Gov. Neil Abercrombie has proposed what could be the best way forward on the contentious standoff over the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops: the state’s creation of standards and guidelines for the use of restricted pesticides in large-scale farms.
It would be a voluntary program, at least until lawmakers and state agricultural officials can develop the formal regulations, which will make accountability a challenge at the start.
Still, such a brokered truce offers hope for more transparent operations by the agrochemical companies researching GMO seed production and the pesticides that enable the best crop yields. Assuming it’s monitored well from the outset by state officials — who can hold out the prospect of harsher regulations if the companies don’t cooperate — this is a better option than the bill now before the Kauai County Council, which is too restrictive and for which the county lacks the staffing and expertise to enforce.
The County Council should table its bill, at least temporarily, and give the voluntary scheme a chance to play out. Regulating Hawaii agriculture falls more neatly into the wheelhouse of the state agriculture and health departments, and even these agencies will need a bump in inspectors and other staffing on Kauai, once the standards and guidelines become enforceable.
The GMO issue has loomed especially large on Kauai, and it’s easy to see why: Much of that island’s considerable agricultural acreage has been given over to the operations on land leased by the large companies. To a large extent, the activities on ag land affect a large proportion of the residential population.
Although GMO research merits a critical look and should be held to standards, this research has been demonized beyond any rational basis. Frequently, what starts as the correct insistence on best practices in agriculture morphs into a generic emotional resistance to GMO seed development.
Some people take issue with corporate control of the industry, but even such reasonable critiques don’t negate the need for high-yield crops that can help feed the poorest nations. Ultimately, this research benefits small-scale food producers for the local markets as well. Some middle ground here must be found.
The proposed county ordinance, Bill 2491, targets the GMO and pesticide research by Syngenta Hawaii, DuPont Pioneer, BASF Corp. and Dow AgroSciences; additionally, Kauai Coffee, the state’s largest coffee grower, would be covered.
There’s logic in requiring the largest enterprises, which keep records on their activities and have the capacity to meet reporting requirements, to disclose the use of pesticides in a format easily accessible to the public. While state lawmakers were considering the bill that became Act 105, mandating fuller disclosure on pesticide use, Kauai Councilman Gary Hooser pointed out in his testimony that some of the land involved in the farming is leased from the state. This underscores the public’s right to know.
However, the Council bill’s mandate for a moratorium pending an environmental impact study is excessively burdensome, and while buffer zones are needed, the county proposal is too broad, restricting activity on too much of the farming land. What seems the more reasonable compromise is the state administration’s notion of zones around schools and hospitals.
Beyond those most vulnerable groups to be protected, residents should be able to find out through regular reports what pesticides are being used. There should be measures in place to mitigate the risk of exposure during pesticide applications.
At some point, communities and agriculture have to find a way to co-exist. The commercial enterprises must be more forthcoming than they’ve been to date, but residents must give them some accommodation as well.
