Facing Hawai'i's Future

Facing Hawaii?s Future

Harvesting Essential Information about GMOs

Published by Hawai?i SEED

P.O. Box 4661, Hilo, HI 96720

(808) 331-1211

www.hawaiiseed.org

email: gmofreehawaii@riseup.net

form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, photographic including

photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without prior written permission of the publisher. No patent liability is assumed

with respect to the use of the information contained herein. Although every

precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher and authors

assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. Neither is the liability assumed for

damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.

Compiled by Hawai?i GEAN

Hawai?i Genetic Engineering Action Network

Edited by Ana Currie, Pasifika Foundation

Original cover and interior illustrations by Mayumi Oda

Book design by Andrew Ogus

Book Design

A very special thanks to those who assisted with the preparation of this booklet:

Walter Ritte, Kalaniua Ritte, Hanohano Nachu, Sarah Sullivan, Paul Achitoff,

Joe Mendolsohn, Lori Udall, Eloise Engman, Bonnie Bonze, Una Greenaway,

Jeri Dipietro, Collin Bode, Jeffrey Smith, Dr. Marti Crouch, Mark Query,

Maris Abelson, Andrew Kimbrell and Raoul Goff.

This project was made possible by a grant from the Sacharuna Foundation.

Dedication Chant: La?a Ulu 4

Kumu Keala Ching

Introduction: O Ke Au Mua, O

Ke Au Nei 6

A Vision for Sustainable

Agriculture 8

Nancy Redfeather

and Melanie Bondera

What is Genetic Engineering? 11

Luke Anderson

Intellectual Property:

Owning Life Forms 17

Mililani Trask

GMOs in Hawai?i ?

The Big Picture 20

Nancy Redfeather

Hawaiian Perspectives

on GMOs 24

Mililani Trask

Public Health and

the Regulation of GMOs 28

Dr. Lorrin Pang

Health Effects of Genetically

Engineered Food 33

Elisha Goodman

Just Say No to GMO Drugs:

Inherent Dangers in Plant-Made

Pharmaceuticals 36

Nancy Redfeather

Unintended Consequences?

A Look at Potential

Farmer Impact 39

Luke Anderson

Papaya and Coffee: GMO

?Solutions? Spell

Market Disaster 44

Melanie Bondera

The Future of Agriculture

in Hawai?i: an Economic

Perspective 47

Nancy Redfeather and Bill Freese

Farm without Harm: Reflections

on Genetic Engineering 50

Shepherd Bliss, D.Min.

Consumer Choice: How Can

I Avoid Eating Genetically

Engineered Food 53

GMO Resistance ?

A Global Movement 55

Take Action! 58

In Closing: Pau Ka Mana?o 61

Resources 63

References by Chapter 66

about

the

artist

Mayumi Oda is a painter and founder of Plutonium Free Future

in Japan and the U.S. She currently lives and farms in Hawai?i.

Contents

La?a Ulu

aNcy

edfeather

laua

umu

eala

hiNg

La?a ulu hou a?e

Spring has returned

once again

Mohala ka ulu

Renewal of life

Ulu la?a ulu

Springs forth

Ulu a?e n� hua

From every seed

Kau pono n� hua

Seeds of the Ancestors

Naue mai, naue mai

Awaken the Ancestors

N� iwi o ka ?�ina

Ancestors of the Land

?�nana n� kupa

Life stirs within us

Pili pa?a pono

Come together

No ka wailua ala

Connect with

Ala pono ka wailua

The ancient knowledge

Kau pono n� hua

Seeds of the Ancestors

Naue mai, naue mai

Awaken the Ancestors

N� iwi o ka ?�ina

Ancestors of the Land

Hua a?e ka wailua

Knowledge of the seed

Wailua ka hua

Seed of Life

Hua hiwa iho ala

Precious seed of Life

Ho?�lahia

Awaken!

Kau pono n� hua

Seeds of the Ancestors

Naue mai, naue mai

Awaken the Ancestors

N� iwi o ka ?�ina

Ancestors of the Land

he seeds of knowledge are the seeds of our ancestors. We honor
them by knowing them and living their legacy within our everyday

life. Moving forward with the knowledge of our ancestors keeps them
very near; as they are a part of who we are within the world we live in
now. La?a Ulu recognizes the beauty and the seeds of knowledge that
they (ancestors) have built for us, and it is our responsibility to continue
to allow the beauty of this legacy and life for the future generations to
live!

The future is seeded by our actions today. The time has come for

the renewal of agriculture. SEEDing the future with the wisdom and
knowledge of the past combined with the best of the new ecological/
sustainable agricultural techniques available today will allow a healthy
food and farming future to unfold for our children. It is up to us to care
for the land in such a way, that it will not be compromised for the future
generations that are to come. E� La?a Ulu ?!

A resident of Kealakehe, Kona, Hawai?i, Kumu Keala Ching is a Hawaiian
Cultural Educator, composer, song writer and spiritual advisor to many
Hawaiian organizations. Kumu Keala is co-founder and Executive Director
of N� Wai Iwi Ola (NWIO) Foundation, founded to perpetuate the Hawaiian
culture and practices through hula protocol and ceremonies, the use and study
of the Hawaiian language, and by embracing the stories of our kupuna past,
present and future. Kumu Keala Ching is kumu hula of Ka P� Hula N� Wai
Iwi Ola and N� Wai Puna o Kona (K�puna) in Kailua-Kona and is a kumu and
cultural advisor to H�lau N� Wai Ola of Sunnyvale, California, N� Wai Pana,
the Hau?oli Hula Studios, in Japan, and N� Wai ?Ohi?a in Zurich, Switzerland.

O Ke Au Mua, O

Ke Au Nei

From the knowledge deep within until the

knowledge of the present time . . .

he Hawaiian Islands stand isolated and unique, alone in a vast sea.
The complex ecosystems that form life here have evolved slowly

over eons of geologic time. Hawai?i is a ?hotspot? of biodiversity with
more species of endangered plants and animals than anywhere else on
Earth.

This priceless living treasure, however, is under siege. Development,

increasing population and climate change all put pressure on Hawaii?s
ecosystems. Alien species, with increasing frequency, invasively over-
take our natives, removing our opportunity to understand the intricate
web of life which surrounds us and of which we are part.

Today, we stand on the shore watching an approaching food and

farming tsunami. The revolution occurring in agriculture has the po-
tential to forever change the basic genetic structure of the food we eat,
as well as the soils, the plants, and the animals that form the delicate
balance of our pristine ecosystem. Large multi-national corporations
and universities with the full support of federal and state governments
are altering the genetic structure and nutritional content of the foods
we eat, patenting the seed, preventing farmers from saving seed, and
changing the course of 10,000 years of agriculture. Genes of different
species are being combined in food crops at the molecular level without
knowledge of their effects on soils, ecosystems, or human health.

Many years ago, a decision was made to allow Hawaii?s soils to be-

come the nursery for experimental genetically engineered agricultural
crops known as GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Big corpora-
tions have big influence ? and our year-round growing season, geograph-
ical isolation, and permissive regulations contributed to this decision.
Yet, co-existence of conventional (non-GMO), organic, and GMO agri-
culture is not biologically possible.

There is much to preserve and protect in our islands, yet GMOs will

never give us the truly diversified food production and island food secu-
rity we need. Many people have a different vision of Hawaii?s path to an
ecological and sustainable agricultural future. This vision is grounded
in recycling the vast bounty of organic materials available in the tropics
to produce soil and ecosystem health, in wise choices of varieties and
growing season, and a better understanding of the complex interaction
between soil health and pests and disease. Imagine a proud and indepen-
dent Hawai?i filled with unique varieties of locally produced tropical
foods grown on diverse family farms. Imagine our islands as a mecca for
?green? tourists, a place not just for recreation but also for re-creation
and wellness, an example for the world. Imagine our state and county
agencies and our university system supporting these ideas.

Hawai?i SEED is a grassroots coalition of farmers, consumers, par-

ents, doctors, and scientists from every corner of the Hawaiian islands.
Now is the time to bring increased awareness and speak openly about
GMO agriculture and its effects on the environment, health, and cul-
ture of Hawaii?s communities. Our hope is to enkindle a vision for a
more ecological/sustainable form of agriculture based on statewide sup-
port for family farms growing diverse crops. It is not too late for Hawai?i
to just say no to GMOs and bring that vision to life.

Join us now, as we explore and examine the compiled writings of

farmers, scientists, native Hawaiians and others. There is much to pre-
serve, protect, and nurture here, the integrity of our unique and pristine
ecosystems and the future of life in these lands. Pale ke ao ? Protect
what is here Now.

Hawai?i SEED is a non-profit organization and coalition of grassroots
groups from 5 islands including GMO-Free Kauai, GMO-Free
Oahu, GMO-Free Maui, Hawai?i GEAN, and Hui Ho?opakele.

O Ke au Mua, o Ke au Nei

A Vision for Sustainable

Agriculture

aNcy

edfeather

aNd

elaNie

oNdera

he planters of Old Hawai?i had a vision and knowledge of ecologi-
cal/sustainable agriculture. Verdant gardens stretching mauka to

makai formed the ahupua?a system that produced enough food for large
populations on all islands. Today we think of ?ecological? as mean-
ing that which works in harmony with Nature, and ?sustainable? as a
system that will continue to produce over many generations without
degrading the soil upon which agriculture rests. This is the kind of agri-
culture we need for Hawaii?s future.

After the arrival of Captain Cook, successive waves of plantation

agriculture dominated Hawaii?s landscape. When the plantation system
finally crashed, everyone began to talk of diversified agriculture. This
new system would replace the huge mono-crops of pineapple and sugar
that were owned by a few companies, that paid low wages to workers
and often polluted soils with pesticides and agro-chemicals, with a more
community-friendly model. The vision of many small farms owned by
the people, growing many diverse crops with multiple markets, began
to expand. This type of system creates food security and food sover-
eignty, which is important for our remote island chain.

But in the mid-1990s Governor Ben Cayetano and our agricultural

decision makers had a different plan in mind. Their blueprint would
replace plantation agriculture with genetically engineered agriculture.
Corporations genetically engineering agricultural crops were invited to
move here and were given sufficient financial incentives to keep them
here (see ?GMOs in Hawai?i ? The Big Picture,? page 20). Now, 1 years
later, Hawai?i is the center for open air field testing of experimental
GMO crops and corn seed development of GMO feed corn destined for
U.S. farms. The Hawai?i taxpayers have subsidized this industry heavily
? and what have been the benefits? Seed crops are exported and profits
flow to corporations outside Hawai?i. The open experimental field tri-

A Vision for Sustainable Agriculture

als are impossible to regulate and have unknown effects on our ?aina,
ecosystems and health of the community. Our fragile environment, the
intricate balance of which we barely understand, is in danger of being
polluted by living reproducing organisms that cannot be contained. It is
now commonly known that once a genetically engineered agricultural
crop is planted in a geographical region, it is only a matter of time before
conventional and organic farmers will experience genetic contamina-
tion of their crops. We have traded this real consequence for a handful
of jobs.

We should remind ourselves that from the moment that peoples first

landed in the Hawaiian islands until the 1930s we were food self-suf-
ficient. Today, we import about 90-9 percent of our food. Our depen-
dence on oil to transport our food longer and longer distances, and on
oil-based fertilizers that fuel industrial agriculture, seems to be coming
to a halt. What will replace this fossil-fuel dependent, industrial model
that has degraded soils and farming communities worldwide?

There is another vision. Land reform at the state and county level

can create affordable opportunities for interested farmers to live and
farm long-term on a piece of land. We need to keep our best agricultural
lands zoned for agriculture and continue to develop water infrastructure.
Our institutions can develop educational programs that actually train
young people and mid-career changers to farm in the tropics. Coun-
ties can work with farmers to recycle the communities? organic waste,
which will increase soil health and farm profitability. The Cooperative
Extension Services can offer non-toxic solutions to pests and disease
and assist communities with knowledge for developing community and
home gardens. The University of Hawai?i can develop open-pollinated
seed varieties of both fruits and vegetables adapted to our tropical envi-
ronment. Our Rural Economic Development Boards can support direct
marketing of agricultural products such as farmers markets, CSAs (com-
munity supported agriculture), and schools can purchase fresh produce
from local farms. Supermarkets can buy local produce, and restaurants
can feature fresh foods from area farms for the visitor and local alike.

Working together, these programs form a new vision of agriculture,

a vision that is gathering interest locally and already growing in many
areas of the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Perhaps the most compel-
ling aspect of the sustainable food movement is how quickly a commu-

A Vision for Sustainable Agriculture

nity can create a local food economy. It doesn?t take global agreements
and it doesn?t require new legislation. Each time we buy food from a
local farmer who grows in ways that respect the land, we are voting for
a safer, economically vibrant and more delicious food system and way
of life in Hawai?i.

We have incredible potential here with our vigorous year round grow-

ing environment. We can grow valuable high-end tropical fruits, nuts,
vegetables, and flowers for specialty markets. We can feed our families
and our communities. We can focus on diversified niche markets and
value added farm products. We can assist our farmers to procure small
grants for value-added processing machinery, and development of busi-
ness plans. We can be the center of tropical agricultural research and
program application for farmers in the tropical countries of the world!

Instead of using our land as a laboratory, we can connect to the an-

cient sustainable and profitable farming systems that have been prac-
ticed here in Hawai?i and on planet Earth for 10,000 years. We can de-
mand that our institutions be responsive and responsible to our com-
munities and land, rebalancing our farming systems in the ecological/
sustainable ways of the future.

Nancy Redfeather is a teacher and gardener and Director of Hawai?i
Genetic Engineering Action Network (Hawai?i GEAN). She is founder
of the Hawai?i Island SEED Exchange, and co-founder of Biodynamics
Hawai?i and the Know Your Farmer Alliance. Nancy and her husband Gerry
Herbert are developing an experimental/educational farm at Kawanui,
Honalo where they plan to give community classes in developing home
vegetable gardens and orchards in a sustainable/ecological manner.

Melanie Bondera is an organic farmer in Kona who became concerned with
GMOs in Hawai?i when she realized they threaten her family?s livelihood
and her children?s health. She is a co-founder and director of Hawai?i
GEAN and a board member of Hawai?i SEED. Melanie has worked to bring
to light the extensive GMO Papaya contamination, and with the Hawai?i
coffee industry in order to prevent GMO coffee from being field tested.

What is Genetic Engineering?

uKe

NdersoN

Just what is genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering is a laboratory technique used to make new kinds
of plant, animal or other living organisms. It is now possible, using

It is now possible, using

these techniques, to cross natural boundaries and force together DNA
from any different species, such as jellyfish genes with corn plants or
human genes with rice.

Examples of genetic engineering experiments that have already been

xamples of genetic engineering experiments that have already been

done include:

Spider/Goat ? taking a gene from a spider that leads to the produc-
tion of spider web and putting it into goats so the goats can then be
milked for the spider web protein.

Fish/Strawberries ? taking a gene from an Arctic flounder and put-
ting it into a strawberry to try to make it frost-resistant.

Corn/Human ? taking a human gene and putting it into corn so
that the corn contains human antibodies that attack sperm. The
idea is to develop the corn as a plant-gel contraceptive that kills
sperm on contact.

Hawai?i has the highest recorded number of open-air experiments

with genetically engineered plants in the world. Examples include:

Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)

Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawai?i Agriculture

Research Center)

What is a gene?

Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has a center called
a nucleus. Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA, half of which is
normally inherited from the mother and half from the father. Short sequences
of DNA are called genes. These genes operate in complex networks that are
finely regulated to enable the processes of living organisms to happen in the
right place and at the right time.

What is Genetic Engineering?

Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)

Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawai?i)

Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)

Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)

Haven?t we been breeding new plants and animals for
thousands of years? Isn?t that just like genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding.
In traditional breeding it is possible to mate a pig with another pig to
get a new variety, but it is not possible to mate a pig with a potato or
a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do
succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile?a horse, for ex-
ample, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.

How is genetic engineering done?
Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves
against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic en-
gineers have to find ways to force the DNA from one organism into
another. These methods include:

Using viruses or bacteria to ?infect? animal or plant cells with the
new DNA.

Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering
sperm, and then forcing the new DNA into the sperm through
these holes.

Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine needle.

Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a special
gene gun into a layer of plant cells.

Is genetic engineering precise?
The technology of genetic engineering is currently very crude. It is not
possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, and the transfer of new
genes can disrupt the finely controlled network of DNA in an organism.

Current understanding of the way in which DNA works is extremely

limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point can
have side effects that are impossible to predict or control. The new gene
could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb
cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins
or allergens, and changes in nutritional value.

For example, when genetically engineered salmon were compared to

normal salmon, it was found that the genetic engineering unexpectedly
increased the amount of a protein identified as a major food allergen.

In another case, Australian researchers reported in November 200 that
after 10 years spent developing a genetically engineered pea they had to
abandon project after they found out that the altered peas caused lung
inflammation and other adverse effects in mice.

?The reaction of the

mice?might reflect something that would happen to humans,? said
deputy chief of CSIRO plant industry T. J. Higgins.

Why do genetically engineered foods have
antibiotic resistant genes in them?
The techniques used to transfer genes have a very low success rate, so
the genetic engineers attach ?marker genes? that are resistant to antibi-
otics to help them to find out which cells have taken up the new DNA.
These marker genes are resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used
in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe that eating
GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut bacteria to
develop antibiotic resistance.

The British Medical Association

stated in 1999 that, ?Antibiotic

resistance, the threat of new allergic reactions and the unknown
hazards of transgenic DNA mean that on health grounds alone the

GE, GMOs and Biotechnology

Genetic engineering is sometimes called ?genetic modification,? and a geneti-
cally engineered organism is often called a GMO (genetically modified organ-
ism). Another word that is occasionally used to talk about genetic engineering
is ?biotechnology.? This word can be confusing, because ?biotechnology? is
a very general word, and includes all the different ways humans work with
living organisms, (e.g. using yeasts to make bread or beer). There are many
kinds of biotechnology that have nothing to do with the genetic engineering of
agriculture or the release of GMOs into the environment.

We have such a miserably poor understanding of how an organism develops
from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don?t get one rude shock after
another.
? Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard University

What is Genetic Engineering?

impact of GMOs must be fully assessed before they are released. The
environmental implications and the long term effects on human health
cannot be safely predicted at this stage and caution must therefore
prevail.?

Lorrin Pang, MD, and MPH Advisor to the World Health Organization

echoes those concerns relative to Hawaii?s genetically engineered papaya.
?The genetically engineered papaya contains three antibiotic resistant
marker (ARM) genes. I am concerned about the possibility that they
might transfer to the human gut bacteria, and then create new disease
strains that will be resistant to the three important antibiotics.?

Isn?t genetically engineered food thoroughly safety tested?
The U.S. regulatory agencies such as the FDA have deregulated GMOs.
What this means is that in most cases it is left up to the corporations
themselves (those who stand to profit from the introduction of geneti-
cally engineered crops) to decide whether or not their products are safe.
There is no long-term safety testing of genetically engineered food. The
genetic engineering corporations sometimes conduct short-term animal
feeding trials, but most of this research is kept confidential. Neither the

Neither the

public, farmers, elected officials nor regulatory agencies are given vital
information that would be needed to determine safety concerns associ-
ated with these experiments.

No evidence from human trials for either toxicity or allergy testing is

required. No independent checks of the company?s claims are required.
The corporations producing GMOs have also avoided liability that
would hold them accountable in case of any hazardous effects.

But nobody?s fallen over dead from eating
genetically engineered food, have they?
Proponents of genetic engineering often make comments such as:
?We?ve been eating genetically engineered food for years in the Unit-
ed States and there have been no problems. No one has even caught a
cold.? Considering that there have been no studies done (following peo-
ple who have eaten genetically engineered food over years, comparing
them with a group of people who have not eaten GE food, taking blood
samples, etc.) how would we know if people are being affected? Many
scientists feel that an evaluation of genetically engineered food would
require studying the cumulative effects of eating it over many years.

?This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by

respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very
agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the
environment,? says Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, a toxicologist with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ?The bottom line in my view
is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world
has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought
whatsoever to its consequences.?

Why isn?t genetically engineered food labeled in the U.S.?
Examples from around the world show that when genetically engineered
food is labeled, people vote with their wallets and boycott food contain-
ing genetically engineered ingredients. The industry has lobbied hard to
prevent labeling in the U.S., spending $6 million, for example, to defeat
a citizens? labeling initiative in Oregon.

The fact that GMO foods are not labeled as such eliminates

traceability of these products in the food chain, and does not allow for
the tracking of food illnesses and allergic reactions.

Countries around the world with labeling of GMOs include Australia

and New Zealand, Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, all 1 countries of
the European Union, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Norway,
the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand.

Don?t GMOs reduce the use of pesticides?

A 2003 study which analyzed the U.S. Department of Agriculture?s
own statistics found that pesticide use actually increased by about
0 million pounds with the planting of genetically engineered crops
from 1996-2003.

This is hardly surprising ? the corporations selling

genetically engineered crops own 60 percent of the global pesticide mar-
ket.

These are not corporations that want to see farmers using fewer

chemicals; these are corporations that want to profit by selling more of
their chemicals.

More than 70 percent of the genetically engineered crops that are

grown are crops engineered to be resistant to these corporations? own-
brand chemicals.

This means that a farmer can spray the field with the

chemicals without harming the genetically engineered crop.

Herbicide-resistant genes are being transferred from genetically

What is Genetic Engineering?

engineered crops to weeds via cross-pollination, and higher and higher
doses of chemicals are being needed to have the desired effect, leading
to a rise in herbicide use.

How can GMOs cause pollution?
Genetically engineered organisms are alive. This means that once they
are released into the environment, genetically engineered plants and
animals can reproduce and contaminate any other plants or animals
with which they can breed. In many cases genetically engineered organ-
isms can never be recalled or contained after they have been released,
and any problems could then multiply for future generations.

One example is a study at Purdue University in the U.S., where

researchers studied the potential effects of the release of a small number
of genetically engineered fish into the wild. They estimated that just
60 genetically engineered fish released into a wild population of 60,000
could lead to the extinction of the wild fish within 40 generations.

?Open-air testing of genetically engineered plants in vulnerable

ecosystems presents unacceptable risks to Hawaii?s fragile biodiversity,?
says Cha Smith, executive director of KAHEA, an alliance of Hawaiian
and environmental activists. ?Pollen from plants that are engineered
to produce powerful chemicals will assuredly be carried by trade winds
and eaten by insects and birds. There is no way to prevent the spread of
genetic material to native plants and animals.?

Luke Anderson is the author of the book ?Genetic Engineering,
Food and Our Environment.? Since 1997 he has worked with
environmental, farming and social justice groups around the world
as an advisor on genetic engineering and related issues. .

Intellectual Property:

Owning Life Forms

ililaNi

rasK

ne of the most controversial aspects of genetic research has been
the expansion of efforts of transnational corporations, nations

(U.K., U.S.A., Japan) and pharmaceutical companies to file patents and
claim ownership rights to new life forms created by genetic engineer-
ing.

The western concept of ?intellectual property? arose as a result of

the industrial revolution. During this period, inventors began to put
their ideas for new labor saving machines to work. New devices were
created, including engines, machines for textiles, automobiles and thou-
sands of mechanized devices for use in industry. In order to protect the
ownership of these ideas and new creations, property law in the west
was expanded to include intellectual property rights. Initially patent
and copyright law only extended to new inventions and the patenting of
life forms was prohibited because of ethical and moral reasons.

The emergence of the green revolution resulted in significant chang-

es in the way the West pursued agriculture. Scientists began to standard-
ize agriculture and states teamed up with huge corporations to develop
agri-business ? corporate large-scale farming ? which utilized extensive
amounts of chemicals. During this time, research was undertaken to
genetically alter food crops to make them more disease resistant, higher
in yields and uniform in size and color.

Then in 1980 the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Dia-

mond vs. Chakrabarty that a life form could be patented. Following this
decision, corporations and their scientific researchers began the devel-
opment, patenting, and exclusive ownership of new life forms ? new
plant varieties based on genetic engineering.

Today, transnational corporations and their government partners are

looking to claim ownership of most of the food crops in the developing
world. Farmers who have been subjected to bio-pollution and whose

What is Genetic Engineering?

Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.

? U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our inter-
est is in selling as much of it as possible.

? Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communications at Monsanto

crops have been contaminated by genetically engineered varieties are
being sued by corporations claiming that the farmers have illegally
planted GMO seed. Most importantly, these farmers are now dependant
on the companies for the seed they plant for food. This is occurring
globally, in the United States and elsewhere.

The ramifications for food security are significant. In addition, there

is mounting concern that the patenting of pharmaceuticals will prevent
open accessibility for medicines needed by those who are ill. In South
Africa, several pharmaceutical corporations joined together to sue the
government because it was supporting generic HIV/AIDS medicine. The
drug companies claimed that this infringed on their patents and that
they were entitled to huge profits because they owned the medicine.

In Hawai?i, the claim that companies could own our biodiversity is a

serious threat to the public trust doctrine, which has established a trust
for native Hawaiians and for the public on all ceded land resources. In
Hawai?i and in other states, the public trust includes the lands and wa-
ters of our state, including marine resources. We need to protect our
public trust assets, including genetic resources. It is the legacy of our
past and the heritage of our future generations.

Bioprospecting refers to the collection, removal or use of biological

and genetic resources of any organism, mineral or other organic sub-
stance for scientific research or commercial development.

One of the companies who has come to Hawai?i is Diversa. In 2002

Diversa entered into a written contract with the University of Hawai?i
whereby the state transferred several samples of Hawaii?s biodiversity
to Diversa. The contract states that ?Diversa shall own all right, title
and interest in and to any or all Diversa inventions.? The contract also
says that California law will govern contract interpretations. Hawaii?s
biodiversity belongs to Hawaiian peoples and should be protected by
Hawai?i law.

The Hawaiian community, through the Civic Club Committee on

Bioprospecting, has proposed and lobbied for corrective legislation for
five years. So far, no bill has passed due to opposition from the Dept. of
Agriculture, the University of Hawai?i and the industry.

Mililani B. Trask is a native Hawaiian attorney and an international
indigenous legal expert. She has served as the Pacific Basin Expert to the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and currently
co-chairs the Sub-Committee on Indigenous Self-determination of the
UN Intercessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration. She edited
?Ho?okupu Kalo,? a publication relating to kalo. Her ?ohana owns a farm
in Hamakua which plants and markets organic awa, noni and neem.

Biotechnology is here in Hawai?i . . . taro is the example and the red flag.
They tried to change its genes and patent it for ?ownership.? Biotechnology is
the second Mahele . . . the Mana Mahele. Hawaiians need to maka ala
and wake up!

? Walter Ritte, Hui Ho?opakele ?Aina, Moloka?i

Intellectual Property: Owning Life Forms

GMOs in Hawai?i

? The Big Picture

aNcy

edfeather

here is a global gold rush happening, and the gold is life itself. The
largest chemical companies in the world, makers of dangerous tox-

ins which persist and migrate worldwide, have added agricultural genet-
ic engineering to their corporate business plan and are busy mining and
manipulating the natural genetic resources and foods of the Earth. Just
as land once owned in common was expropriated by the wealthy, so the
?genetic commons? are now up for grabs. Due to changes in patent laws
worldwide, corporations can now patent, own, and license microorgan-
isms, plants and animals, and the genes they contain. Even humans are
not exempt; at last count, 20 percent of human genes have now been
patented in the United States alone.

These corporations are the new ?genetic engineers.? With full sup-

port and financial assistance of federal and state governments, land-
grant universities (such as the University of Hawai?i at Manoa), and
their regulators the EPA, FDA, and USDA, the rush is on to control the
seeds of life.

Whoever controls the seed, controls the food, and ulti-

mately the people.

Many of these corporations (Monsanto, Dow, Dupont/Pioneer, Syn-

genta, etc.) use Hawaiian soils to test their new genetically altered ag-
ricultural crops. Hawai?i has the distinction of being the world?s center
for experimental testing, with no environmental assessments before
or following a test. Although proponents of the technology claim that
these field trials are the ?most regulated? crops in the history of agricul-
ture, this simply is not so. The EPA and FDA have no field inspectors
in Hawai?i

A December 200 audit by the Office of the Inspector General of

the USDA?s approval and regulatory processes for GMO crops severely
criticized every aspect of these so-called regulations, finding them to be
insufficient, inadequate and dangerous to the environment.

In Hawai?i,

where we have more experimental field trials than anywhere else in
the U.S., this report needs to be taken very seriously. (See box on this
page.)

Why Hawai?i? We are the most isolated island chain in the world,

and have a year round growing season. So beginning in earnest in the
mid-1990s with Governor Cayetano, corporations were courted to come
and set up shop. The Hawai?i Legislature enacted laws to financially
assist and protect these companies. These laws (Act 22l and now Act
21, meant to encourage high technology businesses in Hawai?i) provide
investment capital, give tax subsidies, tax credits for research activities,
exclude royalties from gross income, and give tax exemptions on stock
options. Which companies receive these benefits, and the exact amount
of these benefits, is information (CBI ? confidential business informa-
tion) not available to Hawaii?s citizens.

3,4,

Hawaii?s taxpayers are helping to subsidize the world?s largest cor-

porations in their takeover and cornering of the world market on seeds,
food, and drugs grown in plants. While these companies say that they
wish only to feed the world, alleviate pain and suffering, and make ag-
riculture more ?environmentally friendly,? the reality is very different.

USDA Office of Inspector General

Blasts APHIS oversight of GE Field Tests

In December 200 the Office of the
Inspector General issued their Audit
of United States Department of Ag-
riculture/Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services (USDA/APHIS).
This is the branch that approves,
monitors, and regulates all experi-
mental field trials of genetically engi-
neered agricultural, biopharmaceuti-
cal, and industrial chemicals grown
in plants. In the 7-page document,
all aspects of regulation such as per-
mitting, inspecting, documenting,
advising, and containment are dis-
cussed in detail. Conclusions are
outlined in 9 Findings and 28 Rec-
ommendations. From the initial to-
tally inadequate review process and
scientific basis for approval of a tri-
al, to insufficient inspection and en-
forcement of regulations, to poor

and environmentally dangerous con-
tainment of regulated (under per-
mit) seeds and pollen, every aspect
of these so-called ?regulations? were
criticized. Environmental groups na-
tionwide have been calling attention
to inadequate/non-existent regula-
tions for years, but now the govern-
ment itself has taken a hard look,
and found the USDA/APHIS not ac-
countable for any aspect of their reg-
ulatory process. Here in Hawai?i,
where we have more experimental
trials than anywhere else in the U.S.,
this new damaging evidence must
be carefully examined by legislators
and citizens. ?Regulating? Nature is
a difficult process, impossible by any
standards. For the full report:

http://

www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-
08-TE.pdf

GMOs in Hawai?i: The Big Picture

For instance, 7 percent of the world?s GM crops are designed to with-
stand repeated sprayings with powerful herbicides, increasing chemical
use, and are used mainly to feed animals, not people.

At this time, developing countries are being pressured by the U.S.

government to pass new ?intellectual property? laws that prevent farm-
ers from saving and reusing, trading, or selling seeds. Worldwide there
are some countries, including the United States, that are seeking to
make farmers into seed consumers dependent on external sources in-
stead of reusing farm saved seed. Traditional rights for farmers as breed-
ers, producers of seed, seed exchangers, and seed buyers are disappear-
ing and being replaced with ?intellectual property? laws, which seek to
protect and create new markets for GMO and other patented seed. In
Iraq, Order 81, enacted by the U.S. government, prohibits the farmers
of Iraq ? who have traditionally saved 97 percent of their agricultural
seed ? from seed saving. These laws seek to remove the 10,000-year-old
?farmers rights,? the basic foundations of subsistence agriculture.

Hawaii?s genetic engineers are the University of Hawai?i at Manoa

and the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center (PBARC), which is
currently being built on the UH campus at Hilo. These federally and

state funded institutions, whose mission is to assist the farmers of
Hawai?i and the Pacific Rim, along with the Hawai?i Agricultural Re-
search Center (HARC) on Oahu, are busy altering and claiming owner-
ship of our fruits, vegetables, beverages, nuts, and herbs of the tropi-
cal world. UH is now ?expected? to develop intellectual property to
generate revenues. Student programs in tropical agriculture are being
replaced with agricultural genetic engineering courses, when most folks
in Hawai?i would agree that UH is perfectly situated to be the center of
ecological/sustainable tropical research and programs for the farmers of
the Pacific Basin.

Some of Hawaii?s leaders have bought into the myth that high-tech

biotech agriculture is the wave of the future, seemingly oblivious to
enormous opposition from consumers, food companies, and export mar-
kets (see ?The Future of Agriculture in Hawai?i: An Economic Perspec-
tive?? on page 47).

Many people are questioning the long-term wisdom of such a deci-

sion. Hawai?i stands at a crossroads. Either we continue to pursue the
manipulation and ownership of the genes of life, or we turn our atten-
tion and our unique world perspective and knowledge of tropical agri-
culture to developing ecological/sustainable agricultural systems that
will benefit Hawaii?s farmers and the peoples of the Hawaiian islands,
who will always need to eat. Let?s put our resources and public funds
to work for everyone, developing agricultural systems that benefit the
people and cherish and steward the ?aina.

The Terminator

In response to increasing contami-
nation events of conventional and
organic crops with genetically engi-
neered gene sequences, and to insure
a company?s patent investment, in-
dustry has in its back pocket a new
technology nicknamed ?The Ter-
minator.? Officially called GURTS
(genetic use restriction technology)
originally discovered and patented by
USDA, and Delta and Pine Land Co.,
new forms of the technology are now
patented by many biotech compa-
nies. This technology engineers crops
to kill their own seed in the second
generation, thus restricting farm-
ers from saving patented varieties.
The Terminator is currently under a
moratorium by the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversi-

ty, of which the U.S. is not a voting
member. Scientists warn that release
of this technology into the environ-
ment could possibly trigger a cascade
of destructive and permanent envi-
ronmental and agricultural, social,
economic, and political consequenc-
es that are unforeseen at this time.
As contamination events rise and ad-
verse public sentiment increases, in-
dustry may decide to introduce this
technology as the answer to the con-
tamination problem, and the farmer
saving patented seed problem. A re-
al concern for Hawai?i is the experi-
mental field testing of this dangerous
technology and its release into the
Hawaiian ecosystem.
For more information:

www.etc-

group.org, www.banterminator.org

Ua mau ke ea o ka ?aina i ka pono
The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.

Are GMOs righteous?
A?ole.

? Mahelani Sylva, Kanaka Maoli

GMOs in Hawai?i: The Big Picture

Hawaiian Perspectives

on GMOs

ililaNi

rasK

Genetic Manipulation of our Genealogy

Of great concern to the native Hawaiians are scientific, government
and private sector genetic manipulations of the kalo (taro). The kalo is
a primary staple food of Hawaiians and most other Polynesians, as well
as Asians. As has been demonstrated by the Molokai Diet study and the
Waianae diet study, kalo is a key to maintaining the health of Hawai-
ians who currently suffer from acute health problems including obesity,
cancer, diabetes, and heart conditions.

For Hawaiians, the research and experimentation being undertaken

by the University of Hawai?i and corporate entities on the kalo directly
impacts their genealogy. This belief is based on Hawaiian oral histories
and oli (genealogical chants) maintained by Hawaiians from time im-
memorial. As documented by Hawaiian ethno-botanist Isabella Abbot,
according to these oli, the supreme god Kane ?in the form of Wakea
(a form associated with the earth) produced two sequential offspring:
the first became the kalo (taro) plant, the second became Haloa, the
ancestor of man . . . Thus, in kinship terms, the taro is the elder brother
and the senior branch of the family tree; mankind belongs to the junior
branch, stemming from the younger brother.? For Hawaiians, the kalo
is literally part of their genealogy as well as the staff of life.

For several years, the University of Hawai?i denied that it was in-

volved in genetic manipulation of the kalo. When rumors surfaced that
open air testing of GMO kalo was being pursued on Maui Island, the
University of Hawai?i changed it position and admitted that extensive
preliminary research on Hawaiian kalo had, in fact, been done. Data
obtained by Hawai?i SEED researchers indicates that extensive research
has been undertaken by the University of Hawai?i and the Hawai?i Agri-
culture Research Center (HARC). Genetic mapping has been completed

on 23 varieties of kalo to date. The current position of the University of
Hawai?i is that genetic research is currently being pursued on the Asian
kalo; however, there is contrary data that the University of Hawai?i con-
tinues to do research on Hawaiian kalo, including transgenic research
with a rice gene. Given the confirmed cases of genetic pollution that
have occurred on the island of Kauai, and the failure of the University
of Hawai?i to provide conclusive documentation relating to its research
on the kalo, Hawaiians continue to oppose GMO experiments on any of
the taro species because of out-crossing.

Recently the University held a kalo ceremony at the University of

Hawai?i loi. The University claimed it had worked out an agreement
with the Hawaiian community on the kalo issue. This is a misrepresen-
tation. Hawaiians know that GMO contamination can and does spread
inter-species. The only way to protect Hawaiian kalo is to ensure that
no GMO research is done on any species of kalo.

The University of Hawai?i alleges that they are working with the

Royal Order of Kamehameha to create a Bioethics Committee. In reality,
they are working with a newly created U.S. corporation that registered the
name of the Royal Order. The real Royal Order of Kamehameha is opposed
to genetic engineering and is not in favor of the Bioethics Committee.

The Paoakalani Declaration

In October 2003, Hawaiian kupuna (elders), kumu hula (masters of
hula), makua (adults), and opio (youth) from all islands and all walks of
life gathered on Oahu to consider how best to perpetuate their culture
and to protect their traditional knowledge. The meeting (referred to as
Ka Aha Pono ? the Righteous Gathering) concluded with the issuing of
a collective statement entitled ?The Paoakalani Declaration,? which
set forth the cultural perspective on many issues including GMOs,
patenting of traditional knowledge and the commercial exploitation of
Hawaii?s biodiversity.

The Papa (foundation) of the Declaration includes the following:

. According to the Kumulipo, a genealogical chant of creation, Po gave

birth to the world. From this female potency was born Kumulipo and
Po?ele. And from these two, the rest of the world unfolded in genea-
logical order. That genealogy teaches us the land is the elder sibling

Hawaiian Perspectives on GMOs

and the people are the younger sibling meant to care for each other
in a reciprocal, interdependent relationship. Humanity is reminded
of his place with the order of genealogical descent. The foundational
principle of the Kumulipo is that all facets of the world are related
by birth. And thus, the Hawaiian concept of the world descends from
one ancestral genealogy.

6. From time immemorial, Kanaka Maoli have understood the

evolution of the world, its life forms, and our cultural place
within the cosmic worldview. All life forms of the honua, arising
first from the kai with counterparts on the ?aina, the naming
of our ?ohana and the identification of our mo?oku?auhau in
the Kumulipo, impress upon our peoples the obligation to
act as the kia?i of the honua and its life forms. Through pono
behavior, we perpetuate the life of our lands and our peoples.

7. We emphasize that the Kanaka Maoli worldview is

governed by the cultural principles of pono, malama, ?aina,
and kuleana. Within this worldview, the Earth and her
myriad life forms (biological diversity) are kinolau, the
earthly body forms of the Akua. Every life form possesses
living energy that sustains each other creating a familial,
interdependent, reciprocal relationship between the Akua,
the ?aina, and the kanaka in fine balance and harmony.

1.1 Pono governs the cosmos, guiding and informing the

behavior among the Akua, the ?aina, and the kanaka,
and their interaction at and between the microcosmic
and macrocosmic levels, ensuring proper maintenance
and development of our society, our culture, and our
existence in all forms and in all dimensions.

1.2 Malama ?Aina is the operating cultural principle that

maintains pono. The people and the land are of the same
integrated ancestral lineage, the ?aina and all of her life
forms, our ancestor, and the Hawaiian people, the younger.

1.3 Each aspect of the trilogy of the Akua, the ?aina, and the

kanaka share familial, interdependent, and reciprocal
responsibilities to each other expressed in kuleana. Kuleana
encompasses both the rights and corresponding sacred
responsibility with accountability to maintain, conserve, and
protect the Akua, the ?aina, and the kanaka in perpetuity.

The Declaration specifically addressed scientific research relating to

genetics. It provides the following:

17. We have the right to free, prior and informed consent before

research relating to our biological resources commences.
Researchers, corporations, educational institutions, government
or others conducting such research must fully and entirely
inform Kanaka Maoli regarding the purposes of their
research and recognize our right to refuse to participate.

18. Biological samples are being transferred, traded, bought,

and sold without the agreement or consent of our
peoples, in violation of our inherent human rights.

19. Although biological and genetic samples have been

transferred, sold, patented or licensed, Kanaka Maoli
never relinquished our rights to our biological and
genetic materials and, therefore, call for the rightful
repatriation of such samples and due compensation.

20. Kanaka Maoli human genetic material is sacred and

inalienable. Therefore, we support a moratorium on patenting,
licensing, sale or transfer of our human genetic material.

21. We further support a moratorium on patenting, licensing,

sale or transfer of any of our plants, animals and other
biological resources derived from the natural resources
of our lands, submerged lands, waters, and oceans until
indigenous communities have developed appropriate
protection and conservation mechanisms.*

For Hawaii?s indigenous peoples, the concepts underlying genetic

manipulation of life forms is offensive and contrary to the cultural val-
ues of aloha ?aina (love for the land). Most importantly, Hawaiians view
the current efforts of the University of Hawai?i, the United States, State
of Hawai?i, and pharmaceutical and transnational corporations to mod-
ify, patent and commercialize life forms as hewa (a wrongful act, an act
of desecration of the sacred) which will bring imbalance and negativity
into our lives and our environment. Hawaii?s indigenous peoples oppose
GMOs because it is the pono (righteous) thing to do.

*View full text at http://www.ilio.org/ilioonline/pdf/Paoakalani%20Declaration.pdf

Hawaiian Perspectives on GMOs

Public Health and the

Regulation of GMOs

orriN

aNg

, md, mPh

ach day, many new foods, drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics are de-
veloped that could affect our health.

Hidden among the potential miracles are potential disasters. Ideally,

society would have a system to distinguish between the two and mini-
mize the risk to health and environment. But these are complicated
products, full of uncertainty, and the average person does not have the
time, training or interest to research, or even follow the evaluation of
each new product. Thus, we delegate it to the regulators ? agencies that
should follow time-tested principles and methods to evaluate the risks
and benefits of new products.

In general the FDA is responsible for health, the EPA for environ-

mental risks and the USDA for risk to agriculture. Regulation done
poorly is worse than no regulation at all because it will lead to a false
sense of security. Recently one of our key regulatory agencies, the FDA,
has come under repeated criticism for allowing those with ties to indus-
try to bias their decisions.

GMOs are a very complex, novel type of product with, according to

the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, a greater potential for unintend-
ed health effects compared to non-GMO foods.

Often those defending

the industry will misrepresent this citation, stating that the side effects
are ?similar.? Qualitatively this may be true, but quantitatively GMOs
are riskier. They require a higher level of safety testing than non-GM
foods. But how much extra testing should be required? And who will

decide? For reasons cited above, the testing criteria should not be set by
those with conflict of interest.

What is Regulation and Who Does It?

The essence of regulation for food and drugs really lies with a group of
about a dozen scientists and lay people who review the results from
a prescribed sequence of studies, which include proof of a method of
manufacturing which produces consistent product, laboratory testing,
animal trials, human trials, and, finally, post-marketing surveys.

In the course of the studies, one hopes to obtain results that are

scientifically valid as well as to minimize risk to animals and human
subjects. Regardless of what regulatory agency is ultimately in charge,
we must always demand that good principles are followed. With the ex-
ception of a handful of human studies, the GMO industry relies only on
minimal animal studies to screen products for safety. Again they often
misrepresent the effectiveness of this system, citing cases when animal
toxicity has been detected and product lines aborted. Certainly, in the
case of drugs and vaccines we see many products that clear animal stud-
ies, only to have toxicity detected in humans.

Alternatively, the drug industry will often cite post marketing safety

data. However, in this setting it is nearly impossible to evaluate safety
if products, such as GMOs, are not even labeled. Even when products
can be identified (say asbestos, lead or tobacco) it may take decades to
detect harmful effects. A quote from the World Health Organization
sums it up best: ?At this point, we have no evidence to say that it is dan-
gerous to consume food products that contain GMOs, but at the same
time we also don?t know its negative side. So, we have to say that we
do not know the adverse health effects of GM food,? said WHO assis-
tant director-general Kerstin Leitner (Bangkok Post, October 13, 2004).
Industry supporters may often attribute to the WHO a statement that
potential benefits of GMO methods far outweigh the risks. Like drugs
and vaccines this may be true ? but only under the conditions of proper
regulatory safeguards.

In Hawai?i, the field testing of experimental crops puts workers and

neighboring communities at risk. Crop type and location of field tests
are not disclosed to the public, even those modified for pharmaceuti-

FDA epidemiologist David Graham: ?I would argue that the FDA as currently
configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are
virtually defenseless . . . an atmosphere that stifles debate . . . is very much
driven by what industry wants . . . more a culture of fear.?

? Okie, S., ?What Ails the FDA?,? NEJM 32(11), 1063-6.

Public Health and the Regulation of GMOs

cal production (not food). Again we have assurances from industry and
their supporters that proper safeguards are in place ? but, as outlined
above, those who set standards for safeguards should be free of conflicts
of interest.

Because of the novelty of the mutations created, our present igno-

rance of genome structure and function, and the complex relationship
of genetic manipulations to human health and environmental effects,
there will be a multitude of consequences and interactions that we have
not even begun to imagine. Some of the worrisome side effects may
include toxins, cancers, allergies, antibiotic resistance and anaphylaxis
reactions. Also, it is unknown if the mutations can directly or indirectly
(via viruses) incorporate into the genes of humans. Especially discon-
certing will be the chronic exposures to either high doses (foods) or low
doses (aerosolized) of GMO products. Furthermore, the products are life
forms with the potential for uncontrolled contamination and difficulty
of recall.

The possible side effects are too numerous to be discussed in this

overview. But it is clear that by conscientiously applying regulatory
guidelines to the process of product assessment ? guidelines that are
widely accepted in other fields but are being overlooked in the rush
to bring new GMO products to market ?potential side effects can be
mitigated.

Hopefully, we will soon identify an agency dedicated to enforcing

these necessary policies:

Precautionary Principle: All products are assumed to be ineffec-
tive and toxic until proven otherwise. Theoretical arguments only
guide us as to what types of effects we should focus our monitoring

on ? otherwise general evaluations are often conducted.

Conflicts of interest by all who participate in the review must be
clearly documented and members are expected to limit their partic-
ipation in the areas where a conflict might arise. Often those with
greatest conflicts will be the most indignant about having theirs
pointed out. It has been shown that those who claim that they can
put aside their conflicts, in fact, cannot.

Product evaluation is done on a case-by-case basis. Even combina-
tion of products (relevant to the promoter-gene-marker construct
of GMOs) should be considered a ?new? product warranting a new
evaluation. Though one might hypothesize between products based
on molecular similarities, empirical tests are still required. Many
?similar? products with vastly different side effects could not be
predicted theoretically in hindsight ? let alone in foresight. Con-
versely, if a regulatory agency has been shown to have a biased de-
cision-making process for one product, the precautionary principle
would warn that all products might have been judged with bias.

Consistency of product mustbe shown (within predetermined lim-
its of contaminations) before studies can even begin. Some GMO
products (biolistic production)
are potentially highly variable.

Raw data of results must be
reviewed. A board that only looks at summa-
ries done by other agencies really defeats the
purpose of the board itself.

Approval is really required from two boards:
one at the central level by those who make/
sponsor the product and one at the local level,
where the product is to be ?tested?. Locally, this
approval may come in the form of an environmen-
tal impact statement or from a community based
ethical review board if there is a health component
to be assessed. No local reviews of this type have
been conducted for GMO crops in Hawai?i. Boards
should also determine who will be responsible
for unintended effects (liability).

Scientists can be naive about politics, PR, and other external factors shaping

their work and may become indignant at the suggestion that their results are
shaped by their funding.

? Ramptom, S. & Stauber, J., ?Research funding, conflict of interest,

and the ?meta-methodology? of public relations,? Public Health
Reports, July-Aug 2002 (17); 331-9.

Public Health and the Regulation of GMOs

A board will watch for and control enticement. Benefits not di-
rectly related to the product itself (business opportunities, awarded
grants (present and future) are not to be considered ?benefits? of
the product.

Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH, graduated with honors from Princeton
University in Chemistry and went on to get an MD and Masters in Public
Health from Tulane University. Dr. Pang worked with the Walter Reed
Institute of Research and the World Health Organization for 20 years
doing research in Tropical Diseases before returning to Maui in 2000. Since
then, he has served as the District Health Officer for Maui County and
is a consultant for the World Health Organization and one of the world?s
largest pharmaceutical firms, Glaxo-Smith-Kline. He has published more than
50 research articles in medical and public health journals regarding drugs,
vaccines and diagnostic tests. Dr. Pang writes here as a private citizen.

Health Effects of Genetically

Engineered Food

lisha

oodmaN

?Claims regarding the safety of GE crops are based al-

most exclusively on assessments by government regula-

tors, which in turn are founded mostly on unpublished

studies conducted by the crop developer . . . contrary
to popular belief, the FDA has not formally approved

a single GE crop as safe for human consumption.?

ill

reese

, r

esearch

Nalyst

, f

rieNds

the

arth

, 2006

t is difficult to find independent funding to conduct unbiased health
studies of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Studies conducted or

funded by GE crop developers may be skewed to their advantage and
troubling results may be withheld from summary data shown to regu-
lators and the public. This was the case with Monsanto?s insecticide-
producing GE corn, called MON863.

Summary data from a 90-day rat

feeding study revealed to European regulators raised concerns, prompt-
ing requests for release of the full study, which had been conducted
by Monsanto. The company refused to comply, acceding only a year
later upon order of a German court. The full study revealed that rats
fed MON863 had lower kidney weights and elevated white blood cell
counts compared to rats fed conventional corn. Independent reviewers
who called for further studies to establish whether the corn posed hu-
man health risks were ignored.

The list below contains just a few of the independent studies begin-

ning to emerge and their results indicate that we should have grave
concern about the health effects of GMOs.

Genes from GMOs Transfer to Bacteria in Humans

Genes engineered into one organism have transferred to bacteria in

the mouth

and gut of humans.

In the only human feeding study ever

Public Health and the Regulation of GMOs

conducted to test GMOs, the Roundup Ready� gene from soy trans-
ferred to the bacteria found in the gut of humans. The fact that the
bacteria took up the Roundup Ready� trait is an example of horizontal
gene transfer, a phenomenon long discounted by the biotech industry.
Most worrying, these studies show the potential for bacteria to also
take up antibiotic resistant genes often engineered into GMOs. Bacteria
could then become resistant to the antibiotics we use to combat dis-
eases and fail to be cured by antibiotics.

Mice Fed GM Peas Show Immune Response

Mice that were fed GE peas engineered with a gene from a bean demon-
strated an immune response, including inflammation of the lungs and
increased serum antibody levels.

Significantly, the protein produced

from the natural version of the same gene in beans does not cause these
responses. The study shows that heedlessly transferring genes from one
organism to another via genetic engineering can have health conse-
quences, including allergies and other adverse immune responses.

Allergic Reaction Caused By Gene Engineered into Soy

A gene from the Brazil nut inserted into soybeans made the soy aller-
genic to those who normally react to Brazil nuts.

GM Soy Contains Proteins Identical

to Shrimp and Dust Mite Allergens

Unlike regular soy, the GM soy consumed in the U.S. contains protein
sections that are identical to those found in shrimp and dust mite aller-
gens.

This GM soy is the most widely grown GM crop, and in the form

of soy formula is often fed to infants, yet there were never follow-up
studies done to determine whether the soy is in fact allergenic.

Rats Fed GM Potatoes Have Pre-cancerous

Cell Growth and Gastric Problems

A UK government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed GM potatoes
developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth and gastric problems.

GM Corn-Fed Rats Have Problems with Blood Cell,

Kidney and Liver Formation

Rats fed Monsanto?s GM corn, MON 863, had problems with blood cell,
kidney and liver formation.

? Male rats had increased white blood

cells and female rats had lower levels of red blood cells. Livers and kid-
neys had lesions and malformations.

No Minimum Level of GMO StarLink Corn Judged

Safe for Human Consumption

After StarLink contaminated the food supply, expert scientific advisors
to the EPA stated that there was no minimal level of StarLink?s Cry9C
insecticidal protein that could be judged safe for human consumption.

An extensive literature review reveals numerous unpublished studies
that indicate the insecticidal proteins engineered into Bt corn may be
allergenic.

GM Produced Tryptophan Associated With At Least 37

Deaths and 1500 Serious Illnesses

A batch of tryptophan produced by GM microorganisms was associated
with at least 37 deaths and 100 disabilities from a rare disease known
as eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome.

Unpredictable Biotech Techniques Could Lead to Toxic

Carcinogenic Products

According to Salk Institute cell biologist David Schubert, the crude and
unpredictable nature of genetic engineering techniques could lead to
?the biosynthesis of molecules that are toxic, allergenic or carcinogenic
. . . GM food is not a safe option, given our current lack of understanding
of the consequences of recombinant technology.?

Elisha Goodman lives in Hilo, Hawai?i. She has lived
and worked on organic farms in Hawai?i and abroad and is
the director of Hawai?i SEED. She is a founding member
of Hawai?i Genetic Engineering Action Network and sits
on the Board of Directors of Hawai?i Organic
Farmers Association.

Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Food

Just Say No to GMO

Drug Crops

Inherent Dangers in Plant-made Pharmaceuticals

aNcy

edfeather

growing interest in plant made pharmaceuticals (PMPs) has put
Hawai?i on the map. Mainland and island biotech companies are

beginning to test and grow genetically engineered biopharmaceuticals in
agricultural crops and algae. These plants have been altered to produce
a wide range of drugs, including contraceptives, hormones, vaccines,
antibodies, interleukins, industrial chemicals and other potent biologi-
cally active substances. Dispersal of these experimental crops into soil,
water, and air could pose risks that cannot be predicted. Risks to human
health are not well documented by the EPA, USDA, or FDA.

More experimental field trials of these crops have been conducted

in Hawai?i than anywhere else in the world. Biotech companies have
used Hawaii?s lands to test more than l,929 different experimental crops
since 1988. To date, 104 field trials of highly experimental crops such
as biopharmaceuticals (18), completely man-made novel proteins (23),
and crops with highly experimental traits (62) have been conducted in
Hawai?i (see box on next page). This open air testing in pristine and
vulnerable ecosystems presents unacceptable risks to Hawaii?s fragile
biodiversity. Hawai?i has more than 300 endangered species, more per
square mile than anywhere on Earth, and about 97 percent of native
Hawaiian species are found nowhere else on Earth.

The $00 billion food industry (which includes The National Food

Processors, The Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the North
American Millers? Association, among others) has lobbied against the
use of food crops for PMP production, fearing contamination of the food
supply. Food companies and federal regulators insist on a ?zero toler-
ance? standard with respect to contamination that scientists agree is
impossible to achieve on a commercial scale. Without tolerances, out-
door PMP producers face extraordinary liability for contamination at all
levels of the food chain.

2,3,4

A 2002 study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and

issued by an expert committee of the prestigious and independent Na-
tional Academy of Sciences (NAS) stated the obvious in emphasizing
the ?clear potential risk involved in environmentally mediated move-
ment of these transgenes (i.e. altered genes) so that transgene products
enter the human food system;? and that ?The production of non-ed-
ible and potentially harmful compounds in crops such as cereals and le-
gumes that have traditionally been used for food created serious regula-
tory issues.? Two NAS committees have criticized the use of food crops
for PMP production due to concerns that PMP contamination of foods
could pose health risks.

Earthjustice, representing a coalition of citizen groups, filed suit in

November 2003 asking for a review of these impacts. In February 200
Judge Ezra ruled that precise locations of these tests and the genes in-
serted would be revealed to the plaintiffs. This marks the first time the
U.S. Department of Agriculture has been forced to disclose what is be-
ing tested and the location of these field trials. Further transparency and
investigation of impacts from these crops will hopefully follow.

At the Natural Energy Lab, a Hawai?i state aquaculture facility at

Keahole Point on the Kona coast of Hawai?i, there is a vision for the
production of genetically engineered plants and animals. Currently, the
genetically engineered shrimp industry is a reality and there are also
hopes of producing genetically engineered algae at these facilities.

Rincon and Mera Pharmaceuticals had received permission from

the Hawai?i Department of Agriculture to test and begin production of
7 strains of biopharmaceutical genetically engineered algae in outdoor
photobioreactors at Mera?s facility located on the oceanfront. These al-
gae have been engineered with ?synthetic approximations? of human
monoclonal antibodies, hormones and interleukins. This common
alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is found in waters, soils, and air in
Hawai?i. Native alga are not well documented, yet they form the foun-
dations of life in all ecosystems. One hundred percent containment in
this system was not anticipated. A lawsuit was filed by Earthjustice on
behalf of four citizen groups asking the Department of Agriculture to
follow the laws of the Hawai?i Environmental Policy Act and require an
Environmental Assessment of the project. In October 200, Third Cir-
cuit Judge Elizabeth Strance ruled that an Environmental Assessment

Just Say No to GMO Drug Crops

(EA) will be required before proceeding with the project.

This is the

first time the court has required the State Department of Agriculture
to conduct an EA before beginning testing and growing of a genetically
engineered plant.

To date not a single plant-made pharmaceutical has been approved

by the FDA.

The production of drugs or industrial chemicals in plants is poten-

tially dangerous and destructive to ecosystems and neighboring farms.
Growing drugs or industrial chemicals in plants must be done in bio-
safe-contained laboratories and kept strictly isolated from Hawai?i?s
fragile environment and crop lands.

Many experimental genetically engineered biopharmaceutical field trials have
been conducted on Hawaii?s soils. Here is a partial list:

Hawai?i Agricultural Research

Center (HARC) conducted an
experiment to grow sugarcane
genetically engineered with a
human gene to produce human
granulocyte macrophage colony
stimulating factor (?GM-CSF?).
GM-CSF can ?stimulate the
proliferation of a number of tumor
cell lines, including osteogenic
sarcoma, carcinoma, and
adenocarcinomia cell lines.? It also
has been shown to cause allergic
reactions including anaphylactic
shock in sensitive individuals.

The biotech company ProdiGene

has conducted experimental trials
in corn to produce:
Aprotinin,

a blood clotting pro-

tein known to cause anaphylactic
shock in humans and pancreatic
cancer in animals.

10,11

Hepatitis B vaccine.

Dr. David

Schubert, cell biologist and medi-
cal researcher at California?s Salk
Institute said, ? . . . exposure to
pollen could make an individual
more susceptible to subsequent
hepatitis infection by inhibiting
the immune response that would

normally combat it.? Dr. Schubert
further explains that ?FDA-ap-
proved hepatitis B vaccines are al-
ready widely available.?

Experimental transmissible gastro-
enteritis virus (?TGEV?) swine di-
arrhea vaccine.

This was the phar-

maceutical ProdiGene was test-
ing in Nebraska in 2002, when the
Animal and Plant Health Inspec-
tion Service (APHIS) discovered
that ?volunteers? of the TGEV
corn had sprouted in a field of con-
ventional soybeans and had been
harvested and stored together in a
grain elevator. 00,000 bushels of
soybeans (worth $3 million) were
destroyed.

Experimental AIDS vaccine us-
ing glycoprotein 120 (?gp120?).

Dr.

Schubert points out that if this pol-
len were to cross-pollinate or oth-
erwise contaminate conventional
corn, the latter would contain the
vaccine, and workers harvesting or
processing the corn could inhale
pollen or dust. This might make
the immune systems of an exposed
person unresponsive to AIDS infec-
tions, ?with potentially lethal con-
sequences.?

Unintended Consequences?

A Look at Potential Impact on Farmers

uKe

NdersoN

hile some in Hawaii?s government, universities and communi-
ties tout biotechnology ? and specifically genetic engineering of

agricultural crops ? as a potential boon to Hawaii?s economy, there are
many who question whether embracing GMOs is a prudent, or even
viable, approach. Within the context of Hawaii?s thriving and essential
agricultural scene, it is important that we closely examine the ways in
which local farmers could be negatively affected.

If crops become contaminated by DNA from GMOs, farmers could

suffer losses in sales and in the public trust of the purity of crops and
seeds produced in Hawai?i. Farmers would also lose the economic ad-
vantage in international and local markets of guaranteed GMO-free pro-
duce and the people of these islands would lose the right to buy locally
grown produce that was free of contamination by DNA from genetically
engineered crops.

How could GMO contamination happen?
Genetic contamination happens in several ways:

SEED ? People buy unlabeled GMO foods in the market and plant
them unknowingly (e.g. papaya, corn).

Cross-pollination ? wind or insects can carry pollen over large
distances. (Genetically engineered corn can contaminate corn being
grown on farms or in backyard gardens)

Animals ? genetically engineered seed can be picked up by birds,
pigs, goats and other animals and deposited at another location

The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with
GMOs] that there?s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.?

? Don Westfall, Industry Consultant,
Washington D.C.? based Promar International

Just Say No to GMO Drug Crops

Mechanical ? through farm equipment, commingling during pro-
cessing and storage, or during transport.

Through the passing of DNA from plant material into the soil
where it can be transferred to microorganisms.

Has GMO contamination already been
experienced by farmers in Hawai?i?
Farmers growing genetically engineered papayas in Hawai?i have already
experienced this problem ? markets in Japan and Korea have refused to
accept the genetically engineered papayas, and many papaya farmers
have lost their livelihoods.

There is also evidence that people in Hawai?i have been unwittingly

planting genetically engineered papayas in their backyard gardens and on
their farms. GMO-Free Hawai?i (Hawai?i SEED) sent samples of papaya
seed from organic farms, backyard gardens and wild trees to Genetic ID,
one of the world?s leading independent scientific laboratories for genetic
contamination testing. The results revealed widespread contamination
on Hawai?i Island. Contamination was also found in one variety of non-
genetically engineered seeds being sold commercially by the University
of Hawai?i. A number of organic growers decided to chop their papaya
trees down after the contamination was discovered (see ?Papaya and
Coffee,? page 44).

?These tests indicate that some of UH?s non-GMO seed stock is

contaminated, and so there can be no doubt that the University must take
immediate action to protect farmers, consumers and the environment,?
said Mark Query of Hawai?i SEED. ?Papaya contamination is a
case-study in the threat that GMO contamination presents to local
agriculture. It is now obvious that coexistence of traditional and GMO
crops is impossible. Coexistence means contamination.?

What happens if an organic farm gets contaminated by a GMO?
To be sold or labeled as organic, food has to be grown and processed with-
out the use of genetic engineering. Evidence from the last years shows
that contamination from genetically engineered crops is already caus-
ing serious problems for organic farms. It is affecting the value of farm
produce and costing some farmers tens of thousands of dollars.

Organic

buyers are demanding that organic food crops are free from genetic con-
tamination, which can happen through cross-pollination, and are refus-
ing to purchase organic produce if it has been affected in this way.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards are

somewhat ambiguous about ?accidental contamination.? Some farmers
and organic certifiers have been told by the USDA that no one should

Toivo Lahti grows papaya on Hawai?i Island. Genetic testing confirmed that
Mr. Lahti?s fruit tested positive for genetic contamination. He had to cut
down all 170 of his trees and is now replanting, without any guarantee that
the same problem ? pollen from genetically engineered trees on other farms
drifting on the wind to pollinate his trees ? won?t happen again.

Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of
7 dedicated solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers??
Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, Center For Food Safety

Unintended Consequences

Moloka?i Farmers, Residents State Their Concern

This letter appeared on the edito-
rial pages of the Honolulu Star-Bul-
letin

in January 2006. It was entitled

?Chemical Companies Hurt Our
Farmlands.?

Two of the largest chemical com-

panies in America are farming on
Molokai. Their past products in-
clude dioxin (used in Agent Orange)
and PCBs, a toxic chemical used as
an industrial coolant. From 1962 to
1970, dioxin was sprayed on more
than 100,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam.
These two companies are fighting the
claims filed by veterans for disabili-
ties caused by Agent Orange. PCB
production in Anniston, Ala., turned
that town into one of the most pol-
luted patches of America. Monsan-
to and Dow are the new farmers on
Molokai. They say, ?Don?t worry,?

but if you do your homework, you
will realize that they are doing ?field
testing? on our farmlands instead of
in their laboratories. You also will
find that they do not have to put on
their permit application where these
tests are and what they are testing
here.

We feel threatened by these new

farmers on Molokai, and seek relief
from our government officials. We
do not trust the new farmers or their
products, nor do we trust the govern-
ment mechanisms in place now. We
request a formal community-level
mechanism, representing all parties,
to regulate and monitor these new
farmers.

Walter Ritte, Hui Ho?opakele

?Aina, Moloka?i

lose organic certification as a result of accidental GMO contamination.
But the rules are clear that if an organic certifier has any reason to
believe that GMO contamination may have happened on an organic
farm, testing can be required.

If this testing shows that there has been

GMO contamination, the farmer would lose organic certification.
According to Richard H. Matthews of the USDA National Organic
Program (NOP), ?what happens to the farmer?s land when GMO seeds
are planted, knowingly or unknowingly? The answer to that is the land
must go through a new 3 year conversion.?

Farmers have also been told by NOP representatives that the NOP

would never decertify a farmer for an accidental planting of a GMO
crop, indicating that there is some confusion regarding this issue at the
NOP. In order that the discriminating consumer may have faith in the
organic system, farmers are asking that the NOP clarify and tighten its
regulations.

Many organic farmers are facing increased costs and work due to

measures they are taking to prevent contamination. These measures
include increasing the distances between crops to try to prevent cross-
pollination, adjusting timing of planting, altering cropping patterns or
crops produced, changing cropping locations, careful consideration of
seed sources, and talking with neighbors.

Who pays if a farmer?s crop becomes contaminated by a GMO?
Genetic engineering corporations work hard to avoid safety testing and
labeling of GMOs by asserting that they are essentially the same as
foods produced by any other breeding method. However, because the
opposite stance also suits the industry, it freely describes GMOs as be-
ing radically different so that new inventions that can be patented.

Monsanto, the corporation responsible for most of the world?s

genetically engineered crops, controls these patents by forcing farmers
who buy genetically engineered seeds to sign a ?technology agreement.?
This agreement allows Monsanto to conduct investigations on the
farmer?s land and binds the farmer to Monsanto?s oversight for multiple
years. It also exposes farmers to huge financial liability.

Farmers have been found technically liable for infringements of

Monsanto?s patents even when the farmers? fields were contaminated
by pollen or seed from someone else?s genetically engineered crop or

Unintended Consequences?

when genetically engineered seed from a previous year?s crop sprouted
in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following
year. By 2004 Monsanto had filed 90 lawsuits against farmers in the
United States. For cases with recorded judgments, farmers ended up
having to pay Monsanto an average of $412,29.

?Instead of supporting untested technologies like genetic

engineering,? says Dr. Hector Valenzuela of UH Manoa?s Department
of Tropical Plant and Soil, ?the University of Hawai?i should redirect
their resources to focus on researching and promoting workable, non-
GMO solutions to local agricultural problems. Hawai?i farmers need
agricultural advances that can protect their farms and our state?s
agricultural economy over the long run.?

Papaya and Coffee

GMO ?Solutions? Spell Market Disaster

elaNie

oNdera

awaii?s major specialty crops are under attack by the biotech in-
dustry and our public institutions. Our islands? significant farm

products are being genetically transformed to create ?agricultural solu-
tions? which cause farmers no end of problems in production, market-
ing, liability and loss of choice when real, sustainable solutions are usu-
ally attainable more quickly and cheaply.

In 1998 the new GMO Papaya was released in Puna. It was heralded

as the first GMO fruit that was to save an industry from a Ringspot
virus epidemic. Rainbow and SunUp are the two varieties of GMO pa-
payas that were released at that time, and, although these were indeed
resistant to ringspot virus, both were plagued by blackspot fungus and
shut out of the Japanese market.

Since then, we have lost half of the

state?s small papaya farmers and the industry has continued to shrink.

Because the price point of the GMO papaya was always lower than the
traditional varieties, many GMO papaya farmers could not make a liv-
ing, went out of business and started farming vegetables.

By 2004 evidence of rampant GMO papaya contamination was com-

ing to light, so Hawai?i SEED did a study to analyze the extent of the
contamination problem. Genetic ID of Fairfield, Iowa did composite
PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests for most islands and several case
studies. Results showed that a shocking 0 percent of papaya seeds test-
ed on the Big Island were contaminated with GMOs (see map, page 46).
Even the University of Hawai?i (UH) seed source for non-GMO papaya
in Waimanalo showed 1 percent contamination.

Conventional farm-

ers have to do elaborate testing in order to create non-GMO papayas
saleable in Japan.

Organic farmers are losing markets and seed lines

and having their certification threatened.

Clearly, the GMO Papaya has

brought more problems for farmers than it has solved.

When consumers buy GMO Rainbow and SunUp papayas in the

market, they are not labeled as GMO. When we take them home and

cut them up for our breakfast, we throw the seeds in the compost ? in
essence, we plant them. So, each GMO papaya you eat could ?plant?
up to 00 new GMO papaya trees. The primary cause of widespread
contamination in Hawai?i is people, not pollen. UH requires growers to
sign a contract and watch an informational video when they lease GMO
papaya seeds. But the university chooses to turn a blind eye to consum-
ers unwittingly planting these trees.

In 2002, Christine Sheppard, the then-president of the Kona Coffee

Council, became aware of the research on GMO coffees by UH and the
Hawai?i Agriculture Research Center (HARC) that was nearing the field
trial stage: attempts were being made to develop through genetic engi-
neering a decaffeinated coffee, a nematode resistant coffee rootstock,
and a delayed ripening coffee that could be harvested green and sprayed
with ethylene gas to complete the ripening. The Kona Coffee Council,
along with four other farmers? groups, created a resolution protesting
the release of these GMO coffees in the Kona region, based on the loss
of markets they would likely experience. Hawai?i coffee is widely sold
in the specialty and organic markets as well as Japan and Europe. None
of these markets tolerate GMOs.

Kona coffee is recognized as one of the world?s two best coffees,?

says Sheppard. ?The coffee industry is rapidly changing and growing
from a commodity product to a gourmet product. In an era of ?Specialty
Coffees? we need to be unique. Fortunately, the Kona coffee pioneers
blessed us with not only a historically significant coffee variety but one
that also produces great coffee. Introduction of GMO coffee plants will
corrupt our heirloom stock, and make it no longer the gourmet prod-
uct that people have come to expect. Not only could it debase the fla-
vor and quality of our coffee, but would also make it unmarketable in
many areas of the world. GM foods are already unaccepted in Japan and
as Americans become more aware of the untested safety aspects and
the absence of any labeling requirement for GM foods, many will reject
them also.?

In 2004, the Coalition to Protect Hawai?i Coffee expanded to farmers

and processors statewide. At this point the state Department of Agricul-
ture, UH and HARC decided to stop research on GMO coffee and not

Papaya and Coffee

release it at this time. The consensus on this issue within the coffee
industry was historic.

Considering how fast GMO contamination can spread, stopping

GMO crops before they are released is the best way to prevent contami-
nation of our heritage crops.

Current efforts to genetically transform taro are causing much out-

cry amongst native Hawaiians and taro farmers. Pineapple is being
genetically engineered. Banana is being transformed to be resistant to
bunchy top virus. A bio-pharmaceutical sugarcane was field-tested last
year in a secret location.

We need to take a lesson from the coffee industry and protect our

major specialty crops before these GMO versions get to the field trial
stage, which could well be the beginning of GMO contamination and
market loss, as has been so dramatically witnessed and documented in
the case of the GMO papaya.

The Future of Agriculture

in Hawai?i: An

Economic Perspective

aNcy

edfeather

aNd

ill

reese

t?s no secret that plantation agriculture is dying in Hawai?i. Some sug-
arcane and pineapple growers are abandoning the Hawaiian islands

for cheaper labor and land overseas, and the value of the state?s agricul-
tural output has stagnated. What can be done to rejuvenate Hawaii?s
ailing agriculture sector?

Many state officials seek salvation in agricultural biotechnology (i.e.

genetic modification), the practice of splicing DNA from bacteria, vi-
ruses and other organisms into plants to lend them certain traits, like
resistance to chemical weed killers. Before Hawai?i commits its farming
future to agricultural biotechnology, however, its decision-makers and
citizens would do well to ask some searching questions.

First, have genetically modified (GM) crops been successful? Despite

0,000 outdoor field trials involving more than 100 different plants in
the U.S. since 1987, only four GM crops
are widely grown on a commercial
basis: soybeans, corn, canola and
cotton. Although these field trials
have involved nearly 00 different
GM traits, only two are widely commer-
cialized: herbicide-tolerance and insect-re-
sistance.

Not a very promising record.

How do Hawaii?s producers view agricul-

tural biotechnology? In 2004, Maui Land
& Pineapple (the largest producer of fresh
pineapples) adopted a strict ?GMO-Free?
policy that includes a pledge not to test or
grow GM pineapples. The Coalition to Pro-

Papaya and Coffee

tect Hawai?i Coffee has firmly rejected GM coffee and even asked the
state?s Dept. of Agriculture not to allow any more field tests.

How do food companies, foreign buyers, and consumers view GM

crops? To take just a few of many examples: Frito Lay and Del Monte
refuse to purchase GM corn for their products, McDonald?s and Burger
King have rejected GM potatoes for their fries, and Heinz avoids GMOs
altogether. Consumers refused to buy the very first biotech crop on the
market, the tasteless ?Flavr-Savr? tomato. Closer to home, Japanese buy-
ers have rejected the GM papaya. (see ?Papaya and Coffee,? page 44).

Given this massive failure both technically and commercially, it is

difficult to understand the obsession with GMOs among Hawaii?s lead-
ers. It cannot be job creation. In 2002, agricultural biotech was respon-
sible for only 6.7 percent of Hawaii?s 13,3 high-tech jobs. These 908
jobs, many part-time, represent just one-tenth of 1 percent of overall
state employment. It can hardly be revenue for state coffers.

All the

major biotech companies that grow experimental GM crops in Hawai?i
are based on the U.S. mainland; the majority of their profits flow back
to their corporate headquarters.

Genetically engineered agricultural crops are also extremely expen-

sive to develop. The development of a single variety can take up to 12
years of research time and cost between $0-300 million from the labo-
ratory to the market. Many of our federal and state institutions are cur-
rently developing genetically crops, but is this a wise use of taxpayer
monies?

Despite the virtual absence of commercial GM crops, Hawai?i has

become the world?s leading testing grounds for biotech companies like
Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer. In fact, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
authorized an astounding ,413 test plots of GM plants in Hawai?i from
1987 to 2004. Corn is the most common crop for biotech experimenta-
tion. Others have included soybean, rice, wheat, papaya, tobacco, sugar-
cane, pineapple, lime and coffee.

Experimental GMOs tested in Hawai?i include crops manipulated

to produce drugs or industrial chemicals

(see ?Just Say No to GMO

Drugs,? page 36), corn and soybeans with altered nutrition for use as
animal feed in factory farming operations, and plants with sterile pollen
and/or seeds.

A long and growing list of contamination episodes, some of which

have occurred in Hawai?i, refute the na�ve belief held by some that
GM crops can coexist with conventional and organic agriculture (see
?GMOs in Hawai?i ?The Big Picture,? page 20).

In the end, Hawai?i cannot afford to pursue GMOs increasingly

shunned by consumers, food companies, and export markets. Instead,
we need to realize that wholesome, safe and high-value ecologically/
sustainably raised organic foods are not only the correct, but also the
economically sensible, choice for Hawaii?s agricultural future (see ?A
Vision for Sustainable Agriculture,? page 8).

Bill Freese is a national expert on agricultural biotechnology, with special
expertise in the science and regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
As a consultant with Friends of the Earth, Bill played a key role in the
discovery of unapproved StarLink corn in the food supply in 2000/01. His
comprehensive report on GE pharmaceutical-producing crops in 2002 helped
initiate public debate on ?biopharming.? Bill frequently comments on U.S.
regulatory decision-making on GE crops, and has given numerous public
presentations on various aspects of ag biotech. In 2004, Bill co-authored a
peer-reviewed scientific paper on the regulation and safety testing of GE foods.

The Future of Agriculture in Hawai?i

Farm without Harm

Reflections on Genetic Engineering

hePherd

liss

, d.m

ll life is sacred. Diverse religious traditions affirm this basic cross-
cultural value. All that lives is intricately connected, with each

life form having its own integrity. The whole is mysteriously more than
the sum of its parts.

The Last Supper and Holy Communion indicate the sacred nature

of food. Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn teaches about
bringing consciousness to how and what we eat. The ancient practice of
saying grace before eating indicates the sacred quality of food.

Hawai?i, too, has an Earth-based indigenous spirituality where food

is considered holy.

As a seminarian studying for the Methodist ministry to which I was

ordained, I learned about St. Francis of Assisi?s reverence for animals.
?First do no harm? became another guiding principle of my ministry.
Buddhism describes this as the first moral precept. This basic medical
tenet can be applied to other fields, including agriculture and science.

Farming can be spiritual practice, as many monks throughout centu-

ries in distinct religious traditions know. ?Farm without harm? became
my motto as my ministry left church buildings for crop fields and ani-
mal husbandry: Farm without harm to people, animals, plants, places,
soil, and the elements. Farm with respect for diverse cultures and the
integrity of each unique life form and their mysterious connections to
others.

The genetic engineering (GE) of foods violates both of these princi-

ples ? the sacredness of life and farming without harm. GE does not hold
life as holy, but as a commodity to be tinkered with and from which to
derive profit. The genetic engineering of foods by humans and corpo-
rations is potentially extremely harmful to our entire ecosystem. To
release genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into fields and the wild
threatens food chains, human health, the environment and the planet
itself through the spread of genetic contamination.

Animal, bacteria, and virus genes being inserted into plants offends

a sense of divine design. ?Playing God? by corporations for their profit
should be rejected on various grounds, including ethics and a commit-
ment to maintain the integrity of different species, rather than attempt
to modify, control, and dominate them for human purposes.

Genetic engineering is particularly insulting to indigenous spiritual

beliefs commonly held in Hawai?i. Some Hawaiians affirm that human
life is related to the taro plant. Yet some scientists today tinker with
taro, thus with Hawaiian ancestors. This intervention disrupts a natu-
ral cycle, using modern scientific tools that would permanently alter
the natural growth of the Hawaiian people, their culture, their agricul-
ture, and their future. Hawaiian reverence for taro is an example of es-
teeming a particular plant as sacred. Plants exist for reasons other than
human consumption, each holding its own intrinsic value and integrity
in divine creation.

Life was created by something other-than-human. This creator

or creators go(es) by various names, including God, the Gods, Higher
Power, Great Spirit, Yahweh, the Goddesses, Nature. For those not be-
lieving in a creator or creators, there is often a set of ethical principles
that guides their lives and points beyond their own individual profit and
benefit.

Genetic engineering raises basic ethical and moral questions. It

challenges us to think about the role of humans within nature. Should
we merely dominate, control and profit from nature? How can we have
good relationships with plants and animals? What can we learn from
them about ourselves and nature? What is the right relationship be-
tween humans and the rest of this divine creation?

?Genetic engineering poses serious risks to human health and to

the environment,? concludes Buddhist scholar Ron Epstein, Ph.D. ?It
raises serious ethical questions about the right of human beings to alter
life on the planet, both sentient and non-sentient, for the benefit of a
few. What makes genetic engineering special is both its power and its
irreversibility. Its ability to harm human, animal, and plant life is a
quantum leap greater than most other technologies and does not leave
room for mistakes. Results of flaws in this technology cannot be re-
called and fixed, but become the negative heritage to countless future
generations.?

Farm Without Harm

Let?s not rush forward quickly into the risky technologies of GMOs

with their multiple unintended consequences. Rather, let us honor cre-
ation, remember the sacred, and proceed with caution. The costs of the
genetic engineering of foods are too high to pay.

Rev. Dr. Shepherd Bliss, sb3@pon.net, studied at Drew Theological School,
was ordained a Methodist minister, and earned the Master of Theology
and Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) degrees from the University of Chicago
Divinity School. Dr Bliss has served various churches and taught at
various colleges, including the University of Hawai?i at Hilo. He writes
for the Hawai?i Island Journal and has contributed to 18 books on a
wide range of religious, ethical, environmental, and literary issues.

Consumer Choice:

How Can I Avoid Eating Genetically

Engineered Food?

effrey

mith

ntil genetically engineered foods have been fully tested, it would
be wise to avoid eating them or serving them to your family. More

and more people are choosing to eat organic and non-GMO foods, and
the following chart will guide you to identify which whole and pro-
cessed foods contain GMOs. Voting with your food dollars is one way
to send the message that consumers are concerned about the health
consequences of eating these untested foods.

For additional name brands of food products containing GMO in-

gredients, consult the True Food Guide at www.truefoodnow.org/shop-
persguide.

Genetically Modified Foods at a Glance

Currently Commercialized GMO Crops in the U.S.

Soy (8%), cotton (76%), canola (7%), corn (40%), Hawaiian papaya
(48% Rainbow and SunUp varieties) zucchini and yellow squash (small
amount), tobacco (Quest� brand), some sweet corn in Oahu supermar-
kets.

Other Sources of GMOs

Dairy products from cows injected with rbGH or rbST.

Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, includ-
ing the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet�) and rennet used to
make hard cheeses.

Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM
feed.

Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen.

Farm Without Harm

Some of the Ingredients That May Be Genetically Modified

Vegetable oil (soy, corn, cottonseed, or canola), margarines, soy flour,
soy protein, soy lecithin, textured vegetable protein, cornmeal, corn
syrup, dextrose, maltodextrin, fructose, citric acid, and lactic acid.

Some of the Foods That May Contain GMO Ingredients:

Infant formula, salad dressing, bread, cereal, hamburgers and hotdogs,
margarine, mayonnaise, cereals, crackers, cookies, chocolate, candy,
fried food, chips, veggie burgers, meat substitutes, ice cream, frozen
yogurt, tofu, tamari, soy sauce, soy cheese, tomato sauce, protein pow-
der, baking powder, alcohol, vanilla, powdered sugar, peanut butter, en-
riched flour and pasta. Non-food items include cosmetics, soaps, deter-
gents, shampoo, and bubble bath.

www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/BuyingNon-GMO/index.cfm

Consumer Choices

GMO Resistance ?

A Global Movement

here is a debate raging on this planet about the safety and utility of
GMO crops. The UN has a Biosafety Protocol that most countries

have ratified. Many more countries have made other legal restrictions
on GMOs. In the European Union, outright bans were recently made
impossible, so countries that had such bans in place had to rescind them
and restrict individual crops (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Hungary, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain) or create GMO free regions
within their countries. Some countries, such as New Zealand, have cre-
ated de facto moratoriums by not allowing any GMO crops to be grown
even though they are legal. In Hawai?i, we may be the center of field-
testing in the world, but we are not alone in our struggle to resist GMO
crops.

International Resistance

Many countries have bans or moratoriums on growing GMO crops:
Algeria, Benin, Uganda, Zambia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Albania,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Switzerland, El Salvador, Bolivia, Ven-
ezuela.*

Many countries have bans on importation of GMO crops: Algeria,
Angola, Benin, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Albania, Georgia, Venezuela.*

Some countries refuse GMO Food Aid (unless milled): Angola, Ma-
lawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
Albania.

Many countries require labeling of GMO food: Cameroon, Mali*,
Mauritius*, South Africa, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South
Korea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan,
Thailand, Vietnam, European Union, Bulgaria, Croatia, Norway,

GMO Resistance?A Global Movement

Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand,
Brazil, Chile, Ecuador.

Most countries have signed the Biosafety Protocol: Central African
Republic, Chad, Congo (Republic), Guinea, Malawi, Burma, South
Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Iceland, Canada, Costa Rica, Haiti,
Honduras, Jamaica, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay.

Many have ratified the Biosafety Protocol: Algeria, Benin, Bo-
tswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo (Democratic Republic),
Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho,
Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozam-
bique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, South
Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Bhutan,
Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, North
Korea, Lao, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Oman, Sri Lanka, Syria,
Tajikistan, Turkey, Vietnam, European Union, Albania, Armenia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Macedonia, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United
Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba,
Dominica, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Trinidad, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru,
Venezuela.

Few countries actually grow GMO crops. Of those that do, the
acreage is broken down thus (2004): U.S. 9%, Argentina 20%,
Canada 6%, Brazil 6%, China %, Paraguay 2%, India 1%, South
Africa 1%.

GMO Resistance Nationally

Despite being the country where most of these GMO crops and the cor-
porations who push them originate, there is significant resistance here.
Legislation has been successful at the county and state levels. Crop

*Legislation pending

by crop industry bans on GMOs have been even more effective. Major
milestones are:

In Vermont, 83 townships have passed anti-GMO resolutions. The
state legislature passed a GMO seed labeling law in 2004.

In Brooklin, Maine the voters passed a GMO-free zone declaration
in 200.

In California, Mendocino County passed landmark legislation be-
coming a GMO-Free County in 2004. Trinity County Board of Su-
pervisors banned GMO crops and animals in 2004. Marin County
passed legislation prohibiting cultivation of GMO crops in 2004.
Arcata County passed an ordinance outlawing sales and cultivation
of GMO crops in 2004.

In Hawai?i, we have the most anti-GMO bills introduced into a
legislature anywhere in the country.

On Maui, Kipahulu community and Haiku community declared
themselves GMO free zones in 2004.

In Hawai?i, in 2004 the coffee industry in statewide consensus
amongst farmers and processors declared that they want no field
trials or commercial releases of GMO coffee due to vulnerable mar-
kets.

In the Midwest, the wheat industry made its rejection of GMO
wheat clear due to international markets? declaration that they will
reject all wheat (due to possible GMO contamination), and Mon-
santo recalled its application for commercialization of GMO wheat
in 2004.

In California and Minnesota, the rice industry rejected GMO Rice
in 200.

Source: Center for Food Safety Worldwide GM Regulations
www.centerforfoodsafety.org October 2005

GMO Resistance?A Global Movement

Take Action!

fter reading through this booklet and educating yourself about the
realities of GMO food and agriculture in Hawai?i, most people are

highly motivated to DO something NOW! You are not alone. Hawai?i
SEED and other organizations are working hard on this issue and you
can join us.

Join Hawaii SEED?s Action Alert List to keep in touch with our
work and stay informed about a range of simple and effective ac-
tions that you can take. This might include providing timely, short
testimonies to the legislature, attending public events, and receiv-
ing updates on GMO-Free foods and the latest activities in Hawai?i.
Visit our web site at

www.hawaiiseed.org or send us an email at

gmofreehawaii@riseup.org and ask to be added to our Action Alert
List.

If you are a member of a

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, have

your community organization sign on to the statements about a
GMO Free Hawai?i that you agree with.

If you are a

LEGISLATOR or agricultural decision-maker, intro-

duce or support legislation for -10 year moratoriums on open-air
releases of GMO crops until long-term, peer reviewed animal, hu-
man health, environmental and agricultural studies can be done to
ensure Hawaii?s protection. We can help organize testimony from
the outer islands.

If you are a

FARMER, refuse to grow GMO crops. Educate other

farmers about the problems of GMO farming. Test your papaya
trees and chop down your unwanted GMO trees.

Let your exten-

sion agent and legislators know the reasons why you don?t want
GMO pollen and seed in your growing environment. Liability for
contamination of your crops, loss of markets, high costs of testing,

or loss of seed variety lines and ability to save clean seed are among
the reasons. Contact Hawai?i SEED for strategies for your industry
group to follow to prevent commercial release of a GMO version of
your crop such as the coffee and taro industries have done.

If you are a

CONSUMER, shop and eat GMO-free.

Use the con-

sumer choice guide in this booklet to help you choose GMO-free
foods.

When you buy papayas in the market in Hawai?i, dispose

of seeds so they can?t grow into GMO trees. Demand labeling of
GMO products from your market, manufacturers and governments,
so that you can make an informed decision.

If you are a

PARENT, feed your family GMO-free. These foods have

not received adequate safety testing either by the manufacturer or
the government regulatory agencies.

Japan?s Minister of Health

is waiting 10 years and watching U.S. children to see what the
true effects of GMO foods will be. Schools that feed their children
whole foods and have removed GMO foods from the lunch and
snack menus have noticed positive change in student behavior.

Contact your child?s school and ask for these positive changes.
Check websites to stay abreast of new research on the health issues
surrounding GMO foods.

If you are a

CITIZEN, speak out. Write letters to the editor

? this

is an easy and direct way that you as an individual can have a big
impact on the public discourse that affects policy. Contact your
legislators and let them know that this technology has entered
the food chain and the ecosystem without sufficient testing and
without your permission.

Ask for a moratorium until it has been

adequately tested. Give volunteer hours or financial support to
Hawai?i SEED.

Educate yourself and your neighbors about this

topic, which is often left out of ?mainstream? news.

If you are a

GARDENER, use GMO-free seeds.

Ask your county

officials if any GMO crops are being grown or tested in your area
with crops (especially corn) that could contaminate your family?s
garden corn crop. Test the papaya trees in your yard and chop down
GMO contaminated trees. Save GMO-free seed by bagging a flower
of a hermaphrodite tree that you have tested and found GMO-free.
The seeds of that fruit will be GMO-free trees, but may get GMO

Take Action!

air contamination in their fruits. Let your Cooperative Extension
office, Master Gardener program, and County and State lawmakers
know that you want to garden in a GMO Free Hawai?i.

If you are a

DOCTOR or healer, educate your patients about the

health concerns related to GMO foods and living near GMO crops.
When diagnosing, consider effects of a change from GMO-free to
GMO ingredients in your patient?s diet. Demand that your local
public health department track possible allergic and other respons-
es to ingestion or aerosolization of these novel genes. These foods
have never gone through the normal regulatory channels of animal
testing, human testing and post-market surveys.

1,16

Educate Yourself!

Websites

www.hawaiiseed.org
www.thefutureoffood.com
www.organicconsum-

ers.org/gelink.html

www.centerforfoodsafety.org
www.sierraclub.org/biotech
www.seedsofdeception.com
www.gmwatch.org
www.geaction.org
VIDEOS
?Pandora?s SEED: GMOs in

Hawai`i Nei? GMO-Free Maui
www.gmofreehawaii.org

?Future of Food? Deborah

Koontz-Garcia www.thefu-
tureoffood.com/sales.htm

Books

Available from www.thecam-

paign.org/books.php

The SEEDs of Decep-

tion,

Jeffrey Smith

Genetically Engineered Food : A

Self-Defense Guide for Con-
sumers,

Ronnie Cummins

Genetic Engineering,

Food, and Our Environ-
ment,

Luke Anderson

Eating in the Dark: America?s Ex-

periment With Genetically En-
gineered Food,

Kathleen Hart

Stolen Harvest: The Hijack-

ing of the Global Food
Supply

, Vandana Shiva

Biopiracy: The Plunder

of Nature and Knowl-
edge,

Vandana Shiva

Genetic Engineering Dream or

Nightmare?,

Mae-Wan Ho

Fatal Harvest

, Andrew Kimbrell

The Biotech Century: Harness-

ing the Gene and Remaking
the World

, Jeremy Rifkin

Take Action!

Pau Ka Mana?o

o, round we have come from our presentation of a Vision of Sus-
tainable Agriculture to the ?who, what, when, where, and whys?

of GMOs in Hawai?i. We have explored the big picture, changes in the
issues around intellectual property rights, native Hawaiian views, the
farmer?s views, public health and regulatory views, environmental con-
cerns, economic views, and the ethical and moral implications of this
technology. We have discovered ways to avoid these foods, get more
information, and become involved.

Around the world, GMO crops promulgate an agricultural economy

based on industrial farming, monoculture, and elimination of the family
farm. It is a myth that agricultural biotechnology will solve the inherent
problems and environmental destruction of industrial agriculture. A high-
ly centralized food supply, imported across vast distances and controlled
by a handful of corporations, leaves us vulnerable to future disruptions of
oil supplies and other factors that will greatly influence agricultural pro-
duction worldwide. Commitment to the development of a locally based
food system will begin to address Hawaii?s future food needs.

No environmental or public health studies exist that can say what

will happen in five, ten, or twenty years from now, and we cannot as-
sume that genetically engineered food is safe until proven so. While we
await long term, whole food, peer reviewed environmental and human
health studies to emerge, and until a lot more is understood about this
technology, we can follow the old adage, ?better safe than sorry,? which
today is known as the Precautionary Principle:

?When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or envi-

ronment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause
and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.?

Future generations will look back at this time in history and say that

this was the moment when the people could make the choice either to

become a genetically engineered society, where the plants and animals
of the ?commons? are owned by a few multi-national companies, or
choose to follow a path that partners with the natural world in eco-
logical /sustainable ways that protect and preserve all life. The decision
rests with us.

The genomes of plants and animals have evolved slowly over eons of

time, and are vastly more subtle, intelligent, and sophisticated than we
currently understand. All organisms link their genetic past to the pres-
ent and on into the genetic future. Cutting the genome of any species
severs the intelligence that has arisen within that species and also cuts
our links with that plant or animal and its intrinsic value and integrity
to the whole of creation. As many peoples continue to consider the ef-
fects on ?seven generations? to come, we should soberly ponder that
it is our children who inherit the results of our decisions. Perhaps we
should think less of ourselves, and more of our genetic heritage. ?Our
link with the past and the future,? as Rachel Carson once said, ?is a pos-
session infinitely more valuable than individual life.?

Mahalo for the personal investment you have made in time and un-

derstanding of these ideas and your support for the creation of a greener
world for all!

Ho Mai Ka ?Ike

umu

eala

hiNg

Ho mai ka ?ike ?ike papalua e

Grant us the Knowledge to

understand both sides

Ho mai ka ?i?ini ?i?ini papalua e

Grant us the Desire to understand

Ho mai ka mana mana papalua e

Grant us Spiritual Insight to

understand

Ho mai, Ho mai, Ho mai
Ka papalua e

Grant us the Vision to see both

E Ola!

Let it live!

Pau Ka Mana?o

Resources

Hawai?i

KAHEA
www.kahea.org

KAHEA advocates for the proper
stewardship of our resources
and for social responsibility by
promoting multi-cultural un-
derstanding and environmental
justice.
Earth Justice
www.earthjustice.org/regional/
honolulu

Earthjustice is a non-profit public
interest law firm dedicated to
protecting the magnificent plac-
es, natural resources, and wildlife
of this earth and to defending the
right of all people to a healthy
environment.
Life of the Land
lifeoftheland@hotmail.com

Life of the Land works to protect
the environment in Hawai?i.
?Ilioulaokalani Coalition
www.ilio.org,
?Ilio?ulaokalani Coalition is an is-
land wide grassroots organization

whose purpose is to link and ap-
ply traditional Hawaiian cultural
principles, practices and skills to
effect educational, social, envi-
ronmental and economic change
for the betterment and advance-
ment of native Hawaiians and
the community at large.
Sierra Club
www.hi.sierraclub.org/Issues/in-
dex.html

Sierra Club is working to restore
air and water quality, to protect
and restore the land, preserve bio-
logical diversity and to conserve
our region?s resources.

National

Center for Food Safety
www.centerforfoodsafety.org
CFS engages in legal, scientific
and grassroots initiatives to guide
national and international poli-
cymaking on critical food safety
issues.

Californians for
GE-Free Agriculture
www.calgefree.org
The Californians for GE-Free Ag-
riculture brings together farmer-
based organizations with consum-
er and environmental groups to
halt the introduction of economi-
cally and ecologically destructive
genetically engineered crops.
Council for Responsible Genetics
www.gene-watch.org

CRG works through the media
and concerned citizens to dis-
tribute accurate information and
represent the public interest on
emerging issues in biotechnology.
Environmental Commons
www.environmentalcommons.org
Opposes the uncontrolled grow-

ing, raising and expansion of
GMOs, and supports communi-
ties democratically reaching deci-
sions regarding the adoption and
growing of GMOs.
Farm Aid
www.farmaid.org

Farm Aid helps to keep family
farmers on their land to provide
fresh, locally grown, healthful
food by making grants to farm
organizations, churches, and ser-
vice agencies in 44 states.
Genetic Engineering
Action Network
www.geaction.org
The Genetic Engineering Action
Network (GEAN) is a diverse
network of grassroots activists,
national and NGOs, farmer and

Resources

farm advocacy groups, academ-
ics and scientists who have come
together to work on the myriad of
issues surrounding biotechnology.
Indigenous Peoples Council
on Biocolonialism
www.ipcb.org
The IPCB is organized to assist
indigenous peoples in the protec-
tion of their genetic resources,
indigenous knowledge, cultural
and human rights from the nega-
tive effects of biotechnology.
National Family Farm Coalition
nffc@nffc.net
The National Family Farm Coali-
tion (NFFC) serves as a national

link for grassroots organizations
working on family farm issues,
including genetic engineering.
The Organic Consumers
Association
www.organicconsumers.org
The OCA is a grassroots non-
profit public interest organization
which deals with crucial issues of
food safety, industrial agriculture,
genetic engineering, corporate ac-
countability, and environmental
sustainability.

Resources

References by Chapter

What is Genetic Engineering?

(Page 11)

1. Statistics on field tests for geneti-

cally engineered crops available on
the website of ?Information Systems
for Biotechnology? established as
part of the National Biological Im-
pact Assessment Program, a program
administered by USDA <www.isb.
vt.edu/CFDOCS/fieldtests2.cfm>

2. Quoted in Michael Pollan, ?Play-

ing God in the Garden,? New York
Times

Magazine, October 2, 1998.

3. Hill, J.A., A. Kiessling, R.H. Devlin.

2000. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch

) GE for a growth hormone

gene construct exhibit increased
rates of muscle hyperplasia and de-
tectable levels of gene expression.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 7: 939-0.
In ?Elements of Precaution: Recom-
mendations for the Regulation of
Food Biotechnology in Canada,?
The Royal Society of Canada, Ot-
tawa, January 2001, p.182, www.rsc.
ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.
pdf.
Lindstrom, C.D., T. van Do, I. Hord-
vik, C. Endresen, S. Elsayed. 1996.
Cloning of two distinct cDNAs en-
coding parvalbumin, the major aller-
gen of Atlantic salmon salmo salar.
Scan. J. Immunol. 44: 33-44.

4. Vanessa E. Prescott, Peter M. Camp-

nicity,? Agric. Food Chem., 3 (23),
9023 -9030, 200.

. ?Australian researchers scrap GM

peas after mice fall ill,?AFX News
Limited, 17 November 200

6. ?UK Medical Group Urges Mora-

torium On GM Crops,? Reuters 18
May 1999.

7. FDA, ?Statement of Policy: Foods

Derived from New Plant Varieties,?
(GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol.
7, No. 104 (1992), p. 22991.

8. Quoted in Michael Pollan, ?Play-

ing God in the Garden,? New York
Times

Magazine, October 2, 1998.

9. Benbrook, CM (2003), ?Impacts of

Genetically Engineered Crops on
Pesticide Use in the United States:
The First Eight Years,? BioTech In-
foNet, Technical Paper No 6, Nov
2003, http://wwww.biotech-info.
net/technicalpaper6.html.

10. ?SEEDless in Seattle,? RAFI news

release, Rural Advancement Foun-
dation International, 26 November
1999.

11. C. James, ?Global Review of Com-

mercialised Transgenic Crops:
1998,? ISAAA Briefs No. 8. ISAAA:
Ithaca, NY, 1998.

12. �Muir, WM, Howard, RD (1999)

?Possible ecological risks of GE or-
ganism release when transgenes af-
fect mating success: sexual selection
and the Trojan gene hypothesis,?
PNAS 96:1383-1386.

13. ?Lawsuit Challenges Open-Air

Testing of Genetically Engineered
?Biopharm? Crops. USDA Not Ad-
equately Protecting Food Supply,?

EarthJustice Press Release, Novem-
ber 12, 2003.

GMOs in Hawai?i ? The Big

Picture (Page 20)

1. House Subcommittee on Conserva-

tion, Rural Development, and Re-
search Report on the House

Hearing on ?Review of Agricultural

Biotechnology? 6/23/04.

2. http://www.usda.gov/oig/web-

docs/0601-08-TE.pdf.

3. Hao, Sean, ?Technology Tax Credits

Total $108M,? Honolulu Advertiser
8/23/0.

4. Kalapa, Lowell, ?State Should Reveal

Its Tax Credit Beneficiaries,? West
Hawaii Today

9/18/0.

. Testimony of the Biotechnology

Industry Organization submitted
to the Hawai?i Joint Committee on
Water, Land, and Agriculture Energy,
Environment, and International Af-
fairs 2/10/04 regarding Senate Bills
644,647,649,1037,1847.

Public Health and the Regulation

of GMOs (Page 28)

1. Google Search on FDA New England

Journal of Medicine Okie

2. Google Search on FDA New England

Journal of Medicine Conflict of In-
terest

3. For the National Academy of Sci-

ences document go to: www.nap.
edu/books/0309092094/html/4.
html. Go to page 4 and see the graph
and legend. From the rest of the text
you will see that 3 of the 4 highest
risk techniques are GM methods.

Further reading:
Steinbrook R., Financial Conflict of In-

terest and the FDA?s Advisory Com-
mittees, NEJM 200, 33(2);p 116-8.

Wood A.J., Drazen J.M., Greene M.F.,

A Sad Day for Science at the FDA,
NEJM

200, 33(12); p 1197-9.

Health Effects of Genetically

Engineered Food (Page 33)

1. William Freese and David Schubert,

?Safety Testing and Regulation of

Genetically Engineered Foods,? Bio-
technology and Genetic Engineering
Reviews, Vol. 21, 299-324 November
2004.

2. ?French experts very disturbed by

health effects of Monsanto GM
corn,? (24/4/2004), http://www.gm-
watch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308,
Translation of Le Monde article
?L?expertise confidentielle sur un
inqui�tant ma�s transg�nique,? Con-
fidential report on a worrying GM
corn. Also see Spilling the Beans,
June 200.

3. Mercer, D.K., Scott, K.P., Bruce-

Johnson, W.A. Glover, L.A. and
Flint, H.J. (1999). Fate of free DNA
and transformation of the oral bacte-
rium Streptococcus gordonii DL1 by
plasmid DNA in human saliva. Ap-
plied and Environmental Microbiol-
ogy

6, 6-10.

4. Netherwood, et al, ?Assessing the

survival of transgenic plant DNA in
the human gastrointestinal tract,?
Nature Biotechnology

, Vol 22 Num-

ber 2 February 2004. http://www.
food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/gm-
newcastlereport.PDF

. Vanessa E. Prescott, Peter M. Camp-

bell, Andrew Moore, Joerg Mattes,
Marc E. Rothenberg, Paul S. Foster,
T. J. V. Higgins, and Simon P. Hogan,
?Transgenic Expression of Bean-
Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results
in Altered Structure and Immunoge-
nicity,? Agric. Food Chem., 3 (23),
9023 -9030, 200. 10.1021/jf0094v
S0021-861(0)0094-7, October 1,
200:
Mice exposed to alpha-amylase in-
hibitor of GM-peas showed evidence
of an immune response after two
weeks, with the response increasing
at four weeks. The reaction in mice
was evident by inflammation in the
lungs and increased serum antibody
levels. The research also showed
that after eating the GM peas, there
was evidence that the pea alpha-am-

References by Chapter

ylase inhibitor protein primed the
mice to react to other food antigens.

6. J. Ordlee, et al, ?Identification of a

Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic
Soybeans,? The New England Jour-
nal of Medicine

, March 14, 1996.

7. G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Pei-

jnenburg, ?Screening of transgenic
proteins expressed in transgenic
food crops for the presence of short
amino acid sequences identical to
potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes
of allergens,? BMC Structural Biol-
ogy, vol. 2, 2002, p. 8-19.

8. Ewen, S.W.B., Pusztai, A., 1999b.

?Effects of diets containing geneti-
cally modified potatoes expressing
Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small
intestine,? Lancet 34, 133-134:
This study showed that feeding GM
potatoes expressing a lectin gene
from the snowdrop plant to rats led
to major changes in gut structure
and function, including thickening
of the stomach mucosa and prolif-
erative hyperplastic growth of the
rat small intestine leading to crypt
enlargement. The genetic modifica-
tion process appeared to be fully
responsible for the latter effect and
partially responsible for the stomach
mucosal thickening, showing the
need to test all new GM products for
undesirable gastric changes, which
at present is normally not done.

9. Joan K. Lemen et. al, Monsanto

Company Toxicology Report MSL
1817, ?CV-2000-260: 13-Week
dietary Subchronic Comparison
Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats
Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food
Consumption Determination with
PMI Certified Rodent Diet #002,?
1 December 2002.

10. ?Assessment of Additional Sci-

entific Information Concerning
StarLink Corn,? FIFrA Scientific Ad-
visory Panel to the EPA, SAP Report
No. 2001-09, from meeting on July
17/18, 2001.

11. William Freese and David Schubert,

?Safety Testing and Regulation of
Genetically Engineered Foods,? Bio-
technology and Genetic Engineering
Reviews, Vol. 21, 299-324 November
2004.

12. Mayeno, A.N. and Gleich, G.J.

(1994) ?Eosinophilia-myalgia syn-
drome and tryptophan production:
a cautionary tale.? Tibtech 12, 346-
32.

13. Schubert, D. (2002). ?A different

perspective on GM food,? Nature
Biotechnology

, Vol. 20, p.969. (From

California Certified Organic Farm-
ers Association?s report ?What is
Genetic Engineering?? http://www.
ccof.org/ge_mr.php)

Just Say No to GMO Drug Crops

(Page 36)

1. www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/

biopharm/index.html
Freese, Bill, ?Manufacturing Drugs
and Chemicals in Crops: Biopharm-
ing Poses New Threats to Consum-
ers, Farmers, Food Companies, and
the Environment,? 2002.

2. ?No Use of Food or Feed Crops for

Plant-Made Pharmaceutical Produc-
tion Without A ?100% Guarantee?
Against Any Contamination,? says
NFPA, Press Release, National Food
Processors Association, Feb. 6, 2003,
http://www.nfpa-food.org/News_
Release/020603NewsRelease.htm)

3. ?Food Processors and Grocery Man-

ufacturers Confirm Corn Grower
Concerns About Use Of Genetically
Modified Crops To Make Drugs
and Chemicals,? American Corn
Growers Association press release,
Nov. 12, 2002, http://www.acga.org/
news/2002/111202.htm

4. ?Statement on the Use of Food and

Feed Crops for the Production of
Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and In-
dustrial Products,? North American
Millers? Association, October 2002,
http://www.namamillers.org/cs_bio-
pharm.html

References by Chapter

. ?Lawsuit challenges Open-Air

Testing of Genetically Engineered
?Biopharm? Crops. USDA Not Ad-
equately Protecting Food Supply,?
Earthjustice Press Release, Novem-
ber 12, 2003

6. ?Judge Orders Environmental Study

of Microalgae Importation.? Garden
Island

, October 11, 200.

7. Freese, Bill, ?Manufacturing Drugs

and Chemicals in Crops: Biopharm-
ing Poses New Threats to Con-
sumers, Farmers, Food Companies
and the Environment,? July 2002,
Friends of the Earth, Section 7.1
www.foe.org/biopharm/

8. ?Drugs in crops ? the unpalatable

truth.? editorial, Nature Biotechnol-
ogy

22(2), February 2004, p. 133.

9. web site: http://allergy.edoc.

com/1996_archives/pdf/jun_96/31.
pdf#search=?human%20granulocy
te%20macrophage%20colony%20
stimulating%20factor (last viewed
2/23/0)

10. Dr. David Schubert?s Declaration,

Biopharm Lawsuit, Earthjustice-Ho-
nolulu paras. 13-14.

11. Trasylol Label 2000 (see http://www.

fda.gov/cder/ogd/rld/20304s9.PDF);
SAP MT (2000) ?Mammalian Toxic-
ity Assessment Guidelines for Pro-
tein Plant Pesticides,? FIFRA Scien-
tific Advisory Panel to the EPA, SAP
Report No. 2000-03B, September 28,
2000.

12. Dr. David Schubert?s Declaration,

Biopharm Lawsuit, Earthjustice-Ho-
nolulu para. 10.

13. Biopharm Lawsuit, Earthjustice-Ho-

nolulu, Exhibit .

14. Dr. David Schubert?s Declaration,

Biopharm Lawsuit, Earthjustice-Ho-
nolulu para. 9.

Unintended Consequences?

A Look at Potential Farmer

Impact (Page 39)

1. Stuart Laidlaw, ?Starlink Fallout

Could Cost Billions,? The Toronto
Star

, January 9th 2001

2. See The Fourth National Organic

Farmers? Survey: Sustaining Or-
ganic Farms in a Changing Organic
Marketplace, published in July 2004
www.ofrf.org. Examples of organic
farmers impacted by GMOs include:
*Laura Krause, an organic farmer
in Iowa who grows corn seed for
organic growers. In February 2002,
she sent her seed to a local lab for
routine tests and discovered genetic
contamination. She lost her certi-
fication, and the price she received
for her corn dropped by half ? from
$3.0 a bushel to $1.7 a bushel.
?There?s no way for me to go into
that field and look for the plants
that contain the transgenes and de-
select them,? said Krause. ?There?s
no way for me to sort them out,
because they all look exactly alike. I
can?t get my business back, because
I don?t have any way to remove this
gene from this [corn] population.?
(Mark Schapiro, ?Sowing Disaster??
The Nation

, Oct 28, 2002 www.

thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=200210
28&s=schapiro)

Susan Fitzgerald and her husband

operate a 1,300-acre farm outside
Hancock, Minnesota. Last year,
Fitzgerald?s 100 acres of organic corn
showed evidence of genetic contami-
nation, as did her neighbor?s organic
corn crop. The pollen had traveled
more than 120 feet from another
neighbor?s farm. Instead of selling
her organic corn for approximately
$4 a bushel, she had to sell her crop
on the open market for $1.67 (Ben
Lilliston, ?Farmers Fight to Save
Organic Crops,? www.progressive.
org/0901/lil0901.html)

The Union of Concerned Scien-

tists has estimated that, based on a
$0.0/bushel organic price premium
and an average organic corn harvest
of 120 bushels, contamination could
mean a potential lost income of $90
million annually for organic corn
growers. This does not take into ac-

References by Chapter

count the growth of the organic mar-
ket. (?Union of Concerned Scientists
comments to the Environmental
Protection Agency on the renewal of
Bt-crop registrations,? www.biotech-
info.net,10 September 2001)

other organic farmers who have

suffered economic losses due to
GMO include David Vetter, based
in Nebraska. He has had GMO
contamination of his organic corn
for several years and lost customers
as a result. His number is 402-84-
319, email: davegpf@hamilton.net.
David is an organic farming pioneer
and was honored recently by the
Organic Trade Association. He has
been interviewed many times about
this topic. Another farmer is Ken
Rider, based in Ohio, who had GMO
contamination of organic soybeans
and lost a market as a result. His
number is 419-278-0746, email:
ghostrider@wcnet.org

An organic grain processor in Ber-

wick, Ontario refused to purchase
organic soybean crops that tested
positive for genetic contamination.
Farmers were forced to sell the crop
for half the cost. (?Genetically al-
tered strains spread by the wind,?
Alex Roslin, Toronto Star. Septem-
ber 30, 2002. )

Marc Loiselle, from Vonda, Sas-

katchewan, describes himself as the
?steward of an intergenerational
family farm? and has been farming
organically for 17 years. He received
inquiries from an Asian buyer for
organic canola offering C$18/bushel
compared to the conventional rate
of around C$7/bushel. But he knew
it would be impossible to keep his
crop free from genetic contamina-
tion because of nearby genetically
engineered canola fields. In the end
he had to plant barley, which meant
a loss of C$23,920. Marc is now hop-
ing his losses will be compensated
through a class action lawsuit by
the Saskatchewan Organic Director-

ate. (Hugh Warwick and Gundula
Meziani ?SEEDs of doubt - North
American farmers? experiences of
GM crops,? Soil Association, Sep-
tember 2002)

Alex Nurnberg, is an organic

farmer who was affected by genetic
contamination at his 180-acre farm
near Ailsa Craig. Tests found 1
to 20 tonnes of his 100-tonne corn
harvest had been contaminated by
genetically engineered pollen. Tests
to uncover the contamination cost
Nurnberg $1,000. Insurance is not
available to cover his losses. (?Ge-
netically altered strains spread by
the wind?. Alex Roslin. Toronto Star.
September 30, 2002. )

The number of farms in Canada

growing organic canola was reduced
from 200 farms to only one in just
two years because of contamination
from genetically engineered crops.
(Hillary Lindsay, ?Genetically modi-
fied crops threaten organic grow-
ers,? The Dominion, June 24, 2004
http://dominionpaper.ca/environ-
ment/2004/06/24/crop_contr.html)

3. In 1998, cross-pollination from

genetically engineered corn was sus-
pected of contaminating an organic
farm in Texas. The contamination
was not discovered until the corn
had been processed and shipped
to Europe as organic tortilla chips
under the brand name Apache. By
then the company, Terra Prima, had
to recall and destroy 87,000 bags.
The event cost the small company
in excess of $10,000. ?FDA holds
Oakland hearing to discuss genetic
labeling,? Oakland Tribune, 14
December. ?US Organic Corn Chips
Exported to Britain Are Found to
Be Contaminated by Genetic Engi-
neered Corn,?? Genetic Food Alert
campaign Press Release)

4. The USDA has established no toler-

ance levels for GMO contamination
in organic crops. A Q&A on the
USDA website www.ams.usda.gov/

References by Chapter

nop/Q&A.html makes the following
comments about genetic contamina-
tion of organic produce:
The Preamble to the National
Organic Program regulations, Ap-
plicability, Clarifications (1) Ge-
netic Drift, states: The presence of
a detectable residue of a product of
excluded methods [which include
GMOs] alone does not necessarily
constitute a violation of this regula-
tion. As long as an organic operation
has not used excluded methods and
takes reasonable steps to avoid con-
tact with the products of excluded
methods as detailed in their ap-
proved organic system plan, the un-
intentional presence of the products
of excluded methods should not af-
fect the status of an organic product
or operation. However, if a certifying
agent has reason to suspect that an
organic product has come into con-
tact with prohibited substances or
been produced using excluded meth-
ods, the certifying agent can call for
testing, which under certain condi-
tions could result in that product no
longer being considered organic.?
. Email communication between
Elisha Goodman of Hawai?i SEED
and Richard Matthews of USDA
NOP, 2004 Referencing section of
organic standards 20.202(b)

6. Andrew Pollack, ?Can Biotech Crops

Be Good Neighbors?? New York
Times

, September 26, 2004

7. ?Monsanto vs, US Farmers,? Center

For Food Safety, 2004 www.center-
forfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsus-
farmersreport.cfm

8. ibid

Papaya and Coffee:

GMO ?Solutions? Spell

Market Disaster (Page 44)

1. ?Big Isle Papaya Crop Tainted,?

Hawai?i Tribune-Herald

, April 7,

2000.

2. National Agriculture Statistics

Service www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/
stat-28.htm

3. McNarie, A., ?Plenty Papaya Prob-

lems,? Hawai?i Island Journal, April
1-1, 2003

4. Elias, P. ?New ?gene flow? problems

concern crop producers,? The As-
sociated Press, September 23, 2004;
?Genetic Traits Spread to Non-Engi-
neered Papayas in Hawai?i? Septem-
ber 10, 2004 (Environmental News
Service)

. Identity Preservation Protocol for

Non-GMO Papayas. Revised April
16, 2004. Hawai?i DOA, Quality
Assurance Division, Commodities
Branch.

6. Pollack, A., ?Can Biotech Crops Be

Good Neighbors?? New York Times
September 26, 2004

The Future of Agriculture in

Hawai?i: An Economic

Perspective (Page 47)

1. www.isb.vt.edu
Information System for Biotechnol-

ogy Field Test Releases (notification
and release permits by state).

2. e-Report ?Hawaii?s Technology Sec-

tor in 2001,? Nov. 2002, Hawai?i
Department of Business Eco-
nomic Development and Tourism
(DBEDT).

3. www.isb.vt.edu
Information System for Biotechnol-

ogy Field Test Releases (notification
and release permits by state).

4. www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/

biopharm/index.html

Freese, Bill and Caplan, Richard,

?Plant Made Pharmaceuticals ?
Financial Risk Profile,? 12/0

Take Action! (Page 58)

1. www.hawaiiseed.org. Add your

name/organization to our sign-on

2. www.hawaiiseed.org
3. Contact your cooperative extension

agent to ask for papaya tree tests.
www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ctahr2001/
Counties/HawaiiCounty/faculty.
html

4. www.hawaiiseed.org
. www.seedsofdeception.com

References by Chapter