COM 0882.050 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

or Chinese taro has been genetically engineered by CTAHR, that there is no cultural basis for restricting research on Bun Long, and that doing so is short- sighted in that even testing to assess risk can't be undertaken without the ability to produce and evaluate GMO Bun Long in field trials. From my perspective as an agricultural researcher at CTAHR, the central deficiency regarding SB 958 can be summed up in the following argument: Agricultural is dynamic, with new and changing plant and animal varieties, pests, diseases, and constraints that influence production from year to year. In the face of changing conditions, research is needed to develop new products and procedures that maintain and improve farm production. In multicultural Hawaii, CTAHR has the mandated responsibility of conducting appropriate scientific research to support agriculture for the benefit of all residents. CTAHR seeks to provide pragmatic solutions to technical problems through thorough knowledge of the underlying biology, chemistry, and physics, and the methods of scientific research. To this end, CTAHR employs experienced professionals, who are trained to interpret scientific information and evaluate the appropriateness of different technical options. Autonomy in choosing research methods to develop new products or procedures falls comfortably within CTAHR's capabilities and is central to its effectiveness. On the other hand, politically expedient conditions imposed on CTAHR's research methods through legislative action clearly undermine its mission. CTAHR is not infallible or above scrutiny, but it is the State-mandated institution best equipped to plan and undertake agricultural research in Hawaii. Legislative restriction of its capabilities without technically sound cause is not in the long term best interests of taro growers or the rest of Hawaii's citizens. Individual growers and members of the general public, who find that new CTAHR products or procedures fail to meet personal criteria of technical or cultural appropriateness, have the option of refusing to adopt them. For these reasons I respectfully oppose S13958, SD1, HD1 and Resolution 462- 08. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.