HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.297 2012-2014 Page 1 of 2
C�
ITY C I._r
Murashige, Laura 'f
From: geomike5 @att.net 2013 VO 4 AN II: 59
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:55 AM
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: GMO 113 history leads the way
Your opportunity to vote in support of GMO Bill 113 is here. Why is your yes vote necessary? GMO in plants
should have very limited opportunity to be allowed in Hawaii because of the risks it imposes not only from itself
but from the support required from pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides. The potential for destruction, especially
to the water supply, is too great to take a chance.
You know this is true; our water is at risk.
You hear about how GMO will increase productivity, yield and thus profits. But that is shortsighted. What
happens in a few years? I counter that there is a niche market that will welcome non-GMO products and Hawaii
can become synonymous with that identify. Hence, there will be increase in demand for the Hawaiian product as
non-GMO. Do the papaya growers need fear of being given a grandfather clause to grow GMO papaya as it
might become an anathema product in a county where GMO is generally banned? Absolutely not. There is world
demand for papaya and local growers have a place within that world demand. In fact, they will benefit from the
Hawaii general ban on GMO products because people are so short sighted they will forget that the papaya has
the exemption.
There is little doubt that world-wide, GMO is the future of farming husbandry. But not on Hawaii and not now.
Let me give you a historical example of another industry that will reflect the future of GMO. You can skip the
example by not reading the next 4 paragraphs.
Radiation that we are exposed to every day from the soil, our water and food and our sky is a relative new comer
in our scientific world. Although it has been around since the beginning of time, radiation was only discovered in
1896 by Henry Bequerel, a French scientist. We do not understand the full impact of radiation in our lives even
after nearly 120 years of application and study.
For a period of time after discovery, radiation was used by quack medical artists as a cure all; radioactive water
was promoted as a medical panacea and radium, a radioactive element discovered by Madame Curie in 1898
was used in paint to make glow in the dark objects, such as watch dials, tragically leading to agonizing death by
many of the women who worked as painters in this whimsical industry.
The induced radioactive decay process termed fission was discovered in 1938 by Otto Hahn and Fritz
Strassman. This is the basis of nuclear reactors and of course the nuclear weapons. The first nuclear reactor
was built under the abandoned stadium stands at Stagg Field at the University of Chicago in 1942 and hundreds
of reactors world-wide have been built since. Just think, only 4 years between discovery of induced fission and
the construction of a reactor to demonstrate this process on a large scale. Friend or foe? Historians are divided.
Both classifications are accurate to some degree. There were the tragic results of the weapons usage and even
the peaceful usage of electricity producing generation. Recall Three Mile Island, Cherrnobyl and Fukishima. No
nuclear reactor has been built in the US since 1977. And in the last 50 years, no decision has been made where
to store the radioactive waste, a by-product of the industry and unquestionably sure death to anyone exposed to it
or ingesting it over defined periods of time.
Yet radiation has served many useful purposes. It has been used in the medical field as a cure for various
cancers. And of course the common x-ray by dentists to improve your bite. It has been used in the food industry
for removal of parasites or fungi.
We can in many ways liken the GMO industry to the radiation industry. The time scale is one of them and has
been presented here. GMO is today about where the pre-nuclear industry was in the early 1950s. Theoretically,
nothing could go wrong with reactors with all the protective backup mechanisms in place. This would not be a
popular statement in the GMO field. But would you vote to emplace a nuclear reactor on the Big Island? Could
you justify even putting it at PTA where outside radiation has already been brought to the Island? GMO has
defined usefulness but the long-term side effects have not been studied. GMO is relatively new and being
Comm. No. 393..2 9 7
Ref.To: P/C'DNnei/
11/4/2013
Ref. Date N11V 3 Z013
Page 2 of 2
pushed into commercial use before studies on its impact are completed. Just as you can manipulate seeds to
produce toxins for insects, it could produce toxins for people. Could it be done? We simply do not know.
But we do know about the ancillary effects of the industry such as the triple growing season use of crop
maintenance additives. You have the advantage in your vote of the actions and concerns on Kauai.
It is important to support Bill 113 at this time. Please do so. Don't risk unimaginable tragedy to the environment.
With thankfulness to Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
If you will not, then I ask that you offer a bill that recovers some of the profits from the GMO companies and users
to put in a safety fund to initiate seawater purification, desalinization, and distribution in the future. The waste
water created will have to be discharged into a distant island current perhaps 10 to 20 miles off shore so as to not
harm the littoral and coral growth zone. It is not a cheap alternative.
The island must demand a share of all revenues from GMO crops sold, as with cans and bottles, perhaps a 5-cent
levy per piece sold. All revenues must be placed in a trust fund for potable water production. In addition, any
GMO research allowed and patents and patent royalties produced for anything developed or used on this Island
must include a non-liability partnership on any patent development, in the range of 10 percent.
If you decide not to protect the well-being of the residents of the Big Island today, then at least introduce
legislation to show concern for their future.
Simplify matters though and vote yes on Bill 113.
Mike Reimer
GeoMike5 @att.net
11/4/2013