6
CapitalPress.com
April 7, 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
Stop adding jobs to Oregon Department of Agriculture
The list of chores activists
have for the Oregon Department
of Agriculture is growing all the
time. Among them are regulating
genetically modified crops,
canola and water quality. Now
they want ODA to regulate the
use of antibiotics in livestock.
The way the activists’ agenda
is growing, pretty soon the state
will be doing everything the
USDA and U.S. Food and Drug
Administration already do, and
more.
That’s the problem. USDA
and the FDA have the jobs of
regulating agriculture and food.
Those agencies have multi-
billion-dollar budgets, battalions
of employees and the resources to
do massive jobs.
The state of Oregon doesn’t.
In Gov. Kate Brown’s proposed
budget, ODA would receive
$117.4 million during the next
two years. More than half of that,
$68.7 million, would come from
fees, licenses and registrations
that farmers, ranchers and
nurseries pay. The rest comes
from the federal government, the
state’s general fund and even the
lottery. Perhaps an ODA bake
sale will be next.
Legislators have spent the
past couple of months scratching
around trying to balance a
profoundly unbalanced state
budget. As it now stands the
state budget is $1.7 billion out of
balance. What legislators need to
do is reduce the number of things
state agencies such as ODA do,
not add to the list.
The antibiotic proposal is
particularly troubling. Activists
are convinced the FDA is doing
an inadequate job of curbing
the use of medically important
antibiotics in livestock. They
say farmers and ranchers are
overusing the drugs even though
the FDA already requires farmers,
ranchers, veterinarians and drug
companies to work together to
drastically reduce their use.
Because the state government
Readers’ views
Congress should
support biofuels
As federal policymakers
begin debating the next
round of farm-focused leg-
islation, it is important to
recognize the values that
serve as a foundation of
U.S. agricultural strength.
These values not only sup-
port the sustainability of
Oregon’s family farms but
also the communities that
we live in.
Everyone knows the
daily trials of being a
farmer, but few recognize
the long-term gambles that
farms make when picking
a commodity to bring to
market. Even after solid,
long-term planning, natu-
ral and man-made factors
can dramatically impact
the bounty of a harvest and
whether commodity prices
will keep pace with costs.
In the end, the ability for
all farmers to be flexible,
to maximize yields, and
repurpose waste is critical
to our success as a farming
community.
One of the great green
energy revolutions of the
21st century has been the
partnership between the
agriculture and the ener-
gy sectors in the creation
of biofuels, especially as
corn ethanol has matured
and become increasing-
ly eco-friendly thanks to
strong support from the
U.S. Department of Agri-
culture. It’s a partnership
that works for the farmer
and the consumer and one
that needs to be protected
moving forward.
Support for biofuels pro-
vides a vital market for rural
communities and generates
high-quality animal feed for
other agricultural industries
as a co-product of ethanol
production.
Best of all, these fuels
displace imports from hos-
tile foreign governments
and promote local invest-
ment in our own renewable
resources here at home, key
goals of the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS). Biofuel al-
ternatives burn cleaner and
thanks to greater efficiencies
in U.S. agriculture, farmers
can grow more biofuel on
less land than ever before.
Alternative commodities,
sustainability, new markets
— these are the values that
should drive federal policy.
As family farmers in a major
agricultural state, we hope
that leaders in Washington,
D.C., like Congressman
Greg Walden, are listening.
Long-term stability in the
RFS and other federal farm
policies are good for all
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 sub-
mission. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as
guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest
commentary 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.
Americans and the farmers
that feed them.
Kent Madison
Madison Ranches Inc.
Echo, Ore.
Searching for
consistency
The juxtaposition of your
two “Our View” opinions in
the Feb. 17 edition left me
somewhat confused.
In the article “Food Sys-
tem Works Just Fine, Thank
You,” you make the very clear
and important point that the
Washington State Food System
Roundtable is comprised of 28
members and none are farm-
ers, yet they set future food
system policy. And at the cost
of $259,000.
In this case, you propose
to NOT trust in the state Leg-
islature, but allow the “real
food system” (farmers, ranch-
ers, processors, distributors
and retailers) to continue to
do what they have done for
generations. This position
being well-reasoned, in my
opinion.
Yet in the “Our View”
opinion “Pre-emption of Lo-
cal GMO Regulations Must
Remain,” quite the opposite
approach is taken.
Here is a case where Or-
egon lawmakers passed leg-
islation in 2013 yet have not
acted in four years to create
a mediation procedure and
authorize the Oregon De-
partment of Agriculture to
implement the program.
This does not bolster
one’s faith in the Legisla-
ture’s ability to create law
and policy that is timely, ef-
fective and superior to local
counties handling their own
local ordinances.
At the end of the day,
you have decided to side
with the legislators that cer-
tain questions that affect the
lives of county residents are
simply too contentious or
complex for them to make
an informed, unbiased deci-
sion and therefore those cit-
izens ought to concede that
the lawmakers in the Capitol
are better able to sift through
all the lobbying dollars, the
emotional arguments, the
bad science and fear monger-
ing and can best look out for
“everyone’s” interests.
It didn’t seem that was
your approach in the Food
System Roundtable editorial.
I remain optimistic that
local folks can think and act
for themselves.
As local governments
give up autonomy and au-
thority it sets a template for
state and federal overreach
in areas such as management
of federal lands from D.C.
instead of formulating policy
together with local ranchers,
loggers, and miners.
It can open the avenue
for greater federal land grabs
such as Owyhee Canyon-
land Monument or the Cas-
cade-Siskiyou expansion.
It can lead to federal dol-
lars being used to portray lo-
cal farmers as polluters with
no heart for the environment
or federal agency overreach
of the Clean Water Act.
Democracy doesn’t guar-
antee that you get your way,
it is supposed to guarantee
that powerful minorities
don’t ride roughshod over
the majority.
Brian Quigley
Camano Island, Wash.
Control groups
key in GMO
studies
I commend Patricia Michl
for the well-documented
guest column regarding the
dangers of GMO foods.
(Studies Cast Doubt on
GMO Foods, 2-10-2017).
But Norm Groot of the Mon-
terey Farm Bureau takes
issue with Ms. Michl. He
accuses her of a double stan-
dard for not mentioning an-
ti-GMO activist organization
money going into university
research. (Capital Press 3-3-
2017).
Where is the big money
from anti-GMO activists like
Greenpeace or the Organic
Seed Growers Association
that is going to universities
for GMO studies? There is
little to none. The big money
is all on the side of the bio-
tech companies. Neverthe-
less the true science is likely
on the side of the anti-GMO
activists.
Journalist Mike Snow re-
ported in Acres U.S.A., Au-
gust 2016, page 79, that “All
told, 1,803 scientific studies
have reported adverse reac-
tions to GMOs, while about
1,700 others — most con-
ducted by industry — de-
clared them harmless. But
rare long-term studies have
produced results that are
troubling.”
These rare long-term
studies that found problems
with GMOs are the Seralini
and Judy Carman studies.
What can explain the fact
that there are hundreds of
studies on both sides of this
issue that reach opposite
results? Samsel and Seneff
in the Journal of Biologi-
cal Physics and Chemistry
(2015) pages 129-130 have
likely found the answer. The
authors tested three distinct
rat chow products and nine
different dog and cat chows
and found contamination from
the GMO dance partner gly-
phosate and its metabolite in
all of them.
If the control group in a
study is ingesting the same
materials that are supposed to
be tested in the experimental
group, then the study is not
measuring anything and it will
find no statistically significant
differences.
This may have happened
with the industry-sponsored
studies. In contrast, the Ser-
alini and Carman studies
carefully managed the control
group’s feed to prevent GMO
and glyphosate contamination.
The Seralini and Carman
studies are the gold standard
for GMO research not only
because of their length but
also because they made sure
to have a real control group.
Tom Stahl
Waterville, Wash.
Gates should
invest in manure
converter
In reference to the Jan-
icki Bioenergy article dat-
ed March 11, I must not be
understanding the details.
The $2 million price sounds
like a true bargain and that
amount is pocket change for
Bill Gates.
As a true visionary, en-
vironmental supporter and
fellow Washingtonian, why
hasn’t Gates invested?
Glenn Kral
Brookings, Ore.
is cash poor, it may be presumed
that the only way ODA could
afford to take on extra duties
such as antibiotic regulation is to
charge another a fee to livestock
owners. Activists certainly aren’t
going to pay for it.
That would be one more
financial cinder block tied around
the legs of ranchers and farmers
during the current downturn in
the agricultural economy.
The governor’s proposed
2017-2019 budget already
includes $6.2 million in added
fees for farmers, nurseries and
ranchers. By our lights, that’s
already too much.
We have an idea. Let the
USDA and FDA do their jobs
— which include regulating
agriculture at the national level —
and let ODA do its job.
That idea may not meet the
high standards of activist groups
for purity, but it’ll allow farmers
and ranchers to stay in business
and still provide Americans with
plentiful, healthful and affordable
food and fiber.
Support congressional
action on Cottonwood
court decision
By NICK SMITH
For the Capital Press
A bipartisan group of fed-
eral lawmakers recently intro-
duced legislation to address
the so-called Cottonwood
court case that is bringing
desperately needed forest
projects to a halt.
Congressional action is
needed because the case will
continue to bring desperately
needed forest projects to a halt
and threaten rural jobs, recre-
ation and a variety of forest
activities.
The Cottonwood case fits
the mold of typical environ-
mental litigation that exploits
our complicated and counter-
intuitive federal regulatory
process.
Last fall the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to hear the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals decision that orders
the U.S. Forest Service to
re-initiate consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service at the planning lev-
el following the 2009 desig-
nation of critical habitat for
the Canada lynx.
The case stems from
a lawsuit against a forest
project intended to protect a
watershed in Southwestern
Montana. Though there was
no proof the project would
actually harm the species,
the 9th Circuit believed the
Forest Service should have
consulted with the Fish and
Wildlife Service on its over-
all forest plan.
The decision threatens
to block the multiple uses
of our public lands, and
will bring additional costs
to agencies that are already
struggling with budget
shortfalls and the increasing
cost of wildfire suppression.
It will not bring any bene-
fit to species, which are
already protected by proj-
ect-level compliance.
The Cottonwood deci-
sion could allow anti-for-
estry groups to secure in-
junctions anywhere there is
a new listed species or crit-
ical habitat designation, and
force the Forest Service and
Fish and Wildlife Service to
engage in the lengthy, cost-
ly process of Endangered
Species Act “consultation.”
This consultation would
not be about specific proj-
ects, but rather about the un-
derlying forest plan, even if
that plan is a decade old or
more.
Then the case could be
used to thwart any other
forest activity that a litigant
group doesn’t like, from
Guest
comment
Nick Smith
grazing to snowmobiling.
The 9th Circuit alone has
11 pending lawsuits and 26
pending “Notices of Intent
to Sue” over ESA consulta-
tions.
U.S. Sens. Steve Daines,
R-Mont., and Jon Tester,
D-Mont., have introduced
legislation to codify the po-
sition previously held by the
Obama administration, stip-
ulating that federal agencies
are not required to consult
with the Fish and Wildlife
Service at a programmatic
level when new critical hab-
itat is designated or a new
species is listed.
Companion legislation
has also been introduced
in the U.S. House by Reps.
Mike Simpson, R-Ida-
ho, and Collin Peterson,
D-Minn.
According to the U.S.
Forest Service, 80 vegeta-
tion management projects
and hundreds of millions of
board-feet of timber are at
risk due to the Cottonwood
decision.
The 9th Circuit has al-
ready blocked a collabo-
rative forest project based
on the Cottonwood deci-
sion. Litigation has also
been filed seeking to apply
Cottonwood to forest man-
agement activities on the
Superior National Forest in
Minnesota.
Forestry
associations
and wildlife groups are
calling for passage of this
bipartisan solution because
our federal lands are in
need of treatment, habitat
improvements and miti-
gation against catastroph-
ic wildfire, insects and
disease.
The Cottonwood case is
yet another example of our
broken system of federal
land management, which
for too long has failed our
rural communities. We
should urge Congress to
pass the bipartisan legis-
lation without delay, and
move on to more compre-
hensive solutions that truly
meet the needs of our citi-
zens, wildlife and public
lands.
Nick Smith is executive
director of Healthy For-
ests, Healthy Communities,
a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization that advocates
for active management of
federal forest lands.