Bringing together community activists, professors and farmers, the political science department and ASUH organized the symposium "Food Forethought" last month to educate the public about genetically modified kalo.
Before the Legislature killed Senate Bill 958, which would have placed a statewide ban on the genetic modification of any Hawaiian taro for ten years, panel members hoped to debunk the image that Hawaiian practices are "unscientific and backwards while Western practices are forward and universal," said Noe Goodyear-Ka‘opua, an assistant political science professor.
Although most who turned out for the event took the anti-GMO side, some community members working in the GMO industry who attended felt that the panel make-up was unfair.
"There's nobody talking about the other side of this issue. At (the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources), from my perspective, we try to be pragmatic and to understand objectively what problems there are and how to solve them," said Richard Manshardt, professor of horticulture and tropical fruit crops.
However, Goodyear-Ka‘opua said that the panel was not meant to bring perspectives from both sides of the issue, but rather to bring a diverse number of voices against the genetic modification of kalo and show its importance on a global level for indigenous self-determination as well as environmental and human health.
Kalo is not owned
The first speakers at the event presented the Hawaiian people's sacred relationship with the kalo.
"According the Kumulipo (Hawaiian genealogical chant) ... the land is the elder sibling, the people the younger, meant to care for each other in a reciprocal relationship," said Hawaiian-language professor Malia Nobrega.
Farmer Val Ching practices this reciprocal lifestyle. "This is my kuleana (responsibilty)," said Ching, who made his first lo‘i after retiring from Western jobs. "Who owns the kalo? No one. We take care of the plant. We're just passing through. You can't change what's been going on for 900 years."
Because of these values, many Hawaiians feel they should be given the right to grow kalo without the interference of GMO.
But Hawaiian world views, including the concept of stewardship over ownership, often clash with Western world views, said Nobrega, who is now looking to protect those cultural values through "indigenizing Western intellectual property rights."
Calling the genetic modification of kalo without permission from Hawaiians a violation of self-determination, Nobrega said, "We suffer violation of our human rights. We reserve the right to preserve our access to cultural practices."
Political science professor George Kent agreed, saying the issue was not one of science but politics: "The question is who should decide?"
"The final decision should go to Native Hawaiians and no one else. If you want to help, ask first," Kent said. "It's very important to have the capacity to say 'no.' Otherwise, 'yes' doesn't mean anything."
Grow local
Gary Forth, owner of Ma‘o Organic Farms, offered another perspective. He spoke about why he believed the non-tampering with kalo and other crops would lead to a more sustainable Hawai‘i.
"Why I have great fears about GMO is because it is a simple replication of the plantation system, which did nothing to feed people or fix valleys depleted of water. ... We're living in a legacy of spilled pesticides," said Forth, whose Wai‘anae farm involves a program to bring indigent Hawaiian youth back to the land.
Forth believes that growing produce organically is profitable and, citing his own profit, said that $800 million could be made from the 8,000 acres of genetically modified corn being grown on O‘ahu. The corn grown is exported, he said, and it is important that Hawai‘i be able to grow a variety of crops in order to be sustainable.
"I believe with the right resources and people, we can produce far more than what the agricultural industry produces," Forth said.
GMO's leniency
While the issue of money and the environment has remained central to the GMO debate, so has the issue of science. Some legislators believe that the bill would send a message to biotech corporations that Hawai‘i is unfriendly to science. Dr. Lorrin Pang, a disease specialist with the State Department of Health, lent his background to contest these views.
Pang drew parallels between his work making genetically engineered vaccines and genetically modified food. Genetically engineered vaccines are thoroughly tested and labeled before entering the market. However, the FDA does not require that GMO food be labeled, considering it "substantially equivalent" to normally grown food. Today, 70 percent of GMO food is not labeled, a fact that Pang finds alarming.
Using the National Academy of Sciences as a source, Pang said that GMO plants are not equivalent to normal plants. "What happens if you eat an inconsistent plant? What happens if you take an inconsistent drug?" Pang said. "You are going to get inconsistent health effects.
"The minute (kalo) comes to my table to eat, you are talking about humans, and I will speak against the eating of (GMO) kalo until its proven safe, until it's proven equivalent of regular kalo."
Pang pointed to the wide genetic variation in plants and how those variations could show up in humans once consumed. "We don't know anything about these foods," he said. "We don't know if they're bad and we don't know if they're good."
GMO proponents are pushing that modifying kalo could save it from disease. However, this also relates to the history of kalo, linking back to the late 19th century, when streams once used for lo‘i were diverted for plantations and for the creation of cities like Honolulu.
"The dispossession of the Hawaiian people is at the root of this issue," said Anne Keala Kelly, a journalist and filmmaker who attended the event.
Kamuela Enos, a Wai‘anae resident who works at Ma‘o Farms, echoed these sentiments: "If we had land and water, we wouldn't need GMO. The idea of genetically modifying kalo to save it is pointless."
Be the first to comment on this article!