6
CapitalPress.com
Friday, January 14, 2022
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
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion
Our View
Biden beef price solution
depends on magical thinking
P
resident Biden wants to help
beef producers get better prices
for their cattle, while at the
same time he wants to help consum-
ers get a break on high beef prices at
the grocery store.
The culprits on both ends of the
transaction, according to Biden, are the
four big meatpackers that control 80%
of the market.
Beef producers, pressed by drought
to reduce herds, pushed up supply,
pushing down live cattle prices. At
the same time, processors say they
are struggling to keep plants operat-
ing at capacity because of COVID reg-
ulations and worker illness. Addition-
ally, distributors are having difficulty
getting product to retailers because of
a shortage of warehousing and truck-
ing. As a result, the price of retail beef
has gone up because supply is below
demand.
Their troubles aside, processors
are in a bit of an economic sweet spot
Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP
President Biden wants to spend $1 bil-
lion in an effort to raise cattle prices and
reduce beef prices.
at the moment, and in the president’s
sights.
“In too many industries, a handful
of giant companies dominate the mar-
ket,” President Joe Biden said in a vir-
tual press conference last week.
“And too often they use their power
to squeeze out smaller competitors
and stifle new entrepreneurs, mak-
ing our economy less dynamic and
giving themselves free rein to raise
prices, reduce options for consumers or
exploit workers,” he said.
The meat industry is a “textbook
example,” he said.
Biden’s solution is to put up $1 bil-
lion to expand independent process-
ing capacity, strengthen rules that pro-
tect producers and consumers, promote
vigorous and fair enforcement of exist-
ing competition laws and increase
transparency in cattle markets.
Problem solved. Probably not. Cer-
tainly not in the immediate future.
We support expanding processing
capacity that caters to smaller produc-
ers, but the economics of the meat-
packing business don’t favor a dozen
or so new large, independent pack-
ing plants competing for the big retail
markets.
Getting these plants sited, permit-
ted and built will take years. Assuming
that happens, any positive impact they
could conceivably have on increasing
producer prices and reducing consumer
prices would be far in the future.
Economists who have commented
How pandemic has shaped
global fruit production
Our View
G
Picasa
Oregonians will pay no matter the outcome of a $1 billion lawsuit in which 14 coun-
ties have sued the state.
State needs to find
equitable way out
of timber lawsuit
T
he courts are full of cases in
which one party agrees to
do something in return for
money or other assets and, for one
reason or the other, welches on the
deal.
That, in short, is the case the state
of Oregon recently lost. It took pos-
session of 700,000 acres of timber
land from 14 counties in the 1930s
and 1940s. In return, the state said
it would generate income from that
timber and split it with the counties.
When the state reneged on the
deal and decided it would manage
most of the land as wildlife habi-
tat and for recreation instead of tim-
ber production, the counties were out
their land and the income the state
promised to generate from it.
It’s really a fairly straightforward
case of one party, the state, unilat-
erally changing the conditions of a
contract. In turn, the other party, the
counties, want their money.
At least that was the assessment
of a Linn County jury when it agreed
with the counties and several tax dis-
tricts that the state had massively
shortchanged them. The jury set the
amount at $1 billion.
This has the lawyers at the state
Department of Justice scrambling in
a quest for loopholes to get the state
out of its jam. They have appealed
to the state Court of Appeals, which
will take up the dispute on Feb. 22.
This makes us wonder what the
state is trying to do, and why. It is
arguing that one part of the state
government, counties, cannot sue
another part.
We’re not lawyers, but the fact that
the state has taken the position of try-
on the plan are skeptical. It is unclear
if the capacity of these yet-to-be-built
plants will be significant enough to
sway the markets on either side of the
packinghouse door to increase pro-
ducer prices and lower retail prices.
And consumers have to ask if it’s
possible for meatpackers to pay more
for cattle and at the same time drop the
price on the retail side. That sounds
like something the established players
could weather longer than the startups.
We agree that there should be more
competition, and that existing anti-
trust rules should be enforced. We
also think producers need more price
transparency.
Nothing that the president suggested
will cause retail prices to fall anytime
soon, if ever. Nor will they help live-
stock producers in the short run. But
the president’s announcement did help
shift focus from other uncomfortable
headlines.
Easy answers depend on a lot of
magical thinking, and short memories.
ing to wiggle out of a mess it created is
unsettling.
The basics of the case are that
the state shortchanged the coun-
ties. We have seen no evidence other-
wise. When the state says it will man-
age land to generate income and then
doesn’t do that, there is no other way
to interpret it.
So the state will go to the appeals
court. Ultimately, the case could end
up in the Oregon Supreme Court.
How it will turn out, we cannot say.
But we can say the state is the irre-
sponsible party and owes the counties
their money, their timber land, or both.
These are not rich counties. They
have been victimized by the state and
by federal environmental laws, which
have reduced the timber industry upon
which they depended to a shadow of
its former self.
The result: the counties are on finan-
cial life support. Congress provides
some money to help keep the lights on,
but the state, at least in this case, has
taken a hard line.
The sad irony is Oregon’s taxpay-
ers will pay for the state’s poor judg-
ment no matter the outcome of the
legal case.
If the state loses, taxpayers will be
on the hook for $1 billion.
If the state wins, it will have stuck it
to the 14 counties and tax districts that
it shortchanged.
Either way, the state will have done
real damage to Oregonians.
We urge the attorney general and
governor to sit down with the coun-
ties and negotiate an equitable res-
olution to this dispute. That’s the
only reasonable way to settle the
mess the state created.
lobal fruit produc-
tion has not only
persevered in the
face of a worldwide health
crisis, but it has also contin-
ued to adapt in response to
the evolving landscape.
A fast-paced industry
already familiar with navi-
gating unpredictable condi-
tions and forecasting market
demand, the agricultural sec-
tor never slowed down, even
in the worst times of the
pandemic.
However, that’s not to
say the journey was with-
out any roadblocks: COVID-
19 brought a wave of chal-
lenges with everything from
labor to logistics. Yet, as
consumer interest in fresh
produce increased by more
than 10% in 2020, fruit sup-
pliers, scientists, horticultur-
ists and growers are over-
coming these setbacks to
usher in a new period of effi-
ciency and innovation.
Staffing and safety
Like countless other busi-
ness sectors, fruit-focused
agriculture struggled with
staffing at the outset of the
pandemic. But while many
companies turned to remote
work options, the nature of
agricultural operations needs
employees to remain primar-
ily in the fields.
The produce industry
requires a significant amount
of hand labor, particularly
for table grapes and cher-
ries. Managing thousands of
employees who work simul-
taneous in-person shifts
became an immediate area
of focus.
The main issue was the
prevention of outbreaks in
both the packhouse facilities
and in the fields. Growers
had to react quickly, forming
small and segregated groups
of workers adhering to orga-
nized schedules. In addition,
the implementation of reg-
ular testing enhanced other
standard safety protocols
that helped protect work-
ers. While the actions were
a costly investment, grow-
ers kept operations safe and
healthy while maintaining
productivity.
Nearly two years into the
pandemic, though, staffing
challenges persist. Due to
new procedures and safety
limitations, a scarcity of
workers and higher costs
still impact day-to-day oper-
ations worldwide. But while
the problems are exacerbated
given current conditions, this
GUEST
VIEW
Pablo
Gomez
is nothing new for produce
growers, especially in the
United States where employ-
ment of agricultural workers
is essentially at a standstill
— it’s expected to increase
only 2% from 2020 to 2030,
slower than the average for
all occupations.
Logistical burdens
The economic downturn
has increased costs across
the entire fruit supply chain,
from growing and harvest-
ing to delivering the prod-
uct to market. As the pan-
demic continued into and
throughout 2021, it became
apparent that one of its most
pronounced effects on the
global fruit industry was on
logistical operations.
The early days of lock-
down restrictions and a
slowdown in the produc-
tion of goods created a rip-
ple effect, sending refriger-
ated containers into a backlog
of storage at cargo ports
and inland depots. By mid-
2021, wait times to procure
a container stretched any-
where from weeks to months
depending on departure port
and arrival destination.
The supply chain has
faced a global shortage of
containers projected to last
into 2022, resulting in severe
inflation in materials and
transport costs. McKinsey
& Co. reported it now costs
up to six times more to ship
a container from China to
Europe than it did at the start
of 2019.
Future of fruit
production
Despite these challenges,
the pandemic has shown
how well prepared the agri-
culture industry is to adapt
its systems in response to
both adversity and increased
demand.
The trend of healthy liv-
ing and a desire for nutri-
tious food that emerged over
the last two years is a world-
wide movement with evident
staying power. The United
Nations even designated
2021 as the International Year
of Fruits and Vegetables.
Manifested through behav-
iors such as at-home cook-
ing and greater consciousness
about food brought into the
homes, the health and well-
ness trends have directly
impacted the consumption of
fruits and vegetables.
Fruit scientists, horti-
culturalists and growers
alike are looking to long-
term solutions for meet-
ing this need. For world-
wide fruit-breeding company
IFG, the answer could lie in
a recent focus on breeding
as much year-round fruit as
possible as part of an overall
quality and support strategy.
IFG is known for invent-
ing flavor-forward table
grapes, including the Cotton
Candy variety, which hold
numerous health benefits in
line with current consumer
interests.
By creating a 52-week
table grape supply in part-
nership with growers world-
wide, IFG aims to transform
the fruit industry and con-
tribute to a more sustainable
production of premium table
grapes and cherries.
In a sector where food
and safety standards are
already incredibly high,
another key area that can
influence growth and oppor-
tunity is leveraging tech-
nology to increase the sim-
plicity and efficiency of
production. The agritech
tools that a reported 56%
of U.S. farms have now
adopted can help strengthen
global fruit production with
automation that eases the
burden of labor shortages,
conserves resources and mit-
igates crop losses.
As technology and
scientific strategy rap-
idly advance, the indus-
try is poised to thrive in a
post-pandemic world. These
professional improvements
will affect every part of the
supply chain, from the fields
where the fruit is grown and
harvested to the carts where
consumers add their nature’s
bounty.
Looking into 2022 and
beyond, industry leaders
will keep one eye on innova-
tion while maintaining a sta-
ble production to ensure the
world remains healthy and
fed.
Pablo Gomez joined
IFG, the world’s largest
fruit-breeding company, in
2018 and is the international
quality assurance manager
for table grapes. In this
role, he works to develop
IFG’s international table
grape and cherry quality
assurance program.