6
CapitalPress.com
June 3, 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
Justice delayed in shooting of Idaho rancher
N
o matter how you look at
it, the case of Jack Yantis
is a tragedy.
The 62-year-old rancher from
tiny Council, Idaho, was shot
and killed in an altercation with
sheriff’s deputies. His bull had
been hit by a car, and he was
called to the scene. Within a few
minutes of his arrival, Yantis lay
dead and one of the deputies had
sustained a minor injury.
That was seven months ago.
Idaho Attorney General
Lawrence Wasden received the
results of the Idaho State Police
investigation on mid-March. At
that time, Wasden’s spokesman
assured the public that his office,
which is acting as a special
prosecutor in the case, would take
its time to review the facts.
More than two months later, the
attorney general is still reviewing
the case, he says. When citizens
last week demonstrated on the
steps of the Idaho Capitol seeking
answers to exactly what was going
on, Wasden urged them to be
patient until the office thoroughly
reviewed the results of the
investigation.
The public has been more than
patient; it’s the state police, the
attorney general and everyone else
in this case who have been working
in slow motion.
This is not a complicated case.
The facts — the few that have been
made public — are clear, and there
were several witnesses.
The prosecutor — in this case,
the attorney general — has had
ample time to review the facts,
including interviews with 40 people
that the state police provided.
For the sake of justice, what’s
needed now is action on the part of
the attorney general.
The problem is that for seven
months the Yantis family and the
deputies and their families have
been left in the dark.
They all deserve to know what
happened the night of Nov. 1, 2015.
As importantly, they need
closure and assurance that justice
has been served.
We do not seek to hurry the
attorney general in this matter.
However, we — and everyone
else — do seek answers to the
many questions that remain in this
tragedy.
“Two hundred days later, the
whole family still doesn’t have
closure,” Jordan Valley resident
Michael McLaughlin told one
of our reporters last week.
“Something’s wrong with that.”
Indeed.
It’s far too late for a timely
response from the attorney general.
We’d settle for any response at
all.
There’s more to GMO
report than story covered
By HANK KEETON
For the Capital Press
I
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Who knows what Brown thinks
about Owyhee Canyonlands
A
group of ranchers, local
business owners and natural
resource users came to
Salem last week in an attempt to get
legislators to weigh in against the
creation of a national monument in
Oregon’s Malheur County.
While they have the support of
Republicans from the state’s East
side, they didn’t get much from
Gov. Kate Brown, the person whose
voice might carry the most weight.
That’s a shame.
Backed by the Oregon Natural
Desert Association and the owner
of Portland’s Keen Footwear, the
proposed Owyhee Canyonlands
wilderness and conservation area
would cover 40 percent of Malheur
County — about 2.5 million acres
now controlled by the Bureau of
Land Management.
Critics say the area is bigger
than the Yellowstone, Yosemite or
Grand Canyon national park.
Opponents in the region have
objected to the proposal, fearing
the establishment of a national
monument will entail new
regulations severely complicating
grazing, mining, hunting and
recreation on the land while
inviting additional environmental
lawsuits.
The people of Malheur County
believe they’ve been good stewards
of the public lands in their corner of
the state since they began caring for it
more than a century ago. It’s their home.
Beyond it being the right thing to do,
their economic self-interest depends that
they do so.
Last March, Malheur County
residents voted 9-to-1 against the
proposal.
No matter.
Supporters hold the edge. State
legislators and Congress have no say in
the process.
While the administration has
previously said it would work
collaboratively with Congress, local
interests and elected officials in making
such designations, because the land in
question is already owned by the federal
government the Antiquities Act of 1906
requires only that President Obama pick
up his pen and proclaim it so.
The administration points out that
there is no proposal before the president,
and won’t say how he would act if one
lands on his desk.
It’s no easier getting a straight answer
in Salem.
We asked Brown’s office whether
the governor supported the proposal,
or stood with the people of Malheur
County who are against it.
Here’s what her people said she said:
“While this is ultimately a federal
decision, I have heard from many
Oregonians with strong views about
the Owyhee. There’s agreement as
to the beauty and uniqueness of the
Canyonlands and disagreement over
whether a monument designation can
best ensure those characteristics will be
enjoyed for future generations. I have
communicated those viewpoints to
federal administration officials and
will be closely following this issue in
the months ahead.”
Got that?
Brown — elevated to office and
seeking election in her own right
in November — has often proven
unwilling to make declarative
statements on controversial issues.
If the Democrat governor opposed
the plan she might help convince
Obama to maintain the status quo. If
she’s for it, the fix is in.
But we aren’t likely to know until
after the election — about the time
we expect the president to sign his
proclamation.
Letters policy
Readers’ views
Be careful how
you refer to
immigrants
As a longtime reader of
the Capital Press, I find it
offensive that the paper
uses the term “illegals”
as in Dan Wheat’s article,
“Reform needed to increase
labor supply, immigrant
workers say.”
Most news organizations
have ceased using the term
that has been found offen-
sive to many. Three years
ago, the AP Stylebook, used
by many journalists, decid-
ed to stop using the term.
They insisted the term “il-
legal immigrant” or the use
of “illegal” to describe a
person was not correct. In-
stead, the AP tells its users
that “illegal” should de-
scribe only an action, such
as living in or immigrating
to a country illegally.
For an industry that has
relied on the illegal use of
workers, and for a news-
paper that has long called
for immigration reform,
let’s try and be a bit kind-
er to those who harvest our
crops. Let’s start by not us-
ing terms like “illegals” or
“illegal immigrants.”
Peter Hainley
Executive Director
Community and Shelter
Assistance Corp.
Sherwood, Ore.
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 let-
ters to 300 words and include
your home address and a
daytime telephone number
with your submission. Longer
pieces, 500-750 words, may
be considered as guest
commentary pieces for use
on the opinion pages. Guest
commentary submissions
should also include a photo-
graph of the author.
n the 20 May edition,
Capital Press printed an
AP news-itorial about
GMO and food safety,
summarized loosely from
the National Academies
of Science, Engineering
and Medicine’s executive
summary of a report by a
special Academy Commis-
sion. The 407-page report
is accessible online, and
has a searchable tool at-
tached: (https://nas-sites.
org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/
report/). An Internet search
of the Academy’s main
website quickly reveals
evidence contradictory to
the news-itorial (http://
search.nationalacademies.
o rg /s e ar c h ? q = G LY P H O-
SATE&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&site=-
main_collection&cli-
ent=def6v3_cluster&prox-
ystylesheet=def6v3_clus-
ter&output=xml_no_dtd).
What is the National
Academy? It’s a U.S. gov-
ernment-mandated associa-
tion of researchers. This is
the same U.S. government
that is aggressively pres-
suring countries around
the world to lower their
food-safety and environ-
mental regulations in order
to allow GMO crops. This
same U.S. government se-
cretly negotiated the glob-
al corporate-bill-of-rights,
known as TPP and TTIP,
which are neither “free” nor
largely about “trade.”
These agreements em-
power countries-companies
to sue for perceived lost
profits against any regula-
tion that negatively impacts
them. The decisions are
made through unappealable
ISDS tribunals, enabling
GMO-companies to insert
their products into markets
without public oversight
and control.
Who served on the Com-
mission? Mainly university
and industry (Monsanto,
Cargill, Novus) researchers.
Today, most major univer-
sity research programs are
funded largely by the same
U.S. government aggres-
sively lobbying for GMOs,
profits, and reduced regula-
tion.
How did the Commission
operate? The Commission
did not conduct a scientific
study; instead they simply
conducted a review-study.
What did they review? Be-
tween September 2014 and
March 2016 the Commis-
sion invited 80 presenta-
tions at 3 public hearings
and 15 webinars, and then
reviewed 700 comments
submitted separately.
Their sources are listed
in appendices to the report.
The Commission specifical-
ly chose all the presenters,
and did not design any sci-
entific experiment to vali-
date any proposition.
To its credit, the Com-
mission invited Eric Ser-
alini, the French researcher
who published a devastating
scientific study of the seri-
ous biological consequenc-
es of GMOs and glyphosate.
They allotted Dr. Seralini
15 minutes via the Internet,
and devoted a whole page
Guest
comment
Hank Keeton
to his results. Here is his
scientific-study: (http://en-
veurope.springeropen.com/
articles/10.1186/s12302-
014-0014-5).
This Commission had a
very broad mandate to re-
view, yet included only 25
written comments about
human health and food
safety. 100 percent of those
comments clearly indicate
that GMOs and glyphosate
have destructive impacts
on human, animal and en-
vironmental health. (http://
nas-sites.org/ge-crops/
files/2016/05/Appendix-F_
GECrops-Prepub.pdf).
Yet the executive summa-
ry of the report does not
give any indication of this
fact.
Chapter 5 of the report
focuses on human health.
You can search the funding
sources and first-author at-
tribution of the materials re-
viewed by the Commission
( h t t p : / / n a s - s i t e s . o rg / g e -
crops/files/2016/03/Refer-
ence-Table-Chapter-5.pdf).
More than 60 percent of
sources come from govern-
ment and industry. Chapter
5 is crucial for anyone want-
ing a better understanding
of the politics and processes
determining what products
are marketed as “safe” in
this country and around the
world.
The Commission es-
sentially defers to existing
procedures of government
agencies, (in the U.S. the
EPA, USDA-APHIS, FDA)
whose policies and proce-
dures have been routinely
criticized by independent
scientists for decades.
This chapter is a great
disappointment for anyone
seeking new and informa-
tive material. The whole
407 pages comprise a schol-
arly book report, merely
referencing previous studies
and controversies.
It is incumbent on all
farmers and other citizens
to become thoroughly in-
formed about these issues.
The general affirmative
statements of the executive
summary are not conclu-
sive, and the Commission
admits this.
Let’s work together to
prevent this report, and
its derivatives, from de-
volving into a fanciful
“greenwashing” of signif-
icant health and environ-
mental issues facing all of
us.
Hank Keeton is proud of
his agricultural heritage.
Raised on farms, he was
president of the largest FFA
chapter in California in the
1960s, as well as president
of the Southwest region.
A published author in the
world of physics, he has a
graduate degree in philos-
ophy, and is writing two
other books. Hank farms
10 acres east of Silverton,
Ore., manages three small
businesses and is a partner
in an ISO-certified testing
laboratory for agricultural
products.