Environment
As goes GM, so goes the Ag Board
A new project is approved despite wide opposition
As goes GM, so goes the Ag Board
A new project is approved despite wide opposition
Kristine Kubat
On June 28, in the Natural Energy Lab of Hawai‘i (NELHA) lecture room at Keahole Point near Kailua-Kona, the Hawai‘i State Board of Agriculture heard three and a half hours of testimony in response to a permit application to grow genetically modified algae on the island. Though the board ultimately voted to approve the project, the meeting made clear that the era of clandestine approval for genetic engineering projects is over.
The applicant, Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a local firm best known for the production of astaxanthin, an antioxidant similar to beta-carotene. Mera now proposes to import a GM strain of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii for preliminary testing and growth in its laboratory. If all goes well, the company hopes to produce the strain commercially.
Mera’s partner in the venture is Rincon Pharmaceuticals, a San Diego-based start-up biotech firm headed by CEO Bruce Steel, who with an assistant outlined the proposed research for the board, repeatedly stressing that the plan poses no danger. The board was told that the algae couldn’t escape the laboratory because Mera and Rincon don’t want it to; that even if, somehow, the algae managed to defy its creators and escape, it couldn’t wreak havoc on the ecosystem because they didn’t design it to wreak havoc. A hasty experiment conducted just four weeks prior to the hearing to test whether the algae could survive outside the lab was inconclusive and never subjected to peer review. Still, the presenters relied heavily on this study to substantiate their claims.
The presentation, which differed little from a preliminary public event held four nights earlier at the same location, concluded with public testimony. Speakers were asked to limit their testimony to two minutes—a request that foretold the extent of the board’s interest in what the people had to say.
Strange bedfellows
Opposition to the project was widespread, with roughly 80 percent of the oral testimony urging the board to deny the application. The anti-GMO contingent included farmers, activists, scientists, Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and concerned residents. Honolulu sent some heavy artillery in the form of Isaac Moriwake from EarthJustice and Kat Brady and Henry Curtis of Life of the Land. While Hawai‘i County Council members Angel Pilago and Bob Hoffman were conspicuous in their absence, both attended the earlier public forum and made their opposition to the project known. Bob Jacobson was first at bat on behalf of the public, setting the tone with cogent arguments and a respectful tone. Testimony read on behalf of Maui’s Dr. Lorrin Pang, adviser to the World Health Organization, emphasized the proposal’s potential problems and dismissed as simplistic the claim that these antibodies are safe if inhaled or ingested just because they are found in human tissue. Testimony from Dr. William Walsh, an aquatic biologist, noted uncertainties regarding containment and cited the lack of research to support Mera’s claim that there is no risk involved in GM algae. Cultural anthropologist Dr. Elizabeth Kapu‘uwailani Lindsey eloquently challenged the practice of sacrificing the community’s values for limited financial gains.
Of the 20 percent in favor of the proposal, nearly all had some vested financial interest in the project, ranging from the obvious interests of Mera and Rincon associates to one fresh-faced teen who hopes “to get a high-tech job after graduation.” Cyanotech’s testimony in favor was puzzling. The local micro algae producer grows spirulina in open ponds directly across the road from Mera, which would appear to make the company’s products vulnerable to GMO contamination. Some in attendance speculated that Cyanotech might be angling for its own piece of the bioengineering action because growing spirulina has never been truly profitable. However it came about, this testimony seemed to carry more weight with Ag Board members than the scientific evidence either “for” or “against.”
After a short lunch recess, the board dismissed everyone from the hearing room to consider, in executive session, Isaac Moriwake’s assertion that the project’s use of state lands triggers the environmental review process. Although the public was subsequently re-admitted, no mention was made of the results of that closed discussion. Only later, when the board approved the application by a 6-2 vote, was it clear that the members decided an environmental review was not required.
Wanda knows best?
Anyone not in favor of Linda Lingle’s plan to turn Hawai‘i into the bioengineering capital of the world ought to be worried. The board’s decision to approve Mera’s application turned on logic that was downright inane. They argued that Hawai‘i is being overrun by invasive species anyway so an accidental release of GM algae would just be more of the same. They reasoned that everything humans do, “even getting on a plane,” has risks, so we might as well take the risk of introducing GMOs into the environment. The Board limited its concerns about a possible release to what might happen if the algae comes into contact with human skin or is ingested. When company officials assured them that no one would die from such exposure, members were satisfied, and opted to ignore potential impacts to other life forms. Then, board member Susan Matsushima, President of Alluvion, Inc., reminded those in attendance that our parents used to tell us not to stand in front of the microwave as evidence, apparently, that the algae is safe. Matsushima even invoked as a GMO expert none other than Wanda Adams. Never mind that the World Health Organization, National Institute of Health and the UN Environmental Development Program have all raised concerns about GMOs—if the food editor of the Honolulu Advertiser is on board, so is the Hawai‘i Board of Agriculture.
Public opposition, however, remains strong, and may have some pull. In particular, it turns out that Mera is on the verge of bankruptcy (according to the company’s latest SEC filing) and might not weather calls for a boycott on their only cash crop. Similarly, Cyanotech’s bottom line could suffer from having its name merely associated with GMOs. As for Rincon, Bruce Steel and his VP Scott Franklin were visibly shaken by the vast difference between the board’s warm embrace and the community’s sharp rebuke. In general, all future plans for projects involving genetic engineering will have to include costs for mitigating opposition. As these costs will undoubtedly include the cost of litigation, they could very well be deal breakers.
Meanwhile, EarthJustice is following up on the issue of whether or not an environmental review is indeed required and Life of the Land is looking into the possibility of requesting a contested case hearing to challenge the decision. “The public is outraged,” says Brady. “Our phone has been ringing off the hook.”