Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0728.031 2000-2002 Testimony for Resolution 236 02 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A MORATORIUM ON THE RELEASE AND PLANTING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) COFFEE IN THE DISTRICTS OF NORTH AND SOUTH KONA IN ORDER TO ASSURE AND PROTECT THE BIOTIC INTEGRITY AND MARKET VALUE OF PURE KONA COFFEE Presented before the Committee on Human Resources & Economic Development Hawaii County Council September 10, 2002 ~ Andrew G. Hashimoto, Dean and Director College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources University of Hawaii at Manoa Chair Pisicchio and Members of the Committee: There is no doubt that the Kona Coffee industry contributes significantly to the economic and cultural vitality of the County and State, and it is understandable why there is a desire to maintain the unique brand identity and market price of Kona Coffee. There are concerns that the high market price and niche that the Kona Coffee industry enjoys will be eroded if the coffee plant is genetically modif ed. The College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources is sympathetic to the concerns of the industry and has committed to being open about the types of research we were conductirfg on coffee and that we would not field test (on our experiment stations or cooperators' farms) any genetically modified coffee on the County of Hawaii without first talking to the industry and gaining their agreement. I believe the other research entities named in the resolution also made similar commitments. However, I am concerned about the resolution for a number of reasons. First, it is not necessary since there are no genetically modified coffee plants ready to be field tested, and the commitment that if any are approved for field testing, they would not be tested in Kona. Second, it is unclear how the resolution will be enforced, which organizations will be responsible to develop, adopt and approve the regulatory regime envisioned in the resolution, nor who and how the "evaluation of genetic contamination from pollen drift and other environmental consequences and secondary ecological effects" will be conducted. Finally, I am most concerned about how this resolution will be used in the national and international debate on the use of genetically modif ed materials in agriculture. Clearly there needs to be reasoned discussions on the benefits and risks of this technology; however, it would be unfortunate if this resolution is portrayed in the press as an example of the County and State of Hawaii's "anti-GMO" stance. It is to our advantage that we in Hawaii use the tools of biotechnology where appropriate to ensure; an economically and environmentally viable and sustainable agriculture. Examples of ~€5 ~mce ~"ile No. ~f. To: def. Date ~ ~ ~ this technology that are readily apparent include resistance to the papaya ring spot virus, nematode resistance, banana bunchy top resistance, new varieties of ornamental flowers, etc. The stakes are too high for us to not continue to investigate the usefulness of this technology. Even the Kona Coffee industry may need to use this technology in the future to address a pressing problem. Keep in mind that research on papaya ring spot resistance was in progress for many years before the virus nearly destroyed the industry. VVe need all the tools available at our disposal to address issues of importance to agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.