- Let Voters Judge Early Ads
- Kelly Wins Runoff for Mississippi House Seat
- DNC's Mo Elleithee Leaving Politics for Georgetown
- Rematches Invite 'Retread' Label, Familiar Themes
- Party's History of Establishment Picks Could Be Over
The World Trade Organization ruled against the U.S. for the fourth and final time in an ongoing dispute between the United States, Canada and Mexico regarding the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) program. Retaliation by Canada and Mexico will soon become a reality, meaning economically devastating tariffs on a broad spectrum of U.S. exports, from meat and fruit to jewelry, furniture and biofuels. Ripple effects will be felt in nearly every industry, every state and every consumer’s wallet. This is why COOL for beef, pork and chicken — nothing more than a failed government experiment— must be repealed.
Leave it to Washington to create a multimillion-dollar solution to a nonexistent problem that requires the creation of a new bureaucracy, all for the sole purpose of increasing the profits of a small number of catfish farmers. Kafka would understand, but U.S. taxpayers should be angry.
Former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert delivered a blunt reminder to farm-state lawmakers about the clout of the ethanol industry with a visit for nearly an hour to the main lobby off the Senate floor during votes on Tuesday, while he worked to stave off a call by conservatives to eliminate the renewable fuels standard.
Agriculture is a cornerstone of our national economy, supporting 16 million jobs both on and off the farm. American farmers and ranchers are the most innovative and productive in the world, providing us with the safest, most abundant and most affordable food supply in the world.
As a chef, it’s my job to feed people delicious, fresh and nutritious food in a reasonable amount of time. Doing this well is often a race against the clock and it always requires working together.
In the center of the country there’s a quiet revolution taking place that holds great promise for our nation, though only if we address the growing innovation deficit facing America.
Activists pushing for mandated labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods are really pushing a disingenuous political agenda that will be both confusing and costly for consumers.
Poll after poll shows that consumers want the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced. Because our food choices have such a significant impact on our lives, this is a trend that should be welcomed, not frustrated.
The Senate is expected to pass the fiscal 2015 defense authorization bill (HR 3979) today, legislation that would require the military to notify congressional committees about certain biofuel expenditures.
For years now, farmers have been trying to fend off an EPA rule that would treat everything from run-off ditches to farm sloughs as “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act, hog-tying farmers in miles of red tape and allowing the agency to micromanage almost every action we take on the farm.
Farm groups, led by the American Farm Bureau, are calling for the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to drop a rule defining the reach of federal oversight into the nation’s waterways.
When 400,000 people in Ohio were told by authorities to stop drinking their tap water for two days this August, the warning centered attention on something most people assumed only troubled creatures lower down the food chain.
Voters in Colorado and Oregon have spoken with a firm voice in opposition to mandatory labeling of foods that contain ingredients produced via agricultural biotechnology. After closely examining the facts, voters decided they wanted no part of a system that would have provided them incomplete, inaccurate information and led to higher grocery prices for families. They join voters in Washington and California who rejected similar proposals in recent years.
As the Agriculture Department and farmers have watched the organics industry boom, the agency is working to find a middle ground between the needs of conventional and organic farmers.
The average consumer faces a bewildering array of food labels and symbols in the grocery store aisle. Some of these are sanctioned or overseen by government regulators. Some bear the mark of voluntary, industry-led initiatives. Some come from third-party groups. Others occupy a gray area, making marketing claims that sound good but sometimes mean very little.
The Lake Erie algae bloom that forced Toledo officials to issue a do-not-drink advisory for local water in August highlighted the impact that agriculture can have on water quality.
The Obama administration has found itself in a public brawl with farmers over a proposed rule that would more precisely define what land the Clean Water Act regulates.
Among the proposed changes in the more than 500 pages of regulations for the revised Nutrition Facts label are adjustments in the daily values, or reference daily intakes, of a range of nutrients such as sodium and calcium. The daily value for calcium, based on a 2,000- calorie diet, would go up from 1,000 milligrams to 1,300 milligrams, for example, and for potassium, from 3,500 milligrams to 4,700 milligrams. The reference intake for fiber would increase from 25 grams to 28 grams.
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration unveiled a revamped Nutrition Facts label for food packages, proposing changes to the iconic white box for the first time since it was adopted 20 years ago.
Nutrition standards for school lunches have turned into one of the most contentious issues in this year’s appropriations debate.