Tag Archives: Margaret Wille

Food Security, Government, Sustainability

Farmers Support Colleen Hanabusa

2 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Hillary Clinton says GM foods are okay, and the vast majority of our local farmers agree. I think Senator Inouye, too, would have agreed with Hillary Clinton on this issue.  Hanabusa

Our local county councilperson Margaret Wille says they are not okay, though, and, without scientific proof and going against the vast majority of UH scientists, initiated an ordinance to ban it. Hawai‘i State Senator Brian Shatz went with Margaret Wille on this issue.

This is why we farmers support Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa in the upcoming U.S. Senate election. It’s about courage, leadership, and common sense.

Hillary Clinton was the featured speaker at the recent BIO 2014 conference, which is the largest industry trade group representing all aspects of biotechnology (it has a thousand members).

Audio excerpt of Hillary Clinton's talk

Listen to the short audio above for an excerpt of her talk. She supports genetically modified products and says there is a large gap between fact and perception. She talks about the shift in foreign policy from emergency feeding to providing seeds that are drought-resistant, for example. And she advises the industry to be more thoughtful about how they describe genetically engineered products.

Everything she says makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Articles, Bananas, Big Island, Current Affairs, Food Security, Peak Oil, Science, Sustainability, Taro/Poi

NYT Article: ‘Lonely Quest for Facts on GM Crops’

Richard Ha writes:

The New York Times just ran an excellent, balanced and well-received article on Hawai‘i Island’s recent GMO ban. It was written by Amy Harmon, a national correspondent for the Times who covers the impact of science and technology on American life. She’s won two Pulitzer Prizes for her work.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

By AMY HARMON

KONA, Hawaii — From the moment the bill to ban genetically engineered crops on the island of Hawaii was introduced in May 2013, it garnered more vocal support than any the County Council here had ever considered, even the perennially popular bids to decriminalize marijuana.

Public hearings were dominated by recitations of the ills often attributed to genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s: cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds, genetic contamination, overuse of pesticides, the disappearance of butterflies and bees.

Like some others on the nine-member Council, Greggor Ilagan was not even sure at the outset of the debate exactly what genetically modified organisms were: living things whose DNA has been altered, often with the addition of a gene from a distant species, to produce a desired trait. But he could see why almost all of his colleagues had been persuaded of the virtue of turning the island into what the bill’s proponents called a “G.M.O.-free oasis.”

“You just type ‘G.M.O.’ and everything you see is negative,” he told his staff. Opposing the ban also seemed likely to ruin anyone’s re-election prospects.

Yet doubts nagged at the councilman, who was serving his first two-year term. The island’s papaya farmers said that an engineered variety had saved their fruit from a devastating disease. A study reporting that a diet of G.M.O. corn caused tumors in rats, mentioned often by the ban’s supporters, turned out to have been thoroughly debunked.

And University of Hawaii biologists urged the Council to consider the global scientific consensus, which holds that existing genetically engineered crops are no riskier than others, and have provided some tangible benefits.

“Are we going to just ignore them?” Mr. Ilagan wondered.

Urged on by Margaret Wille, the ban’s sponsor, who spoke passionately of the need to “act before it’s too late,” the Council declined to form a task force to look into such questions before its November vote. But Mr. Ilagan, 27, sought answers on his own. In the process, he found himself, like so many public and business leaders worldwide, wrestling with a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence…. Read the rest

Hawai‘i County Councilperson Margaret Wille, though, refers to this article as “Hogwash!”

She’s the local councilperson who spearheaded the Big Island biotech ban, and her comment on the New York Times article kind of says it all. In her second-to-last paragraph she lumps farmers in with “GMO apologists,” which makes us the enemy. We are not the enemy.

Her comment follows the New York Times article:

Margaret Wille

Hawaii Island Hawaii

The underlying message in this article is that pro-GMO is pro-science and those opposed are anti-science. Hogwash! It is the biotech corporations that politically obtained the USDA “political” exemption from being required to do premarketing health and safety tests. This political decision was based on the claim that GMO crops are “substantially equivalent” to the corresponding non-GMO crops. Instead of government required health and safety testing, uncontrolled “open field” testing is occurring right here in Hawaii on Kauai– where all the evidence points to immune disruption of the young and unborn , as well as harm to the soil and adjacent aquatic life.. At the same time these same corporations obtain patent rights based on the distinction of their GMOs, allowing the intellectual property laws to function as the barrier to obtaining the information independent scientist needed to do long term studies.

And whenever an independent study is underway, the GMO offensive position is to discredit the scientist or buy out the organization, as occurred in the case of the international organization doing studies on the adverse affects of associated pesticides on bee populations.

The bottom line is that we passed Bill 113 despite all the opposition from Big Ag GMO proponents and their on island mouthpieces.

Hopefully in the future, the New York Times will curb its biased approach to coverage of GMO related issues. 

Contrast Councilperson Wille with Councilperson Ilagan. What a difference.

At this point, it’s really not a matter of who can yell the loudest, but of sitting down and deciding where we want to end up, and how we’re going to get there. We have a very serious food security issue (I’ll be writing more about this next time) that, with our Peak Oil situation, is only likely to get worse.

We are not looking at a First Amendment situation here, where everyone’s opinion matters. Everyone is welcome to his or her opinion, but at this point, when it comes to making important policy for our people and our food security, we need to sit down and form the best policy we can, using the best science.

What was not covered in the New York Times article was Big Island farmers’ concern that the ban on biotech solutions only applies to Big Island farmers, and not their competitors on other islands or on the mainland.

The president of the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association asked why only papaya farmers are beng required to register their crops and pesticide usage. He said that papaya farmers feel like they are being treated like sex offenders.

And why is there a blanket ban on open air testing? With bananas, flying pollen makes no difference, because they don’t have seeds.

Fusarium wilt killed off the mai‘a maoli as well as the mai‘a popoulu, two banana plants that came to Hawai‘i on the canoes. What if we could bring them back?

What if a virus threatens to kill off all our taro? Would we want to be able to try and save it? What would the ancient ones do?

Big Island, Government, Sustainability

Bill 113: What’s Next

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Someone suggested that my change of plans re: putting 264 acres into preservation land smells of sour grapes – that I made a knee-jerk decision because I was upset that the anti-GMO Bill 113 passed.

But that’s not the way I make decisions. I am always looking five, 10 and 20 years ahead and planning what we need to do now to get where we need to be. Suddenly the future of farming on this island looked different, and I needed to be sure we have some flexibility at the farm.

Since I last wrote about this, though, I spoke with the USDA and found an option I didn’t previously know about. We can do a conservation easement that is less than the entire parcel. This will allow us to have a few small parcels that future generations could use for safety valve purposes, and still put land into the conservation easement. We will probably do this.

On Tuesday, the Hawai‘i County Council will decide whether to form an ad hoc committee of council members to analyze GMO issues and give the council recommendations for action. Otherwise, the mayor will do the analysis in-house.

It is no secret that I would have preferred for Mayor Kenoi to veto the anti-GMO Bill 113. But the reality is that the mayor did not have the votes to support a veto, and in this set of circumstances, I support the mayor over the council. He signed the bill, rather than wimping out and letting it pass without his signature. He was concerned about the rift in this community, and he assured the farmers that they would not get hurt.

And most of all, I know the Mayor is fact- and data-driven, something that is sorely missing from our current county council.

What I know about the county council is that its members have proven that they cannot separate fact from fiction, and therefore they are unqualified and unable to prepare us for the future.

In the recent Bill 113 debacle, our county council called Jeffrey Smith as its premier expert. This is an individual who has self-published two books about GMO foods but has zero scientific credentials and has been thoroughly debunked as any sort of credible GMO expert. He specializes in yogic flying (a kind of cross-legged hopping done in hopes of reducing crime and increasing “purity and harmony” in the “collective consciousness”). They allowed Smith to testify about GMOs for more than half an hour.

Three University of Hawai‘i experts on GMOs, on the other hand, were given a total of three minutes, between them, to testify. This averages out to one minute each.

If we are taking science into account, the Seralini study – which linked genetically modified maize and the herbicide RoundUp as having an increased cancer risk, and which was always widely pointed to as proving GMO foods were unsafe – was recently retracted by the scientific journal that published it, and rejected by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for having serious defects and failing to meet scientific standards.

County Councilwoman Margaret Wille made a very inflammatory remark in a comment following a Honolulu Civil Beat article written by University of Hawai‘i professor Michael Shintaku. In her comment, she accused Professor Shintaku, as well as Dr. Susan Miyasaka and Dean Maria Gallo (also of the UH College of Tropical Agriculture), of being “unmistakeably caught in the predicament of becoming the mouthpiece for the GMO biotech industry that provides much of the funding for their employer.”

Michael Shintaku responded with a polite comment that detailed how she was incorrect. Many scientists voiced outrage at the inaccurate and flippant comment that impugned their integrity.

It seems, unfortunately, to be par for the course for some who are anti-science and anti-GMO. Have they made up their mind without regard to truth? Have they dug in their heels, refusing to ever even consider new evidence?

I haven’t. If suddenly there was real science that showed harm from GMOs, I would cross that off my list and move on to the next best solution that would help our island. To date, though, there has never been any such science, not anywhere.

Our county council clearly does not understand farming. Councilwoman Wille likes to show how many letters she has in favor of banning GMOs, but the smaller stack from people opposing the ban was from the farmers who produce more than 90 percent of the calories grown here on the Big Island.

Why is she listening to the gardeners and not the farmers? There is such a difference between gardening and farming. I compare it to cooking turkeys. Cooking one turkey is easy – you just turn the dial for the right time and temperature, and then poof! It’s perfect. Crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. Cooking one turkey is similar to gardening.

Farming, on the other hand, is like cooking 20 turkeys an hour every hour. They cannot be burnt on the outside and raw on the inside. And they must be ready on time or your customers lose money. And every so often the power goes off or the house blows down and you have to start all over again. Farming is much more complicated than gardening.

Some anti-GMO people proclaim that we should all just eat organic. But have a look at Table 2 on page 19 of this Baseline Food Sustainability chart from the county.

Based on that table, we compared prices between a Kona supermarket and a Kona natural food store. The annual budget for a family of five at the Kona supermarket was approximately $20,000, while at the natural foods store it was slightly more than $42,000.

We did a similar comparison in Waimea, and the results were substantially the same. It is clear that most folks cannot afford organics.

Senator Ruderman, who owns a natural foods chain, claimed our price comparisons are wildly inaccurate, but they are not.

A few days ago, we learned that the Florida citrus industry, which has lost more than a million acres to citrus greening disease, may have found a GMO solution.

Although anti-GMO folks like to say they are on the side of farmers, if citrus greening disease makes it to the Big Island and we are not legally allowed to use the Florida GMO solution, it is only homeowners and small farmers who will be hurt.

Read this link for a sample of what some of the people who testified on the anti-GMO/County Council side of the argument were doing in the background. It is mean-spirited and it’s not who we in Hawai‘i are. There is no aloha in this.

Big Island, Food Security, Government

GMOs, Fears & Reality

Richard Ha writes:

Click and listen to these short radio spots while you’re reading (they will open in a new window). They are succinct and really tell the whole story about what’s going on here on the Big Island right now.

The anti-GMO battle that has been imported into Hawai‘i is largely being fueled with outside money, and the people behind it do not care about any of the collateral damage they could cause – whether it’s to youngsters who are going blind or dying from Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries, rising food costs for the rubbah slippah folks here on the Big Island, or that their actions will cause local Big Island farmers harm in the future.

It is Hawai‘i County Councilmembers Margaret Wille and Brenda Ford that have allowed the radicalization to take place on the Big Island. They propose to pass Bill 113, the “anti-GMO bill,” without thoughtful consideration for unintended consequences.

This is really a huge decision our County Council is trying to make, and one that is based on fear instead of reality and science and looking ahead to the future. We cannot go ahead with this bill. There would just be way too much collateral damage.

Please call or email your council representative and demand that Bill 113 be killed. Insist that a task force of stakeholders and experts be convened to research and study how we can come to a place where we achieve food self-sufficiency for the future, and where the final solution benefits all of us, not just a few of us.

Here are a couple of interesting, enlightening articles about the use of GMOs:

Bill Gates does not make excuses for supporting biotechnology in agriculture.

Bill Gates Calls For More Agriculture Research To Fight Hunger

DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP   01/24/12 

KIRKLAND, Wash. — Bill Gates has a terse response to criticism that the high-tech solutions he advocates for world hunger are too expensive or bad for the environment: Countries can embrace modern seed technology and genetic modification or their citizens will starve.

When he was in high school in the 1960s, people worried there wouldn’t be enough food to feed the world, Gates recalled in his fourth annual letter, which was published online Tuesday. But the “green revolution,” which transformed agriculture with high-yield crop varieties and other innovations, warded off famine.

Gates is among those who believe another, similar revolution is needed now. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent about $2 billion in the past five years to fight poverty and hunger in Africa and Asia, and much of that money has gone toward improving agricultural productivity.

Gates doesn’t apologize for his endorsement of modern agriculture or sidestep criticism of genetic modification. He told The Associated Press that he finds it ironic that most people who oppose genetic engineering in plant breeding live in rich nations that he believes are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor….

Read the rest

And read this Slate article about golden rice and its creator, Ingo Potrykus. He says: “One of the cleverest tricks of the anti-GMO movement is to link GMOs so closely to Monsanto.”

Is Opposition to Golden Rice “Wicked?”

The genetically modified organism could save millions of lives.

By Andy Coghlan

Ingo Potrykus is a co-inventor of golden rice, which is genetically engineered to combat blindness and death in children by supplying 60 percent of the vitamin A they need in a typical daily helping of rice. His project has been opposed from the outset by environmental groups. 

Andy Coghlan: Why did you develop golden rice?


Ingo Potrykus: I got involved because I’m concerned about food security. I realized it’s not just about calories, but also about the quality of food. I started working on it in the early 1990s with Peter Beyer. We started on the problem of iron deficiency, but that work didn’t pan out, so we switched to tackling vitamin A deficiency.

By 1999 we had solved the problem. It was a surprise it worked because from the outset it looked totally crazy.

AC: But environmental groups, including Greenpeace, opposed it?

 
IP: They were against it from the beginning. They said it was fool’s gold because children would need to eat several kilograms of it to get their daily requirement. Children only eat around 300 to 400 grams a day. We worked out that Greenpeace wasn’t right, and that the rice contained enough to meet children’s needs, but we couldn’t prove that because we didn’t then have data from an actual trial.

AC: That didn’t kill off the project, though?

 
IP: Indeed no. The next big step was in 2005 when a group at biotech company Syngenta replaced one of the genes intended to produce beta carotene. The original gene, which makes an enzyme called phytoene synthase, came from the narcissus flower, and they replaced it with one from maize that is far more efficient. It produced 20 times more beta carotene, the molecule from carrots that combines with a second molecule of itself once inside our bodies to make a molecule of vitamin A. It was a big success….

Read the rest

I do not grow any GMO crops, and I don’t have any interest in any companies that do. I want to keep this bill from passing not because I hold any ideological convictions about GMOs, but because I’ve examined every angle of it and it’s clear to me that this is what will best serve our farmers, our people and our island. If I’d studied the facts and ramifications and found otherwise, then I would absolutely be trying to lead us in another direction.
Bananas, Food Security, Government, Tomatoes

‘So God Made A Farmer,’ And Now The Hawaii County Council Wants To Make Them Criminals

5 Comments
NOTE: I do not grow any GMO crops, and I do not have any financial or other affiliation to any large seed or other companies that advocate the use of GMOs. My interest in this topic is in finding the right direction for Big Island farming and in being able to feed our future generations.
 
The Hawai‘i County Council meets again tomorrow regarding the anti-GMO bill.

I sent a letter to the editor of the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and West Hawaii Today asking that we take a sincere look at the big picture.

We need to know what we want for the Big Island, and then formulate a plan to get us there.

We need to leverage our resources so as to provide affordable food to the rubbah slippah folks while also working toward achieving food self-sufficiency for future generations.

We need to identify how we can achieve a competitive advantage over the rest of the world.

We need to realize that the Big Island is young, geologically, compared to the older islands. We do not, therefore, have alluvial plains, which form after many years of erosion. We do not have the conditions that would support industrial-scale agriculture – flat land, a dry climate, strong sun energy, deep soil and irrigation.

The seed companies are not arriving here tomorrow to set up shop. Their tractors make money on the straightaways, and they lose money on the turns. It’s counterintuitive, but in spite of its size, the Big Island is an environment best suited for small farmers, not large one. Let’s not let a fear of industrialization cause us to make decisions that kill off our small farmers.

Margaret Wille has now suggested we do an ad hoc study group as part of the Bill 113 discussion. This is an excellent place to begin. Let’s place Bill 113 on hold while we do a fair and impartial study of how we will get from here to there. Who is right is not as important as what is right.

Kumu Lehua Veincent always asks: “What about the rest?” and that is the key question. How do we come to a solution that takes care of the rubbah slippah folks as well as everybody else?

There are a thousand reasons why, No can. We must find the one reason why, CAN!!

Some of my thoughts about all this:

Q. How is farmers’ morale now that Bill 113 is out there?

A. Big Island farmers are demoralized. Paul Harvey narrated a commercial during the last Super Bowl that said, “And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need a caretaker.” So God made a farmer.

It’s less than a year later, and now Big Island farmers are at risk of being criminalized.

Q. What do farmers think of Bill 113?

A. They feel it is unfair. They feel that they would not be able to use biotech solutions for insect and disease problems in the future, as will their counterparts on the other islands. They feel they would not be able to compete.

Farmers want to be good stewards of the land, and they are very distressed that they might be forced to use more pesticides than the rest of the state’s farmers.

Q. What biotech solutions are being developed for bananas?

A. Resistance to Race 4 Fusarium wilt, the biggest threat right now to banana farming worldwide, and resistance to Banana Bunchy Top virus. Both are taking place at the University of Hawai‘i right now.

Q. What biotech solutions are being developed for tomatoes right now?

A. Resistance to Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus, which could devastate a tomato farm.

Q. As a relatively large farmer, do you think the big seed companies will come to the Big Island?

A. No. They’d lose money, which is why they are not already here. They need flat land, low humidity, high sunlight, deep soil and irrigation. Because the Big Island is so young geologically, these conditions are very rare here. Big tractors make money on the straightaways and lose money on the turns.

Q. Will Bill 113 increase our island’s food self-sufficiency?

A. No. Food self-sufficiency involves farmers farming. If the farmers make money, the farmers will farm. Bill 113 would make Big Island farmers less competitive. So it would result in less food self-sufficiency.

Q. Would Bill 113 result in less pesticide applications?

A. No. It’s biotech solutions that result in fewer pesticide applications. Big Island farmers would have to use more pesticides as compared to the rest of the State.

Q. What do farmers think of registering GMO farms?

A. They worry that this would make it easy for ecoterrorists to locate them.

Q. Hector Valenzuela suggested that organic farmers seek high-end markets. Would that help provide food for the masses?

A. It won’t. That solution anticipates a niche production for people who can afford high prices.

Q. Can organics provide sufficient affordable food for the masses?

A. No. There is no winter here to kill off bugs and provide an automatic reset. There isn’t sufficient manure for compost to provide the nitrogen fertilizer, which is the basic building block for protein.

Q. How can biotech solutions give Hawai‘i farmers a competitive advantage over the rest of the world?

A. They leverage our Hawaiian sunshine, which allows us to grow food year round. Also, reducing the cost of controlling insects and diseases that thrive in the humid subtropics gives Hawai‘i farmers a competitive advantage over the rest of the world.

Q. Do you think GMOs are safe?

A. Yes. Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the use of GMOs. Two trillion meals have been served with no harm done. Hawai‘i seniors have the longest life expectancy in the nation.

Q. Do you think RoundUp is safe?

A. Yes.

Q. Why do you think RoundUp is safe?

A. We know that the herbicides we used 25 years ago were much more toxic. Today, we have the ability to detect minute amounts of chemicals, and we must put things into perspective. One could take a sample of sea water and detect gold. But that doesn’t mean we would invest money in a business to mine gold from the ocean. We farmers have been taught, over and over, that the dose makes the poison. We need to use common sense.

Q. In your 35 years of farming, what do you consider to be the most important trend that will affect our future?

A. The price of oil has quadrupled in the last 10 years, which has caused farmers’ costs to rise. Farmers cannot pass on their costs as efficiently as others can. Farmers are price takers, rather than price makers. Because it is a finite resource, the oil price will steadily rise and food price will steadily rise as well.

But we can leverage our sun resource with new biotech solutions. We can take advantage of our year-round growing season and lower our cost to control pests and diseases and therefore lower the cost of food production. This will increase our Big Island residents’ discretionary spending, which makes up two-thirds of our economy. By doing this, we take care of all of us, not just a few of us.

Q. What do you suggest?

A. Defer Bill 113 and form a committee of stakeholders and experts to focus on Big Island solutions to future food security. It should not be political. It should be a solution that takes care of all of us, not just a few of us.

Big Island, Food Security, Government, Science

Mainland GMO Battle, New York Times Arrive In Hilo

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Yesterday, as I sat in on a Hawai‘i County Council discussion of the anti-GMO bill, I realized that I am starting to get a very uncomfortable feeling. It looks like the anti-GMO effort we are seeing here is being organized and run from the Mainland.

A reporter from the New York Times attended yesterday’s Hawai‘i Council Council meeting, too. I think they are tracking the money.

From Genetic Literacy Project (tagline: “Where Science Trumps Ideology”):

Hawaii anti-GMO ‘corruption’ scandal? Genetic Literacy Project investigation underway

Jon Entine | September 3, 2013
| Genetic Literacy Project

It’s shaping up to be an ugly week on Hawaii Island. Beginning in Hilo on Wednesday, September 4, the island Council will again debate controversial measures designed to curtail the growing of genetically modified crops on the island.

The Battle over GMOs on both Hawaii and Kauai has been rancorous, threatening to tear apart the aloha spirit that has defined the Hawaiian Islands for centuries. The ‘public discussion’
took a sharply political turn in May when Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille brought forward Bill 79, which banned GMOs but proposed to exempt the GMO Rainbow papaya crop, which is credited by scientists and independent experts for rescuing the papaya on Hawaii from extinction threatened by the ringspot
virus.

Bill 79 was widely regarded as a scientific and political mess, as the independent website Biofortified.org noted in its analysis. The
committee held four days of public comment sessions, with tensions running high and the debate turning personal. Wille withdrew the bill in early August after the hearings and a Council discussion made it clear that it was poorly written.

Now Wille is back with a similar measure. (The
GLP publishes a response to the bill below provided by the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association.) But this time, she has dubious company. South Kona/Ka‘u Councilwoman Brenda Ford has introduced her own “book burning” measure, proposing that all papaya fields be cut down and burned—the position supported
by the more radical anti-GMO activists who have come to dominate the anti side of the debate.

Funding corruption by anti-GMO campaigners? 

Activist leaders opposed to crop biotechnology, such as Walter Ritte, the Molokai-based political activist, have attempted to frame this battle as David vs. Goliath, threadbare grassroots campaigners fighting Big Ag. Although they claim their opposition to the innovative technology is home grown, a Genetic Literacy
Project investigation, still in its infancy, suggests that the opposition is flush with cash, getting hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from mainland anti-GMO organic organizations that have an ideological stake in blocking new farming technologies.

For nearly a decade, an impressionable anti-GMO mob mentality has been carefully cultivated on Hawaii island, but documents reviewed by the GLP suggest this increasingly ugly turn has been nurtured by slick and well financed outsiders….  Read the rest

Not only is outside money possibly dictating our future, but also of note is that Councilperson Brenda Ford arranged for someone named Jeffrey Smith to Skype into the County Council discussion yesterday from the Mainland.

It takes very little research to see that Jeffrey Smith is not credible, but goes around the country scaring people with his unsubstantiated claims that have been widely discredited by the scientific community. He has no scientific credentials and has self-published a book called “Genetic Roulette.”

Here’s what the independent, non-profit organization Academics Review says:

Yogic Flying and GM Foods:The Wild Theories of Jeffrey Smith

…The “scientific studies” that Smith says support his theories are thoroughly contradicted by a vast body of data and scientific
experience; they are wholly irresponsible. In his single-minded campaign against GM crops, Smith has shown an amazing capacity to ignore the scientific literature on almost every topic he discusses.

But, as he showed at that press conference when he explained the role that meditation should play in the “collective consciousness,” Smith is a gifted communicator.

He’s particularly adept at getting his message out via the latest online methods, which he uses to spread his misinformation about
biotechnology, in particular, to an ever-widening audience. In his most recent self-published book, Genetic Roulette, Smith claims to show 65 different “documented health risks” associated with biotech foods. Not one of them has been found to be scientifically valid by Academics Review.

Also from Academics Review, which is “an association of academic professors, researchers, teachers and credentialed authors from around the world who are committed to the unsurpassed value of the peer review in establishing sound science. We stand against falsehoods, half-baked assertions and theories or claims not subjected to this kind of rigorous review:”

Jeffrey Smith: False Claims Unsupported by Science

Jeffrey Smith has gained fame for claiming biotech foods are dangerous, but none of his claims are based on sound science. Smith has no discernible scientific training  yet makes 65 such claims in his book Genetic Roulette. Click here for a point-by-point response based on peer-reviewed science.

Others agree:

Discover magazine blog:

When the definitive history of the GMO debate is written, Jeffrey Smith is going to figure prominently in the section on pseudoscience. He is the equivalent of an anti-vaccine leader,
someone who is quite successful in spreading fear and false information. (AsDavid Gorski at the Science-based Medicine blog has noted, the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements are two birdsof the same feather.) 

Forbes:

For whatever reason, Smith hasbecome wildly popular among the antis, and his books—however dubiously written and sourced—are cited as canon by rank and file protestors.

Smith’s own Wikipedia bio: A variety of American organic food companies see Smith “as a champion for their interests,” and Smith’s supporters describe him as “arguably the world’s foremost expert on the topic of genetically modified foods.” Michael Specter,
writing in The New Yorker, reported that Smith was presented as a “scientist” on The Dr. Oz Show although he lacks any scientific experience or relevant qualifications. Bruce Chassy, a molecular biologist and food scientist, wrote to the show arguing that Smith’s “only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party.” The director of the Organic Consumers Association says Smith is “respected as a public educator on GMOs” while “supporters of biotechnology” have described him as “misinformed and misleading” and as “an activist with no scientific or medical background” who is known for his “near-hysterical criticism of biotech foods.”

Per Wikipedia, then, Jeffrey Smith’s professional experience is in ballroom dancing and yogic flying.

Honestly, I don’t think any part of this debate is about us. From my local point of view, this whole mainland-fueled debate is about national organic farming vs. Monsanto.

But fighting this war here means local farmers become collateral damage. All we farmers want is not to get trampled by the elephants. If we on the Big Island cannot use biotech when farmers all around us can, we lose and eventually we Big Island farmers all go out of business. So what if food costs rise for the rubbah slippah folks, right?

Food Security, Government

Letter: ‘Proposed Anti-GMO Bills Have Consequences’

Richard Ha writes:

My Letter to the Editor ran yesterday in West Hawaii Today:

10:03 am – September 03, 2013 — Updated: 10:03 am – September 03, 2013

Proposed anti-GMO bills have consequences

If passed, Hawaii County Council’s anti-GMO bills 109 and 113, submitted by Brenda Ford and Margaret Wille and to be heard at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, will have unintended and serious consequences.

Both bills send the wrong message to our next generation. In their actions, they imply that conventional farming is not an honorable profession. This, in turn, threatens our goal of food self-sufficiency.

They threaten the livelihoods of Big Island farmers. Competitors who are not on the Big Island would be allowed to use new biotechnology, but not Big Island farmers. New technology generally results in lower costs, thus this would leave Big Island producers as high-cost producers.

We are criticizing and threatening the farmers, the very people who feed us and the ones we should be encouraging to help us achieve food self-sufficiency.

In the old days, farmers were held in high esteem. Criminalizing farmers is a new, and ill-advised, concept. What we need now is to slow down, take a deep breath and do things in a steady, rational manner.

All major health and safety agencies, nationally and internationally, say there is no difference between biotech- and conventional-developed crops in terms of our health and safety.

We are threatening the spirit of aloha. The last round of testimony on these bills resulted in a shameful display, lacking aloha altogether. This could have been prevented with better preparation.

We should kill both bills and form a group – free of politics – to advise us how to proceed. This group should set a goal of figuring out how we can all work together to achieve food self-sufficiency in a way that benefits the most people. It should study economic impacts of various alternatives. It should study and report on the safety of rainbow papayas. This group should also study the social impact of various alternatives.

Instead of acting and then perhaps studying, we really must study the situation first before making decisions and acting.

Richard Ha

Owner, Hamakua Springs Country Farms

Government

Please Submit Testimony To Support Farmers/Ranchers

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Will you help?

Hawaii Farmers & Ranchers need your support today!

We need your help getting testimony to the Hawaii County Council opposing Brenda Ford’s GMO Ban Bill 109 and Margaret Wille’s Bill 113, which ban gmos but allow for a papaya exemption if you’re granted an exemption, i.e. pay fees disclose your farm’s location….

This might just be the biggest threat to Hawaii agriculture and our right to farm that we have ever seen.

We’re inviting you to attend the Council hearing on Sept. 4th at 1:30PM and….

Please submit testimony TODAY via email to counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us

This is important to Hawaii agriculture, our farmers and our ranchers. We’re standing united together against both these bills. We’re asking you to submit testimony and to please ask five of your family or friends to do the same and ask them to ask five of their friends, etc….that is the only way we can get the numbers we need to defeat these Bills.

Remember agriculture producers only make up 2% of the Nation….Yet we feed us all! It will take knowing agriculture and the community supporting farmers and ranchers if we’re to survive and thrive…

 

Brenda Ford’s Bill basically bans all GMO production and use, including feed for animals and also includes a requirement to destroy papaya trees and corn currently in production.

Margaret Wille also has Bill 113 that will be heard at the same hearing (agenda attached). Her Bill exempts the genetically modified papaya and other GMO crops currently in production on Hawaii County as long as they jump through her hoops (new regulations, fees and penalties). Her Bill allows no future use of genetically engineered technology to grow feed, fight diseases in crops and livestock or using them in the future.

Despite the exemption for papaya in Wille’s Bill, papaya farmers are giving her Bill a thumbs down. Their position is that her Bill says that GMO papaya is bad but since it’s already here and widespread the County Council will let it go. She infers their contaminated and inferior; they are NOT their prime is taste and
quality. Kudos to the papaya industry for recognizing this and standing their ground…we will stand together with them. “Ag United”

As farmers and ranchers we have the right to farm…with every legal method and technology out there, organically or conventionally, with or without genetic technology and with respect for the rights of our fellow farmers and ranchers to do the same.

Here is what the World’s Health & Scientific Organizations have to say about GMO’s and genetically engineered crops….

World Health Organization “WHO”

“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

National Academy of Sciences

“No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”

American Association for the Advancement of Science

“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

American Medical Association

“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the
peer-reviewed literature.”

European Commission

“No scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”

French Academy of Science

“All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.

Union of German Academics and Scientists

“In consuming food derived from GM plans approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the
contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health. “

Instructions on how to submit testimony:

Needs to be into the Council by 12 noon by September 3rd. Even if you are late please submit it anyway.

By regular mail or drop it off: Office of the County Clerk, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI. 96720

By email: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
By Fax: (808) 961­8912

Show up to any Council location Island­wide to testify in person.

Hilo: Council Chambers at the County Building in Hilo, 25 Aupuni Street, Room 1401

Kona: Council Chambers at the West Hawai’i Civic Center in Kona at 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Building A.

Waimea: Waimea Council Office, at the Holumua Center, 64-1067, Māmalahoa Highway,
Suite 5.

Oral public testimony is limited to two (2) minutes total for all 4 agenda items.

Video Public Testimony: Those submitting video testimony may email a complete web address (url) to videotestimony@hawaiicounty.gov before 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting. The email shall indicate the appropriate Committee or Council meeting, the meeting date, agenda item (communication, bill, resolution, or report number), and number of testifiers on the video submittal. Each video submittal shall be limited to a single agenda item. Video submittals may contain up to three (3) individual testifiers and shall each be up to three (2) minutes in length.

Example testimony (Cut, paste or change for your personal story!)

Hawaii County Council Committee on Public Safety & Mass Transit

Wednesday September 4, 2013 1:30 p.m.

Testimony Against Bills 109 and 113

Committee Chair Ford and Members of the Committee:

I oppose Bills 109 and 113 because any anti­GMO legislation in Hawaii County will discriminate against our farmers and ranchers who choose to use approved genetically engineered technology to grow safe and wholesome food and other agriculture products. These Bills also damage Hawaii’s reputation for producing some of the best crops on the planet, harms our markets, and eventually destroy our agriculture industry.

I am pro­farming and the right to farm in the United States of America, still a free country, under laws of and regulated by the USA and the State of Hawaii.

Hawaii’s farmers and ranchers may need virus resistant GMO crops to protect Hawaii from the next papaya virus strain, banana bunchy top virus, tomato spotted wilt and other vegetable viruses, or the bacterial citrus greening disease that is destroying the Florida citrus industry and may soon come to Hawaii.

Furthermore, this bill will stop development of GMO ornamental and floral crops with enhanced horticultural or disease resistant characteristics. These Bills would prohibit livestock and aquaculture producers from efficiently growing cost effective feed locally, requiring them to import at a higher price the exact same feeds. How will Hawaii County farmers and ranchers compete when everyone but us has access to GE technology?

The consensus of independent scientific organizations worldwide is unanimous and can be summed up by this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

Please vote against Bill 109 and Bill 113

Name:
Occupation:
City where I live:

Additional Comments:

Please cut and paste and revise for your use.

Related articles
We Are Unwilling To Be Led To The Slaughter
Government

Papaya Growers’ Letter to Margaret Wille

Richard Ha writes:

This open letter to Hawaii County Councilperson Margaret Wille also appeared in today’s Hawaii Tribune-Herald. It is from the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association, and it is right on.

***

Open Letter to Margaret Wille

from Hawaii Papaya Industry Association

The Hawaii Papaya Industry Association (HPIA) strongly opposes any legislation that specifically targets food or crops made through genetic engineering. The global scientific consensus, reaffirmed by every major science organization and regulatory oversight body in the United States, is that GMOs are as safe as conventional and organic agriculture.

Hawaii farmers produce the best tasting papaya on the planet and papaya is always ranked in the top five healthiest fruits for human consumption. Any anti-GMO legislation would sharply limit the tools that Hawaii farmers can use to produce their crops, and by association it would taint Hawaii’s worldwide reputation for the highest quality papaya. The real intent of local anti- GMO legislation is to prohibit all GMO’s and to ultimately destroy Hawaii’s papaya industry.

We respectfully request Councilwoman Wille to publicly endorse our GMO “Rainbow” papaya as having no adverse impact on the environment and that our papaya fruit is safe, wholesome and nutritious. The so-called exemption for papaya production in Bill 113 is meaningless because any anti-GMO bill would cast a negative shadow on Hawaii papaya, harm our markets and eventually destroy our industry.

Hawaii imports 85% of its food and over 70% of those imports contain genetically engineered ingredients. Yes, much of the bread, milk, meat, cereal, beer, soda, and most all of the food we buy contains GMO ingredients or comes from animals that are fed GMO feed. These anti-GMO Bills are the first step in the political process to take those foods from our shelves.

Prohibiting Hawaii County farmers from using USDA, EPA and FDA approved GMO crops will put us at a competitive disadvantage. We will be prohibited from using virus resistant GMO crops to protect Hawaii from the next papaya virus strain, banana bunchy top virus, tomato spotted wilt and other vegetable viruses, or the bacterial citrus greening disease that is destroying the Florida citrus industry and may soon come to Hawaii. Furthermore, this bill will stop development of GMO ornamental and floral crops with enhanced horticultural or disease resistant characteristics. How will Hawaii County farmers and ranchers compete when everyone but us has access to GE technology? That is why the Big Island Banana Growers Association, Hawaii Cattlemen Association, and the Hawaii Floral Industry have joined with the Hawaii Papaya Industry to oppose these Bills.

Ms. Wille may have political, philosophical or religious reasons for banning GMOs on Hawaii Island, but any claim based on safety to human consumption and the environment is not supported by scientific evidence. Not one major international science body anywhere in the world questions the scientific consensus. Independent oversight and research organizations in every major country in the world, in industrialized countries and developing countries—more than 100 of them—have reviewed the evidence on the safety and health of genetically modified crops and issued reviews of the research and statements on this issue.

Here are just a few of the summary statements of the world’s leading science organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

World Health Organization

“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

National Academy of Sciences

“No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”

American Medical Association

“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

European Commission

“No scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”

French Academy of Science

“All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”

Union of German Academics and Scientists

“In consuming food derived from GM plans approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.“

The HPIA agrees with the science. Genetically engineered crops grown in Hawaii and the rest of the world pose no more risk to human health than any other method of plant breeding. Therefore, we are opposed to any politically imposed restriction on GMO’s for all farmers and ranchers in Hawaii County.

Our GMO “Rainbow” papaya is safe and we challenge anyone to bring forth any scientific consensus to the contrary. Any anti-GMO legislation in Hawaii County taints our reputation for producing the world’s best papaya. Such legislation—clearly not grounded in science—would result in the destruction of Hawaii’s papaya business.

The HPIA respectfully requests that Councilwoman Wille withdraw Bill 113. Any exemption for papaya without a clear public endorsement that GMO “Rainbow” papaya is safe, wholesome and nutritious is meaningless. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Hawaii Nurserymen and women, Hawaii Cattlemen and Big Island Banana Growers Association and do not want an exemption for our industry that would restrict the innovative tools necessary for our future and our fellow Big Island Farmers and Ranchers.

Big Island, Current Affairs, Government, Science, Sustainability

Criminalizing Farmers is Pretty Sad

4 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Two new GMO bills will be introduced in the Hawaii County Council on September 4, 2013.

  1. Bill 109, sponsored by Brenda Ford, would require that all GMO crops presently being grown must be terminated within 30 months. No more GMOs will be allowed after the sunset date. Failure to comply would result in a $1,000 fine or 30 days in jail. This bill would make criminals of farmers, which is just unfathomable.
  2. Bill 113, sponsored by Margaret Wille, would grandfather in all papaya and other current GMO crops in places where they are customarily grown. Otherwise, no new, open-air cultivation of GMO crops would be allowed. Violators would be fined $1000/day and responsible for legal, court and other costs.

Compare GMO Bills

Click chart to enlarge

Farmers are very worried that denying Big Island farmers the ability to grow crops that can be grown on other islands, and on the mainland, would drive them out of business.

It’s a valid worry. For instance, what if a plant is developed that emits a pheromone that repels insects? This would save cost and labor, and our conventional and organic farmers would be at a serious disadvantage compared to farmers on the other islands.

As another example, consider the sweet potato, which grows very well on the Hilo/Hamakua Coast. What happens if one day scientists are able to transfer a gene from the sweet potato and make Russett potatoes resistant to fungus? That would save 15 applications of sprays per season.

Papaya farmers worry that giving them an “exemption” implies that something is wrong with their product, and this could hurt them in the marketplace.

During the recent go-around of an anti-GMO bill that was shelved, people were very inconsiderate and even mean, and it did not have to be that way. That is not our aloha way.

It happened because our leaders allowed it to happen, and it is not something to be proud of.

None of this is anything to be proud of. We are seeing hype and fear. Why is our County Council not talking to the farmers?

Some readings on this subject:

By David Kroll, Contributor, Forbes.com

PHARMA & HEALTHCARE | 8/25/2013 @ 8:34AM |11,386 views

Is It Time For Scientist Activism Against GMO Fear-Mongering?

Also:

By Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com

MONDAY, AUG 26, 2013 04:42 AM HST

Is it anti-science to be anti-GMOs?