Tim Crawley – Page 3

Job creation is a central theme in today’s economy as stock price indexes, housing markets, and construction have all risen while jobs have remained relatively stagnant. This point alone makes difficult the task of having an honest discussion surrounding ORS 480.330, the law that prohibits self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail – namely, gasoline at fill stations.

Mandating attendants to dispense gasoline into one’s vehicle is an example of the state overstepping its authority into the regulation of private enterprise. Imagine a scenario where the government regulates how many clerks should staff a grocery store, or mandates that no one may change their own oil on their vehicles. The costs of these policies would be born not by behemoth oil companies and other corporations but, rather, by the citizens. This is simple economics.

While the folks behind the nozzles at service stations are quite often hard-working and diligent and will even show such dedication to the task as to wash a driver’s windows while one waits for a fill, we must continue to ask the difficult questions in order to shape our society into one where jobs are based on society’s demands – not one where jobs are created for the sake of job creation because a group of politicians have gathered together to create a purpose for themselves.

Currently, New Jersey is the only other state to mandate gas station attendants. The government set forth numerous declarations in ORS 480.315 in an attempt to justify the law’s passage. Among them are the theories that exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids and that small children left unattended when customers leave to make payment at self service stations creates a dangerous situation.

These justifications point to the irrationality of the law and are a prime example of an “empty carbohydrate” for the economy. First, would gas station attendants not be subject to the same fumes as drivers considering no masks or other breathing devices are required for dispensing fuel? Second, is the state again setting the boundaries for what are acceptable parenting practices? Virtually all of the declarations set forth in ORS 480.315 cover similar Big Brother territory.

From a more global perspective, it is rare that a politician marches with the torch of deconstructionism, the aim being that she or he rallies support to dismantle some of the more overbearing elements of our government. At the moment, working Oregonians support a Social Security disability program that handed out nearly $45 million in 2012. Many of these applications are promulgated by economic woes versus actual disability.

The government’s excessive regulations and ever-expanding programs are complicating our society’s function. Imagine a tax code with no loopholes and deductions. Imagine a tax code limited to twenty pages. Imagine no pork barrel spending, bridges to nowhere, and fallow prisons. Such efforts take support from a voting citizenry – a citizenry not in decline but one willing to make the bold effort to deconstruct in order to reconstruct based on simple enduring laws that provide necessary protections and allow society to function unencumbered by the baggage of over two centuries of legislation layered by legislation.

Photo credit: M. DeFreese/CIMMYT.

The discovery of an eastern Oregon wheat farm contaminated with genetically-modified wheat of the same variety produced and field tested from 1998 until 2005 by the world’s largest seed company, Monsanto, generated a flurry of international response. Japan halted white winter wheat imports from the Pacific Northwest while the European Union has encouraged its 27-member body to continue to monitor and test certain wheat shipments from the United States.

These import restrictions may be particularly harmful to Oregonians as wheat accounts for the state’s second largest export commodity with a market value of $500 million on last year’s harvest. Most of Oregon’s wheat is destined for Japan’s markets. The discovery of the genetically modified wheat variety sent overall prices for wheat tumbling.

While there is no evidence the genetically modified wheat has entered commercial supplies, lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto.

Japan, Australia, the European Union, and the United Kingdom are just a few of the regions where genetically modified organisms (“GMO”) are banned because of the lack of long-term studies. Indeed, even when trans-fats were first introduced into the food supply, their health effects were generally unknown. Years later, studies were produced showing the harmful effects of these fats on human health. Trans fats have now been restricted in certain states.

Besides the fact that GMOs encourage the use of pesticides and herbicides for their production, GMOs are furthermore imposing themselves upon natural plant varieties. The Willamette Valley’s seed producers have used the genetically modified wheat incident to harness attention for their fight against the production of genetically modified canola in the Valley. GMOs have been known to breed with other plants to pass on their genetic makeup. This could have complex and dire effects on exports of these products to countries that ban GMOs. Oregon House Bill 2427 proposes to ban the production of canola in the Willamette Valley. Oregon has long been home to conscious and progressive organizations like Friends of Family Farmers who seek to maintain a respect for the land and the local community.

Legislation curbing the widespread production of GMOs should be pursued at the federal level. While long-term health effects of GMOs are relatively unknown, the overall negative effects of GMOs are well-established. Currently, sixty (60) to seventy (70) percent of all processed foods in U.S. grocery stores contain at least one GMO ingredient, the result of a strong agribusiness lobby led by powerful corporate entities like Monsanto.

Our U.S. House of Representatives and Senate should be pushing to mandate labeling on food products containing GMO ingredients. Consumers should have the right to know the foods they eat are not contributing to the destruction of our lands through harmful pesticides and herbicides, that such foods are not peripherally contributing to the genetic uniformity that GMOs encourage, and that our export markets and relationships remain intact. Labeling is a simple solution for a product that has caused widespread problems beyond the unknown future health consequences of its consumption.

Our Labor and Our Laws

Oregon Wheat Threatened by GMOs