6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
July 29, 2016
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
Platforms offer insight into key ag issues
T
he two major political
parties have approved their
2016 platforms.
While presidential candidates
of both stripes have in the past
freely diverged from specifi c points
in their party’s platform — and we
would expect the same of Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump — the
documents provide a point for
comparison of the policy priorities
of each party.
Have a look.
Each party promises to protect
and advance the interests of
farmers.
The GOP says it will change
capital gains and estate tax laws to
ensure farms can stay in the family.
Republicans favor ending direct
payment programs in favor of risk-
management programs, such as crop
insurance.
Democrats promise unspecifi ed
programs to “protect and enhance
family farms, a cherished way
of life....” Democrats
say they’ll do more
to support young
farmers and ranchers,
and will promote
“environmentally
sustainable
agricultural practices.”
It favors a “focused”
safety net for farmers.
Republicans say they want
to rein in the Environmental
Protection Agency. The platform
demands “an end to the EPA’s
participation in ‘sue and settle’
lawsuits, sweetheart litigation
brought by environmental groups
to expand the Agency’s regulatory
activities against the wishes of
Congress and the public.” It
supports legislation giving the
states a larger role in protecting the
environment.
Democrats take note of EPA
programs, particularly the
Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard, but say more needs to be
done. The Democrats want to enlist
farmers as “partners in promoting
conservation and stewardship.”
Republicans want regulators to
shift from punitive enforcement
to “a spirit of cooperation” with
producers, processors and the
public.
The Democrats promise more
and stronger regulation on just
about every front. The GOP says it
will reduce government regulation,
and wants Congress to approve any
regulation that will cost
consumers more than
$100 million.
The Democrats
oppose any attempt
to “weaken” the
Endangered Species
Act. Republicans want
to
block attempts by the
EPA and the Corps of Engineers
to “expand jurisdiction over water,
including water that is clearly not
navigable.”
The Democrats’ platform wants
to expand access to public lands,
and at the same time “strengthen
protections for natural and cultural
resources.” It supports the creation
of a trust fund to expand outdoor
recreational opportunities. The
Democrats want to create more
jobs and billions of dollars in
activity by doubling the size of the
“outdoor economy.”
Republicans want Congress to
explore transferring to ranchers,
timbermen and miners some
public land, arguing that private
owners are the best stewards of the
land because conservation serves
their economic interests. It favors
maximizing timber harvest on
public land.
We think the GOP platform is
better for farmers and ranchers. But
we urge caution.
Platforms are gauzy documents
long on ideology and short on
specifi cs. They are points of
departure for candidates up and
down the ticket who are free to put
their spin on policy.
By what mechanics will either
party deliver its vision?
Details are important. Even
ideas we agree with can turn
sour if they are realized through
objectionable means.
Opening new markets
for American agriculture
O UR V IEW
By MARK SAMSON
For the Capital Press
I
Proposed organic livestock
rules must be rewritten
U
SDA’s proposed rules
dictating how farmers
and ranchers should raise
organic livestock and poultry will
needlessly increase expenses, make
more organic farmers abandon the
practice and expose livestock and
poultry to disease.
In addition, many in agriculture
question whether the USDA even
has the legal authority to issue the
rules.
USDA’s National Organic
Program has been successful in
setting the standards for raising
organically grown crops, livestock
and poultry. It regulates which
inputs can and cannot be used, and
all farmers know the rules from
the beginning. Some 3,500 farmers
now produce organic livestock and
poultry.
For that success, USDA must be
congratulated.
The new rules, however, go far
beyond those criteria and aim to
force farmers to abandon modern
agricultural principles and replace
them with what looks good to
consumers, according the National
Association of State Directors of
Agriculture.
On the heels of last year’s
massive outbreak of avian flu at
Midwest turkey and chicken farms,
it appears USDA’s National Organic
Program did not get the message:
Flocks need more protection from
the spread of diseases.
The proposed organic rules do
just the opposite. They require
poultry to spend more time outside,
where they can mingle with wild
birds. In the case of avian flu, wild
birds were the primary carriers of
the disease.
“The proposed rule flies in the
face of modern, peer-reviewed
science on animal husbandry
practices which should be the
driving principles behind safe,
efficient, sustainable and profitable
food production,” NASDA wrote to
USDA about the proposed organic
rule.
During the avian flu outbreak,
223 flocks of turkeys and chickens
were infected in 15 states. More
than 48 million birds had to be
euthanized, according to USDA.
The overall cost of responding to
the crisis and its impact on the U.S.
economy was estimated at $3.3
billion.
“In short, last year’s (highly
pathogenic avian influenza
outbreak) was the most devastating
animal health incident in our
nation’s history,” NASDA wrote.
“As written, the proposed rule
changes will effectively create a
contradictory regulatory framework
where organic producers will
have to expose their poultry and
livestock to enhanced mortality,
predation, animal health, and
biosecurity risks or allow their
organic certification to lapse.”
The rules would also have a
huge impact on organic dairy
farmers, the agriculture directors
wrote.
The proposal would require
organic livestock producers to
provide “sufficient space and
freedom to lie down in full lateral
recumbence, turn around, stand up,
fully stretch their limbs without
touching other animals and express
normal patterns of behavior,”
NASDA wrote.
This would cause massive
problems for organic dairies,
the agriculture directors
wrote.
“Stall systems are built at
very specific dimensions for cow
comfort, to allow cows to be kept
as sanitary as possible, and provide
for efficient manure removal,”
NASDA wrote. “This proposal,
which would effectively double
the size requirements for dairy
stalls, would lead to unsanitary
living conditions and increased
rates of mammary infection due to
pathogen exposure.”
If anyone knows about livestock
and poultry, it’s the state directors
of agriculture, who are often
the first responders to disease
outbreaks.
They are asking the USDA to
rethink these proposed organic
rules. For the sake of organic
farmers, their comments must be
heeded.
f you’re looking for a
growth industry, check
out Idaho’s food and ag-
ricultural exports: The num-
ber of jobs supported by ag-
ricultural exports has been
trending upward since the
1990s. More than 1 million
American jobs are support-
ed by agricultural exports,
including 24,000 jobs in
Idaho.
That’s a substantial part
of the estimated 11.5 mil-
lion jobs supported by ex-
ports all across the country.
Agricultural exports help
support rural communities
across the country, with
each dollar of exports stim-
ulating another $1.27 in
business activity.
Our state’s agricultur-
al exports support jobs in
transportation, processing,
packaging and many more
areas; roughly 80 percent of
these jobs are in non-farm
sectors. So while the bene-
fits of trade for Idaho’s ru-
ral farmers and ranchers are
clear, there are also positive
impacts rippling throughout
the entire job market stim-
ulating our national econo-
my.
Here in Idaho, we’re ac-
customed to producing the
best agricultural goods. Our
producers keep Americans
fed and clothed while con-
tributing to the food security
for nations across the globe.
Their hard work is a symbol
of where we come from, a
reflection of our shared val-
ues, and an economic driver
for our state’s economy.
For the U.S. economy
as a whole, agricultural ex-
ports represent a consistent
success story through good
times and challenges. Agri-
cultural exports have grown
much faster over the past
decade than even manufac-
turing exports.
In fact, over the past sev-
en years, U.S. farmers and
ranchers are responsible for
exporting $1 trillion in food
and agricultural goods to
countries around the world.
At USDA, we’re work-
ing aggressively to main-
tain this historic momen-
tum by expanding foreign
markets to help drive de-
mand for American-grown
goods.
We’re leading more trade
missions and as a result
generating more sales than
ever before. We have saved
U.S. businesses billions of
dollars by removing unfair
barriers to trade. In 2015
alone, USDA resolved more
than 150 trade-related is-
sues involving U.S. agricul-
tural exports valued at $2.4
billion. And we’ve worked
to expand trade relations
with many of the world’s
fastest-growing nations.
Guest
comment
Mark Samson
More simply, as the rest
of the world continues to
become more developed
and populations grow, so
does the demand for Ameri-
can agricultural exports.
That
is
why
the
Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade agreement is so im-
portant to Idaho. The TPP is
a 21st century trade agree-
ment that helps to level the
playing field for American
businesses while ensur-
ing the highest labor and
environmental standards.
U.S. trade with the 11 TPP
countries accounted for 42
percent of U.S. agricultural
exports in 2014, contribut-
ing $63 billion to the U.S.
economy. Easier access to
these markets with fewer
taxes on our goods allows
for even the smallest-scale
producers to expand their
reach.
According to the Amer-
ican Farm Bureau Federa-
tion, ratifying the TPP will
boost annual net farm in-
come in the United States
by $4.4 billion.
The TPP also removes
3,900 taxes on U.S. ag-
ricultural goods, such as
beef, wheat, potatoes and
dairy products grown right
here in Idaho. Failure by
Congress to pass the agree-
ment, however, costs the
U.S. economy a permanent
loss of $94 billion each
year.
With TPP, local prod-
ucts are able to compete
on a more level playing
field, reaching high-demand
markets both at home and
abroad. And, most import-
ant, TPP provides the Unit-
ed States an opportunity to
help write the global rules
on trade rather than nations
like China.
While China moves for-
ward with its own trade
deals that don’t reflect our
interests and our values,
TPP promises to make a
lasting contribution to the
American economy by
giving more Americans a
fair shot, more higher-pay-
ing jobs, and households
with paychecks that go
further.
Strong trade deals like
TPP that meet our stan-
dards, reduce taxes and lev-
el the playing field for our
businesses can power Ida-
ho’s economy for decades
to come.
Let’s hope Congress gets
the message.
Mark Samson is state ex-
ecutive director of the Ida-
ho Farm Service Agency.
Wally Hedrick, director of
Idaho Rural Development,
co-authored this article.