The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0385.035 2012-2014 Page 1 of 3 Murashige, Laura COL'� T CL„ K From: Alexander Huszagh [ahuszagh @uci.edu] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 9:42 PM 2013@ �3 I': 50 To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Written Testimony about Bills 109 and 113 Dear Hawaiian County Council, [ am writing you today as a doctoral student in biochemical sciences, and as a concerned consumer worried about the negative consequences that Bills 109 and 113 will have on Hawaii's agricultural production and economy, and in particular on Hawaiian papaya production. I would like to state first that genetic engineering, or GE, is a tool,just like any other. Just like when planting a field, a farmer would not choose between a plough, a harrow, and a broadcast seeder, proper agricultural practices should not limit farmer access to beneficial tools in new cultivar generation, such as cross-breeding, crop irradiation, and genetic engineering. Rather, combined agricultural practices utilizing all tools available produce results that each tool would be unable to do alone. Banning genetic engineering would therefore restrict farmer access to the substantial benefits, such as increased yields, decreased pesticide use, and disease resistance that genetic engineering provides. These benefits would be difficult or impossible to replicate through other currently available technologies, and therefore a ban on the cultivation of genetically engineered crops would have detrimental effects on Hawaiian agriculture and therefore the Hawaiian economy. Decisions about the appropriateness of the implementation, continued use or ban of a technology should be based on scientific assessments of the benefits and risks of that respective technology, since the benefits and risks of a technology are inherent to science. In this framework, the available scientific evidence strongly supports the continued cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Over 600 studies conducted on genetically engineered organisms, both independently and privately funding, consistently reaffirm the scientific consensus that currently approved genetic engineered crops are as safe as their non-GE counterparts and pose little or no environmental hazard, in addition to providing numerous advantages over non-GE counterparts. These studies also support the conclusion that genetic engineering technology with moderate regulation, such as that required by the Food and Drug Administration prior to GE crop approval, is as safe or safer than other currently available technologies. Previous research in favor of these claims includes long-term risk assessments on the safety of GE crops, such as a 10 generational study on quail [1], a 3 year study on sheep [2] and a 104 week study on rats [3], highlighting the general safety of GE cultivars. These conclusions are supported by the consumption of over 3 trillion portions of GE food without a single substantiated claim of adverse effects. Likewise, glyphosate-resistant corn (RoundUp Ready) has contributed to the replacement of relatively toxic broad-spectrum herbicides with herbicides that are almost exclusively safer than caffeine [5]. These low-toxicity herbicides, such as glyphosate, are present at levels on produce at and below 1 ppm [5], demonstrating the benefits GE crops provide with respect to consumer safety. Environmentally, Bt toxin-expressing crops have led to the reduction in insecticide use per hectare through the expression of insecticidal proteins specific for restricted orders (only the order Lepidoptera, and some members of Coleoptera and Diptera are affected [4]) of insects, minimizing insecticide residues on produce and negative environmental impacts associated with insecticide sprayings. This has led almost every major scientific and food safety organizations, including the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Sciences), the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the Royal Society of Medicine, the WHO (World Health Organization), and the French Academy of Sciences, among others, to state that genetically engineered food is safe and poses minimal environmental dangers. The proposed ban or near-ban in Comm. No. 3 85• 3S Ref.To: /V SN fG 9/3/2013 Ref.Date, SE1r0 4 2013 Page 2 of 3 Hawaii of GE crop cultivation is therefore in direct contrast to the scientific consensus on GE crop safety for humans and the environment. To quote the AAAS, "The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe [6]". Subsequently, I would like to highlight the benefits GE papayas have had on Hawaii's domestic industries, and therefore how a ban or how crop registry and fees on their use could unwarrantedly harm the Hawaiian papaya industry. Back in the early 90s, papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) nearly destroyed the entire Hawaiian papaya industry. Fortunately, due to the work of an academic, Dr. Dennis Gonsalves, the papaya was saved due to genetically engineered variants Rainbow and SunUp that were resistant to PRSV. His work was so applauded the governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, declared April 6th "Dr. Dennis Gonsalves Day" in recognition of his work this April [7]. Despite the demonstrated safety of these transgenic papayas, it was not until the end of 2011 that Japan approved transgenic papayas for importation, reversing a $14 million dollar and 93% decrease in Hawaiian papaya exports to Japan from 1996-2011 [8]. Due to the tenuous acceptance of GE papayas in Japan on the condition that they are safe, any ban or legislation giving unequal treatment to GE and non-GE papayas would weaken the Hawaiian papaya industry and the larger Hawaiian economy by creating a scientifically unwarranted assumption that GE papayas are inferior in some capacity to their non-GE counterparts. Bill 113 would also have ramifications on domestic demand for Hawaiian papayas, due to the Bill reinforcing the unscientific assumptions by the larger public that GE produce is inferior to the non-GE varieties. Any attempt to return predominately to cultivating non-transgenic papaya varieties would provoke another resurgence in PRSV and therefore threaten this $47 million industry [9], making alternative options unviable. Due to the crippling economic effects these Bills would have on the Hawaiian economy, it is not in the interest of the Hawaiian public to enact these Bills. As a scientist deeply concerned with the possible ramifications of this bill, I strongly oppose Bills 109 and 113, both of which threaten the livelihood of the Hawaiian agricultural industry. Sincerely, Alex Huszagh [1] Flachowsky, G., Halle, I. & Aulrich, K. Long term feeding of Bt-corn— a ten-generation study with quails. Archives of Animal Nutrition 59, (2005). [2] Trabalza-Marinucci, M. et al. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livestock Science 113. (2008). [3] akamoto, Y. et al. A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats]. Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi. Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan 49, 272 (2008). [4] Whalon, M. & Wingerd, B. Bt: mode of action and use.Archives of insect biochemistry and physiology 54, 200-11 (2003). [5] By Steve Savage, agricultural scientist and former employee of Colorado State University, DuPont, and Mycogen http://appliedmvthology.blogspot.com/2012/09/to-you-really-need-to-buy-organic- foods.html [6] http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS GM statement.pdf [7] http://governor.hawaii.gov/blog/state-of-hawaii-invests-in-innovative-zero-waste-biofuel-program/ [8] http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Japan%20approved%20GM% 20papaya Tokyo Japan 12-19-2011.pdf [9] http:Uwww.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive jan04/form0104.htm?pf=l -- Alexander Huszagh l PhD Student UC Irvine 1 Cellular and Molecular Biology Gateway Program ahuszagh @uci.edu I (847) 404-3343 9/3/2013