USDA cuts programs sending Alabama-grown produce to schools, food banks
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) — Two federal programs that pay Alabama farmers to grow fresh produce for school cafeterias and food banks are coming to an abrupt end.
The now-canceled federal contracts poured millions of dollars into Alabama farms and put fresh foods into the hands of people who needed it.
Huntsville Police say one injured in Rime Village shooting
Fresh produce is a necessity for the people who visit food banks.
'It can really have a huge impact on you if you have the right nutritious food,' Food Bank of North Alabama CEO Shirley Schofield said.
Over the past three years, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program has brought more than a million pounds of produce from Alabama fields to the Food Bank of North Alabama.
'It definitely will have an impact on us in trying to decide how we're going to be able to replenish or replace the produce that we were getting from our local farmers,' Schofield said.
Jackson County EMA says wildfire contained near Scottsboro
The program's federal money has paid farmers more than $11 million to grow produce, and the 2025 contracts were expected to pay $5.6 million.
'That's going to be a big hit for our local farmers here in the state of Alabama, you know, that they're going to be feeling, especially since they've already purchased some of their seeds and other supplies that they need to grow the food that they were planning on using for this program,' Food Bank of North Alabama COO Joshua Matthews said. 'You know, further on in the summer months, in the height of the growing season.'
Another canceled program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, brought farm-fresh produce into schools. The federal money expanded a partnership the state had already established with Alabama farmers.
'We were actually having to go out to our growers, we have about 80 farmers in the thing, and ask them to grow, and say we guarantee we're going to grow this much and give it to the school system,' said Rick Pate, the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries.
Pate said the farm-grown food was then sent to schools that needed it.
📲 to stay updated on the go. 📧 to have news sent to your inbox.
'We could actually target underserved schools that had over 50% of the children on reduced lunches, so that was great,' Pate said. 'Now, we could come back and backfill the school systems that weren't taking advantage of the state program.'
Pate said his department is always looking for ways to support local farmers. While this year's program will not happen, those working at the Food Bank of North Alabama, said they hope to see similar programs created in the future.
'It's been a really great collaborative process, and we really believe that we need collaborative solutions to end hunger in North Alabama and across the entire state,' Matthews said. 'This program was a great example of how we can work together to accomplish that.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Boost Subsidies for Rich Farmers
It should be clear by now that, despite the assurances from President Donald Trump and his allies in government, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month—not only won't reduce the federal budget deficit but will in fact increase the nation's debt load by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Given that Trump came into office promising to cut federal spending, it's worth looking at how Trump's bill does the opposite of what he and other Republicans say it does. And one of the more egregious things it does is boost corporate welfare for wealthy farmers. "The government provides agricultural subsidies—monetary payments and other types of support—to farmers or agribusinesses," says the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "While some subsidies are given to promote specific farming practices, others focus on research and development, conservation practices, disaster aid, marketing, nutrition assistance, risk mitigation, and more." "In reality, this support is highly skewed toward the five major 'program' commodities of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice," according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental advocacy organization. "Despite the rhetoric of 'preserving the family farm,' the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations." The new bill will only make the problem worse: According to an analysis by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the bill "would increase agriculture-facing programs spending by $56.6 billion over the next decade," of which "$52.3 billion is tied to enhancements in the farm safety net." That "farm safety net" comprises most agricultural subsidy spending in any given year. It includes price and revenue guarantees for certain crops, ensuring farmers earn a set minimum on staples like corn and soybeans, as well as crop insurance assistance, covering up to 60 percent of farmers' insurance premiums in the event of price declines or poor harvests. The programs are a bad deal for taxpayers—indeed, for anybody but the very wealthiest agribusinesses. "Just in the last 10 years, crop insurance agents and the 14 companies the USDA allows to sell and service crop insurance policies…received almost $33.3 billion from the federal Crop Insurance Program," EWG Midwest director Anne Schechinger wrote in 2023. "In some years, up to one-third of crop insurance payments are made to companies and agents, not farmers." The new bill would make the program even more generous, tying payouts to inflation and putting taxpayers on the hook for even more insurance company operating costs. The bill would also increase the price minimums for many staple crops, though the increases for those grown in southern U.S. states go up exponentially: While corn would go up by 18 percent, and wheat and soybeans by more than 70 percent each, minimum prices for seed cotton, peanuts, and rice—grown primarily in the southern states—would each more than double, with the minimum price of rice going up 185 percent. Price minimums inherently distort the market, causing farmers to prioritize favored crops even if others would be better suited to the growing conditions—after all, if you're guaranteed a minimum price for what you sell, and you're covered for what doesn't grow, what do you have to lose? At the same time, "subsidies increase land prices, which benefits wealthy landowners at the expense of the many farmers who rent," writes Nan Swift of the R Street Institute. "Young farmers can't afford to rent or buy land at inflated prices. Likewise, young farmers often have smaller farms that don't benefit from the primary federal subsidy programs." Not only does the "Big Beautiful Bill" keep these programs intact, it expands them; it even introduces an "insurance pilot program" for "poultry growers." "The farm subsidy increases in the reconciliation bill are brazen. The GOP lavished the biggest subsidy increases on GOP parts of the country," writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. "More importantly, in a supposed spending reform bill, the GOP doesn't just spare millionaire farmers from cuts, they aggressively expand inefficient farm giveaways by $57 billion." The post Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Boost Subsidies for Rich Farmers appeared first on
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are egg prices falling in Texas? Here's how much a dozen costs in June 2025
Your wallet might get a little break at the grocery store. According to the average price of a dozen eggs is $4.26. The average has been the lowest it has been since its March peak of $6.23, according to a report published on June 3 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. According to the USDA, retail prices tend to follow wholesale prices with a delay due to several factors. 'Retail egg prices are influenced by wholesale egg prices, but additional factors such as pricing strategies and contracts can mute the impact of short-term fluctuations,' the USDA report said. 'As a result, retail price movements tend to lag directional changes made by wholesale prices. When wholesale prices spike, retailers occasionally and temporarily have sold eggs at a loss. As wholesale prices retreat, retail prices are slower to decline and often remain elevated for a longer period." Here's what to know about egg prices in Texas. Last time we reported on egg prices in Texas, the average price for a dozen was $5.43. Today, those prices remain largely unchanged, according to the World Population Review. The decline in national egg prices comes as the USDA reported fewer cases of bird flu last month. Bird flu cases declined significantly to 2.1 million cases in March, according to the USDA, compared to 12.64 million in February and 23.19 million in January. Yes, bird flu is still spreading, particularly the H5N1 strain. While the risk to the general public remains low, experts emphasize the need for continued surveillance and precautions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 70 total national cases. However, in Texas, no reports have been made of poultry farms or other animals being affected. -USA Today Network reporter Betty Lin-Fisher contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Egg prices are down in the US. How much does a dozen cost in Texas?
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is Windsor-Essex ready for a guaranteed basic income? This senator says it's time
Windsor had the dubious distinction of having the second highest unemployment in the country last month — and that's among the reasons our community would benefit from a universal basic income, according to a Canadian senator. In late May, Sen. Kim Pate introduced Bill S-206, which calls upon the federal government to develop a financial framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income. "How can we actually weave a safety net that leaves no one behind?" Pate said. "This bill is one strand in a social and economic fabric that would help us rebuild." Statistics Canada says Windsor's unemployment rate in May was 10.8 per cent. Only Peterborough had it harder with an unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent. And the situation could worsen in the near future: Pate says the growing reality of job losses due to the trade war and artificial intelligence technology means talking about a guaranteed income in Canada is more relevant than ever. "At a time like now, when we're facing the threat from the United States, when we're facing the threat of A.I., when we're facing challenges to industry — it strikes me that it's a perfect time for us to develop a plan that actually leaves nobody behind," Pate said. Lorraine Goddard, CEO of United Way/Centraide Windsor-Essex County, also believes the community would benefit from a guaranteed livable basic income — because she feels the current system isn't providing people with the support they need to improve their situations. "Social assistance programs keep people in poverty. They don't give people enough to live," Goddard said. "You're just living moment to moment in deprivation mode." "I see so many families and children really struggling... If you could help a family get that basic income, get them stabilized, let them help their children get through school successfully — then you could see, in 10 years, a transformation in this community." It's not the first time Pate has advocated for a guaranteed basic income. In 2021, she introduced a similar bill — S-233. But progress on that bill ended with the prorogation of Parliament in January 2025. "It died on the order paper," Pate admitted. Bill S-206 is entering its second reading in the Senate. It will need to survive multiple readings in the House of Commons to become law. It's still too early for Pate's idea to involve actual numbers and policy. But in 2017, the Province of Ontario experimented with a pilot project that provided a basic income to around 4,000 low-income people in Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay. That project offered approximately $17,000 a year to single individuals, and $24,000 to couples. The amount was reduced by 50 cents for every dollar earned through work. Pate said a federal program could have a similar system — adjusted for the current economy. "Let's streamline this process," she said. "Make it universally accessible to people once they drop below a set income. Let's provide the resources the people need to rebound out (of poverty). Not just stay stuck in it." Critics like Franco Terrazzano, director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, believe that such a program is something the country simply can't afford. "You've got to remember: The federal government is broke. It's more than a trillion dollars in debt," Terrazzano said. A universal basic income in Canada would be "massively expensive," Terrazzano said. "Even in the best case scenario, this would cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars every single year... This would be big time tax increases for Canadians who are already struggling." Indeed, in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's study of Bill S-206, the gross cost of implementation is estimated at $107 billion. But Pate pointed out that the PBO's estimate is for the gross cost: The net cost could be as low as $3 billion, taking into account potential long-term savings in existing social assistance, health care, and the legal system. As an example, Pate cited the work of Canadian economist Evelyn Forget, who found that low-income people in a Manitoba community were inducing massive costs at their local emergency room — because they didn't have preventative health care and proper nutrition. "If we looked at what we actually spend now on those initiatives, the administration alone would cover a lot of costs," Pate suggested. "[The PBO] has very much said we would likely see many cost savings, particularly in health care and the criminal legal system." According to Terrazzano, the reality is that "if you pay people not to work, fewer people will end up working." Meanwhile, Pate believes the main obstacle to adopting a guaranteed livable basic income isn't finding the funding or the political will — it's adjusting attitudes. "The biggest barrier to implementing this kind of approach is the view that poor people somehow will waste the money or defraud the system," Pate said. "It's the stigma that attaches to poor people, the presumption that it's their own fault... a presumption that there are some people who deserve to be supported — and some who don't." Patrick Clark is a Windsor civil lawyer who earned his master's degree in political science from the University of Windsor with a 2021 paper titled The Answer to Poverty: A Universal Basic Income in Canada. Four years later, Clark says his views on the issue haven't changed: "That's the big key, moving forward: To put in place a system that essentially helps those who no longer can help themselves. "Right now, we have a situation where there are a lot of people who are unable to cover their basic needs — while we see the corporations at the top continue to increase prices. You'll find people falling further and further behind."
