6
CapitalPress.com
January 8, 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
Pulses: The heartbeat of a healthy family diet
W
elcome to 2016, which,
in case you didn’t
already know, is the
International Year of the Pulse.
That means the United Nations
and its affiliated organizations are
taking up the cause of promoting
pulse crops around the world.
While we’re glad to see any
sector of agriculture get a public
relations boost — quinoa was
similarly spotlighted three years
ago — pulses are special because
they are the Rodney Dangerfield
of crops. They get no respect.
Pulses are part of the legume
family and are the dried seeds of
the pea, bean, chickpea and lentil
plants. They are high in fiber and
protein and low in fat. They are
unique among most crops because
they help add nitrogen to the
soil, are drought tolerant, water
efficient and have a small carbon
footprint.
So if pulses are so good to eat
— and good for the environment
— why are they the best crop no
one has ever heard of?
That’s one of the questions the
pulse industry hopes to address
during the upcoming year. It won’t
be easy. In a marketplace cluttered
with fads and misconceptions
about what’s good to eat and good
for the environment, the public
seems to be easily confused.
Chatter about foods often
degenerates into screeds against
modern agriculture based more
on Facebook “factoids” than on
reality.
In this atmosphere, pulse
proponents will need to cut
through the clutter.
Chickpeas — also known as
garbanzo beans — have been
gaining attention in recent years
because they are the major
ingredient in hummus, a dip that is
popular because of its versatility.
Other pulse crops, however,
need to gain the attention of
consumers. They are already
trying to do that by concentrating
on education about what makes
pulse crops so special and asking
consumers to take the American
Pulse Association “Pulse Pledge,”
in which they say they will serve
a pulse dish once a week for
10 weeks. In return they will
receive pulse recipes and other
information.
They are also working with
food manufacturers to place
“Pulse Inside” labels on food
products that contain pulses.
The industry is sponsoring
promotional events around the
world to get more people thinking
about — and eating — pulses.
This is all good. The more people
learn about pulses, and the more
they eat them, the more growers and
consumers will benefit.
To help out, we have some
suggestions. While social media
such as food bloggers will be
included in the conversation,
we suggest aiming most of the
communications at mothers or
whoever does the cooking in the
household. Most families rely on
them to choose which foods come
into the kitchen. If pulse growers
can convince them to buy and
cook with pulses, they will have
won the battle.
All parents want the best food
for their families. The fact that
pulses are tasty, affordable, easy
to cook and nutritious is all most
mothers and fathers need to know.
If pulses are properly promoted
the industry will gain respect
among consumers. That will
elevate them from “the best food
no one has ever heard of” to the
“heartbeat of a healthy family diet.”
O ur V iew
O ur V iew
Armed occupation will only hurt the cause
Clemency for
the Hammonds
T
he armed militia groups who
failed to provoke a shooting
war with federal agents during
a standoff at a ranch in Nevada have
brought their show to Oregon’s
Harney County. Local residents —
many with legitimate beefs against
the way the government manages
public lands — are rebuffing their
militancy.
So should the rest of rural
America.
Militia members supposedly came
to town to support two local ranchers
convicted of setting fire to federal
land. When they failed to whip the
ranchers and the townspeople into a
revolutionary frenzy, a splinter group
took over facilities at the Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge.
The occupation is led by Ammon
Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven
Bundy. Bundy’s dispute with the
Bureau of Land Management led to a
tense standoff between federal agents
and militia in 2014.
We struggle to understand what
they hope to accomplish. Their action
does nothing for the ranchers they
allegedly came to town to support.
Their stated goal of holding their
position until the federal government
returns the land to private ownership
is at best a delusional hope, and does
nothing to resolve the real issues.
This desperate action hands critics
the ammunition they need to describe
these complaints to urban America as
the farcical rants of armed yahoos.
The federal government holds title
to massive parcels of public lands
throughout the West. That’s been
settled law for a hundred years. Many
would like that land turned over to the
states, as was the case with much of
the federal land east of the Rockies.
T
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
The real question is how that land
should be managed and how grazing
and natural resource extraction will
remain viable and part of the multiple
use doctrine that historically governed
public lands.
Government policy once
fostered the timber, livestock and
mining industries that became the
economic lifeblood of rural Western
communities. Current policy — the
result of environmental lawsuits and
regulatory and legislative changes —
is largely responsible for draining that
lifeblood.
At the same time, private property
rights have been eroded by the same
forces. Businesses have suffered under
heavy-handed regulatory enforcement
that at times borders on despotism.
These conflicts dovetail nicely with
the frustrations of many Americans
who feel economically and politically
displaced.
Enter the militia groups.
We understand their frustration
with the federal government. We
recognize their right to peacefully
protest and lawfully exercise their
2nd Amendment rights.
But we disagree with their
interpretations of the Constitution and
these tactics.
The remedy to these grievances
will not come from armed
confrontation, or other extralegal
means justified by specious
constitutional theories.
Instead we trust the tools provided
by the Founders — the ballot box, the
legislative process, the courts.
The constraints on ranchers,
timbermen and miners are real. Any
hope of getting a legislative solution
that accommodates both conservation
goals and traditional livelihoods
will require reasoned debate and
the empathy of urban voters and
legislators.
The armed occupation of a lonely
federal wildlife refuge in the wilds of
Oregon will only hurt that effort.
he case of Dwight
and Steven
Hammond is a
tragedy, both because of
what they did and how
they have been treated
since.
Ranchers in Oregon’s
Harney County, father and
son have a long history of
disputes with the Bureau
of Land Management
over grazing allotments.
Dwight Hammond was
convicted of one count
related to a fire than burned
139 acres of BLM land in
2006. Steven Hammond
was convicted of one count
related to the 2006 fire, and
a separate count related to a
fire in 2001.
The Hammonds received
a fair trial and were found
guilty. Many believe they
had just cause to start
the fires and deserved no
punishment even if they
had technically broken
the law. The jury found
otherwise, and the original
trial court handed down
fair, and lenient, sentences.
In addition to lengthy
probation, Dwight
Hammond received six
months in prison, his son
one year. The original
prison sentences have been
served.
But those sentences
ignored the minimum
mandatory five-year
sentence prescribed by the
federal arson statute. The
government appealed, the
sentences were overturned
and the trial court ordered
the Hammonds to serve out
the remainder of new five-
year sentences.
We are not fans of
mandatory sentencing
guidelines that deny judges
discretion in considering
circumstances when fixing
punishment. Resentencing
the Hammonds to serve
the five-year mandatory
sentence, though
unquestionably legal under
statute, was an injustice.
The Hammonds have
reported to prison. They
intend to ask President
Obama for clemency.
We think they should
receive it.
In recent months the
president has moved to
free federal prisoners
convicted of drug charges
and serving lengthy
mandatory sentences that
he has deemed unjust and
overly punitive given the
circumstances of their
crimes.
That’s the same
standard the original trial
judge used in the case
of the Hammonds. The
punishment does not fit the
crime.
Mr. President, free the
Hammonds.
Open source seed — where the past meets the future
By JONATHAN SPERO
For the Capital Press
N
ot long ago, all seed
was in the public do-
main. If you bought
seeds, you owned them outright.
No longer.
While there have been
steady improvements in yields
and shipping qualities in many
crops since those “good old
days,” there have been losses,
too. The biggest loss may be in
the package of rights farmers
purchase along with the seed. In
recent decades the balance be-
tween the power of seed compa-
nies and the rights of those who
grow out the seeds has shifted
sharply against the grower.
In 1970 the Plant Variety
Protection Act (PVPA) was
passed. This law gave protection
to those who bred or selected
improved varieties. At the same
time, it protected farmers in
Guest
comment
Jonathan Spero
that it permitted
brown-bagging (saving seed for
on farm use) and kept the wheels
of crop improvement turning by
allowing use of PVP’d varieties
for further breeding.
In the 1980s it became legal
to patent seeds as inventions.
With a patent, saving the seeds
becomes a crime. Breeders are
stopped from making continued
improvements. Patents, intend-
ed to reward and thus foster
innovation, instead become an
impediment to farmers and plant
breeders alike. Together with
seed industry consolidation, in-
tellectual property restrictions
have led to less choices for
growers. A company can buy,
and remove from production,
Letters policy
Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of
interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community.
Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your home
a line that might compete with
its profitable line. The control
farmers once had has declined
rapidly. The farmer, once the
heart of an independent society,
is now at risk of becoming only
a cog in someone else’s food
system.
Open source
alternative
As new varieties are de-
veloped, the breeders, be they
public or private, professional
or amateur, have a new choice.
Many want their new introduc-
tions to be widely shared. They
want the varieties they have cre-
ated to improve lives for both
farmers and consumers. If the
breeder does nothing to protect
their cultivar, the fruits of their
labor are at risk of being restrict-
ed by someone else. Lock it up
or leave it vulnerable.
An alternative is emerging
— pledge the new cultivar to
open source. The concept of
open source software says that
if you create coding, you can
“free” its use and commit it to
be open source. If you use a se-
quence of open source coding
in creating something new, you
owe no one, but you commit
that new software to likewise
be available. The “free” carries
forward.
Applied to seed, if you use an
open source-pledged seed vari-
ety to create something new, the
new variety also must be open
to being freely used, shared or
improved by others.
The Open Source Seed Ini-
tiative — OSSI — was formed
to document varieties pledged to
open source and to create a da-
tabase where growers can find
open source seed. Seed compa-
ny patents are unaffected. Farm-
ers maintain the option of buying
patented or otherwise restricted
seeds. But as an alternative, a
address and a daytime telephone number with your submission. Lon-
ger pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary
pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commentary submissions
should also include a photograph of the author.
body of protected-commons ge-
netics, good quality seeds freed
of restrictions, is being created.
In less than 2 years, more
than 250 varieties from more
than 20 breeders have been
pledged to open source. That
number is growing and is cre-
ating a new choice for farmers,
a choice where the farmer once
again is in control.
Open source pledge
You have the freedom to
use these OSSI-pledged seeds
in any way you choose. In re-
turn, you pledge not to restrict
others’ use of these seeds or
their derivatives by patents or
other means, and to include
this pledge with any transfer
of these seeds or their deriv-
atives.
There are now more than
20 seed companies that carry
and promote varieties pledged
to open source. The OSSI da-
tabase links seed buyers to
these varieties and the compa-
nies that offer them for sale.
OSSI invites other seed com-
panies to partner in promoting
these unrestricted seeds.
OSSI also partners with
businesses from other areas of
the food industry. Food pro-
ducers, retailers, processors,
restaurants and others who
wish to join in growing and
promoting open source seeds
and foods are invited to part-
ner with OSSI.
This is the OSSI alterna-
tive — seed owned by the
grower and cannot be restrict-
ed. To learn more, visit the
Open Source Seed Initiative
on the web at www.osseeds.
org.
Jonathan Spero is a vege-
table seed breeder in Grants
Pass, Ore., and a member of
the board of directors of the
Open Source Seed Initiative.
Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. Emailed letters are
preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker
publication. Letters also may be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR
97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383.