Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 8, 2021)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. Friday, January 8, 2021 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion Our View Have the place cards be set at the table? W here are the farmers in the Biden transition? The Biden transi- tion review team for the Depart- ment of Agriculture has 23 members. As is common in transition teams, many of these people have held key positions at the USDA in previous administrations. Many of them have experience with the USDA’s nutrition programs. That makes sense, because the lion’s share of USDA’s budget goes toward school nutrition and other food wel- fare programs. Policy wonks abound. What you will be hard pressed to find is anyone who makes a living producing food. Two come close. Jonathan Coppress teaches farm policy at the University of Illinois. He’s a former Farm Service Agency administrator and has experience as a grain merchandiser. He grew up on the family farm, and reportedly has an interest in the corn and soybean operation still worked by his father and brother in Ohio. Debra Eschmeyer grew up on a farm. She was a nutrition pol- icy adviser to First Lady Michelle Obama and is co-founder of Food- Corps, a nonprofit that connects school kids to healthy foods. She and her husband operated a 22-acre organic fruit and vegetable farm in Ohio as they pursued other policy work. According to the Center for Pres- idential Transition, the transition teams “lay the groundwork for gov- erning well in advance of Election Day by building a policy agenda for the new administration, gathering information about federal agencies, vetting potential political appoin- tees and developing a management agenda.” What’s the agenda? Leaders from national farm groups met via Zoom with the tran- sition team on Dec. 4. Partici- pants described the discussion as “productive.” “This administration has promised to do something to fix our labor prob- lems in the first 100 days. We want to make sure they don’t forget. Finding an adequate workforce for our farms is probably the biggest problem we have,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall. That must be why there’s a repre- sentative of the United Farm Work- ers Foundation and another from the Bipartisan support for Growing Climate Solutions Act Our View Uncle Sam can’t tell Americans what to eat F E very new iteration of the USDA Dietary Guidelines spawns the same debate over sugar, alcohol and other foods that, when ingested in excess, can be bad for you. Come to think of it, too much of almost any- thing will have a negative impact on a person’s health. Just look around. According to Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 40% of Americans are obese. That’s about 131 million men, women and children. Also, according to the federal Cen- ters for Disease Control, 34.2 mil- lion Americans are diabetic. That’s a little more than 10% of the U.S. population. Though certain genetic factors come into play, the vast majority of Americans got that way by eating too much and exercising too little. A 10-minute consultation with a doctor or nutrition- ist would most likely reach that conclusion. But the USDA cannot be held responsible for what, or how much, food people eat. Here’s an example. The latest edition of the guidelines states that kids under 2 years shouldn’t have cake or candy. It’s insulting to tell a parent that baking Junior a birthday cake will in some way hurt his health. If a toddler were to eat only cake and candy, that would be a problem, but every parent already knows that. The guidelines also suggest that men limit their alcohol intake to no more than two drinks a day and that women should stop at one. That’s if they choose to drink at all. Critics say the USDA should have clamped down and told people not to drink, and that it’s the government’s responsibility to make all 328 million Americans healthier. The problem for the critics — and the govern- ment, for that matter — is very few Americans care what Uncle Sam says about sugar, alcohol or food in general. Ultimately, any decisions about what to eat or drink come down to the man — or woman — in the mirror. Each indi- vidual decides what to ingest. Each per- son is also smart enough to look in the mirror and determine whether he or she is packing extra pounds, which in turn impacts their health and how they feel and look. A person may eat a healthful salad during one meal — and at the next meal splurge on some- thing a little more “calorie-dense.” Either way, it’s up to that person, not Uncle Sam. Health advocates say schools should serve only the healthiest of meals. That’s fine, but try mak- ing kids eat foods they don’t like. Ultimately, much of that “healthy” food goes into the gar- bage, which benefits no one. A couple of decades ago, Congress and the Food and Drug Administration thought they had the key to making Americans healthier. If they labeled every food product with the ingredients, calories, serving size and other information, peo- ple would know what to eat — and how much. Since then, Americans have only gotten more overweight and unhealthy. If a person wants to improve his or her diet, there’s plenty of help available from professionals. But Uncle Sam isn’t one of them. Congratulations to EPA on 50 years O n Dec. 2, the Environmen- tal Protection Agency cele- brated its 50th anniversary. Created by President Nixon in 1970, EPA consolidated the environmen- tal responsibilities of the federal gov- ernment into one agency to more effectively address environmental concerns. Over the past 50 years, the agency has set a worldwide standard for using scientific consensus as the foundation for regulations. As the head of the trade associa- tion representing the pesticide indus- try, I know all too well how complex and divisive regulatory decisions can be, yet I cannot overstate the importance of the work that EPA sci- entists have done to improve our environment. GUEST VIEW Chris Novak No matter which party holds the White House, the foundation of EPA is these career-scientists. These indi- viduals bring decades of experi- ence and expertise to the review of chemicals that are designed to pro- tect our health, safety and sustain- ability while protecting our water and air. Career-scientists provide consis- tency and integrity to our regulatory process, no matter which party is in charge. Their work should not only be acknowledged but commended on this historic day. United Food and Commercial Work- ers International Union on the transi- tion team. But no farmers. The group’s also expressed con- cerns about rural infrastructure — roads, bridges and the internet. The transition team has the appropri- ate experts on those subjects. But no farmers. We’ve been talking with farm- ers about what they’d like from the incoming Biden administration. A common theme that has emerged is the desire to be heard, to “have a seat at the table.” It’s probably too early to tell, but if the transition team is any indication, farmers and ranchers should ensure that the place cards have not already been set and that they are indeed on the list. At a time when science seems to be under attack, agencies like EPA continue to do the important work of regulating our products, ensuring environmental quality, and protect- ing public health. The system is not perfect, but the gains our nation has made in environmental quality are a testament to a 50-year legacy of con- tinuous improvement. So the next time you get in your car, shop at a grocery store, or work in a garden, think about and be thankful for the work of EPA’s scien- tists, who have made our lives safer through their work and dedication. Chris Novak is president and CEO of CropLife America, the national trade association that represents the manufacturers, formulators and dis- tributors of pesticides. armers, ranchers and foresters know very well the value of soil carbon for the health and water holding capacity of their soil. But economic barriers limit adoption of practices that build soil carbon. No-till equipment is costly, and cover crops don’t generate revenue. Fortunately, soil car- bon also has an economic value beyond its impact on crop productivity. A ton of carbon added to the soil is a ton of carbon pulled out of the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas, warming the planet and causing economic disruption. For carbon emit- ters concerned about or required to mitigate cli- mate change, it costs less to pay another party to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it than to invest in reducing the carbon they emit. The demand for such carbon credits from com- panies and individuals is growing rapidly as they pledge to become “net- zero” emitters and reduce their carbon footprint. Globally, the number of carbon credits produced by forestry and land use activ- ities increased by 264% between 2016 and 2018. However, the market for carbon credits is hin- dered by several signif- icant obstacles. Farm- ers, ranchers and foresters aren’t sure how to imple- ment carbon credit proj- ects or navigate carbon credit markets. They don’t know who to trust in the marketplace. And profes- sionals who work with carbon credits don’t have expertise in agriculture or forestry. Companies such as Nori and IndigoAg are building a market for carbon cred- its by connecting farm- ers with the carbon credits market and the verification necessary to ensure car- bon is being stored. Farm- ers are paid in dollars per ton of carbon stored. With Nori, farmers provide his- torical data on their prac- tices (planting and har- vesting, tillage intensity, fertilizer use, organic mat- ter additions, irrigation, liming, and burning) and the area farmed. IndigoAg takes soil samples, and also rewards farmers for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nori supports farmers operating on rented as well as owned land. Nori and IndigoAg are playing important roles in overcoming the barriers GUEST VIEW Steve Ghan Kathleen Walker in the carbon credit mar- ket. However, there is a need for more transpar- ency, legitimacy, and certi- fication of third-party ver- ifiers and technical service providers who pay agri- cultural and forest land managers for carbon cred- its generated by sustain- ably sequestering carbon in soil or in trees. The U.S. Department of Agriculture can fill this role through a Greenhouse Gas Tech- nical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program as part of the pending Grow- ing Climate Solutions Act (GCSA). The GCSA was intro- duced in the 116th Con- gress with bipartisan support. Senate spon- sors and co-sponsors are Mike Braun, R-Ind.; Deb- bie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. The House bill, spon- sored by Rep. Abi- gail Spanberger, D-Va.; has nine Republican and eleven Democratic co-sponsors. The GCSA has diverse support outside Congress: the U.S. Cattlemen’s Asso- ciation, Society for Range Management, American Farmland Trust, National Farmers Union, National Council of Farm Cooper- atives, National Milk Pro- ducers Federation, Ameri- can Soybean Association, Sustainable Food Policy Alliance, American For- ests, National Woodland Owners Association and Cargill. Since the GCSA has not yet passed Congress, addi- tional expressions of sup- port will definitely aid in getting it enacted. Call your Congressional repre- sentatives today. Steve Ghan is a highly cited climate scientist and leads the Tri-Cities Chap- ter of the Citizens Cli- mate Lobby. He meets with mid-Columbia farmers to discuss agriculture and climate change. Kathleen Walker was raised by a hard-working Washington state farmer.