Funding cut for program that provided healthy, local food to Massachusetts schools
Governor Maura Healey decried the federal government for cutting funding to a program which is used to provide healthy, locally sourced foods to Massachusetts schools.
"Just another example of bad actions by Elon Musk and Donald Trump that are going to hurt people here in the state," Healey told reporters.
State losing $12.2 million in grants
Healey said the State Department of Early and Secondary Education received notice from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the state would not receive $12.2 million in grants to fund the Northeast Food for Schools program for next school year.
The USDA said it "determined this agreement no longer effectuates agency priorities and that termination of the award is appropriate."
The funding cut comes as some local food providers say the program is expanding.
"It really took off in the fall of 2023 when the Northeast Food for Schools grant program started and just business skyrocketed," said Shon Rainford, the Director of the Worcester Regional Food Hub, which connects school districts with food from local farmers.
58 farmers, 90 school districts
According to the Massachusetts Farm to School website, the food hub connected 58 farmers and local food producers with 90 school districts last year.
One of those farmers is Katie Carlson, president of Carlson Orchards in Harvard. Carlson says she worries that any cut to the USDA funding could mean less demand for her apples.
"We know that this time of year we can count on the Worcester food hub," Carlson said. "They may not be huge orders every week, but we know that they're coming to take something every week, so if that were to all of a sudden drop off [...] It's just not, not good."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Healey backs Newsom in fight with Trump over LA protest response
BOSTON (SHNS) – Gov. Maura Healey backed California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday as protests over federal immigration raids have dragged into their fifth day in Los Angeles. 'I stand in support with Governor Newsom, and supporting his prerogative as commander in chief to lead local and state law enforcement in protecting communities. What Donald Trump is doing is making communities less safe,' Healey told reporters Wednesday after an unrelated event outside of the State House. The protests started in LA on Friday, when Immigration Customs Enforcement raids took place across the city. Over the weekend, the demonstrations escalated and the Trump administration sent about 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the city. Mayor Karen Bass implemented a curfew in downtown LA and Newsom filed an emergency motion to try to block further deployment of troops in the city center. 'They're talking about spending over a $100 million with this deployment,' Bass said at a news conference, according to Courthouse News Service. 'Which is why I say that I feel like we have all been in Los Angeles a part of a grand experiment to see what happens when the federal government decides they want to roll up on a state, or roll up on a city, and take over.' President Donald Trump posted about the LA protests and military deployment on his social media platform, Truth Social, several times Wednesday morning. 'If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now, just like so much of their housing burned to the ground. The great people of Los Angeles are very lucky that I made the decision to go in and help!!!' he wrote. Another post says, 'The INCOMPETENT Governor of California was unable to provide protection in a timely manner when our Ice Officers, GREAT Patriots they are, were attacked by an out of control mob of agitators, troublemakers, and/or insurrectionists. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Gov. Newsom has responded by calling Trump a threat to American life. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next,' he warned during a press conference on Wednesday. 'Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived.' Healey told reporters that she joins with governors and attorneys general around the country in denouncing Trump's actions. 'It is wrong to federalize the National Guard over the objection of and without the consultation of a governor of a state,' she said. 'It's making our communities less safe, and it puts law enforcement in danger,' adding that 'I don't want to see them in harm's way either, just like I don't want to see members of our military in harm's way.' 'In terms of what happens next with court actions. I'll leave that to the attorney general and support whatever steps she takes that she thinks are important to vindicate things as a legal matter, because that's her domain,' Healey said. Attorney General Andrea Campbell joined a group of 18 attorneys general in releasing a statement Wednesday condemning Trump's military deployment to the city 'as the chief law enforcement officers' in their respective states. 'The president's decision to federalize and deploy California's National Guard without the consent of California state leaders is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic,' the statement reads. It continues, 'The federal administration should be working with local leaders to keep everyone safe, not mobilizing the military against the American people… We oppose any action from this administration that will sow chaos, inflame tensions, and put people's lives at risk – including those of our law enforcement officers.' WBUR reported over 200 people gathered for a rally at Boston City Hall on Monday for a rally against ICE raids in LA and Trump's response to the protests. There are several protests planned around the state on June 14 as part of a nationwide 'No Kings Day' effort, on the same day Trump is planning a military parade in Washington D.C. to celebrate the Army's 250th birthday, which also falls on his 79th birthday. At a press conference this week, Bass said the protests have been limited to about five streets or one square mile of the city, compared to 503 square miles in Los Angeles. She said city officials, including police, have the capacity to handle protests and are not getting information from federal officials about immigration raids. 'I would appeal to the president to stop the ICE raids so that we can have stability in our city,' Bass said. 'I think about the families who are afraid to go to work and go to school. I was talking to a friend today who in her local grocery store, the shelves were empty, a lot of the shelves were empty, because people aren't coming to work to stock the shelves. We have to look at the contribution that the immigrant population makes to our local economy. And you know that there are some industries that the majority are immigrant labor. And so when you frighten immigrants and they don't want to come to work you are hitting at the heart of our local economy. The nannies that can't show up, the gardeners that can't show up, that impacts households in a way that I don't think people often realize the extent.' WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 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
17 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?
