25
Jun
GOP Senate Farm Bill Framework, Similar to House Bill, Elevates Threat to Health, Biodiversity, and Climate
(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2024) It has been a couple of weeks since U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR), ranking GOP member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, released the Republican framework vision without statutory language for a Senate Farm Bill that would renew the law’s commitment to chemical-intensive agriculture and undermines efforts to curtail pesticide use and hold chemical company polluters accountable. In his press statement, Sen. Boozman issues an approach that largely mirrors the House-side text, passed by the House Agriculture Committee earlier this month in a 33-21 vote. On the same day that Sen. Boozman announced the framework, the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee approved the federal food and agriculture budget for Fiscal Year 2025 with a $355 million cut from last year’s budget, affecting specific programs that support pollinator health, ecosystem health, and public health related to pesticide use and organic agriculture. The full House Appropriations Committee will vote on this budget on July 10 before moving to the House floor. Advocates are adamant in their resolve to demand more – not less – support from Congress to address the climate emergency, insect apocalypse, and public health implications borne from reliance on toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.
The Senate GOP framework alludes to federal preemption of state and local governance on pesticides, agriculture, and public health in Title X Horticulture title: “Restates and reaffirms U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) obligation with respect to the federal and state regulatory process.” Moreover, in Title XII Miscellaneous: “Protects the ability of livestock producers to raise and sell products into interstate commerce without interference from other states.” Environmental and health advocates believe that these two points refer to House-approved text carrying over from the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, respectively, and would effectively:
- Prohibit the right to sue for failure to warn when harmed by pesticides. In Section 10204 of the House Farm Bill, language shields (gives immunity to) the producers and users of toxic pesticides from liability lawsuits associated with the harm that their products cause. The provision will block lawsuits like those successfully advanced against Bayer/Monsanto for adverse health effects, like cancer, associated with exposure to their products and companies’ failure to warn about these effects on EPA approved product labels.
- Prohibit the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. In Sections 10204 and 10205, language would prevent local and state governments from passing pesticide ordinances or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations that conflict with (aka more stringent than) federal regulations and policy.
Advocates are also concerned about some of the provisions regarding organic agriculture funding. While there is mention of annual increases in National Organic Program funding over the next five years in Title VII Research, Extension, and Related Matters, there is also mention of the need to conduct an “efficacy study” on the Organic Certification Cost-Share program to ensure that it does “not unnecessarily and unreasonably increas[e] the cost of organic certification.” Organic farmers and gardeners have spoken favorably of this program given the upfront costs and barriers to certification that falls on farmers. Expanded funding through the launch of the Biden Administration’s Organic Transition Initiative in 2022 provided $300 million in additional funding to support transitional farmers, including through the cost-share program.
The Fiscal Year 2025 budget for agricultural and food programs that moved out of the House Appropriations subcommittee aligns with industry interests in selecting programs to defund and increase funding based on profits rather than human or ecological wellbeing. For example, according to the funding summary provided by the subcommittee, the Natural Resources Conservation (NRCS) budget is $11.9 million below last year’s enacted level and all funding for climate hubs was rejected. Additionally, the Risk Management Agency (RMS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)—in which National Organics Standards Board sits—falls $3.8 million and 30.7 million, respectively, below 2024 fiscal year levels. The budget also ignores the importance of centering environmental justice in USDA funding priorities, “Prohibiting the Biden Administration’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); Prohibiting funds for the USDA’s new DEI Office; [and p]rohibiting the use of funds to promote or advance critical race theory.” Safety advocates view this proposed budget as a signal to undermine pesticide regulation and services that farmers rely on to transition to organic practices with the goal of acquiring and attaining certification.
Environmental and health advocates look no further than the substantial body of scientific literature that indicates the holistic benefits of a wholesale transition to organic agriculture and land management practices. A study published in World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology finds that organic farming systems have three times the proportion of beneficial fungi relative to chemical-intensive farms that rely on toxic pesticides. “Altogether, our results uncover that beyond differences in microbial community composition between the two farming systems, fungal keystone nodes are far more relevant in the organic farming system, thus suggesting that bacteria-fungi interactions are more frequent in organic farming systems, promoting a more functional microbial community,” according to an interdisciplinary team of Brazil-based researchers responsible for conducting the study. Various other studies corroborate this enhancement of soil health through microbial activity, including a study published this year in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Farmland managed with organic principles and practices have also been found to lead to a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions while increase in total farmland (including chemical intensive farmland) leads to an increase in GHG emissions, according to a Journal of Cleaner Production study from 2023.
See Keeping Organic Strong to learn more about engaging with the National Organic Standards Board and the environmental justice, public health, and biodiversity benefits of transitioning to organic. See Action of the Week to demand Congress strengthen funding for organic agriculture and pesticide regulation in the Farm Bill, including this action to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to support a Farm Bill that promotes a sustainable future.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Office of Senator John Boozman
