Capital Press
EMPOWERING PRODUCERS OF FOOD & FIBER
Friday, August 5, 2022
Volume 95, Number 31
CapitalPress.com
$2.50
POULTRY DEBATE
Large chicken farms raise concerns in rural Oregon
Foster Farms
An aerial view of Hiday Poultry Farms LLC in Brownsville, Ore.
‘FRANKLY, WE’VE BEEN OPERATING THESE BUSINESSES FOR 30
YEARS OUT HERE, AND WE HAVEN’T DONE HARM TO THE AREA.
SO THE PROOF IS OUT THERE.’ — Eric Simon, a longtime poultry farmer
By GEORGE PLAVEN
Capital Press
S
123RF image
CIO, Ore. — A steady
mid-June rain fell as
Christina Eastman drove
her UTV past fi elds of
grass and yellow-fl ow-
ering dill at her family’s
farm outside Scio, Ore.
Eastman stopped along the North
Santiam River near Wiseman Island, a
reach known for providing high-qual-
ity fi sh and wildlife habitat. From
here, the river fl ows past an adjacent
property that could soon be home to
millions of chickens raised every year
for the poultry company Foster Farms.
The operation, J-S Ranch, is one of
three new large-scale chicken farms
proposed in the Mid-Willamette Val-
ley. Members of the industry say the
farms are needed to make up
for lost production as more
growers have retired in recent
years, and to keep up with Americans’
appetite for chicken.
However, the proposals have
neighbors like Eastman worried about
potential impacts, including air and
water pollution, odor and increased
traffi c on the rural roads.
“They couldn’t pick a worse place
than here,” Eastman said. “It’s going
to aff ect our farming, it’s going to
aff ect our crops, it’s going to aff ect our
way of life.”
Eastman is part of a group called
Farmers Against Foster Farms, which
opposes the three farms and has
appealed to state regulators and law-
makers for greater protections.
J-S Ranch has already received
permits to begin construction. The
other two — one near the small
See Poultry, Page 11
George Plaven/Capital Press
Christina Eastman, a member of the Farmers
Against Foster Farms group, stands next to her
pickup truck at her family’s farm near Scio, Ore.
Feds defend dropping plan to bring grizzlies to North Cascades
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
The Interior Department
said July 29 it was not obli-
gated to restore grizzly bears
to the North Cascades and
moved to dismiss a lawsuit
fi led by the Center for Bio-
logical Diversity.
The motion defends a
Trump era decision in 2020
to cancel a study on releasing
grizzlies in northwest and
north-central Washington.
The center sued the out-
going Trump administration
and hoped the Biden admin-
istration would restart the
study. The suit was on hold
for more than a year, but no
agreement was reached.
Center for Biological
Diversity attorney Andrea
Zaccardi said Monday the
environmental group still
hopes for a change in policy,
but wants to get on with the
lawsuit.
“The settlement talks
haven’t gone very far
because the relevant deci-
sion-makers in the Interior
Department haven’t been
briefed on the issue,” she
said.
The center is scheduled
to respond in September to
the federal government’s
motion. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service declined to
comment Monday, citing the
pending litigation.
The USFWS and National
Park Service started an envi-
ronmental review in 2015
Terry Tollefsbol/USFWS
In a court brief fi led July 29, the Biden administration
defends a Trump era decision to cancel plans to release
grizzly bears in the North Cascades.
on building a self-sustaining
population of at least 200
grizzly bears over 60 to 100
years.
Trump’s Interior Secre-
tary David Bernhardt told
an invited group of cattle-
men, farmers and elected
offi cials on July 7, 2020, in
Omak that the agencies were
no longer considering the
project.
The Trump administra-
tion cited local opposition to
importing grizzlies. No griz-
zles have been seen on the
U.S. side of the North Cas-
cades in the past 10 years.
The suit, fi led in fed-
eral court in Washington,
D.C., claims that ending the
review violated the Endan-
gered Species Act.
Grizzly bears are listed
as a threatened species and
abandoning the restoration
plan jeopardizes their exis-
tence, according to the
lawsuit.
In the brief fi led Friday,
the Biden administration
said the Interior Department
devotes more resources to
grizzly bears than almost
any other protected species.
Although federal agen-
cies identifi ed the North
Cascades as one of six griz-
zly “recovery zones” in the
U.S., they aren’t required to
stock the region with bears,
according to the brief.
“It was a proposal consid-
ered by the agencies that
they chose not to pursue —
a decision squarely within
the authority delegated to
the agencies by Congress,”
the government argues.
The suit also alleges fed-
eral agencies violated the
National
Environmental
Policy Act and Administra-
tive Procedure Act by fail-
ing to fully explain their
decision.
According to the gov-
ernment, the federal agen-
cies merely maintained the
status quo and that there
is no “final action” that
needs to be defended or
that can be challenged in a
lawsuit.
Diff erence between farmers, meth cooks proves key in ruling
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
The diff erence between farm-
ers and meth cooks who misuse
legal products has proven crucial
in a court ruling with far-reach-
ing implications for the biotech
industry.
Biotech companies can be held
responsible for damages caused
by farmers who misuse geneti-
cally engineered, herbicide-toler-
ant seeds or any chemicals sprayed
on them, according to a federal
appeals court.
The decision distinguishes such
biotech companies from pharma-
ceutical fi rms, which were pre-
viously found not liable for cold
medicines being used as metham-
phetamine ingredients.
Monsanto and BASF failed to
convince the 8th U.S. Circuit of
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press File
An applicator sprays a fi eld with herbicide. An appeals court has de-
termined that biotech companies can be held liable for farmers mis-
using herbicide-tolerant crops.
Appeals they aren’t liable for dam-
ages caused by unlawful dicamba
spraying of cotton and soybean
crops, which were genetically
engineered to tolerate the volatile
chemical.
The 8th Circuit has upheld a
jury verdict from 2020 that blamed
Monsanto and BASF for the her-
bicide drift that caused millions of
dollars in damages to a Missouri
peach farm.
Seed and pesticide manufactur-
ers say they fear the case sets a dan-
gerous precedent that “threatens to
severely disrupt the modern agri-
culture industry” by penalizing the
development of new technologies.
Environmental groups have also
pointed to the lawsuit’s broader
implications, claiming it’s a “micro-
cosm” of the widespread ecological
and agronomic problems with “her-
bicide-resistant crop systems.”
A key point in the legal dispute
over liability turned on the com-
parison between farmers and meth
cooks.
The biotech companies cited a
legal precedent that absolved phar-
maceutical fi rms from liability even
though their cold medicines were
used to manufacture meth.
In that case, the 8th Circuit con-
cluded the “methamphetamine epi-
demic” is not a “natural and prob-
able consequence” of selling cold
medicine through legal channels.
Meth production is a “new and
independent force” that “interrupts
See Ruling, Page 11