HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.290 2012-2014 Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura nE- `'` ` s`P ' E
From: Mario Patino [mario.j.patino @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:10 PM
213 OV -4 Al 11= S3
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Testimony: Opposition of Bill 113 from a science and cultural educator
My name is Mario Patino, a science educator and citizen of the County of Hawaii. I am present you with
written testimony in opposition of Bill 113. As written the Bill is flawed in many areas, specifically in
conceptual, technological, and legal aspects of implementing such a Bill into law.
Conceptually the Bill has redefined genetically modified organisms as those organisms that have been
manipulated with modern technological tools. Genetic manipulation can take place without such modern
tools; such manipulations have taken place for over 10,000 years by our ancestors. The main difference
with using modern technology is that the manipulation can take place in a shorter amount of time due to
more accuracy in using genomic information. The Bill addresses "safety and environmental" concerns
without any empirical data or evidence to support such claims. As of 2013, there has not been one incident
in which the consumption or use of GMO products has caused death or disease to any human.
Bill 113 is discriminatory against farmers, consumers, and scientists. As currently written, those who
make a living [via agriculture or research] and those that consume these products. As written, Bill 113
goes against interstate commerce laws and agricultural protection policies enforced by the USDA. As an
educator I want to provide my students with many options in solving agricultural problems. Use of
technology is one option that should always be on the table in case traditional methods of farming are
ineffective against change of climate and pest infestation. All domesticated crops and animals are at risk of
disease and infestation because benificial traits seen in wild specimens have been bread out. Technology
can diversify the genome of a domesticated organism by introducing essential genomic variation. Our
ancestors knew this and modern technology complements this knowledge.
There is no documented safety risk to public or environment in relation to the growing or consumption
of genetically modified products. According to federal regulatory agencies, there is no associated health
risk in consuming GMO products nor environmental risk in growing them when they meet federal
standards. GMO products are screend by FDA, USDA, and EPA. They are more regulated then the foods
you would buy at any farmers market. With this Bill, the County of Hawaii is attempting to super cede
federal regulatory agencies who have more resources, expertise in agricultural biotechnology, food safety,
and environmental protection. The rights of consumers and producers of these products will be protected
by federal laws. The County of Hawaii doesn't have the resources to fight legal claims against parties who
are protected by federal laws. Since there is no associated risk to health and environment, the County of
Hawaii will need to provide rational based on empirical evidence that their Law is in the best interest of
the public.
I support your Bill if it provided empirical evidence that such products are a danger to our community
Making laws based on flawed and inaccurate information not only diminishes our trust in public elected
officials but also reinforces that our public officials are not demonstrating science literacy. You are all in
the position of making informed decisions based on hard facts and evidence. Use this intelligence to make
the right decision.
Sincerely Submitted
Mario Patino, Science Educator
Comm, No. 393. 0290
Ref. To: PYCaVnci/
Ref. Date 5 2013
11/4/2013