

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Center for Food Safety Press – pr@centerforfoodsafety.org
The following is a statement from Center for Food Safety's Executive Director, Andrew Kimbrell, on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
President Biden will sign the IRA into law today, which pundits have hailed as the greatest U.S. investment to date addressing the climate crisis. Unfortunately, among other failings, the IRA does not include coming to terms in any way with the major impacts of industrial agriculture on the climate. The legislation is completely inadequate--and even counter-productive--in its provisions dealing with industrial agriculture.
The following is a statement from Center for Food Safety's Executive Director, Andrew Kimbrell, on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
President Biden will sign the IRA into law today, which pundits have hailed as the greatest U.S. investment to date addressing the climate crisis. Unfortunately, among other failings, the IRA does not include coming to terms in any way with the major impacts of industrial agriculture on the climate. The legislation is completely inadequate--and even counter-productive--in its provisions dealing with industrial agriculture.
First is the actual amount of investment in agricultural reform. Scientists estimate that industrial agriculture is responsible for at least one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the IRA's investment in "climate-smart" agriculture is less than 10 percent of its total funding.
Second, far more concerning than this glaring disparity between impact and investment is how this funding is allocated. For example, $500 million is directed to biofuels infrastructure, along with giving this sector significant new tax credits. Ninety-four percent of biofuels in this country are derived from genetically engineered (GE) corn, with some of the remaining percentage being biodiesel derived from genetically engineered (GE) soy. So in reality this provision is just more subsidies for GMO technology; these monocultures already require up to forty percent of our cropland and directly feed no one. Moreover, growing these GE crops significantly depletes soil and utilizes massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers, all further contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Given these impacts on U.S. farmland, it turns out that once all the emissions associated with growing feedstock crops and manufacturing biofuel are factored in, biofuels actually increase CO2 emissions rather than reduce them.
Third, the IRA gives Secretary Vilsack and the USDA a $20 billion dollar "blank check" to promote "climate-smart" agriculture. Vilsack, who also headed the USDA under President Obama, has been a tireless promoter of genetic engineering in agriculture in the U.S. and around the world. During his tenure as governor of Iowa, he was named "governor of the year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. The biofuel/GMO subsidies noted above were pushed by Vilsack. But it is not merely the biofuels subsidy that is of concern.
There is little doubt how Vilsack will steer his blank check. He recently founded, along with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), an international initiative called the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM). Enlisting corporations such as Bayer/Monsanto and Syngenta as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, AIM has raised $8 billion and counting to fund so-called "climate-smart" agriculture. Vilsack is on the record stating that the primary funding for such agriculture will go toward cutting edge areas of "agri-tech" such as "nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, robotics and AI." He also noted significant investment in drones and sensors. There is no reason to doubt that these will also be his climate priorities as he allocates the $20 billion IRA funding.
For all these reasons, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) is profoundly disappointed in the IRA's failure to seriously address urgently needed reform of the U.S. industrial agriculture system. No solution to the climate crisis will be sufficient without such reform. As it continues to work toward that goal, CFS will utilize every tool at its disposal to track the funding allocations of the USDA under the IRA. We will inform our members and the general public of how these funds are being spent and be ready to challenge the funding of programs that clearly contribute to, rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we have for the last twenty-five years, we will also vigorously continue to pursue all legal avenues to ensure that the USDA-funded programs comport with the requirements of our core federal and state environmental, health, and food safety laws.
At the same time, CFS will continue to strongly champion an end to harmful industrial agriculture practices and further promote what we call the BROAD approach to food production, one that scientists have empirically shown to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also sequestering CO2 in healthy soils. BROAD stands for agriculture that is: Biodiverse, Regenerative, Organic, Agroecological, and Democratically controlled (in contrast to corporate-controlled).
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."