Page 11 - the NOISE December 2013

determined people can have power. On Kaua’i, the County Council (the governing body for the island) recently passed Bill 2491, a pesticide and GMO disclosure law. The bill requires pesticide users to disclose the type and quantity of the pesticides they spray as well as locations. It creates buffer zones between areas where pesticides are used and schools, parks, medical facilities and homes.
In addition, farmers currently growing GMO crops will have to report them to the county. Further, the bill creates a “temporary morato- rium on the experimental use and commercial production of genetically modified organisms until such time as the County of Kaua‘i has conducted a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the health, environmental, and other effects of the production, propaga- tion, or development of genetically modified organisms within the County.”
Bill 2491 was passed by the Kaua’i County Council but Mayor Bernard Carvalho ve- toed it. He cited concerns about the legality of its enforcement. In a bold move following some political maneuvering to fill an empty council seat with someone who would en- sure a win, the Kaua’i Council voted to over- ride the mayor’s veto. The new restrictions are scheduled to take effect in Kaua’i County in August 2014. “It is no secret that my prefer- ence would have been to work with the State Department of Agriculture and the Depart- ment of Health on a memorandum of agree- ment for shared oversight and enforcement of the provisions of Bill 2491,” stated Mayor Carvalho. “While my request for deferral was not embraced by a majority of the Council, I will continue to pursue collaboration with these agencies, as I believe there should be shared accountability, and I’ve received posi- tive feedback from the State to my request for such collaboration.”
Less than a week after the Kaua’i veto override, the Hawai’i County Council voted 6 to 3 in favor of a bill that bans GMOs from being grown on the Big Island. Hawai’i’s Bill 113 creates “restrictions on the cultivation, propagation, development, and testing of genetically engineered crops and plants to protect public and private property as well as surface waters, vulnerable watersheds, and our Island’s coastal waters.” At press time, Hawai’i Island Mayor Billy Kenoi still had time to veto the measure. However, a veto may be ineffective, as in Kaua’i, because it would only take 6 votes for an override.
Because it is already so pervasive on the Big Island, Hawai’i’s measure exempts GMO papaya from the new restrictions. GMO pa- paya has been grown on Hawai’i since 1998. Independent tests conducted in both 2003 and 2006 showed that around 50% of papa- ya from non-GMO growers on the island was contaminated with GMO papaya.
Contamination has become a major is- sue for non-GMO growers around the globe. Recently, a Washington farmer had his non- GMO alfalfa rejected for export when geneti- cally modified traits for herbicide resistance were detected in his crop. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has deemed the farmer’s complaint a “commer- cial issue” that should be addressed by the marketplace, not the federal government.
Alaska is the only state that already has a GMO labeling law in effect. In 2005, a state law was passed requiring the labeling of GMO salmon, which is not yet on the mar- ket. Earlier this year, a second law oppos- ing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of GMO salmon was passed. That
approval is still pending but Alaskans have taken a stance on their concerns regarding the effect of GMO salmon on native salmon populations in the state. Anchorage Demo- crat Geran Tarr sponsored the legislation stating that “genetically engineered fish has not been proven safe.” He said that FDA ap- proval of GMO salmon will create “threats to wild salmon stocks; threats to human health and consumer confidence in wild Alaska salmon; and potential negative economic impact on our wild seafood industry.”
Two other states – Connecticut and Maine – have also passed GMO labeling laws. How-
ever, they both include requirements that other states must follow suit, including at least one bordering state, before the laws take effect.
Connecticut was the first state to pass a GMO labeling law in June 2013. But require- ments must be met before the law goes into effect. First, four other states must en- act similar laws. Next, at least one of those states must share a border with Connecti- cut. Finally, the combined population of the northeastern states (which the law defines as Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ver- mont) that enact labeling requirements must have a combined population of more than 20 million people. Several of the defined states have attempted to pass GMO legislation without success so it could be years before labeling laws take effect in Connecticut.
Maine’s law has similar provisions to Con- necticut’s. It also requires a border state to approve its own law and, since it only has one of those, New Hampshire will need to pass GMO legislation before Maine’s new law will kick in.
Senate Bill 1180 (SB 1180) on “food mis- branding” and “genetically altered ingredi- ents” was introduced in Arizona during the 2013 legislative session but it died in com- mittee without any action being taken. But Arizonans may get a chance to vote on a bal- lot initiative next November if Jared Keen, Director of Right to Know Arizona, has his way. He is circulating a petition for an initia- tive to be brought to voters in 2014.
“This is the one issue facing our country that affects absolutely everyone; our par- ents, our friends, our kids, our grand kids, and their grand kids,” he stated in a press release. “We are the country responsible for introducing this type of technology to the market without the necessary oversight. It is imperative that we are the country that takes the necessary steps to ensure Americans and the world are informed of what we are put- ting on our plates.”
Ironically, in 1997 Monsanto led a cam- paign in Europe that supported labeling of their GMO products. At that time, they were confident consumers would choose genetically engineered foods over unmodi- fied ones. Their change of heart on the la- beling issue seems to indicate a fear that an educated consumer will actually avoid their products, not prefer them. After all, the la- beling issue alone is not about the safety of GMO ingredients. It’s only about our right to know what’s in the foods we are eating so that each individual can make the choice to consume, or not consume, GMO foods.
| Cindy Cole is a Sedona writer & photographer whose new book, Red Rock Ripoff is
available on Amazon kindle.
cindycole@live.com
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news
• DECEMBER 2013 • 11