HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0271.563 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Deborah Chang [hkulaiwi @yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:31 PM
To: County Council
Subject: Testimony Opposing Amended Bill No. 79
Attachments: Testimony_Amended Bill No 79.docx
Aloha Members of the Hi. County Council,
Our testimony in opposition to Amended Bill No. 79 is attached.
Mahalo for your consideration,
Deborah Chang& Edwin Petteys
o
v✓ 0CI
o
N
CO -<
11 n
—
Comm. No. 2 7 563
Ref.To: P/PSit 7C-
Ref. Dote JUL 0 2 2013
6/28/2013
Date: June 27, 2013
To: The Hawaii County Council —The Honorable:
Brenda Ford, 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: Edwin Petteys & Deborah Chang
Subject: Testimony -Amended Council Bill No. 79
We respectfully request that you do not approve Amended Council Bill No. 79, relating to
genetically modified organisms.
The Bill is based on erroneous and unsubstantiated premises. The underlying tone of
the Bill considers genetic modification as bad. Given its history in Hawaii, that is not
necessarily so.
It paints the federal government as derelict in overseeing the research, testing, use and
monitoring of genetically modified organisms. What is the basis for this assertion? The
Bill does not factually support its position that the County must act because the federal
government is not exercising proper oversight.
Another example of an unsubstantiated statement is the generalization that genetically
modified crops require the application of significant amounts of herbicides, particularly
Roundup. We would submit that this is a sweeping generalization that is not necessarily
so. In many instances, a goal of genetic modification is to reduce herbicide and pesticide
use. Additionally, where is the consideration of the use of genetic modification to
enhance plant attributes such as drought tolerance, higher crop yields and disease
resistance? These kinds of attributes have nothing to do with Roundup, and everything
to do with improving crop growth and productivity.
In its enforcement, the Bill sets up the presumption of guilt, with the burden of proving
innocence borne by the victim of a complaint. Is this a proper approach in our legal
system? Further, does this not create opportunities for malicious and possibly
groundless complaints, which could take up time and resources of not only the
Department of Research and Development, but the accused party?
Who in County government has the scientific qualifications to properly and fairly evaluate
a complaint? What liability does the County bear if they get it wrong?
If the County wants to engage more actively in the role of genetically modified
organisms, we would respectfully suggest that the place to start would be to initiate the
dialogue mentioned in Section 14-9, " . . . rigorous scientific review and extensive public
debate . . ." Given that the US Department of Agriculture's Pacific Basin Agriculture
Research Center is headquartered in Hilo, this County has a unique advantage in being
able to establish a working relationship and dialogue with a locally based entity capable
of ensuring scientific rigor in decisions regarding the safety and place of genetically
modified organisms. Has this been done or even considered?
Our feeling is that this Bill is based on erroneous and unsubstantiated claims and
assumptions, and places an unfair burden on growers who cultivate genetically modified
organisms. Given that one of the Bills' assertions is that science is lacking, we would
have appreciated more definitive proof supporting many of the claims made in this Bill.
We do not think the Bill has enough scientific validity and credibility on which to create a
law that could have a profound, negative effect on our fragile agricultural industry.
Please do not enact laws based on such a shaky scientific foundation. There are
unintended consequences to consider. A Bill of this nature should be a last resort after
other approaches have been exhausted. There is no indication that this has occurred.
We respectfully ask that you not approve Bill No. 79.
Respectfully,
Edwin Petteys
Deborah Chang
PO Box 202
Paauilo, HI 96766