Lawmakers at both the Maui County and state levels must not misread this week’s vote on Maui’s genetically modified organism initiative. Its passage doesn’t make it a winning public policy, so officials must take care to avoid acting in ways unsupported by the scientific and legal analysis.
The initiative would prohibit GMO operations until environmental and health studies are conducted, but it’s unlikely that the criteria for lifting the moratorium could be met. So the upshot is that farming with GMO crops would be banned on Maui.
Without a doubt, the advocates for the county initiative establishing a moratorium on GMO ag operations succeeded at getting out their voters, who eked out a narrow majority in favor of this ill-considered, poorly written legislation.
About 50.2 percent of ballots cast — barely topping the minimum needed — supported it, with 47.9 percent of the voters opposed.
The GMO subtext of the competitive races, for Maui and Kauai council seats, also is far from clear. Results were mixed. There were candidates out in front as advocates and opponents who did well, so there didn’t seem to be any clear conclusion to be drawn there.
Further, the historic low voter turnout gave an edge to the "yes" cohort, plainly the most motivated to head to the polls. That at least limits what can be inferred about the broad population.
The bottom line on Maui, where the GMO battles were most intense this election cycle, is that the debate split the community in ways that will persist for some time. In the midst of that division, it’s incumbent on the state’s leaders to avoid any knee-jerk reactions or pandering overtures to curry favor with the majority vote.
There’s a cold, pragmatic reason: Monsanto Hawaii, one of the companies conducting GMO agricultural research in Hawaii, plans to sue over the initiative.
John P. Purcell, a company executive, on Wednesday said in a statement that the initiative is "invalid and contrary to long established state and federal laws that support both the safety and lawful testing and planting of GMO plants."
It makes little sense to take steps to implement the initiative — creating the Joint Fact Finding Group to establish the scope and design of the studies, and all the rest — until its future is settled.
Apart from the legal uncertainty, the initiative’s shortcomings, and the illogic of the muddled movement, should give Hawaii leaders pause:
» The initiative raises concerns about the impacts of agricultural chemical use. But while better oversight of agricultural pesticides and herbicide is needed, there’s already been a court ruling confirming that this falls within the jurisdiction of the state.
» Small farmers are likely to be affected by this measure, as well as the corporate agrochemical companies that are its primary target.
» Lawmakers should not take the initiative as a signal to enact labeling laws for GMO products, which already have been shown to conflict with federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
» Above all, the science does not support a Draconian restriction of this sort. GMO crops have been demonized primarily as an emotional rebuff to corporate farming and research, and the control exerted over seed patents.
Some of the issues surrounding GMO farming have merit. But they should be tackled within proper state and federal jurisdictions.
This initiative ignores the contribution GMO research already has made to achieve higher crop yields, undeniably necessary in a world facing climate change. It seeks to exclude Hawaii from that global mission. Even worse, it will impede the state’s efforts to further its own sustainable food production. Tuesday’s vote diminished none of those distressing prospects.
