Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
ethnobiologyHI group:

Will you be volunteering at Lyon Arboretum on Sat, Apr 8 9am-2/3pm?

   o yes
   o no


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ethnobiologyHI/surveys?id=2171888

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Aloha all,
I think it is a great idea to work in the Lyon Ethnobotany Section.

Especially with regard to 'Awa you definitely need to contact Kawika
Winter (kwinter@...) who planted a good part of the collection,
and surely can help with an overview before you start mapping.
He was responsible for the ethnobotany section when he still worked
at Lyon, and helped to improve it quite a lot. He was also the person
who brought Halau ku Mana to Lyon, and started the Loi restauration
project.

Greetings,
Rainer Bussmann

>There is 1 message in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Fwd: Volunteers for ethno bot section
>            From: "Timothy J Gallaher" <tjgallaher@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:34:43 -1000
>    From: "Timothy J Gallaher" <tjgallaher@...>
>Subject: Fwd: Volunteers for ethno bot section
>
>Okay we are on for April 8th with the Lyon Arboretum for work in the
>ethnobotany collection and potluck.  Please forward information to people
>you know.  Actually lets try this...  You must  let at least 10 people know
>within 48 hours or else the world will end.. or other bad things..
>
>Please confirm if you can make it.
>
>As a reminder this is an opportunity for a long term partnership with the
>Lyon Arboretum to bring their Ethnobotany section up to a productive and
>educationally useful collection.  This would start with the following three
>ongoing projects.
>
>The first is maintaining, mapping and a good data base for the ava
>collection.
>
>The second would be the same for a collection of sweet potatoes.
>
>The last would be the restoration of a loi that Beatrice Krauss
>actually built. It has little to do with traditional loi, and more to
>do with restoring a work by the women who gave us the garden.
>
>Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>Thanks
>
>Tim
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Kenneth Seamon <gardener@...>
>Date: Mar 14, 2006 8:56 AM
>Subject: Re: Volunteers for ethno bot section
>To: Timothy J Gallaher <tjgallaher@...>
>
>Tim,
>
>Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but needed to work the time
>out up here. We are okay for April 8th. I will need to leave Lyon at
>8:00am and will not be back until around 9:00. We could either start at
>9:00, or you could come earlier and I will have the gate open for you.
>
>We can have the potluck in the ethno garden, but will have mosquitoes.
>If you want to have it in the upstairs classroom I can try, but there
>may be another group using the classroom.
>
>I look forward to working with you guys.
>
>ken
>On Mar 10, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Timothy J Gallaher wrote:
>
>>  Hi Ken,
>>
>>  So far I have about 5 people interested in participating (And I am
>>  sure more will be interested) in one or all of the projects that you
>>  emailed about.  The earliest day everyone can meet is Saturday April
>>  8th.  Would this be a good day for you?  I am hoping for a long term
>>  involvement of the Ethnobiology Society with Lyons.  Perhaps we can do
>>  some work and learn more about the projects.  I will ask everyone to
>>  bring food/drink for potluck.  Should we bring anything else?
>>
>>  Let me know if that day is good for you.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Tim
>>
>>  tim
>
>
>[This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Dr. Rainer W. Bussmann
Scientific Director Harold L. Lyon Arboretum
and Associate Professor
University of Hawaii at Manoa
3860 Manoa Road, Honolulu, HI 96822-1180
tel (808) 988-0457  fax (808) 988-0462
cell (808) 349-7710
www.lyonarboretum.com
email: bussmann@...

I received the following email regarding this rally and the BOR
meeting. Thought you might want to know about it.

The BOR meeting is at 9:30am on Thursday, so I can't go because of
class, but those of you who were interested in getting a ride to
LCC, you can contact Ikaika, her info is included.

-Marian



From   Ikaika Hussey <ihussey@...>
Sent  Monday, March 13, 2006 12:22 am
To  Marian Chau <mmchau@...>
Subject  UARC
Attachments  bachman-rally.pdf 54K

Hi Marian:

I'm writing to follow up. The BOR agenda for the March 16 meeting
just came out, and UARC's not on the agenda. They've played this
tactic with us for more than a year, where they play with the
calendar. We're scheduling a rally for Wednesday March 15 at
Bachman
Hall, 11:30-1 pm, calling attention to how the administration has
ignored student concerns on UARC, kalo, tuition increases, dorms,
etc. Hope you can make it, and please bring friends.

Also, we're still going to hold signs at the LCC meeting. Let me
know
if you and your friends still need a ride.

Aloha Aina,
Ikaika 221-2843

Aloha Kakou,

I posted some photos from the kalo protest. Sorry it took a while, and
the quality isn't the highest (taken with my phone), but it gives you
a good feeling of just how important one plant can be to so many people.

Marian

Sounds good to me - I'm in.
-Marian

----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy J Gallaher <tjgallaher@...>
Date: Thursday, March 9, 2006 6:38 pm
Subject: [ethnobiologyHI] Lyon Arboretum
To: ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com

<span><p><span><p>


<tt>
Okay how about Saturday April 8th as a volunteer day up at the Lyon<BR>
Arboretum.&nbsp; Sounds like many people have obligations on March 18.&nbsp;
<BR>
From Ken's email it sounds like there are a number of interesting<BR>
projects.&nbsp; If we can get together one day for an orientation/work<BR>
party/potluck then further work can be either organized or more ad<BR>
hoc.&nbsp; How mant would like to get together on April 8th?<BR>
<BR>
Tim<BR>
</tt>



<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

   <br><br>
   <div style="width:500px; text-align:right; margin-bottom:1px; color:#909090;">
     <tt>SPONSORED LINKS</tt>
   </div>
   <table bgcolor=#e0ecee cellspacing="13" cellpadding="0" width=500px>
                   <tr valign=top>
             <td style="width:25%;">
         <tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ecosystem&w1=Ecosystem&w2=University+o\
f+hawaii&w3=Ecology&c=3&s=54&.sig=5IKnDR2p4IjKub6JFdFA4Q"
target="1">Ecosystem</a></tt>
       </td>
                       <td style="width:25%;">
         <tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=University+of+hawaii&w1=Ecosystem&w2=U\
niversity+of+hawaii&w3=Ecology&c=3&s=54&.sig=EhSp_IAiqP-xhbWq_7J35w"
target="1">University of hawaii</a></tt>
       </td>
                       <td style="width:25%;">
         <tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ecology&w1=Ecosystem&w2=University+of+\
hawaii&w3=Ecology&c=3&s=54&.sig=zwyoo7EGY4qCwrH-joToIA"
target="1">Ecology</a></tt>
       </td>
               </tr>
                     </tr>
       </table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<br>
   <div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
   <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
   <tt>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</tt>
</div>
<br>
<ul>
   <tt><li type=square>&nbsp;Visit your group "<a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ethnobiologyHI"
target="1">ethnobiologyHI</a>" on the web.<br>&nbsp;</tt>
   <tt><li type=square>&nbsp;To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:<br>&nbsp;<A
href="javascript:main.compose('new','t=ethnobiologyHI-unsubscribe@...\
m&subject=Unsubscribe')">ethnobiologyHI-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>&nbsp\
;</tt>
   <tt><li type=square>&nbsp;Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/" target="1">Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.</tt>
</ul>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
   <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
</div>
</br>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


</span></span>

Okay how about Saturday April 8th as a volunteer day up at the Lyon
Arboretum.  Sounds like many people have obligations on March 18.
From Ken's email it sounds like there are a number of interesting
projects.  If we can get together one day for an orientation/work
party/potluck then further work can be either organized or more ad
hoc.  How mant would like to get together on April 8th?

Tim

How many people would be interested in Spending a Saturday, Say March
18th at the Lyon ARboretum working on learning about the projects that
Ken has in the Ethnobotany section and then potluck.?  If March 18 is
no good please suggest an alternate time if interested.

Can I have a show of hands?

Tim

Tim,

Did you see Katie's post? Looks like some people are going to be
collecting/analyzing water samples that day. What about Sunday the 19th?

I definitely want to be a part of this project. :)

-Marian




--- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy J Gallaher"
<tjgallaher@...> wrote:
>
> How many people would be interested in Spending a Saturday, Say March
> 18th at the Lyon ARboretum working on learning about the projects that
> Ken has in the Ethnobotany section and then potluck.?  If March 18 is
> no good please suggest an alternate time if interested.
>
> Can I have a show of hands?
>
> Tim
>

How many people would be interested in Spending a Saturday, Say March
18th at the Lyon ARboretum working on learning about the projects that
Ken has in the Ethnobotany section and then potluck.?  If March 18 is
no good please suggest an alternate time if interested.

Can I have a show of hands?

Tim

Sorry everyone.  Is there some way to change the yahoo reply settings to
addressing only the sender, not the whole group?

sorry again,
aurora

heya katie,
sorry- going to be doing work w/ Tomoaki/NREM peeps in Makaha that
weekend, but pls keep me posted!  I'm down for helping when can...

let me know if i can help on the lab (but i assume you do analysis right
after collecting?)

maybe next time?
mucho mahalos for listening to me and my issues last week.
aurora


hawaiian_katie wrote:
> Aloha kakou,
> Plenty of rain, runoff and red sludge emptied in to Kailua Bay.  Going
> water sampling again and just need a couple of field assistants as well
> as some extra hands in the lab.  Last time we collected 40/80 sampling
> locations, this time if possible I want to collect all 80 sampling
> points.  To collect the 40 points took about 3 hours.  Tagging along in
> the field will start at 9am and finish when sample collection is
> complete.  Lab rats won't have to show up (at the lab) until 11am and
> will complete the processing of the samples until finish.
> Participating in the lab requires a brief training session so contact
> me as soon as possible to arrange training session.  Also a runner is
> needed to transport the samples to the lab.  This person can help out
> in the field and then take the samples to the lab and participate there
> as well if they would like to. If interested in helping out get back to
> me and I'll get you more information.
>
> Mahalo,
> Katie Kamelamela
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aloha kakou,
Plenty of rain, runoff and red sludge emptied in to Kailua Bay.  Going
water sampling again and just need a couple of field assistants as well
as some extra hands in the lab.  Last time we collected 40/80 sampling
locations, this time if possible I want to collect all 80 sampling
points.  To collect the 40 points took about 3 hours.  Tagging along in
the field will start at 9am and finish when sample collection is
complete.  Lab rats won't have to show up (at the lab) until 11am and
will complete the processing of the samples until finish. 
Participating in the lab requires a brief training session so contact
me as soon as possible to arrange training session.  Also a runner is
needed to transport the samples to the lab.  This person can help out
in the field and then take the samples to the lab and participate there
as well if they would like to. If interested in helping out get back to
me and I'll get you more information.

Mahalo,
Katie Kamelamela

Aloha kakou,
Plenty of rain, runoff and red sludge emptied in to Kailua Bay.  Going
water sampling again and just need a couple of field assistants as well
as some extra hands in the lab.  Last time we collected 40/80 sampling
locations, this time if possible I want to collect all 80 sampling
points.  To collect the 40 points took about 3 hours.  Tagging along in
the field will start at 9am and finish when sample collection is
complete.  Lab rats won't have to show up (at the lab) until 11am and
will complete the processing of the samples until finish.
Participating in the lab requires a brief training session so contact
me as soon as possible to arrange training session.  Also a runner is
needed to transport the samples to the lab.  This person can help out
in the field and then take the samples to the lab and participate there
as well if they would like to. If interested in helping out get back to
me and I'll get you more information.

Mahalo,
Katie Kamelamela

Related article....

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kat Morgenstern <kmorgenstern@...>
Date: Sep 8, 2005 11:28 PM
Subject: [Ethnobotany] FIRST LEGAL OPPOSITION TO A BIOPIRACY PATENT:
The Neem Case
To: Ethnobotany@yahoogroups.com



GENET archive
________________________________

[Index] <http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2005/Aug/maillist.html#00094>
[Thread] <http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2005/Aug/threads.html#00094>

4-Patents: Freeing the Free Tree

________________________________


*       To: GENET-news <GENET-news@...>
*       Subject: 4-Patents: Freeing the Free Tree
*       From: GENET <coordination@...>
*       Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:37:38 +0200
*       Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
*       Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
*       List-Help: <mailto:genet-news-request@...?subject=help>
*       List-Post: <mailto:genet-news@...>
*       List-Subscribe:
<mailto:genet-news-request@...?subject=subscribe>
*       List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:genet-news-request@...?subject=unsubscribe>
*       Old-Return-Path: <coordination@...>
*       Organization: GENET
*       Resent-From: genet-news@...

________________________________

-------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------

TITLE:  Freeing the Free Tree
SOURCE: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, India
         International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Germany
         The Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament,
Belgium
         by Linda Bullard
DATE:   Aug 2005

------------------- archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ -------------------


Freeing the Free Tree

A BRIEFING PAPER
on the
FIRST LEGAL OPPOSITION TO A BIOPIRACY PATENT: The Neem Case

Legal history was made on March 8th, 2005 in Munich, Germany when the
Technical Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked in
its entirety a patent on a fungicide made from seeds of the Neem tree,
concluding a ten-year battle in the world's first legal challenge to a
Biopiracy patent.


THE NEEM TREE

The botanic name of the Neem Tree is Azadirachta indica, which is taken
from the Persian name for the tree, Azad-Darakth, meaning "the free
tree."  The tree is a member of the mahogany family and is indigenous to
the Indian subcontinent.  Over the past century it has been introduced
and now flourishes in many countries of Africa, Central and South
America, the Caribbean and Asia.  Neem trees are attractive tropical
evergreens that can grow up to 30 meters tall and 2.5 meters in girth.
Their spreading branches form rounded crowns as much as 10 meters across,
and they may live for more than two centuries.

It is in India that the tree is most widely used.  It is mentioned in
Indian texts written over 2000 years ago and has been applied for
centuries in agriculture as an insect and pest repellent, in human and
veterinary medicine, toiletries and cosmetics.  It is also venerated in
the culture, religions, and literature of the region.  India has freely
shared its "free tree" and knowledge of its myriad uses with the world
community; but now, through the patent sytem, this important resource is
becoming the private property of a few corporations.


THE NEEM PATENTS

Sixty-five patents for products derived from the Neem tree have been
filed with the EPO to date, of which 22 have been granted, 28 are "dead"
for various reasons, and 9 are currently being examined.  These include
claims for insecticides, fungicidal effects, methods of extraction,
storage stable formulations of one of the active ingredients,
azadirachtin, contraceptives, and medical uses. Although some Indian
companies have claimed patents on the Neem, they are outnumbered 2 to 1
by multinational corporations, such as the U.S. pharmaceutical company
Rohm and Haas and the infamous agrochemical giant W.R. Grace.1

It is important to note that the Neem patents do not involve a
genetically engineered product; neither has the tree itself been
patented, nor any of its parts.


THE NEEM TREE AND BIOPIRACY

The Neem patents are resulting in major financial gains for their so-
called owners, while the communities which first understood the Neem's
uses and shared this knowledge with the rest of the world will not be
compensated at all.  The Neem patents are just one in a large catalogue
of genetic resources originating in the South over which intellectual
property rights are being asserted by a few multinational corporations
originating, for the most part, in the North.  The Northern patent system
was not equipped to recognise or reward as inventive the products of
community innovation processes such as those which created the various
uses of the Neem today.  It is only when these uses are described in the
terms of Western science and technology that an "invention" is deemed to
have taken place and an individual "inventor" or a set of individual
"inventors" is allowed to be rewarded with the monopoly property rights
that a patent confers.  This is the mechanism through which a massive
transfer of biological and intellectual wealth is taking place--from the
"Third World" to the North.

One direct impact of the corporate monopoly on the Neem made possible by
the patent system is a staggering increase in the companies' demand for
seed.  The fungicide claimed in the USA/Grace patent cannot be produced
without naturally-occurring Neem seeds.  A processing plant set up by
Grace in India can handle 20 tons of seed per day.  Almost all the seed
collected - which was previously freely available to the farmer and
healer - is now purchased by the company, causing the price of Neem seed
to skyrocket beyond the reach of the ordinary people.  Neem oil itself,
used for lighting lamps, is now practically unavailable, as the local oil
millers are not able to access the seed.  Poor people are losing a
resource vital for their survival - a resource that was once widely and
cheaply available to them.

In an effort to combat the injustice of Biopiracy there were attempts to
introduce a mechanism for "prior informed consent" into the EU Directive
on "Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions."  But this highly
controversial legislation was finally enacted in July 1998 without any of
the proposed protective measures built in.  Transposition of this
Directive into national law has proved complicated, however, and the
European Commission is late in producing a mandated report on its
functioning.  Another focus of attention has been the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), the aim being that this international legal
instrument require its Parties to insure that patent applications
involving biological resources identify the source of the material and
provide measures for prior informed consent of the communities so
identified.  Vast NGO energy was also directed at TRIPs (Trade-Related
Intellectual Property Rights), the multilateral agreement on patent
regimes which formed part of the original General Agreement on Tarifs and
Trade (GATT).  But the most direct approach to fight these Biopiracy
patents in Europe was to actually oppose one within the legal system
which granted it and thereby attempt to create case law.


CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE

On December 12, 1990 the multinational agribusiness corporation W.R.
Grace of New York and the United States of America as represented by its
Secretary of Agriculture, filed a European Patent Application with the
European Patent Office (EPO) on the basis of a U.S. priority application
of December 26, 1989, covering a method for controlling fungi on plants
by the aid of a hydrophobic extracted Neem oil.  This was the third
application for a Neem-derived product which had been filed by W.R. Grace.

After a very difficult and controversial examination procedure, the grant
of a European patent for this application was published on September 14,
1994, with the number 436257, the main claim having been restricted by
the EPO to:

"A method for controlling fungi on plants comprising contacting the fungi
with a neem oil formulation containing 0.1 to 10% of a hydrophobic
extracted neem oil which is substantially free of azadirachtin, 0.005 to
5.0% of emulsifying surfactant, and 0 to 99% water."

Nine months later a Legal Opposition to this patent was filed jointly by
three "plaintiffs":  Magda Aelvoet, MEP, then President of the Green
Group in the European Parliament, Brussels, Dr. Vandana Shiva, on behalf
of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resource
Policy, New Delhi, India, and the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), based in Germany and represented by its
then Vice-President (and future President), Linda Bullard.  The three
partners consciously chose to oppose this particular patent in part
because of who its "proprietors" were:  They wished to illuminate how
governments of wealthy countries - in this case the United States - and
multinational corporations - in this case the infamous W.R. Grace (whose
exploits are chronicled in the book and movie "A Civil Action") - collude
to steal biological resources from the south by means of the patent
system.  It is also not by accident that these particular three Opponents
joined forces to launch the Opposition:  an organization from the country
where the resource was stolen, an international organization representing
organic users and producers of Neem products throughout the world, and an
environmental political party, well positioned to pursue changes in the
legal system itself to outlaw Biopiracy.  And from within these
organizations it was women who initiated the action and sustained it - an
Indian, a Belgian, and an American.

Although the Opponents filed the original Opposition without benefit of
legal representation, they soon afterwards authorized Prof. Dr. Fritz
Dolder (Professor of Intellectual Property, Faculty of Law, University of
Basel, Switzerland) to represent them, and he functioned in that capacity
for the ten years it took to bring the case to a close.

The Opponents claimed that the fungicidal effect of hydrophobic extracts
of neem seeds was known and used for centuries on a broad scale in India,
both in Ayurvedic medicine to cure dermatological diseases, and in
traditional Indian agricultural practice to protect crops from being
destroyed by fungal infections.  Since this traditional Indian knowledge
was in fact ubiquitous in Indian culture from ancient times, they
asserted that the patent in question lacked two basic statutory
requirements for the grant of a European patent, namely "novelty"
(Article 54 of the European Patent Convention [EPC] and "inventive step"
(EPC Article 56, in the U.S. called non-obviousness).

In addition, the Opponents charged that the patent was contrary to
"morality," Article 53 (a) of the EPC, because the so-called inventors
claimed monopoly property rights on a method which forms part of the
traditional knowledge base of India - in essence stealing it - and theft
is regarded as immoral in European culture.  Finally, they cited the
formal grounds of "insufficient disclosure" (EPC Article 83) and "lack of
clarity" (EPC Article 84) in calling for the revocation of the patent.
Subsequently, the Opponents requested an additional ground for
opposition, namely that the patent constituted de facto a monopoly on a
single plant variety, which is barred by Article 53 (b) of the EPC.

It took five years for the case to come before the Opposition Division of
the EPO.  During this period the Opponents submitted evidence and
affidavits gathered to support the claims they had made in the initial
Opposition.  Finally an Oral Proceeding was scheduled on May 9th and
10th, 2000, before the Opposition Division of the EPO in Munich.

At midday on the first day of the hearing demonstrators gathered in front
of the EPO building holding banners reading "No Patents for Theft" and
carrying signs representing all the European patents which had been
granted or were pending on the Neem.  A 2-metre tall Neem tree was
symbolically "freed" from patents for public use by a delegation of
scientists and farmers from India and Sri Lanka. They then presented to a
representative of the EPO packages of signatures of 100,000 Indian
citizens demanding that all patents on the Neem be revoked.

To support the substance of its case, the Opponents had brought two
expert witnesses from India:  Dr. Udai Pratap Singh of Varanasi
(Professor and Head Department of Mycology and Plant Pathology, Institute
of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University) and Mr. Abhay
Dattaray Phadke of Puna (Managing Director of Ajay Bio-Tech (India)
Ltd.).  Dr. Singh is widely regarded as India's greatest expert on Neem
from the scientific community.  Mr. Phadke is an agronomist and had
commercialized a Neem product in India (without claiming patent
protection), following a development phase and extensive field trials
with farmers.  Interestingly, Mr. Phadke had once worked for Rhone-
Poulenc and had proposed that they commercialize the Neem product;
however, that company declined, judging that it would never be possible
to obtain a patent on such a product, which would make it commercially
uninteresting to d.  He also personally provided samples of his Neem
fungicide, called "Neemark," to W.R. Grace.

The patentees first attempted numerous manoeuvers to have the Opposition
declared inadmissible  on procedural grounds - claiming, for example,
that since there were three Opponents, they should have paid three
Opposition fees (never mind that the two "proprietors" had paid only one
Application fee), or that the fee had not been paid in time, or that the
non-European Opponent was not duly represented at the time of filing the
Opposition.  However, one after the next, the Opposition Division found
in favor of the Opponents on all the procedural questions, leaving the
room each time to confer, and then returning to announce their decision
and resume the proceedings.

Then the first witness was called, Mr. Phadke.  His testimony was
lengthy, extraordinarily detailed, supported by a great deal of
documentation, and absolutely crushing.  Dr. Singh was not allowed to be
present during the hearing so as not to influence his testimony.  For a
day and a half he waited patiently in the hall outside for his turn to
testify, but was never called, as sufficient evidence to overturn the
patent was supplied by the first witness.

At the end of Mr. Phadke's testimony, the Opposition panel ruled that the
patentee's claim of novelty had been destroyed on the basis of clearly
demonstrated prior public use.  According to Dr. Dolder, it is difficult
and quite rare to defeat a patent on the basis of novelty, but here it
happened.  At that point it could have been all over, but the lawyers for
USA/Grace submitted an "auxiliary request" which amended their Neem
formulation slightly, so that it fell just outside the parameters
described by Mr. Phadke:  The concentration of Neem oil contained in the
preparation was now specified as 0.25% ONLY, no more, no less.  In
practical terms, this altered claim would have been useless to the
patentee, because the percentage was so narrowly defined that it actually
no longer constituted a monopoly (in other words, it would have been very
easy for a competitor to avoid infringing the patent).  Nonetheless, this
amended claim was immediately examined, and this time the Opposition
Division ruled that even in amended form, the "invention" was lacking an
inventive step.  Thus, the patent was revoked in its entirety.

The panel had not found in favor of the Opponents on their charge that
the patent constituted a de facto monopoly on a single plant variety or
that it was a violation of "public order and morality."  On the other
hand, they accepted the Opponents argument that patents should not be
granted for common traditional knowledge, but pointed out that this
argument should be used for establishing "prior art" and is not a
question of morality in the sense of the European Patent Convention.

The USA and W.R. Grace appealed to the next level within the EPO, the
Technical Appeals Board, demanding that the decision of the Opposition
Division be overturned and submitting yet another modified formulation of
their original claim.

Five more years of deadlines and submissions ensued before the case once
again reached the level of an Oral Proceeding at the EPO.  In the
meantime, W.R.Grace filed for bankruptcy (following criminal indictment
for the deaths of hundreds from asbestos contamination), shortly after
transferring its patent rights to a company which had begun as a research
group within W.R. Grace, then became Grace Biopesticides Division before
being sold and renamed Thermo Trilogy.   This company specialized in what
they referred to as  "biorational" pesticides, but in 2001 Thermo
Trilogy's assets, including its patents, were acquired by Certis, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese company Mitsui & Co., which is
now one of the largest providers worldwide of "safe food" technologies.
Throughout these business mutations, the United States of America has
remained the constant "coproprietor" of the patent.

Although two days had been set aside to examine the Appeal, the case was
so compelling that the five-memberTechnical Board of Appeals needed only
two hours to reach its decision.  It had earlier declined to hear Mr.
Phadke again, or Dr. Singh, although the work of both was referred to
during the proceedings.  The patentees had renewed their attempts to have
the case declared inadmissible on procedural grounds, but the panel did
not even discuss these questions.  A second "auxiliary request" amending
the formula of the product was refused on the grounds that it enlarged
the scope (Article 123(2)).  Then the main body of the patent was
examined with regard to novelty, disclosure, and inventive step.  After
hearing the Opponents' arguments, the Board went into closed conference
to come to a decision.

Shortly after 11 a.m. on March 8th, the Chairman announced, "The Appeal
is dismissed.  The patent is revoked."


JURISPRUDENCE

Unlike the Opposition Division, the EPO Board of Appeal based its
decision on the scientific paper by Dr. U. P. Singh, considering that it
represented "the closest prior art" and, in addition, was not disputed by
the appellant (who had objected to Mr. Phadke's testimony with the
argument that "most people" are unable to recollect dates and figures
with such accuracy as he had demonstrated!).  On the basis of the Singh
document alone, the Board judged that patentee's main claim failed for
lack of an "inventive step," that is, to a person skilled in the art it
would have been "obvious to try to use formulations such as those defined
in the claim for controlling fungi on plants."  This, together with the
rejection of the reformulated auxiliary request as noted above, was
sufficient to destroy the patent.  There is no further recourse for the
United States and its partner corporation to claim monopoly property
rights on the Neem fungicide product:  It is irrevocably revoked.   (For
a more detailed and technical analysis of the decision, see Dr. Dolder's
"Concise Legal History" of the case.)

The Neem patent challenge now becomes part of case law within the
European patent regime and will hopefully have an impact not only on the
Neem patent applications which are still pendintg, but also on ALL
Biopiracy patents which have been filed in the EPO.  One of its main
achievements was to validate the use of affidavits and testimony, and to
secure recognition of the intellectual accomplishments of traditional
societies as a means to establish "prior art" when evaluating the novelty
of a claimed invention.

"Moreover, the opposition division agrees with the Opponents that no
patents should be granted for anything which was known previously, for
example as part of common traditional knowledge [emphasis added].
However, under the EPC this is not a matter of Article 53(a) EPC, but is
a question of novelty or prior public use."2

Revocation of the Neem patent shows that it is possible to defeat
Biopiracy, but doing so will require that this historic precedent be
further developed and transposed into overarching  international legal
frameworks. The revocation has no direct effect, for example, on Neem
patents in other legal regimes.  However, following the final ruling of
the EPO, the "Ad-hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-
sharing" of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) invited the
Opponents in the Neem case to submit their experience regarding "the
occurrence, nature, extent and cost of misappropriation of genetic
resources [, deriva-tives] and associated traditional knowledge."  The
immediate interest shown by the Working Group is an encouraging sign that
the precedent set by the defeat of this Neem patent can be fed into other
binding international treaties and legal instruments, such as TRIPS3 of
the World Trade Organization, and possibly even the EU Patenting
Directive, which is currently under review.


THE NEEM CAMPAIGN

The Neem Patent challenge was initiated in solidarity with the Neem
Campaign of India, which was launched in 1993 by farmers in India who
feared that their genetic resources and traditional knowledge were coming
increasingly under foreign control through the legal mechanism of
patents.  They likened what they were experiencing to a modern form of
"enclosure of the commons" - but in this case it was not public land
being privatized but rather  public knowledge.  The idea for the case was
born at a meeting of social/environmental activists in Malaysia in 1993.
  In April and May, 1995 Magda Aelvoet and Linda Bullard travelled to
India at the invitation of Vandana Shiva to speak to NGOs, government
authorities and the press about the issue of Patents on Life, European
and international patent law, and the Neem patent challenge, which they
filed two months later.

In addition to the three "plaintiffs" who filed the Legal Opposition to
the patent, the following  organizations were listed as associating
themselves with and supporting the action: Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha
(India); Third World Network (Malaysia); the Green Group in the European
Parliament (EU); the European Coordination No Patents on Life!
(Switzerland); Rural Advancement Fund, International (Canada); Cultural
Survival Canada (Canada); the Cultural Conservancy (USA); the Edmonds
Institute (USA); Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (USA);
Washington Biotechnology Action Project (USA); Rio Grande Bioregions
Project (USA).  A broad coalition of other European NGOs also supported
the Opponents materially, physically, and morally.

Major funding for the legal costs and related expenses was generously
provided by:
- HIVOS, the Netherlands
- The Green Group in the European Parliament (followed by its successor,
The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament), Brussels, Belgium

Additional support was received from the Schweisfurth Foundation in
Munich, Germany, and the Edmonds Institute in Washington, USA.


PARTS OF THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION WERE DRAWN FROM:

Intellectual Piracy and the Neem Patents, Research Foundation for
Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, Dehradun, India, 1993.
Campaign against Biopiracy, Research Foundation for Science, Technology
and Ecology, New Delhi, India, November 1999.

All legal documents connected with this case are available for inspection
by the public on the Web Site of the European Patent Office (http://
www.european-patent-office.org) in the "epoline" section: Enter the
Publication Number 0436257.

For further information, contact the offices of the Opponents:

Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology: + 91/11-
26561868, -26968077, 26535422;
E-mail: vshiva@...;
http://www.navdanya.org <http://www.navdanya.org/>

The Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament: +32 2
284-1692;
E-mail msomville@...;
Web Site http://www.greens-efa.org <http://www.greens-efa.org/>

IFOAM: +49 228 926-5016;
E-mail n.Sorensen@...;
Web Site http://www.ifoam.org <http://www.ifoam.org/>

Linda Bullard:
E-mail Lbullard@...

The lawyer for the Opponents, Dr. Fritz Dolder, is also available for
questions at fritz.dolder@...

----------
1 A list of all the Neem patent applications at the European Patent
Office and their current status has been compiled by Dr. Ruth Tippe and
is available from Kein Patent auf Leben! (rtippe@...)

2 From "Decision revoking the European Patent..." of the European Patent
Office, ref. Neemfungicide, dated 13.02.2001, Application No./Patent No.
90 250 319.2-2117 / 0436257 / 01

3 A multilateral agreement on "Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights"


--


GENET
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering

Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
In den Stein�ckern 13
D - 38116 Braunschweig
Germany

P: +49-531-5168746
F: +49-531-5168747
M: +49-162-1054755
E: coordination(*)genet-info.org
W: <http://www.genet-info.org <http://www.genet-info.org/> >



-----------------------------
    GENET-news mailing list
-----------------------------



________________________________

________________________________


*       Prev by Date: 2-Plants: GM crops research pipeline going dry
<http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2005/Aug/msg00093.html>
*       Next by Date: 2-Plants: U.S. weed scientists on glyphosate-resistant
pigweed <http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2005/Aug/msg00096.html>
*       Index(es):

         *       Main
<http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2005/Aug/maillist.html#00094>
         *       Thread
<http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2005/Aug/threads.html#00094>

                 Genetech pages <http://www.gene.ch/archives.html/>



Sacred Earth
Educational Forum and Networking Resource
for Ethnobotany and Ecotravel
http://www.sacredearth.com <http://www.sacredearth.com/>


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 08.09.2005






Yahoo! Groups Links

Laura - Sure, you can pass it along. It's worth mentioning that I have no hard
facts though - looks like Aurora is on the right track, but it does seem hard to
find actual documentation on how the patents are/would be used. And a point that
Tim brought up to me after the protest is that even if UH says they won't use
protective patents for profit, it would not (by a long shot) be the first time
the Hawaiian people have heard this kind of promise that was subsequently
broken. I definitely understand how the idea of patenting a living thing could
be incompatible with Hawaiians' worldview, but I do think that on the patenting
issue, they and all of us would be better off directing energy to changing the
law, as you said, rather than attacking people who might be trying to do the
best they can within that which the law currently allows. Is there anything like
a petition to protect sacred plants from patenting by legally establishing them
as the intellectual property of the indige
nous people? Proactivity instead of just protest? That sounds like something
worth fighting for to me.

Marian

----- Original Message -----
From: Laura W <herbalmagik@...>
Date: Friday, March 3, 2006 10:43 am
Subject: Re: [ethnobiologyHI] Re: a thread from the CTAHR discussions on kalo GM
To: ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com

> Thanks for your email Marian!  Do you mind if I forward it to the
> rest of the group (not all are on the Yahoo Group yet)?  For me the
> main problem with this is with the ability to patent whole, non-
> modified life forms.  Patents should only be allowed for
> technological processes, not for naturally living entities.  How
> can you "own" something you cannot/did not create?  Who did
> “create”/breed these taro varieties?  (the Hawaiian people… so this
> seems like a case of stolen intellectually property at the very
> least). To me this is an issue of culture/worldview clash.
> Patenting of taro by the university is probably a lesser of evils
> given a flaw in the interpretation of patent law, but sanctioning
> of it by the Hawaiian community would be supporting a worldview
> they do not accept.  I also agree that it was rude to heckle Dean
> Hashimoto when he was trying to explain his perspective. Being rude
> to invited guests does not only hamper the process of coming to a
> good solution for a c!
> omplex
> problem, but makes you lose credibility in the eyes of people who
> ultimately may be working towards justice for you.  Again I am
> surprised (and impressed) he showed up, given the emotional nature
> of the protest.  And it was emotional—beautiful and sad.  Showed
> the human side often neglected in the laboratory.  Science should
> remain objective, but its application in law is something we can
> strive to change.
>  Aloha, Laura
>
>  Marian Chau <mmchau@...> wrote:
>  When I heard about the protest, I was interested, but I immediately
> wanted to hear the other side too. I work in the Plant Virology lab,
> and we do testing on GMOs. I didn't know this when I was hired, but
> when I found out, I decided it would be a good opportunity to actually
> learn something about an issue which I had only ever heard hype about,
> then form an educated opinion. I'm still working on that, because
> there really are many sides to that issue too.
>
> One of my co-workers has always been good about answering my
> questions, and I trust him to give me facts, so I went to him this
> morning. Here's what he said (paraphrased) on each of the two seperate
> issues:
>
> 1) The university's patents on 3 varieties of Taro that they developed
> are for protection, because if another person/company/entity patented
> them, UH would have to pay them to use or even do research on their
> own discovery. UH does not charge Hawaiian farmers for use of these
> patented varieties, only cost of labor for propagation.
>
> 2) GMO research is probably not necessary. Its aims are to develop
> resistance to Pocket Rot, Apple Snails, and other alien species that
> threaten Taro, and have indeed caused 2005's crops to be the lowest
> ever recorded. However, traditional propagation and breeding for
> resistance have not been fully explored and may very well be able to
> address these problems.
>
> I'm against genetically modifying Taro if it isn't necessary and the
> Hawaiian people don't want it. Patenting, though, probably makes
> sense. I wish the government wouldn't allow anyone to own a patent on
> any living thing, but as long as it does, better the University of
> Hawaii own Taro than some company in another city or even country.
> (After all, a company in Texas owns the patent to Basmati Rice.) Again
> though, if the Hawaiian people don't want a patent on Hawaiian Taro,
> if they would prefer to leave it at risk, that really is their
> decision and not UH's. I was moved by the ceremony of the protest and
> the attention to social responsibilty being instilled in all those
> young Hawaiian students from the charter schools. But it did make me
> angry that they invited Dean Hashimoto to speak and then heckled him
> off the floor. I wish all people would take the time to research the
> issue, listen to both sides, and not protest for the sake of protest.
>
>
>
> --- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "ethnobiologyhi"
> <ethnobiologyhi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Aurora.  This is definitely a complicated issue.  Any
> other
> > information or feelings on the subject people would like to share
> is
> > encouraged.  I think it was very good and brave of Dean Hashimoto
> > from CITAHR to attend and speak at the taro patent protest today.
>
> > Mahalo, Laura
> >
> > --- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "kealohi99" <kagawa@> wrote:
> > >
> > > there is a lot of emotion accompanying this debate... and
> perhaps a
> > > lack of information.   Here's a short (and I'm sure still somewhat
> > > incomplete) piece of the discussion that went on in CTAHR last
> > summer
> > > when this issue surfaced (see forwarded messages below).
> > >
> > > Here's some fact mixed with some of my opinions (sorry if
> they're
> > not
> > > separated better)
> > > The bill going forward is Senate Bill 2749, which seeks to ban
> all
> > GM
> > > research on taro.  I'm not sure if it also applies to Bun Long
> > > (Chinese taro) or only Hawaiian varieties.  It's a little
> disturbing> > that the issue could not be solved with groups
> communicating
> > better...
> > > that now the Legislature is considering the possibility of (in
> > > essence) controlling research at UH.  I am really torn in this
> > debate
> > > between the two sides: arguments for cultural respect and academic
> > > freedom both make sense- i don't think they're mutually exclusive
> > > though this issue has perhaps polarized those involved.
> > >
> > > A few important considerations that complicate this issue (at
> least> > for me)- Phytophthora (leaf blight) and Pythium ("pocket
> rot") are
> > > major causes of crop loss.  Fungicides are available, but these
> > > chemicals are perhaps not so healthy for the environment,
> farmers,
> > and
> > > are possibly costly?  Kalo is very work-intensive, and I
> wonder...
> > if
> > > the cost of growing it becomes too high, how will farming kalo be
> > > economically sustainable?
> > > other things:
> > > -kalo is vegetatively propagated; flowing seems kind of a rare
> event> > (in my very limited experience)-- i wonder how much a
> threat
> > crossing is.
> > > -most GM research we hear about is that of big corporations:
> > Monsanto,
> > > Pioneer- that also produce herbicides... thus they have a huge
> > > economic investment in the systems they design: Roundup-Ready
> corn
> > to
> > > go along with RoundUp, etc... I don't think UH fits into the same
> > > category, though I think that might be beside the point here.
> > >
> > > Please enlighten me/us with more insight.  I am struggling with
> this> > issue...
> > > aloha,
> > > aurora (not technically an ethnobiologist.)
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:22:12 -0700
> > > From: Susan Miyasaka <miyasaka@>
> > > To: CTAHR@
> > > Cc: Maureen Fitch <mfitch@>, Judy Zhu
> > > <JZHU@>,
> > >      Paul Moore <PMOORE@>
> > > Subject: Setting the record straight
> > >
> > > >>Dear Fellow CTAHR members,
> > >
> > > I would like to set the record straight with you, so that you
> can
> > set
> > > the record straight with concerned clientele.
> > > Walter Ritte's statement is incorrect.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>WE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INSERT DISEASE RESISTANCE GENES INTO
> > HAWAIIAN TARO
> > > >>VARIETIES.  In order to be able to insert disease resistance
> genes> > into taro, we needed to develop regenerable callus - in
> other words,
> > > we needed to be able to manipulate the hormones in tissue culture,
> > > first to produce callus, and then to regenerate whole plants from
> > > callus.  We attempted to do this with the the Chinese variety, Bun
> > > long, and the Hawaiian taro variety, Maui Lehua (which is a modern
> > > variety, and not one of the ancestral Hawaiian varieties).  We
> were> > not able to develop regenerable callus for Maui Lehua, and
> as a
> > > result, we didn't attempt to insert transgenes into this
> Hawaiian
> > taro
> > > variety.  We were successful with the Chinese variety, Bun
> long, and
> > > all our further transgenic research focuses on this particular
> > variety.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact
> me.
> > I
> > > will return from my sabbatical leave on June 1.
> > >
> > > Best wishes, Susan C. Miyasaka
> > >
> > > Susan C. Miyasaka
> > > Agronomist
> > > University of Hawaii
> > > Dept. of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences
> > > 875 Komohana St.
> > > Hilo, HI 96720
> > > (808) 981-5180
> > > FAX: (808) 981-5190
> > > miyasaka@
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>At 10:32 AM 5/20/2005 -1000, you wrote:
> > > >>>>FYI
> > > >>>>I just intercepted this message from Walter Ritte via a Native
> > > Hawaiian organization.
> > > Glenn Teves
> > >
> > > >>>>> >Subject: Moratorium to protect taro
> > > >>>>> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:39:17 -1000
> > >
> > > >>>>> > Aloha, The University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag.
> and> > Human Resources (CTAHR) has done Genetic Engineering (GE)
> research
> > on
> > > Hawaiian taro. This means they have altered the DNA of of our
> > Hawaiian
> > > taro. They have done this with no consultation of the Hawaiian
> > community.
> > >
> > > >>>>> > Haloa was the first born in the genealogy of the
> Hawaiians.
> > He
> > > was still born and placed into the ground, and grew into the taro
> > > plant. The second born was man. Haloa became the staple crop of
> the> > Hawaiian people, and it was the responsibility of the
> Hawaiian to
> > care
> > > for Haloa.
> > > >>>>> > Due to pressure from the Hawaiian community and help from
> > > Senator Clayton Hee, CTAHR has agreed to sign a moratorium on
> any GE
> > > research until a research review board composed of Hawaiians is
> > > established to protect the interest of Hawaiians and their sacred
> > > plants. This event and ceremony will take place Tue May 24th at
> > 3:00pm
> > > at the Hawaiian Studies Complex in the taro patch called
> Kanewai
> > right
> > > off Dole street.
> > > >>>>> > This will be an important day as Hawaiians speak to
> > > researchers to ask that they respect the host culture of these
> > > Islands, we hope people will come and support this effort as we
> > begin
> > > to try and guide scientist as to what they should and should
> not do
> > in
> > > the name of science. Researchers have no right to manipulate our
> > > ancesters DNA without the consent of the Hawaiian community.
> > >
> > > Walter Ritte
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  SPONSORED LINKS
>        Ecosystem   University of hawaii   Ecology
>
> ---------------------------------
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>    Visit your group "ethnobiologyHI" on the web.
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ethnobiologyHI-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze.
>

One last thought.

Haloa = Taro
Haloa is the Elder brother of the Hawaiian People.  These new
varieties are the children of the elder brother, and in Pacific Island
cultures the line of the elder sibling is regarded with greater
respect then the line of the younger siblings.  I would say that in
the Hawaiian indigenous patent process their patent on Kalo is firmly
established though geneology.  Okay I wont talk about this anymore,

Thanks
Tim

When I heard about the protest, I was interested, but I immediately
wanted to hear the other side too. I work in the Plant Virology lab,
and we do testing on GMOs. I didn't know this when I was hired, but
when I found out, I decided it would be a good opportunity to actually
learn something about an issue which I had only ever heard hype about,
then form an educated opinion. I'm still working on that, because
there really are many sides to that issue too.

One of my co-workers has always been good about answering my
questions, and I trust him to give me facts, so I went to him this
morning. Here's what he said (paraphrased) on each of the two seperate
issues:

1) The university's patents on 3 varieties of Taro that they developed
are for protection, because if another person/company/entity patented
them, UH would have to pay them to use or even do research on their
own discovery. UH does not charge Hawaiian farmers for use of these
patented varieties, only cost of labor for propagation.

2) GMO research is probably not necessary. Its aims are to develop
resistance to Pocket Rot, Apple Snails, and other alien species that
threaten Taro, and have indeed caused 2005's crops to be the lowest
ever recorded. However, traditional propagation and breeding for
resistance have not been fully explored and may very well be able to
address these problems.

I'm against genetically modifying Taro if it isn't necessary and the
Hawaiian people don't want it. Patenting, though, probably makes
sense. I wish the government wouldn't allow anyone to own a patent on
any living thing, but as long as it does, better the University of
Hawaii own Taro than some company in another city or even country.
(After all, a company in Texas owns the patent to Basmati Rice.) Again
though, if the Hawaiian people don't want a patent on Hawaiian Taro,
if they would prefer to leave it at risk, that really is their
decision and not UH's. I was moved by the ceremony of the protest and
the attention to social responsibilty being instilled in all those
young Hawaiian students from the charter schools. But it did make me
angry that they invited Dean Hashimoto to speak and then heckled him
off the floor. I wish all people would take the time to research the
issue, listen to both sides, and not protest for the sake of protest.



--- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "ethnobiologyhi"
<ethnobiologyhi@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Aurora.  This is definitely a complicated issue.  Any other
> information or feelings on the subject people would like to share is
> encouraged.  I think it was very good and brave of Dean Hashimoto
> from CITAHR to attend and speak at the taro patent protest today. 
> Mahalo, Laura
>
> --- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "kealohi99" <kagawa@> wrote:
> >
> > there is a lot of emotion accompanying this debate... and perhaps a
> > lack of information.   Here's a short (and I'm sure still somewhat
> > incomplete) piece of the discussion that went on in CTAHR last
> summer
> > when this issue surfaced (see forwarded messages below). 
> >
> > Here's some fact mixed with some of my opinions (sorry if they're
> not
> > separated better)
> > The bill going forward is Senate Bill 2749, which seeks to ban all
> GM
> > research on taro.  I'm not sure if it also applies to Bun Long
> > (Chinese taro) or only Hawaiian varieties.  It's a little disturbing
> > that the issue could not be solved with groups communicating
> better...
> > that now the Legislature is considering the possibility of (in
> > essence) controlling research at UH.  I am really torn in this
> debate
> > between the two sides: arguments for cultural respect and academic
> > freedom both make sense- i don't think they're mutually exclusive
> > though this issue has perhaps polarized those involved.
> >
> > A few important considerations that complicate this issue (at least
> > for me)- Phytophthora (leaf blight) and Pythium ("pocket rot") are
> > major causes of crop loss.  Fungicides are available, but these
> > chemicals are perhaps not so healthy for the environment, farmers,
> and
> > are possibly costly?  Kalo is very work-intensive, and I wonder...
> if
> > the cost of growing it becomes too high, how will farming kalo be
> > economically sustainable? 
> > other things:
> > -kalo is vegetatively propagated; flowing seems kind of a rare event
> > (in my very limited experience)-- i wonder how much a threat
> crossing is.
> > -most GM research we hear about is that of big corporations:
> Monsanto,
> > Pioneer- that also produce herbicides... thus they have a huge
> > economic investment in the systems they design: Roundup-Ready corn
> to
> > go along with RoundUp, etc... I don't think UH fits into the same
> > category, though I think that might be beside the point here.
> >
> > Please enlighten me/us with more insight.  I am struggling with this
> > issue... 
> > aloha,
> > aurora (not technically an ethnobiologist.)
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:22:12 -0700
> > From: Susan Miyasaka <miyasaka@>
> > To: CTAHR@
> > Cc: Maureen Fitch <mfitch@>, Judy Zhu
> > <JZHU@>,
> >      Paul Moore <PMOORE@>
> > Subject: Setting the record straight
> >
> > >>Dear Fellow CTAHR members,
> >
> > I would like to set the record straight with you, so that you can
> set
> > the record straight with concerned clientele.
> > Walter Ritte's statement is incorrect.
> >
> >
> > >>WE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INSERT DISEASE RESISTANCE GENES INTO
> HAWAIIAN TARO
> > >>VARIETIES.  In order to be able to insert disease resistance genes
> > into taro, we needed to develop regenerable callus - in other words,
> > we needed to be able to manipulate the hormones in tissue culture,
> > first to produce callus, and then to regenerate whole plants from
> > callus.  We attempted to do this with the the Chinese variety, Bun
> > long, and the Hawaiian taro variety, Maui Lehua (which is a modern
> > variety, and not one of the ancestral Hawaiian varieties).  We were
> > not able to develop regenerable callus for Maui Lehua, and as a
> > result, we didn't attempt to insert transgenes into this Hawaiian
> taro
> > variety.  We were successful with the Chinese variety, Bun long, and
> > all our further transgenic research focuses on this particular
> variety.
> >
> >
> > If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. 
> I
> > will return from my sabbatical leave on June 1.
> >
> > Best wishes, Susan C. Miyasaka
> >
> > Susan C. Miyasaka
> > Agronomist
> > University of Hawaii
> > Dept. of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences
> > 875 Komohana St.
> > Hilo, HI 96720
> > (808) 981-5180
> > FAX: (808) 981-5190
> > miyasaka@
> >
> > >>
> > >>At 10:32 AM 5/20/2005 -1000, you wrote:
> > >>>>FYI
> > >>>>I just intercepted this message from Walter Ritte via a Native
> > Hawaiian organization.
> > Glenn Teves
> >
> > >>>>> >Subject: Moratorium to protect taro
> > >>>>> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:39:17 -1000
> >
> > >>>>> > Aloha, The University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and
> > Human Resources (CTAHR) has done Genetic Engineering (GE) research
> on
> > Hawaiian taro. This means they have altered the DNA of of our
> Hawaiian
> > taro. They have done this with no consultation of the Hawaiian
> community.
> >
> > >>>>> > Haloa was the first born in the genealogy of the Hawaiians.
> He
> > was still born and placed into the ground, and grew into the taro
> > plant. The second born was man. Haloa became the staple crop of the
> > Hawaiian people, and it was the responsibility of the Hawaiian to
> care
> > for Haloa.
> > >>>>> > Due to pressure from the Hawaiian community and help from
> > Senator Clayton Hee, CTAHR has agreed to sign a moratorium on any GE
> > research until a research review board composed of Hawaiians is
> > established to protect the interest of Hawaiians and their sacred
> > plants. This event and ceremony will take place Tue May 24th at
> 3:00pm
> > at the Hawaiian Studies Complex in the taro patch called Kanewai
> right
> > off Dole street.
> > >>>>> > This will be an important day as Hawaiians speak to
> > researchers to ask that they respect the host culture of these
> > Islands, we hope people will come and support this effort as we
> begin
> > to try and guide scientist as to what they should and should not do
> in
> > the name of science. Researchers have no right to manipulate our
> > ancesters DNA without the consent of the Hawaiian community.
> >
> > Walter Ritte
> >
>

Aloha Tim & Everyone,

I have a class with Dr. Morden so I also asked him about it. He sent
me the email below. Maybe we can coordinate our efforts with the
Paradise Park charter school? I'm definitely interested in adopting
any of those projects too. Saturday w/ potluck sounds really nice. Are
people available on Saturdays? That does work well for me because my
weekdays are full.

-Marian



From   View message header detail "Clifford W. Morden"
<cmorden@...>
Sent   Friday, March 3, 2006 5:11 am
To   Marian Chau <mmchau@...>
Cc   Leon Marcus <rumination@...> , Karen Shigematsu
<shigemat@...> , Raymond Baker <raymondb@...>
Subject   Volunteering at Lyon Arboretum

Hi Marian,

We would be glad to have you and the Ethnobiology Society come to
Lyon for work groups.  I'm cc'ing others at Lyon that work more
directly with the ethnobotany gardens so they are aware of your
thoughts as well. We also had a work party there a few weeks back
doing some weeding and the like, but there is still lots to do there.
I am assuming you were thinking of something on weekends.  We are not
now open on weekends, but work parties such as this we can make
arrangements for.

The Arboretum is also affiliated with Halau Ku Mana, a charter school
run at Paradise Park who spends a great deal of time in the
ethnobotany garden and are making some significant changes there.
They are trying to recreate some of the loi that were once present,
rebuild rock walls, and more.   It might be good to make contact with
them to see what their plans are, but Leon Marcus is our go-between,
so it would be best to make contact with him first.

Aloha,
Cliff


--- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy J Gallaher"
<tjgallaher@...> wrote:
>
> Okay - Here's what Ken said...  Sounds Interesting to me.
>
> Tim
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kenneth Seamon <gardener@...>
> Date: Mar 3, 2006 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Volunteers for ethno bot section
> To: Timothy J Gallaher <tjgallaher@...>
>
>
> 3 major projects I am working on in Ethnobotony.
>
> The first is maintaining, mapping and a good data base for the ava
> collection.
>
> The second would be the same for a collection of sweet potatoes.
>
> The last would be the restoration of a loi that Beatrice Krauss
> actually built. It has little to do with traditional loi, and more to
> do with restoring a work by the women who gave us the garden.
>
> I could  use a days work, or preferably the adoption of one of the
> above. I would love to talk with you more about the projects.
>
> I prefer to work on weekdays, but even then am spread a bit thin. I can
> do a Saturday, which would be more interesting if we added a pot luck
> or something on the end.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>
> ken
> On Mar 3, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Timothy J Gallaher wrote:
>
> > Hello Ken,
> >
> > I volunteered for a little while last year, maybe you remember me.
> > Ray told me to get in touch with you about the ethnobotany section of
> > the grounds.  I am trying to organize the ethnobotany club to do
> > something useful.  Would you be interested in having a small group
> > (maybe up to 10) volunteer to help one day.  If so what would be a
> > good day.  Saturday? Let me know if you are interested.  I would like
> > to see more students take an interest in the Lyon arboretum.  Can't
> > promise they will turn into regulars but it's worth a try.
> >
> > Thanks, hope all is well.
> >
> > Tim Gallaher
> >
>

Okay - Here's what Ken said...  Sounds Interesting to me.

Tim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kenneth Seamon <gardener@...>
Date: Mar 3, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Volunteers for ethno bot section
To: Timothy J Gallaher <tjgallaher@...>


3 major projects I am working on in Ethnobotony.

The first is maintaining, mapping and a good data base for the ava
collection.

The second would be the same for a collection of sweet potatoes.

The last would be the restoration of a loi that Beatrice Krauss
actually built. It has little to do with traditional loi, and more to
do with restoring a work by the women who gave us the garden.

I could  use a days work, or preferably the adoption of one of the
above. I would love to talk with you more about the projects.

I prefer to work on weekdays, but even then am spread a bit thin. I can
do a Saturday, which would be more interesting if we added a pot luck
or something on the end.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

ken
On Mar 3, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Timothy J Gallaher wrote:

> Hello Ken,
>
> I volunteered for a little while last year, maybe you remember me.
> Ray told me to get in touch with you about the ethnobotany section of
> the grounds.  I am trying to organize the ethnobotany club to do
> something useful.  Would you be interested in having a small group
> (maybe up to 10) volunteer to help one day.  If so what would be a
> good day.  Saturday? Let me know if you are interested.  I would like
> to see more students take an interest in the Lyon arboretum.  Can't
> promise they will turn into regulars but it's worth a try.
>
> Thanks, hope all is well.
>
> Tim Gallaher
>

So... i learned the issue is somewhat in two parts:
Today: protest against patenting of Palauan/Maui Lehua cross (traditional
breeding) by Eduardo Trujillo, now retired from CTAHR, in 2001--   cultivars
called Pa'lehua (misspelled?), Pa'akala, and Pauakea--
Rumor? according to my mom (has worked in CTAHR for >20 yrs), Trujillo's
interest *was* to make money off of the patents.  I don't know if this is
necessarily true, but it does not seem surprising.  Given this, I think a patent
for an individual's profit is definitely unethical.  However, what Marian wrote
earlier implies that UH really holds the patent and is providing the kalo mostly
free of charge.  -I am confused:  is UH/CTAHR/Trujillo actually selling these,
or what?  Also, to what extent is the kalo being cultivated currently?
Is the issue here the offensiveness of the patent, the struggle of Hawaiian
culture in dealing with a quickly changing society, intense dislike of McClain,
or what?

The issue I wrote about earlier is the actual insertion of rice (and other?)
genes for fungal resistance, which is being conducted on Bun Long by Susan
Miyasaka.  This is somewhat separate from the issue of the protest yesterday. 
The research is being challenged in the State Senate as Bill 2749 which seeks to
ban all GM research on taro.  The GM research has also met with some community
resistance as farmers feel researchers are interfering with their practices. 
Seems like lack of communication has probably facilitated this...?


Hmmm... I'm trying to figure out how these relate to longer term issues on
farming and economic sustainability ("Poi Shortage"
http://starbulletin.com/print/2005.php?fr=/2006/02/28/news/story05.html)

for additional references on the patenting issue:
Letter from farmers Walter Ritte (Molokai) and Chris Kobayashi (Kauai)
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Letter_to_UH.pdf

News Articles:
http://starbulletin.com/print/2005.php?fr=/2006/01/13/business/story01.html
http://starbulletin.com/2001/05/27/business/story2.html

Patents issued to UH? Trujillo?  (who actually holds the
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/US_Patent_Palehua.pdf
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/US_Patent_Paakala.pdf
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/US_Patent_Pauakea.pdf

UH Intellectual Property Policies: who "owns" the inventions generated at UH?
http://www.mic.hawaii.edu/faculty/policies.html

references on GM Bun Long: (don't others think it's dangerous to be having the
legislature control research?... when these things should be discussed betw. the
researchers and the communities affected?)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb2749_.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb2749_sd1_.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/commreports/sb2749_sd1_sscr2651_.ht\
m

Bill Status:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2749

-aurora
----- Original Message -----
From: Marian Chau <mmchau@...>
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2006 6:04 pm
Subject: [ethnobiologyHI] Re: a thread from the CTAHR discussions on kalo GM
To: ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com

> When I heard about the protest, I was interested, but I immediately
> wanted to hear the other side too. I work in the Plant Virology lab,
> and we do testing on GMOs. I didn't know this when I was hired, but
> when I found out, I decided it would be a good opportunity to actually
> learn something about an issue which I had only ever heard hype about,
> then form an educated opinion. I'm still working on that, because
> there really are many sides to that issue too.
>
> One of my co-workers has always been good about answering my
> questions, and I trust him to give me facts, so I went to him this
> morning. Here's what he said (paraphrased) on each of the two seperate
> issues:
>
> 1) The university's patents on 3 varieties of Taro that they developed
> are for protection, because if another person/company/entity patented
> them, UH would have to pay them to use or even do research on their
> own discovery. UH does not charge Hawaiian farmers for use of these
> patented varieties, only cost of labor for propagation.
>
> 2) GMO research is probably not necessary. Its aims are to develop
> resistance to Pocket Rot, Apple Snails, and other alien species that
> threaten Taro, and have indeed caused 2005's crops to be the lowest
> ever recorded. However, traditional propagation and breeding for
> resistance have not been fully explored and may very well be able to
> address these problems.
>
> I'm against genetically modifying Taro if it isn't necessary and the
> Hawaiian people don't want it. Patenting, though, probably makes
> sense. I wish the government wouldn't allow anyone to own a patent on
> any living thing, but as long as it does, better the University of
> Hawaii own Taro than some company in another city or even country.
> (After all, a company in Texas owns the patent to Basmati Rice.) Again
> though, if the Hawaiian people don't want a patent on Hawaiian Taro,
> if they would prefer to leave it at risk, that really is their
> decision and not UH's. I was moved by the ceremony of the protest and
> the attention to social responsibilty being instilled in all those
> young Hawaiian students from the charter schools. But it did make me
> angry that they invited Dean Hashimoto to speak and then heckled him
> off the floor. I wish all people would take the time to research the
> issue, listen to both sides, and not protest for the sake of protest.
>
>
>

Great Looks like we have at least 5 people interested.  I just sent an email off to Ken at the Lyon Arboretum.  He is in charge of the Ethnobotany section.  Think that they have regular Saturday work parties if that works for people.  We'll find out more when he replies.

Thanks

Tim

Hey Tim,

I'm definitely interested!  Is anyone else?

Julia

----- Original Message -----
From: mauripacific <tjgallaher@...>
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2006 7:40 pm
Subject: [ethnobiologyHI] Lyons Arboretum
To: ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com

<span><p><span><p>


<tt>
Anyone interested in volunteering time up at the Lyon Arboretum or<BR>
perhaps as a club adopting the ethnobotany section and working there<BR>
regularly? perhaps once a month?&nbsp; I know they could use the help and<BR>
the arboretum is a great although underutilized resource.&nbsp; Let me know<BR>
what you think.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
Please also post other suggestions for how the Ethnobiology Society<BR>
can better serve the interests of interested students and the community. <BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
Tim Gallaher<BR>
(New Member) <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</tt>



<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

   <br><br>
   <div style="width:500px; text-align:right; margin-bottom:1px; color:#909090;">
     <tt>SPONSORED LINKS</tt>
   </div>
   <table bgcolor=#e0ecee cellspacing="13" cellpadding="0" width=500px>
                   <tr valign=top>
             <td style="width:25%;">
         <tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ecosystem&w1=Ecosystem&w2=University+o\
f+hawaii&w3=Ecology&c=3&s=54&.sig=5IKnDR2p4IjKub6JFdFA4Q"
target="1">Ecosystem</a></tt>
       </td>
                       <td style="width:25%;">
         <tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=University+of+hawaii&w1=Ecosystem&w2=U\
niversity+of+hawaii&w3=Ecology&c=3&s=54&.sig=EhSp_IAiqP-xhbWq_7J35w"
target="1">University of hawaii</a></tt>
       </td>
                       <td style="width:25%;">
         <tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ecology&w1=Ecosystem&w2=University+of+\
hawaii&w3=Ecology&c=3&s=54&.sig=zwyoo7EGY4qCwrH-joToIA"
target="1">Ecology</a></tt>
       </td>
               </tr>
                     </tr>
       </table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<br>
   <div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
   <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
   <tt>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</tt>
</div>
<br>
<ul>
   <tt><li type=square>&nbsp;Visit your group "<a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ethnobiologyHI"
target="1">ethnobiologyHI</a>" on the web.<br>&nbsp;</tt>
   <tt><li type=square>&nbsp;To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:<br>&nbsp;<A
href="javascript:main.compose('new','t=ethnobiologyHI-unsubscribe@...\
m&subject=Unsubscribe')">ethnobiologyHI-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>&nbsp\
;</tt>
   <tt><li type=square>&nbsp;Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/" target="1">Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.</tt>
</ul>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
   <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
</div>
</br>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


</span></span>

When I heard about the protest, I was interested, but I immediately
wanted to hear the other side too. I work in the Plant Virology lab,
and we do testing on GMOs. I didn't know this when I was hired, but
when I found out, I decided it would be a good opportunity to actually
learn something about an issue which I had only ever heard hype about,
then form an educated opinion. I'm still working on that, because
there really are many sides to that issue too.

One of my co-workers has always been good about answering my
questions, and I trust him to give me facts, so I went to him this
morning. Here's what he said (paraphrased) on each of the two seperate
issues:

1) The university's patents on 3 varieties of Taro that they developed
are for protection, because if another person/company/entity patented
them, UH would have to pay them to use or even do research on their
own discovery. UH does not charge Hawaiian farmers for use of these
patented varieties, only cost of labor for propagation.

2) GMO research is probably not necessary. Its aims are to develop
resistance to Pocket Rot, Apple Snails, and other alien species that
threaten Taro, and have indeed caused 2005's crops to be the lowest
ever recorded. However, traditional propagation and breeding for
resistance have not been fully explored and may very well be able to
address these problems.

I'm against genetically modifying Taro if it isn't necessary and the
Hawaiian people don't want it. Patenting, though, probably makes
sense. I wish the government wouldn't allow anyone to own a patent on
any living thing, but as long as it does, better the University of
Hawaii own Taro than some company in another city or even country.
(After all, a company in Texas owns the patent to Basmati Rice.) Again
though, if the Hawaiian people don't want a patent on Hawaiian Taro,
if they would prefer to leave it at risk, that really is their
decision and not UH's. I was moved by the ceremony of the protest and
the attention to social responsibilty being instilled in all those
young Hawaiian students from the charter schools. But it did make me
angry that they invited Dean Hashimoto to speak and then heckled him
off the floor. I wish all people would take the time to research the
issue, listen to both sides, and not protest for the sake of protest.



--- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "ethnobiologyhi"
<ethnobiologyhi@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Aurora.  This is definitely a complicated issue.  Any other
> information or feelings on the subject people would like to share is
> encouraged.  I think it was very good and brave of Dean Hashimoto
> from CITAHR to attend and speak at the taro patent protest today.
> Mahalo, Laura
>
> --- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "kealohi99" <kagawa@> wrote:
> >
> > there is a lot of emotion accompanying this debate... and perhaps a
> > lack of information.   Here's a short (and I'm sure still somewhat
> > incomplete) piece of the discussion that went on in CTAHR last
> summer
> > when this issue surfaced (see forwarded messages below).
> >
> > Here's some fact mixed with some of my opinions (sorry if they're
> not
> > separated better)
> > The bill going forward is Senate Bill 2749, which seeks to ban all
> GM
> > research on taro.  I'm not sure if it also applies to Bun Long
> > (Chinese taro) or only Hawaiian varieties.  It's a little disturbing
> > that the issue could not be solved with groups communicating
> better...
> > that now the Legislature is considering the possibility of (in
> > essence) controlling research at UH.  I am really torn in this
> debate
> > between the two sides: arguments for cultural respect and academic
> > freedom both make sense- i don't think they're mutually exclusive
> > though this issue has perhaps polarized those involved.
> >
> > A few important considerations that complicate this issue (at least
> > for me)- Phytophthora (leaf blight) and Pythium ("pocket rot") are
> > major causes of crop loss.  Fungicides are available, but these
> > chemicals are perhaps not so healthy for the environment, farmers,
> and
> > are possibly costly?  Kalo is very work-intensive, and I wonder...
> if
> > the cost of growing it becomes too high, how will farming kalo be
> > economically sustainable?
> > other things:
> > -kalo is vegetatively propagated; flowing seems kind of a rare event
> > (in my very limited experience)-- i wonder how much a threat
> crossing is.
> > -most GM research we hear about is that of big corporations:
> Monsanto,
> > Pioneer- that also produce herbicides... thus they have a huge
> > economic investment in the systems they design: Roundup-Ready corn
> to
> > go along with RoundUp, etc... I don't think UH fits into the same
> > category, though I think that might be beside the point here.
> >
> > Please enlighten me/us with more insight.  I am struggling with this
> > issue...
> > aloha,
> > aurora (not technically an ethnobiologist.)
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:22:12 -0700
> > From: Susan Miyasaka <miyasaka@>
> > To: CTAHR@
> > Cc: Maureen Fitch <mfitch@>, Judy Zhu
> > <JZHU@>,
> >      Paul Moore <PMOORE@>
> > Subject: Setting the record straight
> >
> > >>Dear Fellow CTAHR members,
> >
> > I would like to set the record straight with you, so that you can
> set
> > the record straight with concerned clientele.
> > Walter Ritte's statement is incorrect.
> >
> >
> > >>WE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INSERT DISEASE RESISTANCE GENES INTO
> HAWAIIAN TARO
> > >>VARIETIES.  In order to be able to insert disease resistance genes
> > into taro, we needed to develop regenerable callus - in other words,
> > we needed to be able to manipulate the hormones in tissue culture,
> > first to produce callus, and then to regenerate whole plants from
> > callus.  We attempted to do this with the the Chinese variety, Bun
> > long, and the Hawaiian taro variety, Maui Lehua (which is a modern
> > variety, and not one of the ancestral Hawaiian varieties).  We were
> > not able to develop regenerable callus for Maui Lehua, and as a
> > result, we didn't attempt to insert transgenes into this Hawaiian
> taro
> > variety.  We were successful with the Chinese variety, Bun long, and
> > all our further transgenic research focuses on this particular
> variety.
> >
> >
> > If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
> I
> > will return from my sabbatical leave on June 1.
> >
> > Best wishes, Susan C. Miyasaka
> >
> > Susan C. Miyasaka
> > Agronomist
> > University of Hawaii
> > Dept. of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences
> > 875 Komohana St.
> > Hilo, HI 96720
> > (808) 981-5180
> > FAX: (808) 981-5190
> > miyasaka@
> >
> > >>
> > >>At 10:32 AM 5/20/2005 -1000, you wrote:
> > >>>>FYI
> > >>>>I just intercepted this message from Walter Ritte via a Native
> > Hawaiian organization.
> > Glenn Teves
> >
> > >>>>> >Subject: Moratorium to protect taro
> > >>>>> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:39:17 -1000
> >
> > >>>>> > Aloha, The University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and
> > Human Resources (CTAHR) has done Genetic Engineering (GE) research
> on
> > Hawaiian taro. This means they have altered the DNA of of our
> Hawaiian
> > taro. They have done this with no consultation of the Hawaiian
> community.
> >
> > >>>>> > Haloa was the first born in the genealogy of the Hawaiians.
> He
> > was still born and placed into the ground, and grew into the taro
> > plant. The second born was man. Haloa became the staple crop of the
> > Hawaiian people, and it was the responsibility of the Hawaiian to
> care
> > for Haloa.
> > >>>>> > Due to pressure from the Hawaiian community and help from
> > Senator Clayton Hee, CTAHR has agreed to sign a moratorium on any GE
> > research until a research review board composed of Hawaiians is
> > established to protect the interest of Hawaiians and their sacred
> > plants. This event and ceremony will take place Tue May 24th at
> 3:00pm
> > at the Hawaiian Studies Complex in the taro patch called Kanewai
> right
> > off Dole street.
> > >>>>> > This will be an important day as Hawaiians speak to
> > researchers to ask that they respect the host culture of these
> > Islands, we hope people will come and support this effort as we
> begin
> > to try and guide scientist as to what they should and should not do
> in
> > the name of science. Researchers have no right to manipulate our
> > ancesters DNA without the consent of the Hawaiian community.
> >
> > Walter Ritte
> >
>

Thank you Aurora.  This is definitely a complicated issue.  Any other
information or feelings on the subject people would like to share is
encouraged.  I think it was very good and brave of Dean Hashimoto
from CITAHR to attend and speak at the taro patent protest today.
Mahalo, Laura

--- In ethnobiologyHI@yahoogroups.com, "kealohi99" <kagawa@...> wrote:
>
> there is a lot of emotion accompanying this debate... and perhaps a
> lack of information.   Here's a short (and I'm sure still somewhat
> incomplete) piece of the discussion that went on in CTAHR last
summer
> when this issue surfaced (see forwarded messages below).
>
> Here's some fact mixed with some of my opinions (sorry if they're
not
> separated better)
> The bill going forward is Senate Bill 2749, which seeks to ban all
GM
> research on taro.  I'm not sure if it also applies to Bun Long
> (Chinese taro) or only Hawaiian varieties.  It's a little disturbing
> that the issue could not be solved with groups communicating
better...
> that now the Legislature is considering the possibility of (in
> essence) controlling research at UH.  I am really torn in this
debate
> between the two sides: arguments for cultural respect and academic
> freedom both make sense- i don't think they're mutually exclusive
> though this issue has perhaps polarized those involved.
>
> A few important considerations that complicate this issue (at least
> for me)- Phytophthora (leaf blight) and Pythium ("pocket rot") are
> major causes of crop loss.  Fungicides are available, but these
> chemicals are perhaps not so healthy for the environment, farmers,
and
> are possibly costly?  Kalo is very work-intensive, and I wonder...
if
> the cost of growing it becomes too high, how will farming kalo be
> economically sustainable?
> other things:
> -kalo is vegetatively propagated; flowing seems kind of a rare event
> (in my very limited experience)-- i wonder how much a threat
crossing is.
> -most GM research we hear about is that of big corporations:
Monsanto,
> Pioneer- that also produce herbicides... thus they have a huge
> economic investment in the systems they design: Roundup-Ready corn
to
> go along with RoundUp, etc... I don't think UH fits into the same
> category, though I think that might be beside the point here.
>
> Please enlighten me/us with more insight.  I am struggling with this
> issue...
> aloha,
> aurora (not technically an ethnobiologist.)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:22:12 -0700
> From: Susan Miyasaka <miyasaka@...>
> To: CTAHR@...
> Cc: Maureen Fitch <mfitch@...>, Judy Zhu
> <JZHU@...>,
>      Paul Moore <PMOORE@...>
> Subject: Setting the record straight
>
> >>Dear Fellow CTAHR members,
>
> I would like to set the record straight with you, so that you can
set
> the record straight with concerned clientele.
> Walter Ritte's statement is incorrect.
>
>
> >>WE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INSERT DISEASE RESISTANCE GENES INTO
HAWAIIAN TARO
> >>VARIETIES.  In order to be able to insert disease resistance genes
> into taro, we needed to develop regenerable callus - in other words,
> we needed to be able to manipulate the hormones in tissue culture,
> first to produce callus, and then to regenerate whole plants from
> callus.  We attempted to do this with the the Chinese variety, Bun
> long, and the Hawaiian taro variety, Maui Lehua (which is a modern
> variety, and not one of the ancestral Hawaiian varieties).  We were
> not able to develop regenerable callus for Maui Lehua, and as a
> result, we didn't attempt to insert transgenes into this Hawaiian
taro
> variety.  We were successful with the Chinese variety, Bun long, and
> all our further transgenic research focuses on this particular
variety.
>
>
> If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
I
> will return from my sabbatical leave on June 1.
>
> Best wishes, Susan C. Miyasaka
>
> Susan C. Miyasaka
> Agronomist
> University of Hawaii
> Dept. of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences
> 875 Komohana St.
> Hilo, HI 96720
> (808) 981-5180
> FAX: (808) 981-5190
> miyasaka@...
>
> >>
> >>At 10:32 AM 5/20/2005 -1000, you wrote:
> >>>>FYI
> >>>>I just intercepted this message from Walter Ritte via a Native
> Hawaiian organization.
> Glenn Teves
>
> >>>>> >Subject: Moratorium to protect taro
> >>>>> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:39:17 -1000
>
> >>>>> > Aloha, The University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and
> Human Resources (CTAHR) has done Genetic Engineering (GE) research
on
> Hawaiian taro. This means they have altered the DNA of of our
Hawaiian
> taro. They have done this with no consultation of the Hawaiian
community.
>
> >>>>> > Haloa was the first born in the genealogy of the Hawaiians.
He
> was still born and placed into the ground, and grew into the taro
> plant. The second born was man. Haloa became the staple crop of the
> Hawaiian people, and it was the responsibility of the Hawaiian to
care
> for Haloa.
> >>>>> > Due to pressure from the Hawaiian community and help from
> Senator Clayton Hee, CTAHR has agreed to sign a moratorium on any GE
> research until a research review board composed of Hawaiians is
> established to protect the interest of Hawaiians and their sacred
> plants. This event and ceremony will take place Tue May 24th at
3:00pm
> at the Hawaiian Studies Complex in the taro patch called Kanewai
right
> off Dole street.
> >>>>> > This will be an important day as Hawaiians speak to
> researchers to ask that they respect the host culture of these
> Islands, we hope people will come and support this effort as we
begin
> to try and guide scientist as to what they should and should not do
in
> the name of science. Researchers have no right to manipulate our
> ancesters DNA without the consent of the Hawaiian community.
>
> Walter Ritte
>

there is a lot of emotion accompanying this debate... and perhaps a
lack of information.   Here's a short (and I'm sure still somewhat
incomplete) piece of the discussion that went on in CTAHR last summer
when this issue surfaced (see forwarded messages below).

Here's some fact mixed with some of my opinions (sorry if they're not
separated better)
The bill going forward is Senate Bill 2749, which seeks to ban all GM
research on taro.  I'm not sure if it also applies to Bun Long
(Chinese taro) or only Hawaiian varieties.  It's a little disturbing
that the issue could not be solved with groups communicating better...
that now the Legislature is considering the possibility of (in
essence) controlling research at UH.  I am really torn in this debate
between the two sides: arguments for cultural respect and academic
freedom both make sense- i don't think they're mutually exclusive
though this issue has perhaps polarized those involved.

A few important considerations that complicate this issue (at least
for me)- Phytophthora (leaf blight) and Pythium ("pocket rot") are
major causes of crop loss.  Fungicides are available, but these
chemicals are perhaps not so healthy for the environment, farmers, and
are possibly costly?  Kalo is very work-intensive, and I wonder... if
the cost of growing it becomes too high, how will farming kalo be
economically sustainable?
other things:
-kalo is vegetatively propagated; flowing seems kind of a rare event
(in my very limited experience)-- i wonder how much a threat crossing is.
-most GM research we hear about is that of big corporations: Monsanto,
Pioneer- that also produce herbicides... thus they have a huge
economic investment in the systems they design: Roundup-Ready corn to
go along with RoundUp, etc... I don't think UH fits into the same
category, though I think that might be beside the point here.

Please enlighten me/us with more insight.  I am struggling with this
issue...
aloha,
aurora (not technically an ethnobiologist.)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:22:12 -0700
From: Susan Miyasaka <miyasaka@...>
To: CTAHR@...
Cc: Maureen Fitch <mfitch@...>, Judy Zhu
<JZHU@...>,
      Paul Moore <PMOORE@...>
Subject: Setting the record straight

>>Dear Fellow CTAHR members,

I would like to set the record straight with you, so that you can set
the record straight with concerned clientele.
Walter Ritte's statement is incorrect.


>>WE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INSERT DISEASE RESISTANCE GENES INTO HAWAIIAN TARO
>>VARIETIES.  In order to be able to insert disease resistance genes
into taro, we needed to develop regenerable callus - in other words,
we needed to be able to manipulate the hormones in tissue culture,
first to produce callus, and then to regenerate whole plants from
callus.  We attempted to do this with the the Chinese variety, Bun
long, and the Hawaiian taro variety, Maui Lehua (which is a modern
variety, and not one of the ancestral Hawaiian varieties).  We were
not able to develop regenerable callus for Maui Lehua, and as a
result, we didn't attempt to insert transgenes into this Hawaiian taro
variety.  We were successful with the Chinese variety, Bun long, and
all our further transgenic research focuses on this particular variety.


If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.  I
will return from my sabbatical leave on June 1.

Best wishes, Susan C. Miyasaka

Susan C. Miyasaka
Agronomist
University of Hawaii
Dept. of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences
875 Komohana St.
Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 981-5180
FAX: (808) 981-5190
miyasaka@...

>>
>>At 10:32 AM 5/20/2005 -1000, you wrote:
>>>>FYI
>>>>I just intercepted this message from Walter Ritte via a Native
Hawaiian organization.
Glenn Teves

>>>>> >Subject: Moratorium to protect taro
>>>>> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:39:17 -1000

>>>>> > Aloha, The University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and
Human Resources (CTAHR) has done Genetic Engineering (GE) research on
Hawaiian taro. This means they have altered the DNA of of our Hawaiian
taro. They have done this with no consultation of the Hawaiian community.

>>>>> > Haloa was the first born in the genealogy of the Hawaiians. He
was still born and placed into the ground, and grew into the taro
plant. The second born was man. Haloa became the staple crop of the
Hawaiian people, and it was the responsibility of the Hawaiian to care
for Haloa.
>>>>> > Due to pressure from the Hawaiian community and help from
Senator Clayton Hee, CTAHR has agreed to sign a moratorium on any GE
research until a research review board composed of Hawaiians is
established to protect the interest of Hawaiians and their sacred
plants. This event and ceremony will take place Tue May 24th at 3:00pm
at the Hawaiian Studies Complex in the taro patch called Kanewai right
off Dole street.
>>>>> > This will be an important day as Hawaiians speak to
researchers to ask that they respect the host culture of these
Islands, we hope people will come and support this effort as we begin
to try and guide scientist as to what they should and should not do in
the name of science. Researchers have no right to manipulate our
ancesters DNA without the consent of the Hawaiian community.

Walter Ritte

Anyone interested in volunteering time up at the Lyon Arboretum or
perhaps as a club adopting the ethnobotany section and working there
regularly? perhaps once a month?  I know they could use the help and
the arboretum is a great although underutilized resource.  Let me know
what you think.

Please also post other suggestions for how the Ethnobiology Society
can better serve the interests of interested students and the community.

Thanks

Tim Gallaher
(New Member)

Aloha everyone,
If there are any topics you would like to discuss at upcoming
meetings, if you have a talk you'd like to give, or a special event
you'd like to see the club to take part in, please post a message
about it or email me.  Mahalo, Laura