Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0271.781 2012-2014 COUNTY CLERK Murashige, Laura COVkiTY nr.7 LiAWA11 From: Stephanie Whalen [swhalen @harc-hspa.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:41 PM 2013 JUN 28 PH 2: 43 To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: amended bill 79 Attachments: Attachment information..txt; hawaii Council testimony 7.2.13.doc Attachment hawaii Council information..txt(6... testimony 7.2.1... Please see attached testimony for July 2, 2013 Bill 79 thanks Aloha Stevie 808 228 0272 Comm. No C, 1 Ref. To: JUL M1 1 Ref. Dote 2 Z013 H ARC Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Administration: P.O. Box 100, Kunia, HI 96759 Ph: 808-621-1350/Fax: 808-621-1359 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL JULY 2, 2013 BILL 79 as amended My name is Stephanie Whalen. I am the Executive Director of the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC). I am testifying today on behalf of the center, our research and support staff, and our members and clients. HARC is in strong opposition to the intent of Bill 79 to selectively ban genetically modified organisms. It is just attempt to cast yet another damper on a proven viable economic activity occurring in Hawaii's rural areas. I will not address the various biased whereas statements since that would probably be duplicative of others. I do want to address legitimate comments expressed by government personnel and the public in prior meetings, hearings and/or news articles/letters and that is who is to be believed in the opponent/proponent dialogue? I believe there is a process that would assist the neutral party in sorting through the information and that is to examine the sources of information. We all are aware that every individual has an opinion formed by one's life experience made up of education, employment and social networks. Take the people in this room, pick a subject and there would be multiple opinions. How do you get to an informed opinion about a subject you ' know little about; that is scientifically technical; that raises social issues; that involves intellectual property concerns; that involves international trade, processing preferences and local marketing positions. I respectfully would like to suggest that established professional associations need to be given higher credibility than individual members of those entities; that government positions be given more credence than individual public servants; that government commissions and government sponsored focused studies be accepted with higher reliability and scientific acceptability than studies reported in the popular press; that all parties involved are scrutinized as to their special interest agenda. The associations and entities that I mentioned above all have a process to reach policy statements or protocols that ensure consensus and quality work. It does not mean that every individual within an association or government body agrees with the final report. It does mean that a rational process was used where risks and benefits are evaluated and weighed. The assumption of this bill is there is a significant risk that is occurring to the local population and to the local environment and therefore we need local action. Requiring a papaya farmer to follow the physical containment protocols of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Biosafety Level-3 (BSL-3) facilities is a clever attempt to appear to provide a government safety requirement. However this protocol is totally inappropriate for this situation as it is used for testing of SARS and West Nile virus'. This would would be impossible for a farmer to do. The issue raised over genes mixing into Hawaii's native plants is without substantial merit. This is a real issue for other places in the world where commercial crops had their origin. Even in this area the Department of Agriculture has been very diligent in identifying a specific protocol for any work done in this state in cotton as there is plant classified as native cotton. The department has been and continues to be highly sensitive to this issue. The farmer to farmer issue based purely on marketing higher cost products should be left to the farmers to work out. Even Europe is conducting studies on how to help the various farming processes coexist. Regulations do exist for the organic processing. However, when some profit-driven groups wish to over interpret the regulations to apply to product rather than process, they should do so at their own risk. It was the organic supporters who insisted on making recombinant DNA technology an excluded process in the regulation anticipating a premium. Just like other producers commanding a premium for their product they must accept the responsibility that goes with it. As with many activists' causes today in our society emotion, fear and speculation are the drivers. 'Maybe', 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'contamination', 'precautionary principal' are all part of the speak-ease. It is important to recognize all special interest agendas and the tactics honed over the last 30 year's. The 2 major international organizations behind this anti-biotechnology movement have,., $100M annual budgets and have very specific agendas. What positive contribution to agriculture have they made. Make no mistake Hawaii's biotechnology industry is on their agenda. Any win no matter how ridiculous will be touted throughout the world. This is their M.O. Many of the bans on the mainland have been made in counties that HAVE NO COMMODITIES GROWN IN THEM—NO GMOs- NO FARMERS AT RISK—EASY TO PASS LEGISLATION IN SUCH AREAS WITH ENOUGH MISINFORMATION AND FEAR. This measure is so convoluted it exempts anything currently happening while simultaneously making the claim that the technology is dangerous. If that is the case, how can one possible justify exempting anything? Also make no mistake that all of the biotechnology sector will be affected not just agriculture in the continuing anti-business image Hawaii projects to the world. As a point of information I would like to suggest that for those parties that have substantive matters with respect to Hawaii that theses parties participate in the public federal process. It is at this level of government that the necessary resources exist to fully evaluate this issue. The Director of Biotechnology Regulatory Services recently said she is willing to hear from all parties on this.