Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.045 2006-2008 P EM O Murashige, Laura From: Susan Miyasaka [miyasaka@hawaii.edu] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:32 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony against Resolution 462-08 Attachments: GE taro moritorium_HI_Cty_010808-scm-pdf.pdf; GE_taro_moritorium_HI_Cty_010808- scm.doc E GE taro moritorlurrGE_ta taro moritodurn _HI 0108... -HI-Cty-0108... Dear County Clerk, I am attaching a Word and a pdf file containing my testimony against Resolution 462-08. Please confirm that you have received this email message and that you are able to open one of these two files (they are the same document). Thank you. Susan Susan C. Miyasaka Interim Hawaii County Administrator University of Hawaii mailing address: 875 Komchana St., Hilo, HI 96720 physical address: 920 Stainback Highway, Hilo, HI 96720 ph: 808-981-8264, 981-8271 FAX: 808-981-4518 0 7 t` 2 xf r r..i X t,- rv ? ( 7 -r Comm. tom V 0 • `~5 Ref. To: rraML 1 Ref. Date A~ J-ij .0 pg' IABg Testimony Presented before the Committee on Environmental Management of the Hawai'i County Council January 8, 2008 by Susan C. Miyasaka, Interim Hawaii County Administrator College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources University of Hawai'i at Manoa Relating to Comm. 882 (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 HAWAI'I Chair Jacobson, Vice Chair Ford, and Members of the Committee: My name is Susan Miyasaka, and I serve as Interim Hawaii County Administrator of the UH Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). This testimony is presented from the perspective of the Interim Hawaii County Administrator of CTAHR and the Principal Investigator on the research project to genetically engineer Chinese taro for increased disease resistance. It does not represent the official position of the University of Hawai'i. I am pleased to provide testimony against Resolution 462-08 that supports Senate Bill 958, SD1, HD1, a bill currently before the Hawaii State Legislature. SB958, SD1, HD1 proposes a ten-year moratorium on developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, growing, or raising genetically engineered taro. I respectfully oppose Resolution 462-08 and SB 958, SD1, HD1. CTAHR recognizes and respects the cultural significance of Hawaiian taro. CTAHR scientists have no plans to genetically engineer Hawaiian taro, and CTAHR has agreed not to pursue research to genetically engineer Hawaiian taro without first obtaining community input on a case-by-case basis. However, the broad moratorium proposed in SB 958, SD1, HD1 applies to all taro varieties, not just Hawaiian taro. The moratorium would bring to a halt the ongoing work of CTAHR researchers to assess whether the introduction of disease resistance genes from rice, wheat, and grape into a Chinese taro variety, 'Bun Long', will improve its resistance to fungal pathogens that cause diseases such as taro leaf blight. Leaf blight can result in devastating crop losses, exceeding 90 percent during a recent epidemic in Samoa. CTAHR's research on genetically engineered 'Bun Long' taro is consistent with our agreement to honor community sentiment regarding the genetic engineering of Hawaiian taro. To date this research has been limited to laboratory studies. If in the future genetically engineered 'Bun Long' taro plants were to be grown outdoors, the chance that it could alter the genetic makeup of Hawaiian taro through cross-pollination is vanishingly small. The movement of genes from transgenic'Bun Long' taro to non- transgenic Hawaiian taro in Hawai'i is extremely unlikely, because 'Bun Long' taro rarely flowers under HawaiTs environmental conditions, insect pollinators that could move pollen from a 'Bun Long' flower to those of other taro varieties are not present in Hawai'i, and Hawaiian taro varieties rarely set viable seed in Hawai'i. For further information on the CTAHR project to increase disease resistance of Chinese taro through genetic engineering, I am attaching a research update. The moratorium proposed in SB 958, SDI, HD1 would limit scientific inquiry and discourage the expansion of human knowledge. When cultural traditions and academic freedom come into conflict, the solution is not legislative action to prevent discovery and innovation. Instead, we feel that the answer to such conflicts is dialog, the search for common ground, and the forging of voluntary agreements, such as the commitment CTAHR has made to refrain from the genetic engineering of Hawaiian taro at this time and to avoid initiating such research in the future without first obtaining community input on a case-by-case basis. For these reasons I respectfully oppose S6958, SDI, HD1 and Resolution 462-08. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Update on Genetic Engineering of Chinese Taro (variety Bun long) for Increased Disease Resistance Susan C. Miyasaka Dec. 14, 2006 Why do we need to increase disease resistance in taro? Hawaii is no longer the isolated island chain that it once was. Today, we have ships and airplanes arriving from places around the world, and unfortunately, they bring new diseases and pests. Phytophthora leaf blight reached our islands during the 1910's and probably caused losses of many traditional taro varieties. At one time, there were 343 named taro varieties in Hawaii', but less than 84 remain today. Many probably were lost due to introduced diseases and pests. Taro yields in Hawaii have been declining over the past 50 years, with the lowest production since 1946 recorded in 2005 (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/02/bz/FP602020320.html). In addition to the overall decrease in taro production (which partly is due to decreased acreage in production), yield on a per acre basis has declined also (figure below is based on the Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture). Much of the recent sharp decreases in yield are due to diseases and pests, such as Phytophthora leaf blight, Pythium corm rots, pocket rot, and apple snails. 28000 Kauai Taro Yields 26000 24000 m U R 22000 Q N 20000 7 oa ,d 18000 N } 16000 14000 12000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year 'E.S. Craighill Handy, 1940, The Hawaiian Planter, Vol. I, Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Phytophthora leaf blight Pythium cone rot Why utilize genetic engineering (GE) of taro to increase disease resistance? Conventional breeding of taro is being conducted at the University of Hawaii, and new hybrids have been developed with increased resistance to Phytophthora leaf blight. However, under weather conditions suitable for this disease organism, this resistance can break down. The taro variety shown above with leaf blight is one of the new hybrids conventionally bred for greater disease resistance. Genetic engineering offers the possibility of increased disease resistance beyond the level found within the taro germplasm. And, the taro variety remains the same genetically except for the few new genes engineered into it. The greatest success of genetic engineering of crops for increased disease resistance has been to improve viral disease resistance in plant species without any known natural resistance. For example, genetic engineering of papaya for resistance to Papaya ringspot virus has helped to save the papaya industry in Hawaii. The Alomae-Bobone viral complex is found in the Solomon Islands today, where it has wiped out 96% of the native taro varieties there and decreased taro production by 95%. Hawaiian taro varieties were tested in the Solomon Islands and all were found to be susceptible to this virus complex2.The insect vector required to transmit this virus 2 S. Pacific Commission., 1978, Advisory Leaflet. complex is found in Hawaii. Imagine if that virus reaches Hawaii - what would it do to our taro production? FYIl'9~ Alomae, a lethal viral disease of taro, ~P is spread by taro planthoppers. Taro hoppers iY In the Solomon Islands, "it is by no means certain that the crop [taro] can be reinstated to its former abundance and usage. Its day may have gone forever, as has happened in many parts of coastal Melanesia." 3 Could this viral disease decimate taro production in Hawaii in the future? Is the movement of -genes across species unnatural? No. Conventional breeding of plants and animals have moved genes across species for specific purposes, such as increased hardiness. For example, mules are the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey. And triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye. In addition, all organisms, including humans, carry genes inserted from different species. For example, all humans carry genes that have been incorporated from viral infections. The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefasciens transfers its DNA (genetic material) into woody or herbaceous plants and causes crown gall disease. In our project, we are utilizing this naturally occurring bacterium to transfer disease resistance genes into Chinese taro. What is the progress of our project on -genetic engineering of Chinese taro to increase disease resistance? Three disease resistance genes have been transferred into Chinese taro variety Bun long: 1. Oxalate oxidase gene from wheat; 2. Chitinase gene from rice; and 3. Stilbene synthase gene from grapevine. Kastom Gaden Association, Solomon Islands, 2005., People on the Edge, www.terracircle.org.au. Each disease-resistance gene was transferred separately into callus (undifferentiated tissue) of variety Bun long in tissue-culture. Then, we manipulated plant hormones to produce shoots and then whole plants from the callus. Taro calli (undifferentiated tissue) Taro plandets in tissue-culture Do these disease resistance penes help Chinese taro resist pathogens? Yes, in preliminary tests using small, tissue-cultured plants. Untransformed Chinese taro Chinese taro transformed (NT) infected with with oxalate oxidase gene Phytophthora colocasiae at (g5) shows complete arrest 12 days after inoculation. of Phytophthora colocasiae Chinese taro transformed with an oxalate oxidase gene completely arrested the spread of the pathogen Phytophthora colocasiae which is the organism responsible for leaf blight. In comparison, untransformed Chinese taro was almost dead at 12 days after inoculation with the pathogen. Other preliminary tests showed that Chinese taro transformed with an oxalate oxidase gene or a chitinase gene slowed the spread of the fungal pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii but the disease eventually killed the plants. How do the products of these disease resistance penes work? Oxalate oxidase catalyzes the breakdown of oxalate to produce hydrogen peroxide which inhibits growth of pathogens. Remember the hydrogen peroxide your mother used to cleanse your skinned knees? Chitin is a hard, semitransparent material that's found in the cell walls of some fungi and molds. Chitinases degrade the chitin found in the cell wall of fungal pathogens, causing the fungi to die. Stilbene synthase catalyzes the production of resveratrol, a compound that is found naturally in grapes and peanuts. Resveratrol stops the growth of fungal pathogens. Could these disease-resistance genes accidentally move from GE Chinese taro? Not likely. First, Chinese taro variety Bun long rarely flowers under the environmental conditions of Hawaii. Second, traditional Hawaiian taro varieties rarely produce viable seed in Hawaii without human intervention. Taro breeders must manually move the pollen from one taro flower to another flower when its female part is ready because the insect that naturally pollinates taro flowers is not found here. Also, since taro is vegetatively propagated, it would be easy to maintain traditional taro varieties without a high risk of accidental transfer of disease-resistance genes from GE Chinese taro. How might these disease-resistance genes affect the nutrition of taro? The health risk of GE food is so low that after more than 10 years of experience, GE crops have been grown on more than a billion acres and been consumed by millions of humans without a single negative health issue 4. The federal government requires intensive testing of genetically engineered crops for possible health and environmental hazards prior to approval. The official position of the American Dietetic Association is that "Agricultural and food biotechnology can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, and food distribution, and environmental and waste management"5. Did you know that if you eat cheese made in the United States, almost certainly you are eating the product of a genetically modified organism? 4 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, 2006, Brief No. 34-2005. 5 Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Feb. 2006, p. 285-293. The anti-microbial compounds produced in GE Bun long should have little negative effect on its nutrition. For example, oxalate oxidase possibly might improve the digestibility of taro, because it breaks down oxalate, a known anti-nutritive compound that contributes to the 'itchiness' of taro. Chitinases should have little effect on humans when consumed, because chitins are found in true fungi and insects but not in plants or mammals. Resveratrol is found in the skin of red grapes and it might improve the nutrition of GE Chinese taro due to its anti-cancer, anti-viral, and anti- inflammatory effects. Of course, prior to any potential commercialization of GE Chinese taro, federal government regulations require intensive food safety tests. What are the plans for GE Chinese taro when this project terminates? The early results for increased disease resistance of GE Chinese taro appear promising, but much more research is needed. Obviously, researchers cannot state that GE Chinese taro is more disease resistant without testing plants in the greenhouse and ultimately in the field. In addition, the federal government would require tests of GE Chinese taro for food safety and environmental concerns prior to commercialization. This federally funded project on genetic engineering of Chinese taro for increased hardiness will run out of funds in early 2007. As a result of the current controversy about genetic engineering and taro, it isn't likely that future funding will be available without support from the taro industry and/or consumers in Hawaii. Without further funding, the GE Chinese taro lines either must be discarded or sent to other cooperators in the world who are willing to conduct further tests. We will lose the opportunity in Hawaii to test these promising lines for increased disease resistance. This brief summary presents the scientific facts about potential benefits such as increased hardiness of GE Chinese taro and an evaluation of possible risks. You, as taro consumers, need to weigh the possible risks against potential benefits of GE Chinese taro. Ask yourselves what risks are acceptable to ensure that taro is here for future generations to enjoy?