6
CapitalPress.com
February 10, 2017
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
John Perry
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Congress must act to fix immigration laws
T
he decades-old debate
on illegal immigration
has been renewed with
President Trump’s executive
order of Jan. 25 — “Border
Security and Immigration
Enforcement Improvements.”
The order sets administration
policy on illegal immigration.
In short, it seeks to detain
those suspected of violating
immigration law, to expedite
their claims and to quickly
remove those whose legal claims
have been rejected.
While they work hard at
jobs “Americans” often don’t
want, by their numbers the
undocumented workers have
changed the dynamics of the
entire U.S. workforce. Their
repatriation would have a sizable
impact on our economy, leaving
many industries without viable
replacements.
Presidents have wide
discretion as to how to enforce
immigration laws passed
by Congress. Trump’s order
indicates he intends to enforce
the statutes. The administration
says it will prioritize the
deportation of criminal aliens,
the 300,000 or so who have
committed crimes either in the
United States or in their home
countries. But the order does not
make that distinction.
Trump needs no additional
authority to deport illegal
immigrants. He might need
additional money to fully
implement his order, but
existing law provides a process
for the repatriation of anyone
who has entered the country
illegally or violated the terms of
a visa.
Driven by crushing poverty,
immigrants seeking opportunities
impossible at home have
illegally flooded across the
border — 12 million by most
counts. They have placed strains
on public education, healthcare
and law enforcement.
Once here and armed with
forged papers they have found
ready employment on farms
and construction sites, and in
hotels, restaurants, processing
plants and other places eager for
cheap, reliable labor.
While most are not violent
or dangerous, all have violated
federal law by entering and
remaining in the country.
Millions have further submitted
fake papers to employers, and
have assumed other identities
for the sake of employment.
They are also real people —
real families — with real ties
to the United States. They have
children, many who are citizens
born in the United States, who
have never known another
home.
We return to what we’ve
always seen as the two
legal options facing their
dispositions: Make them go, or
let them stay.
Only Congress can change
the law. And it’s time it did.
Congress must offer illegal
immigrants temporary legal
status and a path to permanent
residency, but not citizenship,
after 10 years if they can be
properly vetted and meet strict
requirements — no prior felony
convictions, no violations while
awaiting residency, learning to
speak English and assimilate,
and pay a fine and back taxes.
The border should be
secured. A viable guestworker
program must be established,
and employers must verify the
work status of their employees.
We respect the rule of law,
and do not lightly suggest
rewarding those who have
flouted it. But we are reluctant
to disrupt the lives of otherwise
harmless people who have done
what we would do — whatever
it takes to ensure the safety and
welfare of our families.
Studies cast doubt
on GMO food
O ur V iew
By PATRICIA MICHL
For the Capital Press
A
Photo by Sean Ellis/Capital Press
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of onions were lost when this onion storage shed near Nyssa, Ore., collapsed under the weight of
several feet of snow. The scene was repeated across the region.
Record snows devastate
onion industry
T
he Owyhee region gets an
average of 7 inches of snow
each January, but not this
year.
Depending on the area, upwards
of 40 inches of snow was dumped
on the region, which straddles
the border between southeastern
Oregon and southwestern Idaho.
The result was a catastrophe.
The region’s major cash crop is
onions, most of which were stored
and packed in dozens of huge
buildings that dot the countryside.
When more than three feet of
snow accumulated on their roofs,
the buildings collapsed under the
weight, with some employees
narrowly escaping the devastation.
Not only were the buildings
lost, but tens of millions of dollars
worth of onions were exposed to
the elements and ruined.
To add insult to injury,
safety inspectors showed up
and prevented workers from
shoveling off the roofs unless
they had safety harnesses. Perhaps
they should have offered to help
instead of getting in the way.
A little bit of math shows why
the buildings collapsed.
As an example, a 50-by-100-
foot building has a flat roof with
an area of 5,000 square feet. The
weight of 1 cubic foot of new-fallen
snow ranges from 3.1 pounds to
4.4 pounds — an average of 3.75
pounds.
Doing the math, 40 inches of
new snow on that roof would weigh
about 102 tons. If the snow is wet,
the snow’s weight can more than
double.
Adding up the cost of the
buildings, the packing and shipping
lines and the onions, industry
leaders estimated the overall
damage at upwards of $100 million.
That’s a colossal hit to the
region’s agricultural economy,
which produces about 25 percent
of the nation’s large-bulb storage
onions.
If heavy snows were
commonplace in the region,
the buildings would have been
engineered to withstand the
tremendous snow loads. Since
the recent storms constituted a
record-setting fluke, the buildings
really didn’t have a chance of
withstanding the massive snow
loads.
If there can be a upside to such
a disaster, this winter’s snowfall
will allow the Owyhee Reservoir
to completely refill this year and
farmers who depend on it will get
their full allotment of irrigation
water.
The region previously was
parched by drought, and irrigation
supplies were drastically reduced.
More water is small comfort after
so many storage and packing sheds
were lost, throwing people out of
work and threatening the economic
well-being of so many operations.
But most farmers are optimists,
and with plentiful irrigation supplies
they will be able to recover.
Snow is usually seen as a good
thing. In the case of the storms that
dumped 40 inches of snow on the
Owyhee region, it was too much of
a good thing.
Readers’ views
Release Dwight
and Steven
Hammond
The Hammonds should be
home with their families.
74-year-old Dwight and
son Steven were/are respect-
ed ranchers in the Burns area.
They are presently serving a
5-year mandatory sentence
for arson on federal land.
They were labeled terrorists
in order to justify this grossly
disproportionate sentence for
the destruction (burned) of
approximately 130 acres of
Bureau of Land Management
pasture.
They stood trial once and
served their time. The De-
partment of Justice came
back in federal appeals court
and won, imposing the 5-year
sentence. Double jeopardy
is mentioned often as I have
read the articles reporting the
trial and happenings that led
to the final outcome, which to
me is a gross miscarriage of
justice.
The mandatory 5-year sen-
tence is to discourage terror-
ists and arsonists who disre-
gard the law. Was this a witch
hunt used to send a message to
good solid Americans that dis-
sent? Could be — maybe yes.
The Hammonds have been
described in such terms as,
respected, great neighbor, salt
of the earth ag folks. If this fa-
ther and son fit the profile of
arsonist or terrorist, we are all
in trouble.
“Remember this is not
about me, this is about our
country,” were Dwight Ham-
mond’s parting comments as
he was taken from home and
family a year ago.
For goodness sakes,
someone has the leverage to
get these men out of prison.
Unfortunately for the Ham-
monds, I think they were
caught up in what I refer to
as “a virus sweep.” Easily la-
beled as such if you have is-
sues with the BLM and their
land management policies.
I’m infuriated to see the
pardons and commutations
being dished out at this time
to drug dealers and terrorists,
none seem to be forthcoming
for Dwight and Steven.
Bring the Hammonds
home.
Wanda Ballard
Baker County, Ore.
guest columnist too
hastily promoted GMO
crops in an op-ed piece
published last year.
He wrongly discredits the
Giles-Eric Seralini study. He
states that the Seralini study
was retracted in November
2013 by “Food and Chemical
Toxicology,” but he omits the
fact that the study was repub-
lished in the “Journal of Envi-
ronmental Sciences Europe”
Vol 26:14 in June 2014.
Respected scientists world-
wide had raised a furor over
this wrongful retraction.
Therefore, the Seralini study is
properly citable for the prop-
osition that GMOs are likely
harmful to human health.
In fact, the Seralini study
is one of the very few lifetime
GMO feeding trials; it stands
as the gold standard for show-
ing the correlation between
GMOs and cancer, tumors and
organ damage.
The guest columnist also
criticizes Seralini’s use of
Sprague-Dawley rats. Why
Sprague-Dawleys? This strain
of rats is standard to health
and safety studies due to its
high susceptibility to tumors.
Researchers can obtain re-
sults in a relatively short peri-
od of time. It should be noted
that Monsanto also utilizes
Sprague-Dawleys in its GMO
studies. However, Monsanto’s
studies end after 3 months.
But the human population is
expected to eat GMOs for a
lifetime.
By contrast, the Seralini
study lasted for the lifetime
of the rats. The significance of
the Seralini study is that even
a small group of rats, those fed
GMOs, exhibited an alarming
number of tumors, lesions and
organ abnormalities.
However, the control
group, not fed GMOs, had far
fewer problems.
The columnist cites GMO
safety statements from several
governmental organizations.
However, government orga-
nizations that have approved
GMOs are aligned with Big-
Ag (Monsanto and other bio-
tech companies).
Government is widely
viewed by growing numbers
of citizens as no friend of the
people. An appropriate analo-
gy would be the close align-
ment between Big-Pharma
and U.S. health authorities
(NIH, CDC, FDA, etc.) in
suppressing alternative cancer
therapies.
The columnist cites two
papers by Dr. Alison Van
Eenennaam. The first ex-
amines the feeding of GMO
crops to food-producing an-
imals. It considers feed in-
take, growth and other live-
stock production parameters
— basically, weight gain and
readiness for market. These
“production parameters” are
irrelevant to the presence of
tumors and other organ-relat-
Guest
comment
Patricia Michl
ed disorders which can only
be detected through autopsies.
In her second paper Dr.
Van Eenennaam states that
feeding GMOs to livestock
animals does not adversely
affect their health. But these
are commercial animals that
are killed in early adulthood.
She does not know about their
health later in life on a GMO
diet. This is where the Serali-
ni lifetime feeding study is so
cogent. It reveals the prob-
lems with a GMO diet late in
life.
Furthermore, the Dr. Judy
A. Carman study found mas-
sive stomach inflammation in
commercial pigs fed a GMO
diet by examining their stom-
achs on autopsy after slaugh-
ter (“Journal of Organic Sys-
tems,” Vol 8, No 1. 2013).
It should also be noted
that GMO research results
from any university accept-
ing bio-corporate money are
suspect. Corporations with a
stake in biotechnology pour
copious amounts of money
into university programs.
With millions of dollars at
stake, academia that accepts
agri-business money cannot
be trusted to deliver valid,
truthful and unbiased find-
ings.
The columnist correctly
states that the anti-GMO in-
formation is voluminous. Un-
fortunately, he neglects to cite
any of these studies. I will do
so here. Residues of glypho-
sate are found in GMO soy
(“Food Chemistry,” Vol 153
pp. 207-215. 2014, T. Bohn et
al.). Glyphosate residues are
found in humans and animals
(“Environmental and Analyti-
cal Toxicology,” Vol 4, Issue
2. 2014, Monika Kruger et
al.). Residues of glyphosate
harm human gut bacteria
and suppress the cytochrome
P450 pathway (“Entropy
Journal,” Vol 15 (1) 2013,
Anthony Samsel and Stepha-
nie Seneff). Huge increase in
chronic diseases in the U.S.
parallels the advent and use
of GMO crops (“Journal of
Organic Systems,” Vol 9 (2)
2014, Nancy L. Swanson et
al.).
Had GMOs appeared
commercially in earlier de-
cades when the dangers of
DDT were exposed GMOs
would have suffered the same
fate. They would have been
banned. If a more thorough
and transparent approach
were applied to GMOs today,
they might well be banned in
the future.
Patricia Michl taught
elementary school for 8 years
in Ohio. She worked in family
support as an attorney for 27
years in Washington. She is
currently working part-time
as a dryland wheat farmer
near Waterville, Wash.