Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (March 27, 2015)
6 CapitalPress.com March 27, 2015 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 Attack ads reflect poorly on perpetrators W e live in a era of attack ads. They have for years been the weapon of choice in politics, and for the past couple of years that tactic has worked its way into the discussion about, of all things, food. The first iteration of the tactic came in the guise of the precautionary principle, a seemingly innocuous statement that says, If we can’t prove it’s safe then we should avoid it. As a personal philosophy, that’s fine. If a person has doubts about the safety of something — say, driving in Seattle traffic — then please don’t. But as public policy, that principle doesn’t hold up. If everyone were forced to stop driving in Seattle because of the fears of a few, then public transportation would be flooded, people couldn’t get to work, and the economy would be damaged. All because a few people don’t feel comfortable driving. When that principle was applied to food, activists and others played on the fears of the public, offering flimsy arguments such as “Well, we just aren’t sure about that....” Well- meaning members of the public picked up on that and decided, without any scientific proof, which foods were OK and which weren’t. The campaign to label genetically modified ingredients in foods has taken that implied shrug and turned it into a jihad against GMOs and Monsanto. The attacks are targeted specifically at one or two types of GMO crops, which have been around for more than a decade with zero impact on public health. Worse yet, all other GMOs have been caught in the crossfire. In fact, ask some GMO labeling activists about other GMOs, as we did during a public forum last fall in Portland, and they don’t know much about them and don’t seem to care. In the meantime, anti-GMO rallies target Monsanto almost exclusively, using unfounded fears to promote an emotional argument. In the last couple of years, attack ads have mutated to smear not just GMOs but anyone who doesn’t produce food the way that the sponsors prescribe. Chipotle, a fast-food chain, was one of the first to produce advertisements that attacked conventional farming, implying that all farms are evil factories — unless, of course, that burrito comes from Chipotle. Chipotle is more than welcome to promote itself and what it does or doesn’t allow in the food it sells. However, it’s not welcome to paint all farmers with the broadest of brushes in what can be most charitably be described as cheap shots. It’s one thing for a fast-food company to attack farmers, but it’s quite another for farmers to attack other farmers. That’s the most recent development in the food wars. An organization called Organic Only, whose members are among the largest organic growers and processors in the world, has produced an online video called “New MacDonald” in which kids in a school production portray non-organic farmers as haz-mat-suited maniacs spraying pesticides on their crops, shooting their livestock full of hormones and other mean and nasty things. By the end of the commercial, every non-organic farmer has been smeared. Organic Only or any other group of corporations and cooperatives are certainly welcome to promote themselves, but attacking other farmers with misleading and inaccurate advertising is totally out of bounds. It reminds us of the old political advertising credo: If you don’t have anything good to say about yourself, attack the other guy. We support all forms of agriculture — organic, conventional, large, small. If it involves growing food and fiber, we support it. Growing food to nourish a planet that supports 7 billion people — and counting — is serious business. Humanity depends on agriculture. But it’s demeaning and childish for one group of farmers to needlessly attack another group. We presume that Organic Only’s members are better than that. Why support Klamath deals? Our world needs food By PATRICK O’TOOLE and DAN KEPPEN Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press O ur V iew More water storage needed across West F or the most part, hydrologists are painting a pretty grim picture of this season’s water situation in California and the Pacific Northwest. California faces its fourth year of drought. Many farmers there face cutoffs amounting to 80 percent or more of their water. In the Cascades, all but the highest peaks are devoid of snow. Farmers in the Owyhee Basin can expect no more than a third of their normal allocation. A drought emergency has already been declared in Oregon’s Malheur and Lake counties, with others expected. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has declared drought emergencies on the Olympic Peninsula; the eastside of the central Cascade mountains, including Yakima and Wenatchee; and the Walla Walla region. Whether a harbinger of summers to come, or not, the current situation underscores the need to build more water storage and to evaluate how existing water resources are allocated. It’s been a fairly wet winter throughout the West. But warm temperatures prevented a lot of that moisture from falling as snow in the high country. In many cases, what fell as snow was later washed away by warmer rain. Without storage, that water is lost to irrigators who depend on the snowpack. Californians last year approved a $7.5 billion bond measure that could fund the construction of more storage in coming years. We expect any project to be opposed by environmentalists. In Oregon, a group of stakeholders is trying to work out the rules for a plan to build more storage. Farm interests say the proposal’s environmental concessions make it nearly impossible for storage to pencil out. A more promising plan, endorsed again last week by Gov. Kate Brown, would allow farmers in Umatilla and Morrow counties access to more water from the Columbia River. In Washington, a deal has yet to be reached to recharge the aquifer on the state’s eastern edge. These efforts, and more, are needed to maintain the viability of Western agriculture. Water is a precious resource much in demand. We must find ways to get the most out of every drop through better conservation and more efficient cropping methods. But conservation is only part of the solution. We must be able to store more of what falls for when it’s most needed. To that end, these projects are vital for farmers who need the water for their crops. And beyond the commercial interests of the multi-billion-dollar Western ag industry, they are vital to the millions who turn to that industry for their daily bread. Readers’ views Celebrate with American Humane Certification Americans quietly cele- brate the nation’s hardworking farmers and ranchers during every meal. And National Agriculture Day on March 18 was a good opportunity to re- flect and give thanks to those who raise our food and do it right. Today U.S. farmers pro- vide us with perhaps the most abundant, safe and affordable food supply in the world — raising 262 percent more food than in 1950, while using less fertilizer, seed and labor. Con- sumers are grateful for this, but they also increasingly say they care that animals used in agriculture are well-treated — 95 percent, according to a re- cent poll we conducted. Farmers have always been the front-line stewards of ani- mal welfare but to demonstrate humane treatment to consum- ers, many of whom have no experience on farms, more and more farmers are turning to independent, third-party certi- fication programs such as the American Humane Certified program, which now ensures the welfare of more than 1 bil- lion U.S. farm animals under more than 200 scientifically based standards covering ev- erything from adequate space to food and water, lighting, warmth, clean air and the abil- ity for animals to be animals. This National Agriculture Day, let’s celebrate by look- ing for humane labeling and supporting American farmers who not only put food on our tables, but do it in a humane way. Robin Ganzert, Ph.D. President and CEO American Humane Association Washington, D.C. Label college professors, too We’re given by the an- ti-GMO voo-doo crowd to believe that GMO foods must “labeled,” that con- sumers may better make in- formed choices as to what they are buying. After all, informed choice is critically important, and such labeling is “harmless.” So, if we are to abandon objective evidence as a cri- teria for implying unproved harm with scarlet letter “la- beling,” then no doubt these same folk would have no ob- jection to mandatory federal labels on the demonstrated political proclivities of each college professor, so students (and parents thereof) may better make informed choic- es as to what they are buying. Seems reasonable, given the immense perceived “poten- tial” for harm to consumers, not to mention the horridly expensive costs, right? If there is no harm-by-im- plication in such voo-doo labeling, what’s not to like in extending this brilliance to the selection of those who are entrusted with objective- ly teaching our kids? After all, such labeling is critical- ly important to an informed choice, and such labeling is ... harmless. William Slusher Riverside, Wash. For the Capital Press Guest comment L Dan Keppen ast month, the Family Farm Alliance board of directors, by unan- imous vote, formally sup- ported the concept captured in recent Senate legislation to advance the settlement agreements developed for the Klamath River watershed. The Alliance is a grass- roots, nonprofit organization that represents family farm- ers, ranchers, agricultural water purveyors and allied industries in the 17 Western states. We have long advo- cated that the best solutions to the challenges faced by Western irrigators come from the ground-up, driven by lo- cal interests. The three Klamath Agree- ments — the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the Klamath Hydro-Electric Set- tlement Agreement and the Upper Klamath Basin Com- prehensive Agreement — re- flect an intensive, collabora- tive effort that has consumed much of the last decade. Without these agree- ments successfully making it through Congress, local irrigators face no protection from enforcement of signifi- cant tribal water rights, no vi- able plan for dealing with the Endangered Species Act is- sues, and no identifiable path for working toward target power rates that are similar to other Western agricultural regions. Our organization views the Klamath settlement agreements in a fairly straightforward way: This approach provides the best means of keeping basin fami- ly farmers and ranchers in the business of producing food and fiber for our country and the world. The settlement agree- ments are a unique solution that advances this critical need. What happens or does not happen for Klamath Basin irrigators could set a prece- dent, not only for all Western family farms and ranches, but other areas of the country where agricultural produc- tion is beset with environ- mental challenges. Understandably, the idea of removing dams is a stick- ing point for some in the ag- ricultural community, and the Alliance does not universally endorse the removal of dams. In fact, the Alliance is a lead- ing proponent of creating more surface water storage in the West. Alliance repre- sentatives have been invited to testify before congressio- nal committees several times to offer up ideas intended to streamline existing daunting and expensive permitting processes. In 2014, the Alli- ance released a white paper on the need for new, appro- priate storage projects, which was intended to support relat- ed legislative efforts pushed in Congress. Guest comment Patrick O’Toole Thus, the potential im- pacts and precedents of re- moving any dam are con- cerns to us as advocates for irrigated agriculture. The Alliance endorses ad- vancing the Klamath Agree- ments in Congress because, overall, they are good for irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. We see the agreements as unique to the Klamath Basin and its issues and their dam-removal com- ponents have no bearing on other agricultural regions’ decision-making. Moreover, no irrigation dams or flood control dams are removed as part of these settlements. In this instance, agricultur- al producers stand to gain increased water supply re- liability in exchange for the expected fish passage bene- fits associated with removal of these dams, a measure supported by the dams’ own- ers, PacifiCorp. Our job is to advocate for approaches that keep farmers and ranchers in business so they can continue to feed and clothe the world. Reliable water is an essential compo- nent to this approach in the West. To date, the local irriga- tors who have actually ex- perienced a threat to their livelihood and way of life with water shut-offs, paying for litigation and Endangered Species Act pressures want these agreements in place. We support their belief that they provide the most cost-ef- fective, timely and politically viable solution. We are proud to join other organizations like the Klam- ath County and Oregon Cat- tlemen’s Associations and Farm Bureaus, three Native American tribes, dozens of conservation and recreational groups, the Oregon Water Re- sources Congress, the Klam- ath County Chamber of Com- merce and the City of Klamath Falls, who took similar care in making their informed deci- sions that support legislation to advance the Klamath Set- tlement Agreements. Pat O’Toole, a Wyoming cattle and sheep rancher, is president of the Fam- ily Farm Alliance. He is a former member of the Wyoming state legislature and 2014 recipient of the prestigious Leopold Conser- vation Award. Dan Keppen, of Klamath Falls, Ore., has over 25 years of experience in Western water resourc- es engineering and policy. He has served as executive director of the Family Farm Alliance for 10 years.