Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0271.951 2012-2014 J Yoshimoto From: Russ Hendricks <rendricks @idahofb.org> Sent: Friday,July 26, 2013 12:51 PM To: jyoshimoto @co.hawaii.hi.us; bford @co.hawaii.hi.us;vpoindexter @co.hawaii.hi.us; donishi @co.hawaii.hi.us; dkanuha @co.hawaii.hi.us; gilagan @co.hawaii.hi.us; keoff @co.hawaii.hi.us; mwille @co.hawaii.hi.us;zkern @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Comments on Proposed Draft Bill 79 Attachments: Bill 79 Testimony.pdf; Russ Hendricks.vcf o c-) Dear Hawaii County Council: wn Please accept the attached comments with regard to Proposed Draft Bill 79. r �-C Thank you. � ' r*t N Russ Hendricks Director of Governmental Affairs to Idaho Farm Bureau Comm. No. ' 71•(ICI Ref. To: L' & G 1 Ref. Date I 02 t IDAHO JCARMBIIREAIfFEDERATION 500 West Washington Street a P.O.Box 167 Boise,Idaho 83701-0167 a (208) 342-2688 FAX(208)342-8585 July 26, 2013 COUNTY OF HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND MASS TRANSIT Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO BILL 79 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Committee Members: On behalf of the more than 68,000 Idaho families who are members of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, I am writing in opposition to Bill 79 which will ban the growing of genetically engineered food and feed products on the Big Island. Although our members do not live or farm on your island, our organization and its members are concerned about the lack of scientific evidence supporting this bill, as well as the blatant disregard for private property rights that are protected by both the U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions, all due to misinformation and a misunderstanding of the science behind genetically modified organisms (GMOs). As farmers,we take our environmental stewardship and the safety of the products we grow very seriously as our farm families' livelihoods are at stake for generations to come based on how we care for the land today. Because of scientific advancements, including genetic modification, farmers are able to more effectively address many on-going agricultural challenges. Science and technology have helped farmers and ranchers become more efficient while increasing production of safe, affordable and nutritious food so we can all continue to eat three meals a day. Home Once: 275 Tierra Vista Drive • P.O.Box 4848 Pocatello,Idaho 83205-4848 (208)232-7914 We have grave concerns about a number of statements and assertions included in the bill that are either misleading, or have no basis in fact, but which if left unchallenged,would give the public a severely biased view of biotechnology. Our specific comments are in regard to Draft 2 which was introduced by Councilwoman Wille on May 28, 2013. If Draft 2 is no longer being considered,our general comments still apply to any similar drafts that are under consideration. While we will not comment on every section of the draft bill, it should not be construed to mean that we agree with any facts or conclusions in any sections upon which we do not comment. Some sections simply seem so far off-base to not justify any response. Subsections (1), (2)and (3) include a discussion of the public trust doctrine. This is contrary to, and in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii Constitution which both specifically protect private property rights. In addition, Article XI, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution specifically states "The State shall conserve and protect agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands. The legislature shall provide standards and criteria to accomplish the foregoing." Not only does the Hawaii Constitution specifically seek to promote diversified and self-sufficient agriculture, but it also vests the Legislature, and no other body, with the power to provide standards and criteria to achieve that task. Furthermore,the theory that the County Council somehow has the right or power, under the public trust doctrine, to control all private property for the public good of current and future generations is absurd. The quotations from Article XI, Section 1 of the Hawaii Constitution, and the quotation from Article XIII,Section 13-29 of the Hawaii County Charter both clearly indicate in the last sentence of each that "All public natural resources are held in trust by the State (County)for the benefit of the people." (emphasis added). Clearly, there is a duty for the state or county to determine how public lands are to be used for the benefit of the people. However, that does not in any way give the Council the power or authority to extend that oversight to private lands. If the State or the County were to exercise control over all natural resources, including private land,water, air, minerals and energy sources as the draft bill asserts,then the concept of private property would be a complete fiction and no person could make any decision on how to manage any of his property without first requesting permission from the government. This is not the American system of private property rights and is the surest way to economic ruin for your island. Subsection (4) states "the Council acknowledges that inherent in the public trust doctrine is the precautionary principle." While that is interesting, it does not provide any authority to utilize the precautionary principle as it applies to any private property. The council is free to be as 2 cautious as it likes as it administers public property, however, it cannot force private property owners to adopt that same timid-ness as they manage their own property. Otherwise,taking the point to its logical conclusion, economic activity on the Island would dramatically shrink since currently entrepreneurs must make decisions every day how to run their businesses based on incomplete, uncertain or completely unknown information. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Subsection (6) claims that residents of Hawaii are subject to a United Nations Biosafety Protocol, although the United States is not a signatory nation. It then goes on to claim that based on this "law"the burden of proof is on the promoter of the GMO to prove that the technology is safe rather than the public or government. We are baffled at how a promoter of technology would actually prove scientifically that a technology is safe to the satisfaction of those who disapprove of GMOs. Their studies would be immediately challenged as suspect since they were funded and/or authored by the company who developed the technology. To date there have been more than 600 independent studies performed by government and academia and not one have found any health or safety concerns directly linked to GMOs. Subsection (8) is complete conjecture. GMOs have been scrutinized by the USDA, FDA and EPA far more than any other products in history and still there is the assertion that there has been little testing. There is absolutely no truth to the statement that "federal agencies have allowed genetically modified crops and foods exemptions from scientific tests normally required in the case of products intended for human consumption." A brief search of the federal agency websites will easily prove this statement to be false. Subsections(9) and (10)again assert that the federal and state governments are doing nothing to regulate GMOs so the County must do so. This again is false. It further states that the State of Hawaii has not established a regulatory framework to monitor GMO production. This may be true. However,there is no need for Hawaii to do so as these products are already under the regulatory authority of the USDA, FDA and EPA. They already have programs in place to monitor and ensure that only GMOs that have passed lengthy testing and strict scrutiny are allowed to be grown and under what conditions. Subsection (13) incorrectly implies that there will be increased applications of chemical pesticides with GMO crops. The main reason many GMO crops were developed was to REDUCE the need to apply pesticides since the plants are naturally able to resist crop pests without additional protection. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, adoption of biotech in the United States has reduced pesticide use in crops in 2004 by 62 million pounds.This is an additional drop in pesticide use of 15.6 million pounds from 2003; a 3 34 percent reduction. Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that you are concerned about toxins in the environment,while you are attempting to prohibit the technology that clearly allows more production with fewer pesticides. Subsection (14)simply illustrates the futility of this whole proposal. A niche market, by definition, is a small,specialized market. The draft bill apparently allows for the importation of GMO food and feed to be consumed on the island,just not the growing of GMO food and feed. Therefore,the higher quality, lower cost imports will necessarily out-compete the locally produced non-GMO products for most consumers. Sure,there will be a small segment of folks who are willing to pay a premium for non-GMO products, and that is their right to do so, but it will always be a small segment of the population. You cannot hope to sell all locally produced food and feed locally when it is competing against higher quality, lower cost imports. Subsection (15)seems to indicate that the Council believes it is their role to prevent any adverse impact on all farmers across the island. Why is banning GMOs the approach taken? Why not consider implementing buffer zones, as already proposed in the draft bill for GMO papayas? Surely if a 750 foot buffer zone would safely ensure that non-GMO papayas are not cross pollinated with GMO papayas,then a similar requirement would also work on other crops. This clearly points out the real agenda behind the draft bill. Subsection (16) also discusses "contamination" by cross-pollination,etc. indicating that this is "very likely" and "may result in a loss of organic certification". There is a lot of speculation and very little in the way of facts or science in this subsection. If there is indeed harm done by one producer to another, he has a legal cause of action that can be brought. Again, buffer zones and other techniques can be applied to mitigate any risks that may be present. This subsection simply assumes the only way to address the situation is to ban GMOs entirely. Subsections (17)and (18) both discuss protecting surrounding landowners from "contamination"and associated liability and clean-up costs. Again,this is pure speculation and conjecture. Specific examples and/or scientific studies would be much more appropriate to use as a basis for raising a concern of this type. It is interesting to note that apparently only food and/or feed crops are considered potential contaminants to surrounding landowners since horticultural GMO crops are exempted from the proposed bill. Is there some reason to believe that a food or a feed crop will indiscriminately "contaminate"surrounding landowners' property, while horticultural crops will behave themselves and keep within the property boundaries of the landowner? Subsection (19)takes a grain of truth and tries to spin it into a scary scenario that there is little, if any,chance of happening in reality. There have been weeds that have adapted to develop a 4 tolerance to glyphosate when Round-up ready crops have been planted repeatedly in the same field over an extended period of time. However,the so-called "super weeds" are still susceptible to other common herbicides, and pose no threat or danger to over-running the countryside. Additionally, there is no evidence that there will be any higher incidence of"super weeds" or"super bugs" when GMO food and feed crops are grown than when horticultural GMO crops are grown. Therefore,the draft bill again contradicts itself when implying that GMO food or feed crops are inherently dangerous, while horticultural GMO crops are of no concern. The reality is that all types of GMO crops are equally benign. The Council is already too late if it truly believes that it is able to protect the "native ecosystems from the possibility of irreversible genetic contamination"as described in subsection (20). As the draft points out in the very first paragraph,there has already been the introduction of GMOs to the island and this draft seeks "to restrict the further introduction" of GMOs. If cross- pollination with native species were able to take place, it may already have occurred. Conversely, it may never happen regardless of what action or inaction the Council may take. This is an economically crippling restriction that may have little or no actual benefits. Subsections (24)and (25) both assume that the GMO crops that would be chosen by farmers on the Island would be Round-up ready crops. However, Round-up ready crops are only one of thousands of different types of biotechnology options that are available today. Perhaps the crops that farmers would choose to grow on the Island would have no connection with Round- up at all. This illustrates once again the speculative nature of this draft and the lack of scientific backing for the proposal. The Council would best leave these decisions up to the individual landowners. The draft is terribly inconsistent internally. The Prohibitions Section clearly prohibits the "propagation,cultivation, raising,growing, sale or distribution of transgenic organisms" which are defined in the draft as "any living thing". Therefore, GMO cattle feed ingredients such as soybean meal, cottonseed meal, canola meal,cracked corn, etc. which have been rendered unable to sprout, through some form of processing or milling would technically not be prohibited to be imported since it is not"any living thing". However,the draft then requires "All persons using genetically modified or transgenic manipulated produce or products of any kind"to register annually and pay a$100 registration fee per location. Furthermore,the section on Exemptions clearly indicates in subsection (a)that it is not unlawful to "purchase, sell, distribute or use human food or animal feed which contains transgenic ingredients". But then it goes on in subsection (e) of the same section to require registration of the facility to use GMO feed and it is only allowed for those who are actively 5 using GMO feed at the time of adoption of the bill. This is all extremely conflicting and unnecessarily confusing. Under the Registration Section, technically speaking, every citizen of the Big Island will be required to register annually and pay$100 simply as a tax for living under this ill-advised and poorly written draft bill. Almost every bit of vegetable oil available on the market today is made from GMO crops. Likewise, nearly every product which uses high fructose corn syrup also is derived from GMO corn. Nearly every cotton t-shirt is made from GMO cotton.According to the USDA Economic Research Service, 90%of the corn crop in the U.S. is GMO,93%of the soybean crop is GMO and 90%of the cotton crop is GMO. Furthermore,the vast majority of canola oil is from GMO plants. Therefore, every person on your island undoubtedly uses during the course of each year"genetically modified or transgenic manipulated produce or products of any kind" and must register each year. This is an absurd and meaningless requirement. Finally, the Enforcement Section is totally unworkable. Does the County of Hawaii have sufficient lab personnel and a data base of all know GMO species to be able to detect which organisms are in fact genetically modified? What will be the cost of doing the investigations and what confidence would anybody have that you would be able to accurately identify if a particular plant or animal is indeed genetically modified? How can you require someone who has violated the article on more than one occasion to obtain insurance and to post a bond to cover costs of"potential damages related to contamination of other properties and water sources"? What insurance company or bond broker would sell to someone who has already been convicted multiple times? In conclusion,we find this entire draft to be completely without merit and would urge you to reject it in its entirety. This is a very complex issue. It will take lots of dialogue with people on both sides of the issue to come to an understanding of how best to proceed. We are confident that once you take the time to investigate the issue fully, including visiting with government officials at the federal level who are involved in the regulatory process, and those who are local farmers and ranchers who are interested in being able to improve their operations using the latest advances in science and technology,that you will come to the same conclusion that we have,that there are no inherent risks with using GMO crops any more so than when similar traditional crops are planted nearby and there is risk of cross pollination. It can be worked out by the local people as necessary using mitigation measures to ensure each property right is protected. 6 We appreciate the importance of Hawaii's agriculture to the American farmer and the role it has on making food affordable for all U.S. citizens, including Hawaii and the Big Island. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. We respectfully urge the Council to vote No on Bill 79. Sincerely, Frank Priestley, President Idaho Farm Bureau Federation 7