honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Tuesday, March 20, 2007

COMMENTARY
Oversight of food technology not in balance

By Bob Grossmann

Adolph Helm's March 13 commentary, "Genetic engineering ban bad for Hawai'i," raises important issues that the community must consider. Clearly, active debate in the area of genetically engineered crops is needed now, in part, because Hawai'i has had more field tests than most, if not all, other states in the nation.

Helm frames his position as an "all or nothing" — either Hawai'i's economic diversification, well-paying jobs for our graduates and future of the biotechnology industry moves forward, or everything grinds to a halt if a ban on genetically engineered coffee or taro bills move forward. The "naysayers," he believes, base their position on fear (not science), and the proposed "ban bills" misuse the political process.

The challenge is: How best to achieve an environmental and cultural balance in Hawai'i's policy-making arena? The current oversight of the technology is not in balance at either the state or federal levels.

The initial regulatory process in the late 1980s and into the early 1990s was dominated by three major factors:

  • First, the federal government, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Competitiveness, eroded virtually any legitimate state involvement in the process by not allowing the state timely access to full information. To counter this, Hawai'i passed the first law in the nation (Act 160, 1988) that required companies to send only a copy of applications for field trial permits sent to federal agencies to the state Department of Health at the same time.

    After an extensive effort with assistance by both Sens. Dan Akaka and Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i finally received and started reviewing complete applications through an ad hoc process involving key players (i.e., biotechnology company representatives, environmental scientists, the University of Hawai'i and state agencies).

  • The second element of control by the federal government and national agricultural biotech companies came through the policy implementation at the federal level, which did not involve states unless a finding of significant impact was found. None was found in any state during this regulatory period; the state of Hawai'i did raise concerns (for example, over the possibility of genes escaping to native cotton crops on Kaua'i, or of the possibility that viable, genetically engineered seed was inadvertently dispersed by the winds during Hurricane Iniki).

  • Third, basic research of horizontal gene transfer was never adequately funded, at either the state or federal levels, to prove the safety of diverse crops in extensive environmental niches. Without this knowledge, cost-benefit analysis is less than wholesome.

    In short, Hawai'i's state officials have done little to proactively protect the public interest through minimal oversight of the industry since 1994.

    In absence of reasonable state oversight across the country, the environmental and food safety issues have been largely "debated" in state and federal courts. Most have involved the adjudication of either escaped genes into the environment or genetically engineered crops, not approved, getting into the food chain.

    For example, in 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that golf course grass (bent grass) genetically engineered to withstand Roundup herbicide, escaped to surrounding species up to 2.4 miles from the test plot. Tainted crops involving rice and corn have been documented to have mistakenly been put into food distribution. Courts have ruled that the USDA's environmental assessments were either nonexistent or lacking. The European Union and even Japan have raised issues or have blocked importation.

    The debate in Hawai'i should be larger than genetically engineered releases or bans on coffee or taro.

    The community needs to look at the underlying ideology of the so-called "high" technologies. As recently reported, the industry received more than $300 million in confidential state tax credits to create about 300 jobs. Given that, venture capital is also very much at stake. The companies periodically evoke "laulima," but the history of the past 14 years shows tremendous investment of funds into controlling the political process to suit their needs.

    So, as Helm noted, just as "important is the need to safeguard a viable science and technology industry in Hawai'i ... for generations to come," so too is a process that doesn't undermine the public trust.

    Follow the money and power — and decide for yourself: Who has misused the political process?

    Bob Grossmann is the former special assistant to the director of health, coordinator of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Intentional Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms, and analyst with the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.