 Aloha, welcome to the Ruderman Roundtable. I'm State Senator Russell Ruderman from the Pune and Ka'u District on the Big Island. And I'm your host here at Think Tech Hawaii every other Tuesday. My guest today is Peter Adler. Peter is currently part of the Accord 3.0 network, which is a seasoned team of respected professionals in planning, law, business, government affairs, public policy, environmental, finance, and communications. Mr. Adler returned to Hawaii five years ago after serving as president of the Keystone Center for nearly a decade. Peter's specialty is multi-party negotiation and problem solving. He has worked extensively on water management and resource planning problems and mediates rights, trains, and teaches in diverse areas of conflict management. Peter is also an author and has written extensively in the field of mediation and conflict resolution. Welcome to the show. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Senator. I think what might be of most interest recently you've been very involved in, the joint fact-finding study, which occurred on Kauai to study pesticide use and the effects of pesticide use. Is that correct? You were there. It is. What was your involvement in that? I was. The project was actually initiated by the Department of Agriculture by Chairman Enright. And he asked if I would work on this. I think he recognized that it was a tumultuous debates going on, wanted to see if we could bring some negotiated fact-finding together and bring people. And so we did that on Kauai really as a pilot to see if it could work. Now, on Kauai had a big dust-up over GMOs and pesticides a couple of years ago that resulted in a law that is now in court. Was this related to that bill being passed? Do you think it maybe was some of the aftermath of that? Well, the original idea was embedded in the ordinance, 2491 proposal that had come forward. And the idea was that there was going to be some fact-finding as the county tried to develop its own agricultural oversight of the biotech companies that, as you know, is what sort of died, although it's still being contested. But the idea remained. And people wanted to do that, especially Scott Enright. And the Department of Agriculture became the main funder of it. It was co-funded by the mayor's office, Bernard Cravalho. So it was a county-state initiative to see could we really get down to some facts. Because as you remember, the 2490 hearings were really all over the place. Yeah. So this wasn't mandated by the bill, but it was an initiative that Scott Enright got going in an attempt to try to get some real information here. That's right. Let's see if we can bring the slides together. So tell me about the joint fact-finding study. What did you do? Who was involved? What did you learn? It was the interesting, there are a tangle of questions about GMO. And that was evident in the 2490 winning hearing. Some people said, well, we're depleting the soil. And other people said, this corporate bad behavior from big biotech companies. And other people had health concerns about genetically modified plants. This focused on pesticides. So we had to kind of segregate the issues out and said, we're going to zero in on the question of the pesticides that are in use by these companies and whether there's any evidence of health harms. And there were lots of allegations that there were cancer clusters on the west side, birth defects. So there were a lot of allegations that people's human health and environmental health was being compromised by these pesticides. We worked very hard on this. And I personally was very involved in trying to assemble a group that had some diversity. I wanted all Kauai people, but people who were science educated and could sit in discussion. We had a number of people from the biotech industry. We had several doctors. We had plant scientists. So it was a good mix of people. And the idea was to really unpack the issues, unpack the questions, and see if we could find evidence. And that's what we did. The good news for, there's a little good news for everybody and a little bad news for everybody. So the industry itself, I think everybody, if I can say Senator, everybody reads a report like this and they pluck out what they want to hear and what they want to publicize. And I'm not familiar with that syndrome. I've noticed that. I've noticed that happening remarkably so with this report. I've clearly heard both sides claiming victory. That's right. So, but we didn't set it up as a battle in which there were gonna be victors and losers. We really were interested in the facts that we could assemble and the evidence. And that's the focus is on what's the evidence of the various claims. So for the industry, the really good news, I think genuinely is that there isn't a lot of evidence of the migration of pesticides into the human communities that are adjacent there. The good news for opponents was that the evidence is still slim and it really requires more study. So I think people said that's a really good starting point. And in fact, the study recommends a string of studies that the group hopes the state will take up. And I hope they will take it up. And did you guys do any actual going out and testing water? Did you analyze tests that had already been done that were on the record? No, this wasn't set up to do original new research. Analyzing what to build. Yeah, we were trying to pull together in one place everything that we could find out. So there, for example, we listed and reviewed all 15 of the environmental samples that we could put our hands on. Water studies, stream side studies, soil studies because people had done stuff. And so we pulled off all that together to see, well, is there any evidence in there that these pesticides that are being used are migrating into the environment? And if they were in the environment, were they migrating into the human populations? And so am I correct in summarizing that you didn't find any evidence of pesticide migration or health effects, but you also found areas where there was a lack of data? I think that's right. We didn't see real evidence of harm. There are in a few cases, there are pesticides that are currently used or but are in transition out that you could see some evidence of, but they were in very trace amounts. And to make a link between those trace amounts and some health conditions pretty challenging. But I think the caveat is that we all felt that the state hasn't done quite enough surveillance and studying of this. And we don't say that with criticism. We understand the Department of Health is strapped for work and the funds are being called on for many things. But if the state wants higher levels of certainty, it will have to do more investigation. So we heard during the 2491 debate, I heard a few medical doctors say they are seeing a surprising number of certain illnesses. Gastro schizzes, I think was one. You didn't find that the rates of these cases were above normal on quite? Well, that's an interesting point in particular because birth defects is one of the questions, whether there are clusters of birth defects on the west side. And there are two views. So the Department of Health's data doesn't show it. But some of the local doctors say, no, there are some things that the Department of Health is not picking up. So there's some reconciliation of data that actually needs to happen. And that's a problem of data coming out of the state generally and then data is difficult to get. So we didn't exactly conclude that these pediatricians on Kauai are incorrect. We simply don't have the answer to that question. That's right. And one of the things we tried to do in the report was encourage those physicians on the west side who thought that the Department of Health's data was wrong, get together, get together, review the cases, review the data, do it in the cone of silence and confidentiality and let's see if we can get to the real data, real facts, real evidence. That's what's missing. We're looking for evidence one way or another. What was the process like? We had a diverse group of people in this fact-finding study. We did. We did. And I tried, and myself and my colleagues, we had a team assemble to do this work. And we tried very hard to find people who, one, they were science literate. They could read studies or at least the abstracts and understand that. And second, whether it was on health, environment, biotechnology, pesticides, or whatever it might be. And second, we wanted a diversity of disciplines. So we had several doctors. We had plant scientists. We had a number of people who were actually farmers, including one who was a very strong organic farmer and very knowledgeable about pesticides. So I think everybody found, like the idea that there was a place that they could finally have a civil conversation. On the other hand, I think everybody's views imbue into the facts. And there's a natural phenomenon of that. We will, the science becomes a sorter, a shield in whatever debate you're in. And so I think it's hard for people to put aside their own biases. I think the group did as good a job as they could on that. So what would have been the biggest hurdles in gathering fact-based data, both pro and con, about gin, crops, and why? What were the limitations you came across? What could we do? Well, one was that we said one of the good things is that we actually pulled together in one place as much information as we could find and synthesize and then try to interpret in a way that would lead to logical recommendations. I think one of the challenges here again is that everybody's got a viewpoint. So my heart goes out to the people who were on this committee. They would go over to Costco or the Longs or any place and they're bumping into people saying, well, what are you doing? What's going on? What do you find? And here's my view. So it's doing this in a very small town just as it would be in your district. It's tough. Hawaii is a tough place because everybody knows everybody. There's a lot of crosstalk, a lot of cross-influency. So I think one of the hard things was for this group to sort of seal itself off from the rest of the community. A lot of blogging going on on this, a lot of newspaper reporting. So it's not like we were on a National Science Foundation panel in Washington stepped away. We were in the community and these were people from the community. I think that made it hard. That made it very difficult. On the other hand, the strength of that is it's not a couple of outside researchers who then get challenged because they're not from here. So a lot of quandaries in this work. I really commend this group. And I commend the Department of Agriculture and the mayor for taking it on and championing it. And I told you before, I think this is a long running battle, long running battle. These are not gonna get tied up in simple reports. And without giving away any confidentiality, how did the folks get along? This must have been some heated discussions, I imagine. Yes, I would say that, that's correct. There were people, I think, who argued and came on very strong with each other. But at least it was tried. They tried to, it was grounded in factual stuff. Again, the question was, well, if you're asserting an opinion, what's the evidence you're bringing to bear on that? So if you can ask that respectfully and fairly, I think that cuts through some of that. On the other hand, you make interpretations on what you have. And some people would say the cup is half full and some people would say it's half empty and some would say it's half full, but it's got some arsenic in it. So the interpretations when it came time to writing conclusions and recommendation was very challenging, but they did a good job. At the end of the day, I commend them. This is a very brave thing they took on. Did everybody sort of leave shaking hands, would you say? Yes, I think so. I mean, there were some hard feelings. And after, look, Senator, you work in an environment that's very similar where there's very strong, strong feelings. And this is a public issue and a tough one. So I don't think it's real different than that. It's hard to separate one's passions from the work that needs to be done. It is, isn't it? Yeah. We're here with Peter Adler. We're gonna take a short break and we'll be right back discussing pesticides and the fact-finding study on Kawhi with a rudiment around table. Mahalo, see you in a moment. For a very healthy summer, watch Viva Hawaii. We're giving you the best tips and with our best health coach here. So Viva, health coach. Viva la comida saludable. Hi, my name is Justine Espiritu. This is my co-host, Matthew Johnson. Every Thursday at 4 p.m., we host the Hawaii Food and Farmers series. This is the place you can come to for insight on the perspective and history and passions of Hawaii's farmers and all folks involved in Hawaii's local food system. What kind of folks do we have on? So we have everyone from local farmers. We have foodies, chefs. We also have journalists, researchers, anyone who's actually working to help make Hawaii's local food system that much better. So join us every Thursday and tweet in us and ask us some questions and leave your comments as well. Thank you. And welcome back to the Rudiment Around Table. Our guest this week is Dr. Peter Adler, Hawaii's foremost mediator. And we're talking about the joint fact-finding study that he was just the convener of and some other subjects. Thank you once again, Peter, for being with us today. My pleasure. So the reactions to the report have been quite varied as we've discussed. What should folks focus on while reviewing the report? I would encourage people to read the beginning and read the end. And in particular, once you understand what the group was doing and chose not to do, and then go to the recommendations and ask the question, are these recommendations make sense? Are there any, which ones are objectionable and why? Because at the end of the day, it lands on those recommendations, which are really all to the state legislature and the governor and to the cabinet. Summarize for me those recommendations. What do they do? There are a couple of, I think the most important ones are some very specific recommendations for further studies. In other words, if we say we really want to get to higher levels of certainty about human health and environmental health, we need to do a few more studies. We need to monitor some of the water better, the both the near shore, off shore water, the stream water, we need to do better analysis of what's in the air, what's in the soil. And it's not that the state has done nothing, but it's not as conclusive. It turns out, actually from one of the state, the Department of Health studies, one of the most contaminated streams in pesticides is in Minoa Valley, where I live. So, and that's not a big agricultural area. Maybe it was in some previous areas. There are a lot of pesticides that are showing up that are legacy pesticides back from sugar and plantations. But I think what I would encourage people to do, and it's a short read, if you just go to the recommendations, read those. The other issue is another big issue that sits here, and probably the time isn't right yet to take it on. But one of the things that emerges out of all the health studies is the standards are set around acute exposures. And, you know, so if I go by my neighbor's, yeah, my neighbor is spraying malathion on her. And there's, I can really smell it, that's an acute exposure. The question is what is long-term chronic exposure? And this is a cumulative kind of thing because there are lots of pesticides that are in golf courses, in people's homes, in their, you know, gardens. So there's a cumulative exposure. But all the standards are set at acute levels and not at chronic levels. And that's a threshold issue for the future. Now the state can't, it really belongs to EPA. But at some point, we have, we live in a very chemical intensive environment. And at some point, that larger connection between the chemicals that are out there and people's health is gonna have to get taken up. And when you say it falls to the legislature and the state government to fill in these gaps, who's coolly on with that? Would that be the Department of Health? Would it be up to legislature to pass some laws authorizing some studies? Or is that something the Department of Health ought to be doing? Well, you know, my heart goes out to the Department of Health. They were very responsive to us on data and information, as was the Department of Ag. I think these studies, the burden on moving them forward sits with the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health. They need to work together, formulate the studies, make sure that they're of high quality. And I think, you know, I can't speak for Director Enright, but I think he's prepared to at least move some of those forward. And there was a little bit of funding that came at the end of this session to get that ball started. And they'll be back up asking you guys for some money. Good. Well, if it's up to me, it'll be money well spent. What was the biggest surprise while researching this report or in its conclusions for you? Well, it was a very controversial and there are plenty of cannonballs and spears and air flying through the air and in the media. And I think I have a certainly a thick skin about all that stuff and as you would, as yourself. The interesting thing was how people were reacting to the report and where they're taking their information about the report. And nearest I can tell, a lot of it is third-hand and fourth-hand. In other words, nobody actually read the report. But they said, well, that blogger said it was good or bad or that article in the op-ed piece in the newspaper said something. So their information is coming really at a distance. But very few people actually have studied the recommendations and they're not that long, you know, they're five, six pages. And that's where I think people's attention needs to go. Where could they find this report? It's on the website, which is, excuse me, it's a www.acord3.com and it's under projects and it's all there along with hundreds of pages of appendices and accumulated reports, references. We did a lot of bibliographic work on this as well. So it's on the Accord 3.0 website. That's right. Is it on any state government website? Is it the Department of Agriculture you haven't published? I think so, I don't know that and the mayor may have put it up on Kauai as well. I don't know that for sure. So the surprise to you is that people are already getting their information from someone else who told them what the report said instead of what the report said. With their own slant. So in other words, it's a problem of sort of making your own individual assessment based on primary reading of the report. But most people, I was just surprised how much of that was going on. It was very surprising. Isn't that so much of our society has changed from getting our news from one common source to getting our news from someone we agree with. That's right. We'll always tell you what you want to hear. It's a problem. Yeah, it is a problem. Tell me about mediation. What got you interested in mediation and what prompted you to have a career in it and why do you think it's important? I actually, when I went to college 250 years ago, it feels right. I actually started out, I thought I was going to be an aquatic biologist. So this is coming back around in some ways. I was a biologist myself. So I switched into sociology and economics and but I still have a certain love of science. But the sociology and the other social science work really led me into this area of conflict resolution, conflict management, preventing unnecessary conflict. I had the good fortune to be trained very early on by some native Hawaiian elders in Ho'oponopono that led to work with the original Neighbor Justice Center and then onward. And I've always thought I'm sort of, by DNA it sort of fits my temperament. Intellectually, I find it very interesting. I also am way beyond the missionary stage where I think it's good for everything. I think it's the right thing at the right time for the right moment and the right people. It's not a cure-all. It's not a panacea. But I continue to think that resolution, collaboration, concurrence is the coin of the realm in a increasingly pluralistic and divisive society. We've got to figure out strategies for doing that. So I've been doing this for a long time and now their mediation has now come full circle where it's well integrated into the civil justice system. I worked for the courts for several chief justices and helped them bring it into the court system. And now there's lots of people who are doing different sorts of medias. It's kind of now gotten very diverse and there's retired judges who do very good mediation on intensive litigation matters. There's people like myself and my colleagues who are interested in public policy, public affairs, community issues. There are people who work on lots of different areas and a lot of specialization that has developed in the last few years. Interesting. Now you also had some involvement in a mediation in my district where it had to do with the geothermal health studies. Is that right? Am I saying, calling it right? That's right. That was when the county asked you to convene a working group. And it was similar to this. It had some similarity. We were trying to really zero on finding the best most salient factual information we could. In this case, as you know, the allegations were that people in your district were being poisoned by hydrogen sulfide. That was the fear. So we were looking at as much data as we could to understand how much H2S comes out, where are other sources of H2S, what's coming out of the RIFT zone, what's coming out of the ORMAT plant. And what came out of that, again, this was set in motion by Mayor Kanoy. Was this after Hurricane Izzelle and the blowout that happened then? No, it was before. This was ongoing before that. Yeah, yeah. But it is after that 91 blowout. That was the big blowout, which really was quite an incident. Can I remember that? Yeah, so, and that was in the memories of a lot of people and wondering if some of the health effects are residual from that blowout. So we were taking up a lot of different issues and then one of the questions was really, what exactly are the studies that need to be done to monitor H2S? H2S is the rotten egg smell for those who don't know it. In gas, it comes out of sewers, it comes out of underground storage tanks, and in acute levels it can kill you. If you crawl down into one of those storage tanks, there's a few people who die every year from doing that kind of stuff. The question is, what's, again, what's the chronic effects of long-term exposure? I was just gonna ask about that because virtually all the toxicity studies in H2S have to do with acute one-time exposures, right? There's very little data on long-term low-level exposure just as we were talking about with pesticides on Kauai. And we canvassed a lot of literature on that. Really tried to look at the best literature we could find on chronic effects. And I think it's fairly inconclusive, although I think it leans more towards there's either no problems or very few problems that are generated by that. People in Rotorua and New Zealand live on top of those H2S emissions, and some of the studies have shown they really don't have a lot of negative effects. But again, reasonable people can read that differently. So this geothermal health group recommended a number of studies which are actually in motion and are being done. I know one of those was a health study that included native Hawaiian effects on native Hawaiians. And that studies I think in the process of being commissioned. But they also looked at, remember the old HGPA well, whether that had been closed well and whether there was some residual contaminants in there, which it turns out there weren't. So we took up a number of issues and a number of questions and it led to an investment of studies. And I think there's gonna be more that's being done on that. And besides the health study where there are other recommendations that came out of that? Well, one was to have, get USGS to do some water studies in Puna and see what was going on. And I think those either have been done or are in motion now. So there were a number three or four that were very important that would again raise the level of certainty. If we value higher levels of certainty about public health issues, these kinds of approaches are important. If we don't, if we say, well, we know enough and it doesn't look like there's a problem. I guess it depends which side of the coin you're on whether we want more information. I think that's right. So tell me, Peter, if people are interested in finding you as a mediator or finding a mediator that could help them with their problems, how could they get in touch with you? How could they reach you? Easiest way is on that www.acord3.com, which is the website. And there's 25 people on there. Their bios are there. Their references are there. Articles they've written are there. And people who say that one, that guy looks pretty good for... But these are in 25 nationwide, right? Well, and in some other countries as well. We have several people out of Australia, some people on the East Coast. I'd say someone in a neighborhood association wants a mediator over in my neighborhood where constantly they have... Can you recommend someone? They could go to the website. They could send an email to us. And we will try to, we always try to be very responsive. They can contact you through the website and they can help you if you can. That website is www.acord3.com. No, no, it's www.acord3.com. I'm sorry. www.acord3.com. We could get 3.0. Okay, good. All right, well, thank you very much, Peter. It's a pleasure having you here and I've learned a lot. Thank you for all that you do to help create more peace in our community. Thank you. I'm here with Dr. Peter Adler, a mediator, and we're here at the Ruderman Roundtable at ThinkDec, Hawaii. We'll see you again in two weeks, Tuesday afternoon, too. Hawaii.