Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0728.044 2000-2002 Testimony on 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 KONG IN ORDER TO ASSURE AND PROTECT THE BIOTIC INTEGRITY AND MARKET VALUE OF PURE KONG COFFEE Presented before the Hawaii County Council H . September 25, 2002 ~ ~ P by asp------------------- =----..,.e. aunty Council Andrew G. Hashimoto, Dean and Director College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources University of Hawaii at Manoa Chair Arakaki and Members of the Council: On September 10, I testified on Resolution 236 02 before the Committee on Human Resources and Economic Development. My testimony today differs from the testimony I offered that day in only one respect. I am deeply saddened and troubled by the rifts that have developed since this resolution was introduced. Although this resolution is well intended, it is being portrayed by various people as Kona coffee farmers against the rest of agriculture, big farms against small farms, east Hawaii against west Hawaii, organic farming against conventional farming, an anti-GMO conspiracy, etc. At a time in the history of Hawaii agriculture when it is vital ±o find common ground and work together for the benefit of the industry, it is a shame to see this issue threaten to harm the agriculture ohana that is necessary for agriculture to succeed. The Kona coffee industry contributes significantly to the economic and cultural vitality of the county and state and has an understandable desire to maintain the unique brand identity and market price of its product. There are concerns that the high market price and niche the Kona coffee industry enjoys will be eroded if the coffee plant is genetically modified. The College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources is sympathetic to the concerns of the industry. We have committed to being open about the types of research we were conducting on coffee and to first talking to the industry and gaining their agreement before we field test (on our experiment stations or cooperators' farms) any genetically modified coffee in the County of Hawaii. Other research entities named in the resolution have, I believe, made similar commitments. However, I am concerned about the resolution for a number of reasons. • First, the resolution is not necessary. No genetically modified coffee plants are ready to be field tested, and we have made the commitment that if any are approved for field testing, they would not be tested in Kona. All recombinant coffee ("decaffeinated coffee") plants, plantlets, plant cell cultures and plant parts covered ~m~, 1~1®, ~I~ I~~a< ~f s ~ under permit Nos.: 99-139-02n (CA-1), 99-139-03n (CA-2) and 99-139-04n (CA-3) were devitalized on January 4, 2001 by approved means and witnessed by responsible state and federal personnel. • Second, it is unclear how the moratorium will be enforced, which organizations will be responsible to develop, adopt, and approve the regulatory regime envisioned in the resolution. Nor is it clear by whom 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 modified materials in agriculture. Clearly, reasoned discussions on the benefits and risks of this technology need to be held; however, it would be unfortunate if this resolution was used in the debate as evidence that the County and State of Hawaii are "anti-GMO." The divisiveness that this resolution has already created will be exacerbated as people continue to take sides. One of the primary strengths of Hawaii agriculture over the years, and especially in the recent past, is the willingness of growers to use new technologies where appropriate to ensure an economically and environmentally viable and sustainable agriculture. headily apparent examples of the beneficial use of biotechnology in Hawaii include resistance to papaya ring spot virus, nematode resistance, banana bunchy top resistance, new varieties of ornamental flowers, etc. The stakes are too high for us to discontinue investigating the usefulness of agricultural biotechnology, and specifically genetic engineering. Keep in mind that research on papaya ring spot resistance was in progress for over ten years before the virus nearly destroyed the industry. Keep in mind, too, that genetic modification was the only tool available to save the papaya industry from the ring spot virus. The Kona coffee industry may need to use this technology in the future if that is the only alternative to insure the survival of the industry. A strong, healthy agriculture industry is absolutely vital to the economic health of the dig Island and the state. We need all the tools at our disposal to address issues of importance to agriculture;. Passage of this resolution could reflect poorly on an important technology that maybe necessary for segments of our agricultural industry to survive and/or prosper. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.