Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0385.039 2012-2014 Murashige, Laura From: Lorie Farrell [lorie.farrell©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:28 AM To: Counciltestimony Subject: Hawaii County Council Testimony on bill 109 & 113 Attachments: Hawaii County Council 0901ww.pdf F4 L'"3 0 w n Hawaii County —G C'7 Council 0901ww.,.. _�-- }f Additional testimony -= Lorie Farrell O. Comm. No, - 3 9 Ref. To: P/PSMTG Ref. Dote StF D 4 2013 Hawaii County Council Committee on Public Safety & Mass Transit Wednesday September 4, 2013 1:30 p.m. Testimony Against Bills 109 and 113 Committee Chair Ford and Members of the Committee: I strongly oppose Bills 109 and 113 that imposes limits the farmer or rancher's right to farm. These measures seek to limit farmers and ranchers ability to proactively prepare themselves for disasters whether they be due to natural or manmade causes. Hawaii's tropical environment and isolation make our farmers and ranchers face risks and costs unlike those experienced by others on the continental US. Pests quickly establish with multiple life cycles while those on the continent go through a kill period due to winter frosts. Farm costs are high due to transportation costs. How often have you ordered items from the mainland and found shipping conditions that say "fee transportation within the 48 contiguous states"? Farmers and ranchers face them everyday,yet must seek to find ways to be competitive with farmers that receive "free" shipping. This geographic isolation results in not only additional costs but technology access as well. New equipment easily accessed on the continent can only be experienced by a Hawaii farmer after they commit to purchase sight unseen. Would you make a commitment for a $50k purchase without seeing what you are buying --just on the word of the salesman? Well, that is the reality of our commercial farmers and ranchers. The technologies that are being limited by these measures will reduce additional opportunities for farms and ranches. This year, European farmers who have been so restricted are pleading with their government to reverse the limitations in place. They warn that without such actions,the ability for agricultural operations to respond to societies needs will fall to dangerous levels. The National Farmers Union is urging a framework for"R&D, regulation and commercialization-the very elements existing in Hawaii but are being restricted by these bills. Some have come before this body to applaud Europe's banning of technologies. Please examine the entire story before agreeing with such statements. Following is are two of the links that speak to "other" side if the story. http://www.rurainewsgroup.co.nz/rural-news/rural-world-news/uk-farmers-back-gm-push and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-the-agricultural-revolution—uk-pushes-europe-to-embrace-gm-crops- 8654595.html#. The articles are also attached to this testimony. The decision you make today will have far reaching consequences. Opposing these measures will send a strong support message to commercial farmers and ranchers who take on risks such as taken if you go to Las Vegas with a million dollars and bet them on a slot machine. They do this every day because they believe in providing you with affordable and reliable food and fiber. On the other hand passage of those bills will admit that Hawaii is an elitist society with dictatorial policies of how farmers and ranchers can work. These are the choices. Please oppose these measures. Thank you. Warren K. Watanabe 75 Kawehi Place Kula, Hawaii 96790 UK farmers back GM push • loot,,e • Pie y,: 1 BRITISH FARMERS are backing their Government in its quest to gain approval for the growing of genetically modified crops. The\f l.! says the government is right to lead the discussion on GM technology and highlight vvhyit can be used to help farmers produce more food fi)r a growing population. nsurprisin,ely.the Green Party of t.K opposes the move, unconvinced about the safety of(iM,not just for humans but also considering the impact they have on ceo-systems where they are released and on biodiversity. UK Environment Secretary Owen Paterson last month stepped up his campaign to have GM crops grown in Britain. He said genetically modified crops are"categorically"safer than conventional crops because they are subjected to much greater scrutiny than traditional varieties. Paterson used a speech in I iertfordshire to promote genetic engineering of plants and called on the government, industry and scientists to^join forces to convert the public in the fiace of widespread fear and scepticism, lie s<ay:GM crops ‘kerc safer than conventional ones because they use more precise technology and Iconic under)greater re�ottlatory scrutiny' "These products go through the most rigorous s stem. lt's extraordinarily closely regulated.at a national level and at a European level., We have not come up with any evidence of human health being threatened by these products.' Paterson, who ultimately wants the European Union to relax tight restrictions on growing GM plants,wants to make Britain a centre for GM research and development.potentially a multi-billion pound industry. He has support from UK farmers.The NF'E, now wants to ensure a clear framework for R&D,regulation and commercialisation-- sooner rather than later. NFU President Peter Kendall applauded Paterson for showing leadership on this issue."The Ni'U agrees that the UK. which is the natural home For science research,should be at the forefront of providing agricultural solutions not watching from the sidelines. "Rightly so, farmers fear being left behind. As Mr Paterson said, I also want British farmers to be able to develop the latest technologies so they can reap economic and environmental benefits. "I ‘selcome his commitment to getting the EU approvals system working.The Environment Secretary also asked all interested parties to help him and said he would back therm in return. I,and the NH J.will take up this challenge,. Green Party Luro Candidate for London,Caroline Allen is surprised that no one actually monitors any adverse effects of'GM, She also wants checks if the claims made by GM companies about benefits are real. "Paterson mentions there is no scientific evidence shown directly linking GMOs to higher risk environment or safety, but lacks to go into detail. It is clear that genuine. independent epidemiological studies are required into the impacts of GM food. but are currently lacking." • k NDE ,1 ,,:_ ____ Exclusive: The agricultural revolution - UK pushes Europe to embrace GM crops Environment Secretary will urge EU to relax restrictions on crop licensing Tom Bawden, Oliver Wright Tuesday, 11 June 2013 Britain is to push the European Union to relax restrictions on the licensing of genetically modified crops for human consumption amid growing scientific evidence that they are safe, and surveys showing they are supported by farmers. The Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is expected to use a speech next week to outline the start of a new government approach to GM to ensure Britain "is not left behind" in agricultural science. The move comes as 61 per cent of UK farmers now say they would like to grow GM crops after a disastrous 12-month cycle of poor weather that is expected significantly to reduce harvest yields. Senior government officials said that ministers are increasingly concerned that the potential moral and ethical benefits of GM are being ignored by costly and bureaucratic licensing regulations. With one-twelfth of global arable land under GM cultivation they have privately warned that Britain faces being left behind in an important technology that has the potential to improve crop yields, help the UK's agricultural industry and provide benefits to human health through vitamin fortification. Government sources added that GM also had applications beyond food including the potential to combat diseases such as ash dieback and in developing new medicines. "The point about GM is not simply about food production," they said. "There are wider potential environmental and economic benefits to the technology both in the UK and internationally. "What we want to do is start a dialogue within Europe on GM based upon the science." Ministers are hopeful of building support in Brussels for a change of heart on GM, with Germany seen as a key swing voter. However, any attempts to relax the rules could face opposition from countries such as Poland which in April became the eighth EU member state to ban the cultivation of GM crops. Mr Paterson is said to believe that Britain should take the lead in moving the debate on from the knee- jerk reaction against GM for much of the last decade. The move comes as a poll of over 600 British farmers found a considerable shift in their stance toward GM in the past year, with nearly a third saying they would be more likely to grow GM crops if it were legal now than they were 12 months ago — about half of them a "lot more" so. On top of the advocated benefits of improving yields and cutting down on costs such as pesticides, the increasingly extreme weather has concentrated farmers' minds on the need to guard against climate change. "The weather has definitely had an impact," said Martin Haworth, director of policy at the National Farmers Union. "Farmers are becoming more and more aware that climate change doesn't mean a gradual rise in temperatures but rather a stream of extreme weather events. GM technology is one possible way of mitigating this. "Last summer was disastrous for potatoes, for example. The potential for growing potatoes resistant to blight has had an impact on some farmers' attitudes," he said, adding that farmers were "very frustrated" at not being able to grow GM crops. One of the survey's respondents said they wanted to grow GM crops because "the terrible weather in the past two years has meant that yields have been down and the cost of fertiliser and pesticides have been rising ever since". GM crops can be engineered to grow faster, increase their resistance to weeds, pests and pesticides, produce extra nutrients or survive harsher weather conditions. They are created by taking genes with beneficial qualities from other organisms and injecting them into the plant. A gene from bacteria found in soil has proved particularly effective at warding off pests from cotton plants, for example. But while they are widely grown in North and South America, GM crops are effectively banned in the UK and Europe where they are considered on an extremely strict case-by-case basis. Since the first GM food was produced in 1994 - a delayed-ripening tomato, which had a longer shelf-life - the EU has granted just two licences to cultivate GM crops, neither of them grown in the UK. One was for plants engineered to resist corn borers and the other for a starchy potato used to make paper. Apart from that, Europe's exposure to GM products has been confined to imports of genetically modified animal feed, while much of the meat, eggs and milk comes from animals that have been reared on engineered grains. Science Minister David Willetts said that controls on GM crops should be weakened to make it easier for Britain's farmers to grow them. "We believe that GM crops can help make agriculture more efficient and also just as importantly more sustainable, by, for example, reducing the use of pesticides and the use of fossil fuels," he said. "There are just too m any 21st-Century technologies that Europe is just being very slow to adopt... one productive way forward is to have this discussion as part of a wider need for Europe to remain innovative rather than a museum of 20th century technology," he added. A European Commission analysis of 130 research projects carried out by 500 groups over 25 years concluded in December 2010 that there is "no scientific evidence associating genetically modified organisms with higher risks for the environment or food and feed safety than conventional plants or organisms". However, the evidence is not conclusive and the technique continues to be highly controversial. Opponents to GM crops argue that it is far too early to conclude that the technique is safe - including many farmers, with a quarter saying they would not cultivate them under any circumstances. They are concerned that adopting GM crops could foster stronger pests, diseases and weeds as their foes evolve to adapt to engineered plant and that the injected "rogue" genes could cause problems by spreading to other plants. The report was conducted by Farmers Weekly magazine and the Reed publishing group and commissioned by Barclays. Underlining the scale of public opposition to GM foods, a separate new survey out today by YouGov found that only 21 per cent of the population supported the technology, while 35 per cent opposed it.