Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (July 15, 2016)
6 CapitalPress.com July 15, 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 Onion growers face another food safety law challenge O nion growers in Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho have had quite a time trying to deal with the mandates of the Food Safety Modernization Act. Having found a solution to one regulation that would have all but put them out of business, they now face another that could cost the industry $200 million to implement and puts its survival in question. The law was passed by Congress late in 2010 with the goal of mandating best safety practices for producers and processors while making it easier for regulators to trace foodborne illnesses back to their source. To enforce the act, the Food and Drug Administration wrote 1,200 pages of proposed rules to address food safety controls for the growing, harvesting, packing and holding of produce for human consumption. Many of the proposals were impractical and too costly. Others just weren’t necessary. For example, ag water provisions in the rules originally proposed a standard that would have been impossible for onion growers who irrigate from open ditches to meet. No approved treatment method existed, nor would it be economical if it did exist. It would have required produce growers whose irrigation water exceeded certain thresholds for bacteria to immediately stop using it. That would have made it impossible for most people in the Treasure Valley to grow onions. Following an outcry, the FDA relented. Rather than limiting growers to fixing the water, the revised rules allow other mitigation options. The final rule allows growers whose water exceeds the standards to comply if they can show that bacteria dies off at a certain rate in the field. And Oregon State University was able to show that very thing. Now comes the issue of crates. The FDA’s rules require growers to store onions in plastic crates. The industry now uses wooden boxes — about a million of them in the Treasure Valley. The plastic crates are smaller, holding about 900 pounds as opposed to the 1,600 pounds the boxes hold. The wooden boxes cost $60 each, the plastic crates cost $150. Growers say it would cost $200 million to buy enough plastic crates to hold the crop, plus storage facilities would have to be altered to accommodate the different sized containers. OSU has found that the change wouldn’t reduce the level of contamination found in stored onions. In a test of 10 wooden boxes of onions and 10 plastic crates of onions stored for six weeks, researchers found no difference. Because disease-causing bacteria die off on onions left in the field to cure, the common practice in the region, the onions stored in either container weren’t contaminated to begin with. We hope FDA takes note, as it did in the earlier case. No one can argue that food shouldn’t be safe, or that reasonable precautions shouldn’t be taken. But Congress didn’t intend to put whole segments of the food production and distribution chain out of business when it passed the act. Congress will pass a carbon fee bill by the end of 2017 By MARK REYNOLDS For the Capital Press F Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press O ur V iew What a federal GMO labeling law does I nching its way through Congress is a proposal to require labels on foods that have genetically modified ingredients. While we continue to question the need for such mandates — most people don’t even know what a GMO is — our friends in Congress appear to just want to get the issue off their plate. What Congress came up with was a proposal that appears to meet the needs of the people who insist on “knowing what’s in their food” and, at the same time, forecloses on the possibility of each state coming up with a different GMO labeling law. That alone makes this legislation worthwhile. The idea that Vermont, whose labeling law went into effect July 1, could exempt food with meat in it from its labeling law can best be described as random. What isn’t random in the law is the state’s exemption of dairy products, including cheese, from GMO labeling. Vermont is known for its delicious hard, white Cheddar, at least some of which is made using fermentation- produced chymosin that scientists create through genetic engineering, according to an article by Jon Entine, executive director of the independent Genetic Literacy Project. The FPC itself doesn’t contain a GMO, but it’s a product of genetic engineering, according to his article. FPC is a lower-cost way of making cheese and replaces rennet. It is now used in most of the hard cheese made in the U.S., according to the article. For the record, organic cheese does not use FPC. Now you know one reason Vermonters such as Sen. Bernie Sanders are so uptight about protecting their state’s GMO law — and its exemptions. Some people love labels. They honestly believe that pasting a label on a can of soup or a box of crackers will change the way people eat. Some years ago, Congress required labels with nutritional information on food packages. The thinking at the time was that people would read the labels and choose more healthful food. Instead, we now find ourselves in the midst of a national obesity epidemic. On average, more Americans are overweight now than ever. So much for that label theory. In addition, if consumers really want to avoid GMO food, they already have two label options. They can buy food with the Certified Non-GMO label, or they can buy USDA certified organic food. Many foods with those labels can be found in almost any grocery store. We hope Congress does indeed get the GMO labeling issue off its plate, and that President Barack Obama signs it into law. Our hope is he will realize that, while the need for another label on food is questionable, it’s the federal government’s job to make sure labels don’t impede commerce. By having a single national standard, farmers and food processors will at least have a consistent set of labeling rules from state to state. How to achieve profitable milk prices By BOB KRUCKER For the Capital Press Guest comment Bob Krucker I n your July 1 issue, you published an opinion of Arden Tewksbury promot- ing the proposed Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act as a solution to low milk pric- es. I submit a different opinion. While everyone appreciates Arden’s effort in highlighting dairy farmers’ unprofitability, the political solutions to the problem he supports have not worked and will not work. Been there, done that — for decades. Let’s have a little honesty and economic reality. Traditionally, most poli- ticians only vote where the money is, and the money is with the processors, retailers and consumers — not with the dairy farmer. No politician or govern- ment program is going to change basic market econom- ics in a way that benefits the dairy farmer. The dairy farmer must use the basic universal rules of the marketplace to obtain a profit- able and fair price for the milk the market wants. The overwhelming driver of price is supply. Balancing supply with profitable demand equals a profitable price. The dairy farmer owns the milk supply and holds the key to price. Price is always linked to the supply, and oversupply means lower prices. It’s not about government or politicians — it is always about supply. Dairy farmers, not politi- cians or government bureau- crats, must solve this pricing problem because no one else can. A milk supply level pro- duced by the dairy farmer bal- anced with profitable domestic demand will achieve a profit- able milk price and sustainable profitability for the dairy farm- er. U.S. dairy farmer profit- ability can be achieved — if the remaining dairy farmer co- op owners demand that co-op management implement the following instructions: 1. Accept no non-member milk for processing. 2. Implement a pro-rata across-the-board reduction in the acceptance of member milk for processing until the milk supply is balanced with profit- able domestic market demand, which provides a price greater than the average member dairy farmer’s cost to make the milk. 3. Do not own, operate or be involved with any processing facility, make any dairy prod- uct or chase any dairy market that will not pay a price greater than the average member dairy farmer’s cost to make the milk. 4. Use the National Dairy Producers Organization’s 100 percent USA trademark on all co-op-made products to pro- mote U.S.-made dairy farmer milk. Dairy farmers should re- sist the false hope of trying to achieve some magical govern- ment minimum price for milk when they could quickly obtain a profitable price for milk by properly managing their milk and their dairy farmer-owned co-ops. Let’s stop culling dairy farmers and start culling some cows and preserve as much of our existing national milk producing infrastructure as we can. Bob Krucker, an Idaho dairy farmer, is a board mem- ber of the National Dairy Producers Organization (NDPO). He can be reached at 208-280-1830. orgive me if I’m feeling a little exposed at the moment, but I recently made a really big promise. This isn’t a tell-your-daugh- ter-you’ll-take-her-to-the- zoo-on-Saturday kind of promise. No, we’re talking about a JFK, “We’re going to put a man on the moon” kind of promise. On June 19, at the start of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby/ Citizens’ Climate Education Conference in Washington, I stood before hundreds of CCL group leaders and con- gressional liaisons — the heart and soul of our orga- nization — and I promised them this: By the end of 2017, Con- gress will pass a bill that places a fee on carbon and returns net revenue to Ameri- can households. Perhaps you understand why I feel exposed. There are so many moving parts and variables involved that are totally outside my ability to control. So what gives me the audacity to say we can do this? Well, when I made the promise, the answer was right there in the faces of the people I was talking to. I would never entertain such an outlandish thought — let alone say it out loud — if it were not for our amazing vol- unteers. Volunteers such as Penn- sylvania’s Jay Butera, who saw the potential of bringing Republicans and Democrats together to combat the grow- ing threat of rising sea levels. Two years ago, armed with nothing but his own determination, he flew down to south Florida — a region highly vulnerable to the ef- fects of climate change — and recruited the volunteers who would form CCL’s Mi- ami chapter. He painstak- ingly secured endorsements from mayors, city councils and chambers of commerce, convincing local Republican members of Congress that it was time to commit to action. His efforts eventually led to Republican Carlos Curbe- lo and Democrat Ted Deutch uniting to launch the bipar- tisan House Climate Solu- tions Caucus, which now has sixteen members with equal numbers from both sides of the aisle. Still, my heart was in my throat when I asked, “Who’s with me? Stand up if you’re with me.” When everyone stood up, my knees stopped shaking. I knew that they be- Guest comment Mark Reynolds lieve, just as I do, that this is no time to hedge our bets. They know that bills that get introduced in Congress are a dime a dozen — that the only ones that count are the ones that pass. And they know that we’re running out of time. We’re getting dan- gerously close to the tipping point of no return on green- house gas emissions, the point where temperatures and seas will rise beyond our ability to adapt. It’s time for Congress to pass the most efficient and effective solution to climate change — a steadily-rising, revenue-neutral fee on car- bon. We can’t wait another five years until the “right” people get elected. To para- phrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: You don’t save the world with the Congress you wish you had; you save the world with the Congress you have. And that is what we intend to do. By the end of 2017. I’m confident that mak- ing this bold commitment will energize our thousands of volunteers, who have dug so deep time and time again, to find another gear with- in themselves and do what many consider to be impos- sible. With this promise, we tap into and unleash a force that only manifests itself when a powerful commitment is made. Many years ago, W.H. Murray described that power in his book, “The Scottish Himalayan Expedition”: “Until one is commit- ted, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, al- ways ineffectiveness … [T] here is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen inci- dents, meetings and materi- al assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way.” Yes, we’re all feeling a little exposed. But sticking our necks out so we can pre- serve a healthy climate for our grandchildren? That’s a risk we’re more than willing to take. Mark Reynolds is the ex- ecutive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby. 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 address and a daytime telephone number with your submis- sion. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commen- tary submissions should also include a photograph of the author. 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.