Maui GMO Legal Opinion

Maui GMO Legal Opinion


Dr. Horowitz’s Opinion on the Temporary Defeat of the Maui GMO Legal Battle

I live on the Big Island and am a big fan of Margaret Wille and activists’ efforts to block the poisonous injustice advancing in the name of “science” and genetics.

I am also the author of the book, DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral (currently out of print, and only available in e-book form from and

The ruling in this Maui GMO legal case, in my opinion, provides the leverage needed to gain our momentum and moratoriums. But we need to exclusively tailor our ordinance(s) to comply with C.F.R. § 340.0.

Here is my legal and scientific argument, from federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway‘s relevant quotes:

“The regulations implementing the Plant Protection Act prohibit persons from introducing any regulated article unless 567(1) the  Administrator  receives  notification  as  required  by  78 C.F.R. § 340.3, that the introduction is permitted in accordance with 7 C.F.R. § 340.4, or is conditionally exempt; and (2) the introduction of the regulated article conforms with all other requirements of part 340. 7 C.F.R. § 340.0. . . .”

“The ban on GE organisms, some of which are plant pests, causes the Ordinance to run afoul of the Plant Protection Act’s purpose of setting a national standard governing the movement of plant pests and noxious weeds in interstate commerce based on sound science. See 7 U.S.C. § 7701. . . .” at page 37. . . .

“Excluded are recipient microorganisms which are not plant pests and which have resulted from the addition of genetic material from a donor organism where the material is well characterized and contains only non-coding regulatory regions. . . .” 7 C.F.R. § 340.1

Material Facts in Dispute:

1) The use of the term, “sound science,” what is that? Any reasonable person would consider this an ambiguous term by reason of conflicting interests, procedural biases, and even scientific fraud and evidence tampering. (There are many examples in the world of Monsanto and its parent corporation Pfizer to assert this position.)

2) “Well characterized” . . . What is the definition of “well characterized?” You do not need to look deep into the scientific literature to realize the weakness here.

Wikipedia, “The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding,[2] while 20% of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding.[3] When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function for the organism, as theoretically predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has often been referred to as “junk DNA”, a term that has elicited strong responses over the years.”

In other words, let’s take 98% of you to the dump as “junk”–God made a huge mistake with creating the human species. Otherwise, atheists have the impossible task of explaining why “evolution of the species” and “survival of the fittest” has, over millennia, formed you 98% defective (or otherwise genetically moot).

“Strong responses” characterize this matter before the public and the courts, and for good neglected causes. . . .

Neglecting religious considerations for the moment (at a time in history wherein the “Gods of science” have a clear and convincing agenda to disparage all the world’s religions, including the Ten Commandments that substantively form the foundation of Western Law). In fact, the “non-coding” portions of the DNA play a large vital role in biological function, “cellular up-regulation” that is mediated by light and sound signaling, intercellular communications, clearly impacting the entire organism–tissues, organs, growth and development.

3) who is the “Administrator” in 567(1) that shall govern this pivotal decision?  The  Administrator  must  decide  on  ” the introduction of the regulated article” and see to it that it conforms with all other requirements of part 340. 7 C.F.R. § 340.0, and is a  “plant  pest” –meaning (pursuant  to 7 U.S.C § 7702(14)):

“any  living  stage  of  any  of  the  following  that  can  directly  or  indirectly  injure,  cause  damage  to,  or cause  disease  in  any  plant  or  plant  product: ( A) A protozoan. (B) A nonhuman animal. (C) A parasitic plant. (D) A bacterium. (E) A fungus. (F) A virus or viroid. (G) An infectious agent or other pathogen. (H) Any  article  similar  to  or  allied  with  any of  the  articles  specified  in  the  preceding  subparagraphs.”

Now we look at available statutory “Exceptions” (quoting the Mollway decision):
Judge Susan Oki Mollway

(2) Exceptions
(A) Regulations  consistent  with  Federal  regulations. . . .  A  State  or  a  political  subdivision  of  a  State may  impose  prohibitions  or restrictions  upon the  movement  in  interstate  commerce  of articles,  means  of  conveyance,  plants, biological  control  organisms, plant  pests, noxious  weeds,  or  plant  products  that  are consistent  with  and  do  not  exceed  the regulations  or  orders  issued  by the Secretary.  (B)  Special  need  A  State  or  political  subdivision  of  a  State may  impose  prohibitions  or  restrictions  upon  the movement  in  interstate  commerce  of  articles, means  of  conveyance,  plants,  plant products,  biological  control  organisms, plant pests,  or  noxious  weeds  that  are  in  addition  to  the  prohibitions  or  restrictions  imposed by  the  Secretary,  if  the  State  or political subdivision  of  a  State  demonstrates  to  the Secretary  and  the  Secretary  finds  that  there  is  a  special  need  for  additional prohibitions  or  restrictions  based  on  sound  scientific  data  or  a  thorough  risk  assessment.”

Thus,  as  I  read  this, the  Secretary plays a pivotal role as an Administrator governing GMO commerce and scientific decisions that certainly pose risks, sail uncharted waters, and deprive people of their religious rights. Example, Gov. Jerry Brown (who actor Jim Carey just correctly called “fascist”) just signed into Law California’s unconstitutional mandatory vaccination bill; injecting GMOs into school children’s bloodstreams in violation of Leviticus 19:19. Does the Administrator find this First Amendment violation and medical malpractice kosher?

This genocide, after all, is acknowledged to be based on the “old theory” of “junk DNA?”

Assuming the Administrator is unbiased, and finds this “standard of care” in the world of science acceptable, does the Administrator’s decision comply with statute that demands “sound  scientific  data?” What about the required thorough “risk assessment” compelling  an  exclusion  on  behalf  of  citizens  who  have  voted  to  assert  their  rights to life, including religious freedom in “One Nation Under God.”

Hawaii voters have demanded to be protected by their governments from known and unknown risks, posed by historically untrustworthy multinational chemical and pharmaceutical companies that have demonstrated a pattern of destroying species and environments. (And was it not the “God’s of science” that loosed the diurnal mongoose in Hawaii to seek and destroy nocturnal rodents . . . . Daahhh?)

The Administrator  has  not,  and  cannot  demonstrate,  long term risk assessment, nor “sound  scientific  data”  on  all  the  biological  systems  impacted  by  altered  genetic  functions  from  coding  or  non-coding  regions  of  the  genome.

Thus, therein lies the strength of activism, and I think these are matters for the Supreme Court to decide.

I conclude that our county ordinances simply need to be refined to comport with federal statutes that gives our counties the “exceptions” we need to lawfully enforce GMO moratorium(s).

Not only does the emperor have no clothes to dress in the world of science, but the First Amendment secures religious freedom as the Gods of GMO politics celebrate a limited temporary Oki Mollway victory.

Leonard G. Horowitz
Editor-in-Chief, Medical Veritas International, Inc.
Sponsor of


Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 11.57.04 AM