The GMO initiative is overly broad and vague, and ignores the reality of bioengineering

The Maui County "GMO moratorium initiative" reported on TV and in the press has been difficult to witness for someone trained in science. Much of what is said in the media in favor of this initiative is designed to misinform by presenting half-truths and very selective use of scientific data. Most troubling in this initiative is the very broad and ambiguous definition of genetic engineering.

The moratorium initiative essentially requires science to prove that GMO (genetically modified organism) crops are safe for the environment and as food. Science cannot prove unequivocally that a food is absolutely safe for every consumer; science can provide evidence that a food is unsafe. It is for this reason that no food or food crop, or production system, has been shown to be absolutely safe.

Many foods contain known allergens (peanuts, kiwi fruit) and toxins (potatoes, celery) which are typically not always labeled. Most food crops are classified as Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS). This characterization does not mean that they are safe or that they have undergone any extensive testing.

The moratorium on genetic engineered plants would stop the use of plants where one well-understood gene is added to a genetic background. The language also leaves open the potential to ban much greater genetic changes, such as the random and large-scale duplication and rearrangement of tens of thousands of genes through chromosome "doubling."

Doubling has been a major driving force for plant evolution, though rarely for animals. Many of the plants we eat are the result of doubling and include wheat, potatoes, peanuts, coffee, strawberries and bananas.

Plant breeders have used doubling, often induced by chemicals or irradiation, for nearly 100 years on trees, ornamental plants, fruits and vegetable crops. The classic example is seedless watermelons. Does the broad definition in this initiative mean that seedless watermelon will be swept up in this Draconian initiative?

Some hops varieties used in beer making are the result of doubling. A few cannabis varieties are probably also created by doubling. Bananas are even more of a mess as they are not fully doubled, just half-doubled — one set too many chromosomes. You could be growing one of the citrus varieties developed through intentional doubling.

The creation of new ornamental varieties is a frequent pursuit of plant breeders. A number of ornamental crops are the result of doubling either naturally or using chemicals in plant breeding. Examples include dendrobium orchids, tulips, chrysanthemums, hyacinths, marigolds, dahlias, pansies and lilies. Are these included in the ban?

This initiative, if passed, will probably have a wide and deep impact on Maui’s agriculture in addition to job losses. The impact will depend upon what is meant in the definition of "genetically engineered." The inclusion twice of the phrase "but are not limited to" makes the definition very broad and open to very wide interpretation. It will be simple for any scientist to make the argument that seedless watermelons are no longer welcome in Maui’s future, if this measure passes.

Other unwelcome crops could include dendrobium orchids, citrus, strawberries, coffee and bananas — depending on whether you include natural or plant-breeder-created doubling. The phrase "but not limited to" in the definition does not exclude natural doubling. Would this initiative also mean that cannabis growers could have additional charges and penalties imposed if their variety was created through doubling?

The poor wording used in this initiative means that this is a ban on farming that also impacts home gardeners.