Blog

Today (September 18) was an exciting day at the County Council hearing.  The GMO taro ban bill passed First Reading 9-0!!!!

Big mahalo to Council members Bill Medeiros who introduced the bill and Jo Anne Johnson and Sol Kaho’ohalahala who also championed the bill, along with Wayne Nishiki.  We also got a full yes from Mike Victorino, and Danny Mateo.  Gladys Baisa voted yes, with reservations.  Mike Molina voted yes without reservations, but suggested the bill have an effective date of 2011 “to give the state time to decide” (we know where that is headed).  Pontanilla followed Molina with a yes vote and voiced concerns with costs to the county.

The best quote of the day:  “We have a duty to protect Hawaiians and that starts right here, right now“  – Chair Danny Matteo, right before the vote call.

Mahalo to everyone for the powerful and articulate testimony (extra mahalos to those who came from far!), to those who came to show force and for the voices of the kupuna that reverberated in the chamber today.  It was chicken skin!   The message is sent.

To those who were with us in spirit from every island and the mainland, mahalo for your support.  All of your positive intentions for protecting Hāloa from so many avenues have been realized.

From us at KAHEA, here’s what’s next up:

Final Reading! We expect Molina will lead the way in trying to modify the bill since he has come out on the side of the biotech industry and its staunch supporter the Hawaii Farm Bureau in committee hearings.  Yet, he stated in the full council hearing that he respects Hawaiians, as did Council member Baisa.  As one testifier said, “Half a cup of respect, is half a cup of disrespect.”   You either respect Hawaiians or you don’t.  Negotiating anything less than a 100% ban on all kalo varieties is disrespectful.

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:

For the past few weeks there have been numerous articles, editorials, and letters to editors in several local newspapers regarding open ocean aquaculture. A recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser states that 

the large size and experimental nature of the [Hawaii Oceanic Tech] project demands that state regulators, and the public, keep a critical eye on the project as it moves forward.

The article goes on to say that the objective of this project is an organic, ecologically sustainable fish. 

PROBLEM #1: Organic. The problem with this is that there are no organic standards for fish farming. It would also be especially hard to develop one for open ocean aquaculture, because the cages are not closed systems. Anything that is in the water will wind up in the bodies of the fish.

Hawaii Oceanic Tech also hopes to use “organic feed” for their fish. The main ingredient in HOTIs feed will be “sardines from sustainable fish stocks”. But, this goes back to what I said above: there are no organic standards for fish, so any claims of their feed being so are false.

PROBLEM #2: Ecologically Sustainable. This is a tricky one, just because it is so undefined. What is ecologically sustainable? Everything humanity does will impact the environment in some way. Perhaps ecologically sustainable means there is a balance of pros and cons for the environment. But what are the pros in this situation? Proponents of aquaculture say that farming fish gives wild populations a chance to repopulate, but this is easily proven wrong by the environmental havoc  that fish farming has caused in British Columbia and other places where fish farms are popular. Many Canadians are embarrassed that their government has let the caged farming industry expand because of its serious impacts. 

More information about ocean fish farming’s impact on wild stocks can be found here: Science Daily: Ocean Fish Farming Harms Wild Fish, Study Says (Neil Frazer-UH)

Keep your eyes open for more aquaculture in the news in the coming weeks.

From Alana:

Entitled Aquaculture in Hawaii: Economic Advantage or Source of Sustainability, the Hawaii Venture Capitalist Association’s recent meeting addressed the benefits of many types of aquaculture in Hawaii. I think the presentation did a good job of explaining how aquaculture could be in Hawaii, in its most ideal form.

One of the first things mentioned was that aquaculture could help restore wild fish populations that are headed towards extinction. They failed to address, however, how that would happen. It is accepted in the scientific community that fish raised in fish farms are much less fit to live in the wild. Another weak point in the presentation was explaining how the current and future open ocean aquaculture ventures would increase self-sufficiency in Hawaii by reducing imports. Up to 90% of the future ventures’ fish would be exported, while the 10% allotted for Hawaii would go to restaurants like Alan Wong’s and Mariposa, restaurants that most people here can’t afford to go to on a regular basis.

There were also two slides that were completely skipped, clearly regarding genetics. I understand that this may have been due to time constraints, but the public deserves to know not only about possible economic gains from aquaculture, but also the genetic and environmental consequences of it.

A good way to sum up the outlook of the meeting is with the quote

“If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly”

this quote was used during the presentation, but who is to say what is worth doing and what isn’t? Is anything worth doing badly anymore? A  commenter on one of m previous posts claimed that “fish poop” produced from aquaculture can curb the effects of climate change by absorbing the CO2 from the atmosphere, and adding it to the ocean. However, as my previous “ocean acidification” post details, an increase nutrient-rich fish effluent leads to the acidification of the ocean, thereby further risking the health of many ecosystems.

Once again, I urge everyone to learn more about what is going on in terms of aquaculture in Hawaii.

Here are some links to more info on open ocean aquaculture. It is our responsibility to find out as much as we can while we can.

Food and Water Watch: Fish Farms

Kona Blue Fish Farm

Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc

From Melissa-

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has provided evidence supporting the theory that genetically modified (GM) foods cause adverse health effects. Many studies cited within their position paper on GM foods indicate that when certain animals are fed strict diets consisting of only GM foods, there is a”serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: “The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.”12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.

Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”13

Because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, the AAEM asks that:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

To read the full article, please click here.

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 Alana:

A bill to prohibit genetically engineered taro is still being debated on Maui. Counselors are unable to decide whether to let the bill pass or not and say they want more information. The bill would prohibit “any person to test, propagate, cultivate, raise, plant, grow, introduce, transport or release genetically engineered or recombinant DNA kalo, or taro.” Citing it as “biological pollution”, Council Member Bill Medeiros also says:

I think we need to be brave. This is not something popular to do. This is something right to do.

The bill was met with some opposition, though, by the Department of Environmental Management Director Cheryl Okuma, who basically says that it’s too much effort to enforce the ban.

Laziness from the Dept. of Environmental Management should not deter kalo from having a secure future in Hawai’i.

Click here for the full article.