Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.228 1996-1998 From'. Lois-ellln Datta Datfa Analyss a1'. Hawall County Counrll Page 1 of 5 Wetlnesday. MaY O]. 1991 1 A6:d1 PM To: Councilman°. ~~^s~a~ki 1 TO: Council Member James Arakaki Hawaii County Council nr-~'~- I~.. '97 f~flY 7 ~ i; 2 22 FROM: Lois-ellin DaiTa, Ph.D. DATE: May 7, 1997 C~UN I Y fif\WA~( SUBJECT: Request that this letter be assigned a communication number, that it be placed on }he County Council Agenda, That it be circulated to all Council Members and That a Public Hearing be held in KONA regarding the proposed Post Harvest Treatment Facility. I herewith respectfully make four requests. #1J That this letter and the attachment "Your Waller and Mine" be assigned a communication number #2) Thar this letter and the attachment "Your Wallet and Mine" be placed on the County Council Agenda #3) That this letter and the attachment "Your Wallet and Mine" be circulated To all Council Members #4) That There be a Public Hearing held in Kailua-Kona regarding the proposed PosT Harvest Treatment Facility (Bill No. 62J BEFORE the Council votes on this Bill for the second time. I understand a "public education and information forum" for Kona is being considered. This may be useful BEFORE the Council votes for the second time on Bill No, 62, if iT is run with equal numbers of proponents and opponents speaking. A public information forum is NOT a satisfactory substitute for giving citizens in \NesT Ha\~1aii an equal opportunity To present information---whether in support of the proposal or against the proposal---to the Council. Given the controversy surrounding this Bill, hopefully, the Council will hold hearings in Kona to help provide the appearance and the actuality of equal opportunity to be heard. Thank you and the Council members for your consideration of this request. ~ ]iG? 212..2.1= ~u. xa~[~t~_,____ ltd, ~ ~'ow~fed ~te~?ne:( IIpY 0 71897 From'. lols~llln Datta Dafla Analysts al' Hawall Cnunly Cnvncll Gage 2 of 5 \4ednasday. May O). 1991 1'd8:04 GM To: Coimcliman James Arakakl 2 YOUR WALLET AND MINE: BENEFITING FROM AfJD PAYING FOR FOOD IRRADIATION Lois-ellin DatTa, Ph.D. In V~/ashington state, a First American tribe That traditionally fished along The salmon rivers are catching fewer and fewer salmon, ruining a carefully nurtured business. There are fewer salmon because with more dams, more fish ladders are needed. There is not enough money to build all these needed fish ladders---and to buy some other things Washington State residents expect from their government--- because of V~/HOOPS. WHOOPS is the fiscal black hole of Interest payments on state bonds authorized years ago to finance the Hanford area nuclear power plants. These bonds come due in a few years. Then the giant sucking sound will be money from the wallets of Washington state taxpayers who were kids v~ihen the bonds were approved in a burst of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the legislature. Beguiled by promises of big profits, job creation and a rising tide of nuclear-stimulated prosperity, the legislators approved sale of state bonds To support The nuclear facilities without obtaining a full, objective, comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of the effort---and ignoring as 'terroristic nay-sayers" those warning about problems ahead. The nuclear plants proved uneconomical and risky. They went out of operation before returning increased revenues, paying back their costs or covering The interest payments and principal on those bonds. Sound familiar? This may be happening on the Big Island in approval of a County bond issue To support The proposed irradiation facility. The irradiation facility is not a nuclear power plant. However, many of the fiscal and liability issues are similar. About a week ago, the County Council Finance committee heard our Mayor characterize many of the 170 plus people who had come to make their voices heard as "economic terrorists." The majority of The Finance Committee---with the exception of Council Member Curtis Tyler--- voted To give The Mayor close To a blank check in a bill stating their support of a food irradiation facility plus an up-TO $2 million immediate do\Ain payment. They did this after hearing that there was no independent, thorough analysis of \~rhat the benefits might be, and who would get These benefits or of what the costs might be, and who would pay these costs. Glowing claims that prosperity is just around the irradiation corner, yes: evidence and analysis, no. Statements about The lack of a Thorough, independent analysis of costs and benefits were made by-- among others--- a University of Hawaii economics professor who is for irradiation but against fiscal irresponsibility, the President of Isomedix who made crystal clear that Isomedix builds irradiation plants and it is up to growers and the County to figure out themselves if they can break even or make a profit, and an agricultural economist who does not support irradiation primarily because only a few would conceivably benefit \Aihile many of us could wind up paying a whole lot. People who are spending their own money tend to look a lot more carefully...and money "from the County" is actually our money, and comes from our wallets. So, what's to look aT here? First, according to interviews with the County Office of Research and Development, the R&D Office hasn't done anything like an analysis of who will benefit and ho~v much, and who will pay, and how much. They were counting on Isomedix to do this analysis. But when Isomedix made their 3 hour presentation To The County Council's Finance Committee, Isomedix said, in shocked tones, "MOI? Do an analysts? Up to you guys---the growers and the County---To figure out whether you can make This work economically." Their negotiating position suggested, however, that They've done the same rough analysis some of us have. Isomedix is acting as if They Think it will take mega-dollars To handle marketing and distribution. They indicated, in response to the question, "What would iT Take for you To bring your plant to Hawaii?" Fmm:~ms-eihn Dana Datta.~nalysis at Hawan County COwdl Pa9e3 of5 Wednesday. May O),19911.d929 PM TO: Counplman.~-¢nes Arakakl 3 that they evouldn'T bring their plant to our Island until the County Council or the growers put in writing that all marketing, distribution and payment of liabilities beyond the Token $75,000 bond required by the Nuclear Regulation Commission would be up To us. Among the Great Mysteries in The Mayor's proposal---now endorsed by the Finance Committee with The exception of Council Member Tyler---are (1) estimates of how much of what crops will be processed each month of the year, (2) estimates of much time will be used each month of the year for research purposes, (3) estimates of how much time will be used each month of the year for other purposes such as sterilizing medical equipment or killing silverfish in county records (both recommended by the Mayor and the R8D Department) and (4) estimates of how much down-Time There will be. Analysis of mainland irradiation facilities indicate That to keep charges for plant use affordable, The irradiation plants have to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. As use decreases, processing costs increase----and guess who would come before the County Council demanding money from your wallets to subsidize These costs2 Some additional Great Mysteries are (1) whether any reputable insurance company will issue policies against personal injury, property damage and clean-up in case of accidents for an irradiation facility located in alava-earthquake zones, (2) how much These policies will cost for adequate liability coverage, (3~ who will pay for these policies, (4) the liability of the County---read your wallet and mine- --in case of accidents, (SJ County IiabiliTy for damages to business and industries who may be able To prove an irradiation facility has hurt them, such as The current hot-vapor papaya processing plant, eco-tourism and organic agriculture and (6j the Big One: the costs of distribution and marketing. Some reputable, objective sources such as the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the Congressional Research Quarterly have reviewed The safety, nutritional value, IiabiliTy and profitability issues associated with food irradiation. Their reports help explain why there Is considerable uncertainty and controversy on these issues. For a variety of technical, methodological reasons, the Food and Drug Administration "gold standard" tests of food safety could not be conducted. Instead, in 1986 the Food and Drug Administration reviewed about 440 basic and applied research studies, were able to identify only out of Those 440 studies Thar were methodologically adequate. Food and Drug Administration approval of irradiated foods on these five studies. The conclusions of three of these five studies have been challenged by reputable scientists. Further since 1986, there are nevv methodologies and nevi research but no impartial, highly respected group such as the National Academy of Science to sort it out. Thus, Those who want to make the case that irradiated food is safe, attractive, wholesome and no more or less nutritious than anyt'ning else can point to Food and Drug Administration approval, to some of the ne~~i research, to some countries such as the Netherlands and South Africa which permit sale of irradiated fruits, and to The endorsement of prestigious groups such as the American Medical Association and The American Dietetic Association. Those viho want to make the case that irradiated foods may have long term carcinogenic effects and have reduced nutritional value can point out the usually required studies were not done, To some of The new research, To some countries such as Japan which do not permit sale of irradiated fruits, and to the disapproval of groups such as The American Association of Retired Persons, The AFL-CIO and the Censer for Science in the Public Interest who are against food irradiation. This, and the conflicting more recent research evidence, mean That consumer groups concerned with food safety can make some large waves. The po~roer of consumer groups should not be trivialized orunder-estimated. Calling them names such as "terrorist" will not make it cheaper or easier for the County---read, your wallet and mine---to pay for effective "consumer education" campaigns. Internationally, 70 consumer groups are working for a moratorium on irradiated foods until a reliable, affordable method is found To determine which From'. Lois-ellin Datla Datla Analysts at' Hawaii County Council Page A o15 Vletlnpstlay. May O]. 199] L5059 PM To: Councilman James Arakaki 4 products have been irradiated and which have not. V\/ithin the United States, the Food and \Nater coalition has pervaded such large corporations as McDonalds, Kellogg's and Perdue not to use any irradiated products. Some of the "consumer education" costs could be reduced by strategies such as selling irradiated foods through the Los Alamos and Brookhaven supermarkets, and To marketing To areas wlTh high concentration of Asian immigrants longing for a taste of home. However, to penetrate more health- conscious markets, advertising costs could be what most of us would consider astronomical. $2 million might be a windfall for some local groups who might get those consumer education contracts but in terms of effectiveness with a wide range of marker sectors, it might be cheaper to guarantee repurchase of any unsold irradiated fruit to The distributors and retail marketers or sell only to easily penetrated markets . Apparently none of the "marketing studies" about which the Finance Committee was told was done under real ~~iorld conditions of a determined anti-irradiation campaign versus a determined pro- irradiation campaign in an adequate sample of diverse markets....or in a legal manner. Marcia Reynolds, the County Public Information Officer in the April 14, 1997 Hawaii Tribune Herald stated, "All fruit sold was labeled as 'Treated by the Food and Drug Administration," Thls is not only misleading because Isomedix, not Food and Drug treated the fruit, but possibly in non-compliance with the law. The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that irradiated fruits be labeled individually with the radura ~a seal indicate irradiation) andlor in bins clearly showing the fruit has been irradiated. Pui an other way, the tobacco companies have deep pockets. Nonetheless, determined consumer grcups, backed by the courts, are effectively reducing U.S. markets for These products. V'?hatever you may think personally about the attractiveness of a nice juicy irradiated rambutan, it doesn't make advertising or °consumer education" any cheaper. Yet this what Mayor Yamashiro and the County Council Finance Committee have agreed that you and I should pay for: marketing and distribution. The Mayor giants The County----read your wallet and mine---to "even the playing field" by picking up the cost of marketing, distribution and consumer education--among other costs. The food irradiation facility could be the great deal for Hawaii County---read your wallet and mine-- thaT its advocates have proclaimed IF the happy face scenario came to pass: IF 100% throughput could be achieved without any additional direct and indirect subsidies, IF there were no accidents, losses or damages incurring County liability, IF the other fruit-producing nations don't take advantage of our paying The costs of advertising and then undercut us in price, knocking out our markets, IF consumer acceptance is quickly very high and/or marketing to low-resistance sectors can create all the money even the most ambitious of growers and nursery people could carry to the bank, IF enough money stays In Hawaii County instead of reaching Zurich the next day to have multiplier effects on the economy, IF a lot more land goes into agriculture and gets taxed aT higher rates than iT presently is, IF the possible increases in revenues from personal and business income taxes and from increased GTE Taxes come To pass and the County collects these vigorously, IF having our own irradiation facilities speed up agricultural research in ways giving Hawaii products a durable competitive advantage--- and afew other Ifs. Should these come to pass, for a fairly low price---$2 million---the County --read your wallet and mine---could have an economically viable and quite attractive package, from a fiscal perspective. The food irradiation facility could be the Hawaii WHOOPS, however, if the unhappy face warnings came To pass: IF through human error, bad luck and equipment failure, The Cobalt 60 rods got stuck in the up position out of the shielding pool of water at the same time that an earthquake cracked or destroyed the reinforced walls; IF the °consumer education" campaign not only fulled To make people prefer irradiated products but Tainted all Hawaii fruits as suspect; IF other fruit-producing countries sold Their Irradiated products at much lower costs than ours once we opened the markets; IF farmers encouraged to buy agricultural land and plant trees went bust in about five To Ten years and we had to pay direct and indirect casts of another Hamakua Sugar Plantation crisis for workers and growers: IF Front Lols-ellln Datla Datla Analyss al Hawaii CO,mN Coundl Pages ol5 Wetlnestlay, May O),199)P5232 PM to: CouncilmanJan QS Arakakl 5 the county had to subsidize throughput for a long time directly and indirectly, IF opportunity costs were high for falling to invest in research on non-irradiated post-harvest Treatments or in lower risk, higher benefit approaches To diversified, sustainable agriculture---and a fe~v other Ifs. Then a food irradiation facility would not be the great deal the majority of Council members think it is. A competent, thorough, independent analysis would identify these and other sources of benefits and costs, set upper and lower ranges for reasonable scenarios, and Tell us, among other things, in what year---19992 20012 20102 never2---benefits to Hawaii County are likely to be greater than our costs. Prudent decision-making would set up a panel of three knowledgeable persons ~vho support irradiation and three who oppose it to draft the specifications for a full, comprehensive, objective, independent cast/benefits analysis. Thls request for proposals would go to a qualified bidders Ilsi also identified by the panelists. The analysis would be conducted under the watchful eye of the County Department of R&D and the panel, To help assure The report would be credible, impartial, and Technically adequate. Such a study probably would cost behveen $50,000 and $75,000 and take about six months. A study done unilaterally by the County Department of R&D and or by anyone who stood to benefit from a decision To go or not go with the irradiator could take us no further than we are now, due to lack of the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. Hawaii needs sound approaches To diversified, sustainable agriculture. Our farmers and growers, who work very hard to make a living, deserve our fullest support and encouragement. The Major and the Council have The responsibility to work with the private sector to improve economic conditions, and should be lauded for any sound efforts to achieve this. However, ~nre don't need another WHOOPS here. Lois-ellin Datta is a former director of the U.S. General Accounting Office in the area of human services evaluation. She has consulted on evaluation with organizations including the World Bank, The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, and the National Cancer Institute.