like to provide you with a better understanding for th', tinI.- <br /> frame for any new plant development. <br /> <br /> No matter what method is used to develop a new plant it goes through a field selection process. <br /> In all cases several plants are derived which must go through the field/observation and <br /> selection process. Yield has historically been a driving characteristic but pest resi3lala <br /> (weed/insect/disease) as well as nutrient and plant structure are also important depending on t to <br /> crop. That process takes years and depends on each crop cycle time from plant to harvest. i ant <br /> most familiar with sugarcane since our organization has been :involved with that the longe>t and <br /> it takes us over 10 years to come up with a new plant that has some improved property over t e <br /> existing commercial one. In the end, we are not sure what genetic changes were made to t Io <br /> plant-Just that it performs better and provides better test results than the existing one. -e! r,c <br /> assure you, that process takes millions of dollars paid by the local sugarcane industry and dus.i t <br /> happen without considerable reflection. There are no regulations for any of this, just careful a..d <br /> thoughtful practices developed over time. <br /> With genetically engineered plants, add to the front end of that process in determining ho ,v :c, <br /> grow a plant in a tissue culture system from plant cells which may differ from plant to ptar t <br /> Other steps are to determine what part of a plant is receptive to gene insertion, to acquire a usef i <br /> gene and get it into a usable form, to insert the gene, to grow and select cells that acquired the <br /> inserted gene, to use the tissue culture system to develop leaves, stalk and roots, to test th< <br /> selected plants for the presence and functionality of the gene, to successfully transfer selects- <br /> plants to potting material, to test the material to determine effectiveness and stability of tl.e <br /> inserted gene, and finally, to safely determine effectiveness and stability under field conditions ns <br /> outlined in the preceding paragraph. Using this technology one knows what material is pro',i:.tir c <br /> the desired benefit and can locate it in the genetic matrix. The benefits provided are a resit c,:ice <br /> in the number of plants taken through the field selection process, which is very costly, u_d a <br /> quicker method of getting the trait of interest into a plant without losing other beneficial traa-s, a <br /> common problem. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hawaii Agriculture Research Center <br /> January 24, 2008 fate 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.