Genetic engineering is bad for the Islands

In signing a moratorium on Hawaiian taro research, the University of Hawai'i has opened up the local discussion on genetic engineering of our food plants, and this is a good thing because the majority of people don't know much about the genetic engineering of food; however, since its introduction in the U.S., a great deal has been learned.

Taro is a food that can be eaten by babies and others allergic to grains. The risk of GE taro is that new proteins and other unknown products created during the forceful transformation process will alter this hypo-allergenicity.

GE is not the end-all to plant diseases. The GE Rainbow papaya that "saved" Hawai'i's papaya industry is susceptible to blackspot fungus and requires regular and frequent spraying of expensive and toxic chemicals. Non-GE papaya growers (Kapoho Solo) must engage in costly testing and certification in order to preserve the identity of their fruit, but when all of the identity-preserved strains are contaminated, they will be gone forever. Non-GE and organic growers earn premiums of 300 percent to 700 percent, but bear the constant burden of contamination.

According to current USDA data, the U.S. corn export market has collapsed due to GE contamination, and GE soybean exports are following the same trend. Farmers are desperately selling at the lowest prices to beef and hog feed lots while taxpayers support these losses with more than $10 billion in farm subsidies.

The insurance industry backing away from liability for GE crops, farmers gaining in lawsuits against biotech producers for crop losses, and foreign countries providing non-GE crops where the U.S. cannot are all part of the larger picture. Hawai'i's genetic engineering food projects, although local and small, will still be impacted by these larger issues, and especially those crops intended for export.

Liquor Commission report unacceptable

Your latest story on the soaring overtime costs at the Honolulu Liquor Commission is yet another example of poor management at this agency.

The annual performance results published are even more shocking and alarming.

Looking at the year 1999, 354 violations were uncovered by 24 agents at a cost of $960,000 in payroll. Applying simple math, each violation cost an average of $2,700 while each agent averaged only 14.8 violations a year, which amounted to 1.2 violations per month. In 1994, the average cost for each violation was $602, while each agent averaged 39.2 violations a year or 3.3 violations per month. The results for the last five years aren't very much better than 1999, if not worse.

I would imagine each agent should do about six inspections a shift or about 120 a month. Uncovering just one or two violations would hardly be considered effective policing. What kind of management goes on at this agency and where is the accountability?

It is a travesty how this agency is being run. If Mr. Wallace Weatherwax and Mr. John Carroll won't resign, then they should be fired. I think our city deserves better.

Government couldn't care less about sharks

I completely agree with Scott Hanson's June 1 letter about tiger sharks and unleashed dogs in Kailua.

The fact is, our government leaders are too irresponsible and self-absorbed to really do anything about the loose dogs on the beaches in Lanikai and Kailua. And they care even less about what happens in the ocean.

Most of them probably can't even swim, let alone snorkel or surf.

Wait a minute, Gov. Lingle does swim.

Hmmm ... I think I might have the solution. Have Lingle do her swimming from Lanikai to Kailua, instead of in the shark-free pool of the YWCA.

Because if she starts swimming with the tiger sharks every morning, then one of two things will happen: (1) Duke Aiona gets to be governor or (2) they'll decide to do something about the tiger sharks.

Bicycle lanes needed

Many thanks to letter writer Delwyn Ching (June 1) for clarifying where bicyclists can and cannot ride on sidewalks. I'd like to add that if there were more designated bike lanes where we need them, riding on the sidewalks would hardly be necessary.

Fatal flaw in Act 51 wasn't addressed by Legislature

In a commentary critical of the federal No Child Left Behind law, Rep. Roy Takumi persuasively writes that Hawai'i's existing top-down approach to educational administration is counterproductive (Advertiser, May 24).

According to Rep. Takumi, power must be shifted to the school level in order to engender the level of creativity and enthusiasm that is necessary to improve the quality of education. Inexplicably, however, as the chair of the House Education Committee, he did very little during the 2005 legislative session to give individual schools more power.

A year ago, in the 2004 legislative session, it was a different story.

Public interest in education was unusually high, and Rep. Takumi was one of the individuals responsible for creating a feeling of optimism because of his support for Act 51. This act recognized the ineffectiveness of the obsolete top-down structure of the Department of Education and tried to change it. Act 51 was supposed to shift power from the DOE's central office to the school level by giving school principals, rather than bureaucrats, more authority over how to spend the money appropriated for public education.

However, it turned out that Act 51 was flawed because it allowed the Board of Education to give principals no more authority over money than they already had. Without an amendment, the effect of Act 51 would be negligible. Nevertheless, in the 2005 legislative session, Rep. Takumi and his colleagues failed to correct that error, and the momentum for improving public education came to a halt.

Was Act 51 fabricated just to satisfy the public's demand to improve education? Was the fatal flaw intentionally concealed in Act 51? Did the supporters of Act 51 have any intention of ever having it go into effect? We can only speculate on these questions.

However, the facts reveal that those who supported Act 51 were not very serious about improving the quality of education for our children.