HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.002 2006-2008
JAN-04-20088 09:39 HARC 808"865020 Paint
20
1 U 1RC
HAWAII AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER
FowwmaHAwAimSUGARPL4NTE &A3socunon
99-193 AEA HEIGHTS Darvn, Sum 300, AlEA, HAwA 96701-3911
Tn,neHONn: (808) 487-5561 FAx: (808) 486-5020
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
To: County Clerk Date: 1/412008
Location: Hawaii County Council Fax No.: 1-808-961-8912
From: Cindy Pinick for Stephanie Whalen (ph: 808-486-5311)
Number of pages (including, this cover sheet): 7
The testimony listed below is for the following hearing:
Hawaii County Council Committee on i-T-!
Environmental Management
January 8, 2008 L , f T i
z ;
Res. 462-08
Res. 463-08
Comm. lqo. a. ~
f. ToPrasspp~
R4, Uote 16NA 9Af1R
JAN-04-2008 09:39 HARC 8082.866')20 F,0C,2
HARC Hawaii Agriculture Reses rehx,G,ep~r
99-193 Aiea Heights Drive, .3001-? E
k1VLAJ Aiea, Hawaii 96701 ~ 10 2
Ph: 808-487-5561 /Fax2~01 6-%20CCt i
r~
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HAWAII COUNTY MWAI COMMMEE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RES. 462-08
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING S.B. 958 S.D.1.H.D.1 TO IMPOSE A TEN-YEAR
MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPING, TESTING, PROPAGATING, CULTIVATING,
GROWING, AND RAISING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED TARO IN THE
STATE OF HAWAII
January 8, 2008
Dear Committee Members:
My name is Stephanie Whalen. I am President and Research Director of the Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center (HARC). I am testifying today on behalf of the center, our research and suppoil
staff, and our members and clients.
HARC strongly opposes Resolution 462-08, supporting S.B. 958 S.D.1 H.D.I. which proposes
a 10-year moratorium on genetically modified taro in the state as unnecessary. The research
community has already agreed to limit research in this area with respect to Hawaiian taro, but
most significant is that the process to commercialize an engineered plant requires grower
commitment and involvement and most importantly legislative financial support.
Please recall the commercialization of Hawaii's transgenic papaya. This was only accomplished
because the industry went to the state legislature seeking financial support for the transfer of this
technology. Funds were needed to acquire a license to use the technology. Today, not only xe
significant funds needed for this purpose but also to navigate the more onerous regulatory
process that has evolved for this technology.
All crops in Hawaii are considered specialty (minor) crops. The private sector : as no economic
incentive to commercialize transgenic specialty crops as their volume sales de not warrant the
investment. Commercialization of specialty transgenic crops in Hawaii will not occur without
financing by the public sector agencies.
Very few research projects ever make it into the commercial marketplace. This is a well lviown
fact. Technology transfer, no matter what the product, is extremely expensive and risky.
RES 462-08-January 8, 2008 Pug, I
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
JAN-04-2008 09:40 HARC 808.865020 ?.,1n3
This document will explain the process of technology transfer for agricultural products. But firm,
I would like to address some generalizations stated in Section 1 of SB 958 that lead readers to
perceptions that are not supported by additional information.
'....swift and pervasive.... quick acceptance'
It is true as stated that the technology addressed in this proposed legislation has been rapicly
adopted by both large and small farmers throughout the developed and developing countries.
Over 10 million farmers, of which 90% are small resource-poor farmers from developing
countries, are planting engineered commodity (large acreage) crops: soybeans, maize, cottcn,
and canola. As with most new agricultural tools with wide-spread application they are
introduced to the largest markets first.
The technology is not proliferating in specialty crops found in Hawaii, California, Oregon,
Washington, Arizona, Florida, etc., because of the uncertainty in the requirements of the
regulatory process (currently case by case, crop by crop and event by event) and public
acceptance: both embroiled in political and emotional struggles. Quick acceptance o)
commercialized products is not equal to availability of lots of different engineered products. Z
has occurred with other innovative tools in the history of agriculture economics and acceptance,
not availability, will determine which crops adopt this technology. Since the earliest agricu.lturd
innovation in 1701 AD advances in this area have been controversial. The current experience
no different.
,...may pose serious consequences for the health and safety of our citizens...'
It has been documented world-wide by numerous countries' expert advisory/task force panels.
international scientific professional associations, and Nobel Prize winners that the engineered
products in the marketplace are safe and that the technology can be used sai:ely. The WTO
recently ruled that the European Union's moratorium on genetically modified crops had no
scientific basis and that its ban was illegal. The process that allows for the deregulation of the
crops in the marketplace throughout the world obviously worked with respect to the health and
safety of the products. What basis is there to claim that it will not continue to work with respeo
to the health and safety of the products? Of all the new food products introduced into the
marketplace products utilizing this technology are the most regulated.
I think it is important to understand the process of research and development in agriculture and
new agricultural product commercialization and how these two processes differ in time and
funding sources.
Research and Development
Research does not produce instant results. New technologies are developed for major markets
and take decades to be developed, if ever, for smaller markets. In this technology the process
includes determining how to grow a plant in a tissue culture system from plant cells. This
process often differs from plant to plant. Other steps are to determine what part of a plant is
receptive to gene insertion, to acquire a useful gene and get it into a usable form, to insert the
gene, to grow and select cells that acquired the inserted gene, to use the tissue culttu•e system to
develop leaves, stalks and roots, to test the selected plants for the presence and functionality of
RES 462-08-January 8, 2008 Page
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
JAN-04-2008 09:40 HARC 8084.8650.20 P.'-W4
the gene, to successfully transfer selected plants to potting material, to test the material to
determine effectiveness and stability of the inserted gene, and finally, to safely determir-w
effectiveness and stability under field conditions.
In the early stages to set up a system, a researcher practices with different plant parts of several
varieties and an easily recognized gene--like color or fluorescence. The regrowth process cim
take several months and years can be dedicated to trying to reduce this time lag. Decades hal e
passed in the development of systems for some of Hawaii's crops. Because of the exploratoq
nature of this part of the process it may be financed through public funds. For the most part,
research on minor crops is done by the public sector: colleges, universities, or non-profit
research centers funded by foundations or competitive federal grants.
Commercialization
Assume the research community has developed a new plant. Before this plant becomes
commercially available industry/farmers have to be willing to go through any intellectual
property licensing process if applicable, and any applicable regulatory process before a new phuit
will progress further. This is what is commonly referred to as technology tansfer: from the
research community to the user community, and is applicable to all new product s developed, not
just agriculture. It is not uncommon for products for any economic sector to be dropped at th''.s
stage. The reason for this is there needs to be some compelling economic outcome associated
with a product to justify its adoption. The present national agricultural grant system focuses c n
basic research of wide and/or regional applicability and not on the commercialization of
individual products. Private sector involvement and resources are! required `.or
commercialization.
The point here is that just because there is research on a particular product does not mean that it
will end up as a commercial product. This is as true for an agriculture product as well as for any
other product in our society. For Hawaii for genetically modified plants, the affected industry
sector will have to step up to the plate just like the papaya industry did. If they do not step
forward to participate in the later stages of product development, intellectual property rights
acquisition and deregulation, there will be no commercial product.
HARC, a non-profit scientific organization, cannot support this proposed legislation because the
system for product development and commercialization as it already exists addresses the
concerns raised, making the proposed legislation, which this resolution supports, unnecessary.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments for your consideration.
RES 462-08-January 8, 2008 Page 3
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center