Mahalo, Tribune-Herald
Mahalo, Tribune-Herald
Thank you so very much for the front page coverage of Senate Bill 2777 on Feb. 26, “Concerns raised about agricultural bill.”
More than 330 testimonies were sent in to the Senate committees that hosted a hearing on this bill Feb. 27. Of this, no more than five testimonies supported the measure, with the remainder in opposition.
Senate Bill 2777, with some amendments that only partially address expressed concerns, now awaits hearing before the House Committee on Agriculture.
It is hoped and asked people continue to keep themselves informed and voice their positions and concerns on this and other issues that involve their lifestyle.
Harry Kim
Former Hawaii County mayor
Cosmic abduction?
The missing Malaysian Airlines jet was abducted by space aliens.
Rick LaMontagne
Volcano
Attack on freedom
During her lengthy rebuttal to my earlier letter supporting the rights of GMO farmers, Rene Siracusa, referring to the county ordinance requiring registration of GMO farmers, wrote I made a “claim” that “has no factual merit.” Siracusa is in fact wrong here because in my letter I correctly stated “organic farmers are not required to register with the county as are GMO farmers.”
A comparison of a voluntary USDA certification process for organic farmers with a coercive Hawaii County “registration” law for local GMO farmers is not appropriate. Certification is needed for organic farming because of a demonstrated need to protect public health from the occasional contamination events that characterize organic farming.
However, it would be a stretch to imagine the county’s registration ordinance has anything to do with protecting public health because the county has no means to make such an evaluation of GMO farmers. The farmers are being required to place their names and locations on a list, and will be punished if they do not comply.
The ordinance has the obvious effect of casting unwarranted suspicion on legitimate small businesses in Hawaii County. The greatest reason why even citizens “not for” GMO should be against this type of ordinance is the precedent it sets, opening the door for unscrupulous politicians who happen to not like a particular business to require a registry for (apparently) political purposes, with little practical or scientific merit.
With no obvious public interest in the establishment of such registries, and the great potential for harm to those required to register, I choose to take a stand against these shenanigans.
It is precisely for this reason we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, to prevent local officials from engaging in unjust mischief toward a minority of citizens.
However, I think this county ordinance tramples all over our rights.
Curtis Beck
Hilo