03-04-2014, 05:25 AM
Just read the H T-H article from 3/1 relating Mayor Kenoi’s comments on GMO’s from his appearance at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kona on 2/27. It’s always disheartening at any time when shallow reasoning, low quality analysis and inappropriate power accumulation goes into making the laws of the land, but when it’s close to home, it’s even more troubling.
According to the article Mayor Kenoi stated that growing GMO’s are not “fundamental” (quote from Kenoi), “although it is important” (author’s words). What could this mean? Papayas, one of Hawai’i Island’s largest agriculture enterprises are here only because of a UH GMO development. What part of “fundamental” does the Mayor not get regarding the jobs, taxes and agricultural development contributed by the production of this GMO crop? What kind of a distinction is he trying to make? GMO corn is apparently beginning to allow local ranchers to grow out their calves here rather than ship them to the mainland. Is this “fundamental” or “important?” If the ranchers are successful, are there implications for other GMO-enabled agricultural enterprises? But Mayor Kenoi signed legislation banning further agricultural development with GMOs so apparently he is comfortable throwing those future possibilities out the window.
The article goes on to say his major reason of signing the anti-GMO legislation into law was stop the “shouting and yelling about GMO today” (Kenoi quote). The news reports indicated the most vociferous and loudest views in public meetings were on the anti-GMO side (exactly like on Kau’ai). So apparently we can believe that the Mayor goes to his knee in favor of whoever yells the loudest rather than those who present factual and well supported evidence. Is this the kind of leadership the Big Island needs?
He then said that in signing the anti-GMO legislation he was “respecting the island’s farmers and ranchers who will be allowed to continue to grow the products they are already growing” (author’s words). Is respect demonstrated for farmers and ranchers by arrogating to the authority of the Mayor and County Council the determination of the food products farmers and ranchers grow as their livelihoods? How could the Mayor possibly be showing respect by precluding agricultural improvement on the Big Island?
The article then states that Mayor Kenoi said that when farmers and ranchers approached him regarding issues “no farmer, he said, has proposed GMOs as a major problem for them” (author quote). Perhaps when families approach the Mayor about issues they don’t “propose” that vaccinations are a “major problem” for them. So Mayor Kenoi would therefore feel comfortable banning vaccinations? What kind of thinking dismisses an issue because people are not identifying it as a present-day major issue? Doesn’t banning a well established technology, both in its implementation and safety, attempting to preclude its potentially valuable contribution to the future of agriculture on the Big Island, constitute a major problem in and of itself?
Finally, the article states that Mayor Kenoi said he doesn’t want seed crops here, alluding to the seed companies working on Kau’ai. Does the Mayor not know about the major seed industries in Central and South America that supply much of the U.S.’s food and ornamental seed, for both commercial and home gardeners? Again, the Mayor is arrogating control over what farmers and ranchers can grow to himself and the County Council. How does this action in any way convey respect for agriculture, for the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers and the jobs and taxes agriculture contributes to the Big Island?
According to the article Mayor Kenoi stated that growing GMO’s are not “fundamental” (quote from Kenoi), “although it is important” (author’s words). What could this mean? Papayas, one of Hawai’i Island’s largest agriculture enterprises are here only because of a UH GMO development. What part of “fundamental” does the Mayor not get regarding the jobs, taxes and agricultural development contributed by the production of this GMO crop? What kind of a distinction is he trying to make? GMO corn is apparently beginning to allow local ranchers to grow out their calves here rather than ship them to the mainland. Is this “fundamental” or “important?” If the ranchers are successful, are there implications for other GMO-enabled agricultural enterprises? But Mayor Kenoi signed legislation banning further agricultural development with GMOs so apparently he is comfortable throwing those future possibilities out the window.
The article goes on to say his major reason of signing the anti-GMO legislation into law was stop the “shouting and yelling about GMO today” (Kenoi quote). The news reports indicated the most vociferous and loudest views in public meetings were on the anti-GMO side (exactly like on Kau’ai). So apparently we can believe that the Mayor goes to his knee in favor of whoever yells the loudest rather than those who present factual and well supported evidence. Is this the kind of leadership the Big Island needs?
He then said that in signing the anti-GMO legislation he was “respecting the island’s farmers and ranchers who will be allowed to continue to grow the products they are already growing” (author’s words). Is respect demonstrated for farmers and ranchers by arrogating to the authority of the Mayor and County Council the determination of the food products farmers and ranchers grow as their livelihoods? How could the Mayor possibly be showing respect by precluding agricultural improvement on the Big Island?
The article then states that Mayor Kenoi said that when farmers and ranchers approached him regarding issues “no farmer, he said, has proposed GMOs as a major problem for them” (author quote). Perhaps when families approach the Mayor about issues they don’t “propose” that vaccinations are a “major problem” for them. So Mayor Kenoi would therefore feel comfortable banning vaccinations? What kind of thinking dismisses an issue because people are not identifying it as a present-day major issue? Doesn’t banning a well established technology, both in its implementation and safety, attempting to preclude its potentially valuable contribution to the future of agriculture on the Big Island, constitute a major problem in and of itself?
Finally, the article states that Mayor Kenoi said he doesn’t want seed crops here, alluding to the seed companies working on Kau’ai. Does the Mayor not know about the major seed industries in Central and South America that supply much of the U.S.’s food and ornamental seed, for both commercial and home gardeners? Again, the Mayor is arrogating control over what farmers and ranchers can grow to himself and the County Council. How does this action in any way convey respect for agriculture, for the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers and the jobs and taxes agriculture contributes to the Big Island?