A few weeks ago, the House voted down the proposal for the Farm Bill (HR2) in a 213 to 198 vote; not only did it slash funding for small, mid-size farmers, but it protected wealthy corporations and mega-farms and factories that are harmful to the environment, land, and workers. Moreover, the House-draft proposed changes which would make SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) more difficult to access including stricter work requirements. 

You can read more about what Food Bank of New York City and NSAC (National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition) wrote about the HR2 bill, and see the final list of votes for that draft bill; including each of the House representatives who voted (New York reps have been highlighted for you). Please call and THANK those who voted “Nay” and encourage them to still fight for a 2018 Farm Bill that protects our food safety net, not weakens it. You can read these bullet points from NSAC’s blog if you are unsure of what to say. Also, use and share this tool created by the Food Bank of NYC to email your representatives directly with language to protect SNAP already written. 

Now, the most recent bill, drafted by the Senate and titled the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, is largely just a continuation of the current farm bill, which was passed in 2014. According to the New Food Economy, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted to approve the farm bill proposal 21 – 1 (the single “no” vote was cast by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, who wanted to establish payment limits for farm subsidies). As it stands, the proposal doesn’t place a new cap on subsidies, although it does reduce the adjusted gross income limit to qualify from $900,000 to $700,000.

New Test Results Reveal Just How Vulnerable Women Are To Harmful Toxins in Tampons

One More Reason to Boot Pruitt: He’s Ruining Our Water

Right now, the Clean Water Act regulates bodies of water in the United States, including permits for any entity that will release chemicals into bodies of water or are responsible for cleaning up pollution and oil spills. Part of that law includes a definition of which bodies of water are regulated by the federal government, which has led to legal disputes about how the government should define what qualifies as a “Water of the United States.”

In 2015, the Obama administration finalized a rule that would place smaller streams and other areas where water flows into rivers or lakes under federal jurisdiction, meaning the government would regulate runoff into that water. That rule was delayed by legal challenges and postponed by the Trump administration last year. Most recently, Scott Pruitt announced that the EPA is moving forward with a plan that will undermine commonsense safeguard that protects the drinking water sources for 117 million people across the country.

“Why is the head of the EPA trying to deny millions of people access to clean water? As the recent slew of ethics scandals implies, he habitually cuts corners and protects big corporations at the expense of our health. The fact of the matter is, that some of the few people who will benefit from this law being repealed and replaced with a much weaker option are golf course owners and real estate developers. President Trump is both of these. But we’re not in the business of letting corporate interests destroy the environment. We are in the business of fighting in court to hold government agencies accountable when they violate bedrock environmental laws.” – Earth Justice