HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.014 1996-1998
11 f\ i
.ARtC[IVED
Time.. f _(J~ P;Y!- BY"- ~~J--...---
Date-----µl ~ ~1 ~
7
County t;oundl -
April 24, 1997
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni St.
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Council Members:
I am writing because I am unable to attend the public comment meeting today. I would like
to express to you my opposition to Bill #62 which is now before you.
The few points I wish to make are reiterations of what many others have made. You should be
aware that many who are opposed to this bill have not made their opinions known to you. They
are most likely working and voting residents who do not have a direct stake in the development
of an irradiation facility. But they probably outnumber the few fruit growers and members of
the construction industry who may directly benefit from [his proposed development.
It is very unclear how the county plans to use the two million dollars which has been allocated
to promote the use of a privately developed and owned fruit processing facility. I am opposed
to the County of Hawaii budgeting this amount of money, or any amount, for such a use.
The need for a agricultural irradiation facility in Hilo is not established whatsoever. The
majority of papaya growers have contracts with the heat vapor facilities which adequately treat
pest problems. Heat vapor is widely accepted as a procedure, particularly within organic
certification programs. Certified organic produce is clearly a growing market which ought to
be recognized and supported in Hawaii. Papaya growers do not need the irradiation facility to
support and increase their industry.
Studies at the College of Tropical Agriculture, University of Hawaii, have shown that
irradiation of cut flowers has no significant benefit. In fact many flowers' "vase life" is reduced
up to 50%. The flower and foliage sector of Hawai`i's agricultural sector is well established
and growing rapidly, yet it does not need an irradiation faciiity for its continued development.
Edible ginger was also shown to be unaffected by irradiation, that is, it did not inhibit sprouting
of the root.
It seems that only a very small portion of Hawai`i's agricultural producers will need to use the
irradiation facility in order to market their products on the U.S. mainland ....and perhaps to
Canada and Europe. These are the growers of exotic tropical fruit who are not expected to
provide enough fruit (poundage) to keep the facility continuously treating fruit. It is my
understanding that the irradiation facility needs to be in constant operation in order to be
effective. Where will the agricultural products come from to fill this need?
pile i~1 s......~.~1.,Q.L.t-_L~ .
'TM, _ C~,N~.I
APR 2 B 1997
.
It appears that a very small portion of Hawai`i's agricultural producers will benefit from this
facility's development. Certainly the proponents cannot claim that the facility will create any
significant increase in employment opportunities for Hawaii County residents, after the initial
construction is complete.
Although two million dollars is not considered a great sum for investment by some standards,
in the county of Hawaii this amount might go a long way in support of more socially beneficial
projects than the one proposed in Bi1162. I respectfully request that the council members reject
this bill and altogether withdraw its promotion of an agricultural irradiation facility in Hawaii.
Sincerely,
4%~~'~~/
~~%ZC~
Nancy Elmer
Department of Geography
University of Hawaii at Hilo
200 VJ. Kawili St.
Hilo, HI 96720