Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (March 24, 2017)
March 24, 2017 Critics urge more livestock antibiotic oversight in Oregon By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis- tration’s oversight of livestock antibiotics want the state of Oregon to do it instead. Over several years, the FDA has phased out the use of antibiotics for growth pro- motion and feed efficiency in livestock with the voluntary cooperation of pharmaceutical companies. However, this approach hasn’t satisfied critics who say that antibiotics can still be used excessively by livestock producers for the prevention — rather than treatment — of disease. “The loophole is they’re still allowing these drugs to be used on healthy animals,” said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with the Consumers Union, during a recent legisla- tive hearing. Under House Bill 785, Ore- gon livestock producers would only be able to provide a “med- ically important antibiotic” to their animals if a veterinarian determines it’s necessary to treat or control the spread of a disease or infection, or due to a medical procedure. Farms that are considered “concentrated animal feeding operations” — such as many dairies and feedlots — would have to submit information about their antibiotic usage to the state government, with those records subject to disclo- sure as public documents. Opponents argue the bill’s provisions unnecessarily in- fringe on a solution devised by the FDA at a federal level, cre- ating state-specific restrictions that will leave Oregon’s live- stock industry at a competitive disadvantage. “They unfairly single out livestock producers,” said Na- than Jackson, president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Associa- tion. The record-keeping re- quirements contained in HB 785 have also perturbed agri- culture group representatives, who say they’re overly bur- densome without being useful. Chad Allen, president of the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, said he already tracks antibiotic usage at his dairy near Tillamook, Ore., but objected to submitting records to state authorities. “It doesn’t serve the public any good for me to hand that over and bring a spotlight into my business,” Allen said. Supporters of HB 785 said the FDA’s approach is ineffec- tive because growth promotion accounted for less than one- fourth of antibiotic usage in livestock production. Roughly two-thirds of live- stock antibiotic usage has been devoted to disease prevention, which isn’t affected by the FDA policy and allows ani- mals to be kept in “crowded, factory farm conditions,” said Hansen. It’s also “blatantly false” and a “mischaracterization” to claim that FDA’s strategy is binding on the livestock in- dustry, said George Kimbrell, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit ac- tivist group that supports HB 785. The FDA has issued guid- ance recommending certain actions to pharmaceutical man- ufacturers but these suggestions are not enforceable, Kimbrell said. “What the FDA has done here does not have the force of law,” he said. Opponents of HB 785 argue it’s a misconception that FDA’s policy is merely voluntary. As of early 2017, all animal drug manufacturers have com- mitted to change the labeled uses of antibiotics, so veteri- narians cannot prescribe the drugs for growth promotion or similar uses, according to op- ponents. CapitalPress.com 7 Trump budget deepens cuts to USDA By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press President Donald Trump’s preliminary “skinny budget” would slim down resources to farmers, ranchers and ru- ral America, further cutting USDA’s already trimmed- down budget. Trump’s FY2018 proposal would cut discretionary fund- ing to USDA by 21 percent, a decrease of $4.7 billion to $17.9 billion. The current USDA budget includes $25 billion in discre- tionary spending for such pro- grams as the special nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children called WIC, Ru- ral Development, food safety, the U.S. Forest Service, re- search and conservation activ- ities. That’s on top of $130 bil- lion in congressionally man- dated spending for a current overall budget of $155 bil- lion. Of that total, 71 percent goes to WIC and SNAP food stamps for 44.5 million Amer- icans, 16 percent goes to farm and commodity programs, 7 percent goes to conservation and forestry and 6 percent goes to rural development, re- Andrew Harnik/The Associated Press President Donald Trump speaks in the East Room of the White House on March 7. Trump’s “skinny budget” proposal would cut funding to USDA discretion- ary funding by $4.7 billion. search, food safety, marketing and regulatory functions and management. In a climate of serious economic challenges in farm country, it’s not the time to cut programs and services that have already been on the chop- ping block the past few years, said R.J. Karney, American Farm Bureau Federation direc- tor of congressional relations. The significant cut in USDA’s budget demonstrates the importance of having the secretary of agriculture at the table to champion the needs of farmers and ranchers. That didn’t happen, as Trump’s nominee for that position, Son- ny Purdue, has been sidelined by delays in the confirmation process, he said. “Not having the secretary of ag at the table to help the budget process was made clear by the negative impact to the (USDA’s) budget,” he said. National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said in a statement the proposed cuts and message they send to rural America are “deeply dis- appointing.” Family farmers and ranch- ers are enduring the worst farm economy in well over a decade and an inadequate safety net already hamstrung by $23 billion in budget cuts, he said. “The last thing our mem- bers need right now is more cuts to agencies and programs that provide incredibly im- portant work, especially in the middle of the current farm cri- sis,” he said. All the details have not yet been released, but fund- ing cuts would target USDA’s statistical capabilities within the National Agricultural Sta- tistics Service and Economic Research Service and USDA Service Center Agencies — Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources and Conservation Service and Rural Develop- ment. It would also eliminate the Waste and Wastewater loan and grant program. NASS provides roughly 400 reports annually on 120 crops and 45 livestock prod- ucts, with estimates on acre- age, yield and production. That information is critical to farmers and ranchers in deci- sion-making, Karney said. ERS provides economic analysis on food, agriculture, natural resources and econom- ic development in rural Amer- ica, which farmers, ranchers and government officials rely on to guide policy and farming businesses, he said. Other ag organizations are concerned with funding cuts aimed at conservation and ru- ral development. The National Association of Conservation Districts said without USDA’s conservation programs, farmers, ranchers and rural communities won’t have the resources or assis- tance they need to keep soils healthy, water clean and wild- life abundant. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said Trump’s budget request misses the mark when it comes to the needs of rural America – gut- ting USDA’s ability to invest in rural development, target- ing rural water and wastewater management programs and moving to privatize conserva- tion planning. The National Young Farm- ers Coalition said the budget proposal dramatically under- estimates the economic urgen- cy facing rural America – re- cruiting a new generation of farmers to take over for Amer- ica’s aging farming population by making rural life a less-via- ble option. “Looking to the future, the thing to keep in mind is that Congress writes the budget, not the president,” AFBF’s Karney said. House Ag Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, said Congress needs to be extremely careful not to exacerbate the current strug- gles farmers and ranchers are facing. He pointed out that the latest estimates show the 2014 Farm Bill has saved more that $100 billion, saying “agricul- ture has done more than its fair share.” Ag pad will remain open at Pendleton’s airport Blast wall to assuage safety concerns with drone range By GEORGE PLAVEN EO Media Group PENDLETON, Ore. — The northernmost agricultural pad at the Eastern Oregon Regional Airport is open for business. Members of the Pendle- ton Airport Commission held a special meeting Monday to resolve safety concerns be- tween the pad and nearby drone operations. The city recently purchased two 40-foot ship- ping containers that will act as a blast wall to protect sensitive EO Media Group file photo A RQ-7B Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle lands at the Eastern Oregon Regional Airport in May 2014 after a short inaugural flight in Pendleton. equipment. The containers were expected to arrive at the airport by Wednesday. Darryl Abling, who man- ages the Pendleton Unmanned Aerial Systems Range, previ- ously recommended the airport temporarily close the ag pad while UAS activities are relo- cated to the north end of the air- field. The concern, Abling said, was planes kicking up rocks and debris that could possibly damage drones or injure flight crews. After meeting with stake- holders last week, Abling agreed a barrier would be an effective solution in the short term. Crop dusting pilots stressed the need to settle the issue quickly, since farmers are already applying fertilizer to their fields and the window for work is finite. Two pilots had expressed interest in using the disputed ag pad — Andrew Kilgore, of K2 Aerial Application, and Brad Wahl, of Wildhorse Helicop- ters. Kilgore hired an attorney after he was denied use of the pad, but never got to the point of litigation. There was some discussion about making the pad open to the public under a pay-as-you- go system, though that raised questions about who would manage the pad and whether it would open the city to liability. As it is, the airport leases its ag pads to single operators. The airport commission ul- timately agreed it would lease the pad to Wahl, who would share its use with Kilgore. “I don’t think it has to be complicated,” Wahl said. “I think I can work with him, he can work with me and that would be fine.” Kilgore’s attorney, Michael Schultz, said he felt the agree- ment was a step in the right di- rection. “I am heartened that we are in the position today where we are cooperating,” Schultz said. 12-4/#4N
