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.