HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0271.508 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1
COUNTY CLERK
Murashige, Laura COUNTY_n HAWAII
From: Susan Miyasaka [sc_miyasaka @yahoo.com]
25
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 7:36 AM 1(113 JUL _ I ill 12:
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Testimony against Bill 79 draft 2
Attachments: Miyasaka-Testimony-against-Bi1179-ALL-7-1-13.pdf
Dear County Council Clerk,
Here is my written testimony against Bill 79, draft 2.
Thank you for your attention.
Best wishes,
Susan C. Miyasaka
Susan C. Miyasaka
P.O. Box 203
Pepeekeo, HI 96783
.27/, SSOY Comm.No _.
Ref.To:
Ref. Date JUL 0 2 2013
7/1/2013
To: Brenda Ford, County Council Chair, Committee on Public Safety & Mass Transit
Margaret Wille, Vice Chair, Committee on Public Safety & Mass Transit
Karen Eoff, Member
Greggor Ilagan, Member
Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member
Zendo Kern, Member
Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member
Valerie T. Poindexter, Member
J. Yoshimoto, Member
From: Susan C. Miyasaka, Ph.D.
Subject: Testimony again County Council Bill No. 79, Draft No. 2
My name is Dr. Susan C. Miyasaka, and I am an Agronomist at the University of Hawaii. I am
providing testimony to you as a private individual and not as a representative of the College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). Thank you for this opportunity to
provide testimony in opposition to County Council Bill No. 79 (draft 2).
County Council Bill No. 79 (draft 2)proposes "to protect our agricultural heritage, our natural
environment, our public health" by restricting"the further introduction and use of transgenic,
genetically modified crops, plants, seed, trees, fish, livestock, and other genetic organisms in
Hawai'i County." It cites the Precautionary Principle that was part of a United Nations
Biosafety Protocol signed into law in 2003; however, the United States did not sign this
international agreement.
One definition of the Precautionary Principle (PP) is that actions should be taken to prevent
damage to the environment even in cases where there is no evidence of a causal link between the
technology in question and a detrimental environmental effect. In other words, the historic
approach of balancing risk and benefits is replaced by a focus on risk alone (Tait and Chataway,
2010).
Who can you Trust? Today, you will listen to lots of people testifying on both sides of the
issues. You will need to ask yourself who can you trust? When it comes to science-based issues,
you need to trust scientists who are trained in that particular area. Publication in peer-reviewed,
reputable journals are considered the gold standard of scientific evidence; it means that up to 5
independent scientists have reviewed the article and found it to be worthy of publication. Also,
you need to ask whether scientists or others have a conflict of interest. Are they receiving
payment or other benefits from organizations on either side of the debate? I have published in
peer-reviewed journals on the subject of agricultural biotechnology and I am independent of both
the seed companies and anti-GMO organizations.
Please vote `NO' on Bill 79, based on scientific facts: This bill is fatally flawed, because (1) the
proposed ban on new genetically engineered (GE) crops lumps all GE crops together. The
National Research Council (2002) organized by the National Academy of Sciences states that
environmental risks of GE crops must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
1
Second, Bill 79 proposes a one-size-fits-all buffer zone for currently-grown GE crops. However,
the distance that pollen travels depends on whether a crop is self-pollinated (such as commercial
GE papaya), wind-pollinated, bee-pollinated, or not pollinated at all.
Third (3), there is no credible, scientific evidence that commercial, GE crops approved by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Environmental Protection
Agency are unsafe for human consumption. I have attached a list of 126 peer-reviewed studies
conducted by independent scientists that demonstrated the substantial equivalence (no difference
in nutritional composition) of GE crops versus non-GE crops. This list was provided by
BioFortified, a non-profit organization of independent scientists dedicated to providing factual
information about genetics and genetic engineering. On the Board of Directors is Dr. Pamela
Ronald, professor of genetics at the University of California Davis and co-author of the book
"Tomorrow's Table". http:l/www.biofortitied.org/L4enera/studies-Ibr-genera/independent-
iunding/.
There is a lot of misinformation being spread through anti-GMO movies, websites, and books. I
have attached two fact sheets; one on food safety issues of GE crops and one on environmental
issues of GE crops that summarizes scientific research. I encourage you to read them; they
answer frequently asked questions about GE crops based on scientific evidence.
Please vote `NO' on Bill 79 because conventional farmers and ranchers are united in opposition
to Bill 79. The Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Hawaii Papaya Industry Association, Hawaii
Export Nursery Association, Hawaii Orchid Growers' Association, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council,
and Hawaii Banana Industry Association are united in opposition to Bill 79. County Council Bill
79 uses inflammatory language about commercial GE crops, that are not justified by scientific
evidence. I will repeat here: there is no scientific evidence that commercialized GE crops are
less safe than crops produced by conventional breeding (BioFortified web site; National
Research Council, 2002; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004; Lemaux,
2008; Lemaux, 2009; Wieczorek and Wright, 2012).
Passage of Bill 79 could result in the end of the papaya industry on the Big Island. In 2010, the
papaya industry brought $11.1 million dollars into the state of Hawaii (HDOA and NASS, 2012).
In 2008, there were over 1900 acres and 120 farms in papaya production on the Island of Hawaii.
Bill 79 requires the posting of signs for GE crops; this will place a `bulls-eye' on farms that grow
transgenic papaya. Already, there have been three incidences of vandalism where acres of
transgenic papayas have been cut down. It is possible that the vandalism was due to anti-GMO
activists, although no one has been arrested yet.
htp://ww\ .biLi stand vidconc s.com/20l 2/06/12/papaya-vandals-strike-again-in-puna/
Please vote `NO' on Bill 79 because it is divisive bill. All farmers and ranchers on the Big
Island need to work together to ensure food security and economic sustainability. Instead, Bill
79 seeks to pit organic farmers against conventional farmers. I was born and raised in Hawaii,
and I grew up in a diverse community. We all got along, because we respected each others'
cultural beliefs.
2
Please form a Task Force of farmers, ranchers, and scientists to discuss co-existence. A task
force needs to be created to provide recommendations on how organic and conventional crop
farmers can co-exist on the Big Island. The composition of this task force is critical to its
success; it must include members who are willing to compromise. I am attaching the report of a
Task Force on Co-Existence that was mandated by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii.
Unfortunately, due to Task Force members who were unwilling to compromise,three reports
were produced: a majority report (produced by farmers in the middle willing to compromise),
and 2 minority reports (produced by farmers on both extremes who were unwilling to
compromise).
There is no reason that co-existence cannot happen between organic and conventional farmers.
We live among one of the most culturally diverse populations in one of the most isolated areas of
the globe. We can serve as a model for how co-existence can and should happen.
Please vote `NO' on Bill 79. Instead, please form a Task Force to make recommendations
about Co-existence of organic and conventional farmers.
References:
BioFortified, Inc. Studies with independent funding. http://www.biofortitied.org/genera/studies-
for-genera/independent-funding/ . Accessed 27 June 2013.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture and U.S.D.A. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012.
Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture 2010. Honolulu, HI.
Lemaux, P. 2008. Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist's analysis of the issues
(Part I). Annu. Rev, Plant Biol. 59:771-812.
Lemaux, P. 2009. Genetically engineered plants and foods: A Scientist's analysis of the issues
(Part II). Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 60:511-559.
National Research Council. 2002. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and
Adequacy of Regulation. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered
Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. The National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
Tait, J. and J. Chataway. 2010. Pros and Cons of the Precautionary principle (PP): European
Experience with the regulation of GM Crops.
http://www.genomicsnetwork.ac.uk/media/Pros%20and%20cons%20PP%20email.pdf
Wieczorek, A . and M. Wright. 2012. History of Agricultural Biotechnology: How Crop
Development has Evolved. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):9.
http:Pwww.nature.com/scitable/knowledgeilibrary/history-of-agricultural-biotechnology-how-
crop-development-25885295
3
Studies with independent funding
1. Powell M, Wheatley AO, Omoruvi F, Asemota HN, Williams NP, Tennant PF.
2009. Comparative effects of dietary administered transgenic and conventional papaya on
selected intestinal parameters in rat models. Transgenic research 19(3):511-8.
2. Batista R, Saibo N, L.ourenco T, Oliveira MM. 2008. Microarrav analyses reveal that
plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion.
PNAS 105(9):3640-5. (full text)
3. Bohme H, Rudloff E, Schone F, Schumann W, Hinher L, Flachowsky
G. 2007.Nutritional assessment of genetically modified rapeseed synthesizing high
amounts of mid-chain fatty acids including production responses of growing-finishing
pigs. Archives of animal nutrition 61(4):308-16. 2007.
4. Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards K.1, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR.
206. Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional
breeding. Plant biotechnology journal 4(4):369-80.
5. Brake DG, Thaler R, Evenson DP. 2004. Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn
on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flowcytometry. Journal of
agricultural and food chemistry 52(7):2097-2102.
6. Brake DG, Evenson DP. 2004. A generational study of alvphosate tolerant soybeans on
mouse fetal,postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food and chemical
toxicology 42(1):29-36.
7. Atkinson HJ, Johnston KA, Robbins M. 2004. Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin
for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet. Journal
of Nutrition 134(2):431-434. (full text)
8. Bakan B, Melcion D, Richard-Molard D, Cahagnier B. 2002. Fungal growth and
Fusarium mvcotoxin content in isogonic traditional maize and genetically modified maize
grown in France and Spain. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 50(4): 728-731.
9. Aulrich K, Bohme H, Daenicke R, Halle I, Flachowsky G. 2001. Genetically modified
feeds in animal nutrition 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in poultry,
pig and ruminant nutrition. Archie f it Tierernahrung (Archives of Animal Nutrition)
54(3):183-195.
10. Bohme I I, Aulrich K, Daenicke R, Flachowsky G. 2001. Genetically modified feeds in
animal nutrition. 2nd communication: glufosinate tolerant sugar beets (roots and silage)
and maize grains for ruminants and pigs. Archly fiir Tierernahrung(Archives of animal
nutrition) 54(3):197-207.
11. Arencibia A, Gentinetta E, Cuzzoni E, Castiglione S, Kohli A, Vain P, Leech M,
Christou P, Sala F. 1998. Molecular analysis of the genome of transgenic rice (Oryza
sativa L.)plants produced via particle bombardment or intact cell electroporation.
Molecular breeding 4(2):99-109.
12. Bub A, Moseneder J, Wenzel G, Rechkemmer G, Briviba K. 2008. Zeaxanthin is
bioavailable from genetically modified zeaxanthin-rich potatoes. European journal of
nutrition 47(2):99-103.
13. Catchpole GS, Beckmann M, Enot DP, Mondhe M, Lvwicki B, Taylor J, I lardy N, Smith
A, King RD, Kell [)B, Fiehn 0, Draper J. 2005. Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates
substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional
potato crops. PNAS 102(40):14458-62. (full text) The metabolite analysis and statistical
work was funded by the Food Standards Agency (London) as part of its G02006 project.
14. Chambers PA, Duggan l S, Heritage J, Forbes JM. 2000. The fate of antibiotic resistance
marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens. Journal of antimicrobial
chemotherapy 49(1):161-164. Novartis, formerly Ciba-Geigy, provided the genetically
modified maize seeds used in this study. This work was funded by a grant from the Food
Standards Agency.
15. Chen ZL, Gu Il, Li Y, Su Y, Wu P, Jiang Z, Ming X, Tian J, Pan N, Qu LJ. 2003. Safety
assessment for genetically modified sweet pepper and tomato. Toxicology 188(2-3):297-
307.
16. Cheng KC, Beaulieu J, Iquira F, Belzile FJ, Fortin MG, Stromvik MV. 2008. Effect of
trans<eenes on global gene expression in soybean is within the natural range of variation
of conventional cultivars. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 56(9):3057-67.
17. Chowdhury LH, Kuribara H, [lino A, Sultana P, Mikami 0, Shimada N, Guruge
KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. 2003. Detection of corn intrinsic and DNA fragments and
CrylAb protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn
Btl I. Journal of animal science 81(10):2546-2551. (full text)
18. Chowdhury EH, Mikami 0, Murata H, Sultana P, Shimada N, Yoshioka M, Guruge
KS, Yamamoto S, Miyazaki S, Yamanaka N, Nakajima Y. 2004. Fate of maize intrinsic
and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified maize Bt 1. Journal of food
protection 67(2):365-370.
19. Chowdhury EH, Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami 0, Sultana P, Miyazaki S, Yoshioka M,
Yamanaka N, Hirai N,Nakajima Y.(2003). Detection of CrylAb protein in
gastrointestinal contents but not visceral organs of genetically modified Btl 1-fed calves.
Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003 Mar;45(2):72-5.
20. Chrenkova M, Sommer A, Ceresnakova Z, Nitrayova S, Prostredna M (2002)Nutritional
evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed on rats. Archives of Animal
Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 56:229-235 Institute of Animal Nutrition, Research
Institute of Animal Production, Hlohovska 2, 949 92 Nitra, Slovak Republic.
chrenko @vuzv.sk
21. Cleveland, Thomas E, Patrick F Dowd, Anne E Desjardins, Deepak Bhatnagar, Peter J
Cotty (2003). United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service
research on pre-harvest prevention of mycotoxins and mycotoxigenic fungi in US crops,
Pest Management Science Volume 59, Issue 6-7 , Pages 629—642
22. Daenicke R, Aulrich K, Flachowsky G. (1999). GMO in animal feedstuffs: nutritional
properties of Bt-maize... Mais: Fachzeitschrift uber Forschung, Produktionstechnik,
Verwertung and Okonomik 135-137 Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural
Research Centre Braunschweig (FAL), Germany.
23. Defernez M, Gunning YM, Parr AJ, Shepherd LV, Davies HV, Colquhoun IJ. (2004) J
Agric Food Chem. 2004 Oct 6;52(20):6075-85. NMR and HPLC-UV profiling of
potatoes with genetic modifications to metabolic pathways.
24. Di Carli M, Villani ME, Renzone G,Nardi L, Pasquo A, Franconi R, Scaloni
A, Benvenuto E, Desiderio A. (2008). Leaf Proteome Analysis of Transgenic Plants
Expressing Antiviral Antibodies. J Proteome Res. 2008 Dec 19. [Epub ahead of
print] Systematic analysis of protein profiles to indentify any unexpected changes.
25. Dowd, Patrick F (2000). Indirect Reduction of Ear Molds and Associated Mycotoxins
in Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Under Controlled and Open Field Conditions: Utility and
Limitations, Journal of Economic Entomology Volume 93, Issue 6 (December 2000) pp.
1669-1679 Bioactive Agents Research Unit, USDA-ARS, National Center for
Agricultural Utilization Research, 1815 N. University Street, Peoria, IL 61604
26. Dowd PF (2001) Biotic and abiotic factors limiting efficacy of Bt corn in indirectly
reducing mycotoxin levels in commercial fields. J Econ Ent 94(5): 1067-1074.
27. Dubouzet JG, Ishihara A, Matsuda F, Miyagawa H, Iwata H, Wakasa K.(2007) Integrated
metabolomic and transcriptomic analyses of high-tryptophan rice expressing a mutant
anthranilate synthase alpha subunit. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(12):3309-21. Epub 2007 Sep 4.
28. Duggan, P.S., Chambers, P.A., Heritage, J., Forbes, J.M. (2002). Survival of free DNA
encoding antibiotic resistance from transgenic maize and the transformation activity of
DNA in ovine saliva, ovine rumen fluid and silage effluent. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 191,
71-77.
29. Enot DP Manfred Beckmann, David Overy, and John Draper(2006) Predicting
interpretability of metabolome models based on behavior, putative identity, and
biological relevance of explanatory signals PNAS October 3, 2006 vol. 103(40): 14865-
14870
30. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354
31. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E.(2008)
Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and
Old Mice. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Nov 14. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19007233
32. Flachowsky G, Halle I, Aulrich K Long term feeding of Bt-corn—a ten-generation study
with quails. Arch Anim Nutr. 2005 Dec;59(6):449-51. Institute of Animal Nutrition,
Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Braunschweig, Germany.
gerhard.flachowsky @fal.de also see (REVIEW) Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K.
Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants.
33. Gregersen PL, Brinch-Pedersen H, Holm PB.(2005) A microarray-based comparative
analysis of gene expression profiles during grain development in transgenic and wild type
wheat. Transgenic Res. 2005 Dec;14(6):887-905.
34. Gizzarelli F, Corinti S, Barletta B, lacovacci P, Brunetto B, Butteroni C, Afferni C, Onori
R, Miraglia M, Panzini G, Di Felice G, Tinghino R. (2006) Evaluation of allergenicity of
genetically modified soybean protein extract in a murine model of oral allergen-specific
sensitization. Clin Exp Allergy. 2006 Feb;36(2):238-48.
35. Halle, I., K. Aulrich and G. Flachowsky. 2004. Four generations of feeding of GMO-corn
to breeder quail. (Futterung von gentechnisch verandertem Mais an Zuchtwachtein fiber
vier Generationen). Proc. Soc. Nutr. Physiol. 13:124. Institute of Animal Nutrition,
Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany.
36. Jenkins Helen, Nigel Hardy, Manfred Beckmann, John Draper, Aileen R. Smith, Janet
Taylor, Oliver Fiehn, Royston Goodacre, Raoul J. Bino, Robert Hall, Joachim Kopka,
Geoffrey A. Lane, B. Markus Lange, Jang R. Liu, Pedro Mendes, Basil J. Nikolau,
Stephen G. Oliver,Norman W. Paton, Sue Rhee, Ute Roessner-Tunali, Kazuki Saito,
Jern Smedsgaard, Lloyd W. Sumner, Trevor Wang, Sean Walsh, Eve Syrkin Wurtele,
Douglas B. Kell.(2004) A proposed framework for the description of plant metabolomics
experiments and their results. Nature Biotechnology 22, 1601-1606. Under UK Food
Safety Authority G02006: Metabolome technology for the profiling of GM and
conventionally bred plant materials
37. Jia, Shirong, Feng Wang Lei Shi Qianhua Yuan Wuge Liu Yilong Liao Shuguang Li
Wujun Jin Huipu Peng. 2007. Transgene flow to hybrid rice and its male-sterile lines
Transgenic Res 16:491-501.
38. Kilic A, Akay M T. 2008. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in
rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation Food and Chemical Toxicology
46:1164-1170.
39. Kleter,Gijs A., Ad A. C. M. Peijnenburg, and Henk J. M. Aarts. 2005. Health
considerations regarding horizontal transfer of microbial transgenes present in genetically
modified crops. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 4 (2005) 326-352.
40. Kleter GA, Bhula R, Bodnaruk K, Carazo E, Felsot AS, Harris CA, Katayama A, Kuiper
HA, Racke KD, Rubin B, Shevah Y, Stephenson GR, Tanaka K, Unsworth J, Wauchope
RD, Wong SS. 2007. Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general
impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Manag Sci 63(11):1107-15.
41. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AA. 2002. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in
transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to
potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct Biol 2:8.
42. Kuiper HA, Hub P J M Noteborn, and ACM Peijnenburg. 1999 Adequacy of methods for
testing the safety of genetically modified foods. Lancet 354:1315-6.
43. Le Gall, Gwenaelle, M. Susan DuPont, Fred A. Mellon, Adrienne L. Davis, Geoff J.
Collins, Martine E. Verhoeyen, and Ian J. Colquhoun. 2003. Characterization and
Content of Flavonoid Glycosides in Genetically Modified Tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum) Fruits J. Agric. Food Chem 51(9):2438 -2446.
44. Le Gall G, Colquhoun IJ, Davis AL, Collins GJ, Verhoeyen ME. 2003. Metabolite
profiling of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) using 1H NMR spectroscopy as a tool to
detect potential unintended effects following a genetic modification. J Agric Food Chem
51(9):2447-56. Erratum in: 2004. J Agric Food Chem 52(10):3210.
45. Lehesranta,Satu J., Howard V. Davies, Louise V.T. Shepherd,Naoise Nunan, Jim W.
McNicol, Seppo Auriola, Kaisa M. Koistinen, Soile Suomalainen, Harri 1. Kokko and
Sirpa O. Karenlampi. 2005. Comparison of Tuber Proteomes of Potato Varieties,
Landraces, and Geneticallyn Modified Lines. Plant Physiology 138:1690-1699.
46. Li X, Huang K, He X, Zhu B, Liang Z, Li H, Luo Y. 2007. Comparison of nutritional
quality between Chinese indica rice with sck and crylAc genes and its nontransgenic
counterpart.J Food Sci. 2007 Aug;72(6):S420-4.
47. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D.
2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects
on liver ageing.Histochem Cell Biol.
48. Brown NM and Setchell KDR. 2001. Animal models impacted by phytoestrogens in
commercial chow: implications for pathways influenced by hormones. Laboratory
Investigation 81:735-747. "All investigators should be vigilant to the phytoestrogen
composition of commercial rodent diets because there is a history of potent biological
effects in larger animals and humans from high circulating isoflavone concentrations"
49. Thigpen JE. 2004. Selecting the appropriate rodent diet for endocrine disruptor research
and testing studies. ILAR Journal. 45:401-416.
50. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M. 2005.
Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified
soybean. Eur J Histochem 49(3):237-42.
51. Momma K, Hashimoto W, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Fukuda Y, Kawai S, Takaiwa F, Utsumi
S, Murata K. 2000. Safety assessment of rice genetically modified with soybean glycinin
by feeding studies on rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 64:1881-6.
52. Montero M, Coll A, Nadal A, Messeguer J, Pla M. Only half the transcriptomic
differences between resistant genetically modified and conventional rice are associated
with the transgene. Plant Biotechnology, 29 OCT 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
7652.2010.00572.x.
53. Peterson, Robert K.D. and Leslie M. Shama 2005. A Comparative Risk Assessment of
Genetically Engineered, Mutagenic, and Conventional Wheat Production Systems
Transgenic Research 14 (6) p859-875. This study was funded solely by a USDA Special
Research Grant to the Institute for Biobased Products and by the Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station, Montana State University.
54. Phipps RH, Deaville ER, Maddison BC (2003) Detection of transgenic and endogenous
plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy
cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86:4070-4078. Funded by the U.K. Food Standards
Agency.
55. Ramessar, Koreen, Ariadna Peremarti Sonia Go'mez-Galera Shaista Naqvi Marian
Moralejo Pilar Munoz Teresa Capell Paul Christou 2007. Biosafety and risk assessment
framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not
supporting the politics, Transgenic Res 16:261-280. This work was funded in part
through the EU FP6 Pharma-Planta project.
56. Rhee, G.S., Cho, D.H., Won, Y.H., Seok, J.H., Kim, S.S., Kwack, S.J., Lee, R.D., Chae,
S.Y., Kim, J.W., Lee, B.M., Park, K.L., Choi, K.S., 2005. Multigeneration reproductive
and developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on
rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 68, 2263-2276.
57. Knudsen I, Poulsen M. 2007. Comparative safety testing of genetically modified foods in
a 90-day rat feeding study design allowing the distinction between primary and secondary
effects of the new genetic event. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 49(1):53-62.
58. Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J, Albrecht C. 2005. Degradation of CrylAb
protein from genetically modified maize in the bovine gastrointestinal tract. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53:1453-1456. This addresses the digestibility of an
insect detection protein which is believed to be an indicator of allergenicity risk. Risks of
allergenicity are one of the major concerns raised by people who are worried about the
safety of genetically engineered food
59. Rang A, Linke B and Jansen B. 2005. Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the
transgene in Roundup Ready soybean, European Food Research and Technology 220(3-
4):438-443.
60. Reuter T, Aulrich K, Berk A, Flachowsky G. 2002. Investigations on genetically
modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: chemical composition and nutritional
evaluation. Arch Tierernahr 56(1):23-31.
61. Rosati, A, Bogani P (2008) Characterisation of 3'transgene insertion site and derived
mRNAs in MON810 YieldGard® maize Plant Molecular Biology 67:271-281. Dr. G.
Monastra provided seeds of MON810 and isogenic control maize. This work was
supported by a grant from MIPAF (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e
Forestali), Project: `OGM in Agricoltura.
62. Sakamoto, Y; Tada, Y; Fukumori,N; Tayama, K; Ando, H; Takahashi, H; Kubo, Y;
Nagasawa, A; Yano, N; Yuzawa, K; Ogata, A; Kamimura, H. 2007. A 52-week feeding
study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats Journal of the Food Hygiene Society
of Japan, 48 (3): 41-50.
63. Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y,
Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A.A 2008. 104-week feeding study of
genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 49(4):272-82.
64. Shepherd LV, McNicol JW, Razzo R, Taylor MA, Davies HV (2006). Assessing the
potential for unintended effects in genetically modified potatoes perturbed in metabolic
and developmental processes. Targeted analysis of key nutrients and anti-nutrients.
Transgenic Res. 15(4):409-25.
65. Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami 0, Yoshioka M, Guruge KS, Yamanaka N,Nakajima
Y, Miyazaki S. 2006. Effects of feeding calves genetically modified corn btl 1: a clinico-
biochemical study.J Vet Med Sci. 2006 Oct;68(10):1 1 13-5.
66. Sinagawa-Garcia SR, Rascon-Cruz Q, Valdez-Ortiz A, Medina-Godoy S, Escobar-
Gutierrez A, Paredes-Lopez 0. 2004. Safety assessment by in vitro digestibility and
allergenicity of genetically modified maize with an amaranth 11S globulin. J Agric Food
Chem. 2004 May 5;52(9):2709-14.
67. Schroder M, Poulsen M, Wilcks A, Kroghsbo S, Miller A, Frenzel T, Danier J, Rychlik
M, Emami K, Gatehouse A, Shu Q, Engel KH, Altosaar I, Knudsen I. A 90-day safety
study of genetically modified rice expressing CrylAb protein (Bacillus
thuringiensistoxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Mar;45(3):339-49.
68. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms [EFSAJ(Question No
EFSA-Q-2008-077) Adopted on 29 October 2008, SCIENTIFIC OPINION Request from
the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by France on maize
MON810 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the emergency measure
according to Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003/EC 1. The EFSA Journal (2008) 850,
1-45
69. Sten E, Skov PS, Andersen SB, Torp AM, Olesen A, Bindslev-Jensen U, Poulsen LK,
Bindslev-Jensen C. 2004. A comparative study of the allergenic potency of wild-type and
glyphosate-tolerant gene-modified soybean cultivars. APMIS. 2004 Jan;112(1):21-8. This
study is part of the projects "BioRisk", supported by the Danish Medical Research
council, and "EpiPat", supported by the Danish Ministry of Food.
70. Takahashi, H. Hotta, Y. Hayashi, M. Kawai-Yamada, M. Komatsu, S. Uchimiya, H.
2005. High throughput metabolome and proteome analysis of transgenic rice plants
(Oryza sativa L.). Plant Biotechnol 22, 47-50.
71. Taylor, J., King, R. D., Altmann, T. & Fiehn, 0.(2002) Application of metabolomics to
plant genotype discrimination using statistics and machine learning. Bioinformatics 18,
S241-S248 (2002).1IK Food Safety Authority Under G02006: Metabolome
technology for the profiling of GM and conventionally bred plant materials
72. Tony MA, Butschke A, Broll H, Grohmann L, Zagon J, Halle I, Danicke S, Schauzu M,
Hafez HM, Flachowsky G. Safety assessment of Bt 176 maize in broiler nutrition:
degradation of maize-DNA and its metabolic fate. Arch Tierernahr. 2003 Aug;57(4):235-
52.
73. Venneria E, Simone Fanasca, Giovanni Monastra, Enrico Finotti, Roberto Ambra, Elena
Azzini, Alessandra Durazzo, Maria Stella Foddai, and Giuseppe Maiani (2008)
Assessment of the Nutritional Values of Genetically Modified Wheat, Corn, and Tomato
Crops J. Agric. Food Chem.
74. Wakasa K, Hasegawa H, Nemoto H, Matsuda F, Miyazawa H, Tozawa Y, Morino K,
Komatsu A, Yamada T, Terakawa T, Miyagawa H.2006. High-level tryptophan
accumulation in seeds of transgenic rice and its limited effects on agronomic traits and
seed metabolite profile.J Exp Bot. 2006;57(12):3069-78.
75. Weekes, Rebecca, Theodore Allnutt, Caroline Boffey, Sarah Morgan, Mark Bilton, Roger
Daniels and Christine Henry (2008) A study of crop-to-crop gene flow using farm scale
sites of fodder maize ( Zea mays L.) in the UK Transgenic Res (2007) 16: 203-
211. Funded by Defra (project EPG 1/5/138). Bayer CropScience provided the positive
control T25 maize seed.
76. Windels P, Taverniers I, Depicker A, Van Bockstaele E, De Loose M (2001)
Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert Eur Food Res Technol 213:107-
112.
77. Zhang, Jun, Lin Cai, Jiaqin Cheng, Huizhu Mao, Xiaoping Fan, Zhaohong Meng, Ka
Man Chan, Huijun Zhang, Jianfei Qi, Lianghui Ji and Yan Hong (2008) Transgene
integration and organization in Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) genome Transgenic
Research 17 (2) 293-306. This project was supported by an internal research grant of
Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory, Singapore. Although cotton is a fibre crop it is also a
vegetable oil crop.
78. Zhu Y, Li D, Wang F, Yin J, Jin H (2004)Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of
soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans using rats.
79. Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG.(2008) Proteomics as a complementary
tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result
of genetic modifications. J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61.
80. Zywicki Britta , Gareth Catchpole, John Draper, and Oliver Fiehn. 2004. Comparison of
rapid LC-ESI-MS/MS methods for determination of glycoalkaloids in transgenic field
grown potatoes. Analytical Biochemistry . UK Food Safety Authority Under G02006:
Metabolome technology for the profiling of CM and conventionally bred plant
materials
81. Ute Vogler, Anja S. Rott, Cesare Gessler& Silvia Dorn. How transgenic and classically
bred apple genotypes affect non-target organisms on higher trophic levels. Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata Volume 134 Issue 2, Pages 114— 121
82. Coll A,Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Kubista M, Messeguer J, Pla M. Natural
variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and
comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices. Plant
Mol Biol. 2010 Jun;73(3):349-62. Epub 2010 Mar 27.
83. Wiedemann S, CGiirtler P, Albrecht C. 2007. Effect of feeding cows genetically modified
maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen. Applied and environmental
microbiology 73(24):8012-7.
84. Transgene x Environment Interactions in Genetically Modified Wheat
85. Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different?
86. Borejsza-Wysocka et al., Stable expression and phenotypic impact of attacin F. transgene
in orchard grown apple trees over a 12 year period BMC Biotechnology 2010, 10:41
87. Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Messeguer J, Mele E. Palaudelmas M, Pla M
(2009) Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties
cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines. Transgcnic Res
18:801-808
88. Andreas Lindfeld, Corsin Lang, Eva Knop, Wolfgang Nentwig, Hard to digest or a piece
of cake? Does GM wheat affect survival and reproduction of Enchvtraeus albidus,
(Annelida: Enchytraeidae)?, Applied Soil Ecology, Volume 47, Issue 1, January 2011,
Pages 51-58, ISSN 0929-1393, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.10.012.
89. S. von Burg, F. J. F. van Veen, F. Alvarez-Alfageme, J. Romeis. Aphid-parasitoid
community structure on genetically modified wheat. Biology Letters, 2011; DOI:
10.1098/rsb1.2010.1 147
90. Kusano M, Redestig H, Hirai T, Oikawa A, Matsuda F, Fukushima A, Arita M,
Watanabe S, Yano M, Hiwasa-Tanase K, Ezura H, Saito K. Covering chemical diversity
of genetically-modified tomatoes using
metabolomics for objective substantial equivalence assessment. PLoS One. 2011 Feb
16:6(2):e16989.
91. Jose L. Domingo, Jordi Gine Bordonaba, A literature review on the safety assessment of
genetically modified plants, Environment International, Volume 37, Issue 4, May 2011,
Pages 734-742, ISSN 0160-4120, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.20I 1.01.003. Review covers
feeding studies from 2007-2010 (but no 2010 papers included).
92. Yuan Y, Xu W, Luo Y, Liu H, Lu J, Su C, Huang K. Effects of genetically modified
T2A-1 rice on faecal microflora of rats during 90 day supplementation. J Sci Food Agric.
2011 Apr 26. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4421. [Epub ahead of print]
93. Stuart J. Smyth, Michael Gusta, Kenneth Belcher, Peter W.B. Phillips and David Castle.
Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada.
Agricultural Systems, Volume 104, Issue 5, June 2011, Pages 403-410
94. Duan JJ, Marvier M, Huesing J, Dively G, Huang ZY, 2008 A Meta-Analysis of Effects
of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE 3(1): e1415.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001415
95. Sishuo Cao, Wentao Xu, YunBo Luo, Xiaoyun He, Yanfang Yuan, Wenjun Ran, Lixing
Lianga and Kunlun Huang. Metahonomics study of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis rice
(T2A-l) meal in a 90-day dietary toxicity studv in eats,Mol. BioSyst., 2011, DOI:
10.1039/C 1 MB05076A (May 19, 2011)
96. Helga Gruber, Vijay Paul, Patrick Guertler, Hubert Spiekers, Ales Tichopad, Heinrich H.
D. Meyer, and Martin Muller. Fate ofCrylAb Protein in Agricultural Systems under
Slurry Management of Cows Fed Genetically Modified Maize (Zea mays L.) MON810:
A Quantitative Assessment.J. Agric. Food Chem., Article ASAP DOI:
10.1021/jf200854n Publication Date (Web): May 23, 2011
97. Lin, B., Tan, Z., Xiao, G., Wang, M., Cong, Z., Wang, S., Tang, S., Zhou, C., Sun, Z. and
Wang, W. (2009), Evaluation of compositional and nutritional equivalence of genetically
modified rice to conventional rice using in situ and in vitro techniques. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 89: 1490-1497. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3613
98. A. M. Shelton, J.-Z. Zhao, and R. T. Roush Economic, Ecological, Food Safety, and
Social Consequences of the deployment of Bt Transgenic Plants. Annual Review of
Entomology, Vol. 47: 845-881 (Volume publication date January 2002)
99. D. M. Olson, J. R. Ruberson, A. R. Zeilinger &D. A. Andow, Colonization preference of
Luschistus serous and Nezara riridula in transgenic cotton varieties. peanut, and soybean.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 139: 161-169, 2011
100. Fangneng Huang, David A. Andow& Lawrent L. Buschman. Success of the high-
dose/refuge resistance management strategy after 15 years of Bt crop use in North
America. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 140: 1-16, 2011
101. Alvarez-Alfageme F, von Burg S, Romeis J, 2011 Infestation of Transgenic
Powdery Mildew-Resistant Wheat by Naturally Occurring Insect Ilerbivores under
Different Environmental Conditions. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22690.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022690
102. Tang M, Xie T, Cheng W, Qian L, Yang S, Yang D, Cui W, Li K. A 90-day
safety study of genetically modified rice expressing rhIGF-I protein in C57BL/6.1 rats.
Transgenic Res. 2011 Sep 11.
103. Gruber FI., Paul V., Meyer H.H.D., Muller M. (201 1) Determination of
insecticidal Cryl Ab protein in soil collected in the final growing seasons of a nine-year
field trial of Bt-maize MON810. Transgenic Res. 2011 Apr 16
104. Duc C,Nentwig W, Lindfeld A, 2011 No Adverse Effect of Genetically Modified
Antifungal Wheat on Decomposition Dynamics and the Soil Fauna Community—A Field
Study. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025014
105. Rose R, Dively GP. Effects of insecticide-treated and Lepidopteran-active Bt
transgenic sweet corn on the abundance and diversity of arthropods. Environ Entomol.
2007 Oct;36(5):1254-68.
106. Powell M, Wheatley AO, Omoruyi F, Asemota RN, Williams NP, Tennant PF.
Comparative effects of dietary administered transgenic and conventional papaya on
selected intestinal parameters in rat models. Transgenic Res. 2010 Jun;19(3):51 1-8. Epub
2009 Aug 19.
107. Matilde Eizaguirre, Ramon Albajes, Carmen Lo' pez, Jordi Eras, Bele'n
Lumbierres & Xavier Pons. Six years after the commercial introduction of Bt maize in
Spain: Held evaluation, impact and future prospects Transgenic Research (2006) 15:1-12
DOI 10.1007/s11248-005-3998-1
108. M. K. Dhillion and H. C. Sharma. Impact of'Bt-engineered cotton on target and
non-target_arthropods, toxin flow through different trophic levels and seedcotton yield.
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue ) : (462-466 ) 2009
109. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt
cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316, 1475 (2007); DOI:
10.1126/science.1139208
110. Manda G. Cattaneo, Christine Yafuso, Chris Schmidt, Cho-ying Huang, Magfurar
Rahman, Carl Olson,
Christa Ellers-Kirk, Barron J. Orr, Stuart E. Marsh, Larry Antilla, Pierre Dutilleul, and
Yves Carriere Y. Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on
hiodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May
16;1 03(20):7571-6. Epub 2006 May 4.
111. B. Anilkumar, A. Gopala Reddy, B. Kalakumar, M. Usha Rani, Y. Anjaneyulu, T.
Raghunandan, Y. Ramana Reddy, K. Jyothi, and K. S. Gopi. Sero-biochemical studies in
sheep fed with Bt cotton plants. Toxicol Int. 2010 Jul—Dec; 17(2): 99-101. doi:
10.4103/0971-6580.72680. (local PDF)
112. Mohanta RK, Singhal KK, Tyagi AK, Rajput YS, Prasad S. Nutritional evaluation
oftransgenic cottonseed in the ration of lactating dairy cows. Trop Anim Health Prod.
2010 Mar;42(3):431-8. Epub 2009 Aug 24.
113. Sarkar B, Patra AK, Purakayastha TJ, Megharaj M. Assessment of biological and
biochemical indicators in soil under transgenic Bt and non-Bt cotton crop in a sub-
tropical environment. Environ Monit Assess. 2009 Sep;156(1-4):595-604. Epub 2008
Aug 22.
114. Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income,
nutrition, and health. (PDF)New Biotechnology Volume 27, Issue 5, 30 November 2010,
Pages 552-557
115. Chelsea, S., et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term
and multiuenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048
116. Maria C. Walsh, Stefan G. Buzoianul, Gillian E. Gardiner, Mary C. Rea, R. Paul
Ross, Joseph P. Cassidy and Peadar G. Lawlor. Effects of short-term feeding of Bt
MON810 maize on growth performance. organ morphology and function in pigs. British
Journal of Nutrition (2012), 107, 364-371 doi:10.1017/5000711451100301 1
117. McCallum EJ, Cunningham JP, Lucker J, Zalucki MP, De Voss JJ, Botella JR.
Increased plant volatile production affects oviposition, but not larval development, in the
moth Flelicoverpa armiuera. J Exp Biol. 2011 Nov 1;214(Pt 21):3672-7 PMID 21993797
118. Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Gardiner GE, Rea MC, Gelencser E, et al. (2011) Fate
of Transgenic DNA from Orally Administered Bt MON810 Maize and Effects on
Immune Response and Growth in Pius. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27177.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027177
119. Gao MQ, Hou SP, Pu DQ, Shi M, Ye GY, Chen XX. Multi-generation effects of
Bt rice on Anagrusnilapau_vatae, a parasitoid of the nontarget pest Nilapavartaluuens.
Environ Entomol. 2010 Dec;39(6):2039-44. PMID 22182572
120. Michaela Prischl, Evelyn Hackl, Milica Pastar, Stefan Pfeiffer, Angela Sessitsch,
Genetically modified Bt maize lines containinu cry 3Bb 1. cry 1 A 105 or cry l Ab2 do not
affect the structure and functioning of root-associated endophvte communities, Applied
Soil Ecology, Volume 54, March 2012, Pages 39-48, ISSN 0929-1393,
10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.12.005.
121. Olivier Sanvido, Jorg Romeis, Achim Gathmann, Marco Gielkens, Alan
Raybould, Franz Bigler, Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops:
ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making, Environmental Science &
Policy, Volume 15, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 82-91, ISSN 1462-9011,
10.1016/j.envsci.201 1.08.006.
122. Calla Fonseca, Sebastien Planchon, Jenny Renaut, Maria Margarida Oliveira, Rita
Batista, Characterization of maize allergens --MON8 I 0 vs. its non-transgenic
counterpart, Journal of Proteomics, Available online 13 January 2012, ISSN 1874-3919,
10.1016/].j prot.2012.01.005.
123. Ping-Li Dai, Wei Zhou, Jie Zhang, Hong-Juan Cui, Qiang Wang, Wei-Yu Jiang,
Ji-Hu Sun, Yan-Yan Wu, Ting Zhou, Field assessment of Bt cry Ah corn pollen on the
survival. development and behavior of Apis mellifera ligustica, Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety, Available online 23 February 2012, ISSN 0147-6513,
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.01.005.
124. Jaimie Schnell, He'le'ne Labbe',Nik Kovinich, Yuzuki Manabe, Brian Miki.
Comparability of imazapyr-resistant Arabidopsis created
by transgenesis and mutagenesis. Transgenic Res. 2012 DOI 10.1007/s11248-012-9597-z
125. Tian J-C, Chen Y, Li Z-L, Li K, Chen M, et al. (2012) Transgenic Cry I Ab Rice
Does Not Impact Ecological Fitness and Predation of a Generalist Spider. PLoS ONE
7(4): e35164. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035164
126. Cheeke TE, Rosenstiel TN, Cruzan MB. Evidence of Reduced Arbuscular
Mycorrhizal Fungal Colonization in Multiple Lines of Bt Maize. Am. J. Bot. April 2012
vol. 99 no. 4 700-707. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1100529
Fact Sheet about Food Safety Issues of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops
Dr. Susan C. Miyasaka, Agronomist
Dr. Russell Nagata, Plant Breeder
"Foods consumed today are derived from plants and animals whose genetic makeup
has been modified by sexual crosses and mutation. Recombinant DNA provides a new
tool to make genetic modifications, and this technology is termed genetic engineering
or biotechnology. (Lemaux, 2008)"
"The safety of genetically engineered crops and foods,just as those created by classical
breeding and mutation and grown conventionally or organically, needs to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis so that informed decisions can be made about their utility,
safety, and appropriateness. (Lemaux, 2008)"
What are the risks of eating transgenes? No negative effects on food safety have been found in
commercialized GE crops.
"To date, no scientifically valid demonstrations have shown that food safety issues of
foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients are greater than those from
conventionally or organically produced foods. (Lemaux, 2008)"
"Extensive risk assessment and safety testing of crops developed through the use of genetic
engineering has shown that there are no varieties in use that pose risks to consumers. (Wieczorek
and Wright, 2012)"
"No reproducible data has shown that transgene DNA from commercialized GE crops behave
differently than native plant DNA. (Lemaux, 2008)."
"It was concluded that the transgenic soybean diet had no negative effect on fetal, postnatal,
pubertal or adult testicular development [of mice]. (Brake and Evenson, 2004)"
Do GE foods have changes in nutritional content? No substantial differences in nutritional
content have been found between commercialized GE foods and non-GE foods.
Our data show that the contents of nutrients... of GE Rainbow papaya are within the range of
those of non-GE papaya and that the Rainbow cultivar is substantially similar to the non-GE
cultivar. (Tripathi and others, 2010)"
"The results [for Round-up Ready soybeans] demonstrated that the composition of these GE
lines is equivalent to that of conventional soybean cultivars in the form consumed by humans.
(Lemaux, 2008)"
Have allergens been introduced through GE? No allergens have been introduced through
commercialized GE crops, due to extensive food safety tests conducted prior to approval by
FDA.
1
"Although not mandatory, to date all companies marketing new GE foods have consulted with
the FDA and performed recommended analyses to determine if introduced proteins have
properties that indicate possible allergenicity, i.e., similarities to known allergens, small size,
slow digestibility, and/or high heat stability. (Lemaux, 2008)"
"Following accepted allergenicity assessment criteria, our results show that the transgene-
derived PRSV CP [Papaya Ring Spot Virus coat protein] does not pose a risk of food allergy.
(Fermin and others, 2011)."
"in recent years a variety of safety studies were conducted specifically on native Bt
proteins to show that they do not have characteristics of food allergens or toxins. (Lemaux,
2008)"
Can GE foods fed to animals result in transfer of transgenes to animals? DNA and proteins are
broken down in the digestive tract. There is no scientific evidence to date that shows that
transgenes or their products are transferred to animals fed GE foods or excreted from
animals fed GE foods.
"To date a large number of experimental studies with livestock have shown that rDNA
[recombinant DNA] fragments or proteins derived from GM plants have not been detected in
tissues, fluids or edible products of farm animals (Lemaux, 2008)."
Can GE foods increase antibiotic resistance in human and animal intestinal flora? There is no
scientific evidence to date that GE foods can transfer antibiotic resistance to gut bacteria.
And current research now allows the removal of selection genes (antibiotic resistance
genes) or marker genes (gus gene) from GE plants.
"To demonstrate the fate of transgene DNA in humans, the antibiotic resistance gene from GE
maize was shown not to transfer to gut bacteria in chickens fed GE maize. (Lemaux, 2008)"
Why doesn't the FDA require labeling of GE foods? The FDA does require labeling of GE
foods IF the product contains allergens and its source must be named.
"If a food contains a new, potentially allergy-causing introduced protein, the label must state that
the product contains the allergen and name its source. (Lemaux, 2008)."
Are there positive benefits of GE crops on food safety? Bt corn can be SAFER to eat than
non-GE corn, because of less damage due to corn earworms and lower infections of kernels
by fungi that contain mycotoxins.
"A positive aspect of safety regarding Bt corn is the lower levels of mycotoxins compared with
non-Bt corn. Mycotoxins are toxic and carcinogenic chemicals produced as secondary
metabolites of fungal colonization that occur as a result of insects such as the corn earworm
carrying the mycotoxin containing fungi that infest the kernels following wounding." (Lemaux,
2008)
2
References:
Brake, D.G. and D.P. Evenson. 2004. A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on
mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food and Chemical
Toxicology. 42:29-356.
Fermin, G., R.C. Keith, J.Y. Suzuki, S.A. Ferreira, D.A. Gaskill, K.Y. Pitz, R.M. Manshardt, D.
Gonsalves, and S. Tripathi. 2011. Allergenicity assessment of the Papaya Ringspot Virus coat
protein expressed in transgenic Rainbow papaya. J. Agr. Food Chem. 59:10006-10012.
l.,emaux, P. 2008. Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist's analysis of the issues
(Part I). Annu. Rev, Plant Biol. 59:771-812.
Tripathi, S., J.Y. Suzuki, J.B. Carr, G.T. McQuate, S.A. Ferreira, R.M. Manshardt, K.Y. Pitz,
M.M. Wall, and D. Gonsalves. 2011. Nutritional composition of Rainbow papaya, the first
commercialized transgenic fruit crop. J. Food Composition and Analysis. 24: 140-147.
Wieczorek, A . and M. Wright. 2012. History of Agricultural Biotechnology: How Crop
Development has Evolved. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):9.
http://www.naturc.com/scitable/knowledge/I ibrary/history-of-a«ricultural-biotechnoloey-how-
crop-development-25885295
3
Fact Sheet on Genetically Engineered Crops–Environmental Issues
Susan C. Miyasaka, Agronomist
Russell Nagata, Plant Breeder
"Genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods have been commercially available in the United
States since 1995 and their adoption around the world followed, showing increases each year
since their introduction. Whereas the majority of the acreage is in the United States, most
farmers who grow these crops reside outside the United States—more than 10 million of
the 12 million adopters are in developing countries. These GE crops created by recombinant
DNA (rDNA) have been overwhelmingly accepted by farmers, but some consumers remain
skeptical. (Lemaux, 2009)"
"[T]o date most GE crops on the market harbor Bt [Bacillus thuringensis] and/or HT [Herbicide
Tolerance] traits. (Lemaux, 2009)"
Can Federal Regulatory Agencies Stop Planting of Genetically Engineered Crops That Pose
Environmental Risks? Yes, the FDA, EPA, and USDA are the three federal agencies with
responsibilities to ensure that GE crops are safe for consumers and the environment.
"GE crops and products made from them are under regulatory control of three federal agencies:
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the EPA, and the USDA. The FDA is responsible for
food safety and labeling of foods and animal feeds from conventional and GE crops. The EPA
evaluates food safety and environmental issues associated with new pesticides and pesticidal
products, such as Bt corn and the pesticidal Bt product it contains. The EPA's charge also
includes GE plants in which a small part of a pest, such as a viral regulatory sequence (e.g., 35S
promoter), is used. A division of the USDA, APHIS, oversees environmental safety of planting
and field-testing GE plants to ensure GE crop field tests are performed under specified
conditions and any unusual occurrences are reported. All three agencies do not oversee each GE
crop; however, all have legal rights to demand immediate market removal of any product if valid
scientific data show safety concerns for consumers or the environment. (Lemaux, 2009)"
Will the Widespread Use of Bt Crops Lead to the Development of Insect Resistance to Bt? Yes,
insects have developed resistance to Bt toxins in GE crops, similar to the way that they
have developed resistance to Bt insecticides used by conventional and organic farmers.
"Bt toxins are also called Cry toxins because they exist as crystals inside the bacterium. Full
length Cry toxins are inactive until cleaved to generate their active form in the insect midgut
(236, 261)... The precision of Bt proteins for certain insects and their lack of effects in mammals
are due to the specificity of receptor binding (Lemaux, 2009)."
"The primary strategy in the field for delaying insect resistance to Bt crops is planting refuges of
non-Bt crops near Bt crops. Although the strategies implemented to delay resistance have helped
sustain efficacy of Bt crops longer than many scientists expected, field-evolved resistance to Bt
crops was reported recently. (Lemaux, 2009)"
1
Could GE crops harm non-target organisms, such as butterflies? Yes, in a laboratory study,
monarch butterfly caterpillars died when fed milkweed leaves dusted with GE corn pollen
containing high levels of Bt. No, in field studies, the EPA concluded that monarch
butterflies in and around Bt resistant corn fields were more threatened by widespread use
of Bt and other pesticides used in conventional and organic corn crops.
In a laboratory study, monarch butterflies died after eating milkweed leaves dusted with pollen
from a Bt corn (variety 176). That variety of Bt corn had high levels of Bt in pollen and it has
been withdrawn from the market. Other commercial varieties of Bt corn have low levels of Bt in
pollen. (Lemaux, 2009)
"After reviewing the data, the U.S. EPA concluded there was a very low probability of risk to
monarch butterflies beyond 12 feet from the Bt corn field. (Lemaux, 2009)"
"The EPA concluded from these studies that Bt corn was not a significant factor in field death of
monarch larvae,particularly relative to factors such as the widespread use of pesticides and
destruction of the butterfly's winter habitats (Lemaux, 2009)."
Could the Use of Herbicide-Tolerant (HT) Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops Lead to
`Superweeds'? Yes, herbicide-tolerant (HT)weeds could increase in HT GE cropping
systems, similar to other cropping systems that use herbicides. Yes, herbicide tolerant
weeds could also develop due to inter-breeding with HT GE crops, such as GE canola and
weedy wild relatives.
"Crop tolerance to herbicides is achieved (a) by mutations that render a plant not susceptible to
the herbicide or (b) through the introduction of transgenes. (Lemaux, 2009).
"[P]roblems with herbicide-resistant weeds are real, but not new. These problems have occurred
with traditionally bred crops, as well as with HT GE plants. (Lemaux, 2009)"
"But herbicide resistance is a problem for farmers regardless of whether they plant GM crops.
(Gilbert, 2003)"
"HT weeds can also arise because of outcrossing with HT GE crops... Canola, in particular,
can naturally form crop-wild hybrids. (Lemaux, 2009)"
Does the Use of Genetically Engineered Crops Result in Decreased Use of Pesticides? Yes, GE
crops have resulted in significant reductions in the global Environmental Impact (EI) of
pesticide applications.
Most Herbicide Tolerant (HT) GE crops are tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. "[G]lyphosate
use per acre has increased dramatically from 1995 to 2005, coupled with a concomitant dramatic
drop in the use of other herbicides [that were less environmentally friendly]. (Lemaux, 2009)"
"Cultivation of GE HT crops has also had other positive effects on the environment, i.e.,
increases in low- or no-till practices and use in combination with integrated pest management
2
schemes, which were made possible because early season pesticide sprays could be eliminated,
allowing beneficial insects to establish. (Lemaux, 2009)"
"In summary, numerous studies have been conducted on pesticide usage that analyzed different
data sets and methods, sometimes leading to conflicting conclusions. Some studies showed
pesticide use, expressed as AI [Active Ingredient] per unit area, decreased with introduction of
GE HT and Bt crops; some studies showed increases. More recently, studies have focused on EI
and these have shown reductions in El, including on farm workers, consumers, and ecology.
(Lemaux, 2009)"
"On balance, herbicide-resistant GM crops are less damaging to the environment than
conventional crops grown at industrial scale...GM crop technology delivered an 8.9%
improvement to the environmental impact quotient—a measure that considers factors such as
pesticide toxicity to wildlife (Gilbert, 2003)"
Could Genes From Genetically Engineered Plants Move to Bacteria in the Field? Perhaps, over
millennia.
"Transfer of genes among nonsexually related organisms, e.g., from plants to bacteria, is called
horizontal gene transfer...Recent sequence analyses of genes and proteins show that some genes
have transferred from plants to bacteria; however, this exchange occurred over a very long
evolutionary timeframe. (Lemaux, 2009)"
Is the Loss of Honeybees Due to Genetically Engineered Crops? No. Colony Collapse
Disorder is not due to GE crops, but may be related to exposure to pesticides and other
stresses, or lack of genetic diversity in honeybees. In Hawaii, introductions of varroa mites
and small hive beetles are responsible for declines in honeybees.
"In 2008 a meta-analysis of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on
honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to
control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee
larvae or adults. Thus there are no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect
damage to bees caused by currently approved GEcrops engineered to make Bt proteins.
(Lemaux, 2009)"
Could Accidental Movement of Transgenes Occur From Genetically Engineered Crops to Wild
Relatives or Non-Genetically Engineered Varieties? Perhaps. Gene flow from GE crops to
wild relatives or non-GE crops can occur, but it depends on the crop species. In the case of
commercially grown GE `Rainbow' papaya, self-pollination occurs, reducing the likelihood
to practically nil of accidental movement of transgenes to a non-GE self-pollinating variety.
"Pollen drift is a major, although not the only, conduit through which unwanted genes end up in
crops..."gene flow is not limited to GE varieties and its impact is dependent on the trait, not the
means by which the gene was created. (Lemaux, 2009)"
3
"Very low pollen drift (0.8%) was detected in fruit of`Kapoho' trees in the border row of one
plantation when 90 embryos were assayed per fruit, while no pollen drift was detected in four
other commercial plantings in which eight embryos were tested per fruit. (Gonsalves and others,
2012)."
"Generalizations about whether gene flow presents significant economic or environmental risks
cannot be made for either conventionally bred or GE crops; case-by-case evaluation is required.
Many major agricultural crops are sexually compatible with wild and/or weedy relatives, and, if
the plants grow in overlapping regions, crop-to-weed or crop-to-wild relative gene flow could
result. This outcrossing to wild populations can result in new combinations of genes that can
improve, harm, or have no effect on the fitness of recipient plants. (Lemaux, 2009)"
Have Transgenes moved from GE corn to Wild Relatives in Mexico? Perhaps; there are
conflicting reports. A more important question is whether this accidental movement of
transgenes has affected growth and fitness of Mexican corn? And there is no scientific
evidence to answer that question yet.
Quist (2001) showed that locally produced corn in Oaxaca, Mexico contained DNA segments
used in GE maize to promote gene expression. However, GM crops are not approved for
commercial production in Mexico. It's possible that local farmers planted seed from GM crops
imported from the United States and then pollen flow moved the transgenes to locally grown
corn varieties. (Gilbert, 2013)
Later researchers did not find evidence of transgene flow in corn from Oaxaca, Mexico and
Quist's (2001) study was criticized for technical deficiencies. Then, in 2009, Pineyro-Nelson
and others (2009) found the same transgenes as Quist from samples taken in Oaxaca and across
Mexico. (Gilbert, 2013)
What Happens When Pollen Moves from Genetically Engineered Crops to Organic Crops?
Accidental movement of transgenes from GE crops to organic crops will not result in loss
of accreditation.
Use of GE crop varieties in certified organic farming is specifically prohibited. "The presence of
detectable levels of GE material in a crop does not constitute a violation of National Organic
Program (NOP) regulations nor is it reason to lose accreditation, as long as the grower has not
intentionally planted GE seed and has taken reasonable steps to avoid cross pollination....The
USDA-NOP [National Organic Program] informed state agricultural departments that up to 2005
no organic farmer had lost organic certification because of AP of GE material. (Lemaux, 2009)"
"Some consumers, however, expect foods labeled as organic not to contain GE ingredients
and have zero tolerance for their presence. Achieving 100% purity for any agricultural
commodity is a practical impossibility given the nature of our food system, the reproductive
biology of plants, and the highly sensitive detection methods available to identify GE traits
(Lemaux, 2009).
4
Are Indian Farmers Committing Suicide due to GE crops? No, this is a false claim by
environmental activist Vandana Shiva.
"During an interview in March, Vandana Shiva, an environmental and feminist activist from
India, repeated an alarming statistic: "270,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since
Monsanto entered the Indian seed market," she said. "It's a genocide." (Gilbert, 2013)"
Researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC showed that
Ms. Shiva's claim is false, because the number of suicides among farmers between 1997 to 2007
did not change from around 20,000 per year over this 10-year period. (Gilbert, 2013)
Can Organic, Conventional and Genetically Engineered Cropping Systems Coexist? Yes,
organic, conventional, and GE cropping systems can co-exist, provided that strategies are
developed to allow ALL neighbors to farm in an economically viable way.
"Thus, coexistence strategies must be devised to allow both neighbors to farm in an
economically viable manner." These strategies could include buffer areas (Lemaux, 2009).
"One factor hampering coexistence is the demand for zero tolerance for GE presence. Achieving
100% purity with any biological system is impossible and would require a complete ban on
growing GE crops. (Lemaux, 2009)"
Can Use of Genetically Engineered Crops or Organic Farming Lead to More Sustainable
Agricultural Production Systems? Yes, GE plants can contribute towards a more sustainable
agriculture.
"Sustainability has no single meaning, but one accepted definition is to meet the basic needs of
today's inhabitants while preserving resources to enable future generations to flourish. (Lemaux,
2009)"
GE plants have the potential to: a) increase water use and fertilizer efficiencies; b) remediate soil
contaminants; c) increase no-till or low-till practices; d) to help reduce greenhouse gases; and e)
produce higher yields without increasing land usage, particularly in developing countries.
(Lemaux, 2009)
References:
Lemaux, P. 2009. Genetically engineered plants and foods: A Scientist's analysis of the issues
(Part II). Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 60:511-559.
Gilbert, N. 2013. Case Studies: A hard look at GM crops. Nature. 497:24-26.
http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907
Gonsalves, D., C. Gonsalves, J. Carr, S. Tripathi, T. Matsumoto, J. Suzuki, S. Ferreira, and K.
Pitz. Assaying for pollen drift from transgenic `Rainbow' to nontransgenic `Kapoho' papaya
under commercial and experimental field conditions in Hawaii. Trop. Plant Biol. 5:153-160.
5
Pineyro-Nelson, A. and others. 2009. Mol. Ecol. 18:750-761.
Quist, D. and I.H. Chapela. 2001. Nature. 414:541-543.
6
Exploring Coexistence:
Preliminary Best Management Practices
for Diverse Farming Practices
Report to the
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Submitted by
Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation
December 2006
Executive Summary
The Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation sponsored and hosted the Coexistence of Farming
Practices meetings, as mandated by the 2005 Hawaii State Legislature (Appendix 1). The
purpose of the meetings was to initiate discussions and identify common ground among
farmers in Hawaii who use conventional, organic, and biotech farming practices. A
diverse range of agricultural producers took part in these discussions, some of who
practice more than one method on their respective farms.
Participants engaged in a seven-meeting process in which they shared their practices and
learned about the regulations that affect agriculture. Participating farmers worked
together to create recommendations for best management practices (BMPs) on how to
farm using their method of choice without impeding the agricultural practices and
business of other farmers. The results of these discussions are detailed in this report.
The participants identified and categorized BMPs into three subject areas: Seed Supply,
Biological Drift Management and Chemical Contamination. A general structure was
developed within each of these areas, covering communication, education and
governance, as well as practices unique to each topic.
Improved Communication
• Communication between stakeholders is critical.
• Farmers can alleviate some problems by discussing agricultural practices with
neighbors.
• If voluntary neighbor communications are not effective, then reporting
agricultural practices to a third-party governing body will be necessary. The
third-party body may make information about these practices widely available.
Improved Education
• Good education about agricultural BMPs is essential.
• The educational needs of farmers vary greatly based on crop and operation size.
• Without education, liability for misconduct in agricultural production is a
significant concern that exacerbates potential disagreements among neighbors.
• Education must also include consumers and the general public.
Third-Party Governance
• Best management practices will only improve the agricultural industry if they are
enforced. A third-party body should be employed to encourage effective
communications, supply education, and mediate compliance with best
management practices.
The recommended best management practices were agreed to by all participants.
Participants were also given the opportunity to submit alternative BMPs if they felt their
views were not adequately represented by a recommended BMP. Alternative BMPs were
not discussed by or agreed to by the group.
2
Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation firmly believes that farmers must work together on
issues critical to the agriculture industry. The development of these recommended best
management practices is a first step in an ongoing dialogue about managing vital
resources with wisdom, respect for one another and commitment to future generations.
3
Umbrella Statement
The participants adopted a broad statement of purpose illustrating the goals they set to
achieve in this project.
We, the united farmers of Hawaii, understand that agriculture is not just a
career path; it is a necessity to humanity's existence and evolution. In this
spirit,we have come together to consider the status of local agriculture in the
context of current global circumstances.
Our intention is to make a statement of commitment to pono, responsible
agricultural practices that are aligned and in harmony with the needs and
desires of our varied individual farmers, humankind and the environment that
sustains us all. To that end, the true and lasting success for a farmer and his
community begins with responsible stewardship and respect for the land; the
aina.
Our commitment to responsible respect for each other and the land will result
in clean water, clean air,viable soil and environmental health while providing
healthy, nutritious food. Through our ecological sensitivity and mutual
respect will grow sustainable, economic success for individual farmers and
health for our communities and state now and into the future.
Agricultural collaboration starts with us,but ends with humanity.
Framework for the Best Management Practices (BMPs)
After significant discussion, the group agreed on a framework to guide the development
of best management practices. The framework includes:
• The achievement of a balance wherein farmers may engage in any farming
practice or farming culture with minimum incursion, influence or detriment to and
from other farming practices;
• The establishment and continuation of a methodology for addressing new issues
and solutions in order to maintain this balance;
• The recognition that all farmers of all farming cultures require and deserve equal
opportunity to technology, legislation, education and funding that enhances their
economic stability; and
• That State institutions understand and recognize the need for equal opportunity of
all farming cultures in their deliberations, procedures and enactments.
4
Best Management Practices
Topic 01: Seed Supply
Rationale
General crop production practices for all seed crops -- including the growing, harvesting,
processing, transport and use of storage equipment-- are possible points of seed
contamination or co-mingling. All seed producers need to practice good crop husbandry,
follow strict cleaning procedures, and maintain accurate records to avoid inadvertent
contamination or co-mingling of seed crops.
Maintaining high levels of seed varietal purity and biodiversity is vital as many sources
of seed have diminished over the years. Identifying BMPs for preserving the integrity of
these seed banks and germplasm repositories is important for all growers.
Varietal integrity is essential to marketing and industry expansion. New, unique varieties
appeal to consumers who might not have appreciated a crop before, thereby expanding
the market. Variety selection is essential to ensure suitability of various crops to
Hawaii's different microclimates and soil conditions. Well adapted varieties lead to
better food security. Farmers need increased availability for distinct varieties obtained
from seed producers and from careful and thoughtful on-farm seed selection. Farmers
need best management practices that ensure new plantings will be of the intended variety
through knowledge of genetics and pollen flow in their neighborhood.
Food producers in Hawaii include the whole range between commercial agricultural
producers and subsistence farmers. Farmers have a traditional right to save and collect
nonpatented seed from their growing environment. In this way, crop seeds or plants
available in the farmers' growing regions are included in their seed supply. Farmers can
engage in plant and seed selection as appropriate to their crop and region. The group
continues to grapple with questions about where the responsibility and resources for
preserving seed purity rest. For example, local seed stock that remains free of unintended
patented or foreign genes is a challenging issue. At the same time,plant breeders have
the legal right to create and sell patented seed.
There also continues to be challenging issues in the area of defining seed purity. The
group discussed recommendations for supporting the integrity of existing, locally adapted
seed stock. We support efforts by all parties to ensure that locally available seed stock
remains pure. Many group members defined purity as that which is a reasonable goal in
an agricultural seed production environment, recognizing that 100% purity, or"zero"
presence of any unintended, unspecified, or non-targeted material, is scientifically
impossible. However, other group members recognize that both certification and market
requirements affecting organic and other international markets demand zero tolerance,
thereby creating the potential for economic and market losses.
5
01.01 Seed Supply—Governance
Form a review board of stakeholders with equal representation by conventional,
organic and biotech farmers. The review board will meet quarterly or as
necessary to:
• Develop seed production protocols to protect important Hawaii crops (i.e.
coffee, banana, etc.).
• Track trends and issues in conventional, organic and biotech crop
developments and regulatory changes that may impact Hawaii growers'
efforts to maintain seed purity protection practices.
• Review crops to provide data, information, agricultural practices and
market concerns for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) to
consider in developing Hawaii performance standards for future
biotechnology permits.
• Mediate and recommend solutions between growers prior to planting
sexually compatible crops.
01.02 Seed Supply—Information Access
The Hawaii Department of Agriculture currently hosts a biotech information
portal with links to all sides of the issue that can provide information for grower
discussions.
01.03 Seed Supply - Communication
Prior to planting a crop of the same species or a crop that is sexually compatible,
growers should inform and consult with neighboring growers and commodity
groups within the pollen and seed transfer ranges.
01.04 Seed Supply—Separation Practices
All seed producers must separate conventional, organic and biotech crops at all
known points of possible co-mingling (see appendix 2 for table of Points of
Vulnerability in the Seed Production Process), and monitor field workers as
possible pollen and seed transporters.
01.05 Seed Supply—Advocacy
Advocate for resources dedicated to research on organic methodology and on seed
production that promotes organic and conventional breeding of seed.
6
Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Jason Moniz [jasonmoniz73 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:00 AM
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Testimony bill 79
Attachments: July 2 Testimony Bill 79 Jason Moniz.docx
Please accept my written testimony in opposition of Bill 79.
JASON D. MONIZ, D.V.M.
(808) 960-8409
7/1/2013
My name is Jason Moniz, I'm president of the 42 member
Hamakua Farm Bureau, a beef cattle rancher, member of the Hawaii
Cattlemen' s Council and a veterinarian who has worked with
livestock producers for the past 32 years .
I continue to be strongly opposed to Bill 79 . My
position has not changed as Bill 79 as amended continues to
state that GM crops threaten our agricultural heritage, our
environment and our public health. Council members, we are
multigenerational farmers and ranchers of Hawaii and we are
Hawaii' s agriculture heritage . We care for the environment we
farm and ranch in and we strive every day to produce safe
wholesome food. As advancements in technology are made and are
approved by the USDA, FDA and EPA for all American Farmers, we
expect to have the same rights as other farmers and ranchers
elsewhere in the State and the US . Bill 79 proposes to take
those rights away from us .
Specific issues I have with Bill 79 are :
1 . Bill 79 continues to claim transgenic crops as harmful
to health and the environment .
2 . Bill 79 prohibits the current and future production
and use of certain deregulated crops which are
available to other farmers and livestock producers
throughout the US and State of Hawaii .
3 . Bill 79 adds significant regulation, financial burden,
requires signage that taints, stigmatizes and targets
users for protest and agroterroism.
4 . Bill 79 proposes draconian enforcement and promotes
litigation towards farmers and the County.
One third of the States agriculture farm gate value is
produced in Hawaii County. Thirteen percent (13%) of that
production comes from organic farmed products, coffee and taro
which are required to or have chosen to produce GMO free. That
is their requirement or choice and we respect that . Nothing we
argue for or against with this Bill threatens to change that .
Livestock, aquaculture, flowers, banana and papaya combined
account for 63% of the County' s farm gate value . You have heard
from all of us that the continued use of transgenic tools and
feed is critical for production of our commodities . You have
also heard that it is very important that transgenic technology
Seed Supply Alternative#1
Rationale
Coexistence between genetically modified organisms (GMO) and non-GMO crops is not
biologically possible. While seed producers can attempt to avoid inadvertent
contamination of their seed crops, it has proven impossible to keep contamination from
occurring in the agricultural communities. Of the major deregulated GMO crops in the
United States (corn, soy, cotton and canola), all have shown contamination, or
adventitious presence, in the seed supply of conventional and organic counterparts. In
August 2006, in the midwestern US, long grain rice crops were shown to be contaminated
with a GMO rice, LLRICE601. This rice was not deregulated by the USDA until
November 24, 2006. This rice was never planted commercially, yet the contamination
was widespread. The USDA's actions on this incident were unprecedented. They have
implemented "approval by contamination", an after-the-fact approval. Due to lost
markets, rice farmers in six states have filed class action lawsuits against Bayer Crop
Science, the developer and patent holder of LLRICE601.
01.01 Seed Supply - Governance
Form a review board of stakeholders with equal representation by organic,
conventional, and biotech farmers. Also included will be the Department of
Health and an ecologist. The review board will meet quarterly or as necessary to:
• Make recommendations to the HDOA on introductions of new GMO
agricultural crops in the State of Hawaii. This would include the possibility of
prohibiting the planting of certain crops in order to protect Hawaii food crops
that are at risk of contamination. The prohibition would also include field
trials of these important crops. (See above paragraph describing rice
contamination which most likely occurred from field trials.)
• Work with growers organizations to achieve consensus on whether to
introduce a new GMO crop into our Hawaiian growing environment.
• Make available to farmers information from around the globe on GMO
contamination, market loss, testing costs, loss of seed lines, and loss of choice
when their industry is considering an introduction of a GMO crop into our
state.
01.03 Seed Supply—Communication
As pollen and seeds are unable to follow communication guidelines, and farmers
cannot completely control them, the best practice to prevent unintended GMO
contamination is to not plant any GMO versions of agricultural crops in our
islands. It is not sound science to expect farmer—to-farmer discussions to prevent
pollen flow, and due to the normal constraints of farming(weather, labor and
timing), it is not always possible to have these important discussions.
7
01.04 Seed Supply— Separation Practices
• As the recent examples of the unintended GMO contamination of long rice
and bent grass have shown, separation practices cannot prevent gene flow.
The best practice to prevent seeds of important Hawaii crops from being
contaminated is to not grow GMO crops outside of the greenhouse.
• All growers of GMO crops must notify conventional and organic producers in
their area of intent to grow these crops, possibly through their local
cooperative extension agents.
8
Seed Supply Alternative #2
01.01 Seed Supply—Governance
A coexistence advisory panel with equal representation by conventional, organic
and biotech farmers and a trained USDA certified mediator should be established.
The advisory panel may meet quarterly or as necessary to:
• Develop commercial or professional seed production guidelines and
recommendations to protect important Hawaii crops (i.e. coffee, banana, etc.).
• Track trends and issues in conventional, organic and biotech crop
developments and regulatory changes that may impact Hawaii growers'
efforts to maintain seed purity protection practices.
• The coexistence panel may choose to work with or partner with commodity
groups or professional trade associations to further develop and explore these
and future BMPs.
• This coexistence advisory panel should be tasked with facilitating better
education and communication between commercial and professional growers.
01.02 Seed Supply—Information Access
The HDOA is encouraged to provide increased education and assistance to
interested parties seeking information regarding access to all seed sources.
01.03 Seed Supply—Communication
Prior to planting a sexually compatible crop, growers should make every effort to
inform and consult with neighboring growers and commodity groups in an effort
to minimize potential biological drift.
01.04 Seed Supply—Separation Practices
All seed producers are encouraged to separate conventional, organic and biotech
crops at all known points of possible seed co-mingling or pollen movement.
01.05 Seed Supply—Advocacy
Not relevant to Best Management Practices.
9
Topic 02: Biological Drift Management
Rationale
The group determined that there are three main biological drift categories: biological
drift associated with pollen, pathogens and insects.
Pollen drift is a biological issue when sexually compatible species with divergent genetic
backgrounds are planted in a proximity that makes their unintended mating a possibility.
An important example in Hawaii would be between genetically modified (GM) and non-
GM crops like papaya and corn. There are also other pollen drift issues exclusive of GM
crops associated with seed and crop purity.
The other biological drift categories include pathogen and insect drift. This could be an
issue between neighboring farmers when pathogens or insects from a farmer's crop also
impact their neighbors in a negative manner.
In an effort to alleviate the current issues associated with biological drift, it is
recommended that farmers use measures to enable them to use the cultivation method of
their choice without impacting their neighbors. These measures should be robust and
broad enough to handle future issues that may develop in the agricultural sector of
Hawaii.
The following recommendations are just a starting point. The committee believes that
there are specific areas that need to be addressed on a crop-by-crop basis by appropriate
experts from the agricultural community in Hawaii to establish a set of standards for each
crop and a long-term environment for coexistence.
Specific issues to address:
1. Pollen: GMO and non-GMO crops
2. Pollen, Pathogen, Insect: seed/crop purity
3. Pollen, Pathogen, Insect: Hawaii-specific environment/wind
4. Pollen, Pathogen, Insect: Insect pollinators, and byproducts like honey
5. Address the changing landscape of agriculture in Hawaii over time:
water/land/resources
6. Other issues may be identified in future conversations.
02.01 Biological Drift—Communication
Communication between stakeholders is critical. We recommend that
neighboring farmers communicate with each other about their cultivation methods
and crops so that any potential issues can be addressed before they become a
problem. If for some reason this is not possible, perhaps a third part organization
(like the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation) could facilitate communications. These
10
communications are critical to the development of appropriate measures to ensure
the needs of each farmer.
02.02 Biological Drift- Development of Appropriate Separation Schemes
Crops may be separated to prevent cross-pollination. These separation schemes
are based on the biology of each crop, and include scientifically determined
separation distances, planting sexually compatible species at different times
(temporal separation), and using crop-specific methods to control flowering and
pollen release. Farmers can work with university researchers and other experts to
develop crop-specific needs to address on-farm issues. This BMP applies to large
and small-scale farms (inclusive of community and urban garden centers), and
ultimately enables farmers to produce marketable crops.
02.03 Biological Drift- Agricultural Practices
Farmers should be aware of agricultural practices that prevent cross-
contamination. In addition to the separation schemes described in Section 02.02,
education should be provided to ensure that farmers are aware of specific needs to
control volunteers and other post-harvest measures that are required for their
production methods. Farmers should also use integrated pest management(IPM)
methodologies within all farming methods to control negative and positive insect
populations. Farmers should also practice good agricultural methods to minimize
weeds so that pathogens and insects do not prosper in surrounding non-cropping
areas.
02.04 Biological Drift—Governance
Should issues arise between farmers, a"CoExistence Board" made up of experts
from the University of Hawaii, HDOA, USDA, and EPA should be formed to
govern over disagreements. Organic, conventional and biotech farmers would
serve on this board to deal with issues that have no other means of solution.
11
Biological Drift Management Alternative#1
Rationale
USDA APHIS recognizes, and has expressed numerous times, that deregulated (legal to
plant) GMO crops will eventually cross-contaminate their conventional and organic
counterparts. They are not concerned with the development of appropriate separation
schemes for deregulated crops. To most organic and conventional farmers, this is not
seen as regulation or protection of their crops.
It is questionable whether it is possible for the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation to do an
objective job of facilitating and preparing any communication as it is constrained by its
membership in the American Farm Bureau Federation. AFBF sets strong guidelines for
their member states. In 2002, the Kona County chapter of the Farm Bureau, in their
solidarity with the Kona Coffee industry, tried to support a moratorium on GMO coffee
in Hawaii County and was forced to withdraw its support, as it was not in line with
national guidelines.
02.01 Biological Drift- Communication
Facilitation of communication will not control the movement of pollen and seeds
in our agricultural environment. It is not sound science to expect farmer-to-
farmer discussions to prevent pollen flow. The best practice to prevent transgenes
from drifting is to not plant them in our islands until it can be proven that the
inevitable contamination will cause no economic, environmental or health harm.
02.02 Biological Drift—Development of Appropriate Separation Schemes
The HDOA withhold concurrency on field trials or notifications of any crop that
can cross with an existing agricultural industry or food crop in Hawaii. This will
prevent accidental contamination from occurring.
02.03 Biological Drift—Agricultural Practices
Farmers must be educated about the risks and benefits of planting GMO crops in
Hawaii.
02.04 Biological Drift—Governance
Create a statewide roundtable of stakeholders which would include GMO,
conventional and organic farmers, a representative from the Department of
Health, an ecologist, a representative from the Agriculture and Environment
committees of both the Hawaii State House and Senate, and a representative from
the Environmental Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
12
This roundtable would look at:
1. An analysis of the health, environmental, economic and cultural risks and
benefits associated with the growing of GMO and non-GMO agricultural
crops in the state.
2. How the State can protect farmers who choose not to grow GMO crops.
3. Create a working plan to protect the seed supply of conventional, organic and
GMO farmers and home gardeners. This will contribute to Hawaii's food
security and future agriculture sustainability.
13
Biological Drift Management Alternative#2
02.01 Biological Drift—Communication
Communication between stakeholders is critical. It is recommended that
neighboring farmers communicate with each other about their cultivation
methods, utilization of BMPs and crops so that any potential issues can be
addressed. If for some reason this is not possible, perhaps a third party
organization (like the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation) or the USDA certified
mediation board could facilitate communications. This panel believes
communication is a critical component to ensure successful coexistence among
Hawaii's diverse agricultural sectors.
02.02 Biological Drift—Development of Appropriate Separation Schemes
Crops may be separated to prevent cross-pollination. Separation of crops is
routinely based on the biology of each crop, and traditionally includes
scientifically determined (geographic isolation) separation distances, planting
sexually compatible species at different times (temporal separation), and the use
of other crop-specific methods to control flowering and pollen release.
Commercial and professional farmers, or farm managers, are encouraged work
with credible and identifiable experts and other resources (i.e., university
researchers and other experts)to develop crop-specific recommendations and
guidelines that address on-farm issues. The coexistence advisory panel, or similar
entity as previously proposed and discussed, in conjunction with organizations
such as the University of Hawaii CTAHR and the Hawaii Farm Bureau
Federation is encouraged to identify and make available to both public and private
interests, "links" or contact information to organizations, and other resources that
may provide additional guidance in these areas.
02.03 Biological Drift—Agricultural Practices
Farmers should be aware of agricultural practices that prevent unintended pollen
movement. This panel recommends increased education and resources be
provided by the HDOA, UH CTAHR and other appropriate resources so that
professional and commercial farmers and/or farm operators are better aware of
specific tools and options that best manage, and/or minimize potential for
unintended pollen movement. Farmers are encouraged to use integrated pest
management (1PM) methodologies, including judicious use of chemicals, within
all farming methods to control negative and positive weed and insect populations.
Farmers should also practice good agricultural methods to minimize weeds so that
pathogens and insects do not prosper in surrounding non-cropping areas.
14
02.04 Biological Drift—Governance
Unresolved conflicts or concerns among professional and/or commercial farmers
and farm operators may be brought before the coexistence panel, or appropriate
other entities, for further mediated discussion. This conflict-resolution process
shall be limited to matters where economic interests are quantifiable and/or
concerned.
15
Topic 03: Chemical Contamination
Rationale
The use of agricultural chemicals should be incorporated with other sound management
practices. Farmers should choose methods that will manage pests (insects, weeds, plant
diseases and vertebrates) cost-effectively while causing the least possible harm to people
and the environment. Accurate pest identification and knowledge of biological
developmental processes and behaviors are critical to effective control. To control pests
with chemicals, users are required by law to comply with all the instructions and
directions supplied by the manufacturer.
A primary aim of applicators of agricultural chemicals should be to minimize the
possibility of spray drift as much as possible, and to apply the chemicals in the most
efficient and effective manner. Both of these aims are met when applicators use
principles of`good agricultural practice' to maximize the amount of chemical reaching
the target (intended site of application) and to minimize the amount of chemical being
wasted on `non-target' sites. For assistance in developing a Chemical Contamination
BMP contact your local CTAHR Extension Agent, USDA/NRCS, or the HDOA.
The application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers can spread (by air and in ground
water) past the targeted area into neighboring areas. Excessive or unintended application
of chemicals can cause harm to people, animals, beneficial insects and the environment.
In order to minimize risk to others, farmers who use chemical pesticides and fertilizers
should (1) communicate with their neighbors, (2) accurately map their farms, (3) use
integrated pest management (IPM) methodologies and follow approved methods of
chemical application, and (4) endure the consequences of not following the above
guidelines. The main chemical contamination issues addressed in this BMP are chemical
drift(by air) and runoff mitigation (in ground water).
03.01 Chemical Drift
03.01.01 Chemical Drift—Communication
Farmers should agree upon a chemical application schedule with their
neighbors. In the event that first-party communication with neighbors
is not effective, farmers may need to report their chemical application
schedules with a third-party governing agency, such as the EPA or the
DOA pesticide branch. Farmers who do not communicate chemical
application schedules with neighbors or a governing agency, and cause
chemical disturbance to neighbors, may be liable for damages (see
03.01.04—Liability and Consequences).
16
03.01.02 Chemical Drift—Farm Mapping
Accidental chemical drift can be avoided with knowledge of the areas
surrounding the farm. Farmers should identify their property
boundaries (e.g. crop fields, orchards, pastures, buildings, roads,
uncultivated areas, windbreaks, hedgerows, ponds, streams, drainage
ditches, dirt roads, and paved areas). Farmers should identify sensitive
areas (e.g. houses, schools, wildlife, sensitive crops, etc) surrounding
their property, and avoid chemical application where drift into these
sensitive areas can occur.
03.01.03 Chemical Drift -Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Chemical
Application
Controlling pests can be done by using IPM practices, a
comprehensive approach to controlling insects, weeds, and plant
pathogens. Windbreaks can be used around areas where chemicals are
applied. A 300-foot buffer next to sensitive areas should be
maintained. Farmers should properly calibrate chemical application
equipment to avoid over-spraying. Farmers can also use low-drift
nozzles and/or lower pressure on chemical spray equipment to limit
drift. Farmers should also apply pesticide during light wind and lower
temperatures, and avoid application when bees are pollinating to avoid
accidental drift.
03.01.04 Chemical Contamination—Liability and Consequences
In the event that farmers do not try (1) to communicate and agree upon
an appropriate chemical application time with neighbors, (2) to
identify and avoid chemical application around sensitive areas
surrounding their property, and (3) to use agricultural practices to
avoid excessive chemical application,they may be liable for chemical
contamination of neighboring areas. Neighbors can initiate recourse
by contacting the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) at 1-
800-858-7378 or http://npic.orst.edu. Organic growers can notify the
HOFA Certification Coordinator or office as soon as the grower is
aware of prohibited material drift onto certified acreage.
03.02 Runoff Mitigation
03.02.01 Runoff Mitigation—Communication
Runoff can result in contamination of common water supplies, and can
affect the quality of drinking water, well or rainwater catchments
systems, septic tanks and cesspools, underground or above ground
storage tanks (containing oil, diesel fuel, gasoline), stockpiles of
17
animal waste, storage of chemicals, and maintenance shops. Farmers
should use Best Land Management Practices to minimize chemical
runoff into common water supplies. Farmers should develop a
pollution risk assessment plan for the following agricultural properties:
land, nutrients, pests, irrigation, livestock and pastures. Farmers
should also have a plan for the storage and disposal plan for chemicals
and fuel. Farmers should work with the National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD), and the University of Hawaii CTAHR to develop a
conservation plan that effectively protects the agricultural properties
mentioned above.
03.02.02 Runoff Mitigation—Farm Mapping
By mapping farm property, farmers can minimize applying chemicals
that will affect neighboring areas by water runoff. Because water
flows naturally from a higher area to lower-lying areas, mapping
properties is essential to ensure that chemical application will not
affect surrounding areas.
03.02.03 Runoff Mitigation—Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and
Chemical Application
Farmers can employ agricultural practices to reduce the need for
chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and therefore minimize chemical
runoff. Farmers can rotate crops, use no-till practices, use crop covers,
and use soil analysis to maintain a balance of minerals and elements.
Farmers can also use compost to increase organic matter in the soil to
reduce soil compaction and leaching, and use contour strips and
windbreaks as buffers.
03.02.04 Runoff Mitigation—Liability and Consequences
Farmers who do not use the above methods to communicate with their
neighbors, map their farms to avoid unnecessary or over-spraying that
can spread to neighboring farms, and use integrated pest management
to best control agricultural challenges may be liable for unintentional
or irresponsible spread of chemicals to neighboring areas. Neighbors
can initiate recourse as stated in 03.01.04.
18
Recommended Next Steps
This committee believes continued discussion, education and partnership in developing
recommendations, guidelines and BMPs are necessary to ensure successful diversity
within Hawaii's professional and commercial agricultural community. It is further
anticipated that these recommendations and agreed-upon principles also benefit many
others who are not economically invested or dependent upon commercial crop
production. Therefore, this committee recommends the following:
• Continued support and investment in an ongoing coexistence committee, as
defined and described previously, that is tasked with identifying areas of concern
to professional agriculture farmers and farm operators, and issuing as guidelines
and recommendations that may best maximize opportunity and benefit
commercial growers, while minimizing potential conflict.
• A committee begins negotiation with possible third-party resources (i.e., UH
CTAHR, HDOA, HDOH, USDA, HOFA, HFBF) to implement agreed-upon
recommendations.
• Establish timetable, criteria and scope for continued agricultural industry
discussion on next set of BMPs. Topics to include, but not be exclusive to:
o Address farmer-to-citizen relations issue (community neighbors, not just
farmer neighbors).
o Address the issue of preserving the traditional seed supply.
o Review prioritized list of topics for additional BMPs and develop
resources and time-table to address them.
o Evaluate impact of BMPs and lessons learned from application of BMPs
to inform future practice.
o Conduct a full and candid discussion about liability.
o Provide significant educational opportunities for
individual/backyard/home gardeners to become aware of variety
preservation and chemical usage.
o Seek understanding of the role, responsibilities and membership of the
Institutional Biosafety Committee at UH Manoa as they pertain to
agricultural concerns.
o Continue to explore ways to utilize traditional local agricultural practices
to inform the development of future BMPs.
19
Appendix 1 —Hawaii State Legislation
THE SENATE 208
TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, S • C • R • N O ■ S.D. 1
2005
STATE OF HAWAII H.D. 1
SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION
urging the legislature and administration to
support and encourage Hawaii ' s AGRICULTURal
community' s efforts toward successful co-
existence among its sectors and to recognize the
economic, human, and environmental benefits of
such co-existence in a diversified agriculture
industry.
WHEREAS, agriculture is Hawaii ' s second-largest export
industry and one of the largest contributors to the State ' s
economic health; and
WHEREAS, the long-term prosperity of Hawaii ' s agricultural
community depends significantly upon diversity in research,
production, and farming practices; and
WHEREAS, Hawaii ' s agriculture industry continues to evolve
and expand, occupying vacant agricultural lands and
providing employment in rural Hawaii; and
20
WHEREAS, having diversification in Hawaii ' s agriculture
industry -- including organic, conventional, and biotech
farming and agricultural research -- is generating
significant opportunities for economic growth in both
export and import markets; and
WHEREAS, successful diversification mandates that farmers
be given the opportunity to choose which farming practices
will best ensure the most productive use of their resources
to reach their target markets in accordance with their
personal preferences; and
WHEREAS, the long-term development of diversified,
sustainable tropical and subtropical agriculture in Hawaii
and elsewhere requires the continuing advancement of
technological and scientific knowledge to achieve the best
farming practices in all sectors of agriculture; and
WHEREAS, such knowledge and cooperation within Hawaii ' s
papaya industry resulted in an identity preservation
protocol with the Department of Agriculture that allowed
more than eight hundred acres of non-transgenic papaya to
coexist next to transgenic papaya and to meet certification
requirements in the Japanese marketplace; and
WHEREAS, having public and private research, and the
transfer of knowledge and technology in many new areas of
agriculture, have and will continue to provide substantial
benefits to human health and the environment and are
therefore critical to the well being of Hawaii ' s people, as
well as to billions of others in developing nations around
the world; and
WHEREAS, organizations such as the College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources of the University of
Hawaii, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center, Maui County Farm Bureau,
Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, and genetically
modified organism free, organic, and conventional farmers
are seeking to establish a broad-based dialogue on
agricultural biotech as a result of community interest in
agricultural research; and
WHEREAS, the benefits to the State ' s economy, human health,
and environment derived from a diversified agriculture
industry and knowledge-based agriculture research and
21
technologies are of interest to all Hawaii ' s people; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-third
Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2005, the House of Representatives concurring, that the
Legislature: supports the agricultural community' s efforts
to promote choice of farming methods, practices, and crops;
recognizes the economic value to the State of a diversified
agricultural industry supported by mutually supportive co-
existence among its sectors; and appreciates the value and
importance of agricultural research for the benefit not
only of Hawaii ' s farming community, but to farmers and
peoples around the world; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Agriculture
and the various and diverse agricultural interests,
parties, producers, and agricultural stakeholders in Hawaii
are requested to establish a dialogue and process to
develop a framework of successful co-existence, with the
goal of mutual success and prosperity for agricultural
producers including organic, conventional, and
biotechnology; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this dialogue be founded in
fact and demonstrable science and that it result in a
report to the Legislature and appropriate agencies about
best practices and management plans to ensure success and
co-existence among Hawaii ' s diverse agricultural interests;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the agricultural community is
strongly encouraged to participate in community dialogues
and communicate with the greater community on issues
relating to agriculture; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Departments of Agriculture
and Business, Economic Development, and Tourism and the
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources of the
University of Hawaii, whenever possible, are requested to
assist and facilitate this process; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hawaii Farm Bureau
Federation is requested to bring the stakeholders together
in a meaningful process toward co-existence and report its
findings and recommendations, based upon its meetings with
stakeholders, to the Department of Agriculture; and
22
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, after the Hawaii Farm Bureau
Federation reports its findings and recommendations, the
Department of Agriculture is requested to hold a public
meeting to allow the public an opportunity to comment on
the findings and recommendations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Agriculture
is requested to report to the Legislature about best
practices and management plans to ensure success and co-
existence among Hawaii ' s diverse agricultural interests;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Agriculture
is requested to report its findings and recommendations,
including any proposed legislation, to the Legislature no
later than twenty days prior to the convening of the
Regular Session of 2006; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this
Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the Governor, the
Chairperson of the Board of Agriculture, the Director of
Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, the Dean of
the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources of
the University of Hawaii, the Hawaii Agriculture Research
Center, the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, the Hawaii
Organic Farmers Association, and the Hawaii Crop
Improvement Association.
Report Title :
Diversified Ag Industry
23
Appendix 2 —
Table 4-3 Points of Vulnerability in the Seed Production Process
VARIETY DEVELOPMENT Discarding seed of varieties that are •Spraying
Seed packaging and preparation not ❑ Field testing on land rented from
❑ Spillage productive farmers
❑ Seed mixing ❑ Seed may be mixed with other •Farmers could accidentally harvest
❑ Mislabeling of seed varieties test plots
Planting breeding nursery ❑ Seed may accidentally grow •Seed may be spilled
Maintaining crop (resulting ❑ Pollen movement
❑ Cultivating in pollen movement) ❑ Harvest
❑ Spraying TRANSFORMATION •Cleanout of machine used for
Making controlled pollinations Bombardment harvesting
❑ Pollinations made by hand Regeneration •Disposal of harvested seed
❑ Pollinations made by wind Maturation ❑ Volunteer plants emerge the
❑ Pollen movement ❑ Pollen movement following year
Harvesting breeding nursery ❑ Physical mixing Discarding seed of varieties that are
❑ Seed on plants not harvested BACKCROSSING not productive
❑ Disposal of unwanted grain Seed packaging and preparation ❑ Seed may be mixed with other
❑ Disposal of unwanted plants ❑ Spillage varieties
❑ Cleanout of machine used for ❑ Seed mixing ❑ Seed may accidentally grow
gleaning field ❑ Mislabeling of seed (resulting
❑ Disposal of seed gleaned from Planting breeding nursery in pollen movement)
field Maintaining crop BREEDER SEED PRODUCTION
❑ Spilled grain ❑ Cultivating Seed packaging and preparation
❑ Volunteer plants emerge in field ❑ Spraying Planting breeding nursery
the Making controlled pollinations Maintaining crop
following year ❑ Pollinations made by hand Making controlled pollinations
Transporting grain to shelling facility ❑ Pollinations made by wind Harvesting breeding nursery
Shelling/threshing and seed ❑ Pollen movement Transporting grain to shelling facility
processing Harvesting breeding nursery Shelling/threshing
❑ Accidental mixing of seed ❑ Seed on plants not harvested Seed processing and conditioning
❑ Mixing during shelling ❑ Disposal of unwanted grain FOUNDATION SEED PRODUCTION
❑ Mislabeling of seed during seed ❑ Disposal of unwanted plants Seed packaging
processing ❑ Cleanout of machine used for Seed planting
❑ Improper discarding of seed gleaning field Crop maintenance
Field testing of new varieties ❑ Disposal of seed gleaned from Pollen movement
❑ Seed packaging and preparation field Harvest
❑ Planting field test ❑ Spilled grain Transportation
❑ Crop maintenance ❑ Volunteer plants emerge in field Drying
•Cultivating the Shelling
•Spraying following year Conditioning
❑ Field testing on land rented from Transporting grain to shelling facility Storage
farmers Shelling/threshing and seed COMMERCIAL SEED PRODUCTION
•Farmers could accidentally harvest processing Seed packaging
test plots ❑ Accidental mixing of seed Seed planting
•Seed may be spilled ❑ Mixing during shelling Crop maintenance
❑ Pollen movement ❑ Mislabeling of seed during seed Pollen movement
❑ Harvest processing Harvest
•Cleanout of machine used for ❑ Improper discarding of seed Transportation
harvesting Field testing new varieties Drying
•Disposal of harvested seed ❑ Seed packaging and preparation Shelling
❑ Volunteer plants emerge the ❑ Planting field test Conditioning
following year ❑ Crop maintenance Storage
•Cultivating
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists;
www.ucsusa.orq/food and environment/genetic engineering/pharmaceutical-and-industrial-
crops-a-growing-concern.html; c. December 15, 2005.
24
Appendix 3 - Meeting Synopsis
Phase 1 - September 9, 2005, Plant Quarantine Station, Honolulu
Farmers using organic, conventional, and biotech methods convened to share detailed
information about each type of farming. The six specific topics discussed included (1)
the definition of each of the three growing methods, (2) challenges of each method, (3)
benefits of each method, (4) marketing and business challenges of each method, (5)
marketing and business benefits of each method, and (6) marketing projections for each
method. Each of the six conversations ended by identifying the common ground shared
by farmers of all methods. Farmers were able to meet face-to-face and initiate a more
trust-based working relationship.
Phase 2 - October 27, 2005, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
(CTAHR), University of Hawaii —Manoa (UHM), Honolulu
Two speakers were invited to discuss the policies and regulations for biotech and organic
farming methods. Dr. John Turner was the presenter on Biotechnology Risk Assessment
and Regulations. He is the Director of the Policy Coordination Division, Biotechnology
Regulatory Services, United States Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services (APHIS), located in Riverdale, Maryland. Keith Jones was the
presenter on Organic Policies and Regulations. He is the Director of Program
Development, National Organic Program, United States Department of Agriculture,
located in Washington, D.C.
A third speaker, Albert Louie, was the presenter on topics that affect all farmers in
Hawaii, Seed Certification and Food Safety. He is the Seed Certification Director and
Food Safety Coordinator, Quality Assurance Division, Hawaii State Department of
Agriculture.
Phase 3 —January 20, 2006, Plant Quarantine Station, Honolulu
Mae Nakahata, Vice-president of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, was a presenter on
the best management practices (BMPs) for the coexistence of agricultural practices
incorporated in other states and nations.
After Ms.Nakahata's presentation, the group discussed a working definition of
"coexistence." While the group did not arrive at an agreement on a definition, they did
agree on a framework for the design of the BMPs. This framework is represented in the
body of the report.
The group also discussed the criteria that would be used to create the BMPs. The group
decided that each BMP should consider(in no specific order):
25
• the economic viability of fellow farmers
• the safety and protection of the environment
• the accountability of each farmer
• the needs of the farmer
• the needs of the community.
The group identified the important farming topics that would be used to create BMPs,
including:
• Contamination
• Varietal preservation
• Varietal development
• Crop-specific buffer zones
• Disease control
• Pest& weed control
• Invasive species
• Research
• Education to consumers about Hawaii's diverse agriculture
• Liability
• Legislation
• Legislative appropriations (funding for agriculture)
• Regulations
• Niche markets
• Testing
• Water quality
• Marketing and Distribution
• Neighbor Relations and Communications
The group divided into smaller subgroups. Each subgroup would research and address
one or more of the topics mentioned above. The first three groups include the Biological
Drift Mitigation group (focusing on pollen, pathogen, and insect drift),the Seed Supply
group (focusing on preserving pure seed supplies), and the Chemical Drift and Runoff
Mitigation group (focusing on minimizing drift of chemical fertilizers and pesticides).
Each group consisted of at least one farmer who used biotech, conventional, and organic
practices. These subgroups would discuss their respective topics and report back on their
BMP drafts at the next meeting.
Phase 4—March 1, 2006, Plant Quarantine Station, Honolulu
The group decided to state the following goal for the coexistence process: To define and
promote agricultural practices that benefits our economy, environment and
community while mitigating negative consequences for the same.
Each of the three subgroups (Biological Drift Mitigation, Seed Supply, and Chemical
Drift and Runoff Mitigation) reported back on the BMPs each group drafted since the
26
January 20th meeting. Each draft consisted of a rationale for why the BMP was needed
and an outline of recommendations for each topic. The main topics of Biological drift,
Seed Supply, and Chemical drift sometimes included more specific subcategories,
including communication, cultural practices, separation schemes, and
liability/governance.
The group also refined the list of possible BMP topics and voted on which topics were
most important to them. The group created the following prioritized BMP topic list:
Prioritized BMP Topic List
Priority Topic Votes
1 Invasive Species 11
2 Water 10
3 Land Availability/Management 6
Agricultural Regulations
4 Neighbor Relations 5
Diverse Variety Preservation & Development (Seed Bank)
5 Food Nutrition 4
6 Workforce Development & Access 3
Marketing HI's Agriculture (Consumer Education)
7 Product Distribution 2
Food Safety (Safe Processing Methods, Safe Production Methods, Market
Demands, Self-Regulation)
8 Valuing Diversity and Growing Methods (Organic Market Increase) 2
9 Labeling & Point-of-Origin Issues 1
Legislative Appropriations for Agriculture
10 Food Security (Production of Enough Food within the State, Preserving 0
Integrity of Shipping Capsule)
Certification (organic, testing, GMO, pesticides, HACCP)
Finally, the group discussed some issues that were important to address in order to
continue with the process. The group thought that voting may not be necessary. Instead,
the group thought that for each BMP drafted, a minority report could be included that
addressed opinions different from those defined in the BMP. Additionally, in the process
of drafting the BMPs, participants thought that they may not have the expertise to finish
the BMPs and that other professionals should be recruited to contribute crop-specific
information. Also, this six-meeting process may not be enough to finish BMPs, but
should be extended so that the conversation would be maintained as new issues arise in
the future.
27
Phase 5 - June 20, 2006, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
(CTAHR), University of Hawaii —Manoa (UHM), Honolulu
Two speakers were invited to discuss the liability issues of biological drift, chemical
drift, and seed supply purity. These two speakers were Joe Mendelson, Legal Director,
Center of Food Safety, and Drew Kershen, Professor, Oklahoma University School of
Law.
The group continued to share and revise their BMP drafts for the remainder of the
session.
Phase 6—August 24, 2006, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
(CTAHR), University of Hawaii —Manoa (UHM), Honolulu
In this meeting, the participants worked on final revisions to the BMP drafts they had
been working on in the previous months. The group completed Biological Drift
Management and Chemical Contamination.
Phase 7—December 4, 2006, Plant Quarantine Station, Honolulu
The participants finalized worked on Seed Supply, the umbrella statement, next
recommendations and the executive summary.
28
Appendix 4 - Participants
Routh Bolomet
Melanie Bondera
Kimberly Clark
Una Greenway
Grant Hamachi
Adolf Helm
Ken Kamiya
Paul Koehler
Doug MacCluer
Vince Mina
Loren Mochida
Myrone Murakami
Dean Okimoto
Roy Oyama
Delan Perry
Al Santoro
Richard Speigel
Sarah Styan
Warren Watanabe
29
continue to be available in the future to fight new diseases in
crops and livestock, feed livestock and for our floriculture
industry to remain competitive . Please understand and respect
our choice and needs also.
We have all spent many hours of many days reviewing
scientific literature and summaries on transgenic research, its
effect on human health, animal health, agriculture and the
environment . We have all also met personally and had
discussions with GMO and other experts . The preponderance of
evidence from the scientific community agrees with the federal
regulatory agencies that once deregulated GMO crops, feed and
food pose no more risk to human health, agriculture and the
environment than non GMOs .
Apparently Councilwoman Willie must not agree with that
conclusion and Bill 79 continues to reflect that . I believe
society' s food needs and the market place will drive where we
are with GMOs in the next ten years . Without legitimate
scientific evidence that GMOs cause harm, particularly those
that have been deregulated, do not place Hawaii County farmers
and ranchers in this unfair position which will cause many to
fail . Do not pass Bill 79 . Do not place unwarranted additional
regulations, stigmatize and prohibit the production and use of
transgenic technology in Hawaii County when there is no
scientific basis to do so. We believe all types of agriculture
can coexist on the Big Island and we will commit to work with
you to achieve this coexistence.
Thank you for all the time you have spent listening to our
concerns and thank you for taking my testimony today.