Showing posts sorted by date for query MEATPACKING. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query MEATPACKING. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, April 29, 2024

Activist who fought for legal rights for Europe’s largest saltwater lagoon wins ‘Green Nobel’


A professor who helped save Europe’s largest saltwater lagoon is one of this year’s winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize, known as the “Green Nobel.” The prize honors grassroots environmental activists and leaders around the world for their efforts to protect the natural world. (AP Video by Haven Daley)Photos

BY DORANY PINEDA
April 29, 2024

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Growing up, Teresa Vicente spent long days in Spain’s Mar Menor swimming in transparent waters, cupping seahorses in her hands and partying under the moonlit sky. Out there, she recalled, time stood still.

But over the decades, chronic contamination from mining, development and agricultural runoff turned the once crystal-clear waters of Europe’s largest saltwater lagoon into a graveyard. A mass fish die-off in 2019 prompted the professor of philosophy of law at the University of Murcia to take action.

Over the next several years, Vicente, now 61, led a grassroots campaign to save the region’s ecological jewel from collapse. Her efforts helped lead to a new law passed in 2022, giving the lagoon the legal right to conservation, protection and damage remediation.

Vicente is one of this year’s seven winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize, known as the “Green Nobel,” which honors grassroots activists and leaders from across the globe for achievements in protecting the natural world. The recipients were selected from about 100 nominees.

“(This prize) signifies an international recognition that we are facing a new stage in humanity,” said Vicente in Spanish. It’s a stage where “human beings understand they are part of nature. And this recognition means that it is not a local or national conquest, but rather a European and international one.”

“They call Mar Menor the lagoon of magic,” she added, “and all of us on this journey have seen a lot of magic.”

The other winners are:

— Marcel Gomes, executive secretary for the media nonprofit Repórter Brasil, who organized a campaign that alleged connections between beef from the world’s largest meatpacking corporation, JBS, and illegal deforestation in Brazil and helped pressure retailers around the world to stop selling the meat.

— Indigenous activist Murrawah Maroochy Johnson, who helped stop development of a coal mine in Australia’s Queensland state that would have devasted nearly 20,000 acres (8,000 hectares) of a nature preserve, spewed nearly 1.6 billion tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over its lifetime, and endangered the rights and culture of Indigenous peoples.

— Alok Shukla, who led a community movement that saved nearly half a million acres (200,000 hectares) of forests from 21 proposed coal mines in Chhattisgarh, a state in central India.

Andrea Vidaurre, who helped convince the state of California’s air quality agency to establish two transportation regulations that limit emissions from trains and trucks. The rules include the nation’s first emissions limit for trains.

— Nonhle Mbuthuma and Sinegugu Zukulu, Indigenous activists who prevented seismic testing for coal and gas in a coastal area off South Africa’s Eastern Cape.

Michael Sutton, executive director of the Goldman Environmental Foundation, called the winners “an incredible group of individuals laboring, sometimes in obscurity, against overwhelming odds to prevail against governments, against industry.”

Vicente was born and raised in Spain’s southeastern city of Murcia, home to the Mar Menor. When she learned about the 2019 fish die-off, she was at the University of Reading in England studying how other countries had successfully bestowed legal rights upon natural resources to protect them.

To save the lagoon, Vicente in 2020 helped write the first draft of a bill granting legal protection to the Mar Menor and submitted it to Spain’s Parliament, which allows citizens to propose laws directly. But the process required her to gather 500,000 signatures during COVID-19 lockdowns.

By November 2021, with help from thousands of volunteers across Spain, Vicente had amassed nearly 640,000 signatures — and the law was passed in 2022.

She never doubted she would succeed. “People had understood that they were part of that ecosystem and were excited about the idea of being able to defend their rights,” she said. “When people forget their political differences, their religious differences or their economic differences, and give themselves over to a new idea of justice, that is a sure success.”

The Goldman Environmental Prize was founded in 1989 by philanthropists Richard and Rhoda H. Goldman to recognize common people working in their communities to protect and improve their environment.
___

AP video journalist Haven Daley contributed to this report from San Francisco.
___

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.

Saturday, April 06, 2024

Now we know how Hitler did it

Thom Hartmann
April 6, 2024
TRUTH OUT

Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Phoenix (Gage Skidmore)

LONG READ

The Nazis in America are now “out.” This morning, former Republican Joe Scarborough explicitly compared Trump and his followers to Hitler and his Brownshirts on national television. They’re here.

At the same time, America’s richest man is retweeting antisemitism, rightwing influencers and radio/TV hosts are blaming “Jews and liberals” for the “invasion” of “illegals” to “replace white people,” and the entire GOP is embracing candidates and legislators who encourage hate and call for violence.

Are there parallels between the MAGA takeover of the GOP and the Nazi takeover of the German right in the 1930s?

It began with a national humiliation: defeat in war. For Germany, it was WWI; for America it was two wars George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied us into as part of their 2004 “wartime president” re-election strategy (which had worked so well for Nixon with Vietnam in 1972 and Reagan with Grenada in 1984).

Hitler fought in WWI but later blamed Germany’s defeat on the nation being “stabbed in the back” by liberal Jews, their fellow travelers, and incompetent German military leadership.

Trump cheered on Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but later lied and claimed he’d opposed the war. Both blamed the nation’s humiliation on the incompetence or evil of their political enemies.

The economic crisis caused by America’s Republican Great Depression had gone worldwide and Hitler used the gutting of the German middle class (made worse by the punishing Treaty of Versailles) as a campaign issue, promising to restore economic good times.


Trump pointed to the damage forty years of neoliberalism had done to the American middle class and promised to restore blue-collar prosperity. Hitler promised he would “make Germany great again”; Trump campaigned on the slogan: “Make America Great Again.”

Both tried to overthrow their governments by violence and failed, Hitler in a Bavarian beer hall and Trump on January 6th. Both then turned to legal means to seize control of their nations.

Hitler’s scapegoats were Jews, gays, and liberals. “There are only two possibilities,” he told a Munich crowd in 1922. “Either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.”


He promised “I will get rid of the ‘communist vermin’,” “I will take care of the ‘enemy within’,” “Jews and migrants are poisoning Aryan blood,” and “One people, one nation, one leader.”

Trump’s scapegoats were Blacks, Muslims, immigrants, and liberals.

He said he will “root out” “communists … and radical left thugs that live like vermin”; he would destroy “the threat from within”; migrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”; and that under Trump’s leadership America will become “One people, one family, one glorious nation.”


Hitler called the press the Lügenpresse or “lying press.” Trump quoted Stalin, calling our news agencies and reporters “the enemy of the people.”

Both exploited religion and religious believers. Hitler proclaimed a “New Christianity” for Germany and encouraged fundamentalist factions within both the Catholic and Protestant faiths.

Every member of the Germany army got a belt-buckle inscribed with Gott Mit Uns (God is with us).


Trump embraced rightwing Catholics and evangelical Protestants and, like the German churches in 1933, has been lionized by their leaders.

Hitler made alliances with other autocrats (Mussolini, Franco, and Tojo) and conspired with them to take over much of the planet. Trump disrespected our NATO and European allies and embraced the murderous dictator of Saudi Arabia, the psychopathic leader of Russia, and the absolute tyrant who runs North Korea.

Both Hitler and Trump had an “inciting incident” that became the touchstone for their rise to illegitimate levels of power.


For Hitler it was the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, by a mentally ill Dutchman. For Trump it is his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him and the martyrdom of his supporters after their attempted coup on January 6th.

Hitler embraced rightwing Bavarian street gangs and brawlers, organizing them into a volunteer militia who called themselves the Brownshirts (Hitler called them the Sturm Abeilung or Storm Division).

Trump embraces rightwing militia groups and motorcycle gangs, and implicitly praises his followers when they attack people like Paul Pelosi, election workers, and prosecutors and judges who are attempting to hold him accountable for his criminal behavior.


While Trump has mostly focused his public hate campaigns against racial and religious minorities, behind the scenes he and his administration had worked hand-in-glove with anti-gay fanatics like Mike Johnson to limit the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

His administration opposed the Equality Act, saying it would “undermine parental and conscience rights.” More than a third (36%) of his judicial nominees had previously expressed “bias and bigotry towards queer people.” His administration filed briefs in the landmark Bostock case before the Supreme Court, claiming that civil rights laws don’t protect LGBTQ+ people.

His Department of Health and Human Services ended Obama-era medical protections for queer people. His Secretary of Education, billionaire Betsy DeVos, took apart regulations protecting transgender kids in public schools. His HUD Secretary, Ben Carson, proposed new rules allowing shelters to turn away homeless queer people at a time when one-in-five homeless youth identify as LGBTQ+.


German Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous poem begins with, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.” But, in fact, first Hitler came for queer people.

A year before Nazis began attacking union leaders and socialists, a full five years before attacking Jewish-owned stores on Kristallnacht, the Nazis came for the trans people at the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin.

In 1930, the Institute had pioneered the first gender-affirming surgery in modern Europe. It’s director, Magnus Hirschfeld, had compiled the largest library of books and scientific papers on the LGBTQ+ spectrum in the world and was internationally recognized in the field of sexual and gender studies.


Being gay, lesbian, or trans was widely tolerated in Germany, at least in the big cities, when Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933, and the German queer community was his first explicit target. Within weeks, the Nazis began a campaign to demonize queer people — with especially vitriolic attacks on trans people — across German media.

German states put into law bans on gender-affirming care, drag shows, and any sort of “public display of deviance,” enforcing a long-moribund German law, Paragraph 175, first put into the nation’s penal code in 1871, that outlawed homosexuality. Books and magazines telling stories of gay men and lesbians were removed from schools and libraries.

Thus, a mere five months after Hitler came to power, on May 6, 1933, Nazis showed up at the Institute and hauled over 20,000 books and manuscripts about gender and sexuality out in the street to burn, creating a massive bonfire. It was the first major Nazi book-burning and was celebrated with newsreels played in theaters across the nation. It wouldn’t be the last: soon it spread to the libraries and public high schools.

The conservative elite of Germany, particularly Fritz Thyssen, Hjalmar Schacht, and Gustav Krupp were early supporters of Hitler, as he promised to crush the German labor movement and cut their taxes.

Without the support of rightwing billionaires funding Cambridge Analytica and Trump’s campaign he never would have won the electoral college in 2016.

Hitler couldn’t have risen to power without the support of the largest outlets in German media. Some treated him as “just another politician,” normalizing his fascist rhetoric. Others openly supported him.

After his failed beer hall putsch, he was legally banned from public speaking and mass rallies but, in 1930, German media mogul Alfred Hugenberg — a rightwing billionaire who owned two of the largest national newspapers and had considerable influence over radio — joined forces with Hitler and relentlessly promoted him, much like the Murdoch media empire and 1,500 billionaire-owned rightwing radio stations across the country helped bring Trump to power in 2016 and still promote him every day.

Hitler’s first major seizure of dictatorial power was his use of the Weimar law Article 48 which, during a time of crisis, empowered the nation’s leader to suspend due process and habeas corpus, turn the army’s guns on people deemed insurrectionists, and arrest people without charges or trial.

Its American equivalents are the State of Emergency Declaration and the Insurrection Act, both of which Trump has promised to invoke in his first days in office if he’s re-elected in 2024.

Once Hitler had seized full control of the German government, he set about changing the nation’s laws to replace democracy with autocracy. His enablers in the German Parliament passed the “Enabling Act” that gave Hitler’s cabinet the power to write and implement their own laws.

Trump promises to use the theoretical “unitary executive” powers rightwing groups claim the president holds, but has never used in our history, to have his new cabinet rewrite many of our nation’s laws.

Hitler followed the Enabling Act, six months later, with the Act for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which authorized him to gut the German Civil Service and replace career bureaucrats with toadies loyal exclusively to him. It was the end of any semblance of resistance to the Nazis or preservation of democracy within the new German government.

In his last three weeks in office, Trump issued an executive order called Schedule F that ended Civil Service protections for around 50,000 of America’s top government officials, including the senior levels of every federal agency, so he could replace them all with political appointees (Biden reversed it). The Heritage Foundation is reportedly now vetting over 50,000 people to fill these ranks if Trump is reelected and, as promised, reinstates Schedule F.

The last bastion of resistance to Hitler within the German government was the judiciary, and Hitler altered the German Civil Service Code in January 1937, giving his cabinet the power to remove any judges from office who were deemed “non-compliant” with “Nazi laws or principles.”

When Judge Jon Tigar of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Trump’s new rules barring people from receiving asylum in 2018, Trump attacked Tigar as “a disgrace” and “an Obama judge.” He added that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is “really something we have to take a look at because it’s not fair,” adding, “That’s not law. Every case that gets filed in the Ninth Circuit we get beaten.”

Because the German Supreme Court was still, from time to time, ruling against Hitler’s Gleichschaltung or Nazification of the German government and legal code, and he had no easy legal mechanism to pack the court or term-limit the justices, in 1934 he created an entirely new court to replace it, which he called the People’s Court.

Trump packed the US Supreme Court with rightwing ideologues, many of whom are heavily beholden to oligarchs and industries aligned with Trump and the GOP. If they continue to go along with him — and there’s little to indicate they won’t — he won’t need to create a new court.

When Hitler took over the country in 1933, the military leadership was wary of him and his plans. While they shared many of his conservative views about social issues, most still held a strong loyalty to the German constitution.

It took him the better part of two years, with heavy support from his Brownshirts (who he’d by then integrated into the military) to purge the senior levels of the Army and replace them with Nazi loyalists.

The night before January 6th, newly-elected Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville joined Trump’s sons to help organize the coup planned for the next day. As the Alabama Political Reporter newspaper reported at the time:

“The night before the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol, Alabama Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville and the then-director of the Republican Attorneys General Association met with then-President Donald Trump’s sons and close advisers, according to a social media post by a Nebraska Republican who at the time was a Trump administration appointee.


“Charles W. Herbster, who was then the national chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Advisory Committee in Trump’s administration, in a Facebook post at 8:33 p.m. on Jan. 5 said that he was standing ‘in the private residence of the President at Trump International with the following patriots who are joining me in a battle for justice and truth.’ …
“Among the attendees, according to Herbster’s post, were Tuberville, former RAGA director Adam Piper, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, adviser Peter Navarro, Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and 2016 deputy campaign manager David Bossie.”


Tuberville is now holding open the top ranks of the US military, presumably so if Trump is reelected he can pack our armed forces with people who won’t defy his orders when he demands they seize voting machines and fire live ammunition at the inevitable protestors.

When Hitler took power in 1933, he quickly began mass arrests of illegal immigrants, gypsies, union activists, liberal commentators and reporters, and (as noted earlier) queer people. To house this exploding prison population, he first took over a defunct munitions factory in Dachau; within a few years there were over a hundred of these camps where “criminals” were “concentrated and separated from society.” He called them concentration camps.

The New York Times reports that Trump is planning to “build huge camps to detain people,” and “to get around any refusal by Congress to appropriate the necessary funds, Mr. Trump would redirect money in the military budget.”

How many people? “Millions” writes the Times. And not just immigrants: Trump is planning to send his enemies to them, too.

Will he succeed in getting around Congress? He did the last time, with money to build his wall taken from military housing.

So far, that’s as bad as it gets: what he has already promised. But these are early days.

Hitler was unbothered by the deaths of German citizens, and was enthusiastic about the deaths of those he considered his enemies.

On April 7, 2020 all three TV networks, The New York Times and The Washington Post lead with the breaking story that Black people were dying at about twice the rate of white people from Covid. The Times headline, for example, read: “Black Americans Bear the Brunt as Deaths Climb.”

A month earlier Trump had shut down the country, but when this report came out he and Kushner did an immediate turnabout, demanding that mostly minority “essential workers” get back to work.

As an “expert” member of Jared Kushner’s team of young, unqualified volunteers supervising the administration’s PPE response noted to Vanity Fair’s Katherine Eban:

“The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”


It was, after all, exclusively Blue States that were then hit hard by the virus: Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. And there was an election coming in just a few months.

Trump even invoked the Defense Production Act and issued an Executive Order requiring mostly minority slaughterhouse and meatpacking employees go back to work. It led to a half-million unnecessary American deaths and to this day neither Trump nor Kushner has ever apologized.

In the final years of the Third Reich, Hitler authorized his “final solution to the Jewish problem” that included building death camps in countries outside Germany to methodically exterminate millions of people. These were different from the hundreds of prisons and concentration camps he’d built within Germany for “criminals and undesirables,” although at those camps people were often worked to death or slaughtered when the war started going south.

So far, Trump and his people haven’t suggested the need for death camps in America, although Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott seem particularly eager to see immigrants die either from razor wire or gunshot.

But, then, the Nazis never officially announced their external death camps either; like Bush’s criminal “black sites” overseas where hundreds of innocent Afghans and Iraqis were tortured, often to death, they figured they’d never be found out.

There are few Americans alive today who remember Hitler, and for most of us the details of his rise to power are lost to the mists of time. But Donald Trump is bringing it all back to us with a fresh, stark splash of reality.

When I lived in Germany I worked with several Germans who had been in the Hitler Youth. One met Hitler. Another, Armin Lehmann, became a dear friend over the years and wrote a book about his experience as the 16-year-old courier who handed Hitler the news the war was lost and stood outside Hitler’s bunker room as he committed suicide.

They were good people, children at the time really, and were (they’ve all died within the last two decades) haunted by their experience.

It can happen here.

We’ve been sliding down this slippery slope toward unaccountable fascism for several decades, and this coming year will stand at the threshold of an entirely new form of American government that could mean the end of the American experiment.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice for our democracy to rise or fall will be in our hands.

NOW READ: How Donald Trump is spreading a dangerous mental illness to his supporters

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Kids as young as 14 were found working at a Tennessee factory that makes lawn mower parts


Laura Strickler
Tue, March 26, 2024 


Immigrant children as young as 14 were found working illegally amid dangerous heavy equipment at a Tennessee firm that makes parts for lawn mowers sold by John Deere and other companies, according to Labor Department officials.

The company, Tuff Torq, was fined nearly $300,000 for hiring 10 children. As part of a consent agreement with the federal government, the company is also required to set aside $1.5 million to help the children who were illegally employed. Ryan Pott, general counsel for Tuff Torq’s majority owner, the Japanese firm Yanmar, acknowledged the violations to NBC News.

“The department will not tolerate companies profiting on the backs of children employed unlawfully in dangerous occupations,” said Seema Nanda, the department’s chief legal officer, whose office obtained the consent judgment against Tuff Torq. “Tuff Torq has agreed to disgorge profits, which will go to the benefit of the children. This sends a clear message: putting children in harm’s way in the workplace is not only illegal, but also comes with significant financial consequences.”

Tuff Torq Corporation (Google)

The Labor Department did not specify what work the children were doing. But Labor official Juan Coria said what his investigative team found in Tuff Torq’s “very busy” Morristown manufacturing plant was “astonishing.”

Coria, southeast regional administrator for the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, described an environment that he says caused anxiety among his investigators who witnessed children as young as 14 working late at night at the 24-hour manufacturing facility amid power-driven equipment that was being moved around the plant.

Pott, the general counsel for Tuff Torq’s majority owner, said the child workers were temporary and were not hired directly by Tuff Torq. He said they used fake names and false credentials to obtain jobs through a temporary staffing agency, and said Tuff Torq is “transitioning” away from doing business with the staffing company.

“Tuff Torq is dedicated to ensuring that their products and services are produced under ethical conditions, with a strong emphasis on fair labor practices, and Tuff Torq is further strengthening our relevant training and compliance programs,” said Pott. “We are also actively engaging with our suppliers to reinforce our expectations regarding ethical labor practices and collaborate with them on implementing our updated policies.”

According to the Labor Department, within 30 days Tuff Torq must also hang signs at every entrance to the plant that say, “Stop! You must be at least 18 years of age to enter and work in this building.”

Nanda said through such agreements the agency is sending a message to the company and its whole community of suppliers and contractors. “They will look at their supply chain meaning their contractors, their staffing agencies, and make sure that they are doing these things as well.”

John Deere did not respond to a request for comment.

Labor officials say their investigation into the company began almost a year ago, in spring 2023, and investigators visited the facility multiple times. Officials declined to say what sparked the investigation.

The Labor Department has prioritized child labor enforcement since last spring amid a 152% increase in children found to be illegally employed since 2018, according to department figures.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Tennessee parts supplier for John Deere, Yamaha fined for illegally employing children. What to know


Keenan Thomas, Knoxville News Sentinel

Updated Tue, March 26, 2024

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of the Solicitor is cracking down on Morristown manufacturer Tuff Torq Corporation for illegally employing children as young as 14-years-old.

Tuff Torq will pay a $296,951 penalty after the department's Wage and Hour Division confirmed several children worked for the outdoor power equipment parts manufacturer. Additionally, Tuff Torq will set aside $1.5 million from profits made during the kids' employment, which will go to the kids illegally employed.

The department received the federal consent judgement to hold Tuff Torq Corporation accountable and make sure the company complies with federal child labor laws.

“Even one child working in a dangerous environment is too many,” Wage and Hour Division administrator Jessica Looman said in a press release. “Over the past year, we have seen an alarming increase in child labor violations, and these violations put children in harm’s way. With this agreement, we are ensuring Tuff Torq takes immediate and significant steps to stop the illegal employment of children. When employers fail to meet their obligations, we will act swiftly to hold them accountable and protect children.”

U.S. Department of Labor headquarters
How many kids did Tuff Torq Corporation employ illegally?

The department determined that 10 kids illegally worked for Tuff Torq under opressive child labor conditions.

The Wage and Hour Division began probing in 2023, but received proof of the unlawful work Jan. 23, 2024. On that day, investigators witnessed a child operating a "power-driven hoisting apparatus" like a forklift. Workers under 18 are prohibited from operating this type of machinery.

The department filed the action against Tuff Torq Corporation March 22, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville.
What does Tuff Torq Corporation say about the Department of Labor findings?

Yanmar Group, who owns Tuff Torq Corporation, emailed a statement to Knox News.

Yanmar states that "Tuff Torq did not directly hire and employ the individuals" and that the minors were provided through a "temporary workforce staffing agency."

Yanmar adds the employees used fake idenentification and names during the hiring process through the agency.

"Tuff Torq is dedicated to ensuring that their products and services are produced under ethical conditions, with a strong emphasis on fair labor practices, and Tuff Torq is further strengthening our relevant training and compliance programs," Yanmar spokesperson Ryan Pott said in the email. "We are also actively engaging with our suppliers to reinforce our expectations regarding ethical labor practices and collaborate with them on implementing our updated policies."
What else will Tuff Torq Corporation have to do under the judgement?

Tuff Torq Corporation will stop employing children and comply with federal child labor laws moving forward. In addition to the penalty and payments, Tuff Torq Corporation agrees to do the following:

Work with community organizations to regularly train staff, managers and contractors


Create a tip line for anonymous reporting of child labor and other Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations


Allow unplanned and warrantless searches of the Tuff Torq Corporation facility for three years


Abstain from creating new contracts with staffing agencies or contractors with FLSA violations


Require contractors to disclose violations and hiring protocols before entering into contracts
What does Tuff Torq Corporation work in?

The manufacturer supplies power equipment parts for companies like John Deere, Toro and Yamaha. Tuff Torq Corporation invests in new technology, tests products and provides electric alternatives.

Tuff Torq Corporation operates at 5943 Commerce Blvd. in Morristown.
What are Tennessee's child labor laws?

Tennessee's Child Labor Act protects minors between the ages of 14 and 17 as they enter into the workforce. Protections under this act include hours working, types of jobs and exceptions for Work Based Learning Programs.

A few off-limits jobs and hazardous environments for workers under 18 include manufacturing establishments, meat packing, demolition and operation of power-driven hoisting apparatuses.

The Child Labor Act includes rules for hours minors can work throughout the week. Kids 14 and 15 can only work three hours a day during school days after 7 a.m. but before 7 p.m. for a total of 18 hours a week. When school isn't in session, minors can work up to eight hours a day between 6 a.m.-9 p.m. for up to 40 hours a week.

For kids 16 and 17, the rules are a little more flexibile as long as minors aren't working during classes and only between 6 a.m.-10 p.m. They can get a parental slip signed to work up until midnight, but only for a three days a week between Sunday and Thursday.

Minors also get a mandatory 30 minute break for every six hours of work in a day.
How many child labor violations has the U.S. Department of Labor investigated?

The department investigated 955 cases with child labor violations in 2023. This included 5,792 children nationwide with 502 of those kids employed in either violation or hazardous conditions.

As a result, the department assessed employers for more than $8 million in civil money penalties.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Tennessee parts supplier for John Deere fined for employing children


Manufacturing company ordered to turn over $1.5M in profits for child labor violations

LAURA ROMERO
Mon, March 25, 2024 

Manufacturing company ordered to turn over $1.5M in profits for child labor violations

A Tennessee parts manufacturer for major companies including John Deere and Yamaha has been ordered to turn over $1.5 million in profits after the Department of Labor found children employed in dangerous jobs.

"The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor has obtained a federal consent judgment that requires a Morristown manufacturer of outdoor power equipment components for major companies including John Deere, Toro and Yamaha to stop employing children illegally and to follow federal child labor laws in the future," the Labor Department said in a statement Monday.

The $1.5 million that the company, Tuff Torq, will have to turn over will be used to compensate victims, department officials said.

MORE: Labor Department cites meatpacking cleaning company for 'oppressive child labor' practices

The company was also fined $296,951 for subjecting "10 children to oppressive child labor," according to the department.

During their probe, investigators said they obtained clear evidence when they "observed a child operating a power-driven hoisting apparatus, an occupation prohibited for workers under the age of 18."

"The DOL did identify temporary workforce employees at the Tuff Torq facility that were subject to child labor violations," an attorney for Tuff Torq said in a statement. "The temporary workforce employees were provided to and placed at Tuff Torq by a temporary workforce staffing agency. Tuff Torq did not directly hire and employ the individuals. The violations investigation revealed that the temporary employees identified as child labor violations had utilized fake names and credentials in the staffing agency hiring process."

PHOTO: Tuff Torq Corporation in Morristown, Tenn. (Google Maps Street View)

"Tuff Torq is dedicated to ensuring that their products and services are produced under ethical conditions, with a strong emphasis on fair labor practices, and Tuff Torq is further strengthening our relevant training and compliance programs," the attorney said.

"Even one child working in a dangerous environment is too many," said Jessica Looman of the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division. "Over the past year, we have seen an alarming increase in child labor violations, and these violations put children in harm's way."

Last year, the Labor Department investigated 955 cases of child labor violations, involving 5,792 children nationwide, including 502 children employed in violation of hazardous occupation standards.

Manufacturing company ordered to turn over $1.5M in profits for child labor violations originally appeared on abcnews.go.com


Monday, March 04, 2024

The Farming Conundrum

Agriculture is a big contributor to climate change — is there a path to reinvention?


A new report found that the United States is spending billions of dollars to try to slash greenhouse gas emissions from farms, but many of the new practices are unproven.


















Credit...Tim Gruber for The New York Times

By Manuela Andreoni
Feb. 29, 2024

Two news stories this week — one that made headlines, and one that got less attention — point to the fiendish difficulty of reinventing agriculture to reduce its heavy toll on the climate.

The first development: The New York attorney general Letitia James, fresh off a $450 million civil verdict against Donald Trump, announced a lawsuit against JBS, the world’s biggest meatpacking company, for making misleading statements about its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

James’s lawsuit said that JBS has “used greenwashing and misleading statements to capitalize on consumers’ increasing desire to make environmentally friendly choices,” with statements such as: “Agriculture can be part of the climate solution. Bacon, chicken wings, and steak with net zero emissions. It’s possible.”

The lawsuit cited David Gelles’s interview with Gilberto Tomazoni, the chief executive of JBS, at our Climate Forward event in September in which he said: “We pledge to be net zero in 2040.”

James argues the company can’t possibly achieve net zero “because there are no proven agricultural practices to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions” at the company’s vast scale, at least without costly efforts to offset its emissions.

JBS is a gigantic company, but the issues raised in the lawsuit against its U.S. arm are even fundamental: Is there even a path to net zero agriculture, especially if people are determined to keep large quantities of meat in their diets?
Climate-smart agriculture

The second development this week speaks to that problem: A new report found that the United States is spending billions of dollars to try to slash greenhouse gas emissions from farms. Sounds great, but there’s a hitch: much of the money may go to projects that won’t necessarily serve that goal.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that conducted the research, said that the United States Department of Agriculture is poised to fund a number of unproven practices. Those include installing new irrigation systems, despite the harm they can cause to groundwater supplies, and building infrastructure to contain animal waste, which could in fact lead to more emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases.

Allan Rodriguez, a U.S.D.A. spokesman, said in a statement that the EWG report is “fundamentally flawed” because it “did not take into account the rigorous, science-based methodology used by USDA to determine eligible practices” or the level of specificity that is required for some practices to receive climate funding.

Anne Schechinger, the author of the EWG report, told me that she is still waiting for the U.S.D.A. to share its sources and data that would justify the climate-smart designation.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental AgendaNarrowing Two Big Climate Rules: President Biden’s climate ambitions are colliding with political and legal realities, forcing his administration to recalibrate two regulations aimed at cutting the emissions that are heating the planet: one requiring gas-burning power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions and one designed to sharply limit tailpipe emissions.
Chemical Facilities: The Biden administration issued new rules designed to prevent disasters at almost 12,000 chemical plants and other industrial sites nationwide that handle hazardous materials.
Fuel Ban: The Biden administration will permanently lift a ban on summertime sales of higher-ethanol gasoline blends in eight states starting in 2025, in response to a request from Midwestern governors.
Biden’s Climate Law: A year and a half after President Biden signed into law a sweeping bill to tackle climate change, an analysis of the legislation’s effects has found that electric vehicles are booming as expected but renewable power isn’t growing as quickly as hoped.

Even setting aside that particular dispute, one thing is clear: There is a huge knowledge gap in our efforts to transform agriculture. Measuring agricultural emissions is a lot more complex than monitoring power plants and tailpipes. That makes it hard for any government to measure how well such techniques are working — or if in some cases they’re actually doing more harm than good.

“The pace at which these strategies are being implemented is greatly outpacing the speed at which the science, knowledge necessary to understand their effectiveness is being generated,” said Kim Novick, an environmental scientist at Indiana University who studies carbon in agricultural systems. “Until we close that gap, it’s really a lot of putting the cart before the horse.”

Closing the knowledge gap

Farming accounts for about a third of the world’s carbon emissions, and a 10th of America’s. But we still know shockingly little about how to reduce its toll on the climate and vulnerable ecosystems.

I spoke to a number of experts for this newsletter. Though some of them were generally supportive of investing in some climate-smart practices, they told me that even practices that are generally recognized as good for the climate still have unclear benefits.

Take cover crops, one of the most accepted climate-smart farming practices. These are legumes and other species that are planted after the harvest of cash crops, such as corn, to help nourish the soil and improve water quality.

Most people agree that implementing cover crops on a large scale could help reduce emissions. But those conclusions rely on a relatively small amount of data, Novick told me.

The Inflation Reduction Act and other funding streams are directing hundreds of millions of dollars to improve data and models. That, the U.S.D.A. spokesman said, will “ensure that future resources are directed to the most effective practices.”

Doria Gordon, a senior director at the Environmental Defense Fund, told me she is excited about “the unprecedented level of funding” the agriculture sector is getting to become more sustainable and that many practices the U.S.D.A. is supporting should have climate benefits if implemented at scale.

Still, she would like the agency to take its efforts to collect data further. There is also “an equally unprecedented opportunity” to close the knowledge gap, she said. “This really is a once in-a-lifetime chance to advance our understanding of these emerging solutions.”

More climate news

Despite ongoing protests by farmers, the European Union approved a landmark bill to restore 20 percent of its land and sea ecosystems by 2030, The Guardian reports.

Cities across the world are stripping out concrete to make room for earth and plants, the BBC reports.

Exxon’s chief told Fortune magazine that “people generating the emissions” need to pay the price.


Manuela Andreoni is a Times climate and environmental reporter and a writer for the Climate Forward newsletter. More about Manuela Andreoni

Is the USDA’s spending on ‘climate-smart’ farming actually helping the climate?

A new report asks whether supposedly green livestock practices have proven benefits.

AP Photo / Rodrigo Abd

Max Graham
Food and Agriculture Fellow
Mar 01, 2024

America’s farms don’t just run on corn and cattle. They also run on cash from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Every year, the USDA spends billions of dollars to keep farmers in business. It hands out money to balance fluctuations in crop prices; it provides loans for farmers who want to buy livestock or seeds; and it pays growers who lose crops to drought, floods, and other extreme weather.

The agency is also now giving money — including $20 billion that Congress earmarked two years ago in the Inflation Reduction Act — to farmers trying to curb their greenhouse gas emissions and store carbon in soil, a key part of the Biden administration’s goal to cut the 10 percent of the country’s emissions generated by agriculture. That windfall of climate-smart farm funding has been widely lauded by climate activists and researchers.

But exactly how the USDA spends that money is more complicated — and contentious — than it might appear, and not simply because Republicans in Congress have threatened to siphon the funds away. A new report from the Environmental Working Group says that more than a dozen of the farming practices that the USDA recently designated as “climate-smart”— including several of the highest-funded ones — don’t actually have proven climate benefits. That finding is especially important, according to the group, because the USDA is likely to spend more money on the same practices in the years to come: Much of the $20 billion authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act has yet to reach farmers’ pockets.

Supporting farming techniques with uncertain benefits “undermines potentially real reductions in emissions,” said Anne Schechinger, author of the report and Midwest director at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental research and advocacy organization. “If these unproven practices stay on the list, then a lot of money will go to these practices that likely aren’t going to reduce emissions.”

A USDA spokesperson said the agency uses a rigorous, scientific process to determine what it considers climate-smart. Still, the agency acknowledges that not everything on its list necessarily has quantifiable benefits. New additions to the list are provisional — that is, they’re added “under the premise that they may provide benefits” and will be removed later on if those benefits can’t be quantified.

Schechinger analyzed spending by the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, called EQIP for short, the agency’s biggest conservation program. She found that, between 2017 and 2022, the program directed around $2 billion to techniques that were added provisionally to its climate-smart list for this fiscal year.

“It looks like a lot of money is going to climate-smart practices between 2017 and 2022 when, really, very little of the total EQIP money has actually gone to practices with proven climate benefits,” said Schechinger.

In particular, the group called into question eight of 15 methods that the Biden administration added provisionally, such as installing a waste facility cover or an irrigation pipeline. One of them — “waste storage facility,” a structure that holds manure and other agricultural waste — may even increase emissions, according to the report. The USDA spent about $250 million on them between 2017 and 2022.

The department specifies on its list that only a specific kind of waste storage facility, one that composts manure, counts as climate-smart. These composting structures can reduce methane emissions and improve water quality, the agency says.

“Unfortunately, EWG did not take into account the rigorous, science-based methodology used by USDA to determine eligible practices, nor the level of specificity required during the implementation process to ensure the practices’ climate-smart benefits are being maximized,” said Allan Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the USDA, in an emailed statement. “As a result, the findings of this report are fundamentally flawed, speculative, and rest on incorrect assumptions around USDA’s selection of climate-smart practices.”

Schechinger acknowledged that the USDA doesn’t define all waste storage facilities as climate-smart, but she said that the funding data she was able to obtain through a records request didn’t distinguish between specific facility types and that it “remains to be seen” whether the Inflation Reduction Act money will go only to the kind that composts manure.

Some researchers have argued that more studies need to be done on most “climate-smart” practices — even ones, such as planting cover crops, that the Environmental Working Group doesn’t question in its report — before anyone can say how much climate pollution they’re curbing or carbon they’re sequestering. “For most climate-smart management practices, we do not yet have the data and information we need to understand when and where they are most likely to succeed,” said Kim Novick, an environmental scientist at Indiana University.

Most scientists agree that more data needs to be collected and analyzed to understand, say, the nuances of storing carbon in the soil. But some argue that climate change is just too urgent to delay action.

That’s one reason Rachel Schattman, a professor of sustainable agriculture at the University of Maine, supports the USDA’s use of climate funding. She also has confidence in the agency’s commitment to science. A practice doesn’t get put on the agency’s conservation list “without having demonstrated environmental benefits or reduced environmental harm,” she said. “Whether those benefits or reduced harms are related to climate change is something [the USDA] is grappling with in a really meaningful way right now.”

Schattman also said it’s important not to paint climate-smart practices with a broad brush. “Everybody’s farm is different. Everybody’s soil is different. Everybody’s microclimate is different,” she said. An irrigation pipeline in the Arizona desert might have a different effect on water and energy use than one on a farm in Vermont. Even if a practice here or there doesn’t reduce emissions or store carbon in the soil exactly how the USDA intends, Schattman said the influx of funding still could move agriculture in the right direction.

The Inflation Reduction Act created “a once in a lifetime opportunity for a lot of farmers,” she said. “I think it is going to make a lot of things possible that people couldn’t do before.”


Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.


New USDA 'climate-friendly' farming and ranching practices have yet to be proven, report says

March 1, 2024
A cow grazes in a field outside of Walcott, Iowa.

An environmental activist group charges that many “climate smart” farming practices recently added to a list for U.S. Department of Agriculture funding are not yet proven.

The Environmental Working Group says funding from the Inflation Reduction Act should not be used to pay farmers for using the practices, until there is more evidence that they work.

The EWG made the charge in a new report issued Wednesday about the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP.

The program, run by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, was launched in the 1990s, but its current authorization comes from the 2018 Farm Bill. EQIP helps farmers with funding to implement conservation methods that have met the department’s approval. Since 2023, its funding sources have included money authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act to fund climate change mitigation efforts.

But the EWG report says many of the 15 practices earmarked for that funding “likely do little or nothing to help in the climate fight.”

“USDA says that they have literature showing that these practices have climate benefits,” said agricultural economist and EWG Midwest Director Anne Schechinger, who authored the report. “But they don't actually have any quantifiable data showing that these practices reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

She said eight of the 15 practices are for irrigation and livestock, management techniques “that likely don’t reduce emissions,” and in one case, may even increase emissions.

Funding from the Inflation Reduction Act specifically meant for addressing climate change should be reserved for practices proven to be effective, Schechinger said. While the USDA’s NRCS plans to study the possible benefits of the new farming practices this year, she said until the results of those studies are in, the practices should be removed from eligibility for IRA funding.

New Practices:
brush management
irrigation system, sprinkler
waste storage facility
irrigation pipeline
waste facility cover
irrigation system, micro
pumping plant
woody residue treatment
herbaceous weed control
prescribed burning
wildlife habitat–restore and management
fuel break
composting facility
feed management
soil carbon amendment

The USDA is defending the EQIP program’s climate-smart agriculture practices.
In a statement, spokesman Allan Rodriguez said the department used “rigorous, science-based methodology” to determine which practices are eligible — and that farmers who qualify for funding must use the practices under specific conditions to maximize their effectiveness.

Rodriguez said the Environmental Working Group’s findings were “fundamentally flawed, speculative, and rest on incorrect assumptions around USDA’s selection of climate-smart practices.”

Jonathan Coppess, who researches federal ag policy as an associate professor at the University of Illinois, said the EWG report does raise valid concerns. He said that while he can sympathize with the USDA’s position, he points out that Inflation Reduction Act funding is scheduled to end after the 2026 fiscal year.

“Once the funds are out, you can’t pull them back,” said Coppess. “And so, if they are misspent, it's a missed opportunity in a significant way to do what is an important effort for agriculture, for our food system, and for the climate.”

But according to Erik Lichtenberg, there are more benefits to the practices in question than the EWG report credits. The University of Maryland agricultural economist, who has studied the USDA’s approach to conservation and climate change, said paying farmers to implement practices that are not fully proven is a way to find out how they work under a wide range of conditions and climates.

“We're fairly new to managing agriculture to mitigate climate change impacts, and that means we really need to be experimenting to see what does work and what doesn't,” Lichtenberg said. “Farming practices that work in one place, don't work in another. So, we're really going to need to experiment a lot and adjust for local conditions a lot.”

The USDA has funded only about a third of the applications they received from farmers for the EQIP program between fiscal year 2018 and 2022.

The USDA’s Rodriguez said the additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act is expanding the number of farmers EQIP can serve, and also financing efforts to monitor and verify the effectiveness of new practices.

He said those efforts will enable them to “quantify the impact of conservation practices on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration and ensure that future resources are directed to the most effective practices.”

This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.



RESEARCH

Many newly labeled USDA climate-smart conservation practices lack climate benefits



JUMP TO:
What climate-smart practices should do
New practices probably don’t benefit climate
New list creates alternate reality of robust climate funding
Climate money will now go to different states
Map: Environmental Quality Incentives Program payments, 2017-2022
Analysis methodology


OverviewNewly designated USDA climate-smart conservation practices likely don’t reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Only practices that reduce emissions are eligible for $19.5 billion in 2022 Inflation Reduction Act funds.
The new designations make it look, erroneously, like a lot of money is going to climate-smart agriculture.


Against the backdrop of the deepening climate crisis, the Department of Agriculture recently added 15 Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, practices to its climate-smart conservation list – but many likely do little or nothing to help in the climate fight, a new EWG analysis of USDA data finds.

The new data is compiled in EWG’s just-updated Conservation Database. EQIP is one of the USDA’s largest conservation programs, helping farmers implement environmentally beneficial practices.

Some of the newly designated climate-smart practices already receive, by far, the most dollars from EQIP. So the revision of the list conveniently makes it look as though a large share of federal conservation funding will now go to climate-smart farming, providing a misleading picture of agriculture and climate in the U.S.

In 2022, EWG found that only a small portion of EQIP funding went to farmers’ implementation of climate-smart methods. The USDA's new list changes the equation significantly, effectively doubling climate-smart funding: Instead of 31 percent of EQIP funds subsidizing climate-smart farming between 2017 and 2022, it now appears that 63 percent did.

And the new climate-smart practices are about to get even more money, because they’re eligible to receive additional funds through the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. This money totals about $19.5 billion, $8.45 billion of which is meant specifically for EQIP practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in soil between fiscal years 2023 and 2026.

But many of the newly labeled practices likely do not have climate benefits. Eight of them are methods for irrigation and livestock management that likely don’t reduce emissions. One even increases emissions, according to USDA’s own data.

The USDA’s conservation agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, says that in 2024 it will study the possible climate benefits of the newly added practices.

Until then, the USDA should remove them from its climate-smart list. No IRA funds should underwrite them without proof they actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate-smart conservation is intended to provide real climate benefits

For the past few years, the NRCS has made a list of practices funded through EQIP and the Conservation Stewardship Program, one of its other tentpole conservation programs, that it considers climate-smart. The practices on this list are intended to cause “quantifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and/or increases in carbon sequestration.”

In fiscal year 2023, the NRCS climate-smart list included 45 EQIP practices for which farmers received payments at some point between 2017 and 2022. (Other practices on the list didn’t get funding.) The funded practices included those with proven climate benefits, such as “cover crops,” “nutrient management” and “grassed waterways.”

In October 2023, the NRCS updated its list of climate-smart practices for fiscal year 2024. The roster now has 57 EQIP practices that received funding between 2017 and 2022, including 15 new additions (not including two practices that were removed). (See Table 1.) Only 14 of the 15 newly added practices got any funding between 2017 and 2022. “Soil carbon amendment” was added to the list for 2024 but didn’t receive any funds.

Table 1. 2024 climate-smart EQIP practices.*



EQIP practices added to USDA's 2024 climate-smart conservation list

EQIP practices removed from USDA's climate-smart conservation list for 2024


Brush Management

Wildlife Upland Habitat Management


Irrigation System, Sprinkler


Waste Storage Facility


Irrigation Pipeline


Waste Facility Cover


Irrigation System, Micro


Pumping Plant


Woody Residue Treatment

Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation


Herbaceous Weed Control


Prescribed Burning


Wildlife Habitat- Restore and Management


Fuel Break


Composting Facility


Feed Management


*List only includes 14 practices that received money between 2017 and 2023. It does not include “Soil carbon amendment,” which did not.

Source: EWG, from public records requests for USDA-NRCS program data.
Many practices newly labeled climate-smart likely don’t benefit the climate

Of the 14 newly added (and funded) practices, more than half – eight – are irrigation or livestock practices, such as “waste storage facility” and “irrigation pipeline.”

The NRCS is calling all of these practices “provisionally” climate-smart – it cannot yet show whether they reduce emissions, so they have no proven climate benefits.

And “waste storage facility,” a structure that contains animal waste, increases greenhouse gas emissions, according to the data USDA does have.

These livestock practices are almost certainly not climate-smart. Agriculture contributes more than 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock a major source – particularly beef and dairy cattle, which emit vast quantities of methane.

EQIP funding to manage large amounts of livestock in concentrated facilities encourages farmers to keep relying on this model instead of raising animals on pasture, which could help to lower emissions.

Irrigation practices are also not clearly climate-smart. Although EQIP irrigation practices seem to enable more efficient water use, they do not always reduce total water use, especially in the West, where many farmers’ water rights follow “use it or lose it” policies.

In these cases, if a water rights holder does not use all their water allocation, they forfeit the rest, so they have an incentive to use the most they can. So installing more efficient irrigation wouldn’t necessarily save any water.

The IRA text says $8.45 billion of its funding should go only to EQIP practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in soil – in other words, to the practices on the NRCS climate-smart list.

So calling the livestock and irrigation practices climate-smart, provisionally or not, is problematic, since the IRA states that its agricultural funding should go to conservation practices that reduce emissions or sequester carbon.

The NRCS has said it will study provisional practices in 2024 to measure their greenhouse gas emission reductions, if any. It has also said if it does not find benefits, it may remove the provisional practices from the climate-smart list for the following year.

But history would show that these practices may not be studied in 2024: All eight provisional practices on the 2023 list remain on the list for 2024 – and all are still listed as provisional.
New list creates alternate reality where lots of money has gone to climate-smart farming

Some of the practices just added to the 2024 climate-smart list received the most EQIP funding between 2017 and 2022 – painting an inaccurate picture of a lot of money going to practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But because many of these new provisional practices likely do not reduce emissions, only a small share of EQIP spending is actually going to practices with proven climate benefits.

EQIP sent $5.5 billion to farmers across all practices between 2017 and 2022. Only $1.7 billion of this, or 31 percent, went to practices on the 2023 climate-smart list, most of which have been proven to reduce emissions or sequester carbon in soil.

But with the addition of the 14 funded provisional practices for 2024, that amount more than doubled to $3.47 billion – or 63 percent of all EQIP spending.

That’s because many of the practices added to the 2024 list are the most-funded practices in the whole program. The 10 practices with the most total EQIP payments made up $2.65 billion between 2017 and 2022 – almost half of all EQIP spending. Only two of these, “cover crops” and “forest stand improvement,” were on the 2023 climate-smart list.

But when the list was revised for 2024, eight of the 10 practices with the most program funding appeared on it. In addition to the two from 2023, these included “brush management”; “irrigation system – sprinkler”; “waste storage facility”; “irrigation pipeline”; “waste facility cover”; and “irrigation system – micro irrigation.” (See Table 2.) Five of these six practices are livestock or irrigation practices.

Of the 10 practices with the most EQIP payments, the only two not on the 2024 climate-smart list were “fence” and “pipeline,” which brings water to livestock or wildlife.

Table 2. Almost all the 10 EQIP practices with the most payments between 2017 and 2022 were added to the 2024 climate-smart practice list.



Practice rank

Practice name

EQIP payments 2017-2022

Percent of all EQIP payments

On 2023 climate-smart list?

On 2024 climate-smart list?


1

Cover Crop

$504,812,892



2

Brush Management

$314,991,152


3

Irrigation System, Sprinkler

$313,561,007



4

Fence

$311,036,533


5

Waste Storage Facility

$252,142,865


6

Irrigation Pipeline

$230,101,825



7

Waste Facility Cover

$228,568,531



8

Irrigation System, Micro

$175,194,972

9

Pipeline

$162,365,526


10

Forest Stand Improvement

$159,735,684



Source: EWG, from public records requests for USDA-NRCS program data.
Addition of provisional practices to climate-smart list changes states receiving IRA funds

Expanding the climate-smart list will also change where the IRA money goes.

Across EQIP, payments are concentrated in just a few places – 44 percent of the money spent between 2017 and 2022 went to just 10 states. Similarly, 45 percent of payments to practices on the 2023 climate-smart list went to farmers in just 10 states, and 46 percent of payments to practices on the 2024 list went to farmers in the 10 states with the most payments.

When the list changed, so did the states that got the most climate-smart money. California and Texas were the top two on both lists, but the others changed drastically.

Seven of the top 10 states on the 2023 list were located in the Mississippi River Critical Conservation Area, a region of the country with important agricultural, industry, wildlife and ecological resources. But only four of the top 10 states on the 2024 climate-smart list were located in the conservation area (Table 3). Now Southern and Western states like Colorado, Georgia and Oregon will receive more so-called climate-smart funding.

Table 3. The 10 states that received the most payments between 2017 and 2022 for practices on the 2023 climate-smart list, compared to those on the 2024 list.
State rank States with the most payments for 2023 list Payments 2017-2022 for practices on 2023 list States with the most payments for 2024 list Payments 2017-2022 for practices on 2024 list
1 California $167,970,025 Texas $371,894,245
2 Texas $99,642,015 California $359,871,676
3 Missouri $69,273,408 Georgia $137,069,838
4 Indiana $65,270,184 Colorado $118,425,439
5 Tennessee $64,641,082 Arkansas $110,504,198
6 Wisconsin $57,753,631 Mississippi $100,305,742
7 Iowa $55,750,215 Oregon $93,274,547
8 Ohio $55,410,931 Oklahoma $91,351,469
9 Oklahoma $55,025,391 Indiana $91,034,785
10 Mississippi $54,055,521 Ohio $90,089,372
Total 10 states $744,792,403 Total top 10 states $1,563,821,311


Source: EWG, from public records requests for USDA-NRCS program data.

The map below shows which states received the most money for practices on the 2023 climate-smart list, compared to those that got the most money for practices on the 2024 list.

INTERACTIVE MAP
Environmental Quality Incentives Program payments

This application provides details about payments from the EQIP between 2017 and 2022 for practices on the USDA's 2023 climate-smart list compared to the practices on its 2024 climate-smart list.

VIEW THE MAP


METHODOLOGY

EWG analyzed payment data from the USDA for fiscal years 2017 through 2022. We received the state- and county-level data from the USDA through public records requests and the national practice-level payment data via an email from a USDA employee, not as a response to our official request. The sums provided here represent payments made to farmers for each EQIP practice, not the amount committed to farmers for the practices, also known as obligations.

The state- and county-level EQIP data include only practices with more than four contracts in a state or county for a particular year. In response to EWG’s Freedom of Information Act requests, the USDA did not provide data for EQIP practices with four or fewer contracts in the state or county in a specific year, citing a privacy exemption. Because of this, the payments by county do not equal the total payments by practice for the state or nationally, and the payments by state will not equal the total payments nationally.


Saturday, December 30, 2023

U$A
An $80 Billion Industry Looks for Child Workers. It Keeps Missing Them.

Hannah Dreier
The New York Times
Updated Thu, December 28, 2023 

Miguel Sanchez, 17, came alone to the United States and has been working at an industrial dairy for about two years. (The New York Times)

One morning in 2019, an auditor arrived at a meatpacking plant in rural Minnesota. He was there on behalf of the national drugstore chain Walgreens to ensure that the factory, which made the company’s house brand of beef jerky, was safe and free of labor abuses.

He ran through a checklist of hundreds of possible problems, like locked emergency exits, sexual harassment and child labor. By the afternoon, he had concluded that the factory had no major violations. It could keep making jerky, and Walgreens customers could shop with a clear conscience.

When night fell, another 150 workers showed up at the plant. Among them were migrant children who had come to the United States by themselves looking for work. Children as young as 15 were operating heavy machinery capable of amputating fingers and crushing bones.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

Migrant children would work at the Monogram Meat Snacks plant in Chandler, Minnesota, for almost four more years, until the Department of Labor visited this spring and found such severe child labor violations that it temporarily banned the shipment of any more jerky.

In the past two decades, private audits have become the solution to a host of public relations headaches for corporations. When scandal erupts over labor practices, or shareholders worry about legal risks, or advocacy groups demand a boycott, companies point to these inspections as evidence that they have eliminated abuses in their supply chains. Known as social compliance audits, they have grown into an $80 billion global industry, with firms performing hundreds of thousands of inspections each year.

But a New York Times review of confidential audits conducted by several large firms shows that they have consistently missed child labor.

Children were overlooked by auditors who were moving quickly, leaving early or simply not sent to the part of the supply chain where minors were working, the Times found in audits performed at 20 production facilities used by some of the nation’s most recognizable brands.

Auditors did not catch instances in which children were working on Skittles and Starburst candies, Hefty brand party cups, the pork in McDonald’s sandwiches, Gerber baby snacks, Oreos, Cheez-Its or the milk that comes with Happy Meals.

In a series of articles this year, the Times has revealed that migrant children, who have been coming to America in record numbers, are working dangerous jobs in every state, in violation of labor laws. Children often use forged documents that slip by auditors who check paperwork but do not speak with most workers face-to-face. Corporations suggest that supply chains are reviewed from start to finish, but sub-suppliers such as industrial farms remain almost entirely unscrutinized.

The expansion of social compliance audits comes as the Labor Department has shrunk, with staffing levels now so low that it would take more than 100 years for inspectors to visit every workplace in the department’s jurisdiction once. For many factories, a private inspection is the only one they will ever get.

Auditors for several firms said they are encouraged to deliver findings in the mildest way possible as they navigate pressure from three different sources: the independent auditing firms that pay their salaries; corporations, such as Walgreens, that require inspections at their suppliers; and the suppliers themselves, which usually must arrange and pay for the audits.

The auditor who looked at the Minnesota jerky factory for Walgreens was Joshua Callington. He has conducted more than 1,000 audits in the past decade.

“If audits are done correctly, the world could be a better place,” he said. “Bettering the lives of workers is what these audits are supposed to be about.”

But more and more, he said, each audit had begun to feel like a struggle between wanting the truth and trying to avoid conflict.

He had not seen any child labor in the Minnesota factory. To keep to his work schedule, he had to leave for his next audit at 4 p.m., long before the late shift arrived. Spotting problems had also led to tension between Callington and his employer, UL Solutions, which began as a safety testing business and expanded more than two decades ago into social compliance audits. The company took in $2.5 billion in revenue last year and is on the cusp of an initial public offering.

What Callington saw as a commitment to his job, his firm seemed to see as overzealousness.

“The assessment is not meant to be a policing effort,” the UL Solutions employee handbook says.

After Callington failed three Walgreens suppliers in 2017 and 2018 for abusive working conditions, the chain complained about his communication style and asked for him to be taken off its account. UL put him on a remediation plan for about a year. (Walgreens declined to comment on the incident, but said it only rarely asks for auditors to be removed. In response to questions about the Monogram factory, the company said it had cut ties with the supplier. Monogram said it is now using stronger age-verification procedures.)

This spring, Callington flagged labor issues involving adult migrant workers at a warehouse that supplies Costco’s potatoes. The plant’s management complained that he was demanding and argumentative, and his supervisor barred him from returning. Callington believed that the supplier objected to his finding 21 violations when the previous audit had found none. UL Solutions, which still employs Callington, declined to comment on either incident.

The supervisor said Callington would have to complete a series of customer service trainings, and concluded with an inspirational quote that he attributed to the poet Maya Angelou.

“‘People will forget what you said. They will forget what you did. But they will never forget how you made them feel,’” he wrote in an email. “Keep this in mind as you are interacting with our clients during your audits.”

Night Shifts, Daytime Audits

In dozens of interviews, auditors said that sometimes their firms provide little more than a veneer of compliance for global corporations, which overstate how rigorously they review sprawling supply chains.

Auditors typically start their inspections in the morning and stay for about seven hours, even at 3,000-person factories that operate around the clock. In practice, this means that late afternoon and night shifts, where child labor violations most often occur, are almost never seen.

This year, the Department of Labor imposed a $1.5 million fine against Packers Sanitation Services, which provides cleaning crews to slaughterhouses. Investigators found that the company was employing more than 100 children, including 13-year-olds, to clean back saws and head splitters overnight.

These plants had been supplying McDonald’s and Costco for years, and the corporations required regular audits. Some of those auditors noted that there was a large night shift run by the sanitation company, but said they had not been able to observe any of the workers. One auditor who was checking a Nebraska plant for Costco’s Kirkland brand beef spoke with 20 out of 3,500 workers — as is standard in much of the industry — and left at noon, an inspection showed. In another audit at the same plant, the inspector left at 1:30 p.m.

Costco and McDonald’s said in statements that they were strengthening their auditing standards. Packers said it had improved age verification of its workers.

Even if auditors had stayed later at the plants, they might not have been able to talk privately with the migrant child workers, who largely speak Spanish or Indigenous languages of Central America. Auditing firms rarely provide interpreters.

“You’re supposed to ask another worker to translate. But you’re trying to unearth something that people aren’t trying to yell from the rooftops,” said Juanita Sanchez-Sevilla, a Spanish speaker who has been conducting audits since the 1990s, including for the leading firms Intertek and Bureau Veritas. “If you look at the upper echelons of the industry, they’re all white.”

In the absence of in-person interviews, auditors rely on paperwork. But children use forged documents. This summer, for instance, a 16-year-old from Guatemala was killed while cleaning a Mississippi slaughterhouse that supplies Chick-fil-A. His documents said he was in his 30s. In a statement, Chick-fil-A said it was reviewing how it investigates violations at plants.

Research has shown that outside audits are less conclusive than companies suggest. A 2021 analysis of 40,000 audits by a Cornell professor found that nearly half had relied on forged or dubious documents. An earlier study that explored the industry’s financial conflicts of interest found that auditors report fewer violations when factories are paying the bill.

In a statement, UL Solutions said that audits provide a snapshot for companies, which are ultimately responsible for enforcing their standards. An audit, the statement said, “cannot and does not guarantee that an audited facility is in full compliance with requirements against which it was audited, and does not confirm or certify compliance with laws.”

In the absence of thorough inspections, child workers can stay hidden for years.

In 2020, an auditor visited a snack food factory in Geneva, Illinois, to do an inspection required by the baby food giant Gerber. As it always had, Gerber’s report came back clear of child labor. The factory was also being regularly audited for the makers of Starburst and Skittles candies, Oreos and Cheez-Its. The companies behind those products said in statements that they had not seen indications of child labor in any inspections.

However, some migrant children were working on these products at the time. Among them was Efren Baldemar, who described getting the job with false identification at 14 years old. He was working from 10 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. to help support his family in Guatemala, renting space in a house of strangers.

In the mornings, he went from the factory to ninth grade and often fell asleep at his desk. The pace on the assembly lines was grueling. “If you didn’t keep up, the product would back up, and the machines would smoke,” he said.

The manufacturer, Hearthside Food Solutions, has been under federal and state investigations since the Times revealed child labor at other facilities in February. In a statement last week, the company said it “has never knowingly employed underage labor in our facilities.” It said it could not find a record of Efren working at its plant.

Plant inspections are typically scheduled weeks in advance, and auditors say they risk upsetting factories by arriving even a few minutes early.

“If you tell them when you’re showing up, they can game it,” said Doug Cahn, who created the audit system for Reebok International and now advises other corporations. “They know auditors don’t come back to see if the lights are on at the meatpacking plant at 3 a.m.”

In some cases, the Times review of audits showed, auditors certified plants as free of child labor but acknowledged in their reports that they didn’t really know if that was true.

An auditor representing Walgreens reported that there was no way to verify the ages of workers at a Chicago-area factory distributing disposable plates and cups. At the time, the factory was also supplying products for Sysco, Hefty and Walmart’s Great Value brand, according to the audit. The plant was using a staffing agency that refused to share paperwork, the auditor noted.

Hefty and Walgreens said that they have stopped using the supplier. Sysco said it did not generally audit U.S. suppliers, while Walmart declined to comment.

The staffing agency is now under a state investigation for possible child labor violations.

Nagging Questions

In his career, Callington had never found a case of migrant child labor, which would trigger an automatic failing grade. But now looking back, he suspected he had often audited plants where children were working.

Earlier this year, Callington asked managers at UL Solutions if Costco or other corporations might be willing to start requiring unannounced nighttime inspections. He pointed out news coverage that mentioned child labor raids at slaughterhouses.

“I have audited these locations and was never able to detect these issues given that we are only present for the first shift,” he wrote.

A manager said she would raise the question with higher-ups. He never heard anything more about it.

Callington sometimes squeezes in five audits a week, staying on the road for six-week stretches. He flies between coasts so regularly that he has stopped thinking of himself as having a home-base time zone, and during long drives occasionally turns to his phone to ask, “Hey, Siri, where am I?”

This fall, he found himself in Oregon looking over the supply chain for the store-brand milk sold at Costco.

A company called Darigold, which processes milk for an association of 300 Northwest dairy farms, was paying for Callington to review its Portland plant. A manager toured him around the gleaming factory, which was suffused with the sweet smell of milk.

He looked over the spinning bottling machines, but he did not ask about the dairies that supplied the milk. He had once tried to look at a sub-supplier for Costco when he wandered into a hen house at a different facility that was packing eggs. The factory complained that he had gone beyond the scope of his audit, he said.

By late afternoon, he was thanking the Portland team for their hospitality and leaving to prepare for his next inspection. He had given the milk plant a perfect score on Costco’s child labor standards: free of illegal child labor (requirement No. 140), free of children working excessive hours (No. 144) and free of instances of child labor in the past (No. 142).

But a few hours away, 17-year-old Miguel Sanchez was in the middle of his shift at a Darigold milk supplier, where he had been working 12-hour days for nearly two years.

‘No Option Except to Keep Going’

Miguel came to Washington’s Yakima Valley from Mexico to live with an older brother, and he immediately began working at an industrial dairy with fake identification that said he was an adult. It was a violation of child labor laws for him to work instead of going to school, but he had to contribute to the rent and felt pressure to support his parents back home.

“I was tired a lot when I started because you have to work really fast, but my family was proud of me,” he said.

In May, Miguel was trying to corral several dozen cows in a milking pen when a co-worker accidentally shut the gate and trapped him inside. Two cows, each weighing about half a ton, pushed him up against the metal bars.

Miguel felt the air leave his lungs and his spine start to buckle. He tried to shout, but his co-worker did not hear him over the thrum of machinery, and he began to pass out. A supervisor took him to the hospital.

Six months later, pain still radiated from his back into his legs as he ran up and down the floor of a warehouse hooking and unhooking cows from milking machines. He regularly downed an over-the-counter drug called Backaid to get through the workday, but it seemed to do less and lessEven standing had become excruciating.

“It feels like electric shocks all through my body,” he said last month. “But I have no option except to keep going. I have to make money.”

It is unclear if the milk Miguel collected ended up in the facility that Callington audited. Darigold’s milk is processed in 11 plants around the Northwest. Workers said they often saw minors in the dairies, and the Times spoke with a half-dozen children who came to the United States alone and worked full time for Darigold suppliers in Washington, Idaho and Oregon.

In separate statements, Costco and Darigold said they had not been aware of any child labor issues and would investigate.

Years before Callington audited the Portland factory, Costco was warned about working conditions on Darigold supplier dairies. One adult worker in the Yakima Valley drowned in a manure lagoon. Another had her face crushed by a cow. A third lost both her legs in a feed grinding machine.

In 2018, Costco began meeting with farmworker advocates as well as representatives from Darigold and UL Solutions to draw up a framework for auditing industrial dairies. But a year later, the initiative fell apart, with Costco telling the others that the extra monitoring was not feasible. In its statement to the Times, Costco said it remains interested in “collaborative partnerships” to improve conditions on dairy farms.

A major producer, Darigold also supplies McDonald’s and Nestlé and processes Safeway’s house brand Lucerne. None of those corporations inspect the dairies where the milk originates. McDonald’s, Nestlé and Safeway said in statements that they expect suppliers to comply with their responsible sourcing standards.

Miguel tries to keep his mind blank during the workday, but he worries that he will get hurt again. When he returned home after another shift last month, he nodded at his brother and lay down on an air mattress on the floor. The sole table in the apartment was covered with boxes of Backaid and receipts for wire transfers the brothers had sent home.

“Maybe they’ll let me take some sick days next week,” Miguel said.

“I hope so,” his brother said. “I don’t know if you’re going to be able to keep going.”

Also scattered on the table were letters from the state explaining how Miguel could put in a workers’ compensation claim and collect benefits. Neither brother could read, though, and in any case, the letters were written in English. The last one said that the deadline to apply had passed.

Miguel said that when he got hurt, his supervisor told him not to give his real age at the hospital. In the milking warehouse, though, most everyone knew he was a minor.

There was no need to hide on the night shift. No one was coming to look for him.

c.2023 The New York Times Company