Striking a Balance: Modifying the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act

Image Source

By: Maegan Pirtle, Staff Member

Earlier this year, John Yarmuth (KY-3) and Louise Slaughter (NY-25) introduced the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act (H.R. 526) that would impose a moratorium on new mountaintop removal mining permits until the health consequences to proximate communities are systematically studied.[1] The bill cites a growing body of research suggesting a link between mountaintop removal mining and elevated risks of serious health problems, including chronic diseases and birth defects. [2] The bill would also assess a fee on those engaged in mountaintop removal operations in order to fund the required health studies.[3]

Environmentalists view the ACHE Act as a “no brainer”[4] and hope the bill is a first step in ending what they describe as a “human rights/human health disaster.”[5] The coal industry criticized the studies cited by Yarmouth and other environmentalists, arguing that there is inadequate evidence to support finding a strong link between “mining and the chronic health conditions present in Appalachia.”[6]

Until systematic research produces more concrete answers, the issue will be who bears the burden of proof in determining whether mountaintop removal should be prohibited.[7] Yarmouth argues that “[i]f it can’t be proven that mountaintop removal mining is safe, we shouldn’t allow it to continue.”[8] On the other hand, it is arguably more reasonable to only place a moratorium on mountaintop removal operations once studies have conclusively shown that increased health risks in certain populations are directly related to these mining operations.

The ACHE Act could be modified to find a balance between these competing positions by still requiring coal companies to pay a fee to help fund further studies, but only imposing a moratorium once those studies show an indisputable connection between mountaintop removal and the health problems of nearby communities.
_________________
[1] Reps. Yarmouth, Slaughter Introduce Bill to Study the Health Consequences of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining (Feb. 6, 2013), Congressman John Yarmouth, http://yarmuth.house.gov/press/reps-yarmuth-slaughter-introduce-bill-to-study-health-consequences-of-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining.
[2] Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act, H.R. 526, 113th Cong. § 4 (2013).
[3] Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act, H.R. 526, 113th Cong. § 6 (2013).
[4] Jeff Biggers, Will Congress Finally Deal with the Health Emergency of Mountaintop Removal?, Common Dreams (Feb. 8, 2013), http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/08-1.
[5] Appalachian Community Health Emergency, http://acheact.org.
[6] Ken Ward, Jr., Coal-backed Research Takes on Mining Health Studies, The Charleston Gazette (Apr. 20, 2013), http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201304200057?page=1.
[7] Id.
[8] Jeff Biggers, Will Congress Finally Deal with the Health Emergency of Mountaintop Removal?, Common Dreams (Feb. 8, 2013), http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/08-1.

Nationalize the Coal Industry to Overcome Regulatory Difficulty

Image Source

By: Will Emmons, Staff Member

The controversies surrounding the coal industry have led to a complex series of regulatory regimes that control workplace safety as well as environmental impact. Different state and federal agencies are responsible for these regimes, but many of them have one thing in common: reliance on individual plaintiffs, under the aegis of whistleblower or citizen suits, to ensure the law is enforced.[1]

In the safety context, it is true the occasional miner may win a series of 105(c) whistleblower claims.[2] However, advocates claim these successes are inadequate for protecting miners and criticize the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for failing to compel companies to pay penalties.[3] Safety advocates argue the agency is under-staffed and under-funded and companies can "get away with murder."[4] Attorney Chris Regan has argued MSHA may be a “captured agency.”'[5]

Under environmental statutes, there are also issues with enforcement. Some scholars argue the 'cooperative federalism' of federal environmental statutes, a scheme that gives state agencies primary responsibility for applying federal law, results in the law not being enforced.[6] These scholars argue state budget cuts and political considerations, including competition with other coal-producing states make the framework completely reliant on citizen intervenors.[7] Point in case, in Kentucky, a group of citizen interveners recently won a settlement under the Clean Water Act against the state's chronically “do-nothing” Department of Natural Resources.[8]

There are several problems with relying on whistleblowers and citizen interveners for the heavy lifting. First, as a matter of principle, one hopes a democratically constituted government would seek to enforce its own laws to protect its citizens against depredation. Second, in the environmental context, citizen suits frequently raise constitutional standing questions.[9] Third, a whistleblower or citizen intervenor can never marshal the kind of resources the federal government or even state governments could even if they wanted to. While various non-profit law firms like Kentucky's own Appalachian Citizens' Law Center are providing plaintiffs with high quality legal representation for free, non-profits' resources are always as limited by their donors good will.[10] Finally, advocates argue coal companies are notoriously undercapitalized.[11] Even if a plaintiff wins a lawsuit, there is often little money to recover in a judgment.[12] The investors are protected by the corporate veil and may carry on the same illegal practices using another fictitious entity.[13]

Recently, economist Gar Alperovitz, proposed that the difficulty of regulating the banking system could be resolved by nationalizing it and running it as a public good.[14] I propose nationalizing the coal industry would similarly make coal extraction easier to regulate. This was UK College of Law graduate, Harry Caudill's plea at the end of Night Comes to the Cumberlands.[15] He recognized a nationalized coal industry under a Southern Mountain Authority, similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority, as tool to alleviate poverty and break the political power of coal bosses.[16] Today, a Southern Mountain Authority could also serve as a way to capitalize an economic transition for Appalachia as the world turns away from fossil fuels.

 _________________ 

[1]See infra note 2.

[2] Dave Jamieson, Charles Scott Howard, Whistleblowing Miner, Wins Another Round Against Arch Coal, Huffington Post (Apr. 13, 2013), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/charles-scott-howard_n_3017913.html.

[3] James R. Carroll, Kentucky coal mine's unpaid fines show MSHA's penalty process still broken, critics say, Courier Journal (May 6, 2013), http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130506/NEWS01/305060089?nclick_check=1.

[4] Id.

[5] Chris Regan, UPPER BIG BRANCH GUILTY PLEA REVEALS ADVANCE NOTICE GIVEN OF MSHA INSPECTIONS, Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC Blog (Apr. 18, 2012), http://www.bordaslaw.com/blog/2012/04/upper-big-branch-guilty-plea-reveals-advanced-notice-given-of-msha-inspections.shtml.

[6] Will Reisinger, et. al., Environmental Enforcement and the Limits of Cooperative Federalism: Will Courts Allow Citizen Suits to Pick Up the Slack?, 20 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 1, 3 (2010).

[7] Id.

[8] Amanda Moore, Clean Water in Eastern Kentucky, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law (Mar. 3, 2013), http://povertylaw.org/communication/advocacy-stories/cromer.

[9] See generally Reisinger et al., supra note 6.

[10] Donate, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, http://appalachianlawcenter.org/donate/ (last visited May 9, 2013).

[11] Carroll, supra note 3.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Gar Alperovitz, Wall Street Is Too Big To Regulate, New York Times (July 22, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/banks-that-are-too-big-to-regulate-should-be-nationalized.html?_r=1&.

[15] John Cheves and Bill Estep, Chapter 3: The world comes to Whitesburg to take Harry Caudill's 'povery tour', Herald-Leader (Dec. 19, 2012), http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/19/2448366/the-nation-takes-notice-of-eastern.html.

[16] Id.

Want to be an Environmentally-Friendly, Cost-Effective Dairy Farmer? There's an App For That.

Image Source

By: Meredith Schuh, Staff Member

While the economic crisis that recently took hold in the United States may not have significantly affected Americans in the country's highest tax brackets, our nation's dairy farmers have struggled to stay afloat in these hard financial times. Fortunately, innovative technological minds from Penn State University have created a mobile app, entitled "DairyCents," hoping to ease economic suffering of these hardworking farmers.[1]

Throughout most of the 2000s, "the American dairy industry was doing relatively well," but in 2009, "a series of events including an increase in grain prices, a melamine scare in China[2] and the global recession caused demand to drop dramatically."[3] As a result, a significant number of dairy farms were forced into debt due to an excess supply of cattle.[4] Although milk prices in the U.S. are "strong," they are "determined based on supply and demand and not on the cost of production."[5] Regrettably for dairy farmers, costs of production are high, often higher than milk prices. In his book, "Milk Money: Cash, Cows, and the Death of the American Dairy Farm," author Kirk Kardashian describes this phenomenon as a "chronic oversupply" issue because as milk prices fall, farmers inevitably produce more milk, thus sinking prices even further.[6] Small dairy farms are especially negatively impacted by this problem as they see very little profit; middlemen and retailers get rich because milk prices for consumers remain stable and they avoid the production costs incurred by dairy farmers.[7]

Recognizing the negative effects of this problem on American dairy farms, the creators of "DairyCents" devised a mobile app which can easily calculate a farmer's income over feed cost, compare feed costs with costs paid by others, as well as track feed efficiency and estimate nutrient excretion.[8] This latter feature, a product of the second-generation DairyCents app, is referred to as "precision feeding," which aims to "decrease the amount of nutrients and manure solids that could potentially enter" bodies of water, thus achieving better environmental safety.[9]

DairyCents was made available to smartphone users in August 2012, and with the backing of the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Mid-Atlantic Water, the mobile app's inventors are geared up for even greater expansion across the country.[10]

In such hard economic times, it is a relief that technology can aid those seeking to provide an invaluable service to American consumers. It will be interesting to weigh the success of mobile applications such as DairyCents as their use becomes more pervasive.
_________________
[1] Scott Elliott, Mobile Apps help Dairy Farmers Compute Costs and be Environmentally Friendly, USDA.gov, (April 2, 2013, 1:12 PM), http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/04/02/mobile-apps-help-dairy-farmers-compute-costs-and-be-environmentally-friendly/.
[2] In 2009, the FDA blocked the importation of all Chinese products containing milk into the U.S. due to contamination of the milk products with melamine, a chemical compound that can be harmful if consumed by humans or animals. This affected dairy farmers who depended on the exportation of certain milk products from China in their business. See Denise Ibens, The Great Melamine Scare, Foodquality.com, http://www.foodquality.com/details/article/807885/The_Great_Melamine_Scare.html?tzcheck=1 (last visited April 9, 2013).
[3] Stephanie McFeeters, Kirk Kardashian talks troubles of dairy farms, TheDartmouth.com, (Jan. 11, 2013), http://thedartmouth.com/2013/01/11/news/dairy.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. 

Agreement Reached on Guest Worker Programs: Is Agriculture Work Absent From the American Dream?

By: Yvette DeLaGuardia, Staff Member

On April 12, 2013, U.S. Senators and key stakeholders in agriculture work came to an agreement on immigration reform.[1] The substance of the agreement is a new guest worker program designed to phase out the current H-2A program.[2]

Under the existing H-2A program, U.S. employers can apply for the authorization to employ foreign nationals for agricultural work of a "temporary or seasonal nature."[3] Qualified H-2A applicants are those employers who are able to "demonstrate that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work."[4] Pursuant to the current H-2A program, hired agriculture workers are given temporary, non-immigrant status that lasts for a maximum of three years.[5] Generally, the agriculture worker has to leave the United States at the end of the three-year term and is eligible to seek readmission if he/she has been absent from the country for three uninterrupted months.[6] Stakeholders of agriculture work complain the H-2A program is difficult to use and that its restrictions fail to accomodate agriculture work that lasts year round.[7]

The proposed guest worker program, however, would authorize agricultural guest worker visas that last for three years and that could be used year-round.[8] While the number of permissible visas for the guest workers would be capped at 337,000 in a three-year period,[9] the proposed guest worker program still receives praise from many agricultural employers for accommodating year-round employment and for relieving the stress often associated with the fear of immigration audits.[10]

The fear of immigration audits likely stems from the difficulty U.S. agriculture employers have recruiting U.S. employees willing to do the extremely arduous, low-paying labor coupled with the fact that it is relatively easy for undocumented aliens to provide seemingly legitimate documentation. The source of this fear raises interesting questions relating to the reasons the government has implemented guest worker programs. Is the refusal of the American people to take agriculture jobs so significant that the government has been forced to create guest worker programs? Opponents of the proposed guest worker program suggest that, if that is the case, the "obvious solution" to the deficit of "legal laborers" in agricultural work is simply to offer better wages.[11]

I am not so sure I agree that offering better wages is the "obvious solution" to the shortage of U.S. agriculture workers; there seems to be something more than a mere lack of financial incentive at play. While the jobs guest workers are hired to perform help to advance our agriculture industry and to stock our grocery store shelves, I do not think performing manual agricultural labor is what a lot of Americans envision as their American Dream, nor as one of the opportunities in the pursuit of that end.

______________________

[1] See Statement from Jerry Kozack, President and CEO, National Milk Producers Federation (Apr. 12, 2013), http://www.nmpf.org/latest-news/press-releases/apr-2013/nmpf-welcomes-agriculture-labor-immigration-reform-agreement.

[2] Sarah Murray,

Agricultural Visa Program Finds Accord

, 

The Wall Street Journal

(Apr. 12, 2013, 9:06 PM), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324010704578419171812641366.html. 

[3] 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (2011). 

[4] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis (last visited April 15, 2013).

[5]

Id.

[6]

Id.

[7] Charles Abbott,

Farm Workers, Governors and Senators Reach Immigration Pact

, 

The Denver Post

(Apr. 12, 2013), http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23015125/farm-workers-growers-and-senators-reach-immigration-pact; See also Alan Bjerga,

Farmwork Accord on Visas, Wages Moves Immigration Bill

, 

Businessweek.com

(Apr. 13, 2013), http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-12/farmworker-accord-on-visas-wages-moves-immigration-bill.

[8] Murray,

supra

 note 2.

[9] Dan Wheat,

Wages, Visa Caps Worked Out In Immigration Deal

, 

Capital Press

(Apr. 15, 2013), http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-immigration-041513.

[10] Kirk Semple,

Focus On Dairy Farmers in Immigration Debate

, 

The New York Times

 (Apr. 12, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/nyregion/in-immigration-debate-a-focus-on-new-york-dairy-farmers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[11]

Id.

U.S. Meat Waste Leads to Unnecessary Production

By: Toney Robinette, Staff Member

A recent study done by the USDA showed that U.S. consumers waste around 26.2% of the meat that they purchase.[1] Rough estimates show that this equates to around 25 billion fish, 15 billion shellfish, over 1 billion chickens and over a hundred million other land mammals that we harvest for food.[2]

This is in light of American portion sizes continuing to grow in the 21st century.[3] This is especially concerning when one considers the environmental impact of meat production and fishing. Meat production has environmental costs in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, water resources and land uses. Overfishing causes ecosystem damage, economic harm, and negative environmental effects.[4] Meat production causes more agricultural production, using up 2/3 of agricultural output.[5] Therefore, all of the environmental issues that come from agricultural development are also exacerbated by the meat industry.

Food waste is directly tied to portion size.[6] This means that for the U.S. to reduce its food waste and the environmental concerns arising from said waste, portion sizes need to be controlled to minimize the amount of meat going unused. If portion sizes were better controlled, then meat waste would likely drop, thereby relaxing the negative effects of underuse. More environmentally sound and sustainable production methods could also alleviate the negative effects of meat production, but waste would remain an issue if Americans do not control the amount of food on their plates. Therefore, Americans must seek to reduce meat waste through portion management and smarter meal planning. Meat production is likely to double by 2020 due to an increase in global demand, but this doubling of production may be unnecessary if smarter usage methods are adopted.[7]

____________________

[1] Mary K. Muth, Shawn A. Karns, et al.,

Consumer-Level Food Loss Estimates and Their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data

, 

USDA (Jan. 2011

), http://www.ers.usda/gov/publications/tb-technical-bulletin/tb1927.aspx#.

[2] Harish,

Animals We Use and Abuse for Food We Don't Eat

, 

Counting Animals 

(Mar. 27, 2013

), http://www.countinganimals.com/animals-we-use-and-abuse-for-food-we-do-not-eat/.

[3] Dr. Lisa Young,

Portion Sizes in the US Continue to Increase: Time for Action

, 

Huffington Post

(Oct. 18, 2012

), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-lisa-young/portion-sizes_b_1975344.html.

[4]

Overfishing - A Global Disaster

, 

Overfishing.org,

http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php (last visited Apr. 15, 2013).

[5] Cassandra Brooks,

Consequences of increased global meat consumption on the global environment

, 

Stanford Woods, 

http://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/consequences-increased-global-meat-consumption-global-environment (last visited Apr. 15, 2013).

[6]

Food Waste Reduction and Prevention

, 

EPA, 

http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/fd-reduce.htm (last visited Apr. 15, 2013).

[7]

Supra

 at note 5.

Does the Nanosilver Dispute have a Silver Lining?

By: Rachel Shelton, Staff Member

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is dueling with the EPA over the agency's approval of nanosilver for use in fabrics.[1] NRDC's brief, filed last year in the 9th Circuit, alleges that the EPA allowed the substance on the market without reviewing legally-required information on its potentially harmful effects.[2]

So what is nanosilver and what's the big deal? According to a report prepared for the EPA, nanosilver refers to the nano-particulate form of silver, which is used as a biocide to kill microbes in a variety of consumer products, from medical devices to food supplements to textiles.[3] The EPA report recognizes the need for a comprehensive risk assessment of the effects that nanosilver might have on the health of humans and the environment.[4] The need for an assessment is becoming increasingly important as human exposure to nanosilver becomes more and more common. Clothing treated with nanosilver, such an antimicrobial socks which are designed to decrease foot odor, is now available on the market.[5] The verdict is out on whether the additive is safe - researchers do not understand how nanosilver, toxic to bacteria and other microbes, affects humans.[6]

Despite the lack of a scientific consensus on nanosilver, in 2010 the EPA "conditionally registered" nanosilver and allowed its use for four years, subject to the requirement of additional environmental and toxicology data from manufacturers.[7] Nanosilver is classified as a "pesticide," and as such falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).[8] Under the FIFRA regulation scheme, a pesticide may be registered "conditionally" for such period reasonably sufficient to generate enough data to make a decision about whether or not it is harmful.[9] Registration is contingent on an EPA finding that the pesticide will not cause an "unreasonably adverse effect on the environment" during the interim period and that the use of the pesticide is in the "public interest."[10]

The NRDC claims that the EPA should be more discriminating with respect to conditional registration and accuses the agency of abusing the loophole by allowing companies to market a chemical before key data was presented on its toxicity to humans and the environment.[11] The EPA's initial analysis of the risks, NRDC argues, failed to evaluate the potential harm to infants who are exposed to nanosilver and was not supported by substantial evidence; the finding of no "unreasonably adverse effect" was therefore improper.[12]

With such a broad loophole at issue, it seems doubtful that the EPA will fail to justify the terms of their conditional approval. NRDC may have a point though - is it really in the "public interest" to put pesticides in our socks? Regardless of the outcome of the case, controversy over the use and regulation of new nanotechnology is likely here to stay.

____________________

[1]

Lawsuit Seeks to Block EPA's 'Free Pass' on Nanosilver

, 

Natural Res. Def. Council

(Jan. 26, 2012), http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120126.asp.

[2]

Id.

[3]

State of the Science Literature Review: Everything Nanosilver and More

, 

EPA 

xii (2010),

available at

http://www.epa.gov/nanoscience/files/NanoPaper1.pdf.

[4]

Id.

at xiv.

[5]

See, e.g., Magical Socks Nanosilver with Silver Nanoparticles

, 

NanoTrade,

 http://www.nanosilver.eu/Tema/Why-Nanosilver/Magical-Socks-Nanosilver-with-Silver-Nanoparticles (last visited Apr. 7, 2013).

[6] Naomi Lubick,

Nanosilver Tracked in Rats

, 

Chemical & Engineering News

(Aug. 17, 2012), http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Nanosilver-Tracked-Rats.html.

[7]

Pesticide News Story: EPA Proposes Conditional Registration of Nanosilver Pesticide Product

, 

EPA

(Aug. 13, 2010), http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2010/nanosilver.html.

[8]

State of the Science Literature Review: Everything Nanosilver and More

, supra note 3, at 12-13.

[9] 7 U.S.C. 

§ 136(c)(7)(C) (2012).

[10]

Id.

[11] Mae Wu,

Nanosilver Stinks

, 

Switchboard: Natural Res. Def. Council Staff Blog (

Sept. 15, 2010), http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mwu/nanosilver_stinks.html.

[12] Lynn L. Bergeson,

Recent Developments in NRDC's Case Concerning EPA's Conditional Registration of Nanosilver

, 

Nano and Other Emerging Chem. Techs. Blog (

June 23, 2012), http://nanotech.lawbc.com/2012/06/articles/united-states/federal/recent-developments-in-nrdcs-case-concerning-epas-conditional-registration-of-nanosilver/. 

Update: Carla Strickland v. Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen 

In an opinion delivered on April 5, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and found that recovery in pet-death cases is limited to loss of value, not loss of relationship.
Read more about this case in an article by Alison Rowe in our upcoming spring publication of KJEANRL.

More States Join USDA's StrikeForce Initiative: Is Kentucky Next?

By: Megan Crenshaw, Staff Member

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) began a pilot program called the StrikeForce initiative in 2010.[1] The USDA via the StrikeForce initiative "provides assistance to help grow American agriculture and provide tools to increase opportunity for rural communities."[2] The USDA hopes to improve the quality of life of producers and their communities and accelerate the implementation of conservative practices on their land.[3] The initiative seeks to increase partnership with rural communities and leverage community resources in targeted, persistent poverty areas.[4] "Ninety percent of America's persistent poverty counties are in rural America."[5] Therefore, there is a strong need for the StrikeForce initiative as it aims to create equal access to USDA programs.[6] The overall goal of the initiative is to "increase investment in rural communities for technical assistance and other resources in priority, poverty-stricken communities."[7]

The pilot program operated within selected regions of three states: Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi.[8] The program was expanded to include Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada in 2011.[9] Now, in 2013, United States Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, has announced "new efforts to bring StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity" in ten more states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.[10]

So far, the program has partnered with organizations within local communities to promote local and regional development projects.[11] The assistance provided has ranged from food insecurity in Arkansas to access to farm programs in Nevada.[12]

Kentucky is not among the states that were part of StrikeForce's recent expansion despite its persistent poverty counties. Based on data analysis, Kentucky is among the states that take the title of having some persistent-poverty counties.[13] "Persistent poverty is defined as counties where 20% or more of the residents were poor" in recent censuses (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000).[14] The state covers 39,728 square miles.[15] In 2011, the estimated population of the state was 4,369,356 people with 1,820,571 people living in rural Kentucky.[16] "Estimates from 2010 indicate a poverty rate of 22.9% in rural Kentucky, compared to 16.0% in urban areas of the state."[17]

It seems that Kentucky would be among the ten states that recently joined the StrikeForce initiative. Although there are presently no clear reasons as to why Kentucky has not partnered with the USDA to promote economic development and job creation, Vilsack noted that through the StrikeForce initiative, the USDA will do more to partner with local and state governments and community organizations.[18] Perhaps Kentucky will soon be among the latest states to join the initiative.

___________________

[1] News Release, Secretary Launches "StrikeForce" Initiative to Boost Rural Growth and Opportunity (March 26, 2013) (on file with the United States Department of Agriculture), http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2013/03/0054.xml.

[2] USDA StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity, 

USDA.gov, 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=STRIKE_FORCE (last visited April 1, 2013). 

[3] News Release, Secretary Launches USDA "StrikeForce" Initiative to Boost Rural Growth and Opportunity,

supra

 note 1.

[4] Additional States Join USDA's StrikeForce Initiative (March 26, 2013), 

FarmFutures.com, 

http://farmfutures.com/story-additional-states-join-usdas-strikeforce-initiative-0-96496.

[5] USDA StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity, 

USDA.gov, 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=STRIKE_FORCE (last visited April 1, 2013).

[6] Tom Vilsack, USDA StrikeForce: Expanding Partnerships and Opportunity in Rural Communities, 

USDA.gov

 (March 26, 2013, 10:53 AM), http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/03/26/usda-strikeforce-expanding-partnerships-and-opportunity-in-rural-communities/.

[7] USDA StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity,

supra

 note 5.

[8] News Release, Secretary Launches USDA "StrikeForce" Initiative to Boost Rural Growth and Opportunity,

supra

 note 1.

[9]

Id.

[10]

Id.

[11] Vilsack,

supra

 note 6.

[12]

Id.

[13] Geography of Poverty, 

USDA.gov,

 http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx (last visited April 1, 2013).

[14]

Id.

[15] Health and Human Services Information for Rural America, Kentucky, 

Raconline.org,

 http://www.raconline.org/states/kentucky.php (last visited April 1, 2013). 

[16]

Id.

[17]

Id.

[18] Additional States Join USDA's StrikeForce Initiative,

supra

note 4.

The Sugar Bailout: The USDA's Quest to Save Our Sweets and Empty the Government's Wallet

By: Jessica Durden, Staff Member

The American taxpaying public is going to pay a higher price for the privilege of being obese. After sugar processors began threatening to default on an $862 million government price-support operations-financing loan, the U.S. Department of Agriculture posited buying an astounding 400,000 tons of sugar to save the industry.[1] American sugar prices have plummeted since October, falling 18 percent.[2] The USDA proposed this large sugar purchase in an effort to put an end to the price plunge and begin raising the price of sugar. The trickle down effect of this buy-out could impact candy heavy hitters like Mars Inc., Nestl

é, and Hershey and, therefore, raise the retail prices on cash-strapped consumers.[3] The USDA loans were a part of an annual program which sprang from the 1934 Sugar Act and was designed to avoid impact on the taxpaying public.[4] However, the monetary effect could still hit the economy: the last time USDA bought out the loans in 2000, the buyout failed and the loan program lost a total of $295 million.[5]

On Valentine's Day 2013, a bipartisan House of Representatives proposed a corresponding bill for sugar reform.[6] The last time a bill to reduce sugar subsidies came up, strong opposition from sugar-producing states killed it.[7] So while proponents of the bill note that the sugar industry was the only industry under the farm bill that did not get slashed in 2008, sugar producers plead that reducing the sugar subsidies will kill employment prospects in the industry.[8] But Republican Representatives and Senators, recognizing the incredible potential for taxpayer and consumer loss, promote the bill on the basis of evening the playing field.[9] U.S. consumers, as of February 2013, were paying 30 percent more for sugar and sugar-based products than international consumers.[10] A USDA buyout would end up sending the bill down to taxpayers via rising food costs.[11]

A potential final decision is due soon, provided that domestic sugar prices make a rebound.[12]

___________________

[1] Alexander Wexler,

Big Sugar is Set for a Sweet Bailout

, 

Wall. St. J.,

March 12, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324096404578356740206766164.html#.

[2]

Id.

[3]

Id.

[4]

Id.

[5]

Id.

[6] Sidney Van Wyk,

A fresh attack on sugar subsidies

, 

The Wash. Times,

Feb. 14, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/a-fresh-attack-on-sugar-subsidies-current-congress/#.UVNCv0aMnNw.email.

[7]

Id.

[8]

Id.

[9]

Id.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12] Wexler,

supra

 note 1.