FYI
Local News
GMO debate begins again
Bills aim to regulate, ban modified food
by Bret Yager
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Multiple bills on genetically modified organisms have been introduced in the state Legislature this session, promising the debate will be kindled anew.
Some of the bills would require genetically modified whole food products to be labeled and public notification of where testing and growing are being done, and one would ban GMO taro from the state altogether.
Another bill would prevent these issues from even being taken up in the future.
House Bill 1226 introduced by House Speaker Calvin Say would prohibit the state or the counties from passing bans on genetic modification. The bill makes an exception for legislation passed before January 2009 -- such as the Hawaii County ban on GMO coffee and taro passed in October. It also exempts laws to control genetic modification of taro.
Others bills to be considered by lawmakers:
-- HB 1663 prohibits development, testing, release, importation, planting or growing of GMO taro. The bill has 13 introducers, including state Rep. Faye Hanohano, D-Puna, who signed onto three GMO-related bills. Several other Big Island lawmakers, including Reps. Mark Nakashima and Denny Coffman, are also backing GMO-related bills.
-- HB 368 requires labeling for sale or distribution of any genetically engineered whole food for human consumption, and HB 369 applies the same labeling requirement to genetically engineered fish.
-- HB 367 would force the state Department of Agriculture to notify the public of the location of fields tests and where GMO crops are being produced. A companion bill, Senate Bill 239, has the same objective.
-- Senate Bill 709 would place a moratorium on the growing GMO taro anywhere in the state.
The House bills have been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nakashima said.
Hanohano said public notification about GMO testing and growing is a good safety net, with the same concept applying to labeling and the ban on GMO taro.
"I'm really concerned about taro and coffee," she said. "We really don't know enough about GMOs to say if they're safe or not."
Genetically modified corn and papaya "are one thing" because they've already been in use for some time, she said. But genetic engineering of new crops should be approached with caution.
"I'm leery because not enough testing has been done," Hanohano said.
It's unclear if any of the proposals will bring out the crowds like the one that jammed county offices last fall, and Honolulu is a bit further to travel than Hilo. But all indications are that postures haven't softened much on either side.
Tom Greenwell, owner of 52 acres of coffee and a contractor farmer for another 150 acres, said the need for genetic research is as pressing as ever. On Thursday, he'd gotten an e-mail from the Hawaii Coffee Growers Association about new legislation that targeted coffee.
"Our feeling is it's just not good to ban research that could potentially be helpful," Greenwell said. "If it wasn't for research, I'd have to be growing something else besides coffee."
Grafting techniques developed in the 1960s allowed him to use root stock that resists root nematodes. It allowed his farm to survive, he said.
"One day there's going to be other (diseases) that come along, and we just may have a recipe," he said. "If we don't have research, guaranteed, we won't have the recipe."
The Hawaii Coffee Growers Association will research the bills and figure out what to do next, he said.
While GMO supporters say fear of genetic engineering is overblown, GMO opponents -- including many Big Island coffee growers -- worry that contamination of their crops with altered genes would cause marketing difficulties and a loss of the coffee's specialty crop status. Detractors also say genetic engineering of foods can cause allergies and other ill health effects, while Native Hawaiians have taken a cultural stance against altering the genetics of taro, a crop they consider sacred and a part of their lineage.
Una Greenaway, a Kona organic coffee grower and outspoken opponent of GMO, said she plans to travel to the state capital for upcoming hearings on the bills. She supports the food labeling, calling it a consumer choice bill. She said the public also has the right to be notified where crop testing and growing is being done -- even though most people already know. But Say's bill to "ban the ban" bothers her.
"Why would the public pass a bill that says the Legislature can't pass a bill or respond to a situation in the future if needed?" she asked. "Why would the outer islands want to give up control of their agriculture?"
Greenaway noted HB 1226 exempts the recent county GMO coffee and taro ban and GMO taro bans in general.
"It is clearly an attempt to fragment and divide the anti-GMO forces in this state," she said.
E-mail Bret Yager at byager-@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
Some of the bills would require genetically modified whole food products to be labeled and public notification of where testing and growing are being done, and one would ban GMO taro from the state altogether.
Another bill would prevent these issues from even being taken up in the future.
House Bill 1226 introduced by House Speaker Calvin Say would prohibit the state or the counties from passing bans on genetic modification. The bill makes an exception for legislation passed before January 2009 -- such as the Hawaii County ban on GMO coffee and taro passed in October. It also exempts laws to control genetic modification of taro.
Others bills to be considered by lawmakers:
-- HB 1663 prohibits development, testing, release, importation, planting or growing of GMO taro. The bill has 13 introducers, including state Rep. Faye Hanohano, D-Puna, who signed onto three GMO-related bills. Several other Big Island lawmakers, including Reps. Mark Nakashima and Denny Coffman, are also backing GMO-related bills.
-- HB 368 requires labeling for sale or distribution of any genetically engineered whole food for human consumption, and HB 369 applies the same labeling requirement to genetically engineered fish.
-- HB 367 would force the state Department of Agriculture to notify the public of the location of fields tests and where GMO crops are being produced. A companion bill, Senate Bill 239, has the same objective.
-- Senate Bill 709 would place a moratorium on the growing GMO taro anywhere in the state.
The House bills have been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nakashima said.
Hanohano said public notification about GMO testing and growing is a good safety net, with the same concept applying to labeling and the ban on GMO taro.
"I'm really concerned about taro and coffee," she said. "We really don't know enough about GMOs to say if they're safe or not."
Genetically modified corn and papaya "are one thing" because they've already been in use for some time, she said. But genetic engineering of new crops should be approached with caution.
"I'm leery because not enough testing has been done," Hanohano said.
It's unclear if any of the proposals will bring out the crowds like the one that jammed county offices last fall, and Honolulu is a bit further to travel than Hilo. But all indications are that postures haven't softened much on either side.
Tom Greenwell, owner of 52 acres of coffee and a contractor farmer for another 150 acres, said the need for genetic research is as pressing as ever. On Thursday, he'd gotten an e-mail from the Hawaii Coffee Growers Association about new legislation that targeted coffee.
"Our feeling is it's just not good to ban research that could potentially be helpful," Greenwell said. "If it wasn't for research, I'd have to be growing something else besides coffee."
Grafting techniques developed in the 1960s allowed him to use root stock that resists root nematodes. It allowed his farm to survive, he said.
"One day there's going to be other (diseases) that come along, and we just may have a recipe," he said. "If we don't have research, guaranteed, we won't have the recipe."
The Hawaii Coffee Growers Association will research the bills and figure out what to do next, he said.
While GMO supporters say fear of genetic engineering is overblown, GMO opponents -- including many Big Island coffee growers -- worry that contamination of their crops with altered genes would cause marketing difficulties and a loss of the coffee's specialty crop status. Detractors also say genetic engineering of foods can cause allergies and other ill health effects, while Native Hawaiians have taken a cultural stance against altering the genetics of taro, a crop they consider sacred and a part of their lineage.
Una Greenaway, a Kona organic coffee grower and outspoken opponent of GMO, said she plans to travel to the state capital for upcoming hearings on the bills. She supports the food labeling, calling it a consumer choice bill. She said the public also has the right to be notified where crop testing and growing is being done -- even though most people already know. But Say's bill to "ban the ban" bothers her.
"Why would the public pass a bill that says the Legislature can't pass a bill or respond to a situation in the future if needed?" she asked. "Why would the outer islands want to give up control of their agriculture?"
Greenaway noted HB 1226 exempts the recent county GMO coffee and taro ban and GMO taro bans in general.
"It is clearly an attempt to fragment and divide the anti-GMO forces in this state," she said.
E-mail Bret Yager at byager-@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
Copyright © 2009 - Hawaii Tribune-Herald
Comments
Aloha no,
Miliaulani
Current mood: aggravated
Category: Life
The
problems with Genetically Modified (GM) foods are as many as they are
varied. Respected scientists have risked everything to step forward and
warn consumers that this new fast-track “solution to world hunger” is
bad for their health and the environment, but to little avail. Giant
agri-business companies such as Monsanto forge ahead to flood the
world’s food chain with experimental technologies that are proving to
be harmful to life. The worst part is, the longer this reckless
experiment is allowed to go on, the closer we get to a complete
planetary takeover by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The GMO Cover-up
Dr. Arpad Pusztai, PhD, FRSE, “one of the few genuinely independent scientists specializing in plant genetics and animal feeding studies” (OCA, 2005), worked
for the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland in 1998. During
his employment, he was commissioned to study potatoes “fitted” or
genetically modified (GM) with a lectin gene from Galanthus Nivalis, a
European plant. He inserted the gene into the potatoes himself, then
fed the GM potatoes to lab rats in order to document the effects. What
he found was that these potatoes had damaged the organs of the rats and
depressed their immune systems. On August 10, 1998, Dr. Pusztai
appeared on a British documentary and issued a warning to the public
about the inadequate testing of GM foods, and revealed his test results. For his candor, Dr. Pusztai was accused of incompetence, and forced to retire.
<[[iframe]] src="http://www.opednews.com/advertisement.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" bordercolor="#000000" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300">
..
A
scandal ensued after Dr. Pusztai raised questions about the safety of
GM potatoes. Accusations that Monsanto used its influence to ram the
technology through with bribery and coercion were made, as chronicled
by the Doric Column (1999):
12 February 1999:
Twenty scientists from 14 countries who have examined Pusztai's report
accuse Rowett of bowing to political pressure. The group calls for a
moratorium on GM crops.
13 February 1999: The British government "rejects calls for a moratorium amid allegations that it is in the pocket of the biotech industry."
14 February 1999: Rowett is reported to have received £140,000 from Monsanto before the blow-up.
Dr.
Pusztai was later “asked by the German authorities in the autumn of
2004 to examine Monsanto's own 1,139-page report on the feeding of
MON863 to laboratory rats over a 90-day period” (OCA, 2005). He was
forced to sign a “declaration of secrecy,” or gag order before Monsanto
would allow him to see the report.
This
would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that Dr Pusztai's
evaluation was highly critical of both the methods and the findings of
the study, indicating that MON863 maize by no means has a "clean bill
of health." Subsequent leaks from France, Germany and Belgium suggest
that the maize variety may indeed be unsafe for animal or human
consumption, and that a major cover-up is under way, designed to
protect the corporate giant Monsanto and the regulatory authorities
that have prematurely advised that MON863 is perfectly safe. (GM-Free
Ireland, 2005).
His
concerns regarding the dangers of MON863 maize after seeing the report
were the same as several German and other European scientists, “but the
German Government refused to publish their findings, and insisted that
Dr Pusztai should respect his "gagging order"” (OCA, 2005).
Not
to be held back in its rush to give the okay to GMO foods and the
questionable technology behind them, The European Safety Authority
commissioned its own set of experts to conclude that,
MON863
was perfectly safe and wholesome. More seriously, in the EFSA
Statement, and in subsequent Monsanto press releases, Dr Pusztai was
named and criticized in spite of the fact that it was known by all
concerned that he was effectively "gagged" and could not defend
himself. (OCA, 2005)
Independent Research Confirms - GMO Food is Dangerous
On
October 10[2005], during the symposium over genetic modification, which
was organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS),
Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova made public the results of the
research led by her at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and
Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). This is the
first research that determined clear dependence between eating
genetically modified soy and the posterity of living creatures (Regnum,
2005).
Over
half of the rats born to mothers who ate GM-soy (55-56%) were dead in
three weeks, as opposed to a 9% mortality rate in rats whose mothers
ate normal soy. “The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are
very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained
very disturbing,” said Irina Ermakova to NAGS press office. (Regnum,
2005)
Another
glaring example of the dangers of GMO food is that of Syngenta and the
German farmer, Gottfried Glockner of North Hessen. As William Engdahl
explains in Seeds of Destruction,
This
farmer found evidence that planting Syngenta Bt-176 genetically
engineered corn to feed his cattle in 1997 had been responsible for
killing off his cattle, destroying his milk production, and poisoning
his farmland. Syngenta's Bt-176 corn had been engineered to produce a
toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis, which they claimed was deadly to a
damaging insect, the European Corn Borer (pg. 230).
GMO Technology Threatens the World’s Food Supply
Not
only is GMO food harmful to the animals that eat it, but it also has
the potential to overcome the crops around it. Insects, birds, and wind
carry seeds into neighboring fields and beyond. This is
cross-pollination, and cannot be controlled in an outdoor environment.
Genetically engineered plants are no exception to this. The pollen from
GM plants can cross-pollinate with normal plants and contaminate entire
fields. With the proliferation of GM crops, this is a real danger.
In
1996, there were approximately 6,563 square miles of farmland in the
world devoted to GMO crops. In 2006, there were 393,828 square miles
devoted to GMO crops (GMO Compass, 2007). This is a 5900% increase in
land devoted to GMO crops in a 10-year period! At this rate, the amount
of GM crops will double in the next ten years, not including
cross-pollination factors.
Is “Organic” Really Organic?
Even foods labeled “organic” are allowed a percentage of GMO contamination.
“EU
Agricultural Ministers have decided to allow organic food accidentally
contaminated with genetically modified organisms to be classified as
organic as long as the GMO presence is less than 0.9%” (Shield, 2007).
In
the United States, “the US National Organic Program (NOP) rules
prohibit GMOs in organics but don’t require methods to prohibit GMO
contamination or establish thresholds for adventitious GM presence”
(Roseboro, 2007).
Many
organic companies simply do not want to undergo the expense and effort
necessary to test their fields for GMO contamination, but some say that
it is essential in order to maintain integrity.
Jack
Olson is an organic farmer in Litchville, North Dakota, who grows
organic soybeans, wheat, and other crops. “It’s hard for one organic
farmer to fight Monsanto,” he says. Still, Olson puts up with the
inconveniences because he is committed to organic agriculture. “At
least we’re clean, that’s why we grow organic. It’s God’s way,” he
says. (Roseboro, 2007)
Fighting the Giant
It
is difficult to fight the giant like Jack Olson is doing, but essential
for health and the survival of our food supply. Scientists that are not
afraid to speak out, and organic farmers that are not afraid to compete
with companies such as Monsanto and offer customers GMO-free organic
foods, stand between the agri-business giants intent on profiting from
an improperly tested technology and the people who need the information
and resources to make sure that what they are eating is healthy and
nutritious. Without these people, the Monsantos of the world will soon
have us eating nothing but their genetically engineered foods, with no
thought for the consequences of their actions.
© 2008, Barbara H. Peterson
References:
Doric Column. (1999). Transgenic Potatoes Á La Carte.
Engdahl, F.W. (2007). Seeds of Destruction. Global Research.
GM Free Ireland. (2005). Monsanto GM Maize Conspiracy Revealed.
GMO Compass. (2007). Transgenic Crops by Trait. GM Trait Statistics.
Organic Consumers Association (OCA). (2005). Monsanto's GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy
Regnum. (2005). Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies.
Roseboro, K. (2007). How Organic is Organic? New Calls for Testing Organic Foods for GMOs. Environmental News Network. Shield, P. (2007). GMOs Threaten Organic Standards. Organic Consumers Association (OCA).
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_barbara__080429_gmo__96_a_d...
INVISIBLE GM INGREDIENTS
Processed foods often have hidden GM sources (unless they
are organic or declared non-GMO). The following are ingredients
that may be made from GMOs.
12 13
Non-GMO
After the Fall organic juices
Big Island Organics
Blue Sky
Cascadian Farm
Crofters Organic
Eden
Frey Vinyards
Odwalla
Organic Valley
Quinoa Gold
Mixerz All Natural Cocktail Mixers
R.W. Knudsen organic juices
and spritzers (Smucker’s)
Santa Cruz Organic (Smucker’s)
Sea20 Organic Energy Drink
Teeccino Herbal Caffe
Walnut Acres Organic Juices
May Contain GMO
Ingredients
Coca-Cola (Fruitopia, Minute
Maid, Hi-C, NESTEA)
Hansen Beverage Company
Hawaiian Punch
(Procter and Gamble)
Kraft (Country Time, Kool-Aid,
Crystal Light, Capri Sun, Tang)
Libby’s (Nestlé)
Ocean Spray
Pepsi (Tropicana, Frappuccino,
Gatorade, SoBe, Dole)
Sunny Delight (Procter and
Gamble)
SODAS, JUICES
& OTHER BEVERAGES
Most juices are made from GMO-free fruit (avoid papaya
though, as it could be GMO), but the prevalence of corn-based
sweeteners—e.g. high-fructose corn syrup—in fruit juices is
cause for concern. Many sodas are primarily comprised of
water and corn syrup. Look for 100-percent juice blends. Aspartame
baking powder
caramel color
cellulose
citric acid
cobalamin
(Vitamin B12)
corn gluten
corn masa
corn oil
corn syrup
cornmeal
cornstarch
cyclodextrin
cystein
dextrin
dextrose
diacetyl
diglyceride
fructose
fructose
(crystalline)
glucose
glutamate
glutamic acid
gluten
glycerides
glycerin
glycerol
glycerol
monooleate
glycine
hemicellulose
high fructose
corn syrup
(HFCS)
hydrogenated
starch
hydrolyzed vegetable
protein
inositol
invert sugar
(colorose or
inversol)
tamari
isoflavones
lactic acid
lecithin
leucine
lysine
malitol
maltodextrin
maltose
mannitol
methylcellulose
milo starch
modified starch
monosodium
glutamate MSG
oleic acid
Phenylalanine
phytic acid
sorbitol
soy flour
soy isolates
soy lecithin
soy protein
starch
stearic acid
inverse syrup
tempeh
threonine
tocopherols
(Vitamin E)
tofu
trehalose
triglyceride
vegetable fat
vegetable oil
Vitamin B12
Vitamin E
xanthan gum