Sign up to receive email updates, action alerts, health tips, promotions to support our work and more from EWG. You can opt-out at any time. [Privacy]

Six reasons to reject House committee leader’s farm bill

Friday, July 6, 2012

The farm bill proposed yesterday by House agriculture committee leaders would cut funds for nutrition programs and the environment to help finance new price and revenue guarantees and unlimited insurance subsidies for the largest and most successful farm businesses.

In other words, the bill would give unlimited taxpayer dollars to farmers who are already enjoying record profits and less support to hungry kids who depend on federal assistance.

Environmental Working Group has six reasons why members of the committee should reject the farm bill proposed by Reps. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn).

Click here to find out what they are.

Table Scraps:

In a USA Today op-ed, Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that the burden of deficit reduction should not be placed solely on the backs of hungry children and families in need.

A Reuters article details the House committee’s farm bill and the cuts it makes to nutrition programs while expanding federal crop insurance subsidies. Click here for EWG’s reaction to the proposal.

And an article in the San Francisco Chronicle discusses the relationship between obesity and government nutrition assistance programs.

Tweet of the Day:


Increasing hunger by cutting SNAP in the ?#farmbill is foolish. Hunger costs the U.S. economy an est $167 Biill/year

Go here to sign up:

Tips? Email us at [email protected]


comments powered by Disqus