HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.450 1996-1998
-
Good Morning,
My name is Kevin Hopkins and I am a associate professor in the College
of Agriculture at UH-Hilo. 2 wish to thank you for this opportunity to
express my personal views on Bill # 262.
A $2 million dollar investment of public funds deserves considerable
scrutiny. You are being bombarded with large amounts of information and
misinformation. I would like to provide some suggestions on how you may
deal with that information.
1. Take an hour to view a view a video entitled Irradiation of Meat.
Although it is pro-irradiation, it will provide you with the basic
information needed to understand the arguments of both the proponents
and opponents of irradiation.
2. Much of the information relates to the safety or danger of irradiated
foods. But neither you nor 2 are in the position to properly evaluate
the safety of irradiation. But we can evaluate the motives and
credibility of the opposing sides.
3. Who are the proponents of irradiation? Farmers who can develop new
markets, Isomedix and other pro-development groups. They all have a
potential financial gain. But why do USDA, FDA, and the World Health
Organization support irradiation?
4. What about the opponents? At the top of the list is Food and Water,
Inc. It is a mainland-based group whose whole existence seems to
revolve around fighting irradiation and fund-raising. The second group
of opponents are people who are opposed to any "nuclear" facility on the
Big Island. But their opposition to a food irradiation facility is a
mystery to me because I did not see them picketing the hospital's
irradiation facility. And we have some local farmers who are justifiably
worried that their existing markets might be jeopardized by actions
threatened by Food and Water, Inc.
5. Whose arguments regarding safety are to be believed? The USDA, FDA,
and the World Health Organization or Food and Water? The former are
much more credible than Food and Water, Inc.
6. Will consumers eat irradiated fruit? A11 test studies so far show
that irradiated fruit is actually preferred because it looks and tastes
better because it can be tree-ripened. The reason Food and Water must
resort to threats is that many consumers will purchase irradiated
products if they can exercise their freedom of choice.
7. Will consumer boycotts organized by Food and Water have a
significant impact on our existing mainland fruit markets? A key point
to remember is that other than papaya, we essentially have no fruit
markets on the mainland. Although protecting that market is a major
concern, there is an enormous potential for other tropical fruits. And
consumer tests in California showed a clear preference fox irradiated
papaya over double-dipped papaya.
8. Even with all their efforts, Food and Water has not been able to
shut down the stores that sell irradiated foods. The easiest way to
offset the effects of a boycott is to fund a public education campaign
supporting the safety of irradiated foods. LL''
RECEIVED ° DTYr ~ ~ Z ' T SO
Time.-..--•-----•---~-, ~t°----~._ 711 I(a
County Council 1 FG 4bt F~esented F c
lteY. Date 2 Q ~a~
9. What will the effect of irradiation be on our markets for papaya in
Japan. We will not be shipping irradiated papayas to Japan. Advertising
that fact should offset the negative publicity generated by Food and
Water.
10. Does the Mayor's request provide enough information for you to
adequately justify appropriating $2 million? The answer is clearly no.
But the Council can give its approval to the concept of spending up to
$2 million in County funds for projects which support an irradiation
facility. Those projects must be then subject to Council approval
before they are implemented. And the first project should be a detailed
economic analysis of irradiation's potential in Hawaii.
Thank you very much for your time.