Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.120 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: lyn howe [lynhowe1946 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 9:23 PM To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony for bill 113 pahoa district Attachments: testimony bill 113.docx Attached please find my testimony for bill 113 Aloha, Lyn cp c- C- --- j w tAJ Comm. No. 393• Ref.To: Pi fount// Ref. Date OCT 15 2013 10/14/2013 Aloha, My Name is Lyn Howe, I love in the Pahoa district and I co-own an eco farm in Waa Waa with my husband and work to promote saving seed networks on all 5 islands. I support bill 113 with the an amendment to sunset "Round up ready " genetic corn that is presently being grown on the island. I do not support any of the new ammendments proposed by Councilmember Onishi. There is no need to grow a crop so dangerous and contaminating. We have better alternatives available to us. With 50 years of classical corn breeding experience, Dr.Jim Brewbaker, UH Manoa, has offered his many adapted varieties to our island farmers. Long term, these varieties will produce more reliably and sustainably. RR corn and other crops of this type are a dangerous new form of pollution, one that is difficult to detect, completely invisible and a nightmare to recall.Just ONE example of the myriad of proven problems that will occur if we continue in this direction - • 11 million acres on the mainland are now contaminated with Resistant weeds - a 5 fold increase in 3 years • In 2012 - 49% of all US farmers surveyed have glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm. • From 2010 - 2012 - 27% of farms had more than one resistant weed species. • Did Monsanto know that this might occur? -The answer to this question lies in how these Roundup ready crops were developed. Allowing the biotech industry and a technology that bioengineers crops to withstand the large scale use of toxics to proliferate on this island does not move us in the direction of this agricultural sustainability as outlined as a priority by Governor Abercrombie. Roundup was manufactured in a plant in Louisana that covers 1500 acres along the Mississippi River and in the mud at the bottom of the ponds and soil alongside is glyphosphate residue and in this sludge was the gene they were looking for. A gene that "proved to tolerate Roundup far better than any e they had created in the lab," and it didn't interfere with plant growth. In other words, landscapes subjected to regular Roundup exposure, develop organisms that will evolve to resist this chemical. How could this information not have raised questions about the development of weed resistance in farm fields?Yet Monsanto publicly denied the likelihood of resistant weeds and pushed to get Roundup Ready seeds de-regulated. The result is that today farmers must spray more glyphosphate than ever before. To accommodate this trend the EPA announced in May of this year, that it will increase the allowable level of glyphosphate contamination in animal feed crops to 100 parts per million (over one million times the concentration known to cause cancer) and 40ppm in oilseed crops (over 100,000 times the concentration known to cause cancer). To combat weed resistance, Monsanto and other ag-chemical industries are now engineering new crops with stacked traits to be resistant to both glyphosphate and other more toxic herbicides. The majority of genetically engineered crops have been engineered with the Bt gene (with the exception of soy). Insects are rapidly becoming resistant to the Bt gene and in fact this resistance is inherited as a dominant trait, something completely un-anticipated by these biotechnology companies. It is argued by some that BT is also used in organic agriculture. In fact the natural Bt toxin used in insecticidal sprays behaves differently in the environment from the Bt toxin produced in GM plants. Natural Bt breaks down rapidly in daylight and only becomes active (and toxic) in the gut of the insect that eats it. It does not persist in the environment and so is unlikely to find its way into animals or people that eat the crop. With GM Bt crops, however, the plant is engineered to express the Bt toxin protein in active form in every cell of the crop. In other words, the plant itself becomes a pesticide, and people and animals that eat the plant are eating a pesticide. Safety tests for regulatory purposes are generally not carried out on the Bt toxin protein as expressed in the GM plant. The Br toxin protein that is tested is usually derived from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, as GM companies find it too difficult and expensive to extract enough Bt toxin from the GM crop itself. As we have seen, the GM process gives rise to unexpected changes in the desired protein, so it cannot be assumed that the Bt toxin protein derived from E. coli bacteria is the same as the protein derived from the GM plant that people and animals will eat. Indeed, the US Environmental Protection Agency, in its review of the Monsanto GM maize MON810, said it produces a "truncated" version of the protein —in other words, a protein that is not the same as the natural form. Such changes can make a protein more toxic or allergenic. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM Bt crops only affects the target pests and is harmless to mammals, including people or animals that eat the crops. Based on this assumption, regulators do not require human toxicity studies on GM Bt crops. But this assumption is incorrect. In a 2012 test-tube (in vitro) study, genetically engineered Bt toxins were found to be toxic to human cells. One type of Br toxin killed human cells at the dose of 100 parts per million. The findings showed that GM Br toxin does affect humans, contrary to claims from the GM lobby and regulators. The GM lobby responded by saying that in vitro studies do not accurately reflect what happens in a living human or animal that eats GNI Bt crops. But GMO Myths and Truths as well as other independent studies have found that GM Bt crops have the following adverse effects; • Toxic effects on the small intestine, liver, kidney, spleen, and pancreas. • Disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system • Reduced weight gain • Immune system disturbances. Aside from laboratory animals and human cells, GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on butterflies and other non-target insects, beneficial pest predators, bees who use the pollen as a protein source and aquatic and soil organisms. Monsanto's genetically modified "Bt" corn is equipped with a pesticide that breaks open the stomach of the insects that eat the plants and it kills them. This SAME Bt toxin has now also been detected in the blood of • 93 percent of pregnant women tested; • 80 percent of babies; • 67 percent of non-pregnant women. What might be the consequences of a novel gene such as Bt introduced into the blood of newborn children? Do we want to take the risks and pay for future consequences that this may cause in in later years of development for our island unborn and newborn? It is premature to say that the toxic effects associated with GM Bt crops are due to the Bt toxin from the crops. The effects may be due to one or more of the following causes: • The Bt toxin as produced in the GM crop • New toxins produced in the Bt crop by the GM process, and/or • Residues of herbicides or chemical insecticides used on the Bt crop. Many Bt crops have added herbicide-tolerant traits, making it likely that herbicide residues will be found on them. Professor emeritus, Purdue Univ, Dr. D. Huber summed it up. "Historians may look back and write about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations with a massive experiment that is based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise." The biotech industries are given free reign by our federal government to regulate themselves. They continue to make the same claims that they conduct rigorous testing of their products, declaring GMO food safe and their agricultural practices less toxic. But If this is true why do these industries prevent outside safety testing in the US? Why do they continually refuse to release relevant data to other testing institutions so they can compare results and determine safety? Why,iIF these foods are so safe, have these biotech corporations spent millions of dollars fighting the labeling of THEIR products across the country? The Industries mantra of using less chemicals is now a hollow promise. This technology has given us resistant super weeds, super pests and jepordized the existence our pollinators especially the honey bee. Now farmers of roundup ready and BT crops must use more chemicals than ever before to try to control these new weeds and pests. The biotech companies answer to this? Stacking genes and they are close to releasing new GMO crops that will allow the use of even more highly toxic substances, such as 2,4-D and dicambra - A nightmare to our environment and our health. If this is such a safe and sustainable technology as they say, then why in this past legislative session did the biotech industry feel they needed to float a preemptive bill "the right to farm" that would disallow nuisance claims against acceptable agricultural practices?These are industries that make huge sums of money on a technology based on war chemicals and with this technology they go to war with the environment our health and the health of our newborn and unborn. Does Hawaii island want to join the growing ranks of states and islands left with the costly job of cleaning up polluted ground water, restoring reef die-offs, growing health issues and so much more? The counties general plan seeks to promote a model where economic gains are in balance with social and physical amenities. A GMO free Hawaii is a reality consistent with this vision, a dynamic and healthy model for real and long term sustainability Please pass bill 113 without suggested ammendments, and work to sunset the existing GMO round up ready corn that already exists on the island as soon as possible. This would be a successful model for our islands' health and true sustainability. Mahalo Lyn Howe MS Animal Science PhD Physiology