webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Am /CA Farm Bureau

==

3/19 primary, evil pending, BUFFER on chemicals and water

11 tags

zIPPY ~ RFK2 ON CHEM

---

maha?

health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised his concerns about widely used herbicides containing glyphosate and atrazine, linking them to chronic disease, in a Thursday report by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission.

Why It Matters

The report highlights two commonly used weed killers—glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and atrazine, another widely used herbicide for weed control.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has reviewed and reevaluated its status, said in 2020, "glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen." There are conflicting opinions about the toxicity of pesticides and their potential health risks, as well as their impact on the food system and environment. Herbicides are classified as a type of pesticide.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission, which pledged to produce a report within the president's first few months back in office. The assessment, released Thursday, aims to lay the groundwork for understanding what Kennedy calls the "magnitude of crisis" in American children's declining health and the factors driving it.

As the nation's top health official, Kennedy has repeatedly raised concerns about chemicals in food and the environment and their connection to chronic disease. The report's first section focuses on the rise of ultra-processed foods, while the second addresses the "cumulative load of chemicals in our environment."

What To Know

The 69-page assessment took issue with common herbicides, saying that children are exposed to them through food, water, dust, lawn treatment and household sprays.

"The cumulative effect of multiple chemical exposures and impact on children over time is not fully understood," the report says, adding that data and research on the "complex mixtures of chemicals" children encounter have yet to be fully explored.

Kennedy has long opposed pesticides, having helped win a 2018 lawsuit filed against Monsanto, the original producer of Roundup.

Pesticides are widely used in farming across the U.S. In April, a group of 79 Republicans, including some Senators like Chuck Grassley of Iowa, wrote a letter to Kennedy, saying that "regular testing by DFA and USDA finds that more than 99% of all pesticide residues meet extremely conservative limits established by EPA."

As of 2017, the United States Geological Survey reported, "about 1 billion pounds of conventional pesticides are used each year" throughout the country.

Read more Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Is the FDA Doing Enough About Food Additives?

The MAHA Commission's assessment received expected blowback from agricultural and farming associations, which largely rely on pesticides for their livelihood.

What People Are Saying

The National Corn Growers Association said in a statement:"The Make America Healthy Again Report is filled with fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides. We are deeply troubled that claims of this magnitude are being made without any scientific basis or regard for a long history of EPA expert evaluations of these products."

American Soybean Association said in a statement: "The American Soybean Association strongly rebukes the May 22 Make America Healthy Again Commission report for being brazenly unscientific and damaging to consumer confidence in America's safe, reliable food system. Should the administration act on the report—which was drafted entirely behind closed doors—it will harm U.S. farmers, increase food costs for consumers, and worsen health outcomes for all Americans. ASA calls on President Trump, who has long been a friend of farmers, to step in and correct the Commission's deeply misguided report."

Dr. Michelle Perro, pediatrician, author and activist for children's health, told The New Lede: "While I support and applaud the MAHA focus on chronic diseases affecting our children, it is disheartening that it took us decades to get here. The environmental toxic impacts on our children's well-being has been known for decades, but not acted upon until now."

The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives said in a Thursday statement:"We have serious concerns over the assessment's allegations about pesticides. The report includes statements that do not reflect the wealth of evidence developed over decades by federal agencies such as the EPA and USDA on the safety of crop inputs and food production methods. These institutions have consistently reaffirmed the safety and efficacy of the systems that help feed our country and the world."

American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said in a statement:"It is deeply troubling for the White House to endorse a report that sows seeds of doubt and fear about our food system and farming practices, then attempts to celebrate farmers and the critical role they play in producing the safest food supply in the world.

Farmers are identified as 'critical partners,' yet were excluded from development of the report, despite many requests for a seat at the table. The report also expresses a desire to ensure farmers continue to thrive, but undermining confidence in our food system directly contradicts that noble goal. The report spotlights outlier studies and presents unproven theories that feed a false narrative and only then does it acknowledge a mountain of evidence about the safety of our food system." zippy

What Happens Next

The report pledges to support "gold-standard scientific research" as part of its effort to address chronic disease. The assessment marks the first step toward developing the commission's strategy, which is due 180 days after Trump's February executive order establishing the panel.

===

120 icn

Farm Bureau Warily Concedes on Climate, But Members Praise Trump’s Deregulation

BY: GEORGINA GUSTIN

As reports and public pressure drive the farm lobby to address agriculture’s damaging effect on the environment, farmers believe Trump is in their corner. Read More

==

trump eco rules killed tally over 100?

==

120

https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html

Today, the Trump administration will finalize its replacement for the Obama-era Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in a move that will strip protections from more than half of the nation's wetlands and allow landowners to dump pesticides into waterways, or build over wetlands, for the first time in decades.

:{

}:

President Donald Trump has been working to undo the 2015 rule since he took office, but his replacement goes even further, The New York Times explained. In addition to rolling back protections for some wetlands and streams that run intermittently or temporarily underground, it will also get rid of a requirement that landowners seek permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had considered permits on a case-by-case basis before 2015.

"This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen," Southern Environmental Law Center lawyer Blan Holman told The New York Times. "This puts drinking water for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the '70s and '80s that Americans have relied on for their health."

The administration announced the repeal of the WOTUS rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule, in September of 2019. That rule had expanded the definition of "waters of the United States" under the 1972 Clean Water Act from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. The rule was controversial before Trump took office.Many farmers and businesses thought it gave the federal government too much power, and court rulings had suspended it in 28 states.

Trump appealed to this logic when he touted his repeal Sunday at the American Farm Bureau FederationAnnual Convention and Trade Show in Austin, Texas.

"I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration's disastrous Waters of the United States rule," he said. "Thank you. It's gone. That was a rule that basically took your property away from you."

However, the rule was also based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that found that streams and wetlands were connected to waters downstream. And legal experts say Trump's replacement goes even further than repealing the 2015 rule to deny decades-old protections to smaller headwaters.

"This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it's ever been before," Vermont Law School environmental law professor Patrick Parenteau told The New York Times "Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act."

The science behind Trump's new rule is already being challenged, including by some of Trump's own appointees.

Late in 2019, the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, which is staffed with many Trump picks, questioned the science behind three of the administration's deregulatory moves, including its WOTUS repeal. The board wrote that the administration's proposed replacement "neglects established science" by "failing to acknowledge watershed systems," The New York Times reported at the time. The board also said it found "no scientific justification" for denying protections to certain bodies of water.

The board's comments will likely prove useful to environmental groups and the attorneys general of several states, who are expected to sue to block the new rule, The New York Times reported.

"The legal standing all has to do with whether you have a rational basis for what you're doing," Parenteau told The New York Times. "And when you have experts saying you're not adhering to the science, that's not rational, it's arbitrary."

The rule is also already being challenged by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has called for an investigation into how it was finalized, E&E News reported Monday.

"The writing of the final Rule was controlled solely by [EPA] Headquarters political appointees," the complaint, signed by 44 current and former EPA employees, said. "The final Rule contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on the connectivity of wetlands and waters, and the impacts that ephemeral streams and so-called 'geographically isolated' wetlands have on downstream navigable waters."

The group filed the complaint with the EPA's Office of Inspector General and asked it to determine if the rule violated the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.

The final rule is due to be announced in Dallas, Texas today by EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials, as well as Texas Republican Representatives Louie Gohmert and Ron Wright, Courthouse News Service reported.

drinking water trump administration epa clean water act water public health

==

==

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/09/factory-farms-california-animal-rights-criminalization

intercept 120

factory Farm Industry Quietly Lobbies California Officials to Criminalize Animal Rescue Activism

Lee Fang

Records show that the California Farm Bureau has been working behind closed doors to limit legal exemptions for Direct Action Everywhere’s open rescues.

READ MORE →

FACTORY farming industry has had enough of Direct Action Everywhere, the controversial animal liberation activist group.

The California Farm Bureau Federation, the powerful agribusiness trade group, along with its local affiliates, has pushed for aggressive policing and prosecutions of Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE.Now, records obtained by The Intercept show that the California Farm Bureau worked behind closed doors to limit legal exemptions that DxE has long claimed provide protections for its work.

DxE, which is based in Berkeley, California, has waged a provocative campaign of civil disobedience in recent years, staging actions that the group calls “open rescues,” in which volunteers brazenly walk into meat plants and seize animals, many of which are facing slaughter, often ferrying them to medical tents erected outside the facility or to local veterinarians.

The actions, which have included rescues at meat and egg plants over the last two years in Sonoma County, have seized headlines and drawn national attention to the organization’s cause — while mobilizing opposition within the factory farming industry.DxE has claimed that its actions are protected under an obscure section of state law, California Penal Code §597e, which authorizes individuals to enter pounds to provide nourishment for neglected animals.

In DxE’s view, the statute allows legal entry into an area in which animals are confined if the animals have been deprived of food and water for over 12 hours. The group consulted with Hadar Aviram, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, to develop a modern legal interpretation of §597e, which wasoriginally passed in the 1870s and has rarely been cited in court. In DxE’s view, any commercial animal agriculture site constitutes a pound, given that the term simply refers to a facility for confined animals, a standard that is reflected in eight states with similar statutes.

That argument has enraged the animal agriculture interests throughout California, which have leaned on authorities to take a more aggressive response to DxE.

“In my view, what they are doing is bordering on terrorism involving the use of illegal practices to push their points of view,” said Tawny Tesconi, executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, an affiliate of the California Farm Bureau Federation, in an interview with KSRO radio host Pat Kerrigan. Following an action in which hundreds of DxE activists entered an egg farm in Petaluma to free chickens and care for them in medical tents set up around the facility by the group, Tesconi called for farmers to “work more closely with law enforcement and the DA’s office to provide the tools they need to fully prosecute actions like this.” (The police, notably, euthanized many of the chickens, which were found by veterinarians to be starving and unable to walk from being bred in sheds with thousands of birds.)

Behind closed doors, the California legislature moved last summer to redefine §597e, adding language to the code that explicitly exempts factory farms. The legal shift received virtually no attention or substantive legislative debate. The legislation that made the change was sponsored by Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, whose bill, AB 1553, was presented as a “technical, nonsubstantive” change that required a lower threshold of scrutiny. The bill sailed through committee and was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last June.

DxE strongly disputes that the bill was merely a technical change and was shocked to discover the discreet push to amend the code. “Over one hundred activists have relied on §597e to protect them from politically-motivated prosecutions,” said DxE co-founder Wayne Hsiung, who is also a former visiting law professor at Northwestern School of Law. “We’ve obtained dismissal or diversion of charges in dozens of cases where people were trying to give aid to starving animals.”

The California Farm Bureau denies promoting the bill, despite disclosures showing that the group lobbied on the Fong bill.“The California Farm Bureau did not actively advocate on the legislation, either for or against,” wrote Dave Kranz, a spokesperson for the California Farm Bureau. “We did take part in technical discussions about the bill and potential impacts to California agriculture, as was correctly disclosed.”

Fong’s office and the Sonoma County Farm Bureau did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The California Farm Bureau’s claim that the group acted merely as a neutral observer, and did not seek to limit the scope of §597e, appears unlikely given the group’s advocacy over the last year.

Robert Spiegel, a lobbyist with the California Farm Bureau in Sacramento, spoke at the Flamingo Resort & Conference Center in Santa Rosa last May to explain to farmers in Sonoma County how his organization had worked to respond to the threat posed by animal rights activists.

During his remarks, Spiegel referenced the interpretation produced by Aviram on behalf of DxE and informed the group that California Farm Bureau’s “senior legal counsel as well as other individuals in our operations” produced a counter-memo to dispute Aviram’s arguments. DxE shared a recording of Spiegel’s remarks and, using a records request, obtained a copy of Spiegel’s memo, which had been sent to the Sonoma County district attorney’s office as well as to other prosecutors in California.

The memo attempts to dispute DxE’s rationale for its use of §597e by claiming that even if animal farms are “pounds,” the group may not claim there is an “imminent threat” if they rely on past video evidence of abuse or deprivation.

Far from taking a neutral stance, the memo strongly suggests the California Farm Bureau’s lobbying team took an active role in shaping the interpretation of §597e.

Around the country, animal agriculture interests have worked carefully to criminalize similar forms of activism around factory farms, including hidden camera investigations. The Intercept previously obtained emails showing a bill signed into law in Idaho that provided criminal penalties for filming animal abuse at factory farms had been quietly authored by a dairy lobbyist — one of many so-called ag-gag laws enacted around the country. A federal judge later overturned most of the statute. Farm Bureau groups have worked to enact similar laws in Missouri, Iowa, Utah, and other states.

The California Farm Bureau wields significant influence in state politics. The group spends upward of $600,000 a year peddling influence in Sacramento with a team of eight in-house lobbyists, according to disclosures.

In 2018, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, responding to a wave of open rescues, brought in a national farm industry group known as the Animal Agriculture Alliance to host seminars for farmers on how to push back against future DxE activism. The group has promoted ag-gag laws and in more recent years sought to pressure law enforcement to view animal rights activists as terror threats. The alliance relies on financial support from the American Farm Bureau, the California Farm Bureau’s national affiliate, as well as the National Pork Industry Foundation.

“The Farm Bureau wants to change §597e because it knows that factory farms routinely allow animals to starve to death,” added Hsiung. “It’s the result of a system that has operated in secrecy, and ruthless pursuit of profit, for decades.”

https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-repeals-protections-for-smaller-streams-and-wetlands-2640338564.html

Trump Admin Repeals Obama-Era Clean Water Protections

Olivia Rosane Sep. 13, 2019

The Trump administration repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule rule Thursday, a rule intended to protect 60 percent of the nation's waterways from pollution,The New York Times reported.

At stake is the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The Obama-era rule expanded that definition from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. Thursday's repeal will return the country to more-limited 1986 water-protection standards, The Washington Post reported. The administration will also announce a new definition within months.

"Today, EPA and the Department of the Army finalized a rule to repeal the previous administration's overreach in the federal regulation of U.S. waters and recodify the longstanding and familiar regulatory text that previously existed," Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a press release. "Today's Step 1 action fulfills a key promise of President Trump and sets the stage for Step 2—a new WOTUS definition that will provide greater regulatory certainty for farmers, landowners, home builders, and developers nationwide."

Because court rulings have suspended the rule in 28 states, while keeping it in place in 22 others, Wheeler argued that a new rule would provide regulatory certainty across the board.

:{

}:

"We want to make sure that we have a definition that once and for all will be the law of the land in all 50 states," Wheeler told The Washington Post.

But environmental advocates say the repeal will endanger wetland wildlife and national drinking water.

"By throwing out the Clean Water Rule, Andrew Wheeler is acting like the former coal lobbyist that he is, putting the drinking water for one in every three Americans at risk just so he can placate corporate polluters who don't want to be held accountable," Dalal Aboulhosn, Sierra Club's Deputy Legislative Director for Land and Water, said in a statement provided to EcoWatch. "We will fight Wheeler's rollback to not only protect our communities from dangerous water pollution, but also restore order and common sense as to how we go about protecting our water in the future."

Wheeler made the announcement at the headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the industry groups that opposed the Clean Water Rule.Critics argued it gave the federal government too much power over the actions of developers and farmers. Farmers were prohibited from planting certain crops near streams or wetlands, or using certain pesticides without an EPA permit, The New York Times explained.

"When you take private property rights from a man who's worked all his life," American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall told The New York Times, "that is very intrusive to him and it's something he just can't stand for."

President Donald Trump singled it out for repeal in a Feb. 2017 executive order, in which the President asked the EPA to start a review process that would lead to "the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule," The Washington Post explained.

Its repeal means that farmers, developers or landowners will no longer need a permit to pollute the streams and wetlands now excluded from protection,according to The New York Times. When finalized, the new Waters of the United States definition is likely to include streams that feed into larger bodies of water and wetlands directly adjacent to them, but exclude streams that run only during rainfall or wetlands not directly connected to larger waterways.

But the 2015 rule was based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that showed how important these streams and wetlands are to downstream waters, according to The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

"The Trump administration's wild-eyed attempts to reward polluters knows no bounds, so it is repealing these important protections without regard for the law or sound science," NRDC Director of Federal Water Policy Jon Devine said.

The Clean Water Rule repeal is the latest in a growing number of environmental rollbacks initiated by the Trump administration. Others include the repeals of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and tailpipe emissions standards. Wheeler said Thursday that the Trump EPA had finalized 46 deregulatory actions, and that an additional 45 were in the works, NPR reported.

==

bernhardt?

US Sues California, Says Water Policy Violates State Law - The New ...

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/03/28/us/ap-us-california-water-wars.html

16 hours ago - The federal government has sued California over water policies it says violate ... The lawsuit filed Thursday in Sacramento federal court seeks to block a plan ... salmon by increasing water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. ... The U.S. Department of Justice said the plan was arbitrary and failed to ...

US Sues California, Says Water Policy Violates State Law

By The Associated Press

March 28, 2019

LOS ANGELES — The federal government sued California on Thursday over a water policy it said violates the state's environmental protection law.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in Sacramento federal court to block a contentious plan approved in December to increase river flows in the San Joaquin River and three tributaries to help revive dwindling salmon populations.

It was part of a larger effort to protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which state officials called an "ecosystem in crisis." The delta supplies water for the majority of California's people and farms.

Once-thriving fish in the delta, which flows out to San Francisco Bay, have plunged from some 70,000 adult Chinook salmon returning to the San Joaquin basin in the fall of 1984 to just 10,000 in 2017.

Some environmental groups supported the plan, while other conservation groups and fishing groups said it fell short in providing enough water for habitat.

Farmers opposed to the plan because it would divert less water for irrigation protested last summer outside the state Capitol.

The U.S. lawsuit said the plan was arbitrary and the state failed to analyze impacts on the environment and would reduce water coming out of the New Melones reservoir for farms, businesses and hydroelectric operations.

The environmental analysis "hid the true impacts of their plan and could put substantial operational constraints on the Department of the Interior's ability to effectively operate the New Melones Dam, which plays a critical role in flood control, irrigation, and power generation in the Sacramento region," said Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark said in a statement.

The federal government's lawsuit follows a suit filed last month in state court by theCalifornia Farm Bureau Federation to block the plan.

George Kostyrko, a spokesman for the water board, said the agency looks forward to defending the plan that involved years of analysis and public input.

The lawsuit was an unusual turn of events with the state of California as a defendant in a lawsuit with the federal government. The state's attorney general has sued the Trump administration more 47 times.

Attorney Doug Obegi of the Natural Resources Defense Council said it was ironic that the U.S. government was citing state law to sue California in federal court.

"The Trump administration has shown its flagrant disregard for state laws for some time, so it's not surprising in that regard," Obegi said. "I can't for the life of me see how a federal court lawsuit against a state agency for a claimed violation of state law doesn't get tossed out immediately for violating the U.S. Constitution."

The NRDC said the December decision was a step forward, but it wouldn't do enough to reach the goal to double the salmon population.

John McManus, president of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, said the plan approved in December had "re-balanced a badly out of balance water diversion scheme" and the suit was a "frivolous attempt to see more water diverted and more salmon industry jobs and families destroyed."

==

==

How the Farm Bureau's Climate Agenda Is Failing Its Farmers

The Farm Bureau is among the most potent political forces in Washington, skillfully parlaying the American farmer into an enduring influence machine. Conservative to the core, it mirrors the Trump administration's ideology almost perfectly. And nowhere do their agendas align more completely—and with more profound consequences—than on the challenge of climate change.

READ THE STORY

==

Farmers Are Ideally Positioned to Fight Climate Change. Here's How.

BY: PAUL HORN

Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change, and a potential solution, as this infographic explains.

==

How the Farm Bureau’s Climate Agenda Is Failing Its Farmers

BY: GEORGINA GUSTIN, NEELA BANERJEE, JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

The Farm Bureau's staunch opposition to climate policies has left farmers ill-prepared to cope with the effects of climate change, while neglecting a key climate solution.
Read More

==

Calif. — Californians are stunned at President Donald’s Trump’s latest tweets on the state‘s catastrophic wildfires — and his insistence that the state is burning because leaders are letting too much fresh water flow into the Pacific Ocean.

Trump tweeted Monday that California “Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Can be used for fires, farming and everything else. Think of California with plenty of Water - Nice! Fast Federal govt. approvals.”

That tweet — on the heels of a Sunday tweet that referenced California’s “bad environmental laws” as a cause of the state’s current raging wildfires — drew an immediate reaction from veteran California GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who responded via Twitter: “This is nuts’’ and also “low water IQ.” Stutzman has advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a host of national and state GOP candidates.

@realDonaldTrump

California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amounts of readily available water to be properly utilized. It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Must also tree clear to stop fire from spreading!

2:53 PM - Aug 6, 2018

57.5K

36.6K people are talking about this

Trump’s comments may be referencing an unrelated dispute between Brown's administration and California Republicans over how much of the state's water can be diverted to Southern California farms and cities and how much must be allowed to flow naturally to benefit endangered and threatened fish species.

Wildfires around California have killed nine people, but firefighters have not raised concerns about the available water supplies.

“The notion that somehow more water would be mitigating or better in fighting these fires is just mind-boggling,’’ Stutzman told POLITICO on Monday. “I don’t watch 'Fox & Friends,' but it would seem that someone has put the idea in his head. It doesn’t even show an elementary understanding of water policy.’’

Fox & Friends had aired a segment about the California fires nearly five hours before Trump‘s Monday tweet but didn’t discuss water issues as part of the segment.

Stutzman called the president’s recent tweets on California fires and water policy “frightening,” saying that “water has nothing to do with why these places are tinder boxes. It’s very exasperating. ... It’s a statement from the president that shows no understanding of hydrology.”

He said he would advise Brown, a Democrat, to “not take the bait” and react to such uninformed views.

Indeed, Evan Westrup, the spokesman for Brown, told POLITICO that “this does not merit a response.” But he also added via email: “It’s a sad state of affairs when journalism is reduced to chasing the uninformed, unsupervised tweets of the president.”

Some Democrats seized on the latest tweet. Rhys Williams, spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom, tweeted: “Has anybody seen the baby’s pacifier? He dropped it again.”

Donald Trump is pictured. | AP Photo

Trump endorses Kobach for Kansas governor]

In a purely political sense, Trump’s tweets reflected his alignment with California Republicans who have long complained that the state unfairly prioritizes environmental uses for water over the state’s sprawling agricultural industry. Putting “fish over farms” is a popular formulation that has been invoked by Trump allies from California’s agricultural heartland, such as Reps. Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy.

“Forests should be managed properly and water should be allowed for farmers to grow food to feed people,” Nunes wrote on Twitter in response to Trump’s Sunday tweet, cheering the president "for bringing much needed attention to our flawed environmental policies!"

Trump has courted the Republican-leaning Farm Bureau heavily.California’s water wars are a huge issue for the group. Trump addressed the annual Farm Bureau convention in January, becoming the first president in more than two decades to do so. He also raised the issue during a campaign stop in Fresno in 2016.

But experts who make their living studying California’s water system reacted for the second consecutive day with a communal groan of exasperation. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, one of the state’s foremost experts on how the state manages its water, issued a tweet calling Trump’s latest missive “nuts” after labeling the president’s initial tweet “gobbledygook bullsh--.”

In an email to POLITICO, Gleick noted that the water that flows from California’s rivers into the ocean is what remains after cities and farms take their gulp — and that those flows are critical to shoring up ecosystems that, in some parts of the state, are teetering on the brink of collapse.

“Trump's tweets last night and today show a profound misunderstanding about water, fires, California environmental policy, and of course, climate change,” Gleick said, adding that the “idea that somehow state water policies are leading to a shortage of water for fighting the fires is too stupid to rebut.”

==

==

Recent Reports from CPR

==

pnas koch/exxon

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Farm_Bureau_Federation

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is a right-wing lobbying front for big agribusiness and agribusiness-related industries that works to defeat labor and environmental initiatives, including climate change legislation.

Documents Contained at the Anti-Environmental Archives
Documents written by or referencing this person or organization are contained in the Anti-Environmental Archive, launched by Greenpeace on Earth Day, 2015. The archive contains 3,500 documents, some 27,000 pages, covering 350 organizations and individuals. The current archive includes mainly documents collected in the late 1980s through the early 2000s by The Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), an organization that tracked the rise of the so called "Wise Use" movement in the 1990s during the Clinton presidency. Access the index to the Anti-Environmental Archives here.

Contents

  [hide] 

History of agribusiness interests

On its web site, AFBF calls itself a "grassroots organization." [1] However, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, in his 1971 book, Dollar Harvest: The Story of the Farm Bureau, noted that the AFBF maintains a top-down pattern of control. "Its leadership is self-perpetuating, and its policy, although nursed through an elaborate procedural labyrinth, is rarely permitted to wander very far afield." He argued that the AFBF was:

"quietly and systematically amassing one of the largest business networks in America, while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the farmers whom it supposedly represents."

The AFBF is controlled from the top, which is how it was designed. It was founded in the early 1900s by the New York Chamber of Commerce and funded by the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts via the Chicago Board of Trade. [2] The Farm Bureau was designed to counter the nonpartisan, populist farm movement that was emerging at the time. It frequently uses social issues to distract attention from farmers’ basic economic interests. A generation ago, it was railing against "socialism", "communism" and farm price-support programs. Now, they deride environmentalists and form alliances with the so-called wise use movement.

The Farm Bureau is sometimes described as "the nation's largest farm organization, with 5 million members." [3] However, there are only about 1.9 million farmers in the U.S. and they are not all Farm Bureau members. The 5 million "members" of AFBF are simply people who buy insurance from it. It is in fact, an insurance conglomerate with annual net profits exceeding $6.5 billion dollars. [4] It controls two major farm co-ops and keeps a stock portfolio that includes agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Dupont, Novartis and Dow. It is also heavily invested in oil, banking and the media. [5]

Anti-environmentalism

The president of the group, Bob Stallman, told the group's 2010 meeting in Seattle:

"A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and the way we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule ... Who would blame us for thinking that the avalanche of misguided, activist-driven regulation on labor and environment being proposed in Washington is anything but unfriendly?" [6]

In April 2010, the AFBF was lobbying against Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. [7]

Those involved with the the Farm Bureau have called upon Congress to investigate its activities. In the late 1960s, New York Representative Joseph Resnick, then a member of the House Agriculture Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Rural Development, was rebuffed by fellow committee members under the influence of the Farm Bureau after calling for hearings. In 1968 he described it as:

“a perfect sewer-line for transporting right-wing ideology, particularly to our young people.”

Two developments in 2000 helped to shine a spot light on the AFBF. The “Amber Waves of Gain” study by Defenders of Wildlife and an investigative report by Mike Wallace on Sixty Minutes. [8] The 60 Minutes segment interviewed small farmers with direct experience of AFBF and its indifference to their needs.

The Farm Bureau's wealth and power base serves factory farms and an extreme conservative agenda. According to Amber Waves of Gain, it has dedicates large amounts resources to opposing such laws as the Endangered Species Act; the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as wetlands laws and pesticide regulations. It's agenda appears to emanate from leading right-wing think tanks and policy institutes. The AFBF has large holdings in the automobile, oil and pesticide industries. It often supports factory farming over family farms and regularly opposes government anti-pollution, pesticide, wild life protection, rural amenities and food quality regulations. It has participated in conservative political campaigns to debunk global warming, oppose registration and licensing of firearms and even advocate for the elimination of the Department of Education and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[9]

Factory farming & farming communities

Karen Hudson is the factory farm consultant for the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE). See also GRACE Factory Farm Project. According to Ms. Hudson, farmers are being forced out of production and suffering other negative impacts from corporate operations “which resemble factories more than farms.” She speaks to groups around about “livestock factories (that) carry with them consequences that impact the environment, our food supply, the economy, and the basic social structure of rural America.” The social fabric of many farming communities is being torn apart:

“divorce rates are increasing while child abuse and alcoholism are up dramatically, farmer suicides are at an all-time high, real estate prices have declined significantly and rural water supplies and environments are being gutted.”

Growing grassroots efforts against factory farms have run head long into the AFBF. According to Ms. Hudson, she and other activists have received visits and threats from the Farm Bureau. However, in spite of intimidation, they are committed to curbing the trend of industrial farming and advocating for sustainable methods. Over 200 organizations have called upon Congress to hold hearings on the Farm Bureau. [10]

Civil Rights

At AFBF’s 1999 convention, a voice vote “approved a resolution calling for the repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the cornerstone of the nation’s civil rights protection”, without debate. AFBF president Dean Kleckner, (currently chair of the pro-trade, anti-environmentalist Truth about Trade), based in Iowa, denied knowing anything about the vote. However, in a later interview he acknowledged that the anti-civil rights resolution had been approved by the membership. [11]

Portrayal in media

The AFBF portrays itself as the "voice of agriculture", and is often successful at getting the media to portray it as a representing the interests of family farms and farmers.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has written about the longstanding "myth" that the AFBF represents the interests of farmers. Berger also wrote in his 1971 book, that the AFBF was "quietly and systematically amassing one of the largest business networks in America, while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the farmers whom it supposedly represents." In the fall of 2000, the president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, John Hansen, told FAIR:

"I’ve been working on farming concerns for 30 years, and I can’t think of a major issue where the Farm Bureau didn’t have the same position as the grain and meat processors. It’s impossible to represent the interests of food producers [farmers] as well as food processors.... The two groups' economic interests are almost always at odds."[12]

Organization's own description

The Farm Bureau's web site says it is an:

"independent, non-governmental, voluntary organization governed by and representing farm and ranch families united for the purpose of analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity and social advancement and, thereby, to promote the national well-being. Farm Bureau is local, county, state, national and international in its scope and influence and is non-partisan, non-sectarian and non-secret in character. Farm Bureau is the voice of agricultural producers at all levels." [13]

Personnel & board

Key executives

Selected board members

Former personnel

Contact

600 Maryland Ave. SW

Suite 1000W

Washington DC 20024

Phone: (202) 406-3600

Fax: (202) 406-3602

Web address: http://www.fb.org/

Articles and resources

SourceWatch articles

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ American Farm Bureau Federation About Us, Web site, accessed April 5, 2010
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ A.V. Krebbs, Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness, February 1992
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ e.g., Houston Chronicle, January 8, 2000
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Annual Report, American Farm Bureau, 1996
  5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Scotty Johnson, Sam Husseini, Right-Wing Business in Farmer's Overalls, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September/October 2000
  6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Tyler Falk, Seeking sustainability, finding skeptics at the American Farm Bureau meeting, Grist.org, January 11, 2010
  7. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ American Farm Bureau Federation AFBF Calls on Congress to Nullify EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Scheme, Web site, accessed April 5, 2010
  8. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ New Investigative Report Amber Waves of Gain Released, Defenders of Wildlife, April 10, 2000
  9. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Bill Berkowitz, Farm Bureau Is a Front, ZMagazine, 1 November 2000
  10. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Bill Berkowitz, Farm Bureau Is a Front, ZMagazine, 1 November 2000
  11. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Bill Berkowitz, Farm Bureau Is a Front, ZMagazine, 1 November 2000
  12. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Scotty Johnson, Sam Husseini Right-Wing Business in Farmer's Overalls: The American Farm Bureau Federation, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September/October 2000
  13. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ American Farm Bureau Federation About Us Web site, accessed April 5, 2010
  14. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Staff Directory, AFBF, accessed April 2010

External articles

External resources

Books

Categories: 

Bob Stallman is the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and chair of the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance, both front groups for big agribusiness. Tom Laskawy of Grist.org writes that Stallman "has a lengthy history of climate denial and obstructionism." He opposes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations to reduce greenhouse gases, saying “We vehemently oppose regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act because we believe it will require livestock producers and other agricultural operations to obtain costly and time-consuming permits as conditions to continue farming.”[1][2]

Contents

  [hide] 

Opposition to "The Nonstop Criticism of Contemporary Agriculture"

2010 Speech to Farm Bureau

Stallman made headlines in 2010 with a fiery speech to Farm Bureau members at their 91st AFBF Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington.[3] In it, he commented at length on "the nonstop criticism of contemporary agriculture!"

Stallman said:[3]

"Studies still show that consumers profess their admiration for us. Unfortunately, that admiration does not always extend to how we do what we do."Movies, magazine articles, undercover videos, all have sown seeds of doubt. Some members of our society question the values behind our tools and processes. They have begun to wonder about our moral compass."Our mission of feeding our nation and our world, caring for the environment and respecting the rights of our neighbors has not changed from our grandfathers’ days. But the ways in which we carry out that mission have."It is more vital than ever that we communicate about our values, that we convey how food production today is compatible with traditional ideals."We hear much about “sustainability,” which in my book is the most overused and ill-defined word in the policy arena today."The first sustainability for agriculture has to be economic sustainability."

He added:[3]

Already, there are too many external forces tugging at our seams. Emotionally charged labels such as: monoculture, factory farmer, industrial food, and big ag -- threaten to fray our edges."We must not let the activists and self-appointed – and self promoting -- food experts drive a wedge between us."

And:[3]

"There are a number of semi-organized movements taking shape across our land, led by citizens upset that their voices are going unheard. They fear a loss of control of their freedoms, their decisions, even their wallets."But, a line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and the way we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule."Our adversaries are skillful at taking advantage of our politeness. Publicly, they call for friendly dialogue while privately their tactics are far from that."Who could blame us for thinking that the avalanche of misguided, activist-driven regulation on labor and environment being proposed in Washington is anything but unfriendly."The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over."General George Patton was very quotable. He said that in times of war, “Make your plans to fit the circumstances.”"To those who expect to just roll over America’s farm and ranch families, my only message is this: The circumstances have changed."Just one example...the Ohio Farm Bureau embraced this attitude by taking the fight to the enemies of modern animal agriculture. Ohio’s Ballot Issue 2 was a big win and one we must duplicate far and wide."Farm Bureau members, I ask you the following questions:"Are we going to let animal rights activists destroy our ability to produce the meat that Americans want to eat? I say: No, we are not!"Are we going to stand idly by as the proponents of a bigger government choke us with regulation? I say: No, we are not!"Are we going to let the hysteria of doom and gloom climate change rhetoric diminish our ability to produce food for Americans and the rest of the world? I say: No we are not!"

Feeding the World

Stallman as an advocate of the idea that America must feed the world, an idea that promotes industrial, export-oriented agriculture in the United States and threatens that otherwise the world will be unable to produce enough calories to sustain the people on it.[3] He has praised Norman Borlaug as "one of the giants of agriculture" who "blazed the trail that led modern agriculture to higher production, to more food for mankind," adding:[3]

"Dr. Borlaug was the father of the green revolution. His work – in the field as well as the lab – saved millions of people from poverty and starvation."He believed that the first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind."According to the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization, the world will have to produce 70 percent more food in the next 40 years to feed an extra 2.3 billion people who will share our planet."In order to meet that challenge, we must prepare for a second Green Revolution. Our continued use of modern, efficient farming practices will allow us to succeed..."The world will continue to depend on food from the United States of America. And as global citizens, we must address those needs. To throttle back our ability to produce food -- at a time when the UN projects billions of more mouths to feed – is a moral failure."

Stallman listed controversial practices such as feedlots and animal confinements as well as genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) as necessary to feed the world.

The flaw in this rhetoric is twofold. First, producing an adequate supply of calories for each person on earth does not ensure their equitable distribution. This is already true as humanity produces more than enough calories at present to feed every man, woman, and child on earth, and yet hunger is widespread. Second, many scientists, including the authors of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, have concluded thatagroecology is the best way to produce enough food to meet the world's needs without exhausting the resources on the planet and while providing livelihoods to farmers.[4] This conclusion was seconded by UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier de Schutter in 2011.[5] The authors of the IAASTD report specifically rejected GMOs as necessary to feed the world.

Additionally, U.S. production of cheap, subsidized commodities is often cited as undercutting farmers around the world where the U.S. commodities are sold at prices the farmers cannot compete with. This practice is known as dumping.

Climate Change

Stallman on climate:[3]

"Even worse, the Climate Change legislation before Congress will sharply cut the number of acres devoted to food production."At the very time that we need to increase our food production, Climate Change legislation threatens to slash our ability to do so. The exact level of land that will shift to trees will depend on the price of carbon – a number nobody knows at this point – but USDA suggests we could easily be talking about 59 million acres."That’s like setting aside every acre of land used for crop and food production in California, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Tennessee."In today’s terms, that means eliminating about 130,000 farms and ranches that grow food and crops."The United States would be less able to provide the world a viable hunger safety net. Food prices here at home would shoot up. The result? Less food security and our climate would not improve, not even by one degree."

In 2010, the Farm Bureau petitioned against cap and trade legislation and distributed caps to members, campaigning on a slogan of "Don’t CAP Our Future."[3]

Professional Positions

Articles and Resources

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ American Farm Bureau Federation AFBF Calls on Congress to Nullify EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Scheme, March 31, 2010
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Scotty Johnson, Sam Husseini Right-Wing Business in Farmer's Overalls: The American Farm Bureau Federation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September/October 2000
  3. ↑ ^Jump ^up to:3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Transcript of Bob Stallman's Keynote Speech, American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Meeting, 2010.
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ IAASTD report, Accessed September 22, 2011.
  5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Olivier de Schutter, Agroecology and the Right to Food, March 8, 2011, Accessed September 22, 2011.
  6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Executive Committee, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, accessed January 19, 2009.

External Resources

Categories: 

==

Dean R. Kleckner is the chairman of the Truth About Trade and Technology website. According to the site, Kleckner "served seven two-year terms as president of theAmerican Farm Bureau Federation. Before becoming AFBF president, he was president of the Iowa Farm Bureau for ten years. He served on the American Farm Bureau's board of directors during that time. Mr. Kleckner owns a 350-acre family farm near Rudd, Iowa - raising corn, soybeans and hogs. As a strong advocate of reduced protectionism and freer trade worldwide, Mr. Kleckner was the only farmer on the U.S. advisory team to the GATT negotiations when they began in September 1986 in Uruguay. Kleckner served on the U.S. Trade Advisory Committee, first appointed by President Reagan, reappointed by President Bush, and reappointed twice by President Clinton. In that role, he has attended World Trade Organization meetings in Singapore, Brussels and Geneva." [1]

==

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Farmers_%26_Ranchers_Alliance

The U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) is a P.R. organization of "more than 20 of the leading farmer- and rancher-led agricultural organizations" that have "joined together to fund programs that bolster the image of agriculture and enhance public trust in our food supply."[1] The Alliance was formed in November 2010. They list as their objectives:[2]

  1. Increase consumer, consumer influencer and thought leader trust and confidence in today’s agriculture.2. Serve as a resource to food companies on the benefits of today’s agricultural production.3. Work with leading health, environmental and dietary organizations to demonstrate the benefits of today’s agricultural production.4. Increase the role of U.S. farmers and ranchers as the voice of animal and crop agriculture on local, state and national food issues.

USFRA was formed in response to negative publicity for the agriculture industry, including "the release of videos that show male chicks being put into grinders, egg-laying hens in battery cages and the mistreatment of hogs in large confinement operations."[3] Additionally, they cite opposition to genetically modified organisms, fertilizer, andpesticides as reasons for their creation. According to the USFRA, such negative publicity "threatens farmers' ability to produce food for the world's population." USFRA asserts that a mere 2 percent of farmers are the cause of the problems agriculture is criticized for by environmentalist and animal rights activists.

USFRA has hired the global advertising and PR agency Ketchum and "plans to launch a consumer-focused communications campaign this July [2011]."[4]

==