������Ƶ

In Hawaii, reform related to anything that puts food on our plates or that constrains profit margins for farming conglomerates is birthed with great difficulty and labor, if at all. Most reform ideas die quiet deaths in legislative committees traditionally chaired by pro-agriculture political leaders.

Such was the case last spring with Senate Bill 1037, a modest measure that would have required agribusinesses to report their pesticide use monthly to the state Department of Agriculture. The bill did not mandate reporting before pesticide spraying took place, simply after the fact. The bill also wouldn’t have required buffer zones around fields where pesticides are being applied, another measure that has long been sought by environmentalists and community activists.

No, those more meaningful requirements and others were quashed in various measures along the way, some without so much as a hearing. That was the fate that SB1037 met, when House Agriculture Chair Clift Tsuji refused to allow it to be taken up by his committee.

Now the state Department of Agriculture is looking to introduce an even more modest reform measure, a statewide adaptation of an effort that until now has been limited to Kauai — the cheerfully titled “Good Neighbor Program.”

Under Good Neighbor, agricultural interests on the Garden Isle voluntarily disclose, after the fact, the amount and types of pesticides they use each month. They also establish 100-foot buffer zones around pesticide applications, and, upon request, will notify those close by before spraying begins.

If agricultural companies statewide actually participate consistently and truthfully in Good Neighbor, the program could dramatically change what is publicly known about use of highly toxic restricted-use pesticides in Hawaii. Currently, the state only releases information on restricted-use pesticide sales, nothing on their use. And it collects no data on commercial applications of general-use pesticides, including such substances as glysophate, known better by its trade name: Round Up.

But that’s a pretty big “if.” Because Good Neighbor would be voluntary, agribusiness is under absolutely no obligation to take part. If farming operations decide their proprietary concerns outweigh the public’s need to know, that the PR aggravation that might accompany disclosure of use of a particular application simply isn’t worth it or they simply don’t feel like going to the trouble, that’s up to them.

Neither the agriculture department, state health or environmental officials or local authorities could require them to do so, and those living, working, studying or otherwise spending time near agricultural operations would be in no different a situation than they are now.

“Without some oversight (the Good Neighbor Program) is based on pure trust of the industry. My experience with the industry is that’s not enough.” — Kauai Councilman Gary Hooser

State Agriculture Director Scott Enright says Good Neighbor is the response to widespread concerns the state has heard from communities troubled by chemicals used by big seed companies growing genetically modified crops.

It may be a response, but a real response — one with teeth — would include mandatory disclosures, penalties for failing to disclose and a publicly accessible website where disclosures and pre-application notifications are all readily available.

We don’t mean to be overly pessimistic. Kauai’s Good Neighbor Program has drawn participation from Syngenta, BASF, Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer. We would like to believe that those companies are doing all that the program asks them to do but we don’t know. Enright wasn’t willing to speak to that now. He says his “discussions with the companies are ongoing.”

While some environmentalists gave the proposed statewide program tepid praise as a first step, Kauai councilman, former legislator and anti-pesticide crusader Gary Hooser was far more criticial, calling Good Neighbor a program that “provides a false sense of security,” leaving residents with “no way of knowing how accurate the numbers are” and using a 100-foot buffer zone that is “woefully inadequate.”

“Without some oversight it’s based on pure trust of the industry,” Hooser told Civil Beat. “My experience with the industry is that’s not enough.”

Meanwhile, the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, the trade group representing seed companies, says the industry’s positive experience with Good Neighbor on Kauai convinced it to join discussions with the state Agriculture Department last March about statewide expansion of the program. The association says the voluntary program under development “will demonstrate our desire to be good neighbors.”

Desiring to be good neighbors is, of course, a good thing. To be willing to be held accountable, though, is the only way that those good intentions may be fairly and accurately judged. Until real accountability is in place, our hope that Big Ag actually will be good neighbors is little more than wishful thinking.