Complete list of press releases
EPA's Actions on Health Risks of Nanomaterials Called "Too Little, Too Late"
August 2, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Julie Huddleston, jhuddleston@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3369
Sean Crowley, scrowley@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3331(Arlington, VA – August 2, 2007) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must act much more aggressively to protect the public and the environment from the potential risks of engineered nanoscale materials. That urgent call came today at a public meeting on EPA’s proposal for a voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program in the only testimony given by a member of the federal advisory committee that counseled EPA to launch such a program two years ago.
These tiny high-tech materials – measuring in billionths of a meter – are already showing up in hundreds of consumer products, ranging from paints to cosmetics to stain-resistant treatments for clothing. Initial studies show that some of them may be able to enter the body and even individual cells and, once there, can cause damage.
“Two years in the making, EPA’s tepid proposals have actually set back the clock,” testified Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist for Environmental Defense. “As a government response to addressing the possible downsides of the nanotechnology revolution, it’s simply ‘too little, too late.’”
Denison noted that key features of the federal advisory committee’s original proposal have been stripped out.
“We supported the original proposal for a voluntary program two years ago because it was one element of a comprehensive plan that also included regulatory steps intended to provide a ‘backstop,’ and it was to be launched and completed quickly,” added Denison. “By contrast, EPA now is calling for an open-ended program with no plan B should its voluntary plan A fall short.”
The United Kingdom has operated a similar program for over nine months and has attracted only seven companies to volunteer. The design and timing of the EPA program is likely to yield similarly disappointing participation, resulting in a very selective and skewed picture of the state of nanotechnology.
Environmental Defense instead urged EPA to rapidly develop and implement mandatory reporting rules to level the playing field for the nanotechnology industry and ensure that relevant information is communicated – a step EPA said it had initiated more than two years ago, but for which it has provided no public indication of actual progress.
Environmental Defense also opposed EPA’s decision to treat nanoscale materials as if they are no different from their conventional counterparts.
“EPA proposes to effectively ignore the very nano-ness of nanoscale materials,” concluded Denison. “This decision is not required by precedent, as EPA claims, and it reflects bad policy that flies in the face of common sense. It removes the only effective means by which any government review of the affected nanoscale materials can be assured prior to commencement of their manufacture.”
Environmental Defense has been working since 2003 to ensure that the potential risks of nanoscale materials are identified and mitigated. The organization has advocated for more federal funding for health and environmental risk research and is the only U.S. environmental NGO active at the international level in efforts to address nanoscale material risks.
For more information, see www.environmentaldefense.org/nano.
Environmental Defense’s full statement is online at www.environmentaldefense.org/toolittletoolate.
Statement on House Failure to Pass Fairness Amendment to Farm Bill
July 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Scott Faber, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org, 202-572-3315-w or 202-230-1899-c(Washington, DC – July 27, 2007) The following statement about the failure of the U.S. House of Representatives last night to pass the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill can be attributed to Scott Faber, Farm and Food Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense:
“The pressure created by House reformers like Ron Kind and Jeff Flake has forced House leaders to improve the bill, including new funding for conservation and nutrition. Nevertheless, many legislators missed an opportunity to do considerably more for their farmers and the environment by voting against the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment. Farmers are eager to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat and our farm policies should do more to reward — not reject — farmers when they volunteer to meet our environmental challenges.”
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for 4 out of 5 Oregon Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 26, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in 4 out of 5 Oregon congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The districts include those represented by Reps. David Wu ($26,312,632), Earl Blumenauer ($23,497,309), Peter A. DeFazio ($42,710,838) and Darlene Hooley ($39,390,518).
The net gain for the state would be $148,884,916.The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides Nearly $26 Million More for Alaska than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 26, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by $25,923,715 in Alaska when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The full House, including Rep. Don Young (R-AK), is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday.
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides $31 Million More for Rep. Heller
July 26, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by $31,468,501 in the congressional district of Rep. Dean Heller (R-Reno/Elko/Las Vegas) when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. The net gain for the state would be $52,703,814.
That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides $100 Million More for New Mexico than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 26, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:
Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in all 3 New Mexico congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The districts include those represented by Reps. Heather Wilson ($20,519,617), Stevan Pearce ($50,632,263) and Tom Udall ($31,514,569).
The net gain for the state would be $102,666,448.The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for 3 Illinois Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 26, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in 3 Illinois congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The districts include those represented by Reps. Bobby L. Rush ($24,475,453), Luis V. Gutierrez ($20,573,714) and Danny K. Davis ($29,100,014).
The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for 2 Missouri Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in 2 Missouri congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The districts include those represented by Reps. William Lacy Clay ($20,396,884) and Roy Blunt ($32,093,653).
The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for 2 Oklahoma Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in 2 Oklahoma congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.The districts include those represented by Reps. Dan Boren ($64,292,707) and Mary Fallin (23,612,577).
The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
New Statewide Poll Shows California Residents Want Real Farm Bill Reform on Eve of Historic House of Representatives Vote
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense, scrowley@ed.org , 202-572-3331
Fritz Wenzel, Zogby International, 419-205-0287
Stephanie Dvries, Zogby International, 315-624-0220 ext. 273
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) – California residents want their members of Congress to support real Farm Bill reform, like the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment, and reject legislation that maintains the status quo on farm subsidies, like the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill, according to a statewide opinion survey conducted for Environmental Defense.The poll of 2,477
“The people of
Key results of the poll included the following:
Ø 77% of respondents stated that they would support reforming the farm bill to shift money from farm subsidy programs and give priority funding to programs that help make water cleaner; promote a healthier food supply; and encourage farmers to produce renewable energy. Only 12% stated that they would oppose such reform.
Ø 74% of respondents said that they would urge their member of Congress and senators to work and vote for those reforms when they are considered. Only 17% disagreed.
Ø 59% of respondents agreed that they would urge their congressional representative and U.S. senators not to support a new farm bill unless it gives priority funding to programs that protect their streams, rivers, lakes and bays. Only 29% disagreed.
“The poll shows that voting for real farm bill reform and against the status quo will not only be good policy, but will be good politics as well,” stated Faber. “The strong support of the public paves the way for
Additional evidence that the Fairness Amendment is right for
“This should be an easy decision for
To learn more about the findings of the study for each congressional district, visit: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
About the Zogby poll:
The poll had a sample size of 2,477
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for All 3 West Virginia Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million for all 3 West Virginia congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The districts include those represented by Reps. Alan B. Mollohan ($31,616,861), Shelley Moore Capito ($37,500,006) and Nick J. Rahall II ($34,336,866).
The net gain for the state would be $103,453,733.The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
North Carolina Bans New Hog Waste Lagoons, Sets Strict Standards for Future Systems
July 25, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Jane Preyer, 919-881-2912 or 919-740-6727 (cell)
Tanja Vujic, 919-881-2916 or 919-358-0055 (cell)(Raleigh, NC - July 25, 2007) Environmental Defense today applauded passage of the nation’s first legislation banning construction of open-air hog waste lagoons. The NC Senate’s 48 - 0 vote today makes North Carolina the first state to permanently ban the construction or expansion of lagoon and sprayfield systems, long recognized as a source of water and air pollution. The legislation also establishes strict health and environmental standards for all new waste treatment systems used on hog farms. The NC House approved the bill with a 108 - 0 vote on July 23. North Carolina is the second largest hog producing state in the country.
In addition to banning new lagoons and setting performance standards, the bill provides funds for a voluntary program that will assist farmers in replacing lagoons with cleaner waste treatment systems, a provision designed to speed transition to new systems by making innovative technologies affordable for all hog operations. A recent study released by Environmental Defense documents that the state can add up to $10 billion to its economy and create 7,000 new jobs over the next 20 years by converting to cleaner technologies and creating markets for valuable byproducts.
The legislation also establishes a pilot program to capture methane and generate electricity from existing lagoons, and it would allow lagoons that present an immediate danger to the public to be replaced. Environmental Defense has sharply criticized both provisions for creating potential exceptions to the ban on new lagoons and to the performance standards established in the legislation.
“This legislation represents a critical step toward ridding North Carolina of lagoons once and for all,” said Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina Office of Environmental Defense. “All the other hog producing states, as well as the federal government, will pay close attention to the strengths of this legislation, as well as its shortcomings. Without a doubt, North Carolina is now clearly on the road that leads to clean hog farming. Certainly, the bill isn’t perfect, but it’s a strong start.”
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for 6 of 9 Tennessee Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in 6 out of 9 Tennessee congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.The districts include those represented by Reps. David Davis ($29,670,119), John J. Duncan, Jr.($22,204,324), Zach Wamp ($25,304,737), Lincoln Davis ($34,226,129), Bart Gordon ($22,795,558) and Steve Cohen ($23,528,060). The net gain for the state would be $95,699,025.
The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides at Least $20 Million More for 3 of 6 Kentucky Districts than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:
Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by at least $20 million in 3 of Kentucky’s 6 congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.The districts include those represented by Reps. Geoff Davis ($30,310,691), Harold Rogers ($44,795,606) and Ben Chandler ($33,250,049). The state’s net gain would be $93,519,691.
The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls
Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides $101 Million More South Carolina than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows
July 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by $101,201,458 in South Carolina when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. The net gain would be $31,237,278 alone in the congressional district of Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-Anderson /Greenwood/Aiken). That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.The full House is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday. The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls