Blog

Last Thursday, the bill to ban genetically modified taro on Maui (09-100) was passed from the Economic Development, Agriculture and Recreation Committee to the full, nine-member County Council. Even after receiving hundreds of e-mails in support of the bill (From you guys! Thanks & keep it up!) and listening to passionate testimony, the committee was unable to reach a decision.

The mayor stated in a letter to the committee that she does not support a ban against taro due to the issue of unenforceability because there are no “reputable scientific tests” to distinguish between natural and GM taro.

Instead, Tavares said she preferred committee members defer the bill until the council, her administration, state lawmakers and federal and state agricultural officials find a solution.

“I don’t get these lamebrained excuses about enforcement,” said longtime Native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte of Molokai.

Medeiros’ bill would make it illegal for any person to test, raise, grow, transport or release genetically engineered taro. The penalty would be a petty misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and 30 days in jail.

Lucienne de Naie of the Hawaii Sierra Club said a law in itself can be a powerful deterrent.
Dr. Lorrin Pang, the Maui District health officer, said there are plenty of people in Maui County who would volunteer to help enforce the law, including himself. Genetically modified taro can be distinguished from natural taro, he said.

To read full article click here.

Please contact Mayor Tavares and tell her what you think about GM taro enforcement! (808) 270-7855; Fax: (808) 270-7870.

The date is not yet set for the meeting to make a decision on Bill 09-100 but the council still needs to hear your support for this bill! Council members that still need  some swaying include Michael Victorino, Gladys Baisa, Joseph Pontanilla, Michael Molina and Council Chair Danny Mateo. Please take a few minutes out of your day to contact the council members and voice your support for the GMO Taro Ban bill. 

Michael Victorino- michael.victorino@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-7760
Fax: (808) 270-7639

Gladys Baisa- gladys.baisa@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-7939
Fax: (808) 270-7127

Joseph Pontanilla- joseph.pontanilla@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-5501
Fax: (808) 270-5502

Michael Molina- michael.molina@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-5507
Fax: (808) 270-5508

Council Chair Danny Mateo- danny.mateo@mauicounty.us Ph :  (808) 270-7678
Fax: (808) 270-7717

Jo Anne Johnson-  jo_anne.johnson@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-5504

Sol Kaho’ohalahala- sol.kahoohalahala@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-7768

Bill Medeiros- bill.medeiros@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-7246

Wayne Nishiki- wayne.nishiki@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-7108

Please contact them and Ask them to support Bill 09-100 and help protect kalo from genetic modification. Your phone call or e-mail could help to extend the shield of protection for kalo to one more county.

From Alana:

Too often loko i’a are talked about as things of the past, and somewhat obsolete. They are spoken of like memorials of a time past, a time when Hawaiians could essentially farm huge amounts of fish without even needing to feed them. But those days are over, right? No, they don’t have to be. 

On Saturday at He’eia fishpond in Kaneohe, a bunch of people got together to help fish some of the predators, like baracuda, out of the fishpond. He’eia is an estimated 800 years old. It is owned by Bishop Estate, and is cared for by  Paepae o He’eia, a private non-profit organization. It has taken them years to clear destructive mangrove trees off of about half the fishpond wall, and they are still working on fixing a hole in the wall, but they still manage to produce and sell moi. He’eia produces anywhere between 300 and 700 pounds of moi each year and that number is expected to increase when the wall is fixed and the fishpond is completely restored. About 100 years ago there were many more fishponds all around the island, but most of them have either been filled in completely with mangroves, or are in ruin. 

He’eia, though, is a beautiful example of how community effort can lead to something meaningful and productive. Although many fishponds are privately owned now, they could still serve as productive entities of society. He’eia and Moli’i on O’ahu both manage to. Hawaiian fishponds utilized a system that was not found anywhere else on the planet. It was probably the most efficient and sustainable way of raising herbivore fish ever. Fishponds are not the remnants of an ancient culture. Hawaiians are still here, and Hawaii can still benefit from fishponds.

From:  Andrea

Just last month, Act 155 was passed in the Hawaii Legislature, amending Hawaii’s renewable energy law.

One of the highlights of this amendment was the strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (often abbreviated as RPS).  These standards are binding for electric utility companies, which must satisfy the specified percentage of their net electricity sales with electricity generated from renewable energy sources by the specified date.

Now, Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards are as follows:  10% by 2010; 15% by 2015; 25% by 2020; and 40% by 2030.  The two standards that Act 155 changed are the two later dates:  the 2020 standard was increased by 5%, and the 2030 standard was a new addition.

This strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards was a wise move by the Hawaii Legislature.  Hawaii should be a predominant leader in the renewable energy realm, considering that it is the most oil dependent state with over 90% of its energy needs met by imported fossil fuels– a doubly detrimental impact with carbon footprints from long-distance importation and burning.  The context of climate change and sea-level rise heighten Hawaii’s energy vulnerability.

Yet, Hawaii is also ideally situated to move the ball forward with renewable energy due to the high availability of solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy.  Thus, the Legislature’s addition of the long-term standard, 40% renewable-created electricity by 2030, is in line with Hawaii’s position of great need, vulnerability, and opportunism.

However, the short-term standard could be a bit more aggressive.  Although a five-percent increase to 25% by 2020 is an improvement, a few other states have more stringent short-term standards.  For example, California is requiring 20% renewable-created electricity by 2010– double Hawaii’s 2010 standard.  And, Maine has a 2017 standard of 40%, Hawaii’s standard for 13 years later, while New York has a 2013 standard of 24%– 9% greater than Hawaii’s 2015 standard.

Regardless of the precise standards, the definition of “renewable energy” sources must be amended.  While creating more stringent standards in the short-term is ideal, amending the definition of “renewable energy” to only encompass those sources that are truly clean is a must.

As it stands now, the definition of “renewable energy” does not contain any qualifications.  For example, it includes “biofuels.”  Such an unqualified authorization allows utility companies to meet the standard with, say, palm oil, which fits the broad definition of “biofuels.”

What’s the problem with palm oil qualifying as a renewable energy source?  This “biofuel” implicates a significant carbon footprint due to carbon-emitting land change.  After the deforestation, heavy fertilization, and peatland burning required to produce the palm oil, the production of this “biofuel” actually contributes more to global warming, opposed to ameliorating the crisis.

Renewable energy sources and, thus, renewable portfolio standards for utility companies should authorize only clean renewable sources in life-cycle terms.  Renewability should be just one requisite for clean energy sources; the holistic footprint, including emissions, land change, and other environmental impacts, also must be taken into account.

Otherwise, we may simply displace the impact to another medium.  Without amending the law to reflect this crucial qualification, the renewable portfolio standards may end up perpetuating the very problem that they are intended to improve.

Want Hawaii to lead a meaningful renewable energy transition?

Contact your representatives in the State Legislature and voice your opinion!

Here’s contact information for our House representatives:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/members/members.asp

And, here’s contact information for Senate members:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.asp

From Alana:

This week Mauna Kea was chosen as the site for the Thirty Meter Telescope. It was chosen over a location in the Chilean Atacama Desert. In the weeks prior to the decision, some people thought that Mauna Kea might not be chosen because of its significantly higher cost, but was anyone actually surprised when the Mauna Kea site was chosen? It is sad to see untouched, sacred land used for a telescope that could  be obsolete in a matter of years. In these job-hungry times the state should be focusing on creating jobs that invigorate the ‘aina, rather than destroy it. The ecological and cultural price might be even more than the price of building it…

More information on the Mauna Kea site: http://www.tmt.org/news/site-selection.htm

From Alana:

Last Friday there was a community aquaculture meeting at the UH Law School. It was fourth of four presentations given by Christina Lizzi (Food and Water Watch, DC), Rob Parsons (Food and Water Watch Coordinator, Maui), and Kale Gumapac (Kanaka Council). The other three meetings were on the Big Island and Maui. Only about 10 people showed up to the one on O’ahu (granted, it was on short notice, and had limited publicity), but a lot of concerns were raised, and was apparent that people are not only curious about these sci-fi fish farms, but they are also concerned.  The meetings were informative about aquaculture, and the risks that come with it anywhere it the world, and also had a very cultural focus on Hawai’i.

Some of the environmental and legal issues brought up in discussion:

What state entity should preside over aquaculture?

Kona Blue has been meeting with Monsanto, the GMO company, for GMO soy in feed. 

How can wild fish in feed be reduced, while also eliminating GMO protein substitutes, like soy?

Kona Blue has plans to genetically engineer a stronger type of kahala fish. Escapes of GMO fish, or GMO fed fish could lead to terrible repercussions in the wild. 

Who holds ultimate title to leased aquaculture areas? In reality it is ceded land, and leases could be contested. 

Kona Blue is not paying fair market value on leased area (only ~$14,000 per year)

All feed is imported, and its content is not released. It could have preservatives, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, etc. 

Virtually all of ocean farmed fish would be exported from the islands. 

Permit requirements for onshore hatcheries? The impacts of the hatcheries may be as harmful as what happens in the ocean. 

Who would enforce buffer zones around larger ventures? DOCARE? Coast Guard?

Cultural issues brought up in discussion: 

Hukilau Foods, the company running the fish farm off of Ewa beach, takes advantage of the concept of the hukilau, which historically would benefit the entire ahupua’a by providing fish to everyone who helped. Hukilau Foods, however, exports the majority of their fish to the mainland. (Asking Hukilau Foods to share their bounty on harvest days would make a big statement)

Hawai’i open ocean aquaculture operations have a tendency to equate themselves with the loko i’a (native Hawaiian fish ponds). This is similar to comparing the TMT to native Hawaiian astronomy. It is fallacious, and the two could not be more different. The ancient fishponds were set up to be self-sustaining ecosystems. They were poly-culture systems that used barracuda, sea turtles, seaweed, predatory fish, and smaller fish like a checks and balances system. It did not have to constantly be monitored for disease, and the fish did not need to be fed. The ponds were also separate from the open ocean. 

In past generations the ocean was revered for its healing properties. Even when I was growing up I was taught to go in the ocean if I had a wound, but these days you are more likely to get staff infection than be healed. The ocean is changing, and not for the better. Adding an unknown amount of fish excrement to our waters could lead to a rise in “slime” which can lead to several health problems in humans. 

EIS’ fail to address most cultural concerns. How will sharks that are attracted to the cages be address? In 2005 Kona Blue killed a resident 16-foot tiger shark that many people felt was an ‘aumakua.

Obviously there are a lot of conflicting interests here regarding land and ocean use. We came to the conclusion that the best way to benefit our island community would be to use all the money that would have be given to aquaculture ventures, to instead  restore the loko i’a. If that happened, entire communities would reap the benefits, and not just a CEO and 20 employees of a company. Open ocean aquaculture has already proven itself to be a generally unprofitable business in Hawai’i– Kona Blue says it needs to expand or it will go out of business. Why not produce something locally, in a truly sustainable way, that would be for local people? The infrastructure for fishponds is already there, they just need a little makeover.

From Melissa-

Maui taro farmers need your help. Our beloved Haloa is once again under the threat of being generically modified, this time on Maui. The Maui County Council needs to hear from the public on this issue. Please voice your opinion (in Haloa’s favor of course) and let it be known to the council that you care about the purity of the kalo within the islands. Take a minute out of your day to contact the council and show your opposition to GM taro. Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta have been making their rounds, so pick up your phone and show them that Hawaii doesn’t back down on this issue.

Ask them to support Bill 09-100 and help protect taro from genetic modification.

Council members to contact:

Mike Molina (Haiku, Paia, Makawao)  270-5507
Gladys Baisa (Kula, Pukalani, Ulupalakua)  270-7939
Joe Pontanilla (Kahului) 270-5501
Jo Anne Johnson (West Maui) 270-5504
Danny Mateo (Molokai) 270-7678
Sol Kaho’ohalahala (Lanai) 270-7768
Bill Medeiros (East Maui) 270-7246
Wayne Nishiki (South Maui) 270-7108
Michael Victorino (Wailuku, Waihee, Waikapu) 270-7760

Councilmembers are expected to make a key decision in this process by July 16th, so please, please, please call them today.  Your phone call could help to extend the shield of protection for taro to one more county.

From:  Andrea

Sparked by curiosity about the legal procedure for chemical spills and releases, I have been researching the Hawaii Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act.  After days picking apart the details of this Act and  related regulations, I am left to wonder where I may find the “Community-Right-to-Know” aspect.

It seems like it should be called Department of Health-Right-to-Know.  Nowhere in this Act is there a mandate for notifying the public when there is a chemical release or spill.  Facilities that store hazardous and extremely hazardous substances over a threshold amount are bound to report their chemical inventory and releases or spills to the Department.   But, what about notifying the public of this danger?

As discovered by a call to the Hawaii Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response, the Department of Health is not bound to notify the public.  The Department decides, within its discretion, whether to notify the public through a general statement about a chemical release in the community.

When I started researching this law, I expected to find public notification requirements about what hazardous substances are present in the community and when they are accidentally released.  The only public right-to-know is the ability to request records on particular facilities from the Department of Health.  But, this policy does not truly inform the community because members of the public must know exactly what they are looking for in order to request that information.

If the apparent goal of the Act is the community’s right-to-know about the presence and release of hazardous substances within the community, there should be a provision binding the Department of Health to notify the public.  In other words, the Department should make records on these hazardous substances more accessible to the public, actually informing the community in a meaningful way.

As it stands now, the Hawaii Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act requires notifying the Department, but there is an essential step missing in the process:  notifying the public, rather than requiring the public to specifically request information that is not generally public knowledge.  The onus should be on the Department, the information-bearing party, not the public.