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.