HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.383 1996-1998 ~e1ati~~J Ca~~
('Z~ . ~ ~~~~11
Janet E. Mderson
RR2 Box 4024
Pahoa, Hawaii 96778
May 19, 1997
Hawaii County Council
RE: Bill # 62 -Irradiation Plant Proposal
Good Day,
My name is Janet E. Mderson. I have been a resident of Kapoho for seventeen years. I am
~ the owner/manager of Kapoho Kai Nursery, a landscape nursery in the Puna District.
I am opposed to Bill #62. The focus of my opposition centers on three primary issues:
I
• Food quality and safety,
• Irradiation facility source, movement and disposal of toxic materials,
• Financial feasibility and responsibility
On food quality and safety my concerns are that even with the approval of designated
regulatory agencies it takes many years to know the full ramifications of the affects of what we
intake and expose our bodies to. We are affecting the food chain. Consider the assurances
the public was given on Thalidomide, DDT, DES, etc. You might say that today tests are
much more sophisticated. While that is true, I believe we still have a lot to learn about the
human body and its tolerance to the vast rn~mber of accumulative toxins and environmental
pollutants. With increasing incidences of cancer and disease more medical and personal
attention is given to the environment, clean air, water and food and its contribution to our
health. Hawaii is perceived as a place of natural, healthful living. The agriculWial exports
produced here are sought worldwide for their natural, untainted, high quality. This image is
reFlected in and affects all aspects of our economy.
On irradiation facilities and the use and disposal of toxic materials we must consider that
geologically this volcanic island is subject to unpredictable instances of earthquakes. We
cannot ignore the risk in containment of a very serious toxic material, Cobalt 60. While we
may make the personal choice not to ingest irradiated foods, a facility accident could occur,
exposing nearby residents and living species both plant and animal to destructive radiation.
Since the purpose of the facility is purely economic and not an issue of life and death this risk
factor is unacceptable. The fact that we already have similar toxic materials used for medical
purposes does not justify an irradiation facility. Physicians have confirmed that in medical
applications the amounts of toxins are far less and the types used are safer. Further these
applications do not introduce toxins into the food chain. 'Z •
Comm. DI0.
~ r~t® i<~. FND Cl P
Etef. Tp~Presented Co~^'~'`
t2et. I~te_ MAY 2 0 199]
As for fnanciaf feasibility and responsibility, I fnd it diffcult to reconcile spending two million dollars,
money we don't have, to be put up in bond with interest, on a facility that cannot guarantee a positive
fnancial return. I refer to written testimony by M. Eileen O'Hara- Wier, M.A., Economics wherein
Exhibit D (attached) she details the economic viability of the irradiation plant proposal and offers
appropriate alternatives of public spending to promote diversified agriculture. It makes logical sense
to me that in the very least a serious, impartial, professional economic analysis be conducted on the
opportunity, marketing and liability costs associated with the irradiation facility. To make any kind of
responsible decision in the appropriation of such a large sum of money I believe it essential to put the
horse before the cart and be absolutely sure we know all the implications.
I know that the job you have as council member is not an easy one. You are not expelled to be
experts in every aspect of all proposals and issues that come before you for decision. However, as a
caring person and a responsible, honest, paid public servant you are given the task of determining the
legitimacy of facts presented to you. I am sure the pressures of politics are enormous and in reality
these pressures contribute daily to your decision making. I ask you to please keep in mind that your
In 51 ~i i~l fvi ci i ivsl ~bligutiui i to LI us islui id is ~i is ul ; ~u~u diui isl up. I I is puL~hr wl iu clc~.lal y~~u
depends and trusts you to consider the safety and health of all citizens. The coordinated efforts of
productivity and preservation can be encouraged and need not be compromised.
Sincerely,
~et E. Anderson
¦
4 / '
r~,_ Lc-~.t~rx.c~
EXAMPLN:S OI' APPROPRIA. PUBLIC SPI'sNDING TO PROMOTE DIVL_-_,IFIF.D AGRICULTURE
Below are some of my thoughts concerning appropriate public expenditures on technology,
infrastructure, product development, and market promotion which both county and state governments
should invest in to promote the growth of diversified sustainable/organic agriculture.
¦ Money for the commercialization of other appropriate non-nuclear post-harvest treatment
technologies including, but not limited to, both cold and dry heat treatments for pest and
disease control. These technologies have been tested at the research level, but are not
commercially operational yet. Why not?
The dollar estimate on eradication efforts has been concocted through the efforts of the EPIC
(Exotic Pest Insect Committee) which has been a very dysfunctional organization. 1 would like
to see a separate estimate on establishment of fruit lly-free zones.
Actually, the only fruit fly we have in Hawaii which represents a threat to the southern
mainland states is the Oriental Fnut Fly. I suspect there is no hard science which will back the
quarantines on the other three fruit flies (Mediterranean, melon and Malaysian) in terms of their
ability to establish on the mainland. The USDA APHIS regulations are not necessarily based
on science which is clear when one compares international requirements with interstate
restrictions. The Shunvil avocado case also clearly points to the fact that Hawaiian agriculture
has been kept purposefully disadvantaged through the policital power of the California and
Florida Fruit Growers Associations. There is a move to establish an internationally acceptable
regulation since under GATT and NAFTA differential applications of these regulations will be
viewed as unfair trade practices.
Therefore, it is my opinion that Hawaii will be the proving ground for irradiation on tropical
foods which, if passed by the USDA as an appropriate post-harvest technology for compliance
with APHIS regulations, will lay the foundation for transferring food irradiation technologies
to all tropical food producing countries. This will further disadvantage Hawaiian products
directed at mainland and global fresh foods markets.
¦ Seed money for the establishment of prototype processed and value-added products
(Dehydration, Juices, Baby foods, etc.).
The image of Hawaii as a pristine aina with aloha is what sells product from Hawaii. If you
look at the marketing of the cut-flower industry (I have '/a acre of oncidium orchids for cut-
flower) you would realize that our only advantage over Thailand and Singapore (producing in
China) is a sense of quality and aloha. It is getting increasingly difficult to keep mainland
markets for tropical cut-flower open in light of the "dumping" of Thai and Singapore orchids
on the U.S. market. There two counties sell their "firsts" to Japan and dump their "seconds"
on the U.S. market. It may not actually constitute "dumping" in the strict economic definition
since the costs of production faced by Thailand and Singapore are so diminutive compared to
I lawaii's cost of production that they may actually he pricing product above their average
variable cost. Still, the market lessons are the same.
If processing of the tropical fruit products were done, we could develop products which could
market the Hawaiian image and develop sustainable markets. This approach would require
13
e'er,
increased plantings thereby increasing agricultural production. It would also attract lower cost
transportation options and create many new jobs and small businesses which our local work
force could handle. This is a sustainable direction for agriculture. Export oriented agriculture
k?
aimed at fresh fruit upscale niche markets will require a constant influx of promotional
marketing expenditures to continually identify and open new markets since these markets are
trendy and not long-term. The expenditures of those market dollars will benefit the global
agricultural community, not just Hawaii.
¦ Money for the establishment of a researchlcommercial beneficial insectary.
Currently, it is illegal to import ~ beneficial insect into the state of Hawaii. One cannot do
so even through a permitting process unless one is associated with a research ann of the
university. Even then, it is extremely difficult. Most commercially available beneficials are
raised in a laboratory situation and are considered 99.9% clean of possible parasites (with the
exception of lady bugs which commercial insectaries gather from the wild due to their
availability as a result of mating behavior and the complexity of their diet which would be hard
to simulate in a laboratory situation). Also, only general parasites (Encarsia spp a parasitic
wasp which gives fantastic control of greenhouse and silver back white flies) and predators
(lady bugs, b~reen lacewings, praying mantis) which have limited benefit to tropical agriculture
are being raised by mainland and European insectaries since these establishments cater to
temperate climate agriculture.
We need to support research of beneficials needed for tropical agriculture since many of the
insects that cause economic damage in the tropics are either not present or do not cause serious
economic damage in temperate climates. Timely release of beneficials either as "incubation"
meaning introduction of beneficials before the negative pest population is significant or
"augmentation" which refers to the release of large numbers of beneficials to compact a serious
pest outbreak, is a very effective practice and an essential "tool of the trade" to organic
production and production aimed at reducing pesticide use.
¦ Money for research development of new fruit varieties which could extend the
season/availability of highly seasonal fruits (I.ongan, lychee, etc.).
If we aze to have any comparative advantage in the exotic tropical fruit market, we need to have
our product differentiated and hit the market at staggered times from the rest of the producing
countries. This could also provide a source of revenue in terms of raising plants and scion
wood.
¦ The county could provide suitable land for development of a research demonstration
organic farm.
Already a precedent has been set on Maui - a 29 acre county ag lot in Kula with a 50 year lease
was just awarded to HOFA on a 6 month trial basis. We need to have such farms established
in all of the agro-ecosystems in the state.
¦ Seed money for the establishment of water wells in areas without sufficient supply.
In particular, the farmers in the northern Hamakua will be adversely affected by Bishop Fstatc's
purchase of the water rights to the Hamakua ditch and their plan to divert the 17 million gallons
per day for use in private development. The farms affected constitute some of our most
14
3
productive farm lands. There is need for water works in South Kona; land which is excellent
' for the production of avocados and coffee. Fanners in that area are threatened with going out
'A'=f of production do to extended years of severe drought conditions. Many agriculturally zoned
sr areas in Ka'u and Puna remain without available water.
¦ Money to development local marketing networks to facilitate local product moving into the
most high-valued markets throughout the state for the purpose of import substitution.
Supplying product to local markets for import substitution is hampered by the high costs of
' transportation facing individual S~rowers. Through the use of huffs and informal coops, some
of the transaction costs (transportation and networking) can be reduced and more effective
matching of supply and demand in the local fresh foods markets can take place.
¦ Investments in energy crops should be encouraged.
We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels both in the production of electricity and in
liquid fuels. Besides utilizing appropriate technologies involving waste treatment, we could
y~
r~ be making use of the existing infrastructure for plantation agriculture to grow enerbry crops.
¦ Implement sustainable forestry practices.
"a There is great potential for producing tropical lumber crops using sustainable practices rather
than short-term, quick profit schemes such as the pulp wood project.
¦ Rebates to organic farmers to offset the cost of certification as a result of federal
requirements.
When the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) takes effect later this year (its out for 60 days
of public review and expected to be signed off by late summer), organizations offering
certification will need to pay the feds in order to become accredited. This will cost a
considerable amount ($5-10,000). This cost needs to be supported or it will have to be passed
on to the growers. I recommend that the county subsidize certification costs. Precedent was
already set in Kauai in 1994. There are an estimated 75 certified organic operations in the state
with an untold amount of uncertified production which will soon become illegal under OFPA.
This is a high growth industry (Snowing by greater than 20% annually for each of the last 6
years) and should be encouraged, not disadvantaged through the addition of a bureaucratic layer
of costs.
¦ Money to hold a workshop to train existing pool of inspectors, as well as additional new
inspectors in processing, livestock certification, and honey production.
We are beginning to get requests for this type of organic production (processing and livestock)
which require different inspection procedures from crops. We need trained inspectors to meet
this demand. The current pool of inspectors are trained in ground crops only.
l5