Hawaiian leaders urge delay on ceded landsBy Gordon Y.K. Pang, Honolulu Advertiser, March 17, 2008Two Native Hawaiian leaders have joined with Hawaiian activists in calling for state lawmakers to delay passing an agreement that transfers $200 million of land and cash to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.Robin Danner, president and chief executive officer of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and Colin Kippen, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, said they want more information to be gathered before the settlement is adopted. That probably would mean putting off a decision at least until next year's Legislature convenes in January 2009.Late yesterday, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly also weighed in on the subject. The organization, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association, issued a statement saying it "strongly opposes" the agreement reached between OHA and the Lingle administration. The statement said homestead association presidents gathered Saturday to discuss the issue and voted unanimously to oppose the agreement. The group echoed the arguments made by Danner and Kippen.Meanwhile, a poll conducted on OHA's behalf shows 55 percent of Hawai'i residents believe the Legislature should approve the settlement agreement while 72 percent of Native Hawaiians polled believe it should be passed.The proposed settlement is meant to resolve a 30-year dispute between Native Hawaiians and the state over who gets the income from land once owned by the Kingdom of Hawai'i.Under the terms of the agreement, OHA gets three parcels of land worth $187 million, $13 million in cash and a minimum annual payment of another $15.1 million. In exchange, OHA agrees to waive further claims to income from the so-called ceded lands from 1978 onward.OHA and the Lingle administration have lobbied hard to get the settlement passed in this session of the Legislature, pointing out that the proposed agreement took more than four years of meetings to work out.Danner and Kippen, who are usually allied with OHA on major issues, including their support for the Akaka bill for Native Hawaiian recognition, say they are not convinced this settlement is the best OHA could get."I think it's a significant decision, one that warrants us to pause — not just the Hawaiian community, but the Legislature, the state government," Danner said.Kippen, who stressed he is speaking for himself and not his organization, said, "I'm opposed to this bill basically ... because it gives up too much for too little in a way that is unfair to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries."COMMITTEES MEET TODAYOHA Administrator Clyde Namu'o and Attorney General Mark Bennett say the agreement is fair and beneficial to both sides and should be adopted.Three committees of the state Senate meet in the state Capitol auditorium at 2:45 p.m. today to consider House Bill 266, the latest version of the negotiated settlement. The Legislature must approve the deal for it to become binding.The $200 million offered in the settlement is presumed to represent the revenue generated by the ceded lands and owed, but not paid, to OHA by the state between 1978 and now.The ceded lands are made up of 1.2 million acres, or about 40 percent of the total land in Hawai'i and about 95 percent of state-controlled lands, according to OHA.A number of Hawaiians continue to believe that language in the settlement suggests the agreement could be interpreted to relinquish all future claims by anyone regarding ownership of the ceded lands.The House draft of the bill contains language that is supposed to address that concern.Kippen, a former senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, former OHA deputy director and tribal judge for Indian tribes, cited language in the agreement that "waives claims of any kind" related to "income, proceeds, or any other tangible right."That could be broadly interpreted by a judge to mean the agreement settles all claims by Hawaiians to ceded lands, not just any revenues derived from them, he said."The ambiguities that are in that document are in that document forever. That language is as broad as it gets and OHA agreed to it," Kippen said.Bennett however, insists that the agreement settles only the issue of revenues."It talks about income and proceeds and that's what it's intended to do. That is what it is intended to deal with," Bennett said. "For people who are saying this bars other claims, there's no language to support that."CLARIFICATION PROMISEDOHA's Namu'o said language in the House bill clarifies that point, and added that Bennett has agreed to go even further to clarify any ambiguity."Mark is going to go on the record and will offer language to be included in the committee report that essentially says this waiver does not extinguish any claims which the Hawaiians have to ceded lands," Namu'o said.Said Bennett: "It's certainly possible that on particular language with the settlement agreement, we may work on modifying it with OHA."But even without the ambiguity, Kippen believes the agreement gives up too much."Ceded lands are from the top of the mountains ... to the submerged lands (in the sea)," Kippen said. "So let's say tomorrow ... somebody finds that there's this certain kind of limu that holds the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's, and the state now says, 'Those are growing on our ceded land, we want to sell those items, we want to make money on that.' "Hawaiians would not be able to get a share of that money because it would be income that goes to the state, Kippen said.Danner, head of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, said OHA and the administration of Gov. Linda Lingle have done a good job in getting the agreement to this point. However, she said, it's now up to the Legislature to take the time to make sure it is done right.Danner said she wants the state and OHA to work on completing an inventory of all ceded lands before the agreement is finalized, a process that likely would take at least until next year."We'll all still be here next year," Danner said. "I don't think you sell the items in your house before you take an inventory of the items."Namu'o, however, said that is an irrelevant point. While it's true that OHA has not received a detailed inventory of the entire 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, it does have an inventory of all income-generation lands in that category, he said.IS $200 MILLION ENOUGH?Activist Mililani Trask, a former OHA trustee, said that since the Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision allowed for non-Hawaiians to be elected to the OHA board, its actions have been suspect.While she supports the concept of an agreement, Trask said, she still has too many questions about the current version.Trask echoed the concern of many that the $200 million amounts to too little. "We haven't been told what the $200 million is based on," she said. "How is that calculated?"A judge in 1996 said that Hawaiians were owed $1.2 billion or more for revenues derived.Namu'o, however, said that billion-dollar-plus figure was based on accumulated interest and a later court ruled that Hawaiians were not entitled to interest, only revenues themselves.The values assigned to each of the three parcels selected to be handed over to OHA are based on assessed values issued by tax offices of the individual counties.Trask said there needs to be further study. "I want to know what the environmental studies are on them (the parcels)," she said. "I think they're short-changing the people."Andre Perez of the umbrella activist group Hui Pu, said he objects to the way the agreement was handed down without any consultation with beneficiaries."The constituents and beneficiaries only found out about this agreement after it had been submitted to the Legislature," Perez said. "And now we're going to tell you what we're going to do for you. It's a very condescending and paternalistic attitude."Danner said the series of meetings OHA has held in recent weeks across the Islands is just a starting point. "There are informational meetings and then there are consultations," she said. "I just feel like we've got the cart before the horse."OHA POINTS TO POLLWhile the specter of "establishment" Hawaiians like Danner and Kippen standing side by side with activists like Trask and Perez presents a formidable opposition, OHA is countering with the poll numbers that appear to show a majority of the public, and Native Hawaiians in particular, favor the proposed settlement.Results showed 55 percent of those polled answering "yes" to the question "Do you believe the Legislature should approve the proposed settlement?" Only 26 percent of all respondents said "no" while 19 percent said they did not know.Among Hawaiians, 72 percent said "yes," 20 percent said "no," and 9 percent did not know.Asked how they felt about the agreement, 28 percent of total respondents and 27 percent of Native Hawaiians said the settlement is a good one, while 34 percent of all respondents and 62 percent of Hawaiians believed the package is too little for what OHA is owed. Only 22 percent of all respondents and 4 percent of Hawaiians said the settlement is too much.Conducted by Ward Research Feb. 15-26, the poll queried 500 people, 100 of them Native Hawaiian. The number of people polled allows a margin of error of 4.4 percent for the total population polled and 9.8 percent for Native Hawaiians.Perez said the poll didn't survey enough people to form an accurate gauge of how the public, and Native Hawaiians, feel about the settlement.Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.Hawaiian homesteaders opposes Lingle/OHA billI AGREE WITH DA STATEMENT , BUT SCHHA Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands , SHOULD TALK " PONO" WITH A 50% BLOOD ,usa'z GENOCIDAL PROGRAM, OVER 40,000 on da waiting list, ~HEWA~and in da SAME BOAT AS DA "IPSO FACTO" ACTING PUPPET GOVERNMENT!Hawaiian homestead group opposes Lingle/OHA billAdvertiser, March 16, 2008An organization claiming to represent 7,000 Hawaiian homestead families statewide issued a statement today opposing House Bill 266 HD2 regarding the ceded lands agreement between Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.In a news release, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, stated, "We recommend that in the interest of transparency, the Legislature require OHA and Gov. Lingle release and make public the basis of the amounts contained in the Lingle/OHA agreement."Kamaki Kanahele, SCHHA chairman, added:"Until the egregious wrongs of the past are made 'pono,' any settlement terms must be strengthened to ensure that a portion of the settlement funds are directed to the Hawaiian Home Land Trust and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act beneficiaries, in accordance with the law."SCHHA, which claims a tie to 24 Hawaiian homestead associations, also opposes the agreement noting it lacks a ceded lands inventory and revenue report, and an unacceptable list of waivers were approved by the governor and OHA.
Hawaiian leaders urge delay on ceded landsBy Gordon Y.K. Pang, Honolulu Advertiser, March 17, 2008Two Native Hawaiian leaders have joined with Hawaiian activists in calling for state lawmakers to delay passing an agreement that transfers $200 million of land and cash to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.Robin Danner, president and chief executive officer of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and Colin Kippen, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, said they want more information to be gathered before the settlement is adopted. That probably would mean putting off a decision at least until next year's Legislature convenes in January 2009.Late yesterday, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly also weighed in on the subject. The organization, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association, issued a statement saying it "strongly opposes" the agreement reached between OHA and the Lingle administration. The statement said homestead association presidents gathered Saturday to discuss the issue and voted unanimously to oppose the agreement. The group echoed the arguments made by Danner and Kippen.Meanwhile, a poll conducted on OHA's behalf shows 55 percent of Hawai'i residents believe the Legislature should approve the settlement agreement while 72 percent of Native Hawaiians polled believe it should be passed.The proposed settlement is meant to resolve a 30-year dispute between Native Hawaiians and the state over who gets the income from land once owned by the Kingdom of Hawai'i.Under the terms of the agreement, OHA gets three parcels of land worth $187 million, $13 million in cash and a minimum annual payment of another $15.1 million. In exchange, OHA agrees to waive further claims to income from the so-called ceded lands from 1978 onward.OHA and the Lingle administration have lobbied hard to get the settlement passed in this session of the Legislature, pointing out that the proposed agreement took more than four years of meetings to work out.Danner and Kippen, who are usually allied with OHA on major issues, including their support for the Akaka bill for Native Hawaiian recognition, say they are not convinced this settlement is the best OHA could get."I think it's a significant decision, one that warrants us to pause — not just the Hawaiian community, but the Legislature, the state government," Danner said.Kippen, who stressed he is speaking for himself and not his organization, said, "I'm opposed to this bill basically ... because it gives up too much for too little in a way that is unfair to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries."COMMITTEES MEET TODAYOHA Administrator Clyde Namu'o and Attorney General Mark Bennett say the agreement is fair and beneficial to both sides and should be adopted.Three committees of the state Senate meet in the state Capitol auditorium at 2:45 p.m. today to consider House Bill 266, the latest version of the negotiated settlement. The Legislature must approve the deal for it to become binding.The $200 million offered in the settlement is presumed to represent the revenue generated by the ceded lands and owed, but not paid, to OHA by the state between 1978 and now.The ceded lands are made up of 1.2 million acres, or about 40 percent of the total land in Hawai'i and about 95 percent of state-controlled lands, according to OHA.A number of Hawaiians continue to believe that language in the settlement suggests the agreement could be interpreted to relinquish all future claims by anyone regarding ownership of the ceded lands.The House draft of the bill contains language that is supposed to address that concern.Kippen, a former senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, former OHA deputy director and tribal judge for Indian tribes, cited language in the agreement that "waives claims of any kind" related to "income, proceeds, or any other tangible right."That could be broadly interpreted by a judge to mean the agreement settles all claims by Hawaiians to ceded lands, not just any revenues derived from them, he said."The ambiguities that are in that document are in that document forever. That language is as broad as it gets and OHA agreed to it," Kippen said.Bennett however, insists that the agreement settles only the issue of revenues."It talks about income and proceeds and that's what it's intended to do. That is what it is intended to deal with," Bennett said. "For people who are saying this bars other claims, there's no language to support that."CLARIFICATION PROMISEDOHA's Namu'o said language in the House bill clarifies that point, and added that Bennett has agreed to go even further to clarify any ambiguity."Mark is going to go on the record and will offer language to be included in the committee report that essentially says this waiver does not extinguish any claims which the Hawaiians have to ceded lands," Namu'o said.Said Bennett: "It's certainly possible that on particular language with the settlement agreement, we may work on modifying it with OHA."But even without the ambiguity, Kippen believes the agreement gives up too much."Ceded lands are from the top of the mountains ... to the submerged lands (in the sea)," Kippen said. "So let's say tomorrow ... somebody finds that there's this certain kind of limu that holds the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's, and the state now says, 'Those are growing on our ceded land, we want to sell those items, we want to make money on that.' "Hawaiians would not be able to get a share of that money because it would be income that goes to the state, Kippen said.Danner, head of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, said OHA and the administration of Gov. Linda Lingle have done a good job in getting the agreement to this point. However, she said, it's now up to the Legislature to take the time to make sure it is done right.Danner said she wants the state and OHA to work on completing an inventory of all ceded lands before the agreement is finalized, a process that likely would take at least until next year."We'll all still be here next year," Danner said. "I don't think you sell the items in your house before you take an inventory of the items."Namu'o, however, said that is an irrelevant point. While it's true that OHA has not received a detailed inventory of the entire 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, it does have an inventory of all income-generation lands in that category, he said.IS $200 MILLION ENOUGH?Activist Mililani Trask, a former OHA trustee, said that since the Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision allowed for non-Hawaiians to be elected to the OHA board, its actions have been suspect.While she supports the concept of an agreement, Trask said, she still has too many questions about the current version.Trask echoed the concern of many that the $200 million amounts to too little. "We haven't been told what the $200 million is based on," she said. "How is that calculated?"A judge in 1996 said that Hawaiians were owed $1.2 billion or more for revenues derived.Namu'o, however, said that billion-dollar-plus figure was based on accumulated interest and a later court ruled that Hawaiians were not entitled to interest, only revenues themselves.The values assigned to each of the three parcels selected to be handed over to OHA are based on assessed values issued by tax offices of the individual counties.Trask said there needs to be further study. "I want to know what the environmental studies are on them (the parcels)," she said. "I think they're short-changing the people."Andre Perez of the umbrella activist group Hui Pu, said he objects to the way the agreement was handed down without any consultation with beneficiaries."The constituents and beneficiaries only found out about this agreement after it had been submitted to the Legislature," Perez said. "And now we're going to tell you what we're going to do for you. It's a very condescending and paternalistic attitude."Danner said the series of meetings OHA has held in recent weeks across the Islands is just a starting point. "There are informational meetings and then there are consultations," she said. "I just feel like we've got the cart before the horse."OHA POINTS TO POLLWhile the specter of "establishment" Hawaiians like Danner and Kippen standing side by side with activists like Trask and Perez presents a formidable opposition, OHA is countering with the poll numbers that appear to show a majority of the public, and Native Hawaiians in particular, favor the proposed settlement.Results showed 55 percent of those polled answering "yes" to the question "Do you believe the Legislature should approve the proposed settlement?" Only 26 percent of all respondents said "no" while 19 percent said they did not know.Among Hawaiians, 72 percent said "yes," 20 percent said "no," and 9 percent did not know.Asked how they felt about the agreement, 28 percent of total respondents and 27 percent of Native Hawaiians said the settlement is a good one, while 34 percent of all respondents and 62 percent of Hawaiians believed the package is too little for what OHA is owed. Only 22 percent of all respondents and 4 percent of Hawaiians said the settlement is too much.Conducted by Ward Research Feb. 15-26, the poll queried 500 people, 100 of them Native Hawaiian. The number of people polled allows a margin of error of 4.4 percent for the total population polled and 9.8 percent for Native Hawaiians.Perez said the poll didn't survey enough people to form an accurate gauge of how the public, and Native Hawaiians, feel about the settlement.Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.Hawaiian homesteaders opposes Lingle/OHA billI AGREE WITH DA STATEMENT , BUT SCHHA Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands , SHOULD TALK " PONO" WITH A 50% BLOOD ,usa'z GENOCIDAL PROGRAM, OVER 40,000 on da waiting list, ~HEWA~and in da SAME BOAT AS DA "IPSO FACTO" ACTING PUPPET GOVERNMENT!Hawaiian homestead group opposes Lingle/OHA billAdvertiser, March 16, 2008An organization claiming to represent 7,000 Hawaiian homestead families statewide issued a statement today opposing House Bill 266 HD2 regarding the ceded lands agreement between Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.In a news release, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, stated, "We recommend that in the interest of transparency, the Legislature require OHA and Gov. Lingle release and make public the basis of the amounts contained in the Lingle/OHA agreement."Kamaki Kanahele, SCHHA chairman, added:"Until the egregious wrongs of the past are made 'pono,' any settlement terms must be strengthened to ensure that a portion of the settlement funds are directed to the Hawaiian Home Land Trust and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act beneficiaries, in accordance with the law."SCHHA, which claims a tie to 24 Hawaiian homestead associations, also opposes the agreement noting it lacks a ceded lands inventory and revenue report, and an unacceptable list of waivers were approved by the governor and OHA.
OVER 20 MILLION HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED BY THE : CIA & TAX PAYERS LIKE YOU !ALL THIS IS LEADING TO A "NEW WORLD ORDER", WHERE 80% OF THE WOLRD POPULATION WILL BE EXTERMINATED ! TRUTH!BY : NATO ,UN, USA and UK, = GLOBAL CORPORATIONZ = W.A.S.P. RACIST SELECT VERY FEW !
We. Featuring the words of Arundhati Roy ..
Group: Look at Stryker impact or be suedBy Audrey McAvoy, The Associated Press, Mar 14, 2008HONOLULU — An environmental group said Thursday it will challenge the Army in court if the service doesn’t address how basing a Stryker brigade in Hawaii would affect live-fire training in Makua Valley.David Henkin, an Earthjustice lawyer, said the final version of the Army’s environmental impact statement on the Stryker brigade doesn’t address how the unit would affect Makua even though Henkin submitted a question on the issue.The Army considers Makua vital to soldier readiness but Native Hawaiian groups value the remote valley for its temples and other sacred and cultural sites. Environmentalists point to several dozen endangered species that inhabit the valley.The Army doesn’t plan to have Stryker soldiers, who move around on eight-wheeled heavy duty vehicles, train in Makua. The Army only uses Makua Military Reservation for infantry brigade training.But Henkin, and several Native Hawaiian groups Earthjustice has represented in lawsuits over the Stryker brigade and Makua, say the brigade will have indirect effects on the valley.Henkin said the Army has previously indicated that basing Strykers in Hawaii would prevent the service from moving other live-fire training out of Makua.That’s because the Stryker brigade would use other Army training grounds in Hawaii — including Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area — that could replace Makua, Henkin said.“There will be a domino effect,” Henkin said at a press conference in front of Iolani Palace. “By occupying the training lands for Stryker, they are pushing training to Makua, they are condemning Makua sacred sites and endangered species to destruction.”Earthjustice said the National Environmental Policy Act requires that the Army disclose indirect, as well as direct, environmental impacts of Stryker basing.The Army last month released the final version of its environmental impact statement, which said Hawaii’s strategic location made the state the most desirable location for the unit.Army leaders, after consulting the report, are expected to announce after March 24 where they plan to base the brigade.Col. Wayne Shanks, a U.S. Army Pacific spokesman, said the Army conducted a comprehensive study for the environmental impact statement.“The EIS was a very thorough and detailed analysis of all the potential impacts and the ways to mitigate any of those possible impacts through active measures,” Shanks said.The Army welcomes comments from the public before leaders make a basing decision, he added.Separately, the Army announced it would conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement to cover the service’s planned expansion in Hawaii and Alaska.Hawaii’s soldier population may grow by 1,000 under the plan.Overall, the Army intends to grow by 74,000 by 2010 to meet demands created by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of increase will go to Texas, Georgia and Colorado as the Army bases six new combat brigades there.In Hawaii, the Army expects most of the additional soldiers to be assigned to Schofield Barracks. Some will go to Fort Shafter and Wheeler Army Airfield.
Hawaii Senate Committee Passes Resolution on AspartameBy Stephen Fox, 3/13/2008 10:49:31 AMThere is now a Hawaii Senate Resolution authored by Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland, which requests the Department of Health and National Academy of Sciences to review existing reports and studies related to aspartame, by funding source.It resolves that given the enormous amount of evidence that has been compiled concerning the neurodegenerative harm it can cause, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is requested to rescind approval of aspartame immediately on a phase-out basis over six months to one year.We are very pleased to note that this is the strongest legislative document concerning aspartame ever presented anywhere in the world.On March 12, another resolution, HCR132, introduced by Rep. Josh Green, M.D., Chairman of the House Committee on Health, was approved by its first committee (Health) and moves on to the next (Consumer Protection and Commerce).This would set up a work group to explore the need to ban or improve labeling containing aspartame. It was again opposed by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, M.D., Director of the Health Department, an appointee of Republican Governor Linda Lingle, who opposed the House Bill to ban aspartame on the flawed basis of an Ajinomoto-funded review study; Ajinomoto is the world’s largest manufacturer of Aspartame, and another proven neurotoxic food additive, Monosodium Glutamate.Betty Martini, D. Hum, sent Dr. Fukino a detailed rebuttal to this study, showing the links to Ajinomoto, and flawed industry research. Dr. Fukino's opposition today, March 12 was surprisingly opposed by Rep. Green, M.D., the only physician in the entire Hawaii Legislature, in view of him having “deferred” a prior bill to ban aspartame outright, by statute.Here is the rebuttal to the Ajinomoto Study, written by Mark Gold, Founder, Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, New Hampshire: 
HERE'S da SCOOP : OHA = USA, HAWAII'S ACTING PUPPET GOVERNMENT = USA !! here it is IT'S USA Dealing with IT'SELF, OVER STOLEN LANDS BELONGING TO da HAWAIIANZ !!! = FUCKEN BULLSHIT, FRAUD , RACIST and CULTRAL GENOCIDE !HOW LONG MUST THIS BULLSHIT GO ON !!!KU'E EA !!!!
Council defers taro resolutionby Nathan Eagle - THE GARDEN ISLAND, March 13, 2008Residents armed with petitions and signs urged the County Council to pass a resolution supporting a bill now moving forward in the state Legislature that would place a 10-year moratorium on developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, growing and raising genetically engineered taro in Hawai‘i.The morning debate yesterday at the Historic County Building ended in a unanimous vote for a deferral after farmers and scientists exchanged information about the culturally important edible plant.While testimony overwhelmingly urged the resolution’s passage, representatives from a large biotech seed production company and a university research institute voiced opposition to the measure.Both sides in their arguments pointed at insufficient information about genetically modified organisms.Critics said modifying taro’s genetic make-up to create disease-resistant varieties could ensure long-term survivability of the plant while supporters said unknown risks exist and a moratorium would provide a necessary “time out” to weigh the benefits.Big Island taro expert Jerry Konanui presented a short film about the need to protect the sacred native Hawaiian plant for future generations. Kaua‘i produces roughly 70 percent of the state’s taro.After serving as a proud proponent of genetic engineering “to save the world,” he said he did a complete 180 after attending conferences on the subject on the Mainland.“What my hippie friends told me is: ‘Jerry, you need to go and educate yourself,’” said Konanui, a multi-generation taro farmer. “We don’t know if genetic engineering is good. We don’t know the risk. We don’t know the benefits. ... The moratorium is not a total ban, it is a resting period.”Pioneer scientist Sarah Styan said none of the seed companies with research fields on Kaua‘i are doing anything with taro or plan to do anything with taro, but she was there to oppose the proposed resolution.“We don’t mandate genetic engineering is the solution,” she said, but it is a tool to be used.University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources County Administrator Roy Yamakawa agreed.There are definite benefits to organic farming, he said, but genetic engineering is a specific science.“We’re trying to take technology and trying to make it useful for the people,” he said.The risk of cross-pollination, which several farmers suggested could wipe out traditional taro varieties, is unlikely at best, Yamakawa said.Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura said one way to address the uncertainty over genetic engineering is a 10-year moratorium, another is by establishing protocols such as highly secure labs.“Currently, it’s in the infancy of research,” Yamakawa said, adding that industry demand will determine if studies move forward.He pointed to some 300 Big Island papaya farmers who would not be in operation today without genetic engineering.A similar threat to taro exists, he said, referring to phytophthora colocasiae, a fungus-like organism that impacted American Samoa taro.But Konanui said this is more rhetoric to instill fear in consumers and farmers.The kupuna understood the need to grow varieties — some fare well in colder waters at higher elevations and others in warmer patches at lower altitudes. One variety comprises roughly 90 percent of all taro now cultivated, he said.More than 300 taro varieties existed when European explorers arrived on the islands, the Senate bill states. This number has fallen to roughly 70 today.Dr. Donald Greer, who teaches at Kaua‘i Community College, did a study on taro from 2000 to 2005. She focused on its connection to culture, habitat for endangered water birds and economic sustainability.All of the 45 farmers she worked with said the primary reason they have farmed taro generation after generation is its ability to bring families closer together, Greer told the council.After the potential of genetically modified food was introduced a few years ago, she said, farmers have been torn over how to proceed.It could endanger kalo farmers, their lifestyles, local ecology and spirituality, she said.Several young taro farmers asked council to pass the resolution. They wore shirts saying “If you no work, you no eat” and waved signs saying “GE any taro, you contaminate all taro.”GMO Free Kaua‘i spokeswoman Jeri DiPietro said she had petitions with more than 2,500 signatures supporting a ban on all genetically modified organisms on island.“I just want to protect my own ability to eat organic food and see our island be a clean and healthy place,” she said.Kaua‘i Taro Growers Association President Rodney Haraguchi said in his written testimony to the council that the group opposed the moratorium.“All the taro farmers understand and are sensitive to the cultural significance of taro to the Hawaiian community, and also have reservations about GMO taro, however, they are opposed to have a law passed for 10 years restricting research which may be necessary,” he said.Haraguchi pointed to the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources voluntarily imposed moratorium in 2005 to not genetically experiment with Hawaiian taro varieties until the Hawaiian community deems it necessary.All sides of the issue supported concurrent legislation in the Senate that would create a taro security and purity task force. Both bills will have hearings by early April.The task force would pull together stakeholders to discuss the future of taro in Hawai‘i.Konanui, who helped draft the task force legislation, said the moratorium is still necessary to keep researchers from going through the back door during that dialogue.County councils on Neighbor Islands have recently passed resolutions supporting Senate Bill 958, which calls for the moratorium on cultural reasons alone. Big Island passed its resolution Jan. 24 and Councilwoman Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho said Maui passed its yesterday.Generations of native Hawaiians have considered taro, or kalo, a sacred plant.“Kalo intrinsically ties the interdependency of the past, the present, and the future, the essence of procreation and regeneration, as the foundation of any sustainable practice,” the proposed legislation states. “Kalo expresses the spiritual and physical well-being of not only the kanaka maoli and their heritage, but also symbolizes the environmental, social and cultural values important to the state.”• Nathan Eagle, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 224) or neagle@kauaipubco.com.Mahalo:Nini'ane
