A bill in Hawaii was introduced in 2013 to ban genetically engineered crops from the island. There was a lot of support from the locals. There were many reports of disease and illness associated with the genetically modified organisms. There was a rise in allergies, super weeds, contaminations, cancer in rats, and the disappearance of butterflies and bees. Some of the council member were unclear about what GMO’s were, and did not understand the potential hazards. Many people wanted Hawaii to be a “G.M.O.-free oasis.” To the staff unaware of the negatives, a simple google search would inform anyone of the potential damage of GMO’s.
The problem with the bill passing was in the doubts of the councilman seeing some of the positive benefits of GMO’s. An genetically engineered variety of papaya saved the islands supply from a disease that would have been potentially devastating. Even some of the reports of GMO’s causing tumors in rats was not proven true. University of Hawaii biologists claimed that genetically engineered crops are no riskier than normal crops, in fact may have positive benefits.
The sponsor of the ban of GMO’s pushed the urgency of the problem. She warned to “act before it’s too late,”. However by banning all new research the possibility of creating more efficiency when growing healthy food during a time of urgency with global warming and increased population. Much of the opposition to GMO’s is compared to the rejection of climate-change science. However this group of opposition is coming from strong liberals unlike climate change being rejected by conservatives.
Scientists have been called out for not assessing the environmental risks associated with some of the new developments they create.
The proposed bill would allow the two already present GMO crops to stay on the island,however $1,000 per day penalty would be fined to anyone trying to go against the bill to create new GMO crops. The information to sort through to make a decision on GMOs was vast and contradictory, it would take years to make an educated decision.
It was argued by G.M.O. Free Hawaii island which includes food activist and entrepreneurs said that the organisms weren’t healthy and may damage their reputation and prices. Another argument was made by a woman who’s child had terrible allergies until switching to a non-GMO diet.
The issue of ownership of certain seeds became a factor when a farmer was sued by Monsanto when patented seeds ended up in their fields by accident. Eventually Mr. Ilagan voted against the ban. He was met with some angry voters. Some very emotional reactions occurred causing a final vote. He eventually passed the bill based on the people who supported the ban.