Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0883.002 2006-2008 JAN-04-2000 09:41 HARC 8081.965020 F. )I J5 HARC Hawaii Agriculture Research Center 99-193 Aiea Heights Drive, Suite 300 Area, Hawaii 96701 Ph: 808-487-55611Fax: 808 808-486-5020 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RES. 463-08 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING H.B. 1577 HDl. TO TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT THE GROWING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED COFFEE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND AT THE SAME TIME PERMIT RESEARCH IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SECURE FACILITY January 8, 2008 Dear Members of the Committee: 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 support staff, and our members and clients. HARC STRONGLY OPPOSES RES. 463-08, supporting H.B. 1577 H.D.1 to temporarily prohibit the growing of genetically modified coffee for a period of five years and at the same time permit research in an environmentally secure facility which proposes a prohibition on the genetically modified coffee in the state of Hawaii as unnecessary and potentially damaging to the innovative image the state has been trying to nurture for the last decade. HARC understands the marketing fear that has been generated concerning this type of research. However, it continues to be advocates within the industry itself that keeps the link between genetic modification and Kona coffee alive. Why are they doing this? The research community has already provided assurances that the industry will be a part of the discussicn as to whether any new coffee product advances. And as I point out later in this testimony, it takes willin(,, financial partners to advance research material to commercialization. The biggest problem with this anti-movement is its proponents' unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility of coexistence of all forms of agricultural production. This has already been demonstrated feasible by national and international farmers and they have done it in com. Corn is a crop that readily cross pollinates and is the subject of much of the adventitious presence concerns. Many entrepreneurial farmers see added value in having access to all markets and use the well-understood reproductive cycle for corn to control their planting, harvesting and marketing. In this case we are not talking about corn but coffee which has its own biological reproductive scheme. Coffee primarily is a self pollinator. Although out crossing can occur in coffee, it should not be thought of as having the same pollen movement concerns as a corn plart. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Page 1 Comm: NO. 8~ 3 7- Ref. Toftaen?ed FMC- Ref. Date • ANR ~n~ _ JAN-04-2009 09:41 HARC 8084866020 P.Oii6 The point here is that where the stakeholders are willing, there are solutions. Where they are not willing, they seek protection. A point to be made here is that the Chair of the Departmert of Agriculture has already stated that no field testing of coffee will be allowed w thout first it study on the pollen movement of coffee. That research has not be done nor is it even been proposed by anyone. 5o what is the issue? There is none! The question for this committee is, has the risk been demonstrated sufficiently to you for you i o be proposing support to pass a LAW to protect a market? Is there a product in the pipeline that has a trait that someone is interested in enough to pay the costs of technology transfer? If so, how many more years are needed for it to be deregulated? Is there evidence that the Kona market is being threatened by customers unwilling to buy their product because of the fear of possible presence of a few genetically engineered beans? Now as I mentioned earlier, I would like to provide you with a better feel for the time frame !cr new plant development. No matter what method is used to develop a new plant it goes through a field selection process. In all cases several plants are derived which must go through the fieldlobsenation and testing selection process. Yield has historically been a driving characteristic but pest resistance (weed/insect/disease) as well as nutrient and plant structure are also important depending on the crop. That process takes years and depends on each crop cycle time from plant to harvest. I am most familiar with sugarcane since our organization has been involved with that the longest mul it takes us over 10 years to come up with a new plant that has some improved property over fie existing commercial one. In the end, we are not sure what genetic changes were made to file plant--just that it performs better and provides better test results than the existing one. Let me assure you, that process takes millions of dollars paid by the local sugarcane industry and doesn't happen without considerable reflection. There are no regulations for any of this, just careful m! thoughtful practices developed over time. With genetically engineered plants, add to the front end of that process in determining how e grow a plant in a tissue culture system from plant cells which may differ from plant to plart Other steps are to determine what part of a plant is receptive to gene insertion, tc acquire a usefil gene and get it into a usable form, to insert the gene, to grow and select cells :hat acquired the inserted gene, to use the tissue culture system to develop leaves, stalk and toots, to test the selected plants for the presence and functionality of the gene, to successfully transfer selected plants to potting material, to test the material to determine effectiveness and stability of Ile inserted gene, and finally, to safely determine effectiveness and stability under field conditions e:s outlined in the preceding paragraph. Using this technology one knows what material is providing the desired benefit and can locate it in the genetic matrix. The benefits provided are a reduction in the number of plants taken through the field selection process, which is very costly, Z.nd a quicker method of getting the trait of interest into a plant without losing other lx-neficial traits, a common problem. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Page 2 JAN-04-2000 09:42 HARC 8084865020 P.T(-~7 AND all the field testing is regulated and the product must be proven to be substantially equivalent (quality testing) before deregulation is provided and commercialization can proceed. This is not required of any other new plant product. Commercialization Now assume one has a plant that is tested and shown to have a trait someone values. Before a genetically engineered plant becomes commercially available industry/farmers .,lave to be willing to go through any intellectual property licensing process if applicable, and any applicable regulatory process before the new plant will progress further. This is what is commonly referred to as technology transfer: from the research community to the user community, and is applicable to all new products developed, not just agriculture. It is not uncommon for products rin any economic sector to be dropped at this stage. The reason for this is there needs to be some compelling economic outcome associated with a product to justify its adoption. The preser t national agricultural grant system focuses on basic research of wide and/or regional applicability and not on the commercialization of individual products. Private sector involvement (or local public agency) and significant financial resources are required for 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 air, other product in our society. In the case of coffee there are already commitments by the local research community to consult with the industry if and when there ever is a product with potential to commercialize. There is no current threat; any potential threat is years and hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) away. As for testing experimental plants, the existing federal requirements address the security of the tests; in addition, the federal agents seek state concurrence in these tests. I urge you not to be distracted by these side issues which farmers should work out amor(€ themselves and to concentrate on the highest priority to all of Hawaii's agriculture which is :c provide the incentives for all fanning operations to produce a stable, reliable food supply for otu- citizens, and to preserve what good agricultural lands we have left. Please join with your fellow legislators and pass incentives for agriculture this year before it is too late. We strongly urge you to vote NO on this resolution as there is no rope issue here. However, there is a real threat to the growing concerns of small tech entrepreneurial businesses, that Hawaii is too risky a place to do business in cutting edge science. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment in this important area. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Page J Total P.00?