Gmo - Hawaiin Case

Frame: The biggest problem in the case has been Mr Ilangan’s inability to undertake a firm decision and lack of leadership skills in a situation of grave public concern.

Analysis

Major Parties to the Issue: The Hawaiian public ; The Council Members ; Pro G.M.O. groups ; Anti G.M.O groups & Independent research scientists

Human beings, by nature, are resistant to change. It is very easy to cause an outcry and instigate public sentiment on a topic as basic as – food.

While there are many scientists and theories which try to prove a case for the G.M.O’s and against it, what has been a disaster for Mr. Ilangan has been his inability to step up as a leader and take a firm decision - for or against the ban.

Mr. Ilangan on his part was being very unbiased and went to great lengths to make sure he did not take a hasty decision.

In his attempt to hear out the views of both sides, he ended up giving mixed signals to the people of the land as he was unable to communicate his intent clearly.This void in communication left the people frustrated and they wanted their elected leader to take a stand and explain reasons for the same.

Communicate

Mr. Ilangan had 8 other council members and he should have taken them into confidence when deciding the reasoning behind his vote against the ban.

Most council members went with public opinion – which was strongly in favour of the ban against GMO’s.

It would have been an effort worth trying to get the parties involved together in one platform and try alleviate the fears of adverse effects of GMO’s.

The huge negativity around the GMO’s resulted in other efforts like - special task force to weigh the implications of a ban on GMO’s take a back seat due to lack of consensus.

This was really be a blow to the state as it would never be able to measure in absolute terms the impact of the ban and thereby leave the debate – GMO’s are indeed beneficiary – lingering!