Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.043 2012-2014 Page 1 of 2 Murashige, Laura COUNTY CLERK From: dawn @molokaivoice.com 2013 SEP Q AM ��� 1 Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 5:22 PM To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony in OPPOSITION to BILL 113 Attachments: MKK FB Testimony_Big Island County_Bill 113_OPPOSE_9-3-13.docx COUNTY OF HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND MASS TRANSIT Hearing on Hawaii County Bill 113 Wednesday, September 4, 1:30 p.m. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO BILL 113 Dear Chairwoman Wille and Respected Committee Members: This letter is written to express Molokai Farm Bureau's STRONG OPPOSTION to BILL 113. The Molokai Farm Bureau, an affiliate of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, firmly stands in support of all farmers and ranchers, including the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association, the Hawaii Nurserymen and women, the Hawaii Cattlemen and the Big Island Banana Growers Association in their right to grow and market products of their choice. Most importantly, we stand in unison concerned for our own freedoms. As producers for our communities we have seen demand increase, while our right to farm continuously remain under assault. We support the right to farm. We support the right to choose. We support coexistence, and we stand in support of ALL local agriculture. For these reasons, we ask that you DO NOT PASS Bill 113: • Bill 113 deserves honest discussion and access to factual information, as there is inherent risk in rejecting new technologies and establishing public policy that inhibits innovation. When public policy discriminates against the use of products or technologies of which benefits have been repeatedly proven to be overwhelmingly positive and safe for consumption, our communities, our state— and most specifically in this case, the farmers and ranchers engaged in local ag production — will lose. • Bill 113 will impede agriculture and distort our local economic market interconnected to this sector of Ag production. This bill will only endorse and perpetuate the damaging mythology that there is something uniquely dangerous about biotechnology. Local farmers and ranchers will lose their ability to compete in the open market by impeding their right to choose a legal and widely used tool in modern agriculture. • Credentialed scientific bodies have examined the risks of genetically engineered (GE) foods like the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and the Comm. No . Ref. To: 9/10/2013 Ref. Dote 3 201i Page 2 of 2 American Medical Association with over 215,000 members. None have produced repeatable evidence that GE foods pose any new or unique risks. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that because of the greater precision, these products are actually safer and more predictable. Furthermore, the FDA's approach is consistent with the consensus of the scientific community regarding the regulation of GE products. This approach was widely applauded as regulation that made sense, relied on scientific principles, protected consumers, and did not unnecessarily inhibit innovation. • The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated "Were consumer interest alone sufficient, there is no end to the information that states could require manufacturers to disclose about their production methods." We cannot mandate simply because some people claim fears or ideological differences, primarily if they fail to provide credible scientific evidence that demonstrates any material difference or harm. • Reliability, predictability and impartiality of legal rules are essential for proper planning by all businesses, individuals and governments. Without established, transparent rules for making objective evaluations, planning businesses like our farms and ranches becomes a guessing game and fiscally impacts our community and government— as the local ag industry provides a stable economic engine that engages with multiple local businesses on the Big Island and around the state, and employs many in the community. • The overall challenge for legislators is to apply the law in a way that rejects bias, superstition, and uninformed opinion in favor of credentialed science and common sense. There is no real health or environmental benefits to be gained from bans or discriminatory restrictions on biotechnology events. • Many Farmers and Ranchers who strongly oppose Bill 109 have lived on the Big Island, or in Hawaii their entire lives and intend to live here for the remainder of their lives —continuing their family's generations on their land. They have no interest in degrading their environment, or poisoning their community. They have, and will continue to be, true stewards of their aina. We ask that you vote NO on Bill 113. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mahalo, Dawn Bicoy Vice Chair, Molokai Farm Bureau 9/10/2013 I I;i'e iii Farm fiuuE<tu V!0LOKA'I CQU 33Y An Affiliate of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation and the American Farm Bureau Federation COUNTY OF HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND MASS TRANSIT Hearing on Hawaii County Bill 113 Wednesday, September 4, 1:30 p.m. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO BILL 113 Dear Chairwoman Wille and Respected Committee Members: This letter is written to express Molokai Farm Bureau's STRONG OPPOSTION to BILL 113. The Molokai Farm Bureau, an affiliate of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, firmly stands in support of all farmers and ranchers, including the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association, the Hawaii Nurserymen and women, the Hawaii Cattlemen and the Big Island Banana Growers Association in their right to grow and market products of their choice. Most importantly, we stand in unison concerned for our own freedoms. As producers for our communities we have seen demand increase, while our right to farm continuously remain under assault. We support the right to farm. We support the right to choose. We support coexistence, and we stand in support of ALL local agriculture. For these reasons, we ask that you DO NOT PASS Bill 113: • Bill 113 deserves honest discussion and access to factual information, as there is inherent risk in rejecting new technologies and establishing public policy that inhibits innovation. When public policy discriminates against the use of products or technologies of which benefits have been repeatedly proven to be overwhelmingly positive and safe for consumption, our communities, our state—and most specifically in this case, the farmers and ranchers engaged in local ag production—will lose. • Bill 113 will impede agriculture and distort our local economic market interconnected to this sector of Ag production. This bill will only endorse and perpetuate the damaging mythology that there is something uniquely dangerous about biotechnology. Local farmers and ranchers will lose their ability to compete in the open market by impeding their right to choose a legal and widely used tool in modern agriculture. • Credentialed scientific bodies have examined the risks of genetically engineered (GE) foods like the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and the American Medical Association with over 215,000 members. None have produced repeatable evidence that GE foods pose any new or unique risks. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that because of the greater precision, these products are actually safer and more predictable. Furthermore, the FDA's approach is consistent with the consensus of the scientific community regarding the regulation of GE products. This approach was widely applauded as regulation that made sense, relied on scientific principles, protected consumers, and did not unnecessarily inhibit innovation. • The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated "Were consumer interest alone sufficient, there is no end to the information that states could require manufacturers to disclose about their production methods." We cannot mandate simply because some people claim fears or ideological differences, primarily if they fail to provide credible scientific evidence that demonstrates any material difference or harm. • Reliability, predictability and impartiality of legal rules are essential for proper planning by all businesses, individuals and governments. Without established, transparent rules for making objective evaluations, planning businesses like our farms and ranches becomes a guessing game and fiscally impacts our community and government—as the local ag industry provides a stable economic engine that engages with multiple local businesses on the Big Island and around the state, and employs many in the community. • The overall challenge for legislators is to apply the law in a way that rejects bias, superstition, and uninformed opinion in favor of credentialed science and common sense. There is no real health or environmental benefits to be gained from bans or discriminatory restrictions on biotechnology events. • Many Farmers and Ranchers who strongly oppose Bill 109 have lived on the Big Island, or in Hawaii their entire lives and intend to live here for the remainder of their lives—continuing their family's generations on their land. They have no interest in degrading their environment, or poisoning their community. They have, and will continue to be, true stewards of their aina. We ask that you vote NO on Bill 113. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mahalo, Dawn Bicoy Vice Chair, Molokai Farm Bureau