HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.041 2006-2008
JAN-23-2008 12:37 HARC 808-9657::c' -ni'.:OG7
I- PRC
WV HAWAII AGRICULTURE RESEARCH Cf.'NI'ER
FORMF y HAWAILLV SUGAR PLcvms'Assoc rim
99-193 AIEA HEIGHTS DANE, SmTE 300, AIF.A, HAWAII 9E701-3911
TELEPH0m:(808) 487-5561 FAx:(808)486-50.?0
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
To: Hilo County Clerk's Office Date: -/23/2003
Location: Fax No.: 808-961-8912
From: Cindy Pinick (486-5311)
Number of pages (including this cover sheet): 7
N
g
The testimony listed below is for the following hearing: oc~ z
T
z c w
Hawaii County Council
0
January 24, 2008
8:30 am
Res. 462-08
Res. 463-08
Comm. No. ga./
Ref. To, May 5y_ y
Ref. Data JAN 24 MM
JAN-23-2008 12:37 HARC 808,1865020 102.1007
HARC Hawaii Agriculture Researwcea
V 99-193 Aiea Heights Drive, Suite 300 1 40
Aiea, Hawaii 967,511 JON 23 P~
/ Ph: 808-487-5561/Fax: 808-486-5020..
ant 1 c.
r, OUNT` u;;nt~f4
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
RES. 462-08
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING S.B. 958 S.D.I. H.D.1 TO IMPOSE A TEN-YEAJZ
MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPING, TESTING, PROPAGATING, CULTIVATIhi a,
GROWING, AND RAISING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED TARO IN TH.E
STATE OF HAWAII
January 24, 2008
Dear Council 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 suI pc rt
staff, and our members and clients.
HARC strongly opposes Resolution 462-08, supporting S.B. 958 S.D.1 H.D.1 which prapos
a 10-year moratorium on genetically modified taro in the state as UNNECESSARY. Tlic
research community has already agreed to limit research in this area with respell
Hawaiian taro, but most significant is that the process to commercialize an engines-rc,cl
plant requires grower commitment and involvement and most importantly legisl: tier
financial support.
Please recall the commercialization of Hawaii's transgenic papaya. This was only accompli, her:
because the industry went to the state legislature seeking financial support for the tratl,tit1
of this technology. Funds were needed to acquire a license to use the technology. Today, n<u
only are significant funds needed for this purpose but also to navigate the more ane oils
regulatory process that has evolved for this technology.
All crops in Hawaii are considered specialty (minor) crops. The private sector has no ecoresl c
incentive to commercialize transgenic specialty crops as their volume sales do not warratn if e
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 Weil
known fact. Technology transfer, no matter what the product, is extremely expensi:vc in i
risky.
RES 462-08-January 24, 2008 Pa ,e
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
JAN-23-2008 1238 HARC BOB4965020 -~n.,007
This document will explain the process of technology transfer for agricultural products. But fit st,
I would like to address some generalizations stated in Section I of SB 958 that lead read rs 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 tapitlly
adopted by both large and small farmers throughout the developed and developing countri-;
Over 10 million farmers, of which 90% are small resource-poor farmers from devehping
countries, are planting engineered commodity (large acreage) crops: soybeans, maize, (.out Vn,
and canola. As with most new agricultural tools with wide-spread application they .ae
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 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 acceptacce cf
commercialized products is not equal to availability of lots of different engineered products. As
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 agricul tu: •t 1
innovation in 1701 AD advances in this area have been controversial. The current expericrce is
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 forcc paael:,
international scientific professional associations, and Nobel Prize winners that the engincer~d
products in the marketplace are safe and that the technology can be used safely. The t,VTO
recently ruled that the European Union's moratorium on genetically modified crops hal i o
scientific basis and that its ban was illegal. The process that allows for the deregulation oft u,
crops in the marketplace throughout the world obviously worked with respect to the health x1d
safety of the products. What basis is there to claim that it will not continue to uncork with n,: ,pt c t
to the health and safety of the products? Of all the new food products introduced imx. t. to
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 marka3
and take decades to be developed, if ever, for smaller markets. In this technology the pr( zei;
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 pla it is
receptive to gene insertion, to acquire a useful gene and get it into a usable form, m inner= the
gene, to grow and select cells that acquired the inserted gene, to use the tissue culture system o
develop leaves, stalks and roots, to test the selected plants for the presence and functionality
RES 462-08-January 24, 2008 Poge
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
JAN-23-2008 12:38 HARC 8084965).20 ::-'0'17
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 detenniniz
effectiveness and stability under field conditions.
In the early stages to set up a system, a researcher practices with different plant purls of seve-,,I
varieties and an easily recognized gene--like color or fluorescence. The regrowth process can
take several months and years can be dedicated to trying to reduce this time lag. Decades have
passed in the development of systems for some of Hawaii's crops. Because of the exploit.. r9
nature of this part of the process it may be financed through public funds. For the most pz:r,
research on minor crops is done by the public sector: colleges, universities, or non.l:rotit
research centers funded by foundations or competitive federal grants.
Commercialization
Assume the research community has developed a new plant. Before this plant bea;me,
commercially available industry/farmers have to be willing to go through any intelle- tt a l
property licensing process if applicable, and any applicable regulatory process before a ne n *nt
will progress further. This is what is commonly referred to as technology transfer: from i i.
research community to the user community, and is applicable to all new products developed rot
just agriculture. It is not uncommon for products for any economic sector to be dropped ai it is
stage. The reason for this is there needs to be some compelling economic outcome assoc al NI
with a product to justify its adoption. The present national agricultural grant system focuses ci
basic research of wide and/or regional applicability and not on the commercializatio 3 of
individual products. Private sector involvement and resources are requirec'. for
commercialization.
The point here is that just because there is research on a particular product does ant meant
that it will end up as a commercial product. This is as true for an agriculture product :r;
well as for any other product in our society. For Hawaii for genetically modified plan s,
the affected industry sector will have to step up to the plate just like the papaya indust:-i,
did. If they do not step forward to participate in the later stages of product develop o.er4,
intellectual property right's acquisition and deregulation, there will be no comm.-cial
product.
HARC, a non-profit scientific organization, cannot support this proposed legislation becaus, tlir
system for product development and commercialization as it already exists addresses tl t-
concerns raised, making the proposed legislation, which this resolution supports, unnecessai3.
"Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments for your consideration.
RES 462-08-January 24, 2008 100e 3
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center