The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0021.010 2014-2016From: jahnava baldassarre <junglejahnava@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 201411:29 AM "^ n To: Council Testimony Subject: Appeal of GMO Bill r Council Members, CID dy spoken loud and clear on this issue. For many months, people took time off of work to show up and testify over and over to support both Bills 79 and 113. At this juncture, the right thing for the county to do is follow through with the law that our island community fought so hard to pass. We are looking to focus on talking points about home rule, and the legal reasons for supporting this appeal, and not so of much a re -hash of why we passed this bill- as in how and why GMO farming is harmful to people and the environment. We did that quite thoroughly already, and now we need to affirm the county's decision on that and get the higher court ruling that we deserve. Although such talking points are very much valid, of course. Importance of Appealing the Lower Court's decision that rejected Hawai'i County's home rule ordinance on the cultivation of GMO crops/plants: - Accepting the lower court decision means accepting that GMO contamination of conventional and organic farms is legal, legitimate, moral, and ok to do. - Accepting the lower Court decision amounts to a wanton disregard of the property rights and health concerns of those who do not use or want GMO crops and plants. - Accepting the lower Court decision without opposition is a rejection of the state motto of Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aida I Ka Pone. ("The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness") LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1.1 -he principle of preemption is to prevent conflict between laws, so that the laws on the higher level of government prevail in cases of conflict. In this case there are no Hawai'i state laws or regulations relating to the cultivation of GMO crops/plants, otherthan one Department of Health provision about state notification of proposed federal experimental GMO seed testing permits, so Ordinance 13-121 should be the prevailing law on the matter. 2. This decision by a lower level judge relates to a serious and contentious issue deserving of a definitive decision by an appellate court. Comm: No. Ref. To: Ref. Dote DEC 17 2014 3. There is no other jurisdiction where a municipal level GMO related ordinance has been struck down based on State preemption. 4. The national policy is that laws protecting health are a floor not a ceiling, to laws passed by a lower level of government. 5. Magistrate Kurren's decision relied solely on the authority of the Kauai GMO ordinance case, also decided by Kurren, whose decision is being appealed by Kauai County. Plaintiffs and Magistrate Kurren did not rely on any other case law precedent finding preemption in the case of any county or municipal ordinance - as there is none. 6. During the past two legislative sessions, the biotech corporations seeking to use Hawai'i as their experimental test grounds for new genetically altered crops and plants corporations sought to enact state laws to prohibit County ordinances that would "interfere" with their corporate objectives. BUT, all of that legislation failed e.g. SB727 (would have gutted County jurisdiction over matters relating to health and life) and SB 590 (would have disallowed County ordinances relating to agriculture). Hence if the lower Court was correct in saying that the State has carved out this area for exclusive state regulation, then there would have been no need for these attempts to pass this preemption legislation. 7. Corporation Counsel's recommendation in other cases involving matters significant to the public has been that the County should appeal adverse decisions in order to obtain a high Court ruling (e.g. the Missler decision). To take a contrary position in this case would be caving in to the biotechs, and the County will be viewed as abandoning the will of the people, affirmed by over 2,000 pieces of written testimony, at least 570 in-person testimonies, and two petitions for both Bill 79 and Bill 113 -both of which received around 5,000 signatures. B.The argument that we should not appeal because the decision could even be worse if federal preemption is found on all bases (in other words if the Court went even further in its decision) is meant to create the illusion that the losing side could risk losing even worse The law is voids whether void on one basis or many. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is always same exposure in any lawsuit, however, well experienced attorneys have offered to appeal this case for the County at no cast to the County. In parting, we would like to share with you again what our mayor wrote to the county council when he signed Bill 113 on December 5th, 2013: Murashicie, Laura From: jahnava baldassarre <junglejahnava@gmail.com> n Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:07 PM n� To: Council Testimony Subject: Re: Appeal of GMO Bill _ . -- ir Dear Council Members, — - It is important for us, as a community, to stand up for what we believe in. The people, the Council and the M.5—r hWe spoken. We must stand up for home rule, the aina and our legal rights. We must appeal the Lower Court's decision that rejectsHawaii County's home rule ordinance on the cultivation of GMO crops. Accepting the lower court decision means accepting that GMO contamination of conventional and organic farms is legal, healthy and acceptable to the people of Hawaii. This issue is important enough to have it decided by an appellate court. There is no precedence of a municipal level GMO related ordinance being struck down based on State preemption. Please do not abandon the will of the people, the previous council and the Mayor. We are proud of the courage of the previous Council and the Mayor in support of a healthy island and the passage of Bill 113. Mayor Kenai states our values, "We are conveying that instead of global agribusiness corporations, we want to encourage and support community-based farming and ranching ... and progress toward food self-sufficiency...Today our communities expect that government will be as cautious as possible in protecting our food and water supplies. We all want to minimize impacts to the environment while also producing abundant, affordable food for local consumption. This ordinance expresses the desires and demands of our community for a safe, sustainable agricultural sector that can help feed our people while keeping our precious island productive and healthy." Thank you, Jahnava Baldassarre Pahoa