LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Earlier this year, eight men in Craighead County pleaded guilty after being busted for cockfighting. However, a loophole in the federal law on animal fighting lets people off easier who are watching the action - at least, for now.
A proposal to strengthen that law, the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act, is part of the new versions of the Farm Bill being hashed out in the U.S. House and Senate. Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, explained what it would do.
"It would add to the existing federal statute that cracks down on animal fighting by making it a crime for someone to attend a dogfight or a cockfight, or to bring a child to a dogfight or a cockfight," he said.
Animal fighting became a felony crime in Arkansas in 2009, but being a spectator still is a misdemeanor under state law.
Animal welfare also is the topic of an amendment in the current House version of the Farm Bill. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, wants to toss out state laws about humane treatment of animals. In Arkansas, that could affect a variety of statutes, from not allowing people to dye baby chicks and rabbits to unlawful bear exploitation. Pacelle predicts it would especially affect animals that are caged.
"If there's a state standard that says that the animals should be able to lie down, turn around, stand up and extend their limbs, that could be nullified by Steve King's amendment," Pacelle said. "He even opposed efforts to include pets in disaster planning."
King has said he believes the patchwork of state animal welfare laws restricts commerce by making it difficult - particularly for food producers - to comply with them. Pacelle said the King amendment could nullify rights for animals in 34 states, with broad implications for food safety and environmental standards.
Animal-cruelty laws in Arkansas are listed online at nationalaglawcenter.org.
get more stories like this via email
Alabama is one of 14 states opting out of the 2024 summer electronic benefit program.
As summer rolls around, there will be no programs in place to help low-income families with grocery costs.
LaTrell Clifford Wood, hunger policy advocate for the group Alabama Arise, said as a result, more than 500,000 children who usually receive free or reduced lunch could go without meals. She noted while summer feeding programs will be available, they will not reach everyone in need.
"Ninety-four percent of Alabama children who rely on free and reduced-price meals won't have access to them over the summer," Clifford Wood reported. "That means that only 6% of the children who rely on those meals during the school year are going to be fed through summer feeding programs."
Clifford Wood warned limited hours, transportation and strict program rules will hinder many families from benefiting from such vital programs. The Alabama Legislature did not allocate the necessary $15 million for the program by the end of the last session. However, Clifford Wood noted there is a chance the program will be funded in the summer of 2025.
As legislators focus on next year's budgets, Clifford Wood stressed the need for funding next summer's EBT program. She pointed out Alabama Arise is calling for lawmakers to allocate funds from the Education Trust Fund to combat child hunger, affecting one in four children in the state.
"This is a program that's been tested for 13 years," Clifford Wood emphasized. "It's had three rigorous evaluation periods, and it was shown to improve the diet of children and decrease children's food hardship by a third."
Clifford Wood believes prioritizing children's needs and addressing food insecurity is a form of preventive care and serves as an early investment in the state's overall wellness.
The Food Research and Action Center said funding the e-benefits program would also benefit the economy - adding anywhere from $98 million to $117 million. The Alabama Senate Finance and Taxation Education Committee is expected to vote on the budget next week.
Disclosure: Alabama Arise contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, and Poverty Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
California's program helping low-income families buy fresh fruit and vegetables is on the chopping block and health care advocates are asking legislators to save the Market Match program.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed cutting most of the program's $35 million budget to help close the state's budget shortfall.
Sophia Vaccaro, a participant in Market Match from Echo Park, said she depends on Market Match in more ways than one.
"It helps people being able to stretch their budget further," Vaccaro explained. "Then, I think it helps the community, in that it creates a sense of camaraderie at the farmers' market and makes people more invested in the community itself."
The program matches every dollar CalFresh customers spend on fresh fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market up to between $10 and $20 per day. It is active at 294 sites across the state and is partially paid for through federal matching funds.
Dr. John Maa, surgeon at Marin Health Medical Center and board member of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the American Heart Association, said Market Match promotes healthy eating and boosts the local farm economy.
"An improved diet really will have long-term meaningful impacts on health, and also reduce health care costs," Maa explained. "It really helps to sustain the growers and the merchants. I guess it's a win-win-win."
Siu Han Cheung, outreach coordinator for the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation and board member of the Heart of the City Farmers' Market, argued the program is vital to residents across the state.
"If the Market Match will be cut, that is terrible," Cheung stressed. "That means they have less money to buy their food. So, Market Match is very important for the low-income families and the seniors."
Legislators and the governor are working toward the May budget revisions, and must pass a balanced budget by June 15.
Disclosure: The American Heart Association Western States Region contributes to our fund for reporting on Health Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
South Dakotans face high prices at the grocery store and some are working to ease the burden.
A new report from the Federal Trade Commission finds some grocery retailers used the supply-chain disruptions of the pandemic to raise prices and collect bigger profits, even after supply chains regulated.
One South Dakota group is trying to reduce sticker shock by targeting the state sales tax on groceries. Dakotans for Health is sponsoring a citizens ballot initiative to repeal the 4.2 % tax.
Rick Weiland, co-founder of the group, said lower food bills would make a meaningful difference for some.
"People of modest means, or low income hardworking families, disproportionately spend upwards of 30% on food," Weiland pointed out. "This is going to be helpful."
South Dakota is one of only two states in the country to apply its full state sales tax rate to groceries with no exemptions, Mississippi being the other. More than 9% of South Dakotans are considered food insecure, meaning they do not always have access to enough healthy food.
The grocery tax has been a popular topic among state legislators in recent years. Republican Gov. Kristi Noem even campaigned on the promise to repeal it. Critics have said proposing a tax cut without a way to finance it is irresponsible.
Weiland pointed out Gov. Noem had a formula spelled out when she brought forward her bill in 2023, which was voted down.
"She had no problem defending her position in front of the Legislature, in terms of how much revenue the state was going to lose and where they could make it up," Weiland recounted.
The initiative needs about 17,500 signatures by next month to appear on the November ballot.
get more stories like this via email