Big Island Anti-GMO resolution gets killed-by O`ahu’s county council.

By Alan D. McNarie

When the County Council of the City and County of Honolulu considered a resolution that supported the labeling of genetically modified foods last fall, it wasn’t surprising that a lineup of representatives from companies such as Monsanto testified against it. But Honolulu blogger H. Doug Matsuoka became intrigued with another organization, the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, which also testified against the bill. He decided to find out what this organization was and did some research online.

As it turned out, they were definitely not Hawai’i farmers, or even Hawai’i-based farm companies. HCIA President Fred Perlak, Matsuoka says, is a lobbyist for Monsanto; Vice President Lauri Goodwin works for Monsanto competitor Syngenta. Every single member of the group’s board of directors, according to Matsuoka, is linked to either Dupont, Syngenta, Mycogen Seeds, Pioneer, Dow Agro-Science, or BASF Plant Science — all of which are heavily invested in GM crops.

“What we have is a who’s who of multinational GMO corporations. As much as they try to represent themselves as “agricultural” companies, note that all of them are primarily chemical companies with a major portion of their sales in poisons such as herbicides and fungicides,” wrote Matsuoka in an entry at dougnote.blogspot.com.

In the face of industry lobbying, the Honolulu council voted to kill the resolution. That also effectively killed a similar resolution, sponsored by Hawai’i County Councilor Angel Pilago, that was passed by this island’s council. Both resolutions would have authorized the Hawaii State Association of Counties to lobby for a GMO labeling bill in the state legislature.

“We need to have unanimous consent of all the county councils in order to put that forward,” explained Waimea councilor Pete Hoffmann, another supporter of the bill. Hoffmann said he was considering offering another resolution, similar to one passed by Maui, which would support a statewide bill requiring the labeling of genetically modified “whole foods.”

Any bill to label GM foods at the county or state level faces legitimate economic and constitutional arguments. The U. S. Constitution places “interstate commerce,” including any foods that are marketed across state lines, in the federal bailiwick, (which is why some brands of locally-produced hot dogs are still bright red, even though red dye in hot dogs was banned in interstate commerce decades ago), so any GM labeling bill would have to be limited to foods produced and consumed in-state.

“Truly labeling has got to be done at a level higher than the county, to get the mandate properly established,” believes Hoffmann, but he also thinks that “there are other aspects of labeling and marketing GM products that we should be able to address.”

That the issue is being considered by county councils at all may be due, in part, to frustration with federal and state government, where the powerful GMO lobby has managed to stymie any serious regulation, despite increasing concerns over the health effects of genetically modified products, on the state level, for instance, the Senate Agriculture Committee during the 2011 legislative session deferred three bills that would have prohibited the sale of genetically modified fish, required labeling of locally grown whole foods, and required GMO seed growers to notify the State Agriculture Department of the location of their crops. During the Campaign Spending Commissions January-June reporting period, the period when the bills were deferred, Monsanto’s political committee handed out donations ranging from $250 to $1,500 to the campaign committees of 33 legislators, and also donated $1,500 to the committee of Honolulu Mayor Peter Carlisle. Among the legislators who got money were the Big Island’s Bob Herkes, Malama Solomon, Clifton Tsuji, Gilbert Kahele and Jerry Chang, who each got $500, even though seed corn isn’t a major crop on this island. Big Island legislators also got generous donations during the 2010 campaign year, when Monsanto and other GM-invested companies gave at least $1,000 to Chang, $500 each to Green and Mark Nakashima and $3,500 to Tsuji, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. Two former state senators who resigned to join Gov. Abercrombie’s cabinet also benefited from GM largesse during the 2010 election cycle, before their resignations: Dwight Takamine, who now directs the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, got $400 and now-Agriculture Secretary Russell Kokubun picked up $2,100. Kokubun testified against Senate Bill 712 and Senate Bill 713.

“The perception here is that there is something inherently wrong with this technology, which is contrary to what is widely accepted by the scientific community,” Kokubun wrote in his testimony on both bills.

But some recent studies have shaken that alleged consensus. A study published in International Journal of Biological Sciences, for instance, linked three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn to organ damage in rats.

“I think it [the GM crop issue] is a very critical issue that has to be examined in much more detail,” believes Hoffman. “It speaks to the future of agriculture in not just the state of Hawaii, but in the nation as a whole… I am not against GMOs per se, but I think a lot more research needs to be done in order to ensure that the health and safety of the consumers is safeguarded.”

The company is facing legal pushback, as well, both at home and abroad. Bulgaria recently ordered all GM corn in the country to be uprooted. The government of India is suing Monsanto for “biopiracy”: essentially “stealing” Indian plant in order to create patented versions that it Monsanto controlled. In the U.S. the company, which has become infamous for suing farmers whose crops were contaminated by blowing pollen from its patented crops, now faces a lawsuit from the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and 270,000 organic farmers for contaminating their crops in the first place.

But whether that legal pushback and those scientific doubts can be translated into constructive legislation may depend on whether those with doubts about GM crops can get an impartial hearing against the industry’s well-oiled lobbying machine and the well-greased palms of politicians.