Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 19, 2016)
CapitalPress.com 6 August 19, 2016 Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor Mike O’Brien Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Immigration reform will require courage T here are 12 million stories about those who have illegally immigrated to the U.S. They range from heart-wrenching to opportunistic. Each is different in many ways, and the same in one: Each person broke federal law in getting here. That’s why the discussion of illegal immigration is so divisive. While many Americans see the people behind the statistics, many counter with, “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” Democratic and Republican presidential administrations for decades have tried to come up with effective and fair means of addressing illegal immigrants that ranged from deportation to amnesty. President Barack Obama even tried an end-run around Congress after that esteemed body refused — again — to do anything substantive about the issue. Though politicians tend to fall back on a combination of generality, placation and prejudice when they speak about illegal immigrants, many of the arguments circle around to what Congress needs to do to address the issue. Most people agree that the border must be secured to prevent the free fl ow of people in and out of the U.S. Without that, we have no immigration policy. Most people also agree illegal immigrants must pay a fi ne for breaking the law in order to be considered for any type of legal permanent residence. And they must not have broken other criminal laws. They must also learn to speak English. It makes no sense to foster a nation in which the people do not share a common language. AP Photo/Gosia Wozniacka, File In this 2013 photo taken near Fresno, Calif., farmworkers pick paper trays of dried raisins off the ground and heap them onto a trailer in the fi nal step of raisin harvest. For the sake of the nation, and for the immigrants, they must learn English. Much hangs in the balance, including the integrity of our country and an acknowledgment that, from its very beginning, this is a nation of immigrants. Of particular concern to farmers and others is the fact that about 75 percent of our food is harvested or tended by illegal immigrants, according to Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan organization made up of 500 CEOs and mayors. Each year, farmers and food processors are put at risk. They need to hire enough people to pick and process the crops. Though they insist that workers possess proper documentation, it is too often falsifi ed. This puts farmers in a quandary. They need workers, but they have little choice but to accept at face value the paperwork that’s presented. The other option is obtaining H-2A guestworkers. While this assures that the work force will be legal, it is expensive and time- consuming and relies on federal agencies whose priorities are set in O UR V IEW Washington, D.C. We are often told that congressional action on immigration will take place “after the next election.” As it turns out, there’s always another election, allowing politicians to duck and cover one more time, leaving immigration reform — and a growing list of other pressing matters — unaddressed. As the fall general election approaches, we urge our readers to listen closely to the congressional and presidential candidates. Brush aside the bombast and the generalities and look for positions on immigration reform that are practical, affordable, effective and offer a long-term solution. They all know what that solution is, they just aren’t willing to display the courage it takes to make it a reality. Studies show safety of GMOs Producers need tools to deal I with eagle depredation By JACK DEWITT I f a wolf kills a calf out on the range, the rancher is sure to let out a yell and report it to wildlife offi cials. But when sheep producers lose hundreds of lambs each year to depredation by eagles no one says anything. Last week the Capital Press made public what has been an open secret among sheep producers for years — eagles love to feed on newborn lambs and there’s not much they can do to stop them. If you didn’t know it’s because many sheep producers would just as soon everyone kept quiet. Peter Orwick, executive director of the American Sheep Industry Association, said raptors are a huge problem for producers and that eagles are a particularly tough challenge. One producer in Oregon reluctantly told us she loses 300 lambs a year to eagles. Producers don’t report and wildlife offi cials stopped asking questions. In 2004, the last year the federal government collected separate data, eagles killed 6,300 sheep and lambs. Eagles present as great a problem to producers as wolves and other predators, and farmers need better tools to deal with them. It’s diffi cult to say much against eagles because they enjoy a special place in our collective psyche. Had Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother fallen victim to an eagle instead of a wolf our perceptions of the animals might be quite different. The dejected are “thrown to the wolves.” Those practicing a dangerous deception are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Families in dire straits struggle to “keep the wolves from the door.” Wolves are dangerous predators that might be admired from a distance but must be avoided under all circumstances. Eagles are the symbol of liberty and independence. A bald eagle adorns the Great Seal of the United States. Eagles are also an important symbol of the conservation movement, one of the fi rst animals to be placed on the endangered species list. While bald eagles have since been recovered and have been removed from the list, they and other raptors are protected under separate federal law. And that’s the rub. While ranchers on the range have many unregulated tools at their disposal to scare wolves away from their herds, even the most gentle ruffl ing of an eagle’s feathers without a permit could land a producer in federal court. Getting a permit to haze eagles is a Byzantine exercise involving the USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service. As reluctant as producers are to allow the feds access to their property, they fear more the prospect of becoming the targets of over zealous conservation groups. We concede that allowing producers to shoot problem eagles is a non-starter, and giving federal wildlife offi cials that authority would be an uphill battle. The optics of such a thing would enrage even those most sympathetic to agriculture. But producers should be given freedom without federal intervention to scare eagles off by means that don’t harm the birds. If it works for the protected wolves, it should work for the protected eagles. Readers’ views How do they pro- MPP works C ougars, wolves of pose roadways. to keep the cougars within their designated areas? Outrid- just as it was and deer study ers, anyone? I fail to see the connection designed out of touch Lynne McBride does not they are trying to make. One Regarding the story about the study that says cougars and wolves benefi t people. Once again some supposed- ly educated people, being paid by tax dollars, are off on a tan- gent leading into the unknown. How can so many people be so far out of touch with the real world? Just in case they haven’t noticed, the road kill of deer far exceeds the deer killing of humans. And the deer are pre- dominantly in just certain areas they didn’t mention: Traffi c and cougars. So now it is also going to be cars versus cats to look out for. The most outlandish, most outrageous statement in the article was: “I think hitting a deer is something most people have either experienced or they know someone who has hit a deer.” I’m sure glad I never had such an out-of-touch teacher. Marvin Reed Reno, Nev. speak for all California dairy farmers with regards to the MPP program. The program is designed to be catastrophic income insur- ance and it works just as designed. Do people complain every year when they buy fire insurance and their hay stack doesn’t burn up? Of course not. You have to look at the MPP the same way. I bought $5 margin cov- erage for my 750 milk cow dairy. It cost me $6,400. In 2009 my margin went down to about $1.50 per cwt. In that year this $5 coverage would have paid handsome- ly. Do I wish for a 2009 scenario so I can get a good return on my MPP “invest- ment?” Of course not. Some people are never happy with policies adopt- ed by the government. I guess that is to be expect- ed. I would just ask that as a reporter you try to get a broader perspective when you cover a story. Geoff Vanden Heuvel J&D Star Dairy Chino, Calif. For the Capital Press Guest comment n the June 3 Capital Press, the writer of a guest comment column criticized a May 20 Associated Press story printed in the Capital Press concerning the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicines re- port entitled “Genetically Engi- neered Crops, Experiences and Prospects.” The Academy’s major goal was “to make available to the public, to researchers and to policy-makers a comprehensive review of the evidence that has been used in the debates about GE crops and information on relevant studies that are rarely re- ferred to in debates.” The AP story concluded that the report attests to the safety of GMOs. The guest columnist dis- agreed with that conclusion. The report is not yet available in print, but can be downloaded from the internet, and I have done so, all 407 pages. Like the AP story, I fi nd the report reassuring as to the safety of GM crops. Chapter 5 of the report deals with human health effects of GM crops. On page 114, the authors quote statements of safety from organizations around the world: The U.S. National Research Council, the American Associ- ation for the Advancement of Science, the Council on Science and Public Health of the Ameri- can Medical Association House of Delegates, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission (the executive body of the European Union), which concluded “from the efforts of more than 130 re- search projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 in- dependent research groups, is that biotechnology, and particu- larly GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The June 3 guest columnist implied that these organizations and the committees that put to- gether this tome are in thrall of big corporations, or are mem- bers of a government conspiracy aligned with Big Ag. I fi nd such a view blatantly cynical. The columnist referred to a study led by Giles-Eric Serali- ni in which rats were fed GM corn and Roundup for up to two years and concluded that GM corn and Roundup caused ex- tensive tumors. Seralini used the Sprague-Dawley strain of rats that are very prone to tumor production, and within two years most will die of cancer naturally. In a 2001 experiment with untreated rats, 70-77 percent of females and 87 to 97 percent of males developed tumors over a lifespan of 89 to 105 weeks (Nakazawa, M, et al, “Sponta- neous neoplastic lesions in aged Sprague-Dawley Rats”. Experi- mental Animals, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp99-103.) Seralini’s paper and conclusions (“Long-term toxic- ity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modifi ed maize”) were roundly criticized by scientists around the world because of his small sam- ple size and general methods. The Jack DeWitt paper was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology in Septem- ber of 2012, and retracted in No- vember of 2013. Yet, anti-GMO activists constantly refer to this rejected study. Quoting from a paper by Ali- son Van Eenennaam, UCCE Spe- cialist, Dept. of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, “Over 100 digestion and feed- ing studies examining the effects of feeding GE crops to various food-producing animal species have been reported in the scien- tifi c literature. … Results have revealed no signifi cant differenc- es in the nutritional value of feed- stuffs derived from commercially grown GE crops compared with their conventional counterparts, nor have any peer–reviewed studies documented alterations in feed intake, growth, or other live- stock production parameters.” (Proceedings, California Alfalfa and Forage Symposium, Dec 2005. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu. See also Flachowsky, et. al, “An- imal nutrition with feeds from genetically modifi ed plants.“ Ar- chives of Animal Nutrition, Vol 59, pp.1-40. 2005.) Dr. Van Eenennaam subse- quently reviewed animal health data sets from 1983 (before the introduction of GE feedstuffs in 1996) to 2011, and published the results in 2014 (“Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock popula- tions,” American Society of An- imal Science, Vol 92, pp. 4255- 4278.) Quoting from her abstract, “Numerous experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines. U.S. agriculture produces over 9 billion food producing animals annually, and more than 95 percent of these animals con- sume feed containing GE ingre- dients. … These fi eld data sets, representing 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profi le of animal products derived from GE-fed animals.” There are hundreds of studies worldwide that attest to the safe- ty and “substantial equivalence” of GMOs where animal and hu- man health are concerned, and to the benefi ts that accrue to the environment. I caution every- one to beware the voluminous, specious, sometimes mythical, anti-GMO information promul- gated or inspired by NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, whose agenda, if success- ful, will result in a world where only the wealthy will be well-fed, well-clothed, and well-housed. Jack DeWitt has a mas- ter’s degree in agronomy from Washington State University and has 50-plus years of farming experience and agricultural research monitoring. He lives in Milton-Freewater, Ore.