www.ewg.org Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:10::6816:174b  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

GET /search

<form action="/search" method="get" data-once="form-updated" data-drupal-form-fields="site-search">
  <div class="search-field"><label for="site-search">Search this Site</label> <input id="site-search" name="fullsearch" placeholder="Enter a keyword or phrase" type="search"></div>
  <div class="form-actions"><input type="submit" value="submit"></div>
</form>

GET /search

<form action="/search" method="get" data-once="form-updated" data-drupal-form-fields="site-search2">
  <div class="search-field"><label for="site-search2">Search this Site</label> <input id="site-search2" name="fullsearch" placeholder="Enter a keyword or phrase" type="search"></div>
  <div class="form-actions"><input type="submit" value="submit"></div>
</form>

Text Content

Menu
 * Who We Are Open submenu
 * Areas of Focus Open submenu
 * Consumer Guides
 * Research
 * News & Insights Open submenu
 * Take Action Open submenu
 * Donate

 * Creators of Skin Deep Database Tapwater Database EWG Verified The New
   Lede(link is external)Search

Close submenuWho We Are
 * Our Mission
 * Our Impact
 * Our Team
 * Our Board
 * Funding & Reports
 * For Partners
 * Support Our Work
 * Contact Us
 * Careers

Close submenuAreas of Focus
 * Food & Water
 * Farming & Agriculture
 * Personal Care Products
 * Household & Consumer Products
 * Energy
 * Family Health
 * Toxic Chemicals
 * Regional Issues

Close submenuNews & Insights
 * News
 * News Releases
 * Testimonies
 * Official Correspondence
 * Statements
 * News Roundup
 * For Media
 * Our Experts

Close submenuTake Action
 * Ways to Give
 * Sign a Petition
 * Support Key Legislation
 * Share

Skip to main content
Know your environment. Protect your health.

Creators of Skin Deep Database Tapwater Database EWG Verified The New Lede(link
is external)Search

Menu


SEARCH 

Search this Site

×Close Dialog
Navigate to Homepage


MEGA MENU

 * Who We Are
   
   
   WHO WE ARE
   
    * Our Mission
    * Our Impact
    * Our Team
    * Our Board
    * Funding & Reports
    * For Partners
    * Support Our Work
    * Contact Us
    * Careers

 * Areas of Focus
   
   
   AREAS OF FOCUS
   
    * Food & Water
    * Farming & Agriculture
    * Personal Care Products
    * Household & Consumer Products
    * Energy
    * Family Health
    * Toxic Chemicals
    * Regional Issues
   
   
   KEY ISSUES
   
   
   
   
   
   PFAS CHEMICALS
   
   DuPont’s Teflon changed our lives, but also polluted our bodies. Today,
   Teflon-like compounds called PFAS are found in the blood of almost all
   Americans. These “forever chemicals” pollute water, don’t break down, and
   remain in the environment and people for decades.
 * Consumer Guides
 * Research
 * News & Insights
   
   
   NEWS & INSIGHTS
   
    * News
    * News Releases
    * Testimonies
    * Official Correspondence
    * Statements
    * News Roundup
    * For Media
    * Our Experts


HEADER UTILITY MENU

 * Take Action
 * Donate


BREADCRUMB

 1. News & Insights
 2. News
 3. 2023
 4. 05


SLASHING FOOD, CLIMATE FUNDS TO BOOST SUBSIDIES WOULD HURT FARMERS, HUNGRY
PEOPLE

Cuts to funding for food assistance and “climate smart” agricultural
conservation practices to increase USDA farm subsidies would hurt farmers in
most states, including California, Michigan, New YorkPennsylvania and
Washington. 

Farmers in 38 states would receive less funding if Congress diverted
climate-smart funding included in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, to
increase price guarantees for farmers, EWG has found. 

Image


Table 1: Potential reduction in funding (FY24-FY26)

State


Reduction in Funding*

California

$708,571,523.87

Wisconsin

$397,494,459.74

Oregon

$309,295,368.70

Tennessee

$284,507,875.18

Pennsylvania

$250,358,122.66

Utah

$216,903,333.62

South Carolina

$210,128,982.91

Minnesota

$209,177,276.95

Michigan

$207,518,432.95

New Mexico

$170,220,085.95

Iowa

$167,625,995.62

Indiana

$162,786,103.75

Kentucky

$158,252,687.24

Ohio

$152,137,417.42

New York

$146,530,303.45

Virginia

$145,669,045.45

Mississippi

$128,392,988.61

Maine

$114,890,778.45

Vermont

$110,004,381.61

Wyoming

$109,083,172.78

Illinois

$98,475,428.73

West Virginia

$94,843,482.44

Maryland

$92,565,691.58

Colorado

$92,090,019.25

Alaska

$87,606,810.93

Washington

$82,677,314.04

South Dakota

$44,867,596.54

Connecticut

$44,384,422.66

Massachusetts

$44,281,424.29

Delaware

$44,097,907.27

New Jersey

$43,854,510.63

Arizona

$43,719,365.00

Nevada

$41,149,796.21

Florida

$39,676,692.07

Hawaii

$39,304,751.36

New Hampshire

$38,432,996.00

Rhode Island

$29,790,549.61

Nebraska

$18,016,356.42

*Difference in funding if IRA “climate-smart” funding is used instead for
increasing price guarantees. Based on average share of national spending on PLC
subsidies and conservation programs from 2015-2021

Reducing food assistance through new restrictions to the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, or SNAP, to increase farm subsidies would lower federal
spending in 29 states, according to EWG’s analysis. New restrictions to SNAP as
outlined in legislation(link is external) proposed by Rep. Dusty Johnson
(R-S.D.). 

Alaska

Kentucky

New Mexico

Utah

Arizona

Maine

New York

Vermont

California

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Ohio

West Virginia

Delaware

Michigan

Oregon

Wisconsin

Florida

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Hawaii

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Illinois

New Jersey

South Carolina

EWG used average Price Loss Coverage, or PLC, subsidy spending by state from
2015 to 2021 to reallocate the savings provided by potential IRA or SNAP cuts. 


LOSING OUT: FARMERS

Shifting $20 billion in IRA funds meant for climate-smart farm stewardship
practices to increase price guarantees(link is external) for covered
commodities(link is external) like cotton would mean many farmers would receive
less federal funding. Including in major farm states like California, Florida,
New York, Michigan , and Pennsylvania. Although all farmers and ranchers in all
states are eligible for climate-smart funding, less than 30 percent(link is
external) of farmers and ranchers receive commodity subsidies. 


LOSING OUT: HUNGRY PEOPLE

California, New York, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are among the states
that would receive less federal funding if money saved by the restrictions in
Johnson’s bill   was used to increase farm subsidies. More importantly, 10
million people(link is external) could  lose food assistance, including 4
million children and 2 million older people. 


LOSING OUT: CLIMATE 

Many farmers and ranchers have offered to share the cost of practices that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions or meet other environmental goals, but nearly
two-thirds have been turned away due to lack of funding. 

Agriculture contributes a growing share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, so
rewarding farmers who take steps to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions
is critical to meeting our climate goals. 


WINNING: WEALTHY FARMERS

Diverting food assistance and climate-smart funding to subsidy programs will
mostly benefit the largest farms that grow covered commodities.

Many farm groups(link is external) want to increase price guarantees for
commodity subsidies – even though farmers producing these crops have earned
record prices(link is external), and farm bankruptcies(link is external) are at
their lowest levels in decades. These subsidies overwhelmingly flow to the
largest farmers – in 2021, the top 10 percent of subsidy recipients got 81
percent of all payments.

Over 20,000 of these farmers have received commodity subsidies for 37
consecutive years, and some payments flowed to residents of cities, not farmers,
including one of former President Donald Trump’s neighbors.


LOSING OUT: TAXPAYERS

Farm groups want increases in price guarantees, despite record farm spending
through two Trump-era disaster assistance programs, the Market Facilitation
Program, or MFP, and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, or CFAP.

The MFP(link is external) paid $23.2 billion for crop years 2018 and 2019 to
compensate farmers for losses driven by tariffs China placed on agricultural
imports from the U.S. in retaliation for Trump’s trade war. 

The CFAP(link is external) paid $30.8 billion for two rounds of funding in 2020
and 2021, with most funds from both going to the largest and richest farms.

The MFP and CFAP outlays combined caused total federal farm spending to soar,
from $16.2 billion, in 2017, to $44.1 billion, in 2020, a record level. In 2020,
federal spending made up nearly half of total farm net income, according to
the USDA(link is external)

Areas of Focus
Farming & Agriculture
Climate & Agriculture
Conservation
Factory Farms
Subsidies
Disqus Comments

By
Jared Hayes (EWG)
May 18, 2023
Shares









RELATED NEWS


CONTINUE READING

Farming & Agriculture
Climate & Agriculture
Subsidies


FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM REFORMS CAN HELP FARMERS ADAPT TO CLIMATE CRISIS
AND CUT TAXPAYER COSTS

August 3, 2023

Farmers both contribute to the climate crisis – they’re responsible for
producing at least 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions(link is external)
– and can also be devastated by its harmful effects, with extreme...

Farming & Agriculture
Climate & Agriculture


CORN BELT FARMERS COULD DRAMATICALLY REDUCE NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS WITH A
HANDFUL OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES

July 26, 2023

Widespread adoption of six simple farm stewardship practices by corn farmers in
the Midwest could dramatically reduce nitrous oxide emissions, EWG has found. 

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that...

Farming & Agriculture
Climate & Agriculture
Conservation
Subsidies


INCREASING PRICE GUARANTEES PRIMARILY BENEFITS SOUTHERN STATES, ANALYSIS SHOWS

July 13, 2023
Increasing price guarantees for major crops would primarily benefit farmers
growing peanuts, cotton and rice in Southern states, not corn and soybean
farmers. 
Farming & Agriculture
Climate & Agriculture
Conservation
Subsidies


THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM IS FAILING. CONGRESS SHOULD FIX IT.

July 11, 2023
Everyone agrees: Permanently restoring hard-to-farm crop lands with trees and
grasses that can act as carbon sinks is a good way to build soil carbon. 
All News
Search this Site


Environmental Working Group

1250 I Street NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

All Offices    Contact Us

Connect on Social
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * YouTube
 * Instagram


FOOTER -- FOOTER MENU

 * Who We Are
   * Our Mission
   * Our Impact
   * Our Team
   * Our Board
   * Funding & Reports
   * Support Our Work
   * For Partners
   * Careers
 * Areas of Focus
   * Key Issues
   * Food & Water
   * Farming & Agriculture
   * Personal Care Products
   * Household & Consumer Products
   * Energy
   * Family Health
   * Toxic Chemicals
   * Regional Issues
 * Take Action
   * Sign a Petition
   * Support Key Legislation
   * Donate
   * Share
 * Consumer Guides
   * Research
   * News & Insights

EWG is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, EIN 52-2148600. Copyright © 2023,
Environmental Working Group. All rights reserved.
Visit EWG's 501(c)(4) organization, EWG Action Fund(link is external).


FOOTER UTILITY MENU

 * Privacy Policy
 * Legal Disclaimer
 * Reprint Permission Information


Back to Top
Close menu