Biotech mint wrong way to go

In the Jan. 22 edition ("Biotech mint necessary, researcher says") you quote a Washington State University biologist as asserting that biotech mint is "the only way mint growers can compete with producers in China and India, where labor and land costs are a pittance compared to costs in the U.S."

If you buy that hogwash I have a bridge that might interest you. If U.S. and Canadian mint growers embrace biotech mint how long will it be before that mint variety is being sold in China? Where will we be then? We will be locked into the biotech companies who will reap the profits and squeeze the farmers.

Land grant universities and their employees need to work in the interest of farmers -- not biotech companies!

Felice Pace
Klamath, Calif.

Excluding potatoes from WIC unwise

As a niece of a farmer and an occupational therapy student interested in the impact of nutrition on people's health and productivity, I was drawn to the article "Potato industry fights WIC exclusion," published on Dec. 31.

I am concerned by WIC's logic behind the exclusion of potatoes from food subsidies.

First, the eating habits of "most Americans" who "already consume the maximum recommendation of one serving of potatoes a day" may not necessarily represent the eating habits of WIC recipients.

Second, what seems to be just as meaningful as the quantity of potatoes eaten is the form in which they are consumed. Possibly, the statistics are driven by Americans' high consumption of french fries. Possibly, WIC recipients are using their subsidies to purchase whole potatoes, which will most likely be eaten in their steamed or baked form, as an economical, relatively nutritious and filling food.

Third, excluding potatoes so as to be able to offer more of a "variety of fruits and vegetables," does not necessarily mean that WIC recipients will purchase more diverse foodstuffs. Think of your own eating habits and related comfort zones. If someone suddenly withdrew monetary support for your favorite staple item -- like potatoes -- would you then naturally purchase other fruits and vegetables, if you were not accustomed to their preparation or flavor?

I commend WIC's goal of encouraging a balanced diet. However, it seems that a more comprehensive alternative to excluding potatoes would be to focus on nutritional outreach for WIC recipients, emphasizing the importance of following recommended dietary allowances and eating a variety of fruits and vegetables. With this knowledge, they could potentially make more informed food purchases and meal preparations, and make a more substantive, nutritional impact with their WIC subsidies.

Rosa Walker
Boston, Mass.

Government closes forest roads

Thank you for running my previous letter on this matter. As a result I received further action. Recently I asked Congressman Peter DeFazio to get involved with the Forest Service road closures and he sent my letter to the Forest Service instead of taking action on my behalf. He again passed the buck. The two letters he received from the Forest Service in answer were nothing more than an affirmation of my concerns and showed the elitist attitude of our public servants.

The letters stated that there had been public hearings for these changes but at these public hearings the public is only offered a preconceived plan that was made behind closed doors by special interest groups. At these public hearings no new input is allowed and the members of the special interest groups always outnumber any locals, and if they don't outnumber locals the meetings have been canceled.

The forest supervisor stated that the Warner Lake Road had been classified as a level 2 road and had been water barred to prevent erosion, when in fact this level road was water barred to block access. The water bars were designed to erode the road rather than stop erosion. This road was used as only an example of the hundreds of roads being closed.

The supervisor also stated that people would only be allowed to travel in the areas posted as open and shown on the map. This decision was made by one public servant and would virtually close 100 percent of the forest to those without map-reading skills and this would make anyone trying to utilize our public lands a criminal if they are caught in these unmarked areas. How can a person use their land if they are not sure of where they are?

DeFazio is on the Natural Resources Committee that writes all these laws that allow the government to further erode our freedoms and rights under the Constitution.

Oregonians have long cherished their right to use our lands and are getting fed up with losing these rights.

Floyd Staley
Oakridge, Ore.

Some thoughts on farm issues

I'm tempted to write to the editor of Capital Press about my concern that non-farmers criticize us for hiring illegal immigrants to do our dirty work and condone "out-sourcing" theirs to Third World countries.

Also, gardeners in fields that aren't big enough to turn a tractor around in call themselves "farmers." Does that hoodwink the tax collectors? It all boils down to values: money, work, product and happiness. Isn't the pursuit of the latter guaranteed?

And while I'm at it, how about a half-hour compromise between "sun timers" and "daylight savers?" Someone will still have the sun overhead at noon.

Carol Clark
Eastsound, Wash.

Stallman Farm Bureau speech misguided

I am a director for District 4 of Marion Soil and Water Conservation District. I am also an Oregon Tilth small sustainable farmer who grew up on her father's 7,000-acre cattle ranch and whose brother was president of Pendleton Flour Mills for several successful years. I am vested in farming and ranching and sound environmental stewardship that does not rape the land for the purposes of only one person or party.

I find Stallman's words to show a great lacking of agriculture understanding and concerns for our nation's natural resources. At one time they who were in authority positions persecuted the people who said the world was round. You, Stallman, are doing the very same thing when you attack the conservationists, environmentalists, small sustainable farmers and organic farming. You are not the best choice for redesigning a new farming future.

Allyson Jayne Flagg-Miller
Jefferson, Ore.

Pollan tries to improve agriculture

Stewart Truelsen and other critics of "In Defense of Food" author Michael Pollan are missing the point. Pollan and other "critics of mainstream farming" are not attacking American agriculture per se, merely pointing out that many modern agricultural practices are unsustainable. While I agree with Truelsen that "Americans have many affordable, healthy food choices" at market, it is equally true that we have many affordable, unhealthy choices on the same shelves.

Pollan and like-minded critics are trying to make agriculture better for farmers and customers. Those who pass these critics off as strictly adversarial are off base. If Truelsen is accurate that the "past and present" of American agriculture "deserve better, fairer" treatment, then it is equally true that the future of our industry also needs fair treatment. And that means looking at all the facts, not merely those that support "the way we've always done it."

Alan Searle
Brenalan Farm
Toledo, Ore.

Pollan versus the 'agro-industrial complex'

I'm puzzled why the Capital Press would headline an editorial trying to put down Michael Pollan. Is the paper that mostly represents the agro-industrial complex that threatened by Pollan and his pronouncements?

Seems as though he's simply stating that the status quo isn't going to cope too well with the rapid globalization and population build-up on our planet. Many innovative farmers and ranchers over the decades have decided the same, and are continually improving their methods and operations with a vision to the future.

Skeptics of Pollan's position would do well to read National Geographic's June 2009 "Special Report: Feeding the World." The report offers perspectives in future world food supplies, distribution systems and associated resources in striving to keep pace with population growth. It too discusses the "Green Revolution," its benefits and often disastrous consequences and questions the possibility of further "Green Revolutions" in our era of Monsanto, et al.

Jerry Richards
Oregon City, Ore.