It’s official: The fever pitch surrounding genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) in Hawaii has reached an all-time high.

On Nov. 4, Maui County residents will vote on whether to place an immediate moratorium on cultivating, growing or testing GMO crops until studies can prove the practices are safe. More money has been spent on television ads arguing for and against the Maui GMO initiative than any other local initiative in the country.

Opponents of the Maui initiative argue that the moratorium would eliminate jobs and hurt the local economy while proponents say the moratorium is necessary to protect the public from pesticides and local farmers from the large agrochemical industry.

John Pritchett/Civil Beat

No matter where you fall within this vitriolic and divisive debate — either pro- or anti-GMO — the Maui ballot initiative should be evaluated for what it is: a proposed piece of legislation. And while we are deliberately not taking a stance on the potential merits or dangers of GMOs, we have concluded that the initiative itself falls woefully short of serving the public interest.

To start with, the initiative’s phrasing as it appears on the ballot is hard to understand (read it for yourself below). The GMO debate is an important one for the state of Hawaii, but it is unfair to ask Maui voters to decipher and unpack this incomprehensible legalese while standing in the voter booth.

For the educated voter who seeks out more information, the proposed full ordinance isn’t much help. At 12 pages, it is unnecessarily long, but its flaws are deeper than repetitions and trivialities. As Maui County Mayor Alan Arakawa has noted, the ordinance’s scope is ambiguous and goes beyond targeting just large biotech companies to also include small, local farmers. Arakawa has also said the bill would be almost impossible to administer since, in order to enforce, it would “require the county to become very invasive.”  

But perhaps most disturbing, the logic behind the proposed ordinance is circular and therefore fundamentally flawed. The ordinance proposes a temporary ban until a study proves GMOs are safe, but the parameters defining that study are decidedly vague. Countless studies, for instance, have already been done regarding GMOs, and the two sides currently pick and choose their sources accordingly. Without a more strategic and honest attempt to end the current back and forth, it is difficult to imagine how the supposedly temporary ban would ever be lifted.

Considering the economic impact of a GMO ban, it would be irresponsible to approve such a nebulous construct. As of 2012, seed crops in Hawaii were worth $217 million. That is up from $140 million in 2007. The Maui Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the initiative, notes that if the ban is passed, more than 700 jobs and more than $4 million in state taxes could be lost.  

If Maui voters are going to jeopardize such significant economic contributions, they at least deserve legislation that details how the ban could be lifted.

As an epicenter of new and experimental agricultural practices, Maui County has every right to question big biotech about its safety procedures and policies. Currently, the GMOs that are planted in Hawaii are regulated by multiple federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Interestingly, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently taking up a review of how the USDA and FDA evaluate the long-term safety of GMOs both in the environment and in food. 

Had the Maui initiative been tied to the outcome of the already funded, independent and unbiased study of the GAO, Maui residents would not only understand the terms of the proposed legislation, they could responsibly vote in favor of it.

Instead, this is what they will see on next week’s ballot:

MAUI: Voter Initiative: Genetically Engineered Organisms

Should the proposed initiative prohibiting the cultivation or reproduction of genetically engineered organisms within the County of Maui, which may be amended or repealed as to a specific person or entity when required environmental and public health impact studies, public hearings, a two thirds vote and a determination by the County Council that such operation or practice meets certain standards, and which establishes civil and criminal penalties, be adopted for Maui County?

We encourage you to fill in the “no” box.