SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
debbie stabenow
GOP Farm Bill Decried as Pro-Corporate, Anti-Family 'Waste of Everyone's Time'
The head of MomsRising said that "it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
May 17, 2024
Echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.
While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."
"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."
Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."
"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.
"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP."
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."
"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law."
The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."
As Cummings detailed:
The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.
Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.
The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.
The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."
In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.
"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."
"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."
"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."
In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."
"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The 2023 Farm Bill Is a Chance to Save Small Dairy
Through our Dairy Together campaign, the Michigan and Wisconsin Farmers Unions are proposing a federal program to manage the unchecked growth of large-scale dairies and to preserve local agriculture.
Nov 19, 2023
I consider myself lucky to be a fourth-generation family farmer in mid-Michigan. For years, my family had a thriving dairy cow herd on our 300-acre centennial farm. But as the years passed by, we were faced with the reality of surprise jumps in milk pricing and corporate dairy’s growing power. Eventually, after a tough decision, we stopped raising dairy cows. This was our livelihood, but we could not make a living the way things were.
Across the Midwest, due to the oversupply of dairy, independent farmers are forced to dump their milk, wasting precious time and money, and leaving the future of small dairy farms in peril. Imagine what thousands of gallons of wasted milk looks like; this situation is an unfair reality for independent farmers across the country whose viability is at risk. This problem is leaving our family farms in a dire state: Since 2018, more than 450 dairy operations in Michigan closed their doors.
The upcoming farm bill is an opportunity to save small dairy farms and to make our food system more secure. Michigan Farmers Union, along with our counterpart, Wisconsin Farmers Union, have a solution to preserve small dairy farms while ensuring independent farmers have a voice. Through our Dairy Together campaign, we are proposing a federal program to manage the unchecked growth of large-scale dairies and to preserve local agriculture. It’s time we rein in the corporate influence wreaking havoc on farmers and eaters alike.
The exponential growth of dairy operations is leading to overproduction, which hurts farmers and the consumer.
The Dairy Together initiative proposes a mandatory program for managed growth in the 2023 farm bill that is based on market demand and price stability. Through this program, if an operation wanted to grow above their allowable rate, they’d have to pay a premium (called a market access fee) in order to produce more milk. The allowable growth rate would be determined by the historic production levels based on each individual operation. As a result, our country would see more success on family farms because there would be fewer incentives granted to large-scale corporate agriculture.
Corporate megafarms are one of the leading existential threats to independent farmers and our food system, and the dairy sector is not immune to this problem. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that just 2,000 farms with herds of at least 1,000 dairy cows produced over half of our country’s milk. In contrast, in 1992, roughly 500 of those operations produced 10% of the country’s milk. Deregulation in agriculture following the 1996 farm bill—dubbed Freedom to Fail—allowed corporate agriculture to scale up exponentially, putting tens of thousands of independent farms out of business.
In order to perpetuate this outsized market share, wealthy agriculture companies hire lobbyists to write laws that protect their bottom line while everyone else pays the price—especially independent farmers. While dairy production and the total headcount of cattle are growing in Michigan, there is an actual decline in the number of dairy farms, which means that smaller farms are dying and the corporate operations are getting larger.
The exponential growth of dairy operations is leading to overproduction, which hurts farmers and the consumer. When supply and demand aren’t in check for the dairy sector, smaller operations struggle to make ends meet, while large corporate operations find it easier to recoup their losses due to their scale. This “get big or get out” mentality is hurting the vitality of rural farming communities and independent farmers across the country. Additionally, overproduction leads to volatile pricing, leaving families buying dairy in the lurch when groceries are already expensive.
For growth management to work, the program needs to be implemented nationally with government authorization and the full buy-in from farmers. Farmers would have direct control in growth management and price stability. Much of this oversight would happen under a farmer-led board that is elected regionally, ensuring that farmers have meaningful input in the development, implementation, and governance of this program.
As we look to the farm bill, which is supposed to get passed every five years, our federal lawmakers must pay attention to the growing insecurity that dairy farmers across the country are facing. As my own Senator Debbie Stabenow (who leads the farm bill process in the Senate) noted when retiring, heralding the next generation of leaders is paramount. In order to leave the state of dairy better than how we found it, now is the moment to heed the call for fairer and more competitive markets. I urge you to contact your federal lawmakers in support of a growth management plan for dairy in the 2023 farm bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dem Governors, US Senators Call On Top Pharmacies to Clarify Medication Abortion Plans
"As companies that dispense critical, lifesaving medications, we urge that your decisions continue to be guided by well-established science and medical evidence and a commitment to the health and well-being of patients—not politics or litigation threats," wrote 14 governors.
Mar 14, 2023
With Walgreens under fire for its new abortion pill policy, 14 Democratic U.S. governors on Tuesday asked the corporate leaders of seven other major pharmacies to clarify their plans to lawfully distribute abortion medication like mifepristone.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January announced a regulatory change to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone, one of two medications commonly taken in tandem to induce abortion. The move came after the U.S. Supreme Court last summer reversed Roe v. Wade with its 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
In the wake of the high court decision, patients have had to contend with trigger laws, new efforts to enact abortion bans, and other attempts by right-wing political leaders to cut off access to healthcare, including 20 GOP state attorneys general who last month threatened legal action against Walgreens and CVS if they dispense abortion medication by mail.
While shortly after the FDA announcement both pharmacy giants confirmed they planned to seek certification to distribute mifepristone, Walgreens later clarified it won't offer the drug in states where Republican AGs have threatened legal action—prompting California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week to not renew his state's $54 million contract with Walgreens.
Newsom is spearheading the Reproductive Freedom Alliance and on Tuesday joined the Democratic governors of Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin in sending letters to the leaders of Costco, CVS, Health Mart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, and Walmart.
As the governors wrote:
We are deeply committed to protecting and expanding reproductive freedom and the health and well-being of all of our residents. As governors of 14 states, we not only represent over 141 million residents with a combined economy of over $11 trillion, but we are also direct customers who have partnered with many of your companies for years on a variety of issues and initiatives. We understand you are carefully reviewing the new mifepristone certification process. We look forward to receiving your plans for dispensing mifepristone in states where such care is legal, as well as any other actions you plan to take to safeguard access to reproductive healthcare.
"As companies that dispense critical, lifesaving medications, we urge that your decisions continue to be guided by well-established science and medical evidence and a commitment to the health and well-being of patients—not politics or litigation threats," the governors added.
Meanwhile, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash. ) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) revealed a series of letters—backed by several Senate Democrats—sent to various pharmacy leaders in recent days. They wrote to Walgreens' chief executive officer "with grave concerns about the misunderstanding and confusion your company has created with regard to patients' access to mifepristone from retail pharmacies."
Walgreens' response to Republican attorney generals' pressure "was unacceptable and appeared to yield to these threats—ignoring the critical need to ensure patients can get this essential healthcare wherever possible," the senators continued. "As you work through the FDA certification process, we urge you to fully assess the laws in each state and ensure your policies provide the strongest possible legal access to this critical patient care."
Stabenow told NBC News, which first reported on the senators' letters Tuesday, that "in no way, shape, or form should businesses deny legal healthcare to women who have the right to access this vital medication. All businesses should follow the FDA certification process and fully comply with applicable state and federal law."
The Senate Democrats wrote to the CEOs of Albertsons, Costco, Kroger, and Walmart "with great frustration" that none of them has publicly indicated whether they plan to allow customers to access mifepristone through their pharmacies across the country.
After expressing concern that GOP intimidation tactics could "lead companies like yours to continue to sit on the sidelines and undermine critical care for your customers," the senators urged those four chains "to pursue policies that provide the strongest possible access to the full range of essential healthcare they need, including mifepristone, and to communicate clearly to your customers about how they can access this care."
"We look forward to hearing back from you by March 21, 2023 about your intentions to ensure access to this critical FDA-approved product," the lawmakers added.
In letters to CVS and Rite Aid leadership, the Senate Democrats expressed appreciation for both chains' ongoing efforts to become distributors of mifepristone while also stressing that "at a time of great confusion about abortion access, it is imperative that no company adds to it."
The senators asked both companies' leaders to respond to three questions by March 21:
- If certified, how do you plan to notify current customers about access to mifepristone in any given state, where restrictions do and do not exist?
- If a new state law to restrict access to medication abortion is proposed, at what stage will you clarify to your customers whether they still have access to mifepristone?
- Will your company conduct any community outreach to ensure customers are aware of the full range of legal health services available to them?
"Medication abortion is how most women across our country get abortion care," Murray told NBC, "and it's absolutely critical patients can access this safe, FDA-approved drug without being forced to jump through medically unnecessary hoops or drain their bank accounts to travel hundreds of miles."
The questions and concerns about accessing mifepristone at retail pharmacies come as patients and providers nationwide prepare for a secretive Wednesday hearing before right-wing U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk regarding an anti-choice group's effort to limit abortion access by arguing that the FDA never should have approved the drug over two decades ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular