Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hawaii County Bans Biotech Coffee
The professional anti-biotech alarmists over at the Center for Food Safety are crowing in a press release (not yet available online) that the Hawaii County Council has banned growing biotech coffee and taro. According to the press release:
The new ordinance, which makes it unlawful to grow genetically engineered (GE) coffee or taro anywhere on the Island of Hawaii, was strongly supported by coffee and taro farmers, and passed by a 9-0 vote of the Council on October 9th. ...
Coffee growers testified that the planting of genetically engineered coffee would contaminate and damage markets for their premium Kona coffee, costing them their livelihoods. Many cited past episodes where biotech rice and corn have contaminated conventional varieties, resulting in marketplace rejection, dramatically lower prices, and large losses to farmers.
Coffee farmers argued that they would lose their "specialty coffee" status and/or organic certification if biotech coffee were ever planted on Hawaii Island. The Kona coffee industry brings more than $25 million into the state each year.
Beside fears of "contamination," some residents apparently brought up possible health concerns:
There were compelling testimonies from mothers of children who have complex allergies. Allergic reactions are one potential health threat of biotech crops, and taro is known world-wide as one the most hypo-allergenic foods on earth.
Never mind that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that any of the current varieties of biotech crops cause allergic reactions in people.
The coffee and taro growers should look at what happened to their neighbors who grow biotech papayas. In the 1990s, papaya growing in Hawaii was nearly extinct due to the ringspot virus. Fortunately, researchers developed a biotech variety that resists the virus, thus reviving the industry.
Other researchers have now developed a biotech variety of coffee that is resistant to insects such as the coffee leaf miner. Perhaps those nice Kona coffee growers will change their minds about biotech should the leaf miner ever make it to Hawaii.
SIV|10.16.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Once those anti-science Republicans are out on their ass we won't have to worry about superstitous fears of GM crops. Right?
Jozef|10.16.08 @ 11:43AM|#
"Never mind that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever
that any of the current varieties of biotech crops cause allergic
reactions in people."
That may be so, but I as a consumer reserve the right to remain
paranoid. I do understand that governmental intervention is never
good, but given that there is the chance of contamination, I see it
as the lesser evil towards maintaining greater consumer choice.
Jay|10.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Maybe I missed it in the story or the links, but is it NOT
possible for the bio coffee to contaminate the Kona coffee?
That absolutely cannot be allowed to happen. Kona is one of the top
coffees in the world...
B|10.16.08 @ 11:49AM|#
While I agree that the threat of biotech crops is massively overblown (or at least not currently supported by sound science) it's hard for me to blame the specialty coffee growers for wanting to preserve their brand. The perception matters more than the reality, especially in the markets geared toward people affluent enough to worry about GM crops (i.e., specialty coffee).
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Never mind that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever
that any of the current varieties of biotech crops cause allergic
reactions in people.
This is due in large part to the fact that biotech crops are tested
carefully to control potential harms from allergenic
proteins.
There is a well understood potential for the problem, and biotech
firms and government regulations have put rules in place to screen
out the dangerous varieties.
Of course this system will never breakdown and miss a potential
allergen.
It is disingenuous to try to characterize concerns over allergens
as scientifically unfounded.
This potential danger has never manifest, therefore it will never
manifest?
Mad Max|10.16.08 @ 11:52AM|#
If consumers insist on buying only, like, *organic* coffee, man,
and you're marketing to those consumers, you want some way to
reassure the consumer that the coffee isn't contaminated by that
evil, capitalist GE stuff. To avoid having your brand diluted by
fraudsters who grow GE coffee and misbrand it organic when selling
to hippies and neo-hippies, then it makes sense to have some
consumer-fraud regulations.
If, on the other hand, you're marketing to consumers who don't care
if there's evil capitalist genes in their coffee, you should have
the right to use GE materials. In a community where a large
proportion of growers are marketing to hippie market, then it a
perfectly reasonable accomodation of the competing interests to
require that GE coffee be clearly labelled as such, so that the
"organic" growers won't have to risk a boycott from the
granola-crunchers.
If this law bans GE coffee entirely, or if it's based on fake-ass
health rationales, then it's a bad law.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 11:53AM|#
That absolutely cannot be allowed to happen.
QFT. Fresh Kona coffee drank in Kona is an unmatched coffee
drinking experience.
|10.16.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Neu: Who ever said "never"? But how about now? What's the "evidence" allegedly being cited to show that current crops cause allergies?
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Ron,
Did my point get past you.
Your words have implications.
Your sentence implies that there is no potential harm because it
was written in the context of the following:
Allergic reactions are one potential health threat of biotech
crops, and taro is known world-wide as one the most hypo-allergenic
foods on earth.
There is a well recognized and well understood potential threat,
never mind that it has not yet manifested due to careful testing
and regulation.
But, because you are ideologically against government regulation,
you can't make the point this way.
"Yes, there is a potential threat, but careful regulation of the
industry means that the threat has not yet materialized and is
exceedingly small."
|10.16.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Not only is there no scientific evidence that current GE crops
cause allergic reactions, but GE technology could actually be used
to remove allergens from food.
It's even less of a modification than inserting a gene. All you
have to do is supress the expression of the gene responsible for
the allergen.
Of course, it's technically possible to introduce an allergen into
a food. But it's unlikely anyone would knowingly use a gene that
codes for an allergen for that reason. There's a remote possibility
that complex genetic interactions could create a new allergen, or
someone might have an extremely rare allergy that noone has ever
heard of. But that goes for conventional cross-breeds too. What's
more likely to introduce a new allergen? A specific gene insertion,
or a wild-variety cross that cuts in millions of new alleles?
thoreau|10.16.08 @ 12:06PM|#
I want to see a farmer sue the organic farm next door on the
grounds that pollen from the organic plants crossed his property
line, got into his high tech plants, and produced plants that
aren't as bug-resistant/disease-resistant/whatever.
I have nothing against organic farming, but it would make for an
interesting case.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Hazel,
A wild variety cross is more likely to introduce a new
allergen.
So, what of an unintentional cross between a GE crop and a wild
variety (the concern that motivates the law under
discussion)?
Does the fact that one half of that cross is GE reduce, increase,
or change the risk compared to two wild types?
|10.16.08 @ 12:10PM|#
They're also trying to ban plastic bags on the Big Island. And the Big Island is the LEAST left-leaning of the Neighbor Islands. Kauai had protesters shut down the Superferry to their island, because apparently an island devasted by a hurricane recently doesn't need a way to quickly move emergency vehicles to the island if a recurrence should occur.
|10.16.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Pretty much all the food we eat is genetically modified and engineered. I mean, look at wild maize versus the bloated mutated ears of corn we eat, and ask if this is a natural food unmodified by people. Apparently being efficient about the modification is the sticking point that galls these protesters.
|10.16.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Neu Mejican:
I see no scientific reason to think that a GE type crossing with
wild species is more liekly to create an allergen than a
conventional type.
The allergen would be coming from the wild species either way.
Plus, most farmers would not be growing an accidental wild cross
commercially, anyway, since it wouldn't yield well. It takes
generations for plant breeders to refine a wild cross to the point
where it can be used commerically. Whether they started with a GE
type or conventionally bred plant is irrelevant by that point.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:18PM|#
prolefeed,
Not, I think, quite accurate.
Some protest because they see the potential for a newer technology
to replace a technology that they prefer.
Think of the reaction of vinyl lovers when the CD came out. Same
thing for many.
|10.16.08 @ 12:21PM|#
So before we go any further afield on this allergen thing:
If my boy is allergic to peanuts, is it then required by law that
my neighbor not grow them?
Also, taro could go totally extinct and I wouldn't shed a tear.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Hazel,
I see no scientific reason to think that a GE type crossing
with wild species is more liekly to create an allergen than a
conventional type.
Agreed. Once the GE plant is in the environment the careful control
you mention goes away.
The allergen would be coming from the wild species either
way.
I believe this is not necessarily true. The allergen would come
from the interaction, no? Otherwise where would they come from in
two wild types that were hypoallergenic?
Plus, most farmers would not be growing an accidental wild
cross commercially, anyway, since it wouldn't yield
well.
This is quite an assumption. It takes generations for plant
breeders to get a particular trait to work, but there is no reason
to assume that the cross breed will automatically result in lower
yields.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 12:34PM|#
it's hard for me to blame the specialty coffee growers for
wanting to preserve their brand.
AKA Rent seeking.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Of course this system will never breakdown and miss a
potential allergen.
It is disingenuous to try to characterize concerns over allergens
as scientifically unfounded.
This potential danger has never manifest, therefore it will never
manifest?
Neu, if someone has an allergic reaction to a GE variety, is it the
the "GE'ness" of it, or is it an allergic reaction that one might
have to 'organic' peanuts, for example?
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Paul,
That depends upon whether the allergen resulted from the GE or not.
If the allergy results from a specific change made by the GE
process, then, I suppose, to use your odd terminology, it would
result from the GE'ness of the crop.
See Hazel's comment above.
|10.16.08 @ 12:40PM|#
"In a community where a large proportion of growers are
marketing to hippie market, then it a perfectly reasonable
accomodation of the competing interests to require that GE coffee
be clearly labelled as such, so that the "organic" growers won't
have to risk a boycott from the granola-crunchers."
Is it also a prefectly reasonable accommodation to require that
foods be labeled "non-kosher"? Why not let the burden of labeling
remain with the organic-types?
Citizen Nothing|10.16.08 @ 12:41PM|#
I actually prefer coffee from Molokai Coffee Plantation to the
Kona stuff.
But I normally drink whatever is cheapest at Meijer.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 12:41PM|#
pollen from the organic plants crossed his property line,
got into his high tech plants, and produced plants that aren't as
bug-resistant/disease-resistant/
Or a pesticide maker who sues GE famers for making everyone's crops
more pest-resistant.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Or a pesticide maker who sues GE famers for making
everyone's crops more pest-resistant.
Monsantos sues Monsantos?
|10.16.08 @ 12:47PM|#
I *AM* one of those Kona farmers. Turns out that a number of
foreign countries won't buy coffee from us if it is GMO. Foreign
buys pay a premium price for our coffee.
Large coffee producers are pushing for GMO. They say they don't
sell to Japan and thus the estriction on GMO is unimportant. These
are the same companies taking 10% pure Kona, mixing it with 90%
garbage coffee from India, Pakastan or Viet Nam and passing it off
as a Kona Blend. To them it is just money. If the Kona name goes
down because of problems, they just switch to Jamacian.
A poster notes theer is no scientific evidence to support concern,
that statement fails to note that every day we develop new methods
to detect things. We continue to find that drugs that passed strict
tests, maim and kill people and are withdrawn from the market, even
after the companies spent millions of dollars and had Government
oversight and approval. because we don't have any CURRENT evidence
is not good enough.
With GMO, once done, not easily undone.
In a broader view:
The concerns over Superferry were valid when one considers that
Hawaii is an very enclosed and remote location. We laready have ben
overrun with frogs that hid in a countainer plant and have pread
throughout the county (the size of a small state). Now those frogs
are appearing on other islands remote from us. They are being
carried by autos and in other plants.
Hawaii has strict agricultural and animal controls. We have no
rabies. We have many unique and endangered plants and
animals.
Until the missionaries and explorers came, the millions of
Hawaiians here had no major diseases and lived to old ages. Within
a decade or two, perhaps 90% of the Hawaiians died after being
exposed to measles, rubella, plague, TB, etc.
You wonder why they resist change.
The Hawaiian Islands are the most remote inhabitated area and we
don't like change and experimentation. They call this paradise
primarily because we don't bend to every idea and change that has
contaminated the rest of the world.
Perhaps the reason people want to test things here is because their
test bed back home has already been contaminated?
If the scientists KNEW what they were doing, they wouldn't call
these "TRIALS"...
Paul|10.16.08 @ 12:48PM|#
See Hazel's comment above.
I noticed the discussion after I posted my comment.
And I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about my
terminology.
I guess I'm not convinced that the possible accidental
release of an allergenic crop variety should be the impetus of a
ban for any genetically modified variety.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:53PM|#
The Hawaiian Islands are the most remote inhabitated area
and we don't like change and experimentation. They call this
paradise primarily because we don't bend to every idea and change
that has contaminated the rest of the world.
Interesting since 90% or more of the plants on the Islands are not
indigenous.
Of course, Hawaii does have a long history of experience with
unintentional and intentional contamination of the pristine
environment.
Mosquitoes were intentionally introduced to the Islands and killed
a huge percentage of the unique bird life on the Island, for
instance.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Perhaps the reason people want to test things here is
because their test bed back home has already been
contaminated?
Fair enough. After testing, if the GM varieties are found to not be
allergenic, would you allow them to be grown on the island?
Monsantos sues Monsantos?
Absolutely. They contribute to both sides of the isle, you
know.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Mosquitoes in Hawaii.
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~biocomp/hawaii.php
Mosquitoes are thought to have been introduced by a merchant ship
emptying its bilge waters in revenge for being denied access to the
Hawaiian women by missionaries...or something, iirc.
Guy Montag|10.16.08 @ 1:28PM|#
That's it! I am NOT going through Hawaii when I leave the country after the election.
|10.16.08 @ 1:39PM|#
The Hawaiian Islands are the most remote inhabitated area
and we don't like change and experimentation.
So how did they feel about it being colonized and made into an
invaluable strategic outpost before becoming a US state?
|10.16.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Seriously, screw these farmers anyway. If we can create GM coffee in a lab, we sure as hell can grow it in a warehouse. And sell it for cheaper. I admit to being somewhat bitter because everyone I've ever met from "Hawa'ii" is a stuck up snobby a-hole. And here I was thinking they were all as cool as Magnum P.I....
|10.16.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Neu Mejican :
"I believe this is not necessarily true. The allergen would come
from the interaction, no? Otherwise where would they come from in
two wild types that were hypoallergenic? "
This is speculative. Thus far we really don't have a lot of
evidence that gene interaction will result in the creation of new
proteins at all.
Gene do interact, but it's more like the specific protein they code
for interacts with other proteins in complex ways. As far as anyone
can tell, one gene still codes for one protein. And it's the
protein which is the allergen.
Moreover, even if genetic interactions do create new proteins,
there's no reason to think that a "conventional" gene as opposed to
a "GE" gene is going to interact with a new wild-type gene
differently. There's not really a physical difference between a
"GE" gene and a "conventional" gene anyway. The difference is in
how they get into the cell, not what they do once they get there.
All genes are made up of the same four base-pairs, whether they
were inserted into the cell artificially or cross-bred into
it.
So again, really no scientific evidence that GE crops are more
likely to introduce new allergens than other conventional breeding
techniques. Er, Not only no evidence, but no theoretical reason to
think so. It's very far into the realm of speculation to suggest
that they would.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 2:28PM|#
So again, really no scientific evidence that GE crops are
more likely to introduce new allergens than other conventional
breeding techniques. Er, Not only no evidence, but no theoretical
reason to think so.
You see, this is what I've always understood. That worrying about
new allergens in modified foods isn't even the right question to be
asking. Is this not true?
Paul|10.16.08 @ 2:30PM|#
You wonder why they resist change.
So Hawaiian's aren't swinging Obama, then.
|10.16.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Regardless of the contamination article, this seems to me to be a question of property rights. Can I do something on my property that in effect destroys the value of your property. I mean, if I wanted to save money on having my trash picked up, can I just throw it on your lawn? If not, then I don't see why you have the right to grow something for profit at the expense of someone else's property. I think the one doing the polluting has the responsibility to either prevent the pollution or make a deal with the people that are having their land polluted.
|10.16.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Paul: That's right, the scientific consensus is reflected in the
NAS position that the potential risks of a new organism should be
evaluated according to "the nature of the organism and the
environment into which it is introduced, not by the process by
which it was produced".
In other words, it's irrelevant how the gene got there, by gene
splicing or crossbreeding, what matters is what the gene codes for
and it's effect on the organism. Which would entail treating GE and
conventionally bred crops the same way, although GE crops are
currently more highly regulated.
|10.16.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Robbie, but it's not pollution. Lets say your neighbor runs a
company that sells magic crystals to people believe in psychic
healing.
These people think that having raunchy biker joint next to the
place where the crystals are packaged will pollute the psychic
energy in them.
Never mind that the entire thing is a figment of their imagination.
The guy selling the magic healing crystals says that you can't open
a biker joint because it will negatively affect his business, cause
the psychic healers will think there's something wrong with his
crystals.
The issue is, do the ill-founded fears of one group of irrational
people constitute a justification to restrict the freedom of
rational people?
Paul|10.16.08 @ 2:45PM|#
If not, then I don't see why you have the right to grow
something for profit at the expense of someone else's property. I
think the one doing the polluting has the responsibility to either
prevent the pollution or make a deal with the people that are
having their land polluted.
All of this is reasonable and true. I'm not sure if the
contamination issue is settled to be a major problem, however. We
know the enviro's believe it is. A quick search of GE Contamination
turns up plenty of articles (I'm not knocking merit, here) from
sources with an interest: Greenpeace, BeyondPesticides,
Organicconsumers.org, Earthopennetwork,
sustainableforestnetwork.com, etc. It's sort of like searching on a
global warming issue and getting hits from: greeningearthsociety,
globalwarminghoax.com, rushlimbaugh.com etc.
|10.16.08 @ 2:50PM|#
"All of this is reasonable and true. I'm not sure if the
contamination issue is settled to be a major problem,
however."
Maybe not, but the perception of a problem could itself be a
problem. Truth is some consumers don't want GMO to pass their lips.
If you introduce GMO crops that can cross polinate, even if they
don't, and even if it isn't a problem anyway - if that hurts your
neighbors business - isn't that a violation of his property rights?
It's an aggression!
Paul|10.16.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Maybe not, but the perception of a problem could itself be a
problem.
Definitely. For instance, I'm breathing air which has carried or
blown by GE pollen. I'm worried. Something should be done.
I'm just not sure if caving to every irrational fear is good
policy, even if it appeases a few interests.
|10.16.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Hazel, that is an interesting point. I think it is still more
complicated than that and we have to be careful of logical slippery
slopes. At what point do you consider the way consumers value
things "reasonable"?
Say party A owned an art gallery. Party B opens a store next door
that produces a chemical byproduct that degrades the paint on some
of the paintings, causing it to run. Does party B have the right to
do this and cost A money by destroying the value of A's paintings?
I would say no.
I think the difference here is that in your crystal example,
nothing was physically *actually* happening. I'm still trying to
wrap my brain around whether or not that makes a difference, but
there seems to be some line of reasonableness that has to be
crossed for something to be considered disallowed because it
devalues property. Just because the value is perceived by some and
not others, such as psychic crystals which are nonsense in the
first place, does not make it less valuable to the owner.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Hazel,
We don't disagree on the science, but we seem to be emphasizing
things differently.
You say: "So again, really no scientific evidence that GE crops are
MORE likely to introduce new allergens than other conventional
breeding techniques. Er, Not only no evidence, but no theoretical
reason to think so. It's very far into the realm of speculation to
suggest that they would."
I say: "So again, really no scientific evidence that GE crops are
LESS likely to introduce new allergens than other conventional
breeding techniques."
And
In other words, it's irrelevant how the gene got there, by gene
splicing or crossbreeding, what matters is what the gene codes for
and it's effect on the organism. Which would entail treating GE and
conventionally bred crops the same way, although GE crops are
currently more highly regulated.
This partly due to the fact there are means and methods for doing
so, partly.
|10.16.08 @ 3:05PM|#
"Definitely. For instance, I'm breathing air which has carried
or blown by GE pollen. I'm worried. Something should be done.
I'm just not sure if caving to every irrational fear is good
policy, even if it appeases a few interests."
I'm an organic coffee farmer (not really) and I don't give a flying
rats ass about GMO - but my customers do. They will stop buying my
product if I can no longer claim that my coffee is GMO free. Some
new entrant to the market wants to compete in a way that will
damage my credibility of GMO purity. If we are "caving" to any
interests, it's my interest in protecting the purity of my product,
and the enforcement of my right not to be interfered with by my
neighbor. Irrational though the fear may be, it still harms me.
What is my remedy? Try to educate my skeptical customers that GMO
is ok?
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 3:05PM|#
More on GE and allergens.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2D7113AF936A25753C1A9649C8B63
|10.16.08 @ 3:07PM|#
You know, if this were any decent SF story, we would have come
up with a snappier name by now, other than "biotech" coffee. Can
you get any drier?
I will suggest "that got damn splicer coffee." It's got a nice
sound to it.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 3:08PM|#
I think the difference here is that in your crystal example,
nothing was physically *actually* happening.
Sometimes simple analogies are good, sometimes not. This is a case
where I don't think they're doing anyone a service.
No one's going to disagree that if you're poisoning or causing
visible, tangible, tracable damage to the property of a neighbor
that your activities should be curtailed. But this biotech issue is
very complicated.
There are many layers to be considered. What contamination? How
much? What are the results, if any? If we can detect results, are
they harmful?
|10.16.08 @ 3:13PM|#
"What contamination? How much? What are the results, if any? If
we can detect results, are they harmful?"
It seems like everyone is concerned about the science. Whatever the
case, it's a very difficult to prove anything - and not really
necessary. I argue that the only thing necessary for the
introduction of GMO to be an aggression is that it makes my crop
less marketable. If the organic farmer can show that he is likely
to be harmed, they ought to be able to regulate against it.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 3:15PM|#
If the organic farmer can show that he is likely to be
harmed, they ought to be able to regulate against it.
Reasonable argument on the surface, until the harm being done is
competitive harm. Ie, I don't think that another book store should
open on this block because, well, people might buy books from him
and I might be harmed.
I don't think it's unprecedented in politics to try to shut down
competitors on the premise of health or safety.
|10.16.08 @ 3:18PM|#
"Reasonable argument on the surface, until the harm being done
is competitive harm."
I'd be totally with you on that if the analogy were correct. But
it's not. The GMO coffee does more than undercut my coffee on price
- it literally affects the perceived quality of my product. Like
your bookstore has a dehumidifier that dumps water on my floor and
makes my books musty and un-saleable.
|10.16.08 @ 3:23PM|#
because we don't have any CURRENT evidence is not good
enough.
You want future evidence? Where's that temporal anomoly I
had?
So, we should sit here, hands folded in lap, and never do anything,
because, well, something bad might happen? It's kinda hard to
prove, about anything, that nothing bad will ever happen,
ever.
If the scientists KNEW what they were doing, they wouldn't call
these "TRIALS"...
If scientists knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be science. It
would just be normal.
Kolohe|10.16.08 @ 3:39PM|#
The concerns over Superferry were valid when one considers
that Hawaii is an very enclosed and remote location. We laready
have ben overrun with frogs that hid in a countainer plant and have
pread throughout the county (the size of a small state). Now those
frogs are appearing on other islands remote from us. They are being
carried by autos and in other plants.
I'd respect the anti-super ferry argument if Kauai also prevented
Young Brothers from docking there.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 3:42PM|#
your bookstore has a dehumidifier that dumps water on my
floor and makes my books musty and un-saleable.
Here we go again. This is what I'm trying to avoid. This isn't
quite that simple. It's more like a restaraunt moves in next door,
and you're convinced that potential cooking odors are going to
damage your business. They might, they might not.
|10.16.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Paul - your right that my analogy is incomplete - yours was too.
Analogy really isn't the best way to look at this. Lets agree that
I am concerned that the bookstore/restaurant/GMO farm will damage
my business. The science people can go back and forth on whether
the beans cause allergies or not - what I am suggesting is that the
standard of proof of harm is much lower than proving my product
will actually be damaged.
All I have to show is that profits and hence the value of my
business will be damaged because of perceived contamination (not
simply competition, as you rightly argue). Normally I would argue
that there should be no regulation - and I could sue you for
nuisance if I wanted to make you stop. But, in this case, the harm
cannot be undone by suing you and making you close up shop - the
perception of contamination is irreversable.
DannyK|10.16.08 @ 3:55PM|#
So how did they feel about it being colonized and made into
an invaluable strategic outpost before becoming a US
state?
As someone who used to live in Hawaii, I can tell you there's a
serious separatist movement there. There was a very dodgy coup that
deposed the local Hawaiian monarchy and installed a
white-controlled legislature that later negotiated statehood.
Obviously, nothing is going to change at this point in history, but
the Native Hawaiians have a valid grudge IMHO. That's one reason
Hawaiian affairs have a particular status in local politics, as
opposed to Indian affairs in most mainland states.
Guy Montag|10.16.08 @ 3:56PM|#
The anti-biotech crowd sounds like the segregationists of the
past. They are afraid of mud-species and all that.
Next thing you know, they will be firebombing schools of hybrid
fish.
I believe Sen. Obama would agree that this is a correct
analogy.
|10.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Well, paint melting example is actual physical damage. But
pollen from GE crops doesn't really do any damage. There's no
scientific evidence it does, and no theoretical reason to think it
would. So it's not analagous.
The consumers reacting to GE cross-pollination are reacting to a
*perceived*, not an actual difference in quality, based on a slight
but irrelevent physical effect.
Anyway, cross pollination hardly affects coffee since the bushes
must be grown for years, and obviously are going to be purchased
from a nursury, not grown from seed. It's not even like corn where
some people want to save seed year to year. Cross pollination
shouldn't even matter.
There's this old philosophical problem that might apply here.
Suppose there's a raging mob that's threatening to burn the town
down killing thousands of people. You can placate the mob by
executing an innocent man on the spot, thus saving thousands of
lives, by killing one. Would it be moral to do so? Most
libertarians would answer no (I hope).
The analogy here is that the GMO farmer is the innocent person
getting executed. The raging mob is the gang of consumers with
irrational fears. The innocent people who will get killed by the
mob are the non-GMO farmers whose profits will be hurt if GE is
introduced. And the sheriff who has to decide whether to execute
the man is the government.
|10.16.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Just realized that wasn't too clear where I was going....
Basically, saying that the government should ban GE because some
consumers irrationally perceive a difference in quality is
analagous to saying that the sheriff should execute the innocent
man to save your life. The GE farmer objectively hasn't harmed you
or the mob. You're only threatened because the mob THINKS he has.
So it's the mob that is the threat to you. If you wouldn't shoot an
innocent person to save your family from a mob, then you shouldn't
want to stop an innocent person from growing what he wants to save
your business from the mob.
Jennifer|10.16.08 @ 4:06PM|#
But it's not. The GMO coffee does more than undercut my
coffee on price - it literally affects the perceived quality of my
product.
Key word being "perceived." The product itself has not changed,
people's opinions of it might, however. In that regard, I think the
earlier analogy of the biker bar next door to the psychic-crystal
store is perfectly apt: the crystals are identical in either case,
it's only opinions about them that might change. That's not
sufficient cause to limit someone else's use of their property.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Answered my own question:
The coffee plant was first brought to Kona in the nineteenth century by Samuel Reverend Ruggles from Brazilian cuttings,[1] although it was not until much later in that century that it became a consistent and worthwhile crop.
I'm sort of thinking that if we're trying to return Hawaii to it's
original, pure state, that we need to eradicate this blight from
paradise.
Purity, always a bogus concept.
Guy Montag|10.16.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Crystals and Bikers analogy.
I submit that the bikers are running the crystal meth store and it
would not be so profitable if it were not for the war on some
drugs.
Paul|10.16.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Oh this is too rich.
Different varieties are grown throughout the state. Most common is Typica grown in Kona.In order to protect the public from counterfeit Hawaiian coffees , the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture began certifying all Hawaiian coffees, by origin (island - district) in 1997.
Protect that native Hawaiian "real" coffee from those evil white
missionary versions. Oh wait.
Born in Brookfield, CT, Ruggles studied at the mission school at Cornwall before sailing with the first company of American missionaries [to Hawaii] in 1819. He and his wife, Nancy Wells Ruggles (1791-1873), future mother of six children, helped to establish two missions in the Hawaiian Islands; one at Waimea, Kaua'i, with the Samuel WHITNEYs, and another, at Hilo, with the Joseph GOODRICHes.
Ouch.
Kolohe|10.16.08 @ 4:40PM|#
As someone who used to live in Hawaii, I can tell you
there's a serious separatist movement there
Just as a nitpick, the *soveriegnty* movements are a serious
political force. The *seperatists* movements are a no more than a
handful of kooks.
Neu Mejican|10.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Paul | October 16, 2008, 4:20pm | #
Answered my own question:
The coffee plant was first brought to Kona in the nineteenth
century by Samuel Reverend Ruggles from Brazilian cuttings,[1]
although it was not until much later in that century that it became
a consistent and worthwhile crop.
I'm sort of thinking that if we're trying to return Hawaii to it's
original, pure state, that we need to eradicate this blight from
paradise.
Purity, always a bogus concept.
Except ideological purity, of course.
MJ|10.16.08 @ 10:08PM|#
"Anyway, cross pollination hardly affects coffee since the
bushes must be grown for years, and obviously are going to be
purchased from a nursury, not grown from seed."
Well, except that what's consumed in coffee is the seed. If the
substance of the coffee bean is controlled by the genetics of the
parent plant, you'd be right. If it's controlled by the genetics of
the embryo offspring plant, then it's still a concern, to the
extent that it should be a concern at all. I don't know enough
about seed developemnt to know the answer to that.
|10.17.08 @ 2:35AM|#
MJ: Not so. The only thing in the seed is the gene. The
snippet of DNA. The protein it codes for isn't expressed in the
seed. The seed has to be planted and develop into the full grown
plant for the gene to express itself in the daughter plant.
If you think eating DNA is unsafe, though, you can pretty much stop
eating.
|10.17.08 @ 2:43AM|#
For anyone interested, I found an excellent site on GMOs
here:
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/gmo.html
This is not an industry sponsored site. It appears to be an
educational outreach created by scientists in the biotech
community. (Which is about freaking time).
Carl|10.17.08 @ 6:24AM|#
This is a religious thing for Native Hawaiians, since in their native religion, taro is believed to be the ancestor of the people or some such. Thus, it is bad to mess with their DNA, much as human DNA presumably oughtn't be messed with.
|10.17.08 @ 11:29AM|#
I don't think anyone has mentioned a valid concert that the GM crop could contaminate(pollinate?) the organic crop and the GM patent holder could then sue for misappropriation of his product. Such as has happened with Roundup resistant crops.
|10.17.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Bob, you're referring to Percy Schmeiser. You can look up the
whole story on the sitel inked above.
Mr. Schmeiser didn't just accidentally acquire Roundup Ready crops.
He selected for them by spraying his feild with Roundup, then
deliberately saving seeds from the surviving plants. He knew what
he was doing. And every Canadian court up to the supreme court
agreed that it was patent infringement.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245