An Island Region's Self-rule: Kona Opposes Genetically Engineered Coffee

By Britt Bailey

For a few days a year, the hillside coffee plants in the Kona region of Hawaii's biggest island turn brilliant white, resembling the snows of the inland mountains of the continental United States. Interspersed along Mamalahoa and Queens Highways, the plants toss open their blossoms as if one, and release their sweet fragrance into the dewy air. The Kona coffee plants grow in the region's volcanic soils spread over nearly 600 small family farms. The coffee farms, collectives,- and associations successfully produce and supply an internationally recognized, distinctive product that generates a bountiful economy for the Kona area.

As I walked along the road near our house attempting to identify the tropical plants - mango, avocado, papaya - an older Hawaiian man called out "looks like snow, huh?" Surprised, I said "uh, yes" at the same time I recognized he was referring to the coffee. "How often does it bloom," I asked. "Just a few days a year" and he put his head down and went back to cleaning his yard. I realized I was experiencing something very special - the blooming of a product supported by small family style farmers steeped in evolutionary and agricultural history.

After decades of labor to secure a viable product and economy, the Kona coffee farmers now find themselves protecting their plants not from infestations and invisible blights, but from scientists and policy makers bent on conducting new and potentially dangerous genetic experimentation with coffee. Along with the private Integrated Coffee Technologies, the public University of Hawaii is developing genetically engineered coffee plants designed to withstand pests, produce decaffeinated beans, and control ripening. Perhaps understandably, given its unique commercial product, the Kona region is deeply concerned about genetic contamination to its widely exported crop. Recently, in response to the possibility of field-testing the genetically altered coffee varieties, the Kona Coffee Council, representing the views of nearly 600 farmers, drafted a resolution that opposed the introduction of genetically engineered coffee in the Kona region.

The Kona Coffee Council does not oppose the research per se, but wants regulations and safeguards in place before engineered coffee grows cheek to jowl with their own genetically pristine crop in the volcanic soils of Kona. Kona coffee farmers would like to retain their ability to make decisions for themselves. And, in the event they do accept genetically engineered coffee, they will only do so with proper safeguards in place. Unfortunately, at the moment such safeguards do not exist. No guidelines tell who is liable in the event of cross contamination of their native beans. The cost of labeling is also an issue that looms unresolved.

As it currently stands, should Kona's coffee become contaminated with the DNA from genetically "enhanced" varieties, its world market base could suffer. The coffee crop in Kona is valued at nearly 12 million dollars. With many countries choosing not to accept the importation of genetically engineered crops and others only accepting genetically modified crops with a label, the 650 or so families of farmers and many others involved in the export and roasting could experience economic ruin.

Kona Coffee History
In early February 2003, I was asked to speak to the farmers and University of Hawaii scientists about the social and ethical aspects of this new experiment of genetically engineering coffee. Little did I realize that my mental musings that began with the blooming coffee and continued into a deeper understanding of Hawaii's coffee plants, many over 100 years old, would be put to the test. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture's Plant Quarantine Program began over a hundred years ago when, in 1888, King David Kalakaua decreed that in order to protect the coffee industry, new plants would not be allowed into the Zislands. This protection has resulted in Hawaii's 100-plus year old trees lining the volcanic hillsides with histories as thick as their stalks. The coffee plants are similar to grape vines in their appearance and thrive as a result of assiduous care from generations of family farmers. To weigh the impact of genetically engineered coffee in the Kona region, consider what might result if the University of Sorbonne developed genetically engineered wine grapes and wanted to field-test them in the Bordeaux region of France.

100 Miles Away in Oahu
Less than 100 miles away from Kona's volcanic slopes are the laboratories at the University of Hawaii, where government and industry-sponsored scientists are developing bioengineered coffee plants. The developments include growing decaffeinated beans, creating plants with built-in pest resistance, and designing plants with enhanced ripening characteristics. None of these developments can be said to be needed in the Kona region. In fact, the region boasts a relatively pest free environment. Very few pesticides need to be used. When there is an infestation, the region has had a high success rate using biological controls. But while the Kona region may not need genetically engineered plants, the region is being proposed as a testing site. And, since coffee plants self-pollinate as well as utilize insect pollination, there is a risk of genetic contamination to the established Kona coffee.

Kona and its Autonomy
While the risk of genetic contamination is real, the wishes of the community and its desire to make decisions for itself as a growing region are exceedingly important.

One striking feature of Kona coffee's history includes the efforts spent on the part of the farmers in the region to produce, distribute, and market a product. In the eyes of those hard-working farmers, and in turn their importers, genetic engineering would make their coffee wholly different. And, while there have been countless scientific discussions regarding whether or not genetically engineered plants are actually different, disrupt ecosystems, or impact public health, very little attention is given to the heart of the debate: the social and ethical aspects which deserve thorough attention and consideration. These aspects include considering a region's needs, and the social dislocations that might occur when a product is changed. The economic impacts are equally important. A psychosocial impact could occur as well, were genetically modified plants that are owned by companies or governments to be substituted for plants that were previously tended by families and their ancestors.

No current model of assessing "risk" from genetically engineered plants incorporates these social aspects. No risk assessor can assign a value to a region wanting simply to remain autonomous and free from interference.

In its resolution to oppose the introduction of genetically engineered coffee, the Kona Coffee Council represents the desire of hundreds of coffee growers wanting nothing less than what the European Union has requested - a moratorium on introducing new genetically modified plants. This situation is exactly what the Mexican State of Oaxaca has requested in banning the genetically engineered corn to protect the weedy relative, the teosinte plant.

What are we to make of the Kona region's request that it remain autonomous and able to make decisions for itself?

The 19th century British philosopher, John Stuart Mill argued communities be granted the right to take steps to ensure adequate public discussion of what constitutes the "good" of that community. The democratic decision by the Kona coffee growers appears consonant with this assertion: open forums and discussion protect the integrity of the community's collective wishes. From the community's position, the Kona region is in a remarkable position. Not only can it remain free from genetic pollution because of its island location and isolation in the Pacific, but also it is situated to become the first region in the United States to make autonomous decisions regarding the introduction of genetically engineered organisms. At the moment, the Kona region's right to make decisions for itself and its community are seen by its opponents as superceding the rights of opportunity, progress, and science. But who is to say what is the "good" for Kona if not the people of Kona themselves? Supporting Kona coffee farmers desire to remain free of genetic contamination not only supports the autonomy and freedom of the region, but it ensures the region will be allowed to continue to grow a unique and highly prized product.