Tras este lenguaje superficial se esconden solo remedios vacíos: llamados inciertos a la “innovación” que mantienen a grupos de presión de la industria al mando de la salud comunitaria, pseudociencia en lugar de investigación confiable y tácticas dilatorias que exigen más estudios sobre problemas bien comprendidos. A su vez, esto deja intactos, e incluso envalentonados, los verdaderos impulsores de las enfermedades crónicas infantiles: la avaricia corporativa, la contaminación industrial, la pobreza y las desigualdades sistémicas.

Las familias merecen más que soluciones patrocinadas por corporaciones, y es por eso que Earthjustice está desmitificando el “aceite de serpiente” que esta administración está tratando de vender.

Venta de humo n.° 1: Salvaguardias sacrificadas por la “innovación”

El informe promociona la “innovación” mediante colaboraciones con el sector privado, utiliza términos de moda ambiguos como “agricultura de precisión”, pero no ofrece ninguna protección efectiva contra los pesticidas tóxicos vinculados a problemas de desarrollo neurológico infantil. En cambio, el informe filtrado engaña al público haciéndoles creer que las leyes sobre pesticidas ya son “sólidas”. No lo son, y por eso tantos padres y científicos están tan preocupados por las sustancias químicas tóxicas presentes en nuestras frutas y verduras.

Mientras tanto, exige suavizar las normas de contaminación química para mataderos y granjas industriales, lo que solo se traduce en más desechos animales en el agua que beben las familias y más gases en el aire que respiran los menores. El silencio sobre el uso excesivo de antibióticos en la alimentación animal, que genera resistencia que mata a 35.000 estadounidenses cada año, es tan revelador como mortal.

Proteger a la infancia debería implicar mayores protecciones contra pesticidas tóxicos, aire y agua contaminados, no debilitar las leyes para permitir que las grandes empresas agrícolas prioricen sus utilidades por encima de la salud infantil. Cuando el gobierno disfraza la agenda de lucro corporativo de innovación, no es más que una oculta explotación.

Venta de humo n.º 2: “Ciencia de referencia”

La estrategia de MAHA promete “ciencia de referencia”, pero no cita ninguna (la falta de citas es una omisión asombrosa, pero no sorprendente, dado el deficiente historial de credibilidad fáctica de la administración). En cambio, sustituye la evidencia por ideología y la ciencia de larga data y revisada por pares con tácticas dilatorias. Por ejemplo, el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Enfermedades Crónicas propuesto pretende “catalizar la ciencia transformadora de descubrimientos y estrategias de intervención” sobre los determinantes ambientales de la exposición a sustancias químicas, una conexión que se ha establecido durante años.

La administración incluso está recortando la financiación de la ciencia que afirma necesitar. El secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos de EE. UU., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., acaba de recortar casi 500 millones de dólares en investigación de vacunas, lo que frena los avances en el tratamiento del cáncer y la preparación para emergencias. El administrador de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA), Lee Zeldin, desmanteló la Oficina de Investigación y Desarrollo, disolvió los consejos asesores científicos independientes y retiró la financiación de los programas de investigación en salud infantil. Esto ocurre mientras el Congreso recorta Medicaid y el Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP), que proporciona asistencia alimentaria esencial a casi 40 millones de personas, incluido uno de cada cinco niños, al tiempo que proclama que estos programas son esenciales para la salud infantil.

En conjunto, estas acciones no solo son erróneas, sino que representan un desmantelamiento sistemático de la ciencia federal, lo que debilita las protecciones para la salud pública, la infancia y el medio ambiente. El gobierno está vendiendo un plan para una política enfermiza, no para mejorar la salud infantil.

Venta de humo n.° 3: Promover la salud, pero excluir las necesidades de las comunidades

La estrategia ignora lo obvio: los niños que viven en barrios cercanos a autopistas, plantas y plantas químicas sufren más asma, cáncer, plomo y envenenamiento por PFAS. La pobreza y el racismo agravan sistemáticamente estos daños. Sin embargo, este informe pretende que las familias de bajos ingresos no viven en lugares sobrecargados, mientras se enfrentan a dilemas imposibles entre pagar el alquiler, la gasolina o una alimentación nutritiva, lo que las deja en una situación de alta vulnerabilidad ante riesgos ambientales y para la salud.

Incluso las estructuras consultivas se están politizando para reforzar estas deficiencias. El Comité Asesor para la Protección de la Salud Infantil, históricamente un organismo independiente que proporcionaba recomendaciones con base científica, ahora se vería obligado a alinear sus directrices con la agenda política de MAHA. Este cambio corre el riesgo de convertir a un organismo asesor científico en un sello de aprobación de políticas favorables a las corporaciones, en lugar de un protector de la salud infantil.

Igualmente preocupante es la exclusión de las voces de la comunidad. La estrategia no intenta incorporar las perspectivas de padres, profesionales sanitarios de primera línea, docentes ni líderes locales, quienes sufren a diario las consecuencias de los riesgos ambientales. Cabe destacar que la estrategia MAHA incluso ignora el plomo en el agua potable y PFAS en alimentos y productos domésticos — dos importantes amenazas tóxicas que las comunidades llevan mucho tiempo instando al gobierno a abordar.

Si la política no se basa en las realidades de las familias a las que pretende servir, esta estrategia deja de ser una estrategia de salud y se convierte en un modelo para obtener ganancias, no para los niños.

El camino a seguir

En Earthjustice, este informe refuerza lo que ya sabemos: esta administración está presentando concesiones políticas como políticas de salud, mientras que margina la ciencia y desestima las voces de la comunidad. Por eso, creamos la Liga de Acción por la Equidad en la Salud y el Medio Ambiente (HEAL, por sus siglas en inglés que también significa “sanar”), una coalición de expertos en justicia ambiental, profesionales de la salud, científicos y defensores de la comunidad para garantizar que el Congreso ejerza la supervisión y que sus políticas se guíen por la evidencia, la equidad y salvaguardas comprobadas, lejos del alcance dañino de las grandes petroleras y la masiva industria agrícola.

La salud infantil no es moneda de cambio en política. Si esta administración no se enfrenta a los intereses corporativos por encima de las vidas humanas, nosotros sí. Las familias merecen aire limpio, agua potable y alimentos libres de sustancias químicas tóxicas, no otra venta de humo.

The post La ‘Cura’ de MAHA Es Una Venta de Humo Con Bata de Laboratorio appeared first on Earthjustice.

Behind the glossy language are just empty remedies: vague calls for “innovation” that keep industry lobbyists in the driver’s seat of communities’ health, pseudoscience in place of credible research, and stall tactics demanding more studies of problems that are well understood. In turn, it leaves the real drivers of children’s chronic illness — corporate greed, industrial pollution, poverty, and systemic inequities — untouched and even emboldened.

Families deserve more than corporate-sponsored fixes, which is why Earthjustice is demystifying the snake oil this administration is trying to sell.

Snake Oil #1: Safeguards Sacrificed for “Innovation”

The report touts “innovation” through private-sector partnerships, throws vague buzzwords like “precision agriculture,” but offers no enforceable protections from toxic pesticides that are linked to children’s neurodevelopment issues. Instead, the leaked report gaslights the public into believing that pesticide laws are already “robust.” They are not, and that’s why so many parents and scientists are so worried about toxic chemicals in our fruits and vegetables.

Meanwhile, it calls for weakening chemical pollution standards for slaughterhouses and factory farms, which only means more animal waste in the water families drink and fumes in the air children breathe. The silence on antibiotic overuse in animal feed, which drives resistance that kills 35,000 Americans each year, is as telling as it is deadly.

Protecting children should mean stronger safeguards from toxic pesticides, dirty air, and polluted water, not weakening laws to allow Big Ag to put profits ahead of kids’ health. When the government dresses up a corporate-profit agenda as innovation, it is doing nothing more than exploitation in disguise.

Snake Oil #2: “Gold-Standard Science,” Hold the Science

The MAHA strategy promises “gold-standard science,” yet cites none (the lack of citations is an astonishing, but not surprising omission given the administration’s failing track record on factual credibility). Instead, it substitutes ideology for evidence, and delay tactics for longstanding, peer-reviewed science. For example, the proposed Task Force on Chronic Disease is purported to “catalyze transformative discovery science and intervention strategies” on the environmental determinants of chemical exposure, a connection that has been established for years.

The administration is even defunding the science it says it needs. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just cut nearly $500 million in vaccine research, stalling breakthroughs in cancer treatment and emergency preparedness. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin gutted the Office of Research and Development, dissolved independent scientific advisory boards, and defunded children’s health research programs. This is happening as Congress makes cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides critical food assistance for nearly 40 million people, including one in five children, while simultaneously proclaiming these programs are essential to children’s health.

Taken together, these actions aren’t just misguided; they represent a systematic dismantling of federal science, weakening protections for public health, children, and the environment. The administration is selling a plan for sick politics, not healthy children.

Snake Oil #3: Promoting Health, but Excluding Communities’ Needs

The strategy ignores the obvious: kids in neighborhoods near highways, plants, and chemical sites suffer higher asthma, cancer, lead, and PFAS poisoning. Poverty and racism make those harms systemically worse. Yet this report pretends low-income families don’t live in overburdened places while facing impossible tradeoffs between paying rent, gas, or nutritious food, leaving them highly vulnerable to environmental and health risks.

Even advisory structures are being politicized to reinforce these failures. The Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, historically an independent body providing science-based recommendations, would now be forced to “align” its guidance with MAHA’s political agenda. This change risks turning a scientific advisory body into a rubber stamp for corporate-friendly policies rather than a protector of children’s health.

Equally concerning is the exclusion of community voices. The strategy makes no attempt to incorporate insights from parents, frontline healthcare providers, teachers, or local leaders; those who experience the consequences of environmental hazards daily. Notably, the MAHA strategy even ignores lead in drinking water and PFAS in food and household products, two major toxic threats communities have long urged the government to address.

Without grounding policy in the realities of the families it purports to serve, this strategy ceases to be a health strategy at all; it becomes a blueprint for profit, not children.

The Way Forward

At Earthjustice, this report reinforces what we already know: this administration is repackaging political giveaways as health policy while sidelining science and neglecting community voices. It is why we launched the Health Equity and Environment Action League (HEAL) a coalition of environmental justice experts, health professionals, scientists and community advocates to ensure Congress exercises oversight and its policies are guided by evidence, equity, and proven safeguards, away from the harmful reach of Big Oil and Big Ag.

Children’s health isn’t a political bargaining chip. If this administration won’t stand up to corporate interests over human lives, we will. Families deserve clean air, safe water, and food free from toxic chemicals — not another bottle of snake oil.

The post MAHA’s Health “Cure” Is Just Snake Oil in a Lab Coat appeared first on Earthjustice.

Zeldin’s Claim: Public Health Will Be Fine Without Health Protections

Zeldin confidently asserts that the Trump administration’s plan to gut 31 public health safeguards have “absolutely” no adverse health effects on people.

The Truth: Just 12 of the 31 environmental rollbacks proposed by the Trump administration could cause nearly 200,000 premature deaths in the next 25 years and trigger more than 10,000 asthma attacks every single day. These rollbacks include weakening mercury and air toxics limits for coal plants, limits for chemical air pollution from factories, and gutting wastewater protections for oil and gas operations. The estimates come from the Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA officials sounding the alarm on the deadly consequences of dismantling basic public health safeguards.

Zeldin’s Claim: Eliminating ‘Environmental Justice’ Grants Is Justified

Zeldin criticized environmental justice initiatives, labeling them as “scams” and accusing them of misusing taxpayer money. He points to grants awarded to organizations like the Climate United Fund, which received nearly $7 billion despite being newly established.

The Truth: Getting rid of environmental justice programs takes away one of the few tools people have to stand up to pollution in their neighborhoods. (Even House Speaker Mike Johnson sought an environmental justice grant for his Louisiana district). Research shows that low-income communities and communities of color are much more likely to breathe toxic air, live near factories, highways, and waste sites — places where the air is harder to breathe and the water isn’t always safe to drink. These programs have long helped remedy those unfair conditions by reducing disparities between who has access to clean air, clean water, and a safe place to live, across the nation.

Zeldin’s Claim: Cutting Health Protections Will Drive Economic Growth

Zeldin and the Trump administration claim that stripping away environmental safeguards will jumpstart economic growth, especially in industries like energy and manufacturing. They argue that removing so-called “regulatory burdens” will lead to job creation and more investment — even if it means loosening protections that keep air and water clean.

The Truth: Pollution doesn’t just harm our health — it drives up healthcare costs, leads to missed work, and leaves taxpayers with the cleanup bill. And despite what some claim, it’s not necessarily good for the economy. An Earthjustice review of federal data shows that 14 major metro areas grew their economies while cutting pollution — including Dallas, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Detroit, to name just four. Clean air protections don’t hold us back, they help communities thrive. And in places already struggling financially, more pollution only makes people sicker and harder for them to get ahead.

Zeldin’s Claim: Firing Staff and Reorganizing the EPA Will Improve Efficiency

While Zeldin was firing hundreds of EPA employees, he also announced a major reorganization of the agency — including the creation of new offices focused on air partnerships, clean air programs, and applied science. He claims these changes will enhance transparency and efficiency

The Truth: Restructuring the EPA while slashing its workforce and budget undermines the very efficiency Zeldin claims to promote. Pushing out experienced staff and cutting funding weakens the agency’s ability to protect public health and the environment. It also limits the EPA’s ability to enforce clean air and water protections or hold corporations accountable when they pollute. At a time when pollution, chemical exposure, and climate threats are growing, hollowing out the EPA makes it less effective — not more.

Administrator Zeldin’s claims about the benefits of gutting protections and scrapping community-focused programs fall apart under even the briefest scrutiny. These moves don’t make us safer — they endanger lives and threaten decades of hard-won gains on public health. But Earthjustice isn’t standing by. We’re fighting alongside communities across the country to protect clean air, safe water, and a healthy future from Zeldin, the Trump administration, and corporate polluters.

The post Zeldin’s EPA Spin Is Full of Myths — Here’s the Reality appeared first on Earthjustice.

Low-income communities, particularly Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous families, disproportionately suffer from environmental hazards — polluted air, contaminated water, toxic waste sites — from a dark history of colonization and redlining. These aren’t abstract threats; they are daily realities. Medicaid is one of the few tools these communities have to access healthcare for the diseases caused by environmental injustices. If we allow cuts to Medicaid, we are sentencing people to worsening health crises, higher costs down the line, and an ever-deepening racial health gap.

The Hidden Costs of Cutting Medicaid

Let’s talk dollars and sense. Proponents of Medicaid cuts claim that reducing government spending will balance the budget. What they don’t tell you is that cutting Medicaid doesn’t eliminate healthcare costs — it simply shifts them.

When people lose Medicaid coverage, they don’t stop getting sick. They don’t suddenly stop having asthma attacks from air pollution or developing lead poisoning from outdated water infrastructure. Instead, they delay treatment, leading to more severe and costly conditions that land them in emergency rooms. States that expanded Medicaid saw a 6% reduction in unpaid hospital bills, meaning fewer people relied on emergency care without coverage.

Meanwhile, states that refused expansion saw higher uncompensated care costs, which ultimately fall on hospitals and taxpayers. Beyond individual health costs, cutting Medicaid increases economic strain on local economies. When people can’t afford to manage chronic conditions, they miss more work, decreasing workforce productivity. A study found that Medicaid expansion actually led to greater workforce participation among low-income adults, debunking the myth that Medicaid promotes dependency.

Environmental Injustice and the Medicaid Safety Net

The intersection of Medicaid and environmental justice is undeniable. Low-income communities of color are more likely to live near highways, industrial plants, and toxic waste sites — areas with disproportionately high rates of asthma, cancer, and other pollution-related diseases. These are the same communities that rely on Medicaid to treat the very illnesses caused by environmental racism.

Cutting Medicaid means fewer asthma medications for children in the Bronx, where hospitalization rates are eight times higher than the national average. It means fewer cancer screenings for residents in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” where Black communities are exposed to some of the highest levels of industrial pollution in the country. It means fewer resources for Flint, Michigan, where a lead contamination crisis poisoned thousands of children — many of whom rely on Medicaid for long-term developmental support. This is a matter of racial justice. One in three Black Americans and nearly one in three Hispanic Americans rely on Medicaid. Cuts to this program disproportionately harm communities already battling the health impacts of systemic pollution.

Connecting the Dots: Medicaid and EPA Cuts Go Hand in Hand

If cutting Medicaid is an attack on environmental justice, then cutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an outright war. The same lawmakers who argue that Medicaid is “too expensive” are the ones slashing EPA budgets, gutting enforcement of pollution laws, and rolling back regulations that protect our air and water.

Take, for example, the repeated attempts to weaken the Clean Air Act. Research has shown that reducing air pollution saves thousands of lives each year. But when the EPA cuts enforcement and slashes funding for pollution monitoring, air quality worsens — hitting marginalized communities first and hardest. And guess who foots the bill for the health fallout? Medicaid.

It’s a vicious cycle: Lawmakers weaken pollution protections, communities get sicker, Medicaid costs rise, and then they turn around and claim Medicaid is too expensive. Instead of addressing the root causes of health disparities — pollution, environmental degradation, corporate negligence — they cut the very programs that help people survive them.

The Real Fiscal Responsibility

If we’re serious about cutting costs, we should be expanding Medicaid, not gutting it. We should be increasing EPA funding, not rolling it back. Investing in preventive healthcare and environmental protections saves money in the long run. Every dollar spent on environmental health interventions yields an average return of $17 in health benefits.

When people have access to healthcare, they’re more productive, more resilient, less reliant on emergency services, and less likely to suffer long-term economic consequences from preventable diseases. When we enforce environmental regulations, we reduce the burden of pollution-related illnesses, lowering healthcare costs for everyone.

The real question isn’t whether we can afford Medicaid. It’s whether we can afford the alternative — rising healthcare costs, worsening racial disparities, and a public health crisis spiraling out of control.

What’s next?

Let’s call these Medicaid cuts what they really are: a moral failure, an economic miscalculation, and an environmental justice catastrophe. If we care about fiscal responsibility, racial equity, and public health, we should be fighting to expand Medicaid, not defund it. We cannot afford to let Republicans’ political games put lives at risk. The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of care.

The post Medicaid, Pollution, and Policy Failures — An Overlooked Cycle appeared first on Earthjustice.

During Trump’s first presidency, he oversaw the dismantling of dozens of environmental rules, targeting everything from air quality standards and chemical exposure to clean water protections. This time there’s even a playbook: Project 2025, a far-right policy blueprint engineered by Trump loyalists that maps out a step-by-step plan to dismantle health protections to favor polluters. The strategy is clear: decimate safeguards for chemical safety, undermine air quality rules, and unravel hard-won drinking water protections at the worst possible time. As it is, minority communities endure nearly eight times higher rates of pediatric asthma and 1.3 times higher risk of dying prematurely from exposure to pollutants.

Based on Project 2025 and his track record of prioritizing profits over people, pollution over health, here’s how Trump’s anti-environmental agenda is set to reverse progress on public health and environmental justice.

Chemical Safety

Chemicals seep into nearly every corner of modern life — they invade our homes, workplaces, clothing, drinking water, and even the paint on our walls. They’re not just around us; they’re in us. In fact, some 20, 000 pounds of chemicals are produced annually for each person in the United States. Many of these are harmful, even carcinogenic, and most haven’t been fully studied.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is supposed to ensure these chemicals are managed to prevent harm. But under a new Trump administration, the EPA’s ability to regulate toxic chemicals would almost certainly be undermined. This will make it easier for chemical companies to ramp up flooding the market with dangerous substances like new PFAS, a class of forever chemicals linked to cancers and developmental damage to infants and children, that despite historic protections in the Biden EPA, still lacks stringent safeguards.

Pro-chemical Trump officials are likely to demand that the EPA wait for unattainable certainty of harm before regulating toxic chemicals. This would delay safety actions and overlook that if the EPA waited for absolute certainty — a slow process unsupported by the National Academies of Sciences — more people would face serious health risks like cancer and neurodevelopmental harm. Plus, the agency already struggles to meet the precautionary approach it strives for, so any further weakening would be a death sentence for vulnerable communities.

Air Quality Standards

The first Trump administration delayed or gutted standards on smog, soot, and other toxic emissions, and Trump 2.0 is poised to launch a full-scale assault on the Clean Air Act, one of the most effective tools we have to protect communities. Indeed, Trump operatives have their crosshairs on essential air regulations like Biden’s strengthened soot standards, the expanded Mercury & Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the ‘Once In, Always In’ rule, which puts emission limits on major pollution sources like power plants and heavy manufacturing.

These protections are supported by decades of science showing that reducing air pollution prevents thousands of premature deaths, lowers rates of asthma and respiratory disease, and reduces cardiovascular illness. Weakening these standards would only deepen health disparities, exposing millions — especially in vulnerable communities — to toxic air. Simply put, air policies are health policies and dismantling the Clean Air Act would deal a major blow to environmental justice, worsening racial and socioeconomic health disparities from increased pollution.

Clean Water Safeguards

In 2017, Trump issued an Executive Order calling for a “review” of the EPA regulations protecting our waterways, before proposing their removal and ushering extreme deregulation under the guise of promoting economic growth and states’ rights. And while Trump’s efforts to reduce Clean Water Act protections, were opposed by the EPA’s scientific advisory board, and were later ruled illegal by the courts thanks to an Earthjustice lawsuit, they foreshadowed the 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision, when the Supreme Court removed federal protections for over 65% of wetlands and millions of miles of streams.

Despite overwhelming public support for water safeguards, a second Trump administration will almost certainly further erode clean water protections. His EPA will likely exacerbate the Sackett ruling through administrative actions, will likely target newer protections regulating PFAS in drinking water, and will likely attempt to weaken the new Biden rule requiring removal of lead service lines. The fact is Trump, his appointees, and congressional Republicans are obsessed with gutting clean water rules for corporate profit.

A Clear Path Forward

Without federal environmental protections, chemical companies, Big Oil and Gas, Big Ag, and mining corporations can pad their bottom lines faster and with fewer consequences. Stripped of EPA oversight, they can drill, frack, and pollute without a second thought about the water we drink, the air we breathe, or the communities left to deal with the toxic fallout. When environmental protections disappear, it’s ultimately our neighborhoods, our families, our children, who are left cleaning up the mess — or worse, continue living with it.

Given the stakes, this is a call to action to the most consequential fight of our lifetimes. We’ve been here before, we know the harm, and we know what works. Policies like the Inflation Reduction Act prove that clean energy investments and stronger infrastructure can transform communities. And when the EPA is free to prioritize science and public health, the improvement is undeniable.

With an egregiously anti-public health agenda looming ahead, we have a roadmap forward: Build partnership with champions in Congress to combat every attempt to rollback, diminish, and demolish health protections, defend scientific integrity as the bedrock of environmental policy, and defend transparent, evidence-based standards that hold polluters accountable. Most importantly, we must turn significant resources, recognition, and amplitude to the real leaders in this fight: grassroots communities, whose expertise has been synonymous with the backbone of environmental justice for decades. In their stories, wisdom, and sacrifice, we hold sacred that clean air and safe water are not privileges, but rights for all.

The post Just More of the Same in Trump’s Tired Anti-Environmental Agenda appeared first on Earthjustice.

This year’s Farm Bill reauthorization could provide us with an opportunity to build on climate-smart programs that are in high demand and already in use by many farmers across the country. Instead, the current House version of the bill hinders this progress. It threatens to dismantle critical conservation investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, expose more farmers and our food supply to climate disasters, and undermine the ability of our public forests to serve as natural climate solutions. Here are four ways the House Farm Bill would hurts farmers, communities, and forests:  

1. Thwarts Climate Progress in Agriculture: When Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, it included nearly $20 billion for climate-smart guardrails in USDA conservation programs, so farmers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions had access to federal funding and assistance. The current House Farm Bill rescinds those guardrails, diverting funds from proven practices like cover cropping to instead help subsidize large equipment purchases and costly practices under an expanded definition of “precision agriculture.” The problem? There is a large demand for these conservation programs that often exceeds funding. Conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) pay farmers to implement voluntary conservation practices on their land, with an eye towards emissions reductions and soil and water quality, among others. Farmers wanting to participate oftentimes are turned away. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) this year alone turned away 74% of EQIP applicants and 60% of CSP applicants. Without these investments to help them implement resilient practices and adapt to climate change, agriculture sector emissions could increase 32 percent by 2050. Moreover, the House proposal lacks in its protection of other climate initiatives, such as prohibiting solar production on converted covered farmland, failing to fund the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) program, which invests more than 20% of its funding towards climate mitigation and received $185 million in mandatory funding in the last two Farm Bills, and codifying funding for the Climate Hubs, a non-partisan research consortium that offers cutting edge tools that farmers use daily, like the Drought Monitor. 
2. Puts Corporate Profits Over Health: All communities, from the farmworkers who pick our food, to those who buy it on supermarket shelves, to children and teachers, deserve to be free from the negative health impacts of dangerous pesticides. Instead, this Farm Bill strips state and local governments’ ability to protect their communities and would result in the elimination of hundreds of local bans on the use of pesticides around parks, schools, and drinking water supplies. The bill also absolves chemical companies from liability when their dangerous pesticides harm the public and ties the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect communities, wrongly prohibiting the EPA from taking any action on a pesticide that is inconsistent with a previous risk assessment—regardless of how outdated that assessment may be.  
3. Undermining Nutrition Programs: More than 40 million families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities access food through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s largest and most important anti-hunger program. The current Farm Bill proposal freezes any future updates aside from inflation adjustments to the Thrifty Food Program (TFP), the basis for calculating SNAP benefits. The limits placed on TFP diminish the purchasing power of SNAP recipients, cut SNAP benefits by $30 billion over 10 years, and weaken the program’s ability to meet its core mission—ending hunger and food insecurity. 
4. Weakening Environmental Protections for our Forests: The current House bill continues the Republican-led assault on our bedrock environmental protections. It severely undermines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) with new categorical exclusions and massive expansions of existing categorical exclusions while failing to protect communities from wildfire. Additionally, it removes the requirement to reinitiate consultation of land management plans when new information indicates they may be harming endangered species. In an incredibly egregious handout to the logging and biomass industry, the bill would declare that woody or forest biomass as well as related facilities like landfills automatically have a greenhouse gas emission rate or carbon intensity of zero or less and are somehow ‘carbon neutral’—against all scientific reasoning. These forest provisions are yet another effort to remove science and public participation from decision-making processes, putting communities and habitats at risk from polluting industries. 

In its current form, the House Farm Bill fails to meet the moment and address our current challenges. A partisan process like this one is proving to be detrimental to the farmers and families across the country dependent on robust Farm Bill funding. We need a bipartisan process that provides unwavering support to our nation’s farmers, invests in climate solutions, and respects science-based, sustainable, and justice-driven decision-making. We can’t afford anything less.  

The post House Farm Bill Squanders Environmental Opportunities appeared first on Earthjustice.

Earthjustice wholeheartedly supports Senator Stabenow’s approach and her dedication to preserving IRA funding for climate-smart agriculture. Given the broad and expansive footprint of agriculture, reducing agricultural emissions must be a central part of any strategy designed to mitigate climate change. 

In recent discussions, some have suggested that IRA’s climate-smart requirements could undermine farmers or traditional conservation goals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it’s important to debunk the myths feeding this false narrative. 

Myth 1: IRA Conservation Funds Are a Limited Benefit to Farmers 

Critics of the IRA claim that conservation resources are not effective in supporting farmers, citing concerns that the climate-smart requirements for IRA eligibility are too restrictive and include only a few funded projects. However, a closer look reveals a different story. 

The IRA has dramatically improved access to conservation programs, making more funding available to ALL farmers for ALL conservation activities. It’s important to remember that more farmers seek conservation funding than the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been able to award; in other words, already existing farmer demand exceeds the funds. With the IRA structure, more funding will go straight to what farmers have already indicated they want – climate-focused practices and other conservation methods. For example in FY21, the Climate Stewardship Program (CSP) had $750 million available for new contracts, with about 30 percent allocated to Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry (CSAF) practices. In FY22, the CSP had $800 million, with 38 percent supporting CSAF practices. This allocation for CSAF practices is comparable to the $250 million allocated to CSP in FY23 by the IRA. With the IRA’s supplemental funding pools, there’s ample funding available to meet this demand for CSAF practices and increase Farm Bill funding available for these and other conservation activities. The IRA aims to potentially increase the funding pool for conventional conservation efforts in FY23, potentially offering as much as $1 billion in available funds, effectively doubling the current amount. 

A similar trend is observed in EQIP. In FY21, EQIP had approximately $1.267 billion available for new contracts, with about 30 percent allocated to CSAF practices. In FY22, this increased to about $1.282 billion, with 31 percent supporting CSAF practices. The IRA allocated $250 million to EQIP in FY23, again aligning with the demand for CSAF practices. This ensures that farmers who wish to implement these practices have ample funding available. 

Additionally, any and every farmer can choose to apply for this funding and benefit from the greenhouse gas-reducing and carbon-sequestering activities, such as cover crops and reduced tillage.  Some argue that the IRA funds only GHG-reducing practices, but the IRA also funds those healthy soil practices that can increase the carbon stored in soils or reduce the energy used on farms. And, thanks to the IRA funding, fewer applicants will be turned away, which helps bridge issues of oversubscription for conservation programs. The notion that only a fraction of projects would meet the IRA’s requirements is simply not accurate. 

Myth 2: The IRA Ignores Local Conservation Needs and Demands for Specific Practices 

Another myth is that the IRA exclusively prioritizes certain activities, overlooking the diverse conservation, natural resource, and wildlife habitat needs of farmers and ranchers. This claim is misleading, as the IRA’s focus on climate-smart agriculture complements, not replaces, broader environmental efforts. 

 The IRA’s allocation of funds to CSAF practices does not imply neglect of local needs. Instead, the IRA provides additional resources to address climate-smart agriculture and forestry activities, which are vital in combating climate change. The dual funding structure of the IRA makes it so that the funding functions as a supplemental pool of money for key programs like CSP, EQIP, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). The separate pool of funding that has been available for traditional conservation work for decades through the Farm Bill remains unchanged. Farmers retain the flexibility to choose the conservation approach that best suits their needs. Whether it’s CSAF practices or traditional conservation activities, there are now more resources available to support farmers’ initiatives. 

Myth 3: The IRA Leaves Traditional Conservation Practices Behind 

Some argue that traditional conservation practices, vital to agriculture and sustainability, are being left behind by the IRA.  It’s important to remember that IRA funding is only one piece of the larger conservation puzzle. The IRA seeks to balance climate-smart agriculture with traditional conservation efforts.  

Many traditional conservation practices, including prescribed fire, brush management, and efficient irrigation, remain essential for achieving producers’ sustainability goals. While these practices may not qualify as climate-smart on their own, they are still valuable for addressing broader conservation and environmental concerns — and the IRA does nothing to discourage them. By adding funding for climate-focused practices, the IRA actually frees up funds from other Farm Bill programs – which are always oversubscribed – for these practices. 

The Inflation Reduction Act represents a significant step forward in supporting agriculture and conservation. It has created an opportunity to establish a dedicated, permanent source of funds for farmers addressing climate change within their operations.  It is imperative that Congress protect the IRA funding as is, as these resources would both mitigate climate risks for farmers and increase the resources available for broader conservation concerns. 

Sen. Stabenow is championing a holistic approach that pairs climate-smart practices with traditional conservation methods. Ultimately, this will benefit farmers, ranchers, and the environment by not only reducing emissions but promoting sustainable agriculture and protecting our natural resources. 

The post Debunking Myths: The Real Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Farmers appeared first on Earthjustice.

The import of this express acknowledgment of the connection between climate change and agriculture cannot be overstated.  While many recognize the impact that climate change has on agriculture – how the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, heat waves and fires dramatically harm farmers and ranchers – few understand the full extent to which the agriculture sector contributes to the warming planet. It is far more significant than most realize, primarily due to methane emissions from cows and manure and the impact of using so much land.  In fact, agriculture’s true contribution to climate change is on par with the electricity and transportation sectors, and we simply cannot achieve our climate goals without effectively and dramatically reducing emissions from this sector.  And yet, just four years ago, when Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill — legislation that provides over $20 billion of annual subsidies for programs that directly influence what, where, and how farmers produce our food — there was not a single mention of climate throughout the hundreds of pages of the law. (Fortunately, many of the practices that reduce soil loss or water pollution also help curb climate change, so the bill’s conservation programs do provide some support for climate change mitigation.)

We have come a long way in four years, but still have far to go.  The IRA is a critical first step in acknowledging the climate footprint of the agriculture sector and taking appropriate action.  By explicitly linking agricultural funding to climate change mitigation practices, the IRA provides a model for how Congress can more effectively address climate change in the 2023 Farm Bill. We hope Congress will build on this next year and direct most of the farm bill’s conservation funding to practices that will help strengthen climate change mitigation and climate resiliency. 

View the Earthjustice Sustainable Food and Farming Program’s explainer on Agriculture’s Climate Impact here: Agriculture’s Contributions to Climate Change: Accounting for Agriculture’s Broad Climate Footprint

The post Inflation Reduction Act Shows Congress — At Last — Understands Agriculture’s Contribution To Climate Change And The Opportunities To Reduce It appeared first on Earthjustice.

One particular story is starting to fade quickly into history: That of the Punjabi-Mexican families of California, a community born from historical necessity and made possible by fortuitous cultural parallels.

In the early 20th century, close to 5,000 men from the Indian state of Punjab journeyed to the American West in search of work and a better life, away from the persecution and colonialism of British rule. Much like many Asian agrarian workers before them from China, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines, these Indian men had a pedigree of farming from generations in India. They settled in California in hopes of earning enough wages to return home, or bring their families to the land of opportunity. Instead, they found themselves stranded in a country that soon passed a wave of immigration legislation, effectively closing its borders to foreigners.

Luckily, these men found success in farming Californian fields, where they used water from the Colorado River to irrigate the desert, a way of farming familiar to them from their homeland, and revolutionized farming techniques to create the most productive agricultural economy in the country. While they were unable to bring family members into America’s borders, they found family in Mexican women, who had also recently migrated shortly following the Mexican Civil War of 1910. As both groups were isolated from their own in a new land, they found each other.

While interracial marriage was illegal in California at the time, Mexicans and Indians found an unexpected pathway to solidarity. Both ethnic groups were categorized as “Brown.” At the county record office, no one knew, nor cared, of the differences in their backgrounds. This afforded them the legal privileges of marriage and a unique, distinct bi-ethnic community. Thus began the union of Punjabi-Mexican families, who shared experiences of rural life, food, culture, and facing discrimination in America.

These families built a diasporic identity that is undoubtedly American in its cultural exchange and adaptability: Punjabi men learned Spanish to communicate with their wives and other Mexican laborers. The Mexican women drew from both Indian and Mexican cuisines, equating Indian roti to tortilla to make chicken curry quesadillas. Both cultures were accustomed to eating on the floor in communal environments. In the midst of contemporary discussions about multiculturalism and the global visibility of migration, this story is compelling in its thoughtful consideration of “ethnicity,” and the facets of one’s identity that can exist in multitudes. It is also a story that outlines the fraught itineraries of Asian American immigrant histories and how they are told through ideas about Asian American foodways, given the potent forces of class, racial, ethnic and gender inequalities.

Today, the Punjabi community in California is one of the largest in the world. The descendants of the early Punjabi-Mexican families remain culturally linked to the country’s farmland. A quarter of California’s Punjabi Americans work in agriculture. People with Punjabi origins own farms on 10% of the state’s cropland, and Punjabi American-owned farms produce over half of the county’s raisins and almonds.

Over time, Punjabi farmers continued to farm in a way that was outsize for their population groups, helping to establish many vegetable and fruit orchards in the country, despite an often hostile environment toward their race. During the ongoing Punjabi Farmers’ Protest in India from 2020, California’s Punjabi farmers protested in solidarity with their counterparts in India, moving across oceanic networks to create collective power and unity.

While these legacies remain, Asian American agricultural contributions have largely been erased, while an overwhelmingly White ownership base took over the country’s farmland, leaning into Asian vegetables and herbs (such as ginger) and food philosophies (such as Ayurveda). Plant-based and vegetable-forward dining trends are dominated by White chefs. But the principles of farming and purveying produce with a focus on quality and sustainability — values that have been eschewed with the advent of large-scale, industrial agriculture — have held strong for many Asian American producers and food business owners. Despite their tenure as essential and highly-skilled agrarians contributing to the nation’s plate for over a century, their efforts on the farm and in our cultural landscape goes unnoticed. This, and the recent rise in hate crimes remind Americans of Asian descent that they are still seen as perpetual foreigners.

Behind every migration story is an act of survival, a battle of staggering odds, and an endurance of exploitation. Through the acknowledgment of Asian immigrant farmers, we can move closer to recognizing how fundamental people of Asian descent have always been to the history and future of the country’s food and farming systems. We can recognize that political and social solidarity has been necessary through our country’s history of racism and discriminatory policies. And we can recognize that what America eats is shaped by generations of cultural reclamation.

The post How Asian American Farmers Shaped Our Cultural Food Landscape appeared first on Earthjustice.