4
CapitalPress.com
January 23, 2015
Mexican trucks granted permanent entry
By DAN WHEAT
Capital Press
Commodity groups are
lauding a U.S. Department of
Transportation decision allow-
ing Mexican trucks that meet
U.S. standards to permanently
delivery goods from Mexico
into the United States and haul
goods back to Mexico.
The decision ends the pros-
pect of a resumption of $2 bil-
lion worth of annual retaliatory
Mexican tariffs on U.S. agricul-
tural and personal care products
and manufacturing goods.
The Agricultural Trans-
portation Coalition, in Wash-
ington, D.C., sent U.S. Trans-
portation Secretary Anthony
Foxx a letter, Jan. 19, thank-
ing him for decision. It ends
the threat of resumed tariffs,
relieves pressure of a U.S.
truck driver shortage and
maintains U.S. trucker safety
standards, Peter Friedmann,
the coalition’s executive di-
rector, wrote.
It implements a 22-year-
old commitment to allow
efficient, safe and reliable
trucking between the two
countries, he wrote.
Mark Powers, executive
vice president of the North-
west Horticultural Council in
Yakima, Wash., said the deci-
sion is good news for Pacific
Northwest apple, pear and
cherry growers who lost an
estimated $80 million or more
due to 20 percent duties in
2009, 2010 and 2011. Mexico
is the No. 1 export market for
Washington apples and pears.
Matt Harris, assistant ex-
ecutive director of the Wash-
ington State Potato Commis-
sion in Moses Lake, said the
decision is a relief particularly
as frozen potato products, ap-
ples, pears and hay struggle
with the longshoremen’s work
slow down at ports.
“We lost tens of millions
of dollars. It took us several
year to crawl our way out of
that barrier,” Harris said of the
tariffs.
Canada gained about half
of the U.S. business of $80
million per year in frozen po-
tato business to Mexico during
the tariffs, he said. Now U.S.
frozen potato exports to Mex-
ico are $100 million annually
and growing, he said.
The U.S. and Mexico
agreed to allow each other’s
trucks into the interior of their
countries to deliver and pick
up goods as part of the 1994
North American Free Trade
Agreement. Trucks were not
to compete with domestic
trucking within the country.
The World Trade Organi-
zation found the U.S. in viola-
tion of the agreement in 2001
for not allowing Mexican
trucks and authorized Mexico
to retaliate.
Retaliation was averted
with a 2007 Bush administra-
tion pilot program allowing
some Mexican trucks to make
deliveries to Chicago.
The Teamsters Union, cit-
ing safety and job loss con-
cerns, opposed the pilot pro-
gram and on March 11, 2009,
Congress cut funding, ending
it.
Mexico retaliated with 5
to 45-percent tariffs on U.S.
goods and expanded it in
2010. Some 99 products were
valued at $2.4 billion by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
when they were targeted in
2009, 2010 and 2011.
Washington apples were
second only to pork in U.S.
agricultural commodities af-
fected. Dairy, grain, potatoes
also were hurt. An agreement
was reached renewing the pi-
lot program and ending the
tariffs in 2011. The pilot pro-
gram ended in October but the
trucks were given provisional
authority to continue hauling.
Data collected on 15 Mexi-
can trucking companies in the
pilot program and 952 other
Mexican trucking companies
allowed to haul under pre-ex-
isting authority, showed Mex-
ican trucks and drivers met
U.S. and Canadian standards,
the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration said.
Christmas tree checkoff board named
By MITCH LIES
For the Capital Press
After more than three years
in a holding pattern punctuated
with turbulence, the national
Christmas tree checkoff pro-
gram has launched.
“Houston, we have liftoff,”
said Betty Malone, a Christmas
tree grower from Philomath,
Ore., who spearheaded efforts
to initiate the program.
“It’s been a long time com-
ing,” Malone said, “but, yes, we
have our checkoff.”
Malone of Sunrise Tree
Farm is one of 12 board mem-
bers the USDA selected Jan.
15.
Others
include
Mark
Arkills, production manager for
Holiday Tree Farms in Corval-
lis, Ore.; Jim Heater, manager
of Silver Mountain Christmas
Trees in Sublimity, Ore.; and
Mark Steelhammer of KLM
Tree Farm in Rochester, Wash.
Paul Battaglia of Battaglia
Ranch Christmas Tree Farm in
San Martin, Calif., rounds out
the Western Region representa-
tives on the board.
Rex Korson of Michigan
and Beth Walterscheidt of Tex-
as are the Central Region repre-
sentatives. Conrad Steinhart of
Florida, Bentley Curry of Loui-
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
Workers bale Christmas trees in preparation for shipment at Noble
Mountain Tree Farm near Salem, Ore., in this Capital Press file
photo. The USDA has named the board members of the new
Christmas tree checkoff.
siana, Della Jean Deal of North
Carolina and James Rockis of
West Virginia are the Eastern
Region representatives.
Christopher Maciborski of
Michigan represents importers
on the board.
Board members each repre-
sent a similar number of trees,
including the importer, Malone
said. Producers of more than
500 trees and importers are re-
quired to pay the program’s 15-
cent a tree assessment.
Assessment collection will
begin with the 2015 harvest,
Malone said.
By law, checkoff revenue,
which is anticipated to be
about $3 million a year, can be
used only for research or pro-
motion.
Efforts to initiate the na-
tional Christmas tree checkoff
hit several snags, including
a major one in 2011, when it
was first scheduled to go into
effect.
That year, right-wing blog-
gers inaccurately characterized
the newly instituted checkoff
as a Christmas tree tax that
was being pushed by President
Barack Obama’s White House.
As a result, the White
House slapped a stay on the
program that stayed in place
until April 7 of last year.
“Having the stay put on re-
ally put us in limbo,” Malone
said. “That has never hap-
pened to any other checkoff.”
In April, when the stay was
lifted, Malone said that she and
others were told the USDA
was planning to name a board
by the summer and initiate the
assessment beginning with the
2014 harvest.
Neither happened, much to
the frustration of Malone and
other backers of the checkoff.
“The White House got cold
feet and once again tried to put
a stop to it,” she said. “In the
process, however, Congress-
man (Kurt) Schrader (D-Ore.)
was able to get a promise from
(Agriculture) Secretary (Tom)
Vilsack that by Jan. 15 the
board would be named, and
they named the board Jan. 15.”
Malone said board mem-
bers will be starting the pro-
gram from scratch, instituting
bylaws, creating committees,
electing officers, even selecting
an office site and hiring staff.
“We have a lot of work to
do,” she said, “but I’m excited
for the opportunity this pro-
vides our industry.”
told the House Public Safety
Committee.
The legislation, introduced
by Colfax Rep. Joe Schmick,
would bar undercover taping
at agricultural operations and
criminalize harming an oper-
ation’s image. Idaho passed
a similar measure after an
animal-rights group recorded
dairy workers beating cows.
The law is being challenged
in federal court.
Schmick, a Republican,
said he didn’t want to shield
wrongdoing, but he wanted to
protect producers from being
victimized by film editing that
makes good agricultural prac-
tices look bad.
“Every farmer, I speak as
a farmer, is scared to death of
misrepresentation,” he said.
“Currently, there’s not a lot of
protection for farmers, ranch-
ers and growers.”
Rep.
David
Taylor,
R-Moxee, testified in support
of the bill, saying producers
routinely are harassed.
Asked for an example,
Schmick mentioned ani-
mal-rights activists targeting
Washington mink farmers
several years ago.
Schmick said agricultural
lobbyists stayed away from
the hearing out of fear.
“I think you will notice
the lack of grower organiza-
tions and farmers here. And
know why? Because they’re
scared. They’re scared of re-
percussions of just expressing
an opinion, and I think that’s
sad,” Schmick told the com-
mittee.
Schmick introduced the
bill just before the session and
as Idaho’s law is being chal-
lenged in federal court.
Farm lobbyists said their
groups haven’t had time to
form positions on a heavily
criticized law, which has a
long-shot of passing the Dem-
ocratic-controlled
House,
may not hold up in court and
may give the impression pro-
ducers are hiding something.
4-2/#4
OLYMPIA, Wash. — A
bill modeled after Idaho’s so-
called “ag-gag” law got little
support and suffered much
criticism Tuesday at a House
committee hearing.
Farm lobbyists kept their
distance from House Bill
1104, while farmworker advo-
cates, animal and civil rights
activists, and concern citizens
charged it was an attempt to
silence whistleblowers.
“This bill is almost certain-
ly unconstitutional,” Amer-
ican Civil Liberties Union
representative Chris Kaasa
4-5/#18
Capital Press
Pasteurization
expected to shield
hazelnut farmers
Cooperative aims to
improve safety, cut
costs, win business
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Ag-gag bill had few friends as farm groups stay silent
By DON JENKINS
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
Jeff Fox, CEO of the Hazelnut Growers of Oregon cooperative,
explains the function of new pasteurization equipment recently
installed at the company’s processing facility in Cornelius, Ore. The
process is expected to improve food safety, attract farmers to the
cooperative, win new customers and reduce costs.
Capital Press
The Hazelnut Growers of
Oregon cooperative is hoping
to provide its farmers with a
new benefit: peace of mind.
Pasteurization equipment
recently installed at its pro-
cessing facility in Cornelius,
Ore., will provide a “kill step”
for diseases like salmonel-
la and E. coli, which have
prompted hazelnut recalls and
attracted scrutiny from the
U.S. Food and Drug Admin-
istration.
“It’s somewhat of a fire-
wall between them and the
FDA,” said Jeff Fox, CEO of
the cooperative.
By heating nuts to near-
ly 200 degrees Fahrenheit
and treating them with pres-
surized steam, the pasteuri-
zation equipment results in
a 100,000-fold reduction in
pathogenic microbes.
The process is expected to
shield hazelnut farmers from
the FDA’s regulatory muscle,
thereby growing the coopera-
tive’s community of suppliers.
The FDA will require pro-
cessors to identify disease
risks and tailor specific reme-
dies under proposed food safe-
ty rules that will be finalized
this year, said Charles Breen,
a food industry consultant and
former agency official.
Growers who produce
crops meant for raw con-
sumption will also be subject
to a “produce safety” rule that
governs on-farm practices.
It’s likely that hazelnut
growers who document their
crops are treated with this
“kill step” will not fall under
the FDA’s on-farm purview,
Breen said.
“The agency will proba-
bly accept it as an appropriate
measure to control a hazard,”
he said. “I think this approach
is one that will reduce FDA’s
interest in farms that are
growing nuts subject to this
process.”
On-farm measures to pre-
vent microbes are difficult
for hazelnuts, which are har-
vested from the ground in or-
chards that are tough to pro-
tect from animal incursions.
Some bacteria can persist
in the soil for years and live
independently from animal
digestive tracts, said Philippe
Cornet, food safety and quali-
ty supervisor for HGO.
Even expensive fencing
would not ensure the exclu-
sion of pathogens, since birds
fly over orchards, he said.
“You would have to put it in a
bubble and sterilize the soil.”
The cooperative expects to
reap other rewards from the
new pasteurization line — im-
proved food safety is expect-
ed to win new customers and
reduce costs over time, said
Fox.
The cooperative has spent
approximately $3 million on
the pasteurization project and
expects a payback time of
about five years on the invest-
ment, he said.
Reduced
transportation
will provide measurable sav-
ings, as HGO will no longer
have to ship hazelnuts to Cal-
ifornia for treatment with pro-
pylene oxide, a chemical used
for sterilization.
“Freight costs are rather
expensive and the treatment
itself was rather expensive,”
Fox said.
Apart from direct costs,
the propylene oxide treatment
slowed hazelnut deliveries
to HGO’s customers. With
on-site pasteurization, the
turnaround for clients will be
much faster, he said.
The cooperative’s insur-
ance premiums are expected
to fall due to the pasteuriza-
tion line and it will be able to
reduce sampling and testing
costs.
Avoiding a potential dis-
ease outbreak offers another
major advantage, Fox said.
“Recalls are very expensive.”
Before installing the pas-
teurization machinery, HGO
had to resolve some serious
questions about the technol-
ogy.
The main concern was the
potential impact to sensory
qualities, Fox said. “That was
probably one of the biggest
things.”
If pasteurization dried the
crop excessively, the nuts
would taste different and their
weight would be reduced,
denting revenues for the co-
operative. Altered color was
another worry.
After treating hazelnuts
at a pilot plant of the equip-
ment’s manufacturer, Na-
pasol, HGO found that any
changes were negligible and
decided to move forward with
the project, Fox said.
While pasteurization is
new to the hazelnut industry
— which is centered in the
Northwest — other tree nut
growers in California have
successfully adopted the tech-
nology, said Cameon Ivars-
son, scientific director for
Napasol.
“Everybody is going in
that direction in the U.S.,” she
said.
The move to pasteurization
was initiated by the almond
industry, which mandated the
process under a federal mar-
keting board order in 2007,
Ivarsson said.
Since then, walnut, maca-
damia and pistachio proces-
sors in the state have begun
treating their crops voluntari-
ly, she said.
Pasteurization with heat
and pressurized steam is
growing in popularity because
the European Union prohibits
propylene oxide treatments
due to fears of carcinogenic
byproducts, Ivarsson said.
Processors who sell in the
U.S. market are taking notice,
since some domestic consum-
ers have also raised concerns
about the chemical, she said.
“There’s a potential for back-
lash.”
4-7/#5