Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0385.023 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: Kim Kozuma [kimkdvm719 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 2:27 PM To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Vigorously AGAINST bills 109 & 113 Attachments: To the Hawaii County Council.docx To the Hawaii County Council, Please read my attached testimony. I look forward to presenting my abbreviated version orally on Sept. 4. Respectfully, Kim N. Kozuma, D.V.M. o •2 c� c's ca -a w o O Comm. No., 3 g5. Ref.To: P/O07C Ref. Dote Ste O 4 [U1i 9/3/2013 To the Hawaii County Council; I am writing to vigorously oppose bills 113 and 109. I was born and raised in Hawaii and am a decades-long resident of Waiakea-Uka. I am a veterinarian with a B.A. in Biology from U.H. Hilo, a livestock producer / owner / manager of 2 Girls Farm LLC, 4-H leader, and mother of two young girls. The Hawaii County Council has repeatedly heard trusted governmental regulatory agencies and the established, reputable international scientific community state that the use of GE technology is SAFE. None of the scientific "research" from the minority anti-faction has withstood peer review. It is unwise to ignore this and therefore block conventional farming from moving forward, which these bills and others like them would do. Bill 109 should not be taken seriously. It makes me wonder if the true intent of the bill is to make 113 appear more palatable in order to "pass something" against GE technology. Please don't do that merely to appease the very vocal anti-GE activist movement. (Remember Councilwoman Wille's stack of Pro Bill 79 vs. against?). The true dangers of bill 113 are as follows: 1. Bill 113 will effectively remove a powerful tool in the toolbox to respond to future threats to our Ag industry. A clear example of unintended consequence is the inability to effectively deal with the coffee borer beetle. GE technology can alter the outer surface of the coffee cherry to prevent entry of the beetle into the fruit, without affecting anything else. This is WITHOUT the use of pesticides and will REDUCE or eliminate the need for such. Unfortunately we have effectively banned the development of this potential solution. Should bill 113 pass, this unfortunate scenario will extend to all of agriculture. It would be a crime to allow expansion of the coffee and taro ordinance to hamstring the rest of agriculture. Hawaii Island is NOT a biologic bubble of safety. Invaders of all sorts continually challenge our biodiversity on a daily basis. We need access to ALL technologies in order to stay ahead of these unknown invaders. It is about food safety and sustainability. This has nothing to do with Monsanto. The proper way to protect biodiversity and seed bank is to follow the protocols of an international seed bank located in a cave on the island of Spitsbergen, Norway. If there is true concern about our native biodiversity, then get those plants into the cave. 2. Bill 113 effectively criminalizes mainstream, accepted, and approved farming techniques by requiring premise registration, excessive annual user fees, and extreme punitive measures for the right to farm. As Richard Ha always says— "who's going to pay for that? Is the farmer?" Does this mean they will "begrudgingly tolerate" existing farm uses, but block the future? This is a seriously disturbing overreach of activist political agendas. 3. In regards to the Right to Farm law: While the catalyst for that law was to prevent restrictive ordinances on farmers subsequent to urban sprawl, the intent was to protect the rights of farmers to farm, period! That threat has now shifted with the Anti-GE attacks on mainstream, accepted and approved farming technologies. To state that the Right to Farm bill has no bearing on bill 113 is inaccurate at best, negligent at worst. Bill 113 specifically BANS any future, or expanded use of GE products & technology, as well as stops any future farmer (like my daughters, Emma and Jade) from entering the Hawaii industry if they use these mainstream, accepted and approved farming methods. In closing, I hope to have given enough facts to the council members who have remained objective on the matter to vote AGAINST bills 109 & 113. This vote is about doing what is right and just. Most of us are just busy trying to make a living, and are feeding the world in the process. I fully support the diverse spectrum of farming methodologies and employ them on my own farm. I have implemented the Korean Natural Farming deep litter system for my chickens and ducks, use integrated parasite management best practices for my sheep and goat flock, and am continually educating myself on ALL farming methodologies both indigenous and cutting edge. Please allow me the right to determine what works best for my operation based on science, education, and experience. Respectfully, Kim N. Kozuma, D.V.M. Scientific Organizations position on GMOs World Health Organization "No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." National Academy of Sciences "No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." American Association for the Advancement of Science 1 "The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." American Medical Association "There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." European Commission "No scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms." French Academy of Science "All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria. Union of German Academics and Scientists "In consuming food derived from GM plans approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption offood from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health. "