HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0997.001 2012-2014 Pa wE.sc
cv►ff4 i1
County of Hawaii September 16, 2014
County Council, Committee on Agriculture, Water&Energy Sustainability COUNTY CLERK
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Bldg B, RECEIVED AI'I
Time ek3.46PM By W.,011/
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Date 20 4 sEp
Wkcc 517E-
RE: Proposed Resolutions 500-14 and 501-14—Labeling of Hawaii Grown Coffees
Committee Chair and Members:
I testify with comments on these two proposed resolutions as follows:
1) The primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of these resolutions lies with the Stag
Legislature. However, I agree the county certainly has the right to share its views
through the Hawaii State Association of Counties and/or directly to the State Legislature,
and should do so.
2) One of my concerns with the WHEREAS clauses of the proposed resolutions is that they
are confusing in purpose. Some reference the previous efforts of some groups to bump
the minimum blend requirement to 51 % or75%. Another references the coffee industry's
effort to come to consensus in SCR 102 with a study that was never funded. And
nowhere do they mention the existing 10%blend law, HRS§486-120.6, wherein
subsection(b) specifically allows, but does not mandate the roaster to list the foreign
origins of blends. The 10%blend law has been in effect since 1991. One WHEREAS
clause references 10%Kona blends but indicates that the remaining 90% are not listed by
origin—that is not a current legal requirement and that fact should be made clear.
Finally, the last four WHEREAS clauses the resolutions draw unwarranted conclusions
and attack the State Legislature for allegedly not protecting our Hawaii regional coffees,
because of consumer fraud, deception and confusion, allegedly resulting from inadequate
labeling. These last four WHEREAS clauses are without legal or factual support and are
not in the Aloha spirit! The blend disclosure law is working. There is no valid evidence
to the contrary.
3) There is no mention in the WHEREAS clauses of the many other statutes that work to
protect consumers. For example, HRS§708-871.5, enacted in 2013, makes
misrepresenting Hawaii origin a Class C Felony. The HCA and other organizations
worked this last legislative session to enact legislation that would also make
misrepresentation of grade a crime on a graduated scale of severity. Procedurally, it did
not make it out of Conference Committee. It will be reintroduced again next session with
great hopes of passage. Much has been done by the Hawaii coffee industry to protect
consumers from misrepresentation, fraud and deception. Recognition of these efforts
should be included in the WHEREAS clauses.
4) There is no evidence of consumer confusion demonstrated through a legitimate scientific
study.
Comm.
Ref. To: C
Ref. Date_SEP 1 .6 ,nId
5) Hawaii coffee consumers are adequately protected with current labeling and disclosure
laws and with new laws that make misrepresentation of origin a felony.
Misrepresentation of quality or grade will be dealt with in the State Legislature during the
2015 session.
6) It is my understanding that over 800 Kona farmers sell to blenders. The blend market is a
very large portion of the overall coffee markets in Hawaii. Upsetting the current balance
with laws and rules that would eliminate or reduce blends and their markets would be
very destabilizing to this industry, and could potentially put many of these farmers out of
business. We need to be very careful and measured in our approach to blends. Both the
blenders(with their farmers) and consumers need to be protected with balanced
legislation, in my opinion.
7) These resolutions need to be rewritten to properly reflect existing law protecting the
consumer
8) Notwithstanding my comments above, I would favor and support an amendment to
HRS§486.120.6 blend law that would require roasters to state that the 90% is imported,
international or foreign grown coffee.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my comments.
\ (" c4c,_)L__
Dave Bateman, President,
Heavenly Hawaiian Farms,
78-1136 Bishop Road,
Holualoa HI 96725