Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.278 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: Susan Miyasaka [sc_miyasaka @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:32 PM To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Re: Testimony Against Bill 113 Attachments: Testimony-against-Bill-113-11-5-13_all.pdf Dear Hawaii County Council Clerk, Earlier, I sent you my written testimony without the attached article by 2013 World Food prize winner Montagu in the Wall Street Journal. Here's my written testimony with the article attached. Please use this one rather than my earlier one. Thanks! Best wishes, Susan Susan C. Miyasaka aCD P.O. Box 203 ! Pepeekeo, HI 96783 ®� On Sunday, November 3, 2013 5:43 PM, Susan Miyasaka <sc_miyasaka @yahoo.com> wrote: to • Dear Hawaii County Council Clerk, 1.4 Attached is my written testimony against Bill 113. Thank you for your attention. Best wishes, Susan Susan C. Miyasaka P.O. Box 203 Pepeekeo, HI 96783 Comm. No. 393, °278` Ref.To: P t'o anc: Ref. Date NUV 5-2013 11/4/2013 ID: J. Yoshimoto, County Council Chair Karen Eoff, Member Brenda Ford, Member Greggor Ilagan, Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Zendo Kern, Member Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Margaret Wille, Member FROM: Susan C. Miyasaka, Ph.D. SUBJECT: Testimony against County Council Bill No. 113 My name is Dr. Susan C. Miyasaka, and I am an Agronomist at the University of Hawaii. 1 am providing testimony to you as a private individual and not as a representative of the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). My testimony is not biased by financial interests, because I have not received any research funding from the seed companies. I ask that you to table County Council Bill 113 today. Instead, form a Task-Force or Ad-Hoc Committee to study this complex and controversial issue. Select scientists, representatives from state and federal regulatory agencies, health care professionals, and growers of organic, conventional, and genetically engineered (GE) crops. The nation is watching us (Pollack, 2013: .';!H31:s'_�l We can demonstrate how co-existence of diverse farming systems on the Big Island is possible,just as we have shown how diverse ethnic and cultural groups can co-exist together, by respecting each other and focusing on what we have in common. Our common goal should be one of sustainability on the Big Island— both economic and environmental. We need farmers and ranchers to grow safe and healthful food crops and dairy or meat animals on this Island. We need to listen to them when they tell us that they need this new agricultural biotechnology to help them farm profitably and safely. Bill 113 divides the agricultural community, because it seeks to promote non-GE crops at the expense of conventional farmers and ranchers who raise or will want to raise GE crops. Bill 113 is based on several,false assumptions. The first false assumption is that co-existence of organic and GE crops is impossible. The scientific fact is that buffer areas between neighboring crops can control unwanted cross-pollination. Use of GE crop varieties in certified organic farming is specifically prohibited. However, the "presence of detectable levels of GE material in a crop does not constitute a violation of National Organic Program (NOP) regulations nor is it reason to lose accreditation, as long as the grower has not intentionally planted GE seed and has taken reasonable steps to avoid cross pollination....The USDA-NOP [National Organic Program] informed state agricultural departments that up to 2005 no organic farmer had lost organic certification because of AP 1 [accidental pollination] of GE material. (Lemaux, 2009)" Is there any evidence that an organic grower on the Big Island has lost organic certification due to cross-pollination with a GE crop'? A second false assumption of Bill 113 is that definitive science is lacking about whether GE crops are safe for human consumption. The scientific fact is that the overwhelming majority of national and international science communities are in agreement that after being studied and approved for deregulation, GE crops and foods are as safe for human or animal consumption as non-GE crops and foods. - Dr. Alessandro Nicolia and others (2013; published a review of 1,783 articles or 10 years of studies from 2002 to 2012 on the safety of GE crops. The) published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, a well-respected, scientific journal. Dr. Nicolia and others concluded that "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops...." - The American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2012; �1i, 1c ,,tt i �f orL i \ ,i;ik n,, i( 1.Cii reviewed the literature and stated that "indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. [C]ontrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders. to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny."" Snell and others (2012; I c ' ` f;t��_k � �i � �'� ` °) reviewed 12 long-term animal feeding studies and stated "The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.'' - The American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public I lealth reported (2012: Nit �'- �. . iE , , s 'I, 0,1 ., H) that "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."" - The official position of the American Dietetic Association (2006: 1:1,.' �i l`'! f' t IE r�, ° '4 � :1': ,'J: ) is that "Agricultural and food biotechnology can enhance the quality, safety. nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption, and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, and food distribution, and environmental and waste management. The third false assumption of Bill 113 is that if it passed, there will be few immediate, negative consequences similar to that of the earlier ban on GE taro and coffee. The scientific fact is that there are no commercially approved GE taro and coffee, so that a ban placed on them would not 2 be challenged in court. In addition. taro farmers and coffee farmers on the Big Island supported the ban on GE taro and coffee. The situation will be very different if you pass Bill 113, because there are several federally approved GE crops that will not be allowed to be planted or expanded by the passage of such a bill. In addition, many conventional farmers and ranchers are united in their opposition to Bill 113 (Big Island Banana Growers' Association, Hamakua Farm Bureau, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, Hawaii Floriculture and Nursery Association, and Hawaii Papaya Industry Association). What are the negative unintended consequences of passing Bill 1 I3'? - Farmers who grow GE crops could decide to disregard the law, refuse to register, and then they would become criminals liable to lines of$1000 per day. Do we want to criminalize farmers'? - Industry groups who support the right of farmers to grow legal and safe crops could decide to sue the County of Hawaii for their right to farm. Do you want to use taxpayers' monies to defend against these lawsuits? Please make your decisions based on sound science, and consider the good of all farmers and ranchers on the Island. Future GE crops have the potential to: a) increase water use and fertilizer efficiencies; b) remediate soil contaminants; c) increase no-till or low-till practices: d) help to reduce greenhouse gases; and e) produce higher yields without increasing land usage (Lemaux. 2009; Montagu. 2013: r F Let's work together to ensure the sustainability of agriculture on the Big Island. Literature cited: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2012. Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. American Dietetic Assoc. 2006. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural and food biotechnology. Vol. 106, pg. 285-293. _yp American Medical Association (AMA). 2012. Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public lealth (A-I2) Labeling of BioengineeredFoods (Resolutions 508 and 509 A-1 1). Executive Summary. Lemaux. P. 2009. Genetically engineered plants and foods: A Scientist's analysis of the issues (Part II). Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 60:511-559. Snell. C., A. Bernheim, .1 -P. Berge. M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris, A. E. Ricroch. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term multi-generational animal 3 feeding trials: A literature review. 50: 1134-1148. Montagu. M.V. 2013. The Irrational Fear of GM Foods. Wall Street Journal. Oct. 23, 2013. ,Hoki I Ws", ,>'v) 1!; 'H ; 1 Ipdf attached] 4 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2013 OPINION The Irrational Fear of GM Food Billions of people have eaten genetically modified food over the past two decades. Not one problem has been found. By Marc Van Montagu Farmers can now produce more crops in an environmentally sustainable way at a lower cost thanks to the efforts of hundreds of scientists over the past half-century. Seeds are developed in a laboratory and then field tested to enhance nutritional value or resistance to drought, disease and herbicides. Genetically modified crops are now planted on nearly a quarter of the world's farm land by some 17.3 million farmers. More than 90% of those farmers are smallholders who harvest a few acres in developing countries. Society, the economy and the environment have benefited enormously from GM crops. India has flipped from cotton importer to exporter because of insect-resistant cotton. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have stimulated no-tillage farming, reducing soil erosion and greenhouse gas emissions. Insect-resistant GM crops have cut insecticide sprayings by more than 25%—and as much as sevenfold in some parts of India. In developing countries, GM crops have helped ensure food security and bolster incomes for farmers, allowing parents to focus more resources on other priorities, such as educating their children. Such remarkable achievements are only the beginning. Dozens of better GM crops are in the pipeline from companies, universities and public agencies around the world. Crops in development include virus-resistant cassava, a starchy root otherwise known as tapioca; nutritionally enriched rice that can help prevent blindness and early death among children; nitrogen-efficient crops that reduce fertilizer runoff; and many more. These crops will continue to reduce hunger by bringing more bountiful and nutritious harvests. They will also help the environment by mitigating the impact of agriculture by conserving our precious, finite supply of fresh water; freeing up land for other uses, like carbon-absorbing forests; preserving topsoil; and reducing the use of insecticides and herbicides, thereby enhancing biodiversity. These advancements are particularly timely given the environmental and demographic state of the 21st century. Between now and 2050, global population will rise by about one-third, to 9.6 billion from 7.2 billion, reducing arable land per capita. Almost all of that population growth will occur in the developing world, where about 870 million people are already suffering from hunger and malnutrition, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. And 100% of it will happen during a period of greater climate volatility, which may place dramatic new stresses on agriculture. The question of how to nourish two billion more people in a changing climate will prove one of the greatest challenges in human history. To meet it, we should embrace an agricultural approach that combines the best features of traditional farming with the latest technology. Biotechnology offers an unparalleled safety record and demonstrated commercial success. Remarkably, however, biotechnology might not reach its full potential. In part, that's because outspoken opponents of GM crops in the U.S. have spearheaded a "labeling" movement that would distinguish modified food from other food on grocery store shelves. Never mind that 60%-70% of processed food on the market contains genetically modified ingredients. In much of Europe, farmers are barred from growing genetically modified crops. Even in Africa, anti-biotechnology sentiment has blocked its application. In Zambia, for example, the government refused donations of GM corn in 2002, even as its people starved. Opponents of GM crops have been extremely effective at spreading misinformation. GM crops don't, as one discredited study claimed recently, cause cancer or other diseases. GM cotton isn't responsible for suicides among Indian farmers—a 2008 study by an alliance of 64 governments and nongovernmental organizations debunked that myth completely. And GM crops don't harm bees or monarch butterflies. In fact, people have consumed billions of meals containing GM foods in the 17 years since they were first commercialized, and not one problem has been documented. This comes as no surprise. Every respected scientific organization that has studied GM crops—the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, among others—has found GM crops both safe for humans and positive for the environment. As a plant scientist, neither I nor my fellow 2013 World Food Prize laureates, Dr. Mary- Dell Chilton and Dr. Robert T. Fraley, anticipated the resistance to genetic modification and biotechnology. After all, nearly everything humans have eaten though the millennia has been genetically altered by human intervention. Mankind has been breeding crops— and thereby genetically altering them—since the dawn of agriculture. Today's techniques for modifying plants are simply new, high-precision methods for doing the same. Resistance to biotechnology seems all the more unbelievable considering that much of it comes from the same thoughtful people who tend to dismiss climate-change skeptics as "anti-science." It seems to me that much of the resistance to GM foods isn't based on science, but may be ideological and political, based on fears of"corporate profiteering" and "Western colonialism." To note one irony: The extreme opposition to genetic modification has led to hyper- regulation of GM crops, which has raised the cost of bringing them to market. Now only multinational companies and large research entities can afford to comply with the rules. Smaller enterprises in developing countries are ultimately hurt much more than large conglomerates. Anyone who cares about alleviating hunger and protecting the environment should work quickly to remove the bias against GM crops. A good first step is for educated, scientifically literate people to avoid being taken in by the myths about genetically modified food. These innovations have too much potential to empower individuals and feed the world to be thwarted by falsehoods and fear-mongering. Dr. Van Montagu is founder and chairman of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology Outreach at Ghent University in Belgium. He is the co-recipient of the 2013 World Food Prize, along with Dr. Mary-Dell Chilton of Syngenta Biotechnology and Dr. Robert T. Fraley of Monsanto.