Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 17, 2018)
Page 4A East Oregonian Wednesday, January 17, 2018 KATHRYN B. BROWN Publisher DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor TIM TRAINOR Opinion Page Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW Go ahead, put a label on it Foodies, farmers, processors and others spend a lot of time talking about labels, and there are plenty to talk about. They include how and where food was grown and processed and what is — and isn’t — in it. Labels spell out whether food has gluten, genetically modified ingredients and whether it was grown organically. They also include how many calories a serving contains and, in many cases, how much fat and other substances are in it. All of which is fine. We’re in favor of information. But we also wonder how much time consumers spend reading labels on food items. Our guess is that while a few people read every word, others, particularly those who are pressed for time, probably don’t. They might look for a particular brand or type of ingredient, but otherwise it may be a case of too much information. For example, consider a small bag of Lays barbecue potato chips straight from the vending machine in the lunchroom. On the front is the fact that the chips were baked instead of fried. Because of that they have 65 percent less fat than regular chips, according to the label. Another label indicates they are gluten free, which isn’t unusual since potatoes don’t have gluten. And the entire 1 1/8-ounce bag of chips is 140 calories. On the back are more labels, one stating that the potato chips have no artificial preservatives or flavors and another stating there are no trans fats. A big label includes nutrition facts and ingredients. Consumers are told the bag has 5 percent of the total daily value for fat. That includes 3 percent saturated fat, but no trans fat — the label on the front of the bag also said that — and no polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fats. They are also told the chips have 8 percent of the daily value of sodium and 9 percent of the daily value of carbohydrates, including dietary fiber and total sugars and added sugars. There is no cholesterol. Then there are the ingredients, which include dried potatoes, corn starch, corn oil, sugar and salt — a total of 25. Pretty exciting stuff. If anyone ever needs help getting to sleep, we suggest reading a food container. Or better yet, they can read the 3,600-word explanation of the nutrition label on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. The proliferation of labels also makes us wonder whether consumers are being overwhelmed. Does the fact that potato chips don’t have gluten warrant a separate label? Does a busy shopper need EO Media Group A typical bag of potato chips includes labels about everything from gluten to trans fat and calorie count. all that information, down to the daily value percentage of dietary fiber? Yet the call is for more labels, not fewer. Some ranchers want U.S. beef labeled as such. The World Trade Organization forced the repeal of a mandatory country of origin label on beef because the governments of Canada and Mexico complained that it hurt trade. However, nothing prevents processors or stores from voluntarily labeling U.S. beef. Likewise, some dairy farmers would like to see a “U.S.A.” label on milk and dairy products. A version of the voluntary “Real” seal already in use includes “made in America.” So go ahead, plaster more labels on everything. But we still believe most consumers primarily rely on another label — the price tag — more than all the others combined when they decide what to buy. OTHER VIEWS Paul Manafort has a point t’s not a popular thing to defend a specific factual statement of Paul Manafort, the international the matter to be investigated.” influence peddler who ran That’s what Rosenstein did when Donald Trump’s presidential assigning Mueller to probe alleged campaign for a time in 2016. Just coordination between Trump and search for “Manafort” and, say, Russia. Manafort does not object. “sleazeball,” and see what comes But the regulations go on to say that up. But even bad guys have a case if the special counsel feels the need sometimes. And Manafort has a case to go beyond his original charge, Byron in his lawsuit against Trump-Russia he “shall consult with the Attorney York special counsel Robert Mueller. General,” who will decide whether Comment Mueller sent Manafort a strong that request should be granted. message last July, when FBI agents Manafort argues that some of working for Mueller, guns drawn, broke the charges against him — for example, into Manafort’s house in the pre-dawn hours that he failed to file reports on his interest while Manafort and his wife slept inside. in foreign bank accounts in 2011, 2012, Mueller sent another message last October, 2013 and 2014, as well as that he failed to when he indicted Manafort on eight counts register as a foreign agent between 2008 and (out of a total of 12) that targeted allegedly 2014 — not only have nothing to do with criminal acts that ended in 2014 or 2015, the Trump-Russia affair but allegedly began before Manafort’s participation in the Trump and ended before Manafort’s association campaign. None of the counts concerned with the Trump campaign. They clearly do alleged collusion during not fall under the first part the 2016 campaign of Mueller’s charge. between Trump or his If Mueller wanted to associates and Russia. pursue those matters, Now, Manafort has Manafort argues, Justice pushed back with a Department regulations lawsuit against Mueller. require that he “consult Manafort argues that with the attorney general” the Justice Department (or in this case, the gave Mueller overbroad deputy attorney general), powers, and that, as a to get permission to result, the investigation broaden the scope of of Manafort, and the his investigation. But resulting indictment, has Mueller did not have ventured “beyond the scope of (Mueller’s) to do that because Rosenstein had already authority” granted to him by deputy attorney given him an overly broad appointment by general Rod Rosenstein. granting him the authority to pursue “any Some legal analysts have characterized matters that arose or may arise directly Manafort’s lawsuit as frivolous. If Manafort from” that investigation. were really serious, they say, he would have “That exceeds the scope of Mr. filed a motion with the court that will try the Rosenstein’s authority to appoint special case against him. Or he would have made a counsel as well as specific restrictions on the different legal argument. scope of such appointments,” Manafort’s This is not to argue with that legal suit argues. “Indeed, the Appointment Order thinking. But everything in the Trump- in effect purports to grant Mr. Mueller carte Russia affair operates on two levels, the blanche to investigate and pursue criminal legal level and the political level. And on the charges in connection with anything he political setting, Manafort has made a strong stumbles across while investigating, no case that he is being treated unfairly. matter how remote from the specific matter Rosenstein authorized Mueller to identified as the subject of the Appointment investigate three things. First was “any links Order.” and/or coordination between the Russian There is plenty of legal arcana in the suit, government and individuals associated with and many legal objections to be made to it. the campaign of President Donald Trump.” And Mueller and Rosenstein could moot Second was “any matters that arose or the whole thing by explicitly expanding Mueller’s authority to include specific may arise directly from the investigation.” activities that have no connection to the Third was crimes like perjury or Trump-Russia affair. obstruction of justice that occurred “in the But as a political case, Manafort makes course of, and with intent to interfere with, a strong point: Mueller is prosecuting the Special Counsel’s investigation.” people (Manafort and associate Rick Gates) Manafort’s objection is to the second for alleged crimes that have nothing to do part of Mueller’s charge, “any matters with Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 that arose or may arise directly from the election. That political argument may investigation.” Manafort’s argument is be heard more and more as the Mueller that virtually invited Mueller to venture investigation goes on. far afield from the Trump-Russia topic ■ — and violated those Justice Department Byron York is chief political regulations guiding special counsels. correspondent for The Washington The regulations specify that the Examiner. special counsel “will be provided with I YOUR VIEWS President Trump’s shameful language I was ashamed to hear the remarks Mr. Trump made regarding people coming here from other countries. Any man’s dystopian language demeans us all. Dorys C. Grover, Pendleton OTHER VIEWS Measure 101 decision needs facts The Oregonian/OregonLive T here are plenty of reasons to vote “no” on Measure 101, the referendum on new taxes to fund Oregon’s Medicaid program. The sheer inequity of asking college students, K-12 school districts and small businesses to shoulder the cost of an essential program while exempting others is one of the biggest reasons The Oregonian editorial board recommended that Oregonians vote “no” and demand that the Legislature deliver a better solution. Voters, of course, may well disagree. But they should base their decision on facts, not on inaccurate or misleading information peddled by those supporting the “yes” side. Here’s a look at a few of the claims that deserve some truthsquadding. Claim No. 1: Tax, schmax. The funding mechanisms in Measure 101 are “fees” and “assessments.” The provisions in Measure 101 — a 0.7 percent tax on hospitals and a 1.5 percent tax on select health-care premiums — are, without question, taxes. Yet, you won’t find that word anywhere in the ballot measure title and description, which was written by a committee of four Democratic legislators and two Republican legislators. Instead, the title uses the less-specific term “assessment.” Claim No. 2: Fine. It’s a tax. But those responsible for paying it think it’s a fantastic idea. Who are the customers footing the tax? Thousands of college students who are required to buy health insurance offered through their schools, small businesses that Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. provide health plans for their employees and others who buy their insurance through the health exchange. The law also levies the premium tax on K-12 school districts and the Public Employees Benefit Board. Claim No 3: There’s no Plan B. The argument from some on the “yes” side is that Oregonians should endorse the new taxes because the state has no back-up plan. But that ignores the fact that the Legislature actually moved the Measure 101 election to January for the express purpose of giving themselves a chance to develop a Plan B in the short legislative session if voters reject Measure 101. Claim No. 4. Defeat of the measure jeopardizes $5 billion in federal funds. The Yes on 101 campaign argues that the loss of $210 million to $320 million in state revenue would risk $5 billion in federal funds. This isn’t however, what the state’s budget actually shows. As the financial impact estimate notes, those state funds are tied to $630 million to $960 million in federal funds — not $5 billion. Claim No. 5: Forty-nine states use “the same types of assessments.” That depends on how broad your definition of “same types of assessment” is. While every state except Alaska collects assessments from health-care providers, few states levy a tax on health care premiums, according to Rachel Garfield with the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks how states fund Medicaid. Voters have until Jan. 23 to get their ballots in. Those who believe the Legislature can and must do better than this inequitable plan should mark their ballots “no.” Everything in the Trump-Russia affair operates on two levels: the legal level and political level. The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.