OLYMPIA, Wash. - Farmworkers will be in Olympia next week to discuss workplace conditions.

For the sixth year, laborers from across the state of Washington will deliver testimonies to tribunal judges in culturally appropriate ways - through stories and in the language they feel comfortable speaking. Their views on issues such as workplace retaliation and the heath risks of pesticide use are expected to be big topics.

Adrianne Sebastian, a naturopathic doctor and organizer with International Migrants Alliance, will be one of the judges. She said her role includes not only hearing about issues farmworkers face, but also finding solutions and making recommendations.

"How we can create a more equitable and sustainable, just food system," she said, "while also creating a platform to hear these community voices and the people most impacted."

The sixth annual Farmworker Tribunal will be held Monday, which also is Latino Legislative Day. It is to start at 4:30 p.m. in the Columbia Room of the Legislative building.

Some will be highlighting Senate Bill 5438, which would establish oversight of the federal H2A guest-worker program, which brings laborers in from other countries and has been criticized for exploiting those workers.

Rosalinda Guillen, executive director of Community to Community Development, one of the organizations hosting the tribunal, said headway is being made legislatively on issues raised by farmworkers in past tribunals. Guillen noted that this is a way for workers to set the agenda.

"Legislative agenda from the bottom up or from the grassroots up," she said. "What do we need to do, what do community leaders need to do, what do farmworkers themselves need to do in the coming years to reach the desired goals - for justice, for safety and health, and economic viability for the community?"

Nina Martinez, who chairs the board of the Latino Civic Alliance, another host of the tribunal, said farmworkers' concerns on the job are critical because of the vital role they play in Washington state's food system.

"Everyone that uses food or sells food - they have to remember where they're getting that from, and they're getting it from the worker," she said. "The worker is not getting treated well or paid well, and this is a problem for all Washingtonians."

More information on the tribunal is online at foodjustice.org, and the text of SB 5438 is at app.leg.wa.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Mexico has issued a ban on importing genetically modified corn from the U.S., potentially opening a new market for American farmers.

Mexico is the second-largest importer of U.S. grown corn. The latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show Mexico imported about $18.7 billion worth of American corn, or about 40% of what the U.S. exported. Now, the Mexican government is moving to ban genetically modified corn, opting for natural, organic options, much to the dismay of American ag product and fertilizer companies.

Joe Maxwell, co-founder of the group Farm Action, said the government should not be involved in deciding what other countries can import.

"We disagree with the United States government's position," Maxwell explained. "They ought to be representing a market opportunity for America's farmers that pays a premium."

Maxwell argued market opportunities would be created by Mexico's demand for more naturally grown corn, which could yield American farmers willing to grow it an additional 50 cents per bushel and as much as 75 cents more in Iowa, based on the state's soil quality for growing a specialty crop. Corn growers have continued to modify crop genetics in search of higher, more predictable yields.

Maxwell emphasized farmers deserve the right to capitalize on the opportunity, but argued the USDA is pushing back on the ban because of support from U.S. corporate farm interests who stand to profit on genetically modified crops, especially fertilizer companies, who are working to stop Mexico's ban.

"In this case, marketing Bayer-Monsanto's patented traits," Maxwell noted. "Marketing their particular chemicals when it goes against an opportunity for farmers to have access to a premium market that could pay over $80 an acre more on almost 4 million acres of U.S. corn ground."

Farm Action has submitted an application to testify before a panel discussing the trade dispute between the U.S. and Mexico created by the genetically modified corn ban.


get more stories like this via email

Today is the deadline for small farmers seeking financial assistance to apply for grants from a farm advocacy organization designed to help them get their start.

Practical Farmers of Iowa's Savings Incentive Program also teaches them important financial knowledge.

The SIP is a two-year program offering targeted learning and networking opportunities with guidance from experienced farmer-mentors. It also teaches new farmers how to set goals and create a business plan.

PFI's Senior Farm Viability Manager Kayla Koether said they're making $2,400 available in matching funds to farmers who can save that amount during the two-year program.

"For every dollar that they save, we will match them a dollar from our funds," said Koether. "So, when they buy an asset then, essentially the purchase of the asset is 50% dollars that they've saved and 50% dollars that we're contributing once they've graduated and hit the program milestones."

Today is the last day to apply for the savings-investment program.

Koether said money to buy land is often the biggest stumbling block for up-and-coming farmers who have the knowledge and desire to succeed, but just need a financial leg up.

"It's very hard for beginning farmers to find purchase, to get access to land, to set up sustainable businesses," said Koether. "PFI really wants to support people in our network to make sure that we have the next generation of farmers getting started and being successful in Iowa and beyond. "

So far, Iowa farmers have invested over $500,000 in their new operations with PFI's help. Applications for the program are available online.

Minnesota has been in the headlines over nitrate levels in drinking water and some conservation groups argued industrial farms are being given too many federal incentives to maintain operations, creating more environmental concerns.

Nearly 200 groups have sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow factory farms to qualify for climate-smart conservation payments using Inflation Reduction Act funding.

Sean Carroll, policy and organizing director for the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, suggests it would only allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to proliferate without having to fully confront their emissions.

"They should be responsible for that," Carroll asserted. "The public shouldn't be paying them to do it."

In the meantime, he pointed out farming communities bear the brunt of air and water pollution from the operations, while the companies continue to dominate ag markets. The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has called on Minnesota to be more aggressive in blocking nitrates from entering water sources in southeastern counties.

Those who pushed for EPA action cited the permitting process for large livestock facilities. Meanwhile, Carroll said popular USDA conservation aid programs need to prioritize smaller producers who have shown a willingness to curb farm emissions and protect soil health.

"People that are applying for real environmental quality practices on our land are being denied," Carroll noted.

He pointed to recent reports from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which showed the USDA still rejects more than three in four farmers' applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program, despite some progress seen in 2022.

Large livestock operations said they are responding to a rising demand for safely grown meat and are constantly working to modernize their environmental practices.Minnesota has been in the headlines over nitrate levels in drinking water and some conservation groups argued industrial farms are being given too many federal incentives to maintain operations, creating more environmental concerns.

Nearly 200 groups have sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow factory farms to qualify for climate-smart conservation payments using Inflation Reduction Act funding.

Sean Carroll, policy and organizing director for the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, suggests it would only allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to proliferate without having to fully confront their emissions.

"They should be responsible for that," Carroll asserted. "The public shouldn't be paying them to do it."

In the meantime, he pointed out farming communities bear the brunt of air and water pollution from the operations, while the companies continue to dominate ag markets. The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has called on Minnesota to be more aggressive in blocking nitrates from entering water sources in southeastern counties.

Those who pushed for EPA action cited the permitting process for large livestock facilities. Meanwhile, Carroll said popular USDA conservation aid programs need to prioritize smaller producers who have shown a willingness to curb farm emissions and protect soil health.

"People that are applying for real environmental quality practices on our land are being denied," Carroll noted.

He pointed to recent reports from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which showed the USDA still rejects more than three in four farmers' applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program, despite some progress seen in 2022.

Large livestock operations said they are responding to a rising demand for safely grown meat and are constantly working to modernize their environmental practices.


get more stories like this via email