Federal cuts will hurt hunger relief programs in Tacoma
USDA budget cuts have shocked the hunger relief community in the past month. While previous cutbacks have had a 'somebody else, somewhere else' feel, the most recent cuts will be felt here at home, from Bellingham to Longview and right here in Tacoma.
The first cut of $660 million defunded the Local Foods for Schools Agreement Program, which provided funds to schools to purchase locally sourced food for students. The Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program also lost $500 million of funding. This program provided funds for food banks and hunger relief groups to purchase locally produced food for those in their communities experiencing food insecurity.
Locally, the cuts have canceled $1.9 million in funds Food Lifeline uses to supply nearly 300 food bank partners across western Washington. While Food Lifeline will look to alternate sources to replace these funds, the impact will be dramatic in the short term. The current cuts translate to 7 million pounds of food. This represents 10% of the food we distributed in 2024.
A drop of 10% in sourcing means 10% less food for our food bank partners. This includes the Making a Difference Foundation's food bank, Eloise's Cooking Pot, one of the busiest in Tacoma. Each year, it serves 75,000 individuals, children, seniors, and families experiencing food insecurity. Last year, it served 229,699 households, distributing 1.7 million pounds of food monthly.
'We already distribute millions of pounds of food each year,' said president and CEO Ahndrea Blue. 'And with federal funding cuts impacting families and local farmers, securing fresh, nutritious food will become even more challenging. This could drive up costs, require additional fundraising efforts, and force us to expand our distribution capacity to keep up with the growing need. If we do not receive increased community and governmental support, the ability to serve everyone who needs help could become unsustainable.'
Not far down the road is Nourish Pierce County. Every year, Nourish serves 70,000 individuals experiencing food insecurity, half of whom are children and seniors.
'The impact of these cuts will be felt far beyond the food bank doors,' says Nourish Pierce County CEO Sue Potter. 'Our 21 distribution sites are not just places to pick up food — they are community safety nets that prevent families from spiraling into crisis. When USDA food supplies shrink, demand shifts to already strained local donors and volunteers, making it harder to keep up with rising needs.'
The rationale behind the USDA cuts (in the agency's own words) is 'to remove a pandemic relic' and 'return to long-term fiscally responsible initiatives.' But the post-pandemic landscape for food insecurity looks worse in many ways than before the crisis. At the height of the pandemic, Food Lifeline's food bank partners served 1.1 million people across western Washington. As the country began to reopen, those numbers were expected to drop back to roughly 800,000. But supply chain issues, food shortages and inflation have caused these numbers to rise even higher.
Today, 1.7 million people in western Washington are food insecure and visiting food banks. Just last year, food bank visits increased a staggering 20%. While inflation may have slowed, high grocery prices remain. Families still face economic pressures that often end with searching for assistance, a painful tipping point that challenges our ability to grow and thrive as a community.
'The people we serve — working families, college students, military members and seniors on fixed incomes — are already making tough sacrifices,' says Potter. 'Federal food assistance exists to ensure that no one in America goes hungry, yet these cuts will leave our most vulnerable neighbors with even fewer options. Now is the time to strengthen, not weaken, the critical safety net for those who need it most.'
We ask you to join us in supporting long-term solutions for food access that meet the needs of our neighbors in western Washington. Solutions that are community-informed and community-led. Please help us ensure everyone has the right to healthy, nutritious food.
Mark Coleman is a former television journalist who joined the Food Lifeline team in 2015 as the director of marketing and communications. Today, he is the senior marketing and media relations officer, working to help advocate for hunger relief across western Washington.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours 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
14 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?
Newsweek
15 hours ago
- Newsweek
States Could Stop SNAP Benefits If Republican Bill Becomes Reality
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. States could stop offering SNAP benefits if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act becomes reality and they are shouldered with more of the cost of the food stamp program. "Shifting responsibility for funding SNAP onto states would upend state budgets," Darcy Milburn, the director of Social Security and health care policy at the Arc of the United States, told Newsweek. "SNAP is an optional program for states, so state governments may decide to address this fiscal challenge by reducing SNAP benefits, restricting eligibility, or even opting out of SNAP entirely," Why It Matters More than 40 million Americans rely on SNAP, which provides monthly benefits to for low- and no-income households to help pay for groceries. What To Know As it stands, states pay for half of the administrative costs of running the food assistance program, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pays the other half. The USDA also covers the entire cost of benefits. But this could soon change: under the Republican-led budget bill, which is currently being considered in the Senate, states could be made to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits in order to reduce federal spending. The House-approved version of the bill mandates that states will need to pay up to 25 percent of the cost of benefits, dependent on individual state payment error rates, starting in 2028. Those with higher error rates—more than 10 percent—would pay the most. If the funding cannot be found, it could lead to states ending their participation in the food stamp program. "Because SNAP is an optional program for states, these deep federal funding cuts may result in some states opting to end SNAP entirely if they are unable to come up with the state funds required to fill the hole left by deep federal cuts," the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reported in May. Numerous states have warned that the cost of the program could be catastrophic for state budgets if the plans go ahead. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has warned the state could face footing a $900-million bill, while Rhode Island could end up paying $85 million to make up the gap. In late May, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the state would lose some $314 million in food assistance if President Donald Trump's bill comes to pass. So far, no state has said they plan to drop out of the program if the bill passes. Stock image of a woman shopping for groceries. Stock image of a woman shopping for groceries. GETTY "States are not in a position to absorb these substantial additional costs," the CBPP warned. "In fiscal year 2024, tax revenue fell in 40 states after adjusting for inflation, and many states are projecting budget shortfalls in the short and long term." According to a report by Politico, senators on the Agriculture Committee are seeking to reduce the percentage of benefits being paid for by states with the highest error payment rates to 15 percent, down from 25. What People Are Saying A USDA spokesperson told Newsweek: "As set by Congress in law, SNAP is at the request of the state agency. Regardless of this reconciliation exercise, states have the option whether to participate." Darcy Milburn, speaking to Newsweek: "During times of economic uncertainty, we need SNAP more than ever. Any cuts to SNAP funding would make it even harder for people with disabilities and their families to access the food they need to live healthy lives. We urge Congress to reject proposals for any cuts to SNAP, and to work on a bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect this critical program." Jennifer Greenfield, associate professor at University of Denver who specializes in the intersection of health and wealth disparities, previously told Newsweek: "The proposed federal 'savings' are not savings at all—it's a shift of the costs to our already cash-strapped states and families. The net result will be to increase hunger and financial instability among households with children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans—while also sending tens of thousands of people into unemployment." President Donald Trump has not commented directly on the SNAP provisions included in the bill, but has urged lawmakers to pass it. "It's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" he wrote on Truth Social. What's Next The Senate is expected to revise several parts of the legislation before holding a final vote.
