USDA continued from page 7
This report is public record, easily obtainable by media and citizens. So why have Midwest media outlets not picked up this report and generated local stories about the issue? When it comes to federal agriculture programs, discrimination and bigotry are not limited to USDA. The U.S. Senate and House committees on agriculture also show signs of this underlying “us against them” sentiment. Committee members from Midwest states, (many white, many male, many Republican), introduce bills and lead policy development that favors large agribusiness and not small operations such as those owned by minority producers. Furthermore, when farm bill funding is discussed, many of these lawmakers hone in on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rather than on programs that funnel money to large corporations and landowners. SNAP, commonly known as the food-stamp program, receives the lion’s share of the farm bill appropriations. The 2008 farm bill allocated $76 billion out of $92 billion annual spending to SNAP. Ag Gag continued from page 29
Most often cited is the “chilling effect” these types of laws will have on a free and open discussion of agriculture practices. Until recently, the most prominent case involving an agriculture disparagement claim was that of the 1996 Texas Beef Group v. Oprah Winfrey. The group of Texas cattlemen said it had suffered losses into the millions of dollars as a result of an Oprah television episode in which she spoke with food safety experts about the growing concern of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), commonly known as “mad cow disease.” The group sought to recoup damages from Winfrey. The case was dismissed after months of back-andforth discussions between the cattlemen’s group and Winfrey’s legal team.
The initiative also serves the largest slice of the U.S. population for a farm bill program: 15 percent of the U.S. population receives SNAP benefits, compared to the less than 2 percent eligible for direct payments or subsidies. Midwest media are more than willing to give space and time to politicians calling for SNAP reform, which includes mandatory drug testing, reduction in services and a cap on benefits. Most of the comments falsely imply that SNAP beneficiaries are all urban minorities who “do nothing.” What is not often – if ever – present in media coverage are facts, such as: • The average monthly SNAP benefit is $133.42 per participant, based on data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. A family cannot have an income higher than 130 percent of the poverty level to qualify for SNAP. However, to qualify for direct (DP) or counter-cycle payments (CCP) from USDA, a producer can make up to $250,000 average annual farm income. Furthermore, “The 2008 Farm Act sets the payment limit for DPs at $40,000 per person or legal entity and for CCPs at $65,000,” according to USDA. • Almost all of the $76 billion in SNAP benefits goes back into the economy. Unlike DP or CCP programs
that go to businesses and landowners to accumulate wealth, these funds are spent for daily living. The benefit recipients get the food they need to survive. Local retailers and distributors get income from the sale of product. Producers get to sell their products. • SNAP is a safety net for agriculture producers. If the SNAP program were dissolved, a substantial market for U.S. agriculture products would dissolve with it. • The “farm bill” label promotes a bucolic notion of the agriculture industry and protects the big business behind it. It also establishes that “nonfarmers” (i.e., urban and minority populations) do not belong in policy discussions. In reality, it should be called the “food bill,” which would open up how the legislation is perceived and who is “allowed” to participate in the discussion. Journalists should be the watchdogs of government and business, and they should inform the public of gross mismanagement and unfair treatment of citizens. Journalists need to address issues of racism in the Midwest head-on. Covering issues of discrimination in USDA programs is just one of the ways this could – and should – happen. <
However, the case was not rejected because of a review of the law’s constitutionality, but rather because the judge determined the cattlemen’s product was not perishable, which was requirement under the Texas guidelines. Last September, Beef Products Inc., a South Dakota-based ground beef distributor, filed a $1.2 billion defamation suit against ABC News under that state’s agriculture disparagement law. The claim centers on ABC News’ coverage in March 2012 of BPI’s lean finely textured beef product (LFTB). ABC News and other media outlets had taken to calling LFTB “pink slime.” The media coverage highlighted the BPI practice of using low levels of ammonium hydroxide gas to prevent the growth of E. coli in ground beef. Public outcry followed the media attention, specifically the contract
between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and BPI to use ground beef containing LFTB in the school lunch programs. Several large supermarket chains canceled contracts with BPI as a result of the public uproar. In the following months, BPI closed three of its four plants and more than 750 BPI employees lost jobs because of these closures. BPI claims that ABC News disseminated false and misleading information about its product, which resulted in substantial financial loss. This qualifies as grounds for a lawsuit under the South Dakota law. ABC News holds the position that its reporting was fair and that there are no grounds for a defamation suit. The case is pending. BPI is trying to get it moved back to state court and out of federal jurisdiction. <
Page 42 • Gateway Journalism Review • Spring 2013