6
CapitalPress.com
April 10, 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
WHO’s glyphosate finding should be read in context
T
he World Health
Organization’s International
Agency for Research on
Cancer last month issued a paper
classifying glyphosate herbicide,
sold under the trade name Roundup
by Monsanto Co., as “probably
carcinogenic to humans.”
The finding made headlines
because genetically modified
“Roundup Ready” corn, soybeans
and other crops are staples of U.S.
agriculture. Critics have used
the report to call into question
the safety of GMOs generally
and of glyphosate-resistant crops
specifically.
It’s disturbing any time
commonly used products are
found to have a link to cancer.
While IARC’s finding shouldn’t be
dismissed out of hand, it must be
taken in context.
The finding is the opposite of
what the Environmental Protection
Agency and other regulatory and
research agencies have concluded.
The European Union’s
Glyphosate Task Force said
evaluations done over the past
40 years consistently confirmed
glyphosate “poses no unacceptable
risk to humans, animals or the
environment.” One of the largest
epidemiology studies involved
approximately 57,000 U.S. farmers
who apply herbicides, the task
force said in a prepared statement.
The task force said there are
“serious deficiencies in terms
of methodological approach”
in IARC’s findings and that
the classification should be
withdrawn.
In reaching its findings, IARC
does not conduct original research.
It evaluates available literature.
The German Federal Institute
of Risk Assessment, which in
2014 declared glyphosate non-
carcinogenic, called the IARC
classification a “surprise” and
contrary to studies done by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
and even a prior study by WHO.
IARC’s finding is not
conclusive.
IARC classifies substances
on a scale of 1 to 4. Substances
in Group 1 are classified
“carcinogenic to humans” because
there’s enough evidence to
conclude that they cause cancer.
Group 1 includes birth control
pills, alcoholic beverages, mineral
oils and the sun.
Glyphosate is classified in
Group 2(a), which means “there is
limited evidence of carcinogenicity
in humans and sufficient evidence
of carcinogenicity in experimental
animals.”
The report said “limited
evidence” means a positive
association has been observed, but
other explanations have not been
ruled out.”
While glyphosate and other
chemicals warrant continuing
study, nothing in the IARC’s
report suggests it shouldn’t
continue to be used responsibly.
And what of the implications
for biotechnology? It’s a
conventional herbicide, not genetic
engineering, that’s at issue. The
technology still presents the best
opportunity to provide farmers
with increased yields to feed an
increasing population.
O ur V iew
California farmers bear huge burden in drought
S
ome critics believe California’s
farmers and ranchers have
somehow escaped the brunt
of the state’s multi-year drought and
that Gov. Jerry Brown was soft on
them last week when he ordered
statewide water use cutbacks.
Hardly.
Farmers and ranchers are unique
in their absolute dependence on
water. Some 9 million acres of the
state’s 25 million acres of farmland
are irrigated. That includes all of
the 1.1 million acres of vegetables,
98 percent of the 3.1 million acres
of orchards and vineyards and 90
percent of the 1.7 million acres of
forage crops. Combined, the state’s
77,900 farms generate crops worth
$46 billion each year and employ
207,430 people, according to the
USDA Economic Research Service.
Without water, those numbers
would shrink dramatically.
While we understand that a
homeowner may not appreciate
having to see brown when he looks
at his lawn, California agriculture
makes sure he sees reasonably
priced fruits, vegetables and meats
when he goes to the grocery store.
Moreover, much of the nation
depends on California agriculture
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
to stock their grocery stores.
Without California agriculture,
many of those stores would have
to import food at higher prices or
simply go without.
Farmers have already been
subjected to cutback after cutback
from state and federal water
projects. About 70 percent of
irrigated farms in California
entirely or partially depend on
surface water from state and federal
projects. This year they will receive
no water from any federal project
and about 20 percent of their
normal supply from state water
projects. In addition, if they hold
only junior water rights, they will
likely face cutbacks.
Farmers and ranchers have
already taken a huge hit. Last year,
400,000 acres were fallowed and
17,000 ag-related jobs were lost
because of the drought, according
to Karen Ross, the state’s director
of food and agriculture. More lost
production and jobs are sure to
follow this year.
Only the use of well water
has prevented this drought from
spiraling into an all-out agricultural
catastrophe. Without groundwater,
more farmland would have to be
idled, and less food grown. More
people would lose their jobs, and
food prices would increase. In his
order, the governor told farmers and
water districts to monitor ground
water levels and develop detailed
drought plans.
Brown recognized the stakes
when he ordered the state’s residents
to reduce their water use by 25
percent. In large part, the order
represents common sense k
reducing the water used on lawns and
landscaping, switching landscapes
to drought-resistant varieties and
ordering municipalities to reduce
their use of water. The fact is, if they
had taken seriously the voluntary
cutbacks he suggested last year, they
might not be facing mandatory cuts
this year.
Brown also recognized that
more than 200,000 Californians
depend on agriculture for their
livelihood k and all 38.8 million
Californians depend on agriculture
for their food.
Readers’ views
Sage grouse
recovery plans
hold promise
Bears, wolves
go where people
aren’t influential
Backcountry Hunters & An-
glers of Oregon is encouraged
with current conservation efforts
to save the greater sage grouse
from a threatened or endangered
listing.
The Oregon plan, SageCon,
will be released later this spring.
And, with ongoing efforts by the
Bureau of Land Management, the
state and a wide variety of stake-
holders, progress is being made.
In a report released recently
by the Natural Resources Con-
servation Service, Oregon is
leading the way in eliminating
encroaching junipers, which rob
the landscape of sage habitat and
provide perching points for birds
that prey on the grouse. Wildfire
and invasive weeds are also ma-
jor threats to the bird.
The BLM will also release
reports this summer detailing
mitigation plans to help bring
the bird population numbers
back k just in time for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to
make a determination on listing.
We are hopeful the bird
won’t have to be listed and so
are many other conservation
groups. Paul Henson, who heads
Oregon’s USFWS, told us he’s
“very encouraged” with present
conservation efforts. That’s no-
table, as Henson was part of the
team that in 2010 said the bird
was warranted for listing.
As an umbrella species, one
thing is certain. What’s good for
the sage grouse is good for all.
Brian Jennings
Bend, Ore.
Federal and state agencies
are preparing to re-introduce
grizzly bears and additional
wolves into Washington’s rural
counties. The lawless anarchist
environmental groups like Earth
First and Earth Liberation Front
attempted to create the habitat
for these animals in the 1980s by
sabotaging logging companies
equipment, tree spiking, cutting
down electric utility towers,
bombings and other illegal acts.
They have shifted tactics and
graduated from colleges with
master’s and Ph.D. degrees in
environmental studies and law
degrees. They are now state of
Washington and federal gov-
ernment agency employees and
some are elected to the state leg-
islature.
They are not proposing re-
introduction of grizzlies and
wolves into King or Snohomish
counties, which were once these
animals’ native habitat. These
counties have large populations
and average household incomes
exceeding $70,000, which adds
up to political impact.
The proposed introduction of
wolves and grizzlies is into the
Eastern Washington counties with
low populations and low incomes.
Many of the rural ranchers there
have a daily struggle to survive
by grazing cattle, sheep and rais-
ing hay. The record setting multi-
million-acre Central Washington
fire of 2014 has destroyed much
of the rural land’s growing ability
and even small towns.
Combined with the closure
of numerous rural hospitals
and nursing homes, these rural
ranches and small towns are on
the edge of survival.
The addition of grizzlies
and wolves that prey not only
on deer and elk, but also on the
ranch raised sheep and cows,
may well be the end of rural liv-
ing in these counties.
Residents had better develop
a strategy on how to survive and
protect their way of life. It ap-
pears none will be forthcoming
from state and federal agencies
or their elected representatives.
William Riley
Soap Lake, Wash.
Interesting times
ahead for ag
“We support all forms of
agriculture k organic, conven-
tional, large small. If it involves
growing food and fiber, we sup-
port it.”
Without actually stating
GMOs, that above statement
implies that GMOs would fit
into that category and your opin-
ions have consistently reflected
your support.
Within that broad umbrel-
la of growers of food and fiber
there are polar opposites and
world views that conflict. I be-
lieve that your attempt to sup-
port all sides will prove a Her-
culean task.
Your own example of attack
ads is a taste of what is coming
down the road. Last week’s
World Health Organization’s
pronouncement that Roundup
“probably” causes cancer will
add fuel to an already raging fire
and could draw Roundup, Mon-
santo and even the “Roundup
Ready” GE crops back into the
public spotlight.
The picture used to be much
more simple: It used to be a mi-
nuscule group of organic farmers
versus America’s conventional
farmers. Then in the ’70s and
’80s a new era of American ag-
riculture commenced with the
advent of GMOs. At first, GMOs
and conventional agriculture
seemed to form a tight alliance,
but that has begun to show signs
of a fracture when conventional
soft wheat farmers sued Monsan-
to for damages they experienced
when a GE wheat was found in
Oregon. Oregon conventional
turf seed farmers have concerns
about GE turf grasses contami-
nating non-GE plantations and
causing foreign markets to place
embargoes on U.S. grass seed
like they did for the soft wheat
that caused the class action suit
against Monsanto.
In 2006 U.S. rice growers
feared that world markets would
shut them out when herbicide
ready rice that was not authorized
for cultivation or consumption
was found in U.S. rice stocks.
My own company was ship-
ping corn to Japan in 2000 when
Aventis Star Link GE corn was
found in the U.S. corn supply and
our customers made us test each
shipment and provide documen-
tation that no GE corn was found
in the shipment. That was the
year that Taco Bell had to recall
Star Link contaminated tortillas.
Alfalfa growers will now
be put into the same situation.
A situation that organic farmers
have been in since the advent of
GMOs is having to worry about
neighboring fields of GMOs
contaminating their crops and
making their crop unmarketable.
Now certain conventional and
organic farmers share the con-
cern about GMO contamination
and for the first time those gen-
erally opposing viewpoints have
a valid, mutual concern that will
change how the groups will ally
themselves going forward.
“We are not in favor of com-
mercializing any biotech trait
unless it’s gone through regula-
tory approvals in the U.S. and
in other countries,” says Steve
Mercer, vice president of com-
munications for U.S. Wheat
Association. “Many countries,
including some that import
wheat from the U.S., are quite
hostile to genetically engineered
crops.” Does this guy sound like
a jihadist against GMOs?
Why did McDonald’s reject
the Simplot GE potato? Why do
these other countries have reg-
ulations concerning GMOs? If
GMOs are caught in any cross-
fire, it is their own doing. I’ve
said it before and I’ll say it again,
the WHO finger-pointing at
Roundup as “probably” cancer
causing demonstrates the vul-
nerability of a country like the
U.S. putting over 90 percent of its
corn, soybeans, canola and sug-
ar beets into a new technology
that is based upon the Roundup
Ready gene, is dependent upon
application of a single, specific
herbicide and the farmers are
forced to purchase the seed from
the one, patented source.
Certainly a phenomenal sit-
uation for Monsanto and their
stockholders, but not the best sit-
uation for U.S. national security
and agricultural diversity. In the
last 20 years, we have moved
from farmers being able to
source their seeds and herbicides
from numerous vendors, but
look at the numbers today and
just wet your finger and poke
it up in the air and you’ll see
which way the wind is blowing:
Roundup Ready alfalfa, new tri-
als in North Dakota for Round-
up Ready wheat and much more
that you can count on.
At the very least, we are in
for interesting times.
Brian Quigley
Camano Island, Wash..
Precautionary
principle needed
Now that glyphosate is found
in more than half of our air, wa-
ter, body and food samples, the
World Health Organization has
concluded it a probable carcino-
gen. Like DDT, 2,4,5T and a few
other products before it, chemi-
cals deemed safe later prove to
be substantially harmful. The
farm systems of thousands of
farmers and millions of acres of
crop land are designed around
glyphosate. We all have Round-
up in our bodies. Now they find
it probably causes cancer. Soon,
stricter regulations will follow.
Other countries have now begun
banning this product.
This is exactly why we need
the precautionary principle. Mil-
lions are exposed to a product,
touted as safe and casually made
available on grocery store shelves.
Thousands of farmers have busi-
ness plans tied to this chemical. All
this happens before we learned of
the risks. This is backward. Chem-
icals should not be given the ben-
efit of innocent until proven guilty.
Jonathan Spero
Applegate Valley, Ore.