October, 05 2010, 01:07pm EDT
More Than 50 Groups Challenge Government Grant to Pro-Pesticide PR Campaign
More
than 50 organizations concerned about the risks of pesticides to human
health and the environment have joined forces to fight California
officials' award of a $180,000 taxpayer-funded grant to a chemical
agribusiness public relations campaign.
WASHINGTON
More
than 50 organizations concerned about the risks of pesticides to human
health and the environment have joined forces to fight California
officials' award of a $180,000 taxpayer-funded grant to a chemical
agribusiness public relations campaign.
The environmental, public health, consumer groups and farmers were
responding to the state's Sept. 17 announcement of a grant to the
Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) to counter educational campaigns
aimed at informing consumers about pesticide residues on fruits and
vegetables. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)
said the grant would support the Alliance's efforts to "change public
perception about the safety of produce when it comes to pesticide
residues." Link to the CDFA's list of grants can be found here: <https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Specialty_Crop_Competitiveness_Grants/FFY2010.html>
The funding was provided through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Specialty Crop Block Grant program, but the state agency selected the
recipients. The Alliance represents more than 50 large produce growers
and marketers and the suppliers who sell them pesticides and fertilizer.
In their letter <https://www.ewg.org/groups-challenge-grant-for-pro-pesticide-campaign>
to CDFA Secretary A. G. Kawamura and Alfred G. Montna, president of
the California Board of Food and Agriculture, the public interest
organizations called on CDFA and USDA to "retract this award and take
action to ensure that future grant-making serves the interests of all
Californians."
The letter, organized by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Californians for Pesticide Reform, continued:
"The federally-funded Specialty Crops Block Grant (SCBG) Program in
California is a valuable effort intended to support research, marketing
and nutrition programs that help make produce, nuts and flower crops
more competitive, accessible and in the case of research, more
sustainable. While we strongly support this program, we object to the
department's decision to fund an industry communications initiative
against legitimate public interest concerns related to pesticide
residues on food. The award of this grant strikes a blow to
California's expanding organic produce industry and places the
department in opposition to the public's interest in reducing pesticide
exposure. This action also represents a fundamental failure to implement
a fair and balanced grant selection process.
"Pesticide residues are a genuine problem: both peer-reviewed literature
and the USDA food residue test database have found them on many
conventionally-grown foods. Scientists have expressed valid concerns
about the health risks posed by some of these chemicals. It is
inappropriate for state and federal officials to categorically take the
side of conventional agribusiness in this scientific and policy debate
by funding a public relations effort designed to attack public interest
organizations."
Kari Hamerschlag, a senior food and agriculture analyst at EWG, said,
"CDFA should be investing in programs to help promote greater sales and
consumption of locally grown, organic and sustainably produced fruits
and vegetables, instead of allowing corporate agribusiness to use
taxpayer funds for its PR campaign in support of pesticides. This award
cries out for a thorough review and reorientation of the criteria that
determine how these resources are spent."
"Organic, fair and local farming is the future of agriculture," said
Tracey Brieger, co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform.
"Public money needs to support these solutions to air and water
pollution and climate change, not fund initiatives that fuel the
problem."
Concerns about the risks associated with pesticide exposure aren't
limited to the advocacy community. The USDA and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have for decades conducted
extensive research into the issue, which led to the phase-out of some
pesticides found to be toxic, and in some cases potentially
life-threatening, and to regulatory restrictions on a number of others.
The public interest groups called for a full accounting of how the
decision to award the AFF grant was made. They also urged the state
Department of Food and Agriculture and the Board of Food and Agriculture
to establish a more balanced grant review committee, with greater
representation from public interest groups and the organic specialty
crop sector.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
Senate Tosses 'Dangerous Provision' Preventing State-Level AI Regulation From GOP Megabill
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry," said one advocate.
Jul 01, 2025
With a 99-1 vote early Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate decided to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation on artificial intelligence for 10 years from U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that is currently being debated in Congress.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was the lone lawmaker who voted to keep the moratorium in the bill.
While far from the only controversial part of the reconciliation package, the provision drew opposition from an ideologically diverse group that included Democratic and Republican state attorneys general; over 140 groups working to support children's online safety, consumer protections, and responsible innovation; and faith leaders.
Senators struck Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) AI measure from the megabill by adopting an amendment introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They voted on Blackburn's amendment during a session known as a vote-a-rama. Blackburn introduced the amendment after considering an agreement that would have watered down the provision.
According to The Verge, the measure that was rejected on Tuesday required states to avoid regulation AI and "automated decision systems" if they wanted to get funding for their broadband programs.
The provision would have been a major win for Big Tech, which has made the case that state laws around AI are obstructing their ability to do business.
Advocates and Democratic lawmakers cheered the decision to strip the provision.
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry. It shows that Americans are aware of the proliferation of AI harms in real time," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that "early this morning, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to reject a dangerous provision to block states from regulating artificial intelligence, including protecting kids online. This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."
In addition to concerns focused on Big Tech, experts recently told The Guardian that in the absence of state-level AI regulation, untrammeled growth of AI would take a toll on the world's "dangerously overheating climate."
Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, credited the "massive" defeat of Cruz's provision to the "incredible mobilizing by advocates to beat back Big Tech lobbying and last-minute bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular