RES 287 Draft 01 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

with the remainder coming from a source outside of the State or Country. This should be remedied by full disclosure of the origins of the all components of the item. This problem also negatively impacts perishable agricultural products. The 51% added by processing disadvantages the Hawai`i grower, reduces the Hawai`i product purchased, confuses the consumer, and limits the revenue to the agricultural industry in Hawai`i. As a result, manufacturers have a loophole in this section. By adding 51% of the wholesale value, manufacturers or processors claim a Hawai`i, Hawaiian, or Hawaiian regional origin. A perishable consumer commodity that is grown in the State of Hawai`i should contain more than 51% of a"Hawai`i", "Hawaiian", or"Hawaiian regional product" constituent part. Value-added products or blends should be required to have at least 75% of the perishable consumer product that is grown in Hawai`i; and 10. HRS, Section 486-120 protects milk products by requiring 90% of the milk to be produce in-state. Other agricultural products should require much more than 10% or even 50% before that product can be labeled with a Hawai`i, Hawaiian, or a Hawaiian regional name; and 11. The current language of HRS, Section 486-120.5 allows discrimination by product such as, macadamia nuts, which like coffee and other products receives a discriminatory lack of protection, and the farmers growing these products are financially disadvantaged; and 12. As a result of the language in HRS, Section 486-120.6, a loophole is created allowing processors to use a minimum of 10% of any Hawai`i-grown product and claim a Hawaiian point of origin. This is deceptive and false advertising to our consumers because a ten percent blend is not distinguishable from the 90% out-of-country portion of the blend, degrades the Hawaiian regional identities by producing a diluted Hawaiian product, and is a poor bargain from a price standpoint since the value of the Hawaiian product is massively greater than an out- of-country product. Additionally, other perishable Hawaiian products use much higher percentages and this minimum ten percent or even fifty percent is discriminatory against specific products which inflates the processors profit to the detriment of the growers; and WHEREAS, the Market Development Branch of the State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism has stated that Kona coffee growers and marketers are missing major opportunities for marketing in Asia, with emphasis on Mainland China(PRC) and Taiwan, because consumers in those countries are confused by "blends" and want to be assured that they are buying 100% Kona coffee. This problem impacts every growing region in the state that grows coffee or any other product. Regional identity sells product, which is why the processors want to use our geographic names, but not provide at least 75% of our agricultural products in their final product. They save money and Hawai`i growers lose money; and WHEREAS, other States promote and encourage the geographic identity of their homegrown products (for example, Washington Apples, Florida Oranges, Vidalia Onions, Idaho Potatoes, and Napa Valley Wines). This type of regional and geographic branding is vitally important to growers and ultimately, the State through our tax dollars; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the State of Hawai`i strengthen its statutory requirements to protect the agricultural industry with State legislation serving as a basis for Federal legislation 6