HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.050 2006-2008
P/EMC
Murashige, Laura
From: Richard Manshardt [manshard@hawaii.edu] la
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:02 PM REj
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: testimony on Resolutions 462-08 and 463-08 M JHN 7 PM 3 43
Attachments: Res. 462-08 taro.doc; Res. 463-08 coffee.doc COUNT. , CI
IR Res. 462-08 Res. IN_
463-08
taro.doc (24 KB) :offee.doc (22 KB)..
Dear Sir/Madam:
I will be attending the Hawaii County Council meeting at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2007,
and I plan to testify in person from the attached documents.
Do I need to register elsewhere with the County Clerk's staff?
Thanks for your assistance in providing copies of my documents.
With aloha,
Richard Manshardt
Comm. No.
Ref. To: h~t~
Ref. Date
I
Testimony Presented before the
Committee on Environmental Management
of the
Hawai'i County Council
January 8, 2008
by
Richard M. Manshardt, Professor
Department of Tropical Plant & Soil Sciences
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 HAWAII
Chair Jacobson, Vice Chair Ford, and Members of the Committee:
My name is Richard Manshardt. I am a professor and plant geneticist in CTAHR
at UH Manoa. I have 25 years of research and teaching experience in crop
sciences at UH, including my work in conventional crop breeding and the
development of virus-resistant GMO papaya varieties for Hawaii growers. I am
providing testimony on my own behalf, not officially presenting the position of
CTAHR or UH on this bill.
I respectfully oppose Resolution 462-08 and SB 958, SD1, HD1.
The action proposed by the bill has no logical connection to the stated objective.
The bill presents no arguments to explain why "a ten-year moratorium on
developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, raising, and growing of genetically
modified taro in the State of Hawaii" is an appropriate way "to recognize the
importance of kalo in the heritage of the State."
Nevertheless, the broad moratorium proposed in SB 958, SD1, HD1 applies to all
taro varieties, not just Hawaiian taro. Consequently, the moratorium would halt
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 important
diseases such as taro leaf blight. SB 958, in its current form, is over-reaching,
and it needs to be pointed out, for example, that a UH moratorium already exists
on producing or field testing any GMO Hawaiian taro clones, that only Bun Long
or Chinese taro has been genetically engineered by CTAHR, that there is no
cultural basis for restricting research on Bun Long, and that doing so is short-
sighted in that even testing to assess risk can't be undertaken without the ability
to produce and evaluate GMO Bun Long in field trials.
From my perspective as an agricultural researcher at CTAHR, the central
deficiency regarding SB 958 can be summed up in the following argument:
Agricultural is dynamic, with new and changing plant and animal varieties, pests,
diseases, and constraints that influence production from year to year.
In the face of changing conditions, research is needed to develop new products
and procedures that maintain and improve farm production.
In multicultural Hawaii, CTAHR has the mandated responsibility of conducting
appropriate scientific research to support agriculture for the benefit of all
residents.
CTAHR seeks to provide pragmatic solutions to technical problems through
thorough knowledge of the underlying biology, chemistry, and physics, and the
methods of scientific research.
To this end, CTAHR employs experienced professionals, who are trained to
interpret scientific information and evaluate the appropriateness of different
technical options.
Autonomy in choosing research methods to develop new products or procedures
falls comfortably within CTAHR's capabilities and is central to its effectiveness.
On the other hand, politically expedient conditions imposed on CTAHR's
research methods through legislative action clearly undermine its mission.
CTAHR is not infallible or above scrutiny, but it is the State-mandated institution
best equipped to plan and undertake agricultural research in Hawaii. Legislative
restriction of its capabilities without technically sound cause is not in the long
term best interests of taro growers or the rest of Hawaii's citizens.
Individual growers and members of the general public, who find that new CTAHR
products or procedures fail to meet personal criteria of technical or cultural
appropriateness, have the option of refusing to adopt them.
For these reasons I respectfully oppose S13958, SD1, HD1 and Resolution 462-
08.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.