Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.029 2006-2008 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura i- From: Merle Hayward [blackbird4aloha@yahoo.com] 2008 AN 23 AM 9 20 Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:09 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us C{ t!r, Subject: Testimony Res 462 08 COUN-D ' 'k= i-l, AA!All Attachments: Testimony 462 08 Taro GMO Resolution.pdf Please find attached "replacement" for testimony submitted earlier. I plan to testify in person. Mahalo. Merle Hayward Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. comm. No. 80 a.aq Ref. To. hi-n* wt Ref. Dote N 24 9nn_ R 1/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura RC_~ From: Merle Hayward [blackbird4aloha@yahoo.com] 20 JRN 23 AM 9 17 Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:46 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Oojl Z' Subject: Testimony Res. 462-08 Attachments: County GMO Resolution.pdf Please find attached copy of testimony I will give on Jan 24, 2008 in support of Res. 462-08. Please make copies available for the Council. Thank you, Merle Hayward Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 1/23/2008 Good Morning Council Members. My name is Merle Hayward and I am speaking in support of Resolution 462-08. Enough time has passed to enable us to observe the effects of GMOs. In 2002, the National Academy of Science criticized the US Department of Agriculture in 2002 for saying there is "no evidence of harm" to imply the environmental safety of GMOs, because the NAS found no evidence of USDA environmental monitoring. This is important because the National Research Council of the NAS contends that small genetic changes have substantial environmental consequences that are unintended, and that there is no difference in environmental hazard between introducing GMO traits or invasive species to a local ecosystem. There can be no claim of safety without regulatory monitoring. There can be no claim of safety without food labeling. Please remember this the next time you are told by a GMO supporter that safety is a done deal. In 2005, the USDA's own Inspector General issued a scathing critique of the USDA's regulation of biopharmaceutical and other GMO crops stating that the USDA continues to neglect its regulatory duties. A case cannot be made that GMOs are strictly approved or regulated by governmental agencies. On the mainland, contamination has occurred in canola, corn, soy, and in 2006, long grain rice, causing economic losses in the billions of dollars. In Hawaii, the GMO papaya is a good example of what happens when a GMO is introduced into a local ecosystem. GMO papaya is wiping out organic and conventional papaya through contamination. Independent DNA lab tests indicated that 50% of a sample of back yard, organic, wild, and non-GMO papaya on the Big Island was contaminated. The attached Honolulu Advertiser and National Agriculture Statistics show that current papaya production is the lowest since 1980, before the GMO papaya was introduced in 1998, and continues to decline. Japan used to buy 60% of Hawaii's papaya, but it will not buy GMO papaya. Today, it is difficult to find non-GMO Kapoho Solo papaya at the market and taxpayers are paying the bill for the expensive batch testing and certification Kapoho Solo growers must do to sell their non-GMO papayas to Japan. There will be no biodiversity or choice when the only food crops left are those contaminated by GMOs. Please vote for sustainability and societal and environmental concerns to protect taro from this fate. Thank you. PAPAYAS PAPAYAS: Number of farms acres a yield, utilization rice and value b county, 2001-2005 ufM Valuaof Arx Yield Utilized Utilization Price per PO per Year Farms in aop Harvested 2 pod'- Fresh Processed Fresh Processad3 All utilized we tion prodtdction AVUnber .--..Acres.-.- .--.-.--1,000po ds.--.--.._.-..-... Canis------- t.OW daAfra State 1 2001 221 2,860 1,950 282 55,000 52,000 3,000 27.9 3,0 26,5 14,596 2002 164 2,320 1,720 26.7 45,900 42,700 3,200 27.7 3.0 26.0 11,924 2003 163 2,240 1,565 27.2 42,600 40,800 1,800 31.9 3.0 30.7 13,069 2004 207 2,105 1,235 29.0 35,800 34,100 1,700 36.1 3.0 34.5 12,361 2005 206 2,396 1,A80 22.2 32,800 30,700 2,200 36A 3.0 34.2 11,241 County: Hawaii 2001 158 2,385 1,635 26.5 43,290 40,290 '3,000 25.1 23.6 10,216 2002 122 2,050 1,540 25.4 39,080 35,880 '3,200 25.2 23.4 9,135 2003 124 2,000 1,420 26.4 37,535 35,735 51,800 30.8 29,4 11,045 2004 141 1,910 1,080 29.3 31,695 29,995 51,700 352 335 10,611 2006 163 2,170 I'M 22.1 29,110 26,910 x2,200 36.1 32.7 9,521 Honolulu 2001 29 330 225 41.9 9,425 9,425 0 38.3 383 3,613 2002 21 155 110 45.5 5,005 5,005 0 40.0 40.0 2,002 2003 17 120 80 45.0 3,600 3,600 0 39.8 39.8 1,433 2004 27 95 90 29.2 2,630 2,630 0 44.0 44.0 1,157 2006 29 130 105 21A 2,260 2,260 0 44.2 44.2 996 Kauai 2001 24 105 70 24.2 1,695 1,695 5 633.7 633.7 6769 2002 13 70 50 22.2 1,110 1,110 5 643.4 643.4 6787 2003 15 55 35 18.3 640 640 6 640.3 640.3 6591 2004 19 40 30 18.0 540 540 5 640.2 640.2 6593 2006 11 35 25 18A 460 460 a '47.1 '47.1 1725 Maui 2001 10 40 20 29.5 590 590 0 6 6 6 2002 8 45 20 35.3 705 705 0 s a e 2003 7 65 30 27.5 825 825 0 e e e 2004 20 60 35 267 935 935 0 e e a 2005 12 8o 35 30.9 11080 1,050 0 a e e ' Average of monatty climates. vlliff¢ed production divided by ape harvested. ' Data not shown separately n avoid ftdowm of insi"s operasons but ownwed and kvidded in ale State total. '.Aim of Mrty eatlmetes may not add to Sale bW dw to rounding. sKawi owtihad wash Hews to avoid doMwis of idividwi gws5ans- 0Maui oombned wth Kauai to avoid disdowa of adWwl operadms. 45 Stslaa s ofHe"i Agnc #A PAPAYAS PAPAYAS: Acreage, utilization outshi ments and rice State of Hawaii 2001-2005 Dec. Total or Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct, Nov, I leverage Harvested acres 2001 1,870 1,845 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,035 2,0120 1,955 1,940 1,920 1,920 1,825 1,950 2002 1,830 1,925 1,9W 1,935 1,935 1,725 1, 680 1,610 1,5W 1,500 1,490 1,580 1,720 2003 1,505 1,510 1,515 1,735 1,740 1,575 1,%5 1,565 1,565 1,575 1,580 1,350 1,%5 2004 1,340 1,345 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,055 1,060 1,05D 1,370 1,365 1,360 1,400 1235 2006 1,410 1,410 1,436 1,440 1,440 1,680 1,670 1,435 1,446 1,416 1,406 1,780 1,480 Utilization (fresh and processed)-1,000 poteuds 2001 5.055 4,045 4,670 4,740 5,150 5,230 4,370 4,325 4,390 5,185 4,435 3,395 55,000 2D02 3,445 3,450 3,540 3,320 3,615 3,620 4,245 4,655 3,705 4,165 4,285 3,655 45,900 2003 4,040 3,840 4,320 3,575 3,115 3,095 3,640 3,585 3,380 3,590 3,285 3,135 42,600 2044 3,690 2,870 2,930 2,725 2,670 3,135 2,915 2,715 2,845 3,425 2,850 3,030 35,800 2D06 2,810 2,646 2,876 2816 3.000 2,740 2,946 2,640 2,810 2,935 2,136 2,660 32,900 Total fresh papaya utilization - 1,000 pounds 2401 4,930 4,040 4,600 4,360 4,530 4,745 3,985 4,190 4,105 4,940 4,330 3,225 52,00D 2002 3,345 3,310 3,375 2,995 3,210 3,285 3,915 3,745 3,585 4,035 4,135 3,765 42,700 2403 3,935 3,735 4,215 3,485 3,040 3,030 3,425 3,240 3,025 3,450 3,105 3,115 40,800 2004 3,560 2,775 2,815 2,630 2,460 2,920 2,750 2,630 2,725 3,225 2,650 2,960 34,100 2006 2,680 2,426 2,716 2T00 2,740 2,696 2,746 2,360 2,666 2,605 2,020 2,660 30,700 Intrastate fresh papaya utilization -1,000 pounds 2001 2,890 2,120 2,425 1,955 1,870 2,320 1,845 2,125 2,215 2,325 2,345 1,920 26,355 2002 1,860 1,670 1,885 1,655 1,770 1,825 1,795 1,735 1,665 1,990 1,885 1,755 21,490 2003 1,765 1,745 1,990 1,965 1,725 1,665 1,915 1,910 1,495 2,040 1,895 1,865 21,965 2004 2,130 1,595 1,710 1,585 1,475 1,725 1,640 1,525 1,570 2,045 1,560 1,840 20,400 2006 1,546 1,610 1,780 1,680 1,626 1,590 1,626 1,456 1,676 1,630 1,296 1,646 18,756 Outshipmerts of fresh papaya - 1,000 pourr 2001 2,040 1,920 2,175 2,425 2,660 2,425 2,140 2,065 1,890 2,615 1,985 1,305 25,645 2DD2 1,485 1,640 1,490 1,340 1,440 1,460 2,120 2,010 1,920 2,045 2,250 2,010 21,210 2003 2,170 1,990 2,225 1,520 1,315 1,375 1,510 1,33D 1,530 1,410 1,210 1,250 18,835 2004 1,430 1,180 1,105 1,045 985 1,195 1,110 1,105 1,155 1,180 1,090 1,120 13,70D 2006 1,035 916 936 1,020 1,216 1,006 1,120 906 1,090 976 T26 1,006 11,945 Farm price for fresh market sales (to all markets) - cents per pound 2DD1 23.8 26.9 30.0 31.7 28.3 28.5 30.0 27.7 27.3 26.0 26.5 28.9 27.9 2002 29.4 29.5 28,3 30.2 30,4 28.3 27.9 27.5 26.9 24.9 25,3 261 27.7 2003 30.7 32.6 328 34.1 33.8 35.0 31.8 30.1 31.1 31.6 29.6 30.8 31.9 2004 31.0 31.2 37.4 40.0 41.0 39.$ 37.2 36.6 37.2 35.8 34.3 33.4 36.1 2006 33.0 37.4 4D.0 37.8 374 372 36.2 36.6 34.3 312 37.1 36.9 36.4 'Total is average or nwrMy data. statistics w Hamm Agecutura 46 Papaya production taking a tumble Honolulu Advertiser Sunday, March 19, 2006, By Sean Hao Hawai'i papaya production sank to a more than 25-year low last year despite record demand among U.S. consumers for the tropical fruit. Americans on average now eat 1 pound of papaya annually, which is up from less than one-third of a pound just 10 years ago. That should bode well for growers of HawaiTs second largest fruit crop. However. last year papaya production fell 17 percent to 28.5 million pounds the smallest crop since before 1980, Sales dipped 14 percent to $10.6 million. the lowest amount since 1985. Imports from countries such as Mexico and Brazil are helping to fill America's increasing appetite for papaya. HawaiTs papaya farmers, as with most farmers on the Islands, are dealing with a long list of challenges, including foreign competition, high costs, fickle weather, insects and disease. "Plenty of people are not growing papaya anymore," said Alberto Belmes, who grows papaya on about 70 acres of land seven miles outside of Hilo. "The price is going down and still the costs of farming goes up." Unlike most other Hawai'i farmers, papaya growers have one other issue with which to deal. Many Hawai'i papaya growers are raising a genetically engineered product that has yet to generate the market acceptance and higher sales prices that non- genetically modified apayas command Japan for example does not accept genetically modified papaya Papaya growers elsewhere are not using the genetically modified product. Developed in part by the University of Hawai'i, the genetically modified papaya was designed to be resistant to ring spot virus, which results in fewer and lower quality fruit. The virus was first detected in 1992 on the Big Island, where the bulk of papayas are grown. The genetically modified papaya was introduced in 1998. Papaya production picked up that year and for the following three years. In 2002, production resumed its slide and has declined each year since. Genetically modified papaya proponents argue that there would be no papaya industry if not for the new variety. They also point out that the widespread use of genetically modified papaya helps control the virus, so non-genetically modified papaya can be grown virus-free. "I've seen the (Big Island papaya) industry go down from the first day it was infected in 1992," said Dennis Gonsalves, an inventor of the genetically modified papaya and director for the USDA Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo. "If you kept the situation like that the curve would have gone down until it was no longer feasible to grow." Environmentalists and other critics contend the virus could have been managed in part by reducing the size of plantings and by diversifying the types of plants grown at any one time. While the genetically modified papaya may reduce problems with the ring spot virus, it introduced other problems by raising the risk of cross-pollination with non-genetically modified and organic papayas. Proponents contend the risks of cross-pollination are manageable. Nevertheless, the use of genetically modified papaya in Hawai'i results in a more rigorous testing regime for non-modified papaya to maintain exports to markets that don't accept genetically modified papayas, said Melanie Bondera, a board member for Hawaii Seed, an advocate for sustainable agriculture and a GMO-free Hawai'i. The genetically modified papaya did not save the industry as its backers contend, Bondera said. "They're apparently not looking at the bigger picture of the economic problems that with it the cross-contamination- the market loss the testing costs." Bondera said "Did we really have a problem that come would have killed the industry if we did not have the GMO (genetically modified organs papaya? That's their contention. The bottom line is the GMO papaya has never sold for as much as the non-GMO papaya." Because Japan doesn't allow imports of genetically modified papayas, Hawai'i exports of papaya to Japan fell from $10.3 million in 1998 to $4.6 million last year, according to the Foreign Trade Zone Division of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. "In this sense you can say that the GMO is not any good, but you would not even have a market in Japan without GMO papaya," said Gonsalves. Canada, Hawai'i and the U.S. Mainland remain big buyers of genetically modified papayas. There are no requirements that genetically modified foods be labeled as such. In Hawai'i, the Kapoho variety of papaya is not genetically modified, while the Rainbow variant is. With all the challenges facing papaya, the fruit's rank among major Hawaiian crops is slipping. In 2004, algae, which is used as a nutritional supplement, displaced papaya as the state's eighth largest commodity with sales of $12.6 million. Papaya was pushed down to ninth place with sales of $12.3 million.