Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0225.079 2008-2010 RES. SI -cci, .ems7 Page 1 of 3 2 Murashige, Laura Co]"M. 22~.~4 PICOMMCtL From: Kirk [Kirk@Citizen-Kane.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:46 AM 2009 ApIR 21 A!'1 8 4 7 To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony on support for Hawai'i County council Resolution 81-09, opposin~"-1226 `rR -~00NJY jJ i'~~1~11<<(~~] HB 1226 Paragraph 2, Article C: "(c) A state administrative regulatory action may regulate the testing, planting, or growing of a plant organism in a manner not discriminatory against any genetically modified plant organism. A state administrative regulatory action shall be deemed "discriminatory against any genetically modified plant organism" if the action has a prohibitory or regulatory effect on a genetically modified plant organism that differs from the effect on a similar non-genetically modifed plant organism. " The language presented above is extremely limiting in the scope of what types of controls may be placed upon Genetically Modified Organisms. For example, if I were to create a GM Rose Pant that emitted a highly allergenic substance, I could defend it from any regulation due to the fact that it is a Rose plant. The above argument is no more than a reworded version of the USDA "Generally Recognized As Safe" or GRAS terminology that the GMO producers has used to slip GMO products into our food supply. It does not require in any way that the producer or creator demonstrate that the organism is safe, as long as it fits the criteria of being superficially similar to a known, unmodified organism. This language is dangerous, opened ended, and removes a large part of any precautionary principle that may yet be determined, and it is easily exploited in light of how the USDA GRAS doctrine has been abused in the past. This alone is enough to Vote NO on HB 1226. Taken verbatim, even if a GMO variety was found to be highly toxic, it would be discriminatory to regulate merely due to its membership in the GMO club. This is backwards thinking, and is contrary to common sense. Section 3 b (b) Except as provided under subsection (c) or section -S, no county regulatory action shall ban or otherwise regulate the planting, growing, testing, advertisement, labeling, packaging, handling, transportation, distribution, use, notification of use, certification, or registration of any genetically modified plant organism. This above paragraph removes all oversight from the county from the clear and identifiable hazards involved with GMO. Not only are the possibility of regulation against GMO in a discriminatory manner removed in Section 2, paragraph c earlier in the bill, this language prohibits any action that would allow the county to gather data to make informed decisions about the Location, Transport, Uses of, Distribution of or labeling. In other words, the County would have a vague idea that GMO's are growing "Somewhere", being used for some vague purpose, and may be Transported throughout the state using some public roadway. They would be prevented from knowing that a crop of GMO Rice that contains "Human Serum Albumin" is growing on parcel X by corporation X, which then goes to seed, is harvested, then transported down public highways to shipping hubs. This assumes that the seeds are never eaten by birds or pigs, and the load is not accidentally dispersed through accidental means in transit or processing. If either of these scenarios were to occur, the county would not be able to take effective remediation to prevent the distribution of this organism, or the contamination of farm, domestic comm. N.-O. ~e2S.7q Ref. To: CAX44 ,U 4/21/2009 Ref. Date APR 22 2009. Page 2 of 3 food supply or other areas This is another dangerous paragraph written to the benefit of keeping people uninformed and ignorant of the magnitude of GMO cultivation. (c) A county zoning ordinance or land use permit condition may regulate agricultural uses and activities at a site in a manner not discriminatory against any genetically modified plant organism. A county zoning ordinance or permit condition shall be deemed "discriminatory against any genetically modified plant organism" if the ordinance or permit condition has a prohibitory. or regulatory effect on a genetically modified plant organism that differs from the effect on a similar non-genetically modified plant organism. This paragraph again relies on the doctrine of Generally Recognized as Safe established by the USDA in order to release the GMO producers of stringent testing and research. It is also a way out of the trap laid by the previous language of this bill that theoretically would allow the same protections outlined earlier in the bill, to be applied to transgenic Cannabis. The author had to fill this gaping hole to prevent the rapid filling of the opening created by this bill. The author identifies the discriminatory regulations against Industrial Hemp, and needs to address this issue in order to preserve the status quo, while protecting the GMO interests. However, the authors of this bill go as far as to use the word "Similar". The meaning of the word "Similar" is not defined in this Bill, and depending upon the level of meaning, I could call a counterfeit 100 dollar bill "Similar" to legal tender, but we know this is not only ludicrous, but illegal as well. To call a GMO similar to a non GMO based upon its superficial appearance is incredibly simple minded, and it this language which allows unfettered freedom to GMO's to flourish, despite the increasing body of evidence that the science is still in it's infancy, controls have been lax, and the public's trust in the regulatory system has been diminished as more conclusive evidence is revealed that GMO's can cause many diverse effects on hundreds of variables. We also find that many of the problems are hidden in highly technical literature that will omit that certain proteins in GMO Food may be malformed due to a slight difference in molecular charge, resulting in a compound that may be toxic instead of nutritious. I have personally spent the last 5 years research all I could find regarding GMO technology. I find the technology still in its infancy, yet the technology has been fast tracked into a worldwide industry, which was the primary goal. As the scientific community raised alarms, the scientists that warned of unimaginable consequences were discredited through political and economic mean, in many cases their entire careers were dismantled, research funding withdrawn, and the Federal Government looked the other way for the best interest to large corporations and not the people. HB 1226 is an attempt to centralize our unique environment into a bureaucracy that has not answered the call of 90% of Americans to label GM food ingredients, and in fact, HB 1226 explicitly prohibits labeling of GMO foods. In my opinion, we are a capitalist society. There is much in the literature that proclaims that Market Forces are what makes our Democracy and Economy so strong. This being said, why is it that GMO as a whole need so much Political protection? Why must GMO's remain hidden ingredients in the foods we eat? Why does no one contemplate the costs to clean up an escaped GMO? Why does the legislature absolutely cling to fast tracking GMO's when the evidence is mounting that a precautionary principle may be more prudent until the questions are answered? Why do GMO crop get 4/21/2009 Page 3 of 3 preferential rates on Crop Insurance, where traditional crops do not? Why are we prohibiting regulation on a science that has the potential to pollute the entire planet with man made traits, good or bad? Hawaii has bee the test bed of GMO Crops for many years. It has served it's purpose, and that are many millions of acres of GMO crops being grown all over the world. It is time to be a leader in allowing the Precautionary Principle to be exercised and not given away to a centralized Government, that is no more connected to Hawaii than it is to policy in the Iowa corn belt. One size does not fit all, and Hawaii would be unwise to abdicate its authority to regulate the possible damaging threats in its own backyard. Furthermore, one has to ask what benefit is granted by passing a law to prohibit regulations against a most certainly non-natural organism, capable of self replication and opening the avenue for novel genetic traits to invade other environments? Clearly, in the worst case scenario, this would prevent adequate data collection and analysis. The people or the State certainly gains no benefit, other than the States ability to turn a blind eye to the problem when the public outcry becomes to loud, use it as an excuse to do nothing, because the ability to apply regulations have been emasculated by this broad, far reaching, unimaginable bill. I cannot possibly see any benefit to prohibiting regulations such as described in this bill. For nearly 30 years not GMO's have had a free ride, hidden in the shadows, barely mentioned in the press. As years have passed, the problems have slowly leaked out and the public has learned that the GMO producers have not been very thorough with their analysis. The public has learned that the same people that fast tracked GMO's were insiders from the GMO Corporations. Finally, through research, the people have said, "Enough", and started the baby step's of demanding that certain plants be maintained in the natural state. The response from the GMO industry and the Hawaii Legislature? Prohibit any more Regulations! This is an edict from on high, and is indefensible. I cannot support any Bill that prohibits regulation on GMO's when so many problems and questions arise every day. The one important lesson for me when reading this giveaway of States rights, is the question "Who wrote this bill?", and "When is the next election"? When those questions are answered, the next step is "Where do I volunteer all of my free time to get these people replaced with candidates that actually work for their constituents instead of big AG interests." 4/21/2009