What the Republican Budget Means for Food Stamps

Food stamp users, prepare for some belt-tightening. Harkening back to Clinton-era welfare economics of 1996, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has proposed a $6.2 trillion cut to annual federal deficits for the next decade. The proposal, which passed the House earlier this month and resumes legislation today as Senators return from Easter-Passover break, would have a major impact on nutritional assistance programs.

The Ryan budget plan looks to cut the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by 20 percent between 2012 to 2021 by capping the open-ended system with a block-grant -- either by capping eligibility or benefits, or both. This means benefits would not fluctuate with economic need. States would instead be allotted a max.

If eligibility heads for the chopping block in 2012, more than 8 million people would be cut, reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- that's the equivalent of the population of the 30 smallest states. If benefits go, SNAP users would be reduced to 88 percent of the USDA's estimated needs-per-family in the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). A family of four would lose $147 per month; families of three would lose $116.

No doubt, there's been opposition -- but none yet with a solid alternative, though Senate Democratic aids expect action from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

According to The Hill, Reid and a group of Dems spent their vacation soliciting American business investment in China, while Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) is expected to introduce a budget blueprint with recommendations from bipartisan negotiating group, Gang of Six. Stay tuned, Old Western-style, we imagine

.

by Jessie Cacciola

Are Farm Animals Headed to Rehab?

Whether it was baked chicken or a grilled steak, it's likely that the meat you had for dinner last night contained an array of pharmaceuticals. Alarmed by potential drug resistance in both animals and in humans, on Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called for more judicious use of antimicrobial drugs in the production of animals raised for food.

Antimicrobial drugs were introduced to industrial farming more than 50 years ago as a way to prevent disease in animals. But the FDA is concerned that many of the drugs have lost their effectiveness due to the development of drug-resistant microbial strains. The government agency wants meat producers to stop using the drugs to boost production and promote growth.

"Limiting the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals only for assuring animal health. Unfortunately, many operations use antimicrobials to increase production, or to produce larger animals, which contributes to the misuse of the drugs and raises the possibility of antibiotic resistance," FDA officials said in a statement.

"The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious public health threat," the FDA said in the statement.

Not surprisingly, the meat industry is unhappy with the recommendations. The National Pork Producers Council said the FDA guidelines were too much, claiming they would keep the industry from using medications to keep their animals healthy.

"There is no scientific study linking antibiotic food use in food animal production with antibiotic resistance," the council said in a statement of their own.

Scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists beg to differ. Margaret Mellon, a member of the organization, says the council's claim is "patently untrue."

"There is a mountain of studies linking the use of antibiotics in animals to the evolution of resistant pathogens that cause human disease," she told the Los Angeles Times.

Whatever the case, the brouhaha is all a little premature. The FDA document isn't a regulation or even a proposed regulation. The FDA will open a 60-day comment period on this issue, then decide on what regulations (if any) to impose. In the meantime, if you're concerned about what's in your meat, organic is always an option. It might be pricier, but it comes without the pill bottles