Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0728.011 2000-2002 Hawaiian Alliance for Responsible Technology 8z Science P.O. Box 1627 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Promoting the responsible use of technology ~ science for the benefit of Hawaii's people & environment Testimony before the Committee on Human Resources & Economic Development Hawaii County Council - Related to a Resolution Supporting a Moratorium on Planting Genetically Engineered Coffee in North & South Kona September 10, 2002 Chair Pisicchio and Members of the Committee: My name is Rick Klemm. I am executive director of the Hawaiian Alliance for Responsible Technology & Science (HARTS), an industry trade group whose membership includes companies engaged in agricultural biotechnology in Hawaii. I apologize for not presenting my testimony in person but I will be on the mainland at the time of this hearing. We oppose this resolution in its current form because of its implications for pitting one group of farmers against another and for threatening the rights of farmers to choose the manner in which they wish to farm. In this case, we understand that Kona's organic coffee farmers have been persuaded that their orchards may be at unreasonable risk from conventional farmers who may wish to improve their orchards with coffee plants improved using modern methods of biotechnology or from research using such coffee plants. We have a strong regulatory system in the United States already in place, which is regarded as among the finest in the world. The USDA, FDA, and EPA are not going to allow any crop, whether intended for organic or conventional farming, to be certified for commercial planting or allowed to be used for food products unless they pose no threat to the environment or to human health. The recent EPA actions in Hawaii, which were prematurely announced recently by an national activist group for self-interested reasons, are evidence that our regulators are watching and taking actions when they feel it is necessary to do so. The greatest threat posed by new crops improved using conventional and modern biotechnological methods eschewed by organic farmers lies in marketing. New modern crops hold the promise of better taste, better nutrition, lower cost, and longer shelf life. Modern crops are already providing farmers with higher yields and reduced need for pest control and nutritional inputs. Combined with modern tillage practices, they are also already proving their value for protecting the environment. In brief, here are some other points regarding this resolution: • A moratorium banning federally approved crops for commercial and research purposes may constitute an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The resolution author(s) appears to recognize this by intentionally avoiding the issue of the imposing authority. ~ornrd. No. ~yb l<ile Nom~. lief. poi lief. Date ~F.,Q ~ ~ • Organic farmers like all farmers operate in an open environment and like all farmers must take responsible actions to protect their crops from the environment and other human activities, including other organic and conventional farms. This resolution seeks government help for organic coffee growers to shift that responsibility to other farmers and is patently unfair. Farmers working together can achieve amazing results to benefit one another. Communication not confrontation is the ultimate answer to organic and conventional farmers' concerns. • This resolution appears to incorrectly use "organic" to refer to the food and the crops produced by organic farmers. In fact, the National Organic Program makes clear that "organic" is a process standard, not a food standard. The USDA emphasizes this point because, unlike other USDA food labels, the organic label indicates nothing about the safety, nutritional value, or quality of food products. Its only purpose is to indicate the methods by which food products are produced. Thus, the presence of genetic material from modern crops is not necessarily a bar to organic food products receiving the organic label so long as the organic farmer can show that he has not "intentionally used" modern crops in production and processing. The concern expressed in this resolution appears to have little or no basis with respect to the current reality. We are not aware of any existing coffee plants anywhere in Hawaii produced using modern biotechnology. And, we are not aware of any concern from buyers, consumers, or industry representatives elsewhere. • We appreciate the concerns of the organic coffee growers who had this resolution brought before this body, although we oppose its current form. So that the organic growers concerns may be expressed in amore constructive way, we suggest that this resolution be amended to delete the moratorium language and to include language that encourages the various stakeholders to work together to find ways of addressing these concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this matter.