The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0882.046 2006-2008 P/EMC Murashige, Laura From: Joy Gold [joy@joygoldunlimited.com] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 11:09 AM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hj.us Subject: Jan 8 Enviornmental Management Committee Hearing Testimonies Importance: High Attachments: HCIA_ HlCountyCouncil_TaroRes 462-08_Helm.doc; HCIA_HlCountyCouncil_CoffeeRes 463-OS Helm.doc Im HCIA-HICountyCou HCIA-HICountyCou ncil_TaroRes 4... ncil_CoffeeRes... Aloha, Please see the attached testimonies for Res462-08 and Res463-08, Jan 8 Environmental Management Committee, on behalf of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association (HCIA). Please let me know that you received this email communications. Thank you, Joy Gold President Joy Gold Unlimited 1136 Union Mall, Ste. 403 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Ph: 808.526.3770 Fax: 808.540.415 www.joygoldunlimited.com C- Cp z3 z~- m Comnt. Nm g g Z. ~6 Ref. To: e---~ Ref. Date ^ IAN 0 8 Mm t Hawaii Adolph Helm, President-Elect Crop 19 Hua'ai Road, PO Box 339 Improvement Hoolehua, Hi 96729 Association Phone: (808) 567-9421 Res. 462-08, A Resolution Supporting SB 958hdl to Impose A 10-Year Moratorium on Developing, Testing, Propagating, Cultivating, Growing and Raising Genetically Modified Taro in the State of Hawaii, January 8, 2008 Environmental Management Hearing Environmental Management Committee Hawaii Island County Council January 8, 2008, 2:00 pm Position: Oppose Resolution Chair Jacobson, and Members of the Environmental Management Committee: My name is Adolph Helm. I am a Molokai resident and Project Manger of Dow Agro-Science, an HCIA member company. The HCIA represents seed production and research facilities operating in Hawaii for nearly 40 years. We represent five member companies that farm an estimated 8,000 acres on four islands, valued at $97.6 million in operating budget (2006/2007 HASS). We are proud members of Hawaii's diversified agriculture and life sciences industries. The HCIA does not support legislating a moratorium on taro or any other agricultural crop grown in Hawaii. We stand firmly on the 1,000's of science-based and peer reviewed studies and 3,400 scientists around the world that attest to the safety of agricultural biotechnology. (The Safety of Agricultural Biotechnology study listing is available upon request) Plant research using this technology is not only safe but has the advantage of being more efficient. It requires significantly less time to produce new cultivars and is more precise than traditional plant breeding. As a result, varieties can be developed which are more productive and better adapted to local needs. We affirm and respect the cultural meaning of Hawaiian taro and firmly believe that the Hawaiian community must lead the discussion of the future of Hawaiian taro, and Hawaiian taro research and education programs. We believe all farmers should be able to freely choose their preferred growing methods, which could include using the tools of modern biotechnology as one way of improving plant varieties. Passage of legislation like this one sends a strong policy message that Hawaii is not in support of science and technology. It undermines future investments and growth potential for the seed crop industry in Hawaii, and further growth and responsible use of agricultural biotechnology as a 21" Century tool for farmers. We believe that this is exactly what lies at the heart of SB 958sd1 and similar measures like HB 1577hdl. In a Feb. 14, 2007 Honolulu Weekly article, Nancy Redfeather, a Kona coffee grower and longtime opponent of genetic engineering, is quoted as saying that, "This session is shaping up to be historic" because they anticipate Hawaii may be the first state in the nation to ban a genetically engineered crop. More recently, in routed emails about the January 16, 2008 Opening Day Rally, it is clear that protesters cloaked under the guise of preserving and protecting taro have a larger agenda of stopping federally approved and federally and state regulated commercial genetically engineered crops. Yet, these same protesters did not support SCR 206, a vehicle that seeks to bring together researchers, taro farmers and others to begin discussions about the preservation and protection of taro in Hawaii. We respectfully ask the Hawaii Island County policy makers to question the motive behind Res. 462-08 and SB 958sdl, and question what is accomplished and for whom since it is our understanding that taro growers have an agreement with the UH-CTAHR that genetic engineering research will not go forward until further discussions with the taro growers. Mahalo and thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. Growing the Future of Worldwide Agriculture in Hawaii www.hciaonline.com