Court rulings often give more of a signal than a final word — an appeal can be pursued, putting off resolution for some time to come.
The public should hope the signal has been heard in this case — the persistent dispute between counties and state officials over control of genetically modified organism (GMO) cultivation in Hawaii — and that, instead of further legal delays, action will be taken for reasonable safeguards.
The GMO issue has ignited a national fight between camps — one side asserting that the safety of consuming GMO food crops is not established, with proposals including restricting their cultivation and requirements for labeling. The counterargument is that no harmful elements are in the foods that are consumed, regardless of the means of cultivation.
A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld prior rulings that invalidated ordinances from all neighbor island counties.
On Hawaii island, Maui and Kauai, there has been a particularly expansive research effort by large chemical companies such as Syngenta and Monsanto to test crops that may have been genetically modified to resist herbicides or plant diseases and yield more robust-sized produce. These counties passed laws restricting GMO and seeking tighter regulation of pesticides.
But such oversight is in the hands of the federal and state governments, the court panel affirmed, meaning that rules enforced by agencies at those levels pre-empt anything a county could adopt.
This makes sense not only from a legal standpoint — jurisdictional lines are drawn to prevent governmental conflict — but because of resources and expertise. The state and federal governments simply are better equipped to handle the job.
To the extent that the counties felt unprotected, however — one reason for taking matters into their own hands — state officials need to do a better job.
Counties have sought some rules that were overly harsh, curbing the zones in which pesticide spraying would be allowed. In addition, GMO products have been demonized uncritically and far too broadly. There’s simply no call for a categorical ban or any casual action that unfairly penalizes an industry that employs a lot of people.
But those who have pressed for greater disclosure of pesticides and herbicides in use are on firmer footing.
Especially in an environment such as Hawaii, where residential areas sit close to agricultural activities, the public has a right to know when they potentially could be exposed to toxins in the environment, and to what extent.
It’s fair to say that the fight has been powered in part by money, on both sides. The anti-GMO lobby has raised a lot of it nationally, helping with the organization of numerous local campaigns. And the farming interests, principally the biotech firms, have thrown around their own considerable political weight.
Now it’s time for the state Department of Agriculture to huddle with decisionmakers at the county level to discuss the best approach to rulemaking. Other stakeholders should be in the room to chart the best way forward.
This issue will not fade away. The anti-GMO movement has national standing, so these questions must be addressed.
Advocates for the county rules will be in the halls of the state Legislature in January, as they should, to pressure lawmakers for clearer direction.
What must emerge from all the meetings and drafting of bills is a directive to the department to hold biotech companies plainly accountable and working in a transparent way.
Any solution must strike a difficult balance between public health and the health of agriculture, a sector that Hawaii hopes can recover from years of malaise.
