6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
June 29, 2018
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
Elected officials
must understand
importance of ag trade
O ur V iew
By CURTIS ROBINHOLD
AND ALEXIS TAYLOR
For the Capital Press
O
FDA promises to rewrite
‘added sugars’ labels
T
he Food and Drug
Administration is taking
another look at proposed
nutritional labeling rules after a
hue and cry from honey, maple
syrup and cranberry producers.
It’s a good thing, too.
At issue is a proposal that would
require certain foods to include the
wording “added sugars” on their
labels.
Beginning in 2020, pure honey
and maple syrup nutrition labels
must have the word “added” in
front of “sugar.” Producers and
trade groups complained that
customers will naturally think
another sweetener is added to the
natural sugars in honey and maple
syrup.
That had us scratching our
heads, too.
Pure honey and maple syrup
are sugar — fructose and glucose,
and sucrose respectively — and
have none added to enhance their
sweetness.
In the typically tortured English
employed by bureaucrats, “added
sugars” in this case was meant to
imply that adding these products to
other foodstuffs or consuming them
on their own will add sugar to your
diet. According to the FDA, unlike
a piece of fruit or other naturally
sweet food, honey and maple syrup
are not “nutrient rich” foods.
The FDA at first tried to
“clarify” the rule by suggesting
footnotes on labels stating that the
“added sugars” are natural.
Washington state beekeeper
Tim Hiatt, a honey producer, called
the labeling requirement, even
qualified by a footnote, “crazy.”
“It shouldn’t say ‘added
sugars’ at all,” he said. “The only
ingredient in honey is honey.
“The whole industry is up in
arms about this,” Hiatt said. “We’re
struggling in the industry to protect
the image of honey.”
Cranberry producers have a
different beef.
Cranberries are not sweet.
Without added sugar, cranberry
juice — whether straight or in
combination with adult beverages
— would be pretty tart.
For cranberry juice the FDA
suggested this footnote: “Sugar
added to improve the palatability
of naturally tart cranberries. The
2015-20120 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans state that there is
room for limited amounts of Added
Sugars in the diet, especially from
nutrient dense food like naturally
tart cranberries.”
Although they’re willing to
go along with that, cranberry
producers say the footnote suggests
cranberries with sugar added have
more sugar than naturally sweet
fruits and berries.
So, the FDA is going to take
another look at how a label might
provide valuable nutritional
information without leading
consumers to false impressions
about honey, maple syrup and
cranberry juice.
Good writing is rewriting, even
in footnotes.
regon agricultural
products are more
popular than ever,
especially in Asia.
Berries, craft beer, pi-
not noir and noodles made
with Northwest wheat are
all in high demand. The
fast-growing middle class
in China is craving the safe,
high-quality food products
that Oregon can provide.
But today’s foreign trade
policy disputes threaten our
farmers’ opportunities for
trade and economic growth
in the future.
In 2017, Oregon export-
ed more than $5 billion in
agricultural products, mak-
ing it the top economic driv-
er in the state. Oregon’s top
five agricultural export mar-
kets include Japan, South
Korea, Canada, China and
the Philippines. Talk of a
trade war or tariff increases
represent an additional ob-
stacle for agricultural pro-
ducers and the long-term
effects are unknown.
Trade is about develop-
ing relationships and long-
term trust. In the last month,
more than a dozen Oregon
companies and the Oregon
Department of Agriculture
have met with buyers and
distributors in China and Ja-
pan. During these trade mis-
sions, producers showcased
many of the state’s agricul-
tural items such as kom-
bucha, potatoes and beef.
This past October, Governor
Brown led a trade mission
to Japan and Hong Kong
that helped strengthen our
relationships in Asian mar-
kets and increase exports for
Oregon apples, berries, and
cider.
However, when foreign
countries raise the price of
a commodity with a tariff
on imports, we know the
demand for the product de-
Guest
comment
Curtis Robinhold
Guest
comment
Alexis Taylor
creases. That would mean
fewer Oregon exports. Or-
egon’s agricultural econo-
my depends on our ability
to invest and trade in the
global market. More than
95 percent of the world’s
population lives and eats
outside the U.S., and Ore-
gon’s agricultural producers
will increasingly depend on
expansive U.S. trade pol-
icies to connect with ris-
ing incomes. At the Port of
Portland alone, we see large
export volumes of wheat,
corn, cherries, crab, and oth-
er Oregon products at risk if
a trade war breaks out.
We will continue to grow
our connections in Asia,
while the threat of trade tar-
iffs and other issues persist.
Our hope is that these con-
versations will keep lines of
communication open. This
fall, ODA will lead trade
missions to Taiwan and
South Korea.
The bottom line is that
the future of Oregon’s ag-
ricultural economy depends
on our ability to invest and
trade in the global market.
As Oregonians, we must
make it clear to our elect-
ed officials that trade is
important. Shop local and
trade global, preferring
to buy Oregon products
knowing you’re supporting
farmers and ranchers in our
region.
Curtis Robinhold is ex-
ecutive director of the Port
of Portland. Alexis Taylor
is director of the Oregon
Department of Agriculture.
Readers’ views
Organization
wants to change
dairy industry
In the Capital Press Ag Weekly
June 8 issue, Carol Dumas reports
that RaboResearch recommends
that the “dairy industry” get into
“the alternative dairy markets”,
i.e.; the milk-free alternative dairy
markets.
Rabo not only promotes the
“dairy industry” over dairy farm-
ers and the milk they make, Rabo
fails to understand the basic pur-
pose of dairy farmer member
owned cooperatives, when they
allege, “...it is the responsibility of
the co-op to find a home for their
(member) milk.”
Not true!
The purpose of every dairy
farmer member-owned co-op
is to both pay to its members a
milk price greater than the mem-
ber dairy farmer’s average cost to
make the milk and profitably sell
any products made with member
milk and share these profits with
the co-op members.
It is universally recognized that
the milk price is given by the mar-
ketplace and that the volume of
milk delivered to the marketplace
is the fundamental driver of the
milk price.
The marketplace will give a
profitable milk price when the
milk supply is balanced with prof-
itable demand.
The existing management
of most, if not all, dairy farm-
er member-owned co-ops have
encouraged and accommodated
maximum, excess milk production
rather than disciplined, profitable
milk production that is balanced
with profitable demand.
Obviously, existing co-op man-
agement is following RaboRe-
search’s recommendations and
pursuing their own best interests
as the “dairy industry” over the
best interests of the dairy farmer
co-op member-owners.
Dairy farmer: Want a co-op
that supports your member-owner
best interests?
Join and implement NDPO’s
co-op management policies,
which will allow you to share in
balancing the milk supply with
profitable demand, to receive a
profitable price for your milk and
preserve as many existing dairy
farm families as possible regard-
less of size or location.
To learn more about NDPO’s
co-op management policies, con-
tact Mike Eby, Chairman, (717)
799-0057, mikee@ndpo.us, or
like us on Facebook-National
Dairy Producers Organization, or
www.nationaldairyproducersorga-
nization.com
Bob Krucker
Jerome, Idaho
FDA milk label
rule ‘bizarre’
On April 29, 2018, Food and
Drug Administration Commis-
sioner Scott Gottlieb told a U.S.
Senate panel that the agency has
“exercised enforcement discre-
tion” when it comes to holding
plant-based drink manufacturers
accountable for mislabeling their
products as “milk.” Federal stan-
dards, by the way, define milk as
a product sourced from mammals.
I first became aware of this
term in a General Accounting Of-
fice (GAO) report on ultra-filtered
milk released on March 6, 2001,
in which the original language
accused FDA of “withholding en-
forcement” relative to “standards
of identity” and labeling for dairy
products. FDA objected to this
terminology, and it was replaced
by “exercise enforcement discre-
tion.” Over the past 20-plus years,
many efforts have been made to
change “standard of identity”
rules and/or allow ultra-filtered
milk or milk protein concentrate
(MPC) to be used in cheese with-
out identifying it on the label.
On Aug. 11, 2017, the FDA
publicly renewed its policy to
“exercise enforcement discretion”
relative to violations of standard-
ized cheese recipes and inaccurate
ingredient listings on product la-
beling.
So what rules do FDA en-
force related to milk? In a June
2018 American Agriculturist sto-
ry “Skim milk an imitation dairy
product? Say it ain’t so,” FDA
requires pasteurized milk that
contains less fat than whole milk
have vitamins A & D added. If
these synthetic vitamins are not
added, it must be labeled as “im-
itation milk” or “imitation milk
product” if it is sold across state
lines. Obviously, there is nothing
“imitation” about pure milk with
nothing added.
This is truly one of the most
bizarre rules that I have heard
of but one that FDA seems will-
ing to enforce, especially when
it’s only a small business such
as South Mountain Creamery of
Middletown, Md., which on April
5, 2018, filed a lawsuit against the
U.S. Food and Drug Administra-
tion in U.S. district court, Harris-
burg, Pa.
Gerald Carlin
Meshoppen, Pa.
Time to comment
on Blue Mountains
Forest Plan
I understand that the Blue
Mountains Forest Plan Revision
will be released on or before Fri-
day June 29. While my public
comment was shouted down by
staff of the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest supervisor’s of-
fice, and neither I nor any other
citizens of Eastern Oregon’s com-
ments were responded to over the
last four years, it will be interest-
ing to see what the path forward
looks like in Northeastern Oregon
for public lands, and how the U.S.
Forest Service plans to allow us to
use the mountains we love.
Once the plan is released, com-
menters on the Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement (EIS) from
2014 will have 60 days to file an
objection with the USFS on the Fi-
nal EIS. Also, if new information
is found in the plan, or a substan-
tial change is found in the Final
EIS, you will also have an oppor-
tunity to file an objection. Along
with the formal objection process,
you also can file as an “interested
person” and there will be a 10-day
period to make this request after
objections have been filed.
An “interested person” is some-
one who may or may not have ob-
jected or commented during the
forest plan and amendments pro-
cess, but who has an interest in
supporting or opposing a submit-
ted objection.
After watching the meetings
and the treatment of residents at
these meetings I can understand
why folks chose to remain silent.
Forest Service staff yelling and
belittling residents, and former
USFS staff doing the same. En-
vironmental groups name-calling
and yelling during “facilitated”
meetings, while subsistence users
of the forest tried to politely ar-
ticulate their concerns, only to be
demeaned and belittled.
You will have a chance to have
another voice, I would simply ask
that you do so.
John D. George
Bates, Ore.
Water impact goes
beyond Klamath
Project
On June 1 and June 8 you ran ar-
ticles that concerned the Klamath
Project irrigators and tribes trying
to balance a limited water supply
and the federal government trying
to protect the Klamath farmers
and ranchers, respectively.
However from your articles
one would gather that the only
farmers and ranchers affected in
the Klamath Basin resided and
worked on the Klamath Project.
This is not so.
This year OWRD marked 140
wells that were subject to be reg-
ulated off in the Sprague Riv-
er Basin which is not part of the
Klamath Project. Between 86 and
89 wells were eventually shut off
for the season. That is at least 6
months without the use of your
wells for irrigation and stock
water. These wells are owned by
over 100 ranchers, farmers and
the cities of Bly and Chiloquin.
This again is to keep sucker fish
happy, because we are being told
by OWRD that our wells, which
are being pumped from confined
aquifers, are depleting the rivers.
The $557 million agriculture
industry in the Klamath Basin,
that you spoke about, includes the
ranchers and farmers that are not
part of the Klamath Project. But
we are never mentioned in any
way. Between 30,000 and 50,000
cattle are trucked into the Sprague
River Basin each summer but this
year cattle had to be turned away
due to not being able to use well
water. Not to mention the hun-
dreds of tons of hay usually made
in this area each year.
Rep. Greg Walden and Sens.
Wyden and Merkley are proud of
helping to pass $10.3 million in
emergency drought funding that
will pay for farmers and ranchers
to pump emergency groundwater
wells or to leave land idle in 2018.
But it is never mentioned that that
money only goes to the farmers
and ranchers on the Klamath Proj-
ect, no one else. Those who are
not part of the Klamath Project
are abandoned, no help for them.
Families are close to losing farms
and ranches on which they have
made a living for decades.
Please give the farmers and
ranchers that are not part of the
Klamath Project but still citizens of
Oregon the same respect in your pa-
per as you give the Klamath Project.
Joan Sees
Beatty, Ore.