HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0883.041 2006-2008 A 6bUZU "i-luQ?
HPRC HAWAII AGRICULTURE RESEARCH C'.E:riTER
FoavmY HAw.uuN SUGAR PLams'Assomvox
99-193 ArnA HMGHTs Drove, S= 300, AteA, HAWAn 96701-3911
TELEmone (808)487-5561 FAx:(808)496-5020
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
To: Hilo County Clerk's Office Date: /23/2008
Location: Fax No.: 808-961-8912
From: Cindy Pinick (486-5311)
Number of pages (including this cover sheet): 7
N
O
O
OD
The testimony listed below is for the following hearing: c~ z
w (7
Hawaii County Council ; Fri
D ~
January 24, 2008
8:30 am
Res. 462-08
Res. 463-08
Comm. NP. u 3
Ref. To:
Ref. Dote 2008
JAN-23-2008 12:39 HARC 80814865020 !16'007
HARC Hawaii Agriculture ResearcLCenter
LV4N" 99-193 Aiea Heights pik, 'Sttit
Aiea, Hawaii 96701
Ph: 808-487-5-INF4RN 0-40815(2040
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HAWAJTTY ~CVU1vtCIL
RES. 463-08
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING H.B.1577 H.D.1 TO TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT TI If
GROWING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED COFFEE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE
YEARS AND AT THE SAME TIME PERMIT RESEARCH IN AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY SECURE FACILITY
January 24, 2008
Dear Council Members:
My name is Stephanie Whalen. I am President and Research Director of the Hawaii Agricul :a e
Research Center (HARC). I am testifying today on behalf of the center, our research and suppo
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 th,e
same time permit research in an environmentally secure facility which proposes a prohibi,ien
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 resea el
However, it continues to be advocates within the industry itself that keeps the link betw~e I
genetic modification and Kona coffee alive. Why are they doing this? The research commul [it,,
has already provided assurances that the industry will be a part of the discussion as to why-her
any new coffee product advances. And as I point out later in this testimony, it takes willinj
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 ;;as
already been demonstrated feasible by national and international farmers and they have do re it i:1
corn. Corn is a crop that readily cross pollinates and is the subject of much of the adventii.)u~
presence concerns. Many entrepreneurial farmers see added value in having access to all mark et
and use the well-understood reproductive cycle for com to control their planting, harvesting and
marketing. In this case we are not talking about corn but coffee which has its own biologica.
reproductive scheme. Coffee primarily is a self pollinator. Although out crossing can occiu in
coffee, it should not be thought of as having the same pollen movement concerns as a com phut
The point here is that where the stakeholders are willing, there are solutions. Where t',-.e)
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
January 24, 2008 Pct
OU7
JAN-23-2008 12:39 HARC 80849660,0
are not willing, those seek protection. A point to be made here is that the Chair of The
Department of Agriculture has already stated that no field testing of coffee shoul f be
allowed without first a study on the pollen movement of coffee. That research has nit he
done nor is it even been proposed by anyone. So what is the issue? There is none!
The questions for this Council are:
Has the risk been demonstrated sufficiently to you for you to be proposing supprat
to pass a LAW to protect a market?
Is there a product in the pipeline that has a trait that someone is interm:(d ii
enough to pay the costs of technology transfer?
If so, how many more years are needed for it to be deregulated?
Is there any verifiable evidence that the Kona market is being threatened )y
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 understanding for th', tinI.-
frame for any 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 field/observation and
selection process. Yield has historically been a driving characteristic but pest resi3lala
(weed/insect/disease) as well as nutrient and plant structure are also important depending on t to
crop. That process takes years and depends on each crop cycle time from plant to harvest. i ant
most familiar with sugarcane since our organization has been :involved with that the longe>t and
it takes us over 10 years to come up with a new plant that has some improved property over t e
existing commercial one. In the end, we are not sure what genetic changes were made to t Io
plant-Just that it performs better and provides better test results than the existing one. -e! r,c
assure you, that process takes millions of dollars paid by the local sugarcane industry and dus.i t
happen without considerable reflection. There are no regulations for any of this, just careful a..d
thoughtful practices developed over time.
With genetically engineered plants, add to the front end of that process in determining ho ,v :c,
grow a plant in a tissue culture system from plant cells which may differ from plant to ptar t
Other steps are to determine what part of a plant is receptive to gene insertion, to acquire a usef i
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 culture system to develop leaves, stalk and roots, to test th<
selected plants for the presence and functionality of the gene, to successfully transfer selects-
plants to potting material, to test the material to determine effectiveness and stability of tl.e
inserted gene, and finally, to safely determine effectiveness and stability under field conditions ns
outlined in the preceding paragraph. Using this technology one knows what material is pro',i:.tir c
the desired benefit and can locate it in the genetic matrix. The benefits provided are a resit c,:ice
in the number of plants taken through the field selection process, which is very costly, u_d a
quicker method of getting the trait of interest into a plant without losing other beneficial traa-s, a
common problem.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
January 24, 2008 fate 2
JAN-23-2008 12:40 HARC
AND, all the field testing is regulated and the product must be proven to be substsi tiel'y
equivalent (quality testing) before deregulation is provided and commercialization can prcce.-d.
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. Bi:Soro a
genetically engineered plant becomes commercially available industry/farmers have to be 4 illi 19
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 refers ed
to as technology transfer: from the research community to the user community, and is apo iaal le
to all new products developed, not just agriculture. It is not uncommon for products it. any
economic sector to be dropped at this stage. The reason for this is there needs to be ;rout
compelling economic outcome associated with a product to justify its adoption. The I43s;1.11
national agricultural grant system focuses on basic research of wide and/or regional applica)it.ty
and not on the commercialization of individual products. Private sector involvement (or loco I
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 tl tai it
will end up as a commercial product. This is as true for an agriculture product as well as fn a v
other product in our society. In the case of coffee there are already commitments by the :ocal
research community to consult with the industry if and when there ever is a produc. wi cr
potential to commercialize. There is no current threat; any potential threat is years au d
hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) away. As for testing experimental plants, t r,
existing federal requirements address the security of the tests; in addition, the federal agents sea;
state concurrence in these tests.
I urge you not to be distracted by these side issues, which farmers can and should work out
among themselves, and to concentrate on the highest priority to all of Hawaii's agriculture . A hidi
is to provide the incentives for all farming operations to produce a stable, reliable food supply t
our citizens, and to preserve what good agricultural lands we have left. Please join witl v0.1
fellow council members and support local and state legislation that will support all 'ar it
producers, not the narrow interests of a few.
We strongly urge you to vote NO on this resolution as there is no rope issue here. Howe ve r,
there is a real threat to the growing concerns of small tech entrepreneurial businesses the v
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
January 24, 2008 Pa;;e :t
To%a. P.007