Washington, D.C. – 3/13/2012 - The draft budget released by the House Budget Committee takes a first step toward reforming wasteful farm programs by calling for $31 billion in savings from farm subsidies and crop insurance, Environmental Working Group said in a March 12 statement.
The budget document cited record farm income over the last few years in the face of crippling federal deficits as a reason to reexamine farm subsidies and the structure of the bloated crop insurance program.
“Chairman Paul Ryan should be commended for looking to farm subsidies as ripe areas of reform that can yield large budget savings in a responsible manner,” EWG Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber said.
EWG has identified $100 billion that could be cut from these programs over 10 years while leaving intact a robust safety net for farmers when they need it and without harming programs that feed hungry families or protect clean water, public health and the environment.
Faber cautioned that the budget proposal would fail to achieve the planned savings if it leaves the details up to the House Agriculture Committee.
“The budget plan leaves it up to the committee to decide where the savings should come from,” Faber said. “The committee has proven time and again that it is unwilling to reduce the flow of taxpayer dollars going to the most well-off farmers.”
Following passage of last year’s budget blueprint, the House Agriculture Committee voted to take the full $35 billion in savings out of the nutrition assistance program for low income families rather than take a single penny from farm programs.
The five-year farm bill passed by the committee last summer, which never reached the House floor, would have saved only $26.6 billion over 10 years, according to the latest estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. It would have taken more than $16 billion out of nutrition and conservation programs while spending $11 billion more on federally subsidized crop insurance.
Source: Environmental Working Group
MARK TWAIN: FATHER OF AMERICAN LITERATURE -- FACT FACTS
ABOVE: Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, was cemented as a premier writer of late 19th century America with his works "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." Find out more about his life and writing in this video.
Showing posts with label farming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label farming. Show all posts
Decision On Tossing Ethanol Mandate Applauded
(EWG) - Washington - 2/4/2013 - A U.S. Appeals Court decision to throw out the 2012 federal mandate requiring refiners to blend cellulosic ethanol into the domestic gasoline supply should be wake-up call to Congress that the nation’s biofuels policy is in sore need of reform, said Environmental Working Group Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. sided on Friday with gasoline refiners who argued that requirements for using cellulosic ethanol under the Renewable Fuel Standard were based on unrealistic production forecasts by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. sided on Friday with gasoline refiners who argued that requirements for using cellulosic ethanol under the Renewable Fuel Standard were based on unrealistic production forecasts by the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The ethanol mandate has been a disaster for most farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment. The court's decision to strike down large parts of the mandate creates a rare opportunity to reform the mandate to help consumers and the environment and to pave the way for truly sustainable biofuels. Now is the time to reform the ethanol mandate to reduce the amount of food and feed being diverted to fuel and to create a level playing field for promising new fuels that don't pit our energy needs against our food and environmental needs," Faber said.
U.S. Farm and Food Policy Called Unbalanced
WASHINGTON – (EWG) - 1/13/2013 - Buried in the 150-page “fiscal cliff” tax bill passed New Year's Day is a last-minute farm bill extension that buys time for Congress to craft and debate an improved measure to establish food and farm policy for the long haul.
But it comes at a cost. The extension perpetuates the widely discredited direct payment farm subsidies that will send $5 billion this year alone to large farming operations that already reap record profits.
“While a deeply flawed nine-month extension is marginally better than a deeply flawed five-year farm bill, this short-term band-aid is not good public policy,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. “A responsible measure would have cut direct payments and insurance subsidies and fully funded important conservation programs. It is critical that Congress craft a farm bill this year that supports family farmers and protects the environment.”
Instead of eliminating the wasteful direct payments program, the bill passed by Congress shortly before midnight New Year’s Day cuts funding for organic agriculture, clean water, and beginning farmer initiatives.
“This extension reflects the skewed priorities that continue to produce a totally unbalanced farm and food policy,” Cox said. “Soil erosion, land conversion, and water pollution from farm chemicals are enormous challenges. Yet this extension will hobble a major conservation program, while channeling billions in cash payments to already highly profitable farm businesses. It makes little sense to cut support for organics, the fastest growing sector of the agriculture economy, and to curtail a long list of other initiatives designed to increase access to healthy food and create new economic opportunities for family farms.”
Congressional efforts to pass legislation authorizing food and farm programs for the next five years have been hampered by attempts by supporters of big agriculture to create new lavish insurance subsidies.
“This latest deal underscores for the good food movement why organizations like Food Policy Action are so important to the task of expanding federal government support for innovative food and agriculture policies,” Cox said. “Without significant pressure on Congress and the White House, we can be sure that efforts to improve access to healthy food and reduce dangerous chemicals in the environment will fail.”
Source: Environmental Working Group
But it comes at a cost. The extension perpetuates the widely discredited direct payment farm subsidies that will send $5 billion this year alone to large farming operations that already reap record profits.
“While a deeply flawed nine-month extension is marginally better than a deeply flawed five-year farm bill, this short-term band-aid is not good public policy,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. “A responsible measure would have cut direct payments and insurance subsidies and fully funded important conservation programs. It is critical that Congress craft a farm bill this year that supports family farmers and protects the environment.”
Instead of eliminating the wasteful direct payments program, the bill passed by Congress shortly before midnight New Year’s Day cuts funding for organic agriculture, clean water, and beginning farmer initiatives.
“This extension reflects the skewed priorities that continue to produce a totally unbalanced farm and food policy,” Cox said. “Soil erosion, land conversion, and water pollution from farm chemicals are enormous challenges. Yet this extension will hobble a major conservation program, while channeling billions in cash payments to already highly profitable farm businesses. It makes little sense to cut support for organics, the fastest growing sector of the agriculture economy, and to curtail a long list of other initiatives designed to increase access to healthy food and create new economic opportunities for family farms.”
Congressional efforts to pass legislation authorizing food and farm programs for the next five years have been hampered by attempts by supporters of big agriculture to create new lavish insurance subsidies.
“This latest deal underscores for the good food movement why organizations like Food Policy Action are so important to the task of expanding federal government support for innovative food and agriculture policies,” Cox said. “Without significant pressure on Congress and the White House, we can be sure that efforts to improve access to healthy food and reduce dangerous chemicals in the environment will fail.”
Source: Environmental Working Group
High Crop Prices, Subsidies Called Destructive
Washington, D.C. - (EWG) - 8/30/2012 - Responding to high crop prices and unlimited insurance, growers plowed under more than 23 million acres of grassland, shrub land and wetlands in order to plant commodity crops between 2008 and 2011, a new report by Environmental Working Group and Defenders of Wildlife shows.
The analysis, titled “Plowed Under,” uses U.S. Department of Agriculture satellite data to produce the most accurate estimate currently available of the rate of habitat conversion in the farm belt. It shows that more than 8.4 million acres were converted to plant corn, more than 5.6 million to raise soybeans and nearly 5.2 million to grow winter wheat. Most of the destroyed habitat was in states in the Great Plains and Upper Midwest, but some of the highest rates of habitat conversion to grow crops were in drought-plagued portions of West Texas and Oklahoma.
“Policymakers are right to attend to the short term crisis created by the current drought, but what we’ve lost sight of in recent years is the long term crisis,” said Ken Cook, president of EWG. “A generation of conservation gains has been wiped out because costly, misguided government policies have caused ten of millions of acres of fragile land and wildlife habitat to be plowed under."
Using a sophisticated mapping technique, “Plowed Under” found that 11 states had habitat losses of at least 1 million acres each over the three-year period, and a total of 147 counties lost at least 30,000 acres each. The losses were greatest in counties that received the largest amounts of crop insurance subsidies.
According to USDA, widespread destruction of grassland is threatening habitats for important wildlife species such as the swift fox, as well as putting at risk sage grouse, the lesser prairie chicken, whooping cranes and mountain plover.
The comprehensive analysis underscores the need for Congress to fully fund conservation programs designed to mitigate the devastating effects of severe weather and restore wildlife habitat, and to reject proposals to extend unlimited insurance subsidies without environmental protections. The full Senate and the House Agriculture Committee have each approved competing 2012 farm bill versions, and both would expand insurance subsidies, while cutting conservation programs by more than $6 billion over 10 years.
Extravagant crop insurance subsidies are not only a threat to wildlife and the environment, but they also take a heavy toll on American taxpayers. Today, USDA pays, on average, 62 percent of farmers’ premiums for crop insurance and lavishes $1.3 billion a year on the insurance companies and agents that sell the policies. At current rates, taxpayers can expect to send another $90 billion to farmers and insurance companies over the next decade.
“When Congress returns from recess and considers the 2012 farm bill, it should pass reasonable reforms to crop insurance subsidies, such as payment limits, and require every recipient to carry out basic conservation practices to protect the health of our land, water and soil, as the Senate version does,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president of government affairs. (Read the full report)
Source: EWG release of August 6, 2012
The analysis, titled “Plowed Under,” uses U.S. Department of Agriculture satellite data to produce the most accurate estimate currently available of the rate of habitat conversion in the farm belt. It shows that more than 8.4 million acres were converted to plant corn, more than 5.6 million to raise soybeans and nearly 5.2 million to grow winter wheat. Most of the destroyed habitat was in states in the Great Plains and Upper Midwest, but some of the highest rates of habitat conversion to grow crops were in drought-plagued portions of West Texas and Oklahoma.
“Policymakers are right to attend to the short term crisis created by the current drought, but what we’ve lost sight of in recent years is the long term crisis,” said Ken Cook, president of EWG. “A generation of conservation gains has been wiped out because costly, misguided government policies have caused ten of millions of acres of fragile land and wildlife habitat to be plowed under."
Using a sophisticated mapping technique, “Plowed Under” found that 11 states had habitat losses of at least 1 million acres each over the three-year period, and a total of 147 counties lost at least 30,000 acres each. The losses were greatest in counties that received the largest amounts of crop insurance subsidies.
According to USDA, widespread destruction of grassland is threatening habitats for important wildlife species such as the swift fox, as well as putting at risk sage grouse, the lesser prairie chicken, whooping cranes and mountain plover.
The comprehensive analysis underscores the need for Congress to fully fund conservation programs designed to mitigate the devastating effects of severe weather and restore wildlife habitat, and to reject proposals to extend unlimited insurance subsidies without environmental protections. The full Senate and the House Agriculture Committee have each approved competing 2012 farm bill versions, and both would expand insurance subsidies, while cutting conservation programs by more than $6 billion over 10 years.
Extravagant crop insurance subsidies are not only a threat to wildlife and the environment, but they also take a heavy toll on American taxpayers. Today, USDA pays, on average, 62 percent of farmers’ premiums for crop insurance and lavishes $1.3 billion a year on the insurance companies and agents that sell the policies. At current rates, taxpayers can expect to send another $90 billion to farmers and insurance companies over the next decade.
“When Congress returns from recess and considers the 2012 farm bill, it should pass reasonable reforms to crop insurance subsidies, such as payment limits, and require every recipient to carry out basic conservation practices to protect the health of our land, water and soil, as the Senate version does,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president of government affairs. (Read the full report)
Source: EWG release of August 6, 2012
Subjects
agriculture,
environment,
farming,
insurance
Health Experts Denounce Flawed House Farm Bill
Washington, D.C. – (EWG) - 7/27/2012 0- More than 60 leading chefs, authors, food and agriculture policy and nutrition experts, business leaders and environment and health organizations have sent an open letter to Capitol Hill objecting that the House agriculture committee’s proposed farm bill would “steer the next five years of national food and farm policy in the wrong direction.”
The notable signatories urged lawmakers “to vote a resounding ‘no’ should the legislation come to a House floor vote (before the August recess), unless the bill is extensively rewritten through the amendment process.”
Signers include Chefs Mario Batali and Ann Cooper, Food Inc. film director Robert Kenner, authors Michael Pollan and Laurie David, New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, pediatrician Dr. Harvey Karp and medical expert Dr. Andrew Weil.
“The House bill will leave millions of people without enough food to eat, help fewer farmers and contribute to the loss of millions of acres of wetlands and grasslands,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group. “Meanwhile the cost of crop insurance is poised to set another record---at the expense of the American taxpayer.”
You can read the full letter and list of signers here.
Kari Hamerschlag of Environmental Working Group and authors Dan Imhoff and Anna Lappé initiated the group letter to express frustration that the House Agriculture Committee slashes $16 billion in nutrition assistance and $6.1 billion from conservation programs while spending $36 billion on new farm subsidies and failing to include meaningful reforms to the costly federal crop insurance program.
Hamerschlag, Imhoff, and Lappé organized a similar letter denouncing the Senate version of the farm bill last month.
"We are speaking up for the millions of Americans who share the belief that the farm bill should use taxpayer dollars wisely and fairly,” Lappé said. “The 2012 legislation should promote healthy food, reward farmers who are good stewards of the land, and provide the much-needed resources for struggling families to put food on the table."
The letter sent to the House acknowledges that the committee retained some of the Senate bill’s modest but positive elements, including programs that scale up local production and distribution of healthy foods and bolster marketing and research for fruit, nut and vegetable farmers.
“On the whole, however, this is a huge step backward in almost every other regard,” the letter says. “We are deeply concerned that the bill would continue to give away tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the largest commodity crop growers, insurance companies, and agribusinesses while drastically underfunding programs to protect natural resources, invest in beginning and disadvantaged farmers, revitalize local food economies, and promote health and food security.”
The letter strongly criticizes the House panel’s failure to retain the Senate-approved conservation compliance amendment. Moreover, its version contains dangerous anti-environmental provisions that would roll back fundamental regulatory and constitutional protections, gut common-sense rules that protect water quality and wildlife from agricultural pesticides, exempt GMO crops from meaningful environmental review and federal oversight, and prevent states from setting their own standards for farm and food production.
"Rather than making real reforms to alleviate hunger, strengthen stewardship, and boost rural economies, the House farm bill would continue sending billions to agribusinesses and weaken regulations around pesticides and genetically modified crops,” Imhoff said. “Americans deserve better."
Signers of the letter hope that floor action on the bill would give House lawmakers the opportunity to dramatically improve the legislation. They are calling on lawmakers to pass amendments that eliminate harmful extraneous provisions, support local, healthy and organic food, provide full funding for nutrition assistance programs and include fiscally responsible reforms to crop insurance and commodity programs.
The notable signatories urged lawmakers “to vote a resounding ‘no’ should the legislation come to a House floor vote (before the August recess), unless the bill is extensively rewritten through the amendment process.”
Signers include Chefs Mario Batali and Ann Cooper, Food Inc. film director Robert Kenner, authors Michael Pollan and Laurie David, New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, pediatrician Dr. Harvey Karp and medical expert Dr. Andrew Weil.
“The House bill will leave millions of people without enough food to eat, help fewer farmers and contribute to the loss of millions of acres of wetlands and grasslands,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group. “Meanwhile the cost of crop insurance is poised to set another record---at the expense of the American taxpayer.”
You can read the full letter and list of signers here.
Kari Hamerschlag of Environmental Working Group and authors Dan Imhoff and Anna Lappé initiated the group letter to express frustration that the House Agriculture Committee slashes $16 billion in nutrition assistance and $6.1 billion from conservation programs while spending $36 billion on new farm subsidies and failing to include meaningful reforms to the costly federal crop insurance program.
Hamerschlag, Imhoff, and Lappé organized a similar letter denouncing the Senate version of the farm bill last month.
"We are speaking up for the millions of Americans who share the belief that the farm bill should use taxpayer dollars wisely and fairly,” Lappé said. “The 2012 legislation should promote healthy food, reward farmers who are good stewards of the land, and provide the much-needed resources for struggling families to put food on the table."
The letter sent to the House acknowledges that the committee retained some of the Senate bill’s modest but positive elements, including programs that scale up local production and distribution of healthy foods and bolster marketing and research for fruit, nut and vegetable farmers.
“On the whole, however, this is a huge step backward in almost every other regard,” the letter says. “We are deeply concerned that the bill would continue to give away tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the largest commodity crop growers, insurance companies, and agribusinesses while drastically underfunding programs to protect natural resources, invest in beginning and disadvantaged farmers, revitalize local food economies, and promote health and food security.”
The letter strongly criticizes the House panel’s failure to retain the Senate-approved conservation compliance amendment. Moreover, its version contains dangerous anti-environmental provisions that would roll back fundamental regulatory and constitutional protections, gut common-sense rules that protect water quality and wildlife from agricultural pesticides, exempt GMO crops from meaningful environmental review and federal oversight, and prevent states from setting their own standards for farm and food production.
"Rather than making real reforms to alleviate hunger, strengthen stewardship, and boost rural economies, the House farm bill would continue sending billions to agribusinesses and weaken regulations around pesticides and genetically modified crops,” Imhoff said. “Americans deserve better."
Signers of the letter hope that floor action on the bill would give House lawmakers the opportunity to dramatically improve the legislation. They are calling on lawmakers to pass amendments that eliminate harmful extraneous provisions, support local, healthy and organic food, provide full funding for nutrition assistance programs and include fiscally responsible reforms to crop insurance and commodity programs.
Subjects
environment,
farming,
health,
nutrition
Farm Supply Retailer to Pay $54,922 Civil Penalty
KANSAS CITY, KAN. - 2/26/2011 - ADI Agronomy, Inc., which owns a group of farm supply facilities in southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas, has agreed to pay a $54,922 civil penalty to the United States for chemical Risk Management Program violations at its Ag Distributors retail facility at Kennett, Mo., which sells liquid fertilizer made with anhydrous ammonia.
EPA Region 7 issued an administrative compliance order to the Kennett facility in July 2010, after an inspection noted eight violations of the chemical Risk Management Program regulations contained in the federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, Ag Distributors failed to establish and implement maintenance procedures to ensure the ongoing integrity of its anhydrous ammonia process equipment, and failed to document that the equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, among other violations.
As part of an administrative consent agreement issued by EPA in Kansas City, Kan., ADI Agronomy, doing business as Ag Distributors, agreed to pay the $54,922 penalty.
The Ag Distributors facility in Kennett is subject to the Risk Management Program regulations because it uses, stores, manufactures or handles the on-site movement of 10,000 pounds or more of anhydrous ammonia in its fertilizer production process, the agreement says. Anhydrous ammonia is corrosive, and exposure to it may result in chemical-type burns to skin, eyes and lungs.
Facilities like Ag Distributors that mix or blend fertilizers using anhydrous ammonia, but which do not sell anhydrous ammonia directly to farmers, must implement the most stringent type of Risk Management Program, known as the Program 3 Prevention Program. Ag Distributors failed to comply with the Program 3 Prevention Program requirements, which require detailed safety precautions, preventative maintenance, operating procedures, and employee training measures.
Risk Management regulations are intended to help prevent accidental releases of harmful chemicals, and help local emergency responders prepare for and respond to chemical accidents. Failure to have an adequate Risk Management Program and Plan can compromise a facility’s ability to prevent releases and minimize the impact of releases that do occur.
As part of its settlement with EPA, ADI Agronomy has certified that the Ag Distributors facility in Kennett is now in compliance with the chemical Risk Management Program regulations.
Source: U.S. EPA
EPA Region 7 issued an administrative compliance order to the Kennett facility in July 2010, after an inspection noted eight violations of the chemical Risk Management Program regulations contained in the federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, Ag Distributors failed to establish and implement maintenance procedures to ensure the ongoing integrity of its anhydrous ammonia process equipment, and failed to document that the equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, among other violations.
As part of an administrative consent agreement issued by EPA in Kansas City, Kan., ADI Agronomy, doing business as Ag Distributors, agreed to pay the $54,922 penalty.
The Ag Distributors facility in Kennett is subject to the Risk Management Program regulations because it uses, stores, manufactures or handles the on-site movement of 10,000 pounds or more of anhydrous ammonia in its fertilizer production process, the agreement says. Anhydrous ammonia is corrosive, and exposure to it may result in chemical-type burns to skin, eyes and lungs.
Facilities like Ag Distributors that mix or blend fertilizers using anhydrous ammonia, but which do not sell anhydrous ammonia directly to farmers, must implement the most stringent type of Risk Management Program, known as the Program 3 Prevention Program. Ag Distributors failed to comply with the Program 3 Prevention Program requirements, which require detailed safety precautions, preventative maintenance, operating procedures, and employee training measures.
Risk Management regulations are intended to help prevent accidental releases of harmful chemicals, and help local emergency responders prepare for and respond to chemical accidents. Failure to have an adequate Risk Management Program and Plan can compromise a facility’s ability to prevent releases and minimize the impact of releases that do occur.
As part of its settlement with EPA, ADI Agronomy has certified that the Ag Distributors facility in Kennett is now in compliance with the chemical Risk Management Program regulations.
Source: U.S. EPA
Subjects
agriculture,
EPA,
farming,
Missouri
