I am also surprised to see
Cook mention the limitation of children’s access to healthy food and making the
connection to the increasing healthcare cost of this country. From his letter, I got a sense of vindication. I’m not
a leftwing nut job screaming “save the dolphins”; I’m somewhat reasonable
after all… and there are like minds in Congress who would defend the moderate ideals I hold. I am also glad to see our political process shine in its glorious reasoning and say clearly what I've wanted to say to the American People. This is the nation I defended and this is the process I treasure, let these words endure.
To the Members of the Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction:
As you undertake the difficult task
of framing a new budgetary policy for the nation, we at the Environmental
Working Group, representing more than one million supporters across the
country, wish to offer some timely suggestions for fiscally prudent changes
that will benefit the health and well-being of all Americans and the
environment.
The decisions you make will have a
profound impact on the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink and
on many other environmental factors that can either keep us healthy or make us
sick, with major consequences for the economy. We hope that you will take the
long view of the current crisis and take great care to ensure that your
decisions enhance the long-term fiscal, environmental and public health of the
country – three goals that are not mutually exclusive.
In particular, we strongly urge you
to resist shortsighted calls to cut funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency and to restrict its authority. Instead, you must ensure that the EPA has
the necessary resources and powers to protect human health and the environment.
As you work to identify budgetary savings, we ask that you target those
programs and incentives that perversely harm our health and the environment.
Prominent among these are tax breaks for the environmentally destructive – and
very profitable – oil, gas, corn ethanol and mining industries. Currently,
taxpayers are subsidizing the fouling of our land, water and air, paying to
clean up the messes left behind, and finally paying a third time for the health
care costs associated with these polluting industries and practices. This is
impossible to justify, either in moral or fiscal terms.
One of the primary functions of a
government is to ensure that its people enjoy a clean environment, as free as
possible from harmful pollutants that degrade the quality of life and cause
premature death. Careful environmental protections safeguard human life and
improve health even as they save taxpayers money and stimulate technical
innovation. Numerous studies have shown that environmental regulation has paid
great dividends over generations, dwarfing the up-front costs to industry.
Jeffrey Hollander, CEO of household products maker 7th Generation and cofounder
of the American Sustainable Business Council, and David Levine, cofounder and
Executive Director of the American Sustainable Business Council, made this
point recently in The Huffington Post:
“While over-burdensome government
regulations may be harmful, those which Congress is currently focusing on will
not strangle job creation. This is a myth repeated by politicians and CEOs who
stand to increase profits while decreasing safety if standards disappear –
standards that ensure product and food safety, protect our environment, and
guarantee the proper regulation of our financial, medical, and legal industries.
The anti-regulation mania that's swept Washington conveniently ignores the
positive impact that common sense regulations have on all of our daily lives,
while threatening to harm the basic protections that we have come to expect.”
In the face of continued inaction by
Congress on legislative reform, the EPA for the first time in more than 20
years is currently using its existing, though severely limited, authority under
the Toxic Substances Control Act to prioritize, test and determine the safety of
numerous toxic industrial chemicals – including some that are showing up in the
bodies of nearly all Americans. The agency is also increasing transparency by
denying spurious claims of confidentiality used by companies to evade full
disclosure of chemical exposures and risks. These involve many toxic chemicals
that millions of Americans are exposed to through everyday use of consumer
products, most of which have never been assessed for safety. EPA is undertaking
these efforts in a well-considered way that listens to all stakeholders,
including chemical industry representatives and the NGO community. The agency
deserves praise and support for these and similar initiatives – not to have its
legs cut out from underneath it.
Good food is as essential to our
health as clean air, and food and farm policy is another area that is ripe for
correction, as the obesity epidemic demonstrates. We must ensure that all
Americans – particularly children – get enough of the right kinds of food to
lead healthy lives, that food is produced in ways that protect and improve the
health of soil and water and enhance long-term agricultural sustainability. We
must provide an appropriate, fiscally responsible safety net to keep working
farm and ranch families on the land and provide economic opportunities for them
and their communities. Finally, successful food policy means doing all we can
to ensure a safe food supply. Just this summer, 60,000 pounds of ground beef
and 36 million pounds of ground turkey have been recalled because of microbial
contamination. The illnesses caused by these and other tainted foods slow
economic productivity and raise healthcare costs. We urge you to fully fund the
new Food Safety Modernization Act as well as programs that support healthy
diets, greater access to healthy food and beverages in schools and communities,
improved conservation practices on farms, and not least, thriving local,
sustainable and regional food systems.
In contrast, current misguided food
and farm policies cost too much and direct too much money to highly profitable
farms that do not need public support. The outdated farm subsidy system is
broken – plain and simple. Rather than helping struggling family farms in times
of need, it delivers unneeded handouts to the largest, most profitable
producers and landowners. The top 10 percent of recipients receive 74 percent
of all subsidy money, while two-thirds of farmers get absolutely nothing. This
needs to change.
Cutting out this wasteful spending
will help bring down the deficit while protecting other priorities. Direct
payments that go out regardless of market conditions or actual land use must be
eliminated, or at least targeted only to farmers who demonstrate a clear
financial need. The outdated price support programs are irrelevant in today’s
marketplace and should be eliminated. The Supplemental Revenue Enhancement
program (SURE), problematic from the beginning, should be terminated. New
limits should be applied to crop and revenue insurance, and administrative
support for private insurance companies should be cut further. The Average Crop
Revenue Election program (ACRE) should be consolidated with the private revenue
insurance option to prevent duplication. Finally, meaningful income eligibility
limits and payment caps must be applied to all farm subsidy programs to ensure
that a reasonable level of help is being provided only to those who most need
it.
Enacting these changes would yield
billions of dollars in savings, a small fraction of which must be devoted to
shoring up programs that most benefit a healthy, responsible food system. These
include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants,
and Children Nutrition (WIC) and school meals – which help the neediest among
us.
Poor diets cost the nation billions
in diet-related disease and health care costs. We urge you to invest in better
nutrition for all by funding programs that promote domestic production and
consumption of healthy foods, especially fruits and vegetables. These include
Specialty Crop Block Grants, the Fruit and Vegetable School Snack Program and
the Department of Defense Fresh program. The landmark Healthy, Hunger-free Kids
Act of 2010 must be fully funded to give children the best nutrition possible.
We also must provide strong funding
for programs that provide new market opportunities for sustainable and organic
farmers and ranchers and create jobs by strengthening the local food economy.
These include the Farmers Market Promotion program, the Value-Added Producer
Grant and Sustainable Agriculture Research Education programs and the Organic
Extension and Research Initiative.
Funding for conservation and
research must also be maintained in order to blunt the damage that modern
agricultural practices increasingly inflict on the landscape and to keep America’s
farms viable into the future. Conservation, research and extension programs are
crucial in supporting farmers’ and ranchers’ efforts to protect and enhance
soil resources, improve air quality and conserve water and wildlife habitat. In
the coming years, producers will face significant natural resource constraints
as a result of rising temperatures, periodic flooding and drought. Maintaining
and strengthening conservation and research programs is essential for improving
water conservation and food production, adapting to climate change, promoting
food safety and ensuring healthy rural economies and ecosystems.
Investing in water infrastructure,
like food safety, nutrition, conservation and local food programs, has upfront
costs but broad economic benefits for the job market, human health and the
environment. In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s
drinking water infrastructure a grade of D minus, noting that leaky pipes lose
approximately 7 billion gallons of drinking water every day. In 2009, EPA
reported to Congress that utilities need $334.8 billion in infrastructure
investments over the next 20 years. The evidence shows that these investments
pay off in jobs and improving infrastructure – which means cleaner water and more
efficient delivery. The Government Accountability Office reported that the $6
billion appropriated to the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped pay for more than
3,000 water quality projects and at its height helped employ 15,000 full-time
employees. According to EPA, in many cases state programs increased the amount
of money they award to projects and did so in half the usual amount of time.
Unless the nation makes these upfront investments in drinking water
infrastructure, we will pay the price with increasingly frequent water main
breaks. And unless we fund source water and drinking water protection,
Americans will continue to be exposed to elevated levels of potentially harmful
contaminants.
It is clear that the EPA’s actions
save lives and provide economic benefits. A report by the Office of Management
and Budget earlier this year found that while EPA rules had the highest costs
of compliance over the past 10 years, they also had the highest benefits. For
example, EPA’s rules and resulting improvements in public health from reducing
particulates in the air yielded a benefit of $82-$551 billion in economic and
health benefits at a cost of $23-$28 billion. That is a tremendous return on investment.
There are clear, easy ways to
reorient budgetary policy to reduce the deficit, meet the needs of today’s
America and improve the fiscal legacy and lives of future generations. Without
clean air, clean water and good nutrition, illnesses and related health care
costs will continue to rise, with dramatic negative effects on the economy. We
look forward to working with you as you confront these important challenges.
If you have questions or would like
to discuss these ideas further, please contact our government affairs staff –
David DeGennaro (202-939-9128/ddegennaro@ewg.org), Sheila Karpf
(202-939-9153/skarpf@ewg.org) or Jason Rano (202-939-9125/jrano@ewg.org).
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Cook
President