CapitalPress.com
6
August 19, 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
Immigration reform will require courage
T
here are 12 million stories
about those who have illegally
immigrated to the U.S. They
range from heart-wrenching to
opportunistic. Each is different in
many ways, and the same in one:
Each person broke federal law in
getting here.
That’s why the discussion of
illegal immigration is so divisive.
While many Americans see the
people behind the statistics, many
counter with, “What part of illegal
don’t you understand?”
Democratic and Republican
presidential administrations for
decades have tried to come up
with effective and fair means of
addressing illegal immigrants
that ranged from deportation to
amnesty.
President Barack Obama even
tried an end-run around Congress
after that esteemed body refused —
again — to do anything substantive
about the issue.
Though politicians tend to fall
back on a combination of generality,
placation and prejudice when they
speak about illegal immigrants,
many of the arguments circle around
to what Congress needs to do to
address the issue.
Most people agree that the
border must be secured to prevent
the free fl ow of people in and out of
the U.S. Without that, we have no
immigration policy.
Most people also agree illegal
immigrants must pay a fi ne for
breaking the law in order to be
considered for any type of legal
permanent residence. And they must
not have broken other criminal laws.
They must also learn to speak
English. It makes no sense to foster
a nation in which the people do
not share a common language.
AP Photo/Gosia Wozniacka, File
In this 2013 photo taken near Fresno,
Calif., farmworkers pick paper trays of
dried raisins off the ground and heap
them onto a trailer in the fi nal step of
raisin harvest.
For the sake of the nation, and for
the immigrants, they must learn
English.
Much hangs in the balance,
including the integrity of our
country and an acknowledgment
that, from its very beginning, this is
a nation of immigrants.
Of particular concern to farmers
and others is the fact that about 75
percent of our food is harvested
or tended by illegal immigrants,
according to Jeremy Robbins,
executive director of the Partnership
for a New American Economy, a
bipartisan organization made up of
500 CEOs and mayors.
Each year, farmers and food
processors are put at risk. They
need to hire enough people to pick
and process the crops. Though they
insist that workers possess proper
documentation, it is too often
falsifi ed. This puts farmers in a
quandary. They need workers, but
they have little choice but to accept
at face value the paperwork that’s
presented.
The other option is obtaining
H-2A guestworkers. While this
assures that the work force will be
legal, it is expensive and time-
consuming and relies on federal
agencies whose priorities are set in
O UR V IEW
Washington, D.C.
We are often told that
congressional action on immigration
will take place “after the next
election.”
As it turns out, there’s always
another election, allowing politicians
to duck and cover one more time,
leaving immigration reform — and
a growing list of other pressing
matters — unaddressed.
As the fall general election
approaches, we urge our readers to
listen closely to the congressional
and presidential candidates.
Brush aside the bombast and the
generalities and look for positions
on immigration reform that are
practical, affordable, effective and
offer a long-term solution.
They all know what that solution
is, they just aren’t willing to display
the courage it takes to make it a
reality.
Studies show safety of GMOs
Producers need tools to deal I
with eagle depredation
By JACK DEWITT
I
f a wolf kills a calf
out on the range, the
rancher is sure to let out a yell
and report it to wildlife offi cials. But
when sheep producers lose hundreds
of lambs each year to depredation by
eagles no one says anything.
Last week the Capital Press made
public what has been an open secret
among sheep producers for years —
eagles love to feed on newborn lambs
and there’s not much they can do to
stop them. If you didn’t know it’s
because many sheep producers would
just as soon everyone kept quiet.
Peter Orwick, executive director
of the American Sheep Industry
Association, said raptors are a huge
problem for producers and that eagles
are a particularly tough challenge.
One producer in Oregon reluctantly
told us she loses 300 lambs a year to
eagles.
Producers don’t report and wildlife
offi cials stopped asking questions.
In 2004, the last year the federal
government collected separate data,
eagles killed 6,300 sheep and lambs.
Eagles present as great a problem
to producers as wolves and other
predators, and farmers need better tools
to deal with them.
It’s diffi cult to say much against
eagles because they enjoy a special
place in our collective psyche.
Had Little Red Riding Hood and her
grandmother fallen victim to an eagle
instead of a wolf our perceptions of
the animals might be quite different.
The dejected are “thrown to
the wolves.” Those practicing a
dangerous deception are “wolves in
sheep’s clothing.” Families in dire
straits struggle to “keep the wolves
from the door.” Wolves are dangerous
predators that might be admired from
a distance but must be avoided under
all circumstances.
Eagles are the symbol of liberty and
independence. A bald eagle adorns the
Great Seal of the United States.
Eagles are also an important
symbol of the conservation
movement, one of the fi rst animals
to be placed on the endangered
species list. While bald eagles have
since been recovered and have been
removed
from the list,
they and other raptors are
protected under separate federal
law.
And that’s the rub. While
ranchers on the range have
many unregulated tools
at their disposal to scare
wolves away from their herds, even
the most gentle ruffl ing of an eagle’s
feathers without a permit could land a
producer in federal court.
Getting a permit to haze eagles
is a Byzantine exercise involving
the USDA and the Fish and Wildlife
Service. As reluctant as producers
are to allow the feds access to their
property, they fear more the prospect
of becoming the targets of over
zealous conservation groups.
We concede that allowing
producers to shoot problem eagles
is a non-starter, and giving federal
wildlife offi cials that authority would
be an uphill battle. The optics of such
a thing would enrage even those most
sympathetic to agriculture.
But producers should be given
freedom without federal intervention
to scare eagles off by means that
don’t harm the birds. If it works for
the protected wolves, it should work
for the protected eagles.
Readers’ views
How do they pro- MPP works
C ougars, wolves of pose roadways.
to keep the cougars within
their designated areas? Outrid- just as it was
and deer study
ers, anyone?
I fail to see the connection designed
out of touch
Lynne McBride does not
they are trying to make. One
Regarding the story about
the study that says cougars and
wolves benefi t people.
Once again some supposed-
ly educated people, being paid
by tax dollars, are off on a tan-
gent leading into the unknown.
How can so many people
be so far out of touch with the
real world?
Just in case they haven’t
noticed, the road kill of deer
far exceeds the deer killing of
humans. And the deer are pre-
dominantly in just certain areas
they didn’t mention: Traffi c
and cougars. So now it is also
going to be cars versus cats to
look out for.
The most outlandish, most
outrageous statement in the
article was: “I think hitting a
deer is something most people
have either experienced or they
know someone who has hit a
deer.”
I’m sure glad I never had
such an out-of-touch teacher.
Marvin Reed
Reno, Nev.
speak for all California
dairy farmers with regards
to the MPP program. The
program is designed to be
catastrophic income insur-
ance and it works just as
designed.
Do people complain
every year when they buy
fire insurance and their hay
stack doesn’t burn up? Of
course not. You have to
look at the MPP the same
way.
I bought $5 margin cov-
erage for my 750 milk cow
dairy. It cost me $6,400. In
2009 my margin went down
to about $1.50 per cwt. In
that year this $5 coverage
would have paid handsome-
ly. Do I wish for a 2009
scenario so I can get a good
return on my MPP “invest-
ment?” Of course not.
Some people are never
happy with policies adopt-
ed by the government. I
guess that is to be expect-
ed. I would just ask that as
a reporter you try to get a
broader perspective when
you cover a story.
Geoff Vanden Heuvel
J&D Star Dairy
Chino, Calif.
For the Capital Press
Guest
comment
n the June 3 Capital Press, the
writer of a guest comment
column criticized a May 20
Associated Press story printed in
the Capital Press concerning the
National Academy of Science,
Engineering and Medicines re-
port entitled “Genetically Engi-
neered Crops, Experiences and
Prospects.”
The Academy’s major goal
was “to make available to the
public, to researchers and to
policy-makers a comprehensive
review of the evidence that has
been used in the debates about
GE crops and information on
relevant studies that are rarely re-
ferred to in debates.”
The AP story concluded that
the report attests to the safety of
GMOs. The guest columnist dis-
agreed with that conclusion. The
report is not yet available in print,
but can be downloaded from the
internet, and I have done so, all
407 pages. Like the AP story, I
fi nd the report reassuring as to the
safety of GM crops.
Chapter 5 of the report deals
with human health effects of GM
crops. On page 114, the authors
quote statements of safety from
organizations around the world:
The U.S. National Research
Council, the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of
Science, the Council on Science
and Public Health of the Ameri-
can Medical Association House
of Delegates, the World Health
Organization, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration and
the European Commission (the
executive body of the European
Union), which concluded “from
the efforts of more than 130 re-
search projects, covering a period
of more than 25 years of research,
and involving more than 500 in-
dependent research groups, is
that biotechnology, and particu-
larly GMOs, are not per se more
risky than e.g. conventional plant
breeding technologies.”
The June 3 guest columnist
implied that these organizations
and the committees that put to-
gether this tome are in thrall of
big corporations, or are mem-
bers of a government conspiracy
aligned with Big Ag. I fi nd such a
view blatantly cynical.
The columnist referred to a
study led by Giles-Eric Serali-
ni in which rats were fed GM
corn and Roundup for up to two
years and concluded that GM
corn and Roundup caused ex-
tensive tumors. Seralini used
the Sprague-Dawley strain of
rats that are very prone to tumor
production, and within two years
most will die of cancer naturally.
In a 2001 experiment with
untreated rats, 70-77 percent of
females and 87 to 97 percent of
males developed tumors over
a lifespan of 89 to 105 weeks
(Nakazawa, M, et al, “Sponta-
neous neoplastic lesions in aged
Sprague-Dawley Rats”. Experi-
mental Animals, Vol. 50, No. 2,
pp99-103.) Seralini’s paper and
conclusions (“Long-term toxic-
ity of a Roundup herbicide and
a Roundup-tolerant genetically
modifi ed maize”) were roundly
criticized by scientists around the
world because of his small sam-
ple size and general methods. The
Jack DeWitt
paper was published in Food and
Chemical Toxicology in Septem-
ber of 2012, and retracted in No-
vember of 2013. Yet, anti-GMO
activists constantly refer to this
rejected study.
Quoting from a paper by Ali-
son Van Eenennaam, UCCE Spe-
cialist, Dept. of Animal Science,
University of California-Davis,
“Over 100 digestion and feed-
ing studies examining the effects
of feeding GE crops to various
food-producing animal species
have been reported in the scien-
tifi c literature. … Results have
revealed no signifi cant differenc-
es in the nutritional value of feed-
stuffs derived from commercially
grown GE crops compared with
their conventional counterparts,
nor have any peer–reviewed
studies documented alterations in
feed intake, growth, or other live-
stock production parameters.”
(Proceedings, California Alfalfa
and Forage Symposium, Dec
2005. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu.
See also Flachowsky, et. al, “An-
imal nutrition with feeds from
genetically modifi ed plants.“ Ar-
chives of Animal Nutrition, Vol
59, pp.1-40. 2005.)
Dr. Van Eenennaam subse-
quently reviewed animal health
data sets from 1983 (before the
introduction of GE feedstuffs in
1996) to 2011, and published the
results in 2014 (“Prevalence and
impacts of genetically engineered
feedstuffs on livestock popula-
tions,” American Society of An-
imal Science, Vol 92, pp. 4255-
4278.) Quoting from her abstract,
“Numerous experimental studies
have consistently revealed that
the performance and health of
GE-fed animals are comparable
with those fed isogenic non-GE
crop lines.
U.S. agriculture produces
over 9 billion food producing
animals annually, and more than
95 percent of these animals con-
sume feed containing GE ingre-
dients. … These fi eld data sets,
representing 100 billion animals
following the introduction of GE
crops did not reveal unfavorable
or perturbed trends in livestock
health and productivity. No study
has revealed any differences in
the nutritional profi le of animal
products derived from GE-fed
animals.”
There are hundreds of studies
worldwide that attest to the safe-
ty and “substantial equivalence”
of GMOs where animal and hu-
man health are concerned, and
to the benefi ts that accrue to the
environment. I caution every-
one to beware the voluminous,
specious, sometimes mythical,
anti-GMO information promul-
gated or inspired by NGOs such
as Greenpeace and Friends of the
Earth, whose agenda, if success-
ful, will result in a world where
only the wealthy will be well-fed,
well-clothed, and well-housed.
Jack DeWitt has a mas-
ter’s degree in agronomy from
Washington State University and
has 50-plus years of farming
experience and agricultural
research monitoring. He lives in
Milton-Freewater, Ore.