truthout--2020-09-26--Trump’s Forest Service Issues Plan to Open Largest US National Forest to Logging

The U.S. Forest Service has released a report laying the groundwork to open more than 9 million acres in the nation ’ s largest national forest to logging .
The preferred alternative in its environmental study , released Friday , would exempt southeast Alaska ’ s Tongass National Forest from a rule prohibiting road construction and timber harvesting .
That would remove 9.37 million acres from roadless designation and provide the most possible timber harvest opportunities of six options the agency considered .
Logging in the Tongass has been off-limits since 2001 when President Bill Clinton issued a “ roadless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconstruction and timber harvesting on 58.5 million acres of national forest system lands .
The preferred alternative in the agency ’ s final environmental impact statement would make 168,000 old-growth acres and 20,000 young-growth acres available for harvesting .
The agency said the first trees to go will be old-growth trees , or woods undisturbed by human activity .
After about 16 years , harvesting of old-growth trees would decrease as more young-growth become economic to harvest .
Logging of old-growth forests is of most concern to environmentalists .
Old-growth forests have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some huge and ancient .
Southeast Alaska ’ s old-growth forest includes trees more than 550 years old .
Old-growth forests provide diverse habitat and support a wider range of wildlife than younger forests .
They also take carbon out of the atmosphere , reducing the amount that contributes to greenhouse gases .
In 2016 , federal scientists found the Tongass removes more carbon than any other forest in North America .
The final environmental statement said effects of logging to wildlife , recreation , tourism , mining and salmon harvesting and processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food and other natural resources by Alaska Natives would likewise be affected very little , according to the agency .
The agency ’ s impact statement was issued in response to a 2018 petition from the state asking for the exemption from the roadless rule , saying it has unfairly blocked public access , including the roads essential to supporting a vital regional timber industry .
Gov .
Mike Dunleavy welcomed the report .
“ We thank Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and his team for conducting a thorough evaluation and proposing a reasonable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward to release of the Final Alaska Roadless Rule.
” The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska , which represents 30,000 tribal citizens , said in 2019 : “ The Indigenous tribal governments of southeast Alaska know our traditional territory ; we have lived , depended on , and stewarded these lands and waters since time immemorial .
We know that the full exemption for development activities would forever harm our homelands.
” Some see the Tongass “ as a salmon forest , a timber forest , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the council said .
“ Indigenous people see it differently.
” The forest is the traditional homelands of the Tlingit , Haida and Tsimshian people , “ a lineage that stretches so deep in time , we call it immemorial , ” the group stated .
“ Our origin stories are derived from these lands .
Our ancestors are buried here .
Our songs and dances are created here .
Our languages have always been spoken here.
” The parent company of the region ’ s dominant timber producer said the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regional for-profit Native corporation created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act , owns Sealaska Timber Company , which has sold more than 3.5 billion board feet of timber — western hemlock , Sitka spruce , western red cedar and Alaska yellow cedar — since its start in 1979 .
Sealaska said it believes the ruling ’ s success will depend on the processes that the Forest Service follows to work closely with local communities , Alaska Native corporations and tribes within the Tongass .
“ We urge the Forest Service to appropriately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly the sovereign tribes , into the local decision-making process , ” Sealaska said .
“ Community priorities for economic development , clean energy projects , conservation and traditional fishing , hunting and harvesting , amongst others , should drive local level management of the Tongass.
” The exemption is the wrong call for the Tongass , Austin Williams , Alaska director of law and policy for Trout Unlimited , said in a statement .
“ It ’ s clear the state of Alaska , the old-growth clear-cut logging industry , and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to the days of reckless clear-cut logging that sacrifices our fish , wildlife and forests without regard for the costs to southeast Alaska ’ s fishing and tourism economy , subsistence users , recreationists , or the long-term health of the region.
” Keegan McCarthy , owner of Coastal Alaska Adventures and Custom Alaska Cruises , said the state should be conserving its remaining roadless areas rather than rolling back protections that make businesses like hers possible .
“ Our livelihoods and the future of our families depend on this forest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Tongass to expanded and unsustainable clear-cut logging ignores the economic and social realities of today , and threatens to destroy thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses just like mine.
” Much of the public testimony on the proposal to exempt the Tongass from the roadless rule has supported keeping protections in place .
“ We need a new approach that actually heeds tribes and southeast Alaskan stakeholders , ” said Tim Bristol , executive director of SalmonState , a nonprofit advocacy group .
“ This move represents a focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is deeply disappointing ; is wildly unpopular ; and is likely to be overturned in the courts.
” The final environmental impact statement is a strong indication of where the federal government is headed as far as permitting goes .
The Forest Service will issue a record of decision sometime after 30 days .

The U.S. Forest Service has released a report laying the groundwork to open more than 9 million acres in the nation’s largest national forest to logging.
The preferred alternative in its environmental study, released Friday, would exempt southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest from a rule prohibiting road construction and timber harvesting.
That would remove 9.37 million acres from roadless designation and provide the most possible timber harvest opportunities of six options the agency considered.
Logging in the Tongass has been off-limits since 2001 when President Bill Clinton issued a “roadless rule.” It banned road construction, reconstruction and timber harvesting on 58.5 million acres of national forest system lands.
The preferred alternative in the agency’s final environmental impact statement would make 168,000 old-growth acres and 20,000 young-growth acres available for harvesting. The agency said the first trees to go will be old-growth trees, or woods undisturbed by human activity. After about 16 years, harvesting of old-growth trees would decrease as more young-growth become economic to harvest.
Logging of old-growth forests is of most concern to environmentalists. Old-growth forests have a range of trees of varying ages, some huge and ancient. Southeast Alaska’s old-growth forest includes trees more than 550 years old.
Old-growth forests provide diverse habitat and support a wider range of wildlife than younger forests. They also take carbon out of the atmosphere, reducing the amount that contributes to greenhouse gases. In 2016, federal scientists found the Tongass removes more carbon than any other forest in North America.
The final environmental statement said effects of logging to wildlife, recreation, tourism, mining and salmon harvesting and processing would be minimal. The gathering of food and other natural resources by Alaska Natives would likewise be affected very little, according to the agency.
The agency’s impact statement was issued in response to a 2018 petition from the state asking for the exemption from the roadless rule, saying it has unfairly blocked public access, including the roads essential to supporting a vital regional timber industry.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy welcomed the report. “We thank Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and his team for conducting a thorough evaluation and proposing a reasonable accommodation for Alaska, and we look forward to release of the Final Alaska Roadless Rule.”
The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, which represents 30,000 tribal citizens, said in 2019: “The Indigenous tribal governments of southeast Alaska know our traditional territory; we have lived, depended on, and stewarded these lands and waters since time immemorial. We know that the full exemption for development activities would forever harm our homelands.”
Some see the Tongass “as a salmon forest, a timber forest, a vast wilderness to visit and explore,” the council said. “Indigenous people see it differently.”
The forest is the traditional homelands of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people, “a lineage that stretches so deep in time, we call it immemorial,” the group stated. “Our origin stories are derived from these lands. Our ancestors are buried here. Our songs and dances are created here. Our languages have always been spoken here.”
The parent company of the region’s dominant timber producer said the next steps are important. Sealaska, the regional for-profit Native corporation created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, owns Sealaska Timber Company, which has sold more than 3.5 billion board feet of timber — western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western red cedar and Alaska yellow cedar — since its start in 1979.
Sealaska said it believes the ruling’s success will depend on the processes that the Forest Service follows to work closely with local communities, Alaska Native corporations and tribes within the Tongass.
“We urge the Forest Service to appropriately include these local entities, and most importantly the sovereign tribes, into the local decision-making process,” Sealaska said. “Community priorities for economic development, clean energy projects, conservation and traditional fishing, hunting and harvesting, amongst others, should drive local level management of the Tongass.”
The exemption is the wrong call for the Tongass, Austin Williams, Alaska director of law and policy for Trout Unlimited, said in a statement.
“It’s clear the state of Alaska, the old-growth clear-cut logging industry, and others behind this short-sighted new rule want a return to the days of reckless clear-cut logging that sacrifices our fish, wildlife and forests without regard for the costs to southeast Alaska’s fishing and tourism economy, subsistence users, recreationists, or the long-term health of the region.”
Keegan McCarthy, owner of Coastal Alaska Adventures and Custom Alaska Cruises, said the state should be conserving its remaining roadless areas rather than rolling back protections that make businesses like hers possible.
“Our livelihoods and the future of our families depend on this forest,” she said. “Sacrificing more of the Tongass to expanded and unsustainable clear-cut logging ignores the economic and social realities of today, and threatens to destroy thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses just like mine.”
Much of the public testimony on the proposal to exempt the Tongass from the roadless rule has supported keeping protections in place.
“We need a new approach that actually heeds tribes and southeast Alaskan stakeholders,” said Tim Bristol, executive director of SalmonState, a nonprofit advocacy group. “This move represents a focus on the past, not the future; is deeply disappointing; is wildly unpopular; and is likely to be overturned in the courts.”
The final environmental impact statement is a strong indication of where the federal government is headed as far as permitting goes. The Forest Service will issue a record of decision sometime after 30 days.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-26--It’s Highly Unlikely That We Will Have a Safe Vaccine by Election Time

Despite President Donald Trump ’ s promises of a vaccine next month and pundits ’ speculation about how an “ October surprise ” could upend the presidential campaign , any potential vaccine would have to clear a slew of scientific and bureaucratic hurdles in record time .
In short , it would take a miracle .
We talked to companies , regulators , scientific advisers and analysts and reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts and study protocols to understand all the steps needed for a coronavirus vaccine to be scientifically validated and cleared for public use .
As you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long shot in 38 days .
There are three key milestones that must be met : • A clinical trial would need to observe enough infections to demonstrate that the vaccine is better than a placebo .
Right now , Pfizer ’ s trial is the furthest along .
Pfizer has said it expects results by the end of October , but analysts who follow the company aren ’ t so sure it ’ ll be that soon or whether the results will be conclusive .
• Pfizer would have to turn its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Food and Drug Administration .
The company could either apply for full approval — a very high bar for proving the vaccine is safe , effective and able to be reliably manufactured by the millions of doses — or for an emergency use authorization , which is more flexible .
Pfizer has said it could submit its application almost immediately .
• The FDA has to review the data and decide whether the vaccine is ready to go to market .
That could take several weeks to a month , said Dr. Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2002 to 2004 .
“ All of this put together makes it more likely that it ’ ll be a late 2020 availability , ” McClellan said .
None of this is to say that Trump couldn ’ t suddenly call a White House press conference to try to grab headlines and declare victory .
But knowing all the steps that would have to come first can help the public discern between a true , scientifically validated vaccine and a mere political stunt .
Yes , Pfizer Could Have Trial Results by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are closely guarded so that researchers ( and investors ) have no opportunity to mess with them .
Under strict trial rules that vaccine makers and the FDA set up in advance , there are only a few predetermined times when a data monitoring board is scheduled to look at the data .
The purpose of those check-ins ( known as “ interim analyses ” ) is to see if there ’ s already enough evidence to conclude that the vaccine either works or doesn ’ t .
According to the trial rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has four of these check-ins before the final analysis .
The first one occurs when 32 people in the trial get sick with COVID-19 .
Yes , that is a tiny number in a study designed to enroll 30,000 participants .
But it could be enough to show that the vaccine works if far more of the infections occur in people who took the placebo than in those who got the vaccine , so much so that it ’ s probably not random .
The vaccine “ would have to be way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boundary , ” said Frank Harrell Jr. , professor of biostatistics at Vanderbilt University .
If six or fewer of the first 32 cases are people who got the vaccine , that suggests the vaccine reduced COVID-19 cases by 76 % .
Under Pfizer ’ s trial rules , the company can then conclude that its vaccine is effective enough to submit its application to the FDA .
If , on the other hand , 15 or more of the first 32 infections are people who got the vaccine , it would mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study ends .
The better the vaccine works , the longer it would take to reach 32 cases , because fewer vaccinated people would get sick and more of the infections would have to occur in the placebo group .
So when exactly will Pfizer get to 32 cases ?
Analysts at JPMorgan estimate that this first readout would occur on Oct. 31 if the vaccine is 70 % effective , or on Nov. 2 if the vaccine is 80 % .
Their model also estimates that Pfizer is more than twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for approval at 80 % effectiveness vs 70 % effectiveness .
The JPMorgan analysts ’ prediction is roughly in line with official public statements from Pfizer , though the company has projected even more confidence .
“ We have a good chance that we will know if the product works by the end of October , ” CEO Albert Bourla said Sept. 13 on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation.
” The key thing we don ’ t know is how fast people in Pfizer ’ s trial are getting sick .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the virus ; it waits to see who catches it on their own .
Even though the pandemic is far from under control , the coronavirus is not spreading as fast as it was a few months ago .
The study started with a baseline assumption that just 1.3 % of participants would be infected over the course of a year .
It ’ s possible that the thousands of people who signed up for Pfizer ’ s study could be getting sick faster or slower than that , depending on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Pfizer ’ s trial infection rate is 1.5 to 2 times faster than publicly reported case counts , then Pfizer ’ s first readout could be Oct. 12-19 with a 70 % effective vaccine , or Oct. 14-22 with 80 % efficacy , according to JPMorgan ’ s model .
“ When the trials started there were a lot more cases in the U.S. at that time , ” said Dr. Vamil Divan , an analyst at the bank Mizuho .
“ That ’ s a key unknown .
How many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas versus New York or Boston ?
” To protect the integrity of trials like this , the drugmakers running them aren ’ t supposed to know what the data is showing as it comes in .
And yet , company executives have led some observers to believe they know how many people have tested positive for COVID-19 .
“ They ’ re making projections based on how rapidly they ’ re accruing data , and they probably know the total number of events , ” said Susan Ellenberg , professor of biostatistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When they say things like that , first of all , it does some wonders for their stock prices , ” she added .
In a statement , Pfizer said that it expects results “ as early as the end of October ” based on current infection rates .
The trial , the company said , “ was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine candidate as fast as possible.
” “ Having said that , ” the company added , “ neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our clinical trial.
” It ’ s highly unlikely that the next front-runner , Moderna , could have results before the election .
The JPMorgan analysts ’ model suggests that infection rates would have to be four times the publicly reported rate for Moderna to be able to report results before Nov. 3 .
Dr. Tal Zaks , Moderna ’ s chief medical officer , told investors on Sept. 17 that “ some time in November is sort of a reasonable base case ” for the first look at Moderna ’ s results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Paul Sagan , is a member of Moderna ’ s board and a company stockholder . )
Other developers are further behind .
AstraZeneca ’ s trial is paused in the U.S. while the company investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction .
Johnson & Johnson is just beginning its large-scale , end-stage trial , months behind the other three .
So Pfizer is the only company with a shot at results before the election .
And if the company has results to share , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way .
The company has an ethical obligation not to delay a product that is ready to save lives , despite the risk that a vaccine announced on the eve of a contentious election could stoke partisan perceptions .
“ Once you have signs of a vaccine ’ s effectiveness , it ’ s very difficult to argue anything is ethical other than making it available to those most at risk , ” Dr. Mani Foroohar , an analyst with the investment bank SVB Leerink , said .
“ But it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument that you should do anything that undermines public trust .
That ’ s one of the problems when you introduce powerful political pressures into what is meant to be a boring , dry , unemotional process.
” Once Pfizer Gets Results , It ’ s Poised to Seek the FDA ’ s Go-Ahead Swiftly As soon as Pfizer has conclusive data , it will submit an application to the FDA .
The application will include data from all previous trials as well as proof that the company can consistently manufacture millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has indicated that the company is ready to turn around its application in a flash , if not on the same day it has results .
“ We will try to be able to be ready to submit with the speed of light , once we have the results ready , ” Bourla said at an investor presentation on Sept. 16 .
Pfizer has two options when submitting its FDA application .
It can apply for an EUA or a full approval , known as a biologics license application , or BLA .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ market its vaccine for the pandemic ’ s duration — during the declared “ emergency ” period that we are currently in .
If the company receives full licensure , on the other hand , its product can remain on the market forever .
In its statement , Pfizer said it plans to continue its study after a possible EUA to collect more long-term data .
The bar for an EUA is lower than for full approval .
By law , an EUA can be issued so long as “ the product may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or preventing ” the disease and “ the known and potential benefits of the product … outweigh the known and potential risks.
” In contrast , the standard for a full approval requires a drugmaker to prove not only that the product is safe and effective , but also that the product is pure and can be consistently made , because vaccines are biological products made from living materials .
For the COVID-19 vaccine , the FDA has said that it is going to raise the bar for an EUA , going beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA has said a vaccine should be at least 50 % effective .
The FDA is reportedly close to announcing new standards to include at least two months of monitoring the health of trial participants after they receive their second shot .
That could end up being the biggest hurdle to authorizing a vaccine before the election .
Trump said on Wednesday that he might reject the new guidelines , but companies and FDA officials might still choose to observe them .
In a statement , the FDA said that “ for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information , ” an EUA “ may be appropriate once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine but before the manufacturer has submitted and/or the FDA has completed its formal review of the biologics license application.
” Pfizer said in a statement that it anticipates providing the agency safety data , including the median of two months safety information after the second dose , on a rolling basis .
The trial has enrolled more than 31,000 participants , and 19,000 have received the second dose so far , the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly considering for a covid vaccine EUA represent appropriate balance between speed and safety in a crisis , ” Dr. Scott Gottlieb , who led the FDA earlier in the Trump administration and serves on Pfizer ’ s board , tweeted on Thursday .
“ Even under EUA ; you want higher assurance of safety and benefit for vaccine given to healthy people vs. drug given to those already sick.
” “ Any political effort to shortcut [ the ] process or degrade reasonable standards will be [ a ] Pyrrhic victory if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Gottlieb added .
The FDA Will Thoroughly Review the Application , and That ’ ll Take a While Once the FDA receives a company ’ s submission , the agency ’ s review process consists of several steps which , put together , could take weeks to complete .
The FDA is the only health regulator in the world that asks drugmakers for raw data files and does its own analysis , said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein , the FDA ’ s former principal deputy commissioner from 2009 to 2011 .
“ Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that practice , he said , despite the urgent need for a vaccine .
Besides reviewing clinical trial data , the FDA also inspects vaccine developers ’ manufacturing capabilities to ensure that every vaccine batch can be made consistently and that the process is squeaky clean , so that no impurities can make their way into a vial of product .
This process involves a lot of paperwork sent from the companies to the agency and also , usually , on-site inspections at manufacturing plants .
The agency declined to comment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Pfizer and Moderna .
After the FDA finishes its assessment of the company ’ s application , it typically presents the data to an external advisory committee in a public meeting .
Dr. Peter Marks , director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research , has said that the agency is committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review individual vaccine candidates .
Those meetings will take time to schedule , but it ’ s an essential step , according to experts both inside and outside the agency .
“ How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not , like , holding something in and sweeping something under the rug ?
Well , the way they ’ re going to know that is because any vaccine that we issue an emergency use authorization for will go to a public advisory committee meeting , ” Marks said in a Sept. 10 webinar hosted by the Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy .
“ It ’ ll be critical for people to see what ’ s in the briefing packages , they ’ ll be able to see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ ll see the committee recommendation and they ’ ll see the public dialogue that will take place at that committee.
” Advisory committee members vote on whether they recommend product approval .
While the FDA does not have to follow the committee ’ s recommendations , the votes are public .
We contacted every advisory committee member and interviewed six of them about how they would evaluate an EUA application for a COVID-19 vaccine .
These members ( speaking for themselves , not for the FDA ) indicated they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could be tough to meet in the next 38 days .
One factor in their caution is that a premature EUA could make it harder to definitively evaluate an effective vaccine , because subjects in ongoing trials may drop out and new enrollments in trials with placebos would no longer be feasible .
“ If an EUA came too soon where we don ’ t have sufficient clinical efficacy data , it would make it very hard to actually complete the study as written , ” Dr. Paul Spearman , director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hospital , said .
“ You would want to have enough clinical efficacy data by the time of an EUA to be pretty darn certain.
” Another committee member is Dr. Archana Chatterjee , dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Science and Medicine .
She also expressed caution about basing a hugely consequential decision on such a small number of cases , like the 32 in Pfizer ’ s first look .
“ It ’ s hard for me to say with these small numbers will we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Chatterjee said .
“ I have not made up my mind on any of this because I need to see and discuss with colleagues what the data are and what the implications might be.
” One option would be for the FDA to grant an EUA for a specific group of people , such as health care workers or the elderly , who are more vulnerable to COVID-19 .
The data would have to support a specific vaccine use that aligns with a recognized unmet medical need , said Dr. Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences , part of the National Institutes of Health .
For example , it ’ s possible a vaccine could work well in young people but not so well in older people .
In that case , it might not be that beneficial , because older people are much more vulnerable to serious disease .
“ It ’ s not simply a matter of saying we will EUA this product , ” Kurilla said .
“ We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is we ’ re trying to address.
” Dr. Paul Offit , director of the vaccine education center at the Children ’ s Hospital of Philadelphia , said he would like to see robust safety data , to make sure there are no neurological side effects , from Pfizer and Moderna .
Both companies are developing so-called mRNA vaccines , a type of vaccine technology that has never been approved before .
He noted that most people who get vaccines are healthy , so the bar for letting a vaccine go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatments intended for severely ill COVID-19 patients .
Finally , the FDA considers the committee ’ s advice and makes its final decision on whether it will greenlight the product .
Normally , the FDA aims to review applications for full approval within 10 months for standard reviews and six months for priority reviews .
It ’ s unclear exactly how quickly an EUA review can be completed for the COVID-19 vaccine .
The only other vaccine that has ever received an EUA was an anthrax vaccine , but it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already in use and the 2005 authorization was granted to allow the US .
Department of Defense to resume giving the shots to military personnel after the mandatory vaccination program had been suspended .
Some steps could potentially be skipped when doing a review for an EUA as compared with a full approval , according to McClellan , the former FDA commissioner .
For example , any vaccines needed for this pandemic won ’ t need long-term storage , because they ’ ll all be used quickly , so companies won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agency that their vaccines can be stored for months on end .
But to receive full approval , the agency might require that .
Still , McClellan estimated , the agency ’ s review process from the time it receives an application to issuing an EUA could take up to a month .
All of this is just to get to yes on a vaccine .
Getting shots in millions of people ’ s arms is another story .
The two vaccine front-runners from Pfizer and Moderna pose additional logistical challenges because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Could Go Wrong ?
Having read through all these steps , you can start to see the points where the process could break down and how the public might find out about it .
• If a company lowers the bar for efficacy .
The first four vaccine contenders have all released their clinical trial rules ( Pfizer , Moderna , AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson ) , so the public should be able to assess whether the shots have met the companies ’ own standards to prove it works .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards , that ’ s concerning .
• If the FDA backtracks on its commitment to consult the independent advisory board , or if the agency ’ s leaders reject the committee ’ s advice , it would be a sign that they ’ re acting under political pressure without scientific support .
• If FDA career scientists get overruled by political appointees , that would also be a major sign of political pressure .
The decision on whether or not to authorize a vaccine will fall on Marks , head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , has authority to overrule Marks ’ decision , and Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to further overturn Hahn ’ s call .
• If FDA officials quit .
Marks has said he ’ d resign if the agency authorizes an unproven or unsafe vaccine .
Ultimately , the FDA and everyone involved in vaccine development are seeking the perfect balance between speed and caution : Faced with a deadly virus that ’ s taken the lives of more than 200,000 Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tearing away the livelihoods of so many , of course there is an imperative not to waste any time and an urgent desire for a vaccine .
Yet a bad vaccine could do more harm than good , and even the perception of a vaccine that is not thoroughly vetted could be just as bad , if the public doesn ’ t feel confident in taking it .
“ A vaccine only works if it ’ s safe , effective and administered , ” meaning people have to be willing to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political adviser to companies at the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas .
( He doesn ’ t represent any pharmaceutical clients . )
“ If it becomes another culture war football like masks , it will not help us get past the virus and return to normal.
” It ’ s unlikely we ’ ll see a vaccine authorized in October , but to ensure the shot is safe , effective , pure and trustworthy , waiting a little longer with the knowledge that no steps have been skipped may be @ @ @ @

Even if Pfizer’s vaccine trial yields results by November 3, the FDA review would still take weeks to complete.
Despite President Donald Trump’s promises of a vaccine next month and pundits’ speculation about how an “October surprise” could upend the presidential campaign, any potential vaccine would have to clear a slew of scientific and bureaucratic hurdles in record time.
In short, it would take a miracle.
We talked to companies, regulators, scientific advisers and analysts and reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts and study protocols to understand all the steps needed for a coronavirus vaccine to be scientifically validated and cleared for public use. As you’ll see, it’s a long shot in 38 days.
There are three key milestones that must be met:
A clinical trial would need to observe enough infections to demonstrate that the vaccine is better than a placebo. Right now, Pfizer’s trial is the furthest along. Pfizer has said it expects results by the end of October, but analysts who follow the company aren’t so sure it’ll be that soon or whether the results will be conclusive. Related Story News | Environment & Health Sen. Thom Tillis Embraces QAnon’s Dangerous COVID Conspiracy Theory Tillis also appeared to embrace the idea of "herd immunity," a discredited practice many have likened to eugenics. Truthout Pfizer would have to turn its trial data into an application to the Food and Drug Administration. The company could either apply for full approval — a very high bar for proving the vaccine is safe, effective and able to be reliably manufactured by the millions of doses — or for an emergency use authorization, which is more flexible. Pfizer has said it could submit its application almost immediately. The FDA has to review the data and decide whether the vaccine is ready to go to market. That could take several weeks to a month, said Dr. Mark McClellan, who led the FDA from 2002 to 2004.
“All of this put together makes it more likely that it’ll be a late 2020 availability,” McClellan said.
None of this is to say that Trump couldn’t suddenly call a White House press conference to try to grab headlines and declare victory. But knowing all the steps that would have to come first can help the public discern between a true, scientifically validated vaccine and a mere political stunt.
Yes, Pfizer Could Have Trial Results by the End of October
Results from ongoing trials are closely guarded so that researchers (and investors) have no opportunity to mess with them. Under strict trial rules that vaccine makers and the FDA set up in advance, there are only a few predetermined times when a data monitoring board is scheduled to look at the data. The purpose of those check-ins (known as “interim analyses”) is to see if there’s already enough evidence to conclude that the vaccine either works or doesn’t.
According to the trial rules that Pfizer released last week, it has four of these check-ins before the final analysis. The first one occurs when 32 people in the trial get sick with COVID-19.
Yes, that is a tiny number in a study designed to enroll 30,000 participants. But it could be enough to show that the vaccine works if far more of the infections occur in people who took the placebo than in those who got the vaccine, so much so that it’s probably not random.
The vaccine “would have to be way, way better to meet an interim stopping boundary,” said Frank Harrell Jr., professor of biostatistics at Vanderbilt University.
If six or fewer of the first 32 cases are people who got the vaccine, that suggests the vaccine reduced COVID-19 cases by 76%. Under Pfizer’s trial rules, the company can then conclude that its vaccine is effective enough to submit its application to the FDA. If, on the other hand, 15 or more of the first 32 infections are people who got the vaccine, it would mean the vaccine doesn’t work and the study ends.
The better the vaccine works, the longer it would take to reach 32 cases, because fewer vaccinated people would get sick and more of the infections would have to occur in the placebo group.
So when exactly will Pfizer get to 32 cases?
Analysts at JPMorgan estimate that this first readout would occur on Oct. 31 if the vaccine is 70% effective, or on Nov. 2 if the vaccine is 80%. Their model also estimates that Pfizer is more than twice as likely to be able to file for approval at 80% effectiveness vs 70% effectiveness.
The JPMorgan analysts’ prediction is roughly in line with official public statements from Pfizer, though the company has projected even more confidence. “We have a good chance that we will know if the product works by the end of October,” CEO Albert Bourla said Sept. 13 on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
The key thing we don’t know is how fast people in Pfizer’s trial are getting sick. The trial doesn’t intentionally expose people to the virus; it waits to see who catches it on their own. Even though the pandemic is far from under control, the coronavirus is not spreading as fast as it was a few months ago. The study started with a baseline assumption that just 1.3% of participants would be infected over the course of a year.
It’s possible that the thousands of people who signed up for Pfizer’s study could be getting sick faster or slower than that, depending on how bad the outbreak is where they are. If Pfizer’s trial infection rate is 1.5 to 2 times faster than publicly reported case counts, then Pfizer’s first readout could be Oct. 12-19 with a 70% effective vaccine, or Oct. 14-22 with 80% efficacy, according to JPMorgan’s model.
“When the trials started there were a lot more cases in the U.S. at that time,” said Dr. Vamil Divan, an analyst at the bank Mizuho. “That’s a key unknown. How many of these participants are enrolled in hotter areas versus New York or Boston?”
To protect the integrity of trials like this, the drugmakers running them aren’t supposed to know what the data is showing as it comes in. And yet, company executives have led some observers to believe they know how many people have tested positive for COVID-19.
“They’re making projections based on how rapidly they’re accruing data, and they probably know the total number of events,” said Susan Ellenberg, professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania.
“When they say things like that, first of all, it does some wonders for their stock prices,” she added.
In a statement, Pfizer said that it expects results “as early as the end of October” based on current infection rates. The trial, the company said, “was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine candidate as fast as possible.”
“Having said that,” the company added, “neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial.”
It’s highly unlikely that the next front-runner, Moderna, could have results before the election. The JPMorgan analysts’ model suggests that infection rates would have to be four times the publicly reported rate for Moderna to be able to report results before Nov. 3.
Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, told investors on Sept. 17 that “some time in November is sort of a reasonable base case” for the first look at Moderna’s results. (ProPublica’s board chairman, Paul Sagan, is a member of Moderna’s board and a company stockholder.)
Other developers are further behind. AstraZeneca’s trial is paused in the U.S. while the company investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction. Johnson & Johnson is just beginning its large-scale, end-stage trial, months behind the other three.
So Pfizer is the only company with a shot at results before the election. And if the company has results to share, it’s unlikely to let political implications get in the way. The company has an ethical obligation not to delay a product that is ready to save lives, despite the risk that a vaccine announced on the eve of a contentious election could stoke partisan perceptions.
“Once you have signs of a vaccine’s effectiveness, it’s very difficult to argue anything is ethical other than making it available to those most at risk,” Dr. Mani Foroohar, an analyst with the investment bank SVB Leerink, said. “But it’s also very difficult to make the argument that you should do anything that undermines public trust. That’s one of the problems when you introduce powerful political pressures into what is meant to be a boring, dry, unemotional process.”
Once Pfizer Gets Results, It’s Poised to Seek the FDA’s Go-Ahead Swiftly
As soon as Pfizer has conclusive data, it will submit an application to the FDA. The application will include data from all previous trials as well as proof that the company can consistently manufacture millions of vaccine doses.
Pfizer’s CEO has indicated that the company is ready to turn around its application in a flash, if not on the same day it has results. “We will try to be able to be ready to submit with the speed of light, once we have the results ready,” Bourla said at an investor presentation on Sept. 16.
Pfizer has two options when submitting its FDA application. It can apply for an EUA or a full approval, known as a biologics license application, or BLA. An EUA would only allow Pfizer to market its vaccine for the pandemic’s duration — during the declared “emergency” period that we are currently in. If the company receives full licensure, on the other hand, its product can remain on the market forever. In its statement, Pfizer said it plans to continue its study after a possible EUA to collect more long-term data.
The bar for an EUA is lower than for full approval. By law, an EUA can be issued so long as “the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing” the disease and “the known and potential benefits of the product … outweigh the known and potential risks.” In contrast, the standard for a full approval requires a drugmaker to prove not only that the product is safe and effective, but also that the product is pure and can be consistently made, because vaccines are biological products made from living materials.
For the COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA has said that it is going to raise the bar for an EUA, going beyond the usual requirements. Previously, the FDA has said a vaccine should be at least 50% effective. The FDA is reportedly close to announcing new standards to include at least two months of monitoring the health of trial participants after they receive their second shot. That could end up being the biggest hurdle to authorizing a vaccine before the election. Trump said on Wednesday that he might reject the new guidelines, but companies and FDA officials might still choose to observe them.
In a statement, the FDA said that “for a vaccine for which there is adequate manufacturing information,” an EUA “may be appropriate once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine but before the manufacturer has submitted and/or the FDA has completed its formal review of the biologics license application.”
Pfizer said in a statement that it anticipates providing the agency safety data, including the median of two months safety information after the second dose, on a rolling basis. The trial has enrolled more than 31,000 participants, and 19,000 have received the second dose so far, the company said.
“The standards FDA is reportedly considering for a covid vaccine EUA represent appropriate balance between speed and safety in a crisis,” Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who led the FDA earlier in the Trump administration and serves on Pfizer’s board, tweeted on Thursday. “Even under EUA; you want higher assurance of safety and benefit for vaccine given to healthy people vs. drug given to those already sick.”
“Any political effort to shortcut [the] process or degrade reasonable standards will be [a] Pyrrhic victory if people lack confidence in a vaccine,” Gottlieb added.
The FDA Will Thoroughly Review the Application, and That’ll Take a While
Once the FDA receives a company’s submission, the agency’s review process consists of several steps which, put together, could take weeks to complete.
The FDA is the only health regulator in the world that asks drugmakers for raw data files and does its own analysis, said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s former principal deputy commissioner from 2009 to 2011. “Now would not be the moment to stop” that practice, he said, despite the urgent need for a vaccine.
Besides reviewing clinical trial data, the FDA also inspects vaccine developers’ manufacturing capabilities to ensure that every vaccine batch can be made consistently and that the process is squeaky clean, so that no impurities can make their way into a vial of product. This process involves a lot of paperwork sent from the companies to the agency and also, usually, on-site inspections at manufacturing plants. The agency declined to comment on whether it had already completed on-site inspections for Pfizer and Moderna.
After the FDA finishes its assessment of the company’s application, it typically presents the data to an external advisory committee in a public meeting. Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, has said that the agency is committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review individual vaccine candidates.
Those meetings will take time to schedule, but it’s an essential step, according to experts both inside and outside the agency.
“How will [the public] know that we’re not, like, holding something in and sweeping something under the rug? Well, the way they’re going to know that is because any vaccine that we issue an emergency use authorization for will go to a public advisory committee meeting,” Marks said in a Sept. 10 webinar hosted by the Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy. “It’ll be critical for people to see what’s in the briefing packages, they’ll be able to see the discussion among an impartial group of advisers, they’ll see the committee recommendation and they’ll see the public dialogue that will take place at that committee.”
Advisory committee members vote on whether they recommend product approval. While the FDA does not have to follow the committee’s recommendations, the votes are public.
“It protects against political interference — it’s important,” Sharfstein said.
We contacted every advisory committee member and interviewed six of them about how they would evaluate an EUA application for a COVID-19 vaccine. These members (speaking for themselves, not for the FDA) indicated they would expect to see a level of evidence that could be tough to meet in the next 38 days.
One factor in their caution is that a premature EUA could make it harder to definitively evaluate an effective vaccine, because subjects in ongoing trials may drop out and new enrollments in trials with placebos would no longer be feasible.
“If an EUA came too soon where we don’t have sufficient clinical efficacy data, it would make it very hard to actually complete the study as written,” Dr. Paul Spearman, director of infectious diseases at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, said. “You would want to have enough clinical efficacy data by the time of an EUA to be pretty darn certain.”
Another committee member is Dr. Archana Chatterjee, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Science and Medicine. She also expressed caution about basing a hugely consequential decision on such a small number of cases, like the 32 in Pfizer’s first look.
“It’s hard for me to say with these small numbers will we have meaningful data to make a decision on,” Chatterjee said. “I have not made up my mind on any of this because I need to see and discuss with colleagues what the data are and what the implications might be.”
One option would be for the FDA to grant an EUA for a specific group of people, such as health care workers or the elderly, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.
The data would have to support a specific vaccine use that aligns with a recognized unmet medical need, said Dr. Michael Kurilla, an advisory committee member and the director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health. For example, it’s possible a vaccine could work well in young people but not so well in older people. In that case, it might not be that beneficial, because older people are much more vulnerable to serious disease.
“It’s not simply a matter of saying we will EUA this product,” Kurilla said. “We have to be very careful to define what it is we’re trying to address.”
Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he would like to see robust safety data, to make sure there are no neurological side effects, from Pfizer and Moderna. Both companies are developing so-called mRNA vaccines, a type of vaccine technology that has never been approved before. He noted that most people who get vaccines are healthy, so the bar for letting a vaccine go to market is necessarily much higher than for treatments intended for severely ill COVID-19 patients.
Finally, the FDA considers the committee’s advice and makes its final decision on whether it will greenlight the product. Normally, the FDA aims to review applications for full approval within 10 months for standard reviews and six months for priority reviews.
It’s unclear exactly how quickly an EUA review can be completed for the COVID-19 vaccine. The only other vaccine that has ever received an EUA was an anthrax vaccine, but it’s not a useful comparison because the vaccine was already in use and the 2005 authorization was granted to allow the US. Department of Defense to resume giving the shots to military personnel after the mandatory vaccination program had been suspended.
Some steps could potentially be skipped when doing a review for an EUA as compared with a full approval, according to McClellan, the former FDA commissioner. For example, any vaccines needed for this pandemic won’t need long-term storage, because they’ll all be used quickly, so companies won’t need to run tests and demonstrate to the agency that their vaccines can be stored for months on end. But to receive full approval, the agency might require that.
Still, McClellan estimated, the agency’s review process from the time it receives an application to issuing an EUA could take up to a month.
All of this is just to get to yes on a vaccine. Getting shots in millions of people’s arms is another story. The two vaccine front-runners from Pfizer and Moderna pose additional logistical challenges because they have to be kept frozen.
What Could Go Wrong?
Having read through all these steps, you can start to see the points where the process could break down and how the public might find out about it.
If a company lowers the bar for efficacy. The first four vaccine contenders have all released their clinical trial rules (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), so the public should be able to assess whether the shots have met the companies’ own standards to prove it works. If they unexpectedly change their schedules or the standards, that’s concerning.
If the FDA backtracks on its commitment to consult the independent advisory board, or if the agency’s leaders reject the committee’s advice, it would be a sign that they’re acting under political pressure without scientific support.
If FDA career scientists get overruled by political appointees, that would also be a major sign of political pressure. The decision on whether or not to authorize a vaccine will fall on Marks, head of the biologics division. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, however, has authority to overrule Marks’ decision, and Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to further overturn Hahn’s call.
If FDA officials quit. Marks has said he’d resign if the agency authorizes an unproven or unsafe vaccine.
Ultimately, the FDA and everyone involved in vaccine development are seeking the perfect balance between speed and caution: Faced with a deadly virus that’s taken the lives of more than 200,000 Americans and upended life, devastating the economy and tearing away the livelihoods of so many, of course there is an imperative not to waste any time and an urgent desire for a vaccine.
Yet a bad vaccine could do more harm than good, and even the perception of a vaccine that is not thoroughly vetted could be just as bad, if the public doesn’t feel confident in taking it.
“A vaccine only works if it’s safe, effective and administered,” meaning people have to be willing to take it, said Bruce Mehlman, a political adviser to companies at the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas. (He doesn’t represent any pharmaceutical clients.) “If it becomes another culture war football like masks, it will not help us get past the virus and return to normal.”
It’s unlikely we’ll see a vaccine authorized in October, but to ensure the shot is safe, effective, pure and trustworthy, waiting a little longer with the knowledge that no steps have been skipped may be well worth it.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-26--GOP Senator Proposes Bill That Would Discount Most Absentee and Mail-in Ballots

A new bill proposed by Republican Sen. Rick Scott is “ entirely unworkable , ” Slate reported Thursday evening , but demonstrates the GOP ’ s intense desire to make sure millions of votes aren ’ t counted in the general election by severely restricting the time frame during which they can be tallied .
The Orwellian-named “ Help America Vote Act of 2020 , ” which Scott proposed Thursday , would help to codify President Donald Trump ’ s desire , stated last week , to ensure that the preliminary tally of votes on Election Day will count as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The preliminary count would leave out absentee ballots and a record number of mail-in ballots , which nearly half of voters plan to either send to election officials or place in a drop box before Election Day , according to a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll conducted earlier this month .
would require that mail-in ballots be counted within 24 hours of when voting closes on Election Day .
Scott ’ s proposed legislation would also prevent mail-in ballots received prior to Election Day from being processed and counted until the morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutes across the country including one that he signed when he was governor of Florida .
Basically , the bill would move back the date by which votes can start to be counted and move up the date by which the count must end .
This would limit the count to a single less-than-48-hour window , shortening the count in some cases by weeks .
“ Any conflicting state laws would be preempted , ” Chris Hartline , communications director for Scott , told Slate — including rules in the senator ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the counting of votes can legally begin 22 days before Election Day .
Officials would have about 48 hours to tally all the votes , but Scott ’ s proposal includes no funding that would help states make this possible by hiring more poll workers or providing them with personal protective equipment .
The bill would shorten the time during which officials generally have to count votes by several weeks , and would leave out many absentee voters , who made up more than 17 % of voters in 2016 and more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every vote within 24 hours of polls closing would be “ impossible ” in many states , legal scholar Richard L. Hasen told Slate .
Critics on social media expressed shock at Scott ’ s blatant attempt to leave millions of American voters out of the democratic process .
“ I ’ m hung up on this stuff not because I necessarily think they ’ ll succeed — the more people vote , the harder it will be for them to nullify — but because the attempt should be , in itself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michaels , communications official for the Union of Concerned Scientists .
Scott proposed the legislation on the same day that Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , in an interview with Fox News , dismissed the notion that Republicans would not allow for a peaceful transition of power , as Trump said this week , by saying he would accept whatever decision the U.S. Supreme Court — not the majority of U.S. voters — reached .
Such sentiments “ betray a lack of confidence in Trump ’ s ability to win , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea if they are right ; but they wouldn ’ t be saying things like this if they thought he was in good shape.
” While Scott ’ s bill is a “ nonstarter , ” as Jeremy Stahl wrote at Slate , because of the Democratic-controlled House , “ it shows you exactly where the GOP ’ s head is at with 40 days left to go before the last votes are cast .
”

A bill proposed by Sen. Rick Scott would set an unrealistic deadline to count all votes within 24 hours of Election Day.
A new bill proposed by Republican Sen. Rick Scott is “entirely unworkable,” Slate reported Thursday evening, but demonstrates the GOP’s intense desire to make sure millions of votes aren’t counted in the general election by severely restricting the time frame during which they can be tallied.
The Orwellian-named “Help America Vote Act of 2020,” which Scott proposed Thursday, would help to codify President Donald Trump’s desire, stated last week, to ensure that the preliminary tally of votes on Election Day will count as the final vote count in the election.
The preliminary count would leave out absentee ballots and a record number of mail-in ballots, which nearly half of voters plan to either send to election officials or place in a drop box before Election Day, according to a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll conducted earlier this month.
The proposal, as Slate’s Jeremy Stahl explains:
would require that mail-in ballots be counted within 24 hours of when voting closes on Election Day. Scott’s proposed legislation would also prevent mail-in ballots received prior to Election Day from being processed and counted until the morning of Nov. 3, contradicting state election statutes across the country including one that he signed when he was governor of Florida. Basically, the bill would move back the date by which votes can start to be counted and move up the date by which the count must end. This would limit the count to a single less-than-48-hour window, shortening the count in some cases by weeks. Related Story News | Politics & Elections Crowd Boos, Chants “Vote Him Out” After Trump Appears at Ginsburg Memorial Trump plans to name Ginsburg's successor to the Supreme Court on Saturday. Truthout
“Any conflicting state laws would be preempted,” Chris Hartline, communications director for Scott, told Slate — including rules in the senator’s own home state of Florida, where the counting of votes can legally begin 22 days before Election Day.
Officials would have about 48 hours to tally all the votes, but Scott’s proposal includes no funding that would help states make this possible by hiring more poll workers or providing them with personal protective equipment. The bill would shorten the time during which officials generally have to count votes by several weeks, and would leave out many absentee voters, who made up more than 17% of voters in 2016 and more than 20% in previous years.
Tallying every vote within 24 hours of polls closing would be “impossible” in many states, legal scholar Richard L. Hasen told Slate.
Critics on social media expressed shock at Scott’s blatant attempt to leave millions of American voters out of the democratic process.
It's just wild that they're introducing a bill like this in the light of day. https://t.co/V5sKHcZbds — Jim Newell (@jim_newell) September 25, 2020
rick scott doesn’t want your vote to count. https://t.co/9hzTSHXivd — b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) September 25, 2020
The proposal by Florida's own Rick Scott isn't intended to guarantee that all votes will be counted within 24 hours. It's actually intended to stop the counting and toss out any ballot not properly tallied within 24 hours. Sorry Florida. We saw this movie in 2000. Try again. — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) September 24, 2020
the primary action underway by the administration, Senate Republicans, and their allied operatives right now is (a) make it harder to count all the votes in a timely way (b) secure five SCOTUS votes to make this election-night cutoff a defacto constitutional requirement https://t.co/PfjHJVW9w9 — Seth D. Michaels 🍂 (@sethdmichaels) September 25, 2020
“I’m hung up on this stuff not because I necessarily think they’ll succeed — the more people vote, the harder it will be for them to nullify — but because the attempt should be, in itself, completely disqualifying,” tweeted Seth D. Michaels, communications official for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Scott proposed the legislation on the same day that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in an interview with Fox News, dismissed the notion that Republicans would not allow for a peaceful transition of power, as Trump said this week, by saying he would accept whatever decision the U.S. Supreme Court — not the majority of U.S. voters — reached.
Such sentiments “betray a lack of confidence in Trump’s ability to win,” tweeted journalist Adam Serwer. “No idea if they are right; but they wouldn’t be saying things like this if they thought he was in good shape.”
While Scott’s bill is a “nonstarter,” as Jeremy Stahl wrote at Slate, because of the Democratic-controlled House, “it shows you exactly where the GOP’s head is at with 40 days left to go before the last votes are cast.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-26--Birth Control Is Harder to Get During COVID. Over-the-Counter Access Is Crucial.

In what was her final dissent , the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fiercely advocated for workers to have their birth control covered by insurance regardless of their employers ’ beliefs .
In the decision , the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to uphold the Trump administration ’ s rules that allow companies to deny insurance coverage of birth control to employees .
As Justice Ginsburg knew , birth control is essential to people ’ s well-being and economic security , and especially at this immensely unstable time , everyone — whoever they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money they make — must be able to access it in the way that works best for them .
When the pandemic first swept the nation earlier this year , we did not know how long it would last , or how the economy , our communities and our health care system would be devastated .
COVID-19 has spotlighted our country ’ s racism and racial inequities ; the brunt of it has fallen upon Black people , Indigenous people , and people of color , from the highest rates of infections and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losses , to the most barriers to reach essential health care , especially reproductive health care like contraception .
Even prior to the pandemic , systemic racism was at the root of the barriers people face in accessing birth control , meaning that like access to health care broadly , access to birth control is more challenging for Black people , people of color , Indigenous people , young people and people struggling to make ends meet .
Now , amid unemployment and lockdowns , the pandemic has worsened these barriers , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people to get the contraceptive method of their choice .
Racism is embedded in every part of our health care system — starting with where care is provided , who gets insurance coverage , and which patients are listened to and taken seriously .
This has only worsened amid the pandemic : People of color account for a disproportionate number of hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 .
The communities most deeply affected by the virus — Native Americans , Black people and Latinx people — also carry the generational weight of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of medical research and contraceptive development .
Throughout history , Black and Brown women have been exploited and experimented on without their consent in the name of advancing reproductive health care .
Today , women of color continue to face the greatest barriers when it comes to the ability to control their bodies , lives and futures .
Meeting this moment demands radical changes in how we as a country ensure all of us can get essential care amid the uncertainties of a public health and economic crisis that continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Leading medical organizations have been calling for birth control pills to become available over the counter for years , citing their strong safety record and people ’ s ability to identify what contraceptive method they need .
It ’ s time we listen to them .
We need over-the-counter birth control that is accessible to people of all ages , affordable and covered by insurance .
This World Contraception Day , it ’ s painfully clear the current model for how people are required to obtain birth control pills never worked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic that has overwhelmed the medical system , placed difficult restrictions on travel and required us to limit interactions with other people .
Research shows nearly one in three U.S. women who have ever tried to fill a birth control prescription ran into a roadblock , and it ’ s worse for people of color , young people , people in rural communities , immigrants and those struggling financially .
There are financial and time costs associated with nearly every step of getting a prescription — from the cost of the clinic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work or school , to arranging child care — none of which is medically necessary .
Birth control pills are safe for over-the-counter sale and people are able to determine whether the pill is right for them using a simple checklist .
The prescription requirement is simply an unnecessary barrier .
We need contraceptive options that work for everyone , whether prescribed by a health care provider , in person or through an app ; or available right on the shelf , to ensure no one who needs care is left behind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ must pay attention to affordability and ensure that any over-the-counter pill is covered by insurance .
Making the birth control pill available over the counter would be a groundbreaking step and give people greater ability to make decisions and have autonomy over their bodies .
But this is only part of the equation .
Especially now , during a pandemic that has resulted in millions of job losses and gaps in insurance coverage , affordability is crucial to access .
There is a tremendous amount of work to be done to overcome inequities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address the barriers starkly revealed by this public health and economic crisis — which are not new and have been baked into our health care system for centuries .
It is critical in this moment that we protect and expand people ’ s ability to control their lives and shape their futures and heed the advice of medical experts .
Making birth control available over-the-counter is just one step of many we must take to meet everyone ’ s need for access to contraception and ensure everyone can make their own reproductive decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @

In what was her final dissent, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fiercely advocated for workers to have their birth control covered by insurance regardless of their employers’ beliefs. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to uphold the Trump administration’s rules that allow companies to deny insurance coverage of birth control to employees.
As Justice Ginsburg knew, birth control is essential to people’s well-being and economic security, and especially at this immensely unstable time, everyone — whoever they are, wherever they live and however much money they make — must be able to access it in the way that works best for them.
When the pandemic first swept the nation earlier this year, we did not know how long it would last, or how the economy, our communities and our health care system would be devastated. COVID-19 has spotlighted our country’s racism and racial inequities; the brunt of it has fallen upon Black people, Indigenous people, and people of color, from the highest rates of infections and deaths, to the bulk of job losses, to the most barriers to reach essential health care, especially reproductive health care like contraception.
Even prior to the pandemic, systemic racism was at the root of the barriers people face in accessing birth control, meaning that like access to health care broadly, access to birth control is more challenging for Black people, people of color, Indigenous people, young people and people struggling to make ends meet. Now, amid unemployment and lockdowns, the pandemic has worsened these barriers, making it even harder if not impossible for many people to get the contraceptive method of their choice.
Racism is embedded in every part of our health care system — starting with where care is provided, who gets insurance coverage, and which patients are listened to and taken seriously. This has only worsened amid the pandemic: People of color account for a disproportionate number of hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19.
The communities most deeply affected by the virus — Native Americans, Black people and Latinx people — also carry the generational weight of some of the most egregious sins committed in the name of medical research and contraceptive development. Throughout history, Black and Brown women have been exploited and experimented on without their consent in the name of advancing reproductive health care. Today, women of color continue to face the greatest barriers when it comes to the ability to control their bodies, lives and futures.
Meeting this moment demands radical changes in how we as a country ensure all of us can get essential care amid the uncertainties of a public health and economic crisis that continues to impact people’s family planning decisions. Leading medical organizations have been calling for birth control pills to become available over the counter for years, citing their strong safety record and people’s ability to identify what contraceptive method they need.
It’s time we listen to them. We need over-the-counter birth control that is accessible to people of all ages, affordable and covered by insurance.
This World Contraception Day, it’s painfully clear the current model for how people are required to obtain birth control pills never worked for everyone — all the more so during a pandemic that has overwhelmed the medical system, placed difficult restrictions on travel and required us to limit interactions with other people.
Research shows nearly one in three U.S. women who have ever tried to fill a birth control prescription ran into a roadblock, and it’s worse for people of color, young people, people in rural communities, immigrants and those struggling financially. There are financial and time costs associated with nearly every step of getting a prescription — from the cost of the clinic visit, to transportation, to missing work or school, to arranging child care — none of which is medically necessary. Birth control pills are safe for over-the-counter sale and people are able to determine whether the pill is right for them using a simple checklist. The prescription requirement is simply an unnecessary barrier.
We need contraceptive options that work for everyone, whether prescribed by a health care provider, in person or through an app; or available right on the shelf, to ensure no one who needs care is left behind. Leaving no one behind also means we must pay attention to affordability and ensure that any over-the-counter pill is covered by insurance.
Making the birth control pill available over the counter would be a groundbreaking step and give people greater ability to make decisions and have autonomy over their bodies. But this is only part of the equation. Especially now, during a pandemic that has resulted in millions of job losses and gaps in insurance coverage, affordability is crucial to access.
There is a tremendous amount of work to be done to overcome inequities in access to health care and to address the barriers starkly revealed by this public health and economic crisis — which are not new and have been baked into our health care system for centuries.
It is critical in this moment that we protect and expand people’s ability to control their lives and shape their futures and heed the advice of medical experts. Making birth control available over-the-counter is just one step of many we must take to meet everyone’s need for access to contraception and ensure everyone can make their own reproductive decisions and have the freedom to thrive.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-26--Farmers Are Plagued by Debt and Climate Crisis. Trump Has Made Things Worse.

At a campaign rally at an airport in Wisconsin on September 17 , President Trump announced a second round of COVID-related relief payments for farmers under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program ( CFAP 2 ) .
For the first time , producers of commodities , including wine grapes , goats and hemp , have become eligible for payments , which are expected to total $ 13 billion .
But many farmers say stopgap payments like this are a far cry from what they need to navigate intersecting crises , including the corporate consolidation of farms and the climate crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brittle farm economy .
Only farmers who derive 75 percent of their total income from farming are eligible for CFAP 2 assistance .
Yet most farmers rely on off-farm jobs to supplement on-farm income , according to the family farm advocacy network Farm Aid .
In 2018 , median on-farm net income was actually negative : - $ 1,735 .
Though it has not become a major election issue , U.S. farmers say a crisis of farm profitability and increase in food scarcity may be looming , short of major changes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when milk prices fell to a six-year low , then-dairy farmer Rob Bass made the difficult decision to sell all 1,000 of his cows .
Bass and his family had run out of credit , and he was losing money producing milk .
Their farm , in northeast Connecticut , had been in the Bass family since 1710 .
Bass decided to transition the farm to growing corn and hay , which he calculated might deliver a more stable income .
He did well the first few years as corn prices climbed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bushel in August of 2012 .
But prices have been on the decline since the fall of 2012 , due to corn stockpiling .
A deadly disease impacting young pigs and drought in the Great Plains affecting beef cattle led to lower demand for corn feed .
Bass has struggled to make ends meet .
As his sister , Jenni Bass tells Truthout , while the family farm used to have a lengthy payroll , they no longer employ anyone , nor are they able to pay themselves .
All income goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property taxes .
“ Our margins are so small , so narrow , ” Bass said .
According to a 2012 article in Nature , climate change is a major driver of corn price variability .
Summer 2020 was the hottest on record in Connecticut , where the Bass family farm is located .
Worldwide , the last six years have been the hottest ever recorded .
Farmers like Bass recognize that agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions , on account of widespread practices that deplete the soil of nutrients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like nitrous oxide and produce runoff that spurs algal blooms .
Agriculture comprises 10 percent of U.S. emissions , according to government reports .
But Bass says he ’ s stuck in the current system , planting genetically modified seeds , and spraying the matching herbicide .
It ’ s expensive and makes for a less biodiverse farm , but it also requires less labor to keep weeds at bay .
“ We ’ d love to go organic , but it would take three years to get certified , ” he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would pay the bills in the meantime .
Trapped in a Cycle of Personal and Ecological Risks Farmer Mary Agnes Rawlings and her husband have been trying to break out of the industrial agriculture “ trap ” since returning to her husband ’ s family farm around two decades ago .
One hundred ten acres of the 154-acre central Illinois farm are now organic row crops , with the help , in part , of USDA grants .
On August 10 , 2020 , the Trump administration announced it would be reducing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the program to 50 percent , or $ 500 per project , due to “ limited funding.
” “ It hurts , ” Rawlings said , “ when farmers are already struggling with $ 3 dollars a bushel corn , ” she says , noting that at those prices , farmers are losing fifty cents per bushel of corn they produce .
The alternative to organic , Rawlings points out , is using GMO seeds , but foods grown with them have been linked to a decline in kidney and liver function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk takes a psychological toll , she says .
Rawlings suspects her father , who worked on the family farm until he died of colon cancer , may have gotten sick because of chemicals the USDA continues to allow , like glyphosate , the synthetic herbicide under trademark by Monsanto .
In spite of studies providing evidence that associates glyphosate with increased cancer risk , in January 2020 , the Environmental Protection Agency announced there were “ no risks of concern to human health ” related to the chemical .
“ There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even know where to turn , ” Rawlings told Truthout .
But amid all her concerns , climate tops her list of agricultural issues , she says .
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to take donations from powerful corporations that form the backbone of the industrial agriculture system , like Bayer and Monsanto , thereby incentivizing their support of the broken agriculture system .
Meanwhile farmers are trapped in a cycle of responding to the effects of climate change with solutions that further contribute to greenhouse gas emissions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could produce more high quality food and mitigate emissions fueling the climate crisis .
Losing the Ability to Feed Ourselves In the United States , as with many parts of the world , food deserts are increasingly common .
But at the global level , The New York Times has reported , 100 million more people will be at acute risk of experiencing hunger above 2 degrees Celsius of global warming , due to crop loss caused by extreme weather and a shortage of pollinators , for instance .
“ You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with land itself and its ability to grow food and sustain us , ” senior policy adviser on climate change at Oxfam America , Aditi Sen , told The New York Times .
While the United States has historically positioned itself to provide aid to other countries , policy experts with the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggest the U.S. must urgently look inward to address its own climate-related food security issues .
Twelve percent of the U.S. experiences food insecurity , in comparison with 6.9 percent of the population across Asia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A 2019 brief points out that while regenerative agricultural practices like cover cropping are on the upswing , that ’ s only the case on a small percentage of land .
The brief notes that universities might devote more resources toward climate solutions in agriculture .
But academics aiming to do just that have struggled to circulate their work amid the Trump administration .
A 2019 investigation by Politico revealed that the USDA refused to publicize at least 45 government-sponsored studies detailing how U.S. agricultural operations have been and will continue to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how cattle farmers in the Southern Plains might be impacted by waning water levels in the Ogallala Aquifer .
Another study outlines practices that could help farmers in the Southern Mississippi Delta become more climate resilient .
As small agricultural operations throughout the U.S. attempt to adapt to more variable weather patterns , farmers like Michigan organic orchardist Tom Rosenfeld regularly consider calling it quits .
Rosenfeld has lost full crops of apples to pests that are new to the area on account of the changing climate .
Like many farmers , Rosenfeld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I would have expected that by now I would have unlocked the key to a sustainable income , ” he says , reflecting on when he purchased his orchard fifteen years ago .
Between 2011 and 2018 , the number of farms in the U.S. has declined by almost 5 percent as farmers face similar challenges , while the average farm size has increased .
With conditions for farmers as they are , Rosenfeld worries there might soon be a shortage of farmers who produce “ specialty crops , ” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refer to fruits , vegetables and other crops intended for human consumption rather than animal feed or biofuel .
Amid the current agricultural system , only 2 percent of U.S. farmland is used to grow food , while 59 percent of land is used to grow commodity crops like corn and soybeans .
Jenni Bass , the Connecticut farmer , never thought she and her brother would still have a mortgage on their family farm 300 years after its founding .
But expenses keep mounting .
A few years ago , the Bass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,100 acres to non-GMO wheat .
But a deal fell through with a local baker .
Now they have to figure out how to clean it themselves .
She estimates the machine they need would cost $ 35,000 .
“ People don ’ t really understand a farmer ’ s reality , the kind of bills that it takes to run a farm , ” Bass says , noting that she is hopeful about the Farm System Reform Act of 2020 .
The proposed legislation , which is currently before both houses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prevent the further consolidation of agribusiness .
At 63 , a pre-existing health condition puts Rob Bass at severe risk if he contracts COVID-19 .
But given his farm income , which doesn ’ t stretch much further than covering property taxes and the ongoing family farm mortgage , Bass has decided to return to his side job of driving a school van in the mornings and afternoons , because he ’ ll get health insurance .
With only weeks to go until the election , Jenni Bass says she hopes voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s empty attempts to appeal to farmers by invoking the U.S. farm imaginary , while simultaneously proposing billions of dollars in cuts to rural housing and utility programs .
As Successful Farming reports , the “ Trump bump ” in farm income from programs like CFAP is set to drop precipitously , by 17 percent in 2021 .
“ I just wish politicians actually thought about farm policy in a real way , ” Bass says .
“ In a loving way , not just a bureaucratic way .
”

Experts suggest that the U.S. must urgently look inward to address its own climate-related food security issues.
Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
At a campaign rally at an airport in Wisconsin on September 17, President Trump announced a second round of COVID-related relief payments for farmers under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP 2). For the first time, producers of commodities, including wine grapes, goats and hemp, have become eligible for payments, which are expected to total $13 billion.
But many farmers say stopgap payments like this are a far cry from what they need to navigate intersecting crises, including the corporate consolidation of farms and the climate crisis, which have shaken the foundations of the brittle farm economy. Only farmers who derive 75 percent of their total income from farming are eligible for CFAP 2 assistance. Yet most farmers rely on off-farm jobs to supplement on-farm income, according to the family farm advocacy network Farm Aid. In 2018, median on-farm net income was actually negative: -$1,735.
Though it has not become a major election issue, U.S. farmers say a crisis of farm profitability and increase in food scarcity may be looming, short of major changes in the industrial agriculture system.
In 2009, when milk prices fell to a six-year low, then-dairy farmer Rob Bass made the difficult decision to sell all 1,000 of his cows. Bass and his family had run out of credit, and he was losing money producing milk. Their farm, in northeast Connecticut, had been in the Bass family since 1710.
Bass decided to transition the farm to growing corn and hay, which he calculated might deliver a more stable income. He did well the first few years as corn prices climbed, reaching an all-time high of $8.02 a bushel in August of 2012. But prices have been on the decline since the fall of 2012, due to corn stockpiling. A deadly disease impacting young pigs and drought in the Great Plains affecting beef cattle led to lower demand for corn feed. Bass has struggled to make ends meet. As his sister, Jenni Bass tells Truthout, while the family farm used to have a lengthy payroll, they no longer employ anyone, nor are they able to pay themselves. All income goes toward the family farm mortgage and paying property taxes. “Our margins are so small, so narrow,” Bass said.
According to a 2012 article in Nature, climate change is a major driver of corn price variability. Summer 2020 was the hottest on record in Connecticut, where the Bass family farm is located. Worldwide, the last six years have been the hottest ever recorded.
Farmers like Bass recognize that agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, on account of widespread practices that deplete the soil of nutrients, causing it to leak greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and produce runoff that spurs algal blooms. Agriculture comprises 10 percent of U.S. emissions, according to government reports.
U.S. farmers say a crisis of farm profitability and increase in food scarcity may be looming, short of major changes in the industrial agriculture system.
But Bass says he’s stuck in the current system, planting genetically modified seeds, and spraying the matching herbicide. It’s expensive and makes for a less biodiverse farm, but it also requires less labor to keep weeds at bay.
“We’d love to go organic, but it would take three years to get certified,” he says, and it’s unclear what would pay the bills in the meantime.
Trapped in a Cycle of Personal and Ecological Risks
Farmer Mary Agnes Rawlings and her husband have been trying to break out of the industrial agriculture “trap” since returning to her husband’s family farm around two decades ago. One hundred ten acres of the 154-acre central Illinois farm are now organic row crops, with the help, in part, of USDA grants. On August 10, 2020, the Trump administration announced it would be reducing the amount the government reimburses farmers as part of the program to 50 percent, or $500 per project, due to “limited funding.”
“It hurts,” Rawlings said, “when farmers are already struggling with $3 dollars a bushel corn,” she says, noting that at those prices, farmers are losing fifty cents per bushel of corn they produce.
The alternative to organic, Rawlings points out, is using GMO seeds, but foods grown with them have been linked to a decline in kidney and liver function in animal studies. Putting themselves at risk takes a psychological toll, she says. Rawlings suspects her father, who worked on the family farm until he died of colon cancer, may have gotten sick because of chemicals the USDA continues to allow, like glyphosate, the synthetic herbicide under trademark by Monsanto. In spite of studies providing evidence that associates glyphosate with increased cancer risk, in January 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency announced there were “no risks of concern to human health” related to the chemical.
“There’s so many issues I don’t even know where to turn,” Rawlings told Truthout. But amid all her concerns, climate tops her list of agricultural issues, she says.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to take donations from powerful corporations that form the backbone of the industrial agriculture system, like Bayer and Monsanto, thereby incentivizing their support of the broken agriculture system. Meanwhile farmers are trapped in a cycle of responding to the effects of climate change with solutions that further contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, rather than transitioning to diversified farming operations that could produce more high quality food and mitigate emissions fueling the climate crisis.
Losing the Ability to Feed Ourselves
In the United States, as with many parts of the world, food deserts are increasingly common. But at the global level, The New York Times has reported, 100 million more people will be at acute risk of experiencing hunger above 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, due to crop loss caused by extreme weather and a shortage of pollinators, for instance.
“You’re sort of reaching a breaking point with land itself and its ability to grow food and sustain us,” senior policy adviser on climate change at Oxfam America, Aditi Sen, told The New York Times.
While the United States has historically positioned itself to provide aid to other countries, policy experts with the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggest the U.S. must urgently look inward to address its own climate-related food security issues.
Twelve percent of the U.S. experiences food insecurity, in comparison with 6.9 percent of the population across Asia and 9.8 percent across Latin America. A 2019 brief points out that while regenerative agricultural practices like cover cropping are on the upswing, that’s only the case on a small percentage of land. The brief notes that universities might devote more resources toward climate solutions in agriculture. But academics aiming to do just that have struggled to circulate their work amid the Trump administration.
A 2019 investigation by Politico revealed that the USDA refused to publicize at least 45 government-sponsored studies detailing how U.S. agricultural operations have been and will continue to be impacted by climate change. One explains how cattle farmers in the Southern Plains might be impacted by waning water levels in the Ogallala Aquifer. Another study outlines practices that could help farmers in the Southern Mississippi Delta become more climate resilient.
As small agricultural operations throughout the U.S. attempt to adapt to more variable weather patterns, farmers like Michigan organic orchardist Tom Rosenfeld regularly consider calling it quits. Rosenfeld has lost full crops of apples to pests that are new to the area on account of the changing climate. Like many farmers, Rosenfeld supplements his farm income with other jobs. “I would have expected that by now I would have unlocked the key to a sustainable income,” he says, reflecting on when he purchased his orchard fifteen years ago.
Between 2011 and 2018, the number of farms in the U.S. has declined by almost 5 percent as farmers face similar challenges, while the average farm size has increased. With conditions for farmers as they are, Rosenfeld worries there might soon be a shortage of farmers who produce “specialty crops,” — the term the USDA has developed to refer to fruits, vegetables and other crops intended for human consumption rather than animal feed or biofuel. Amid the current agricultural system, only 2 percent of U.S. farmland is used to grow food, while 59 percent of land is used to grow commodity crops like corn and soybeans.
The “Trump bump” in farm income … is set to drop precipitously by 17 percent in 2021.
Jenni Bass, the Connecticut farmer, never thought she and her brother would still have a mortgage on their family farm 300 years after its founding. But expenses keep mounting. A few years ago, the Bass family decided to transition 20 of its 1,100 acres to non-GMO wheat. But a deal fell through with a local baker. Now they have to figure out how to clean it themselves. She estimates the machine they need would cost $35,000.
“People don’t really understand a farmer’s reality, the kind of bills that it takes to run a farm,” Bass says, noting that she is hopeful about the Farm System Reform Act of 2020. The proposed legislation, which is currently before both houses of Congress, would incentivize climate-minded agricultural practices and prevent the further consolidation of agribusiness.
At 63, a pre-existing health condition puts Rob Bass at severe risk if he contracts COVID-19. But given his farm income, which doesn’t stretch much further than covering property taxes and the ongoing family farm mortgage, Bass has decided to return to his side job of driving a school van in the mornings and afternoons, because he’ll get health insurance.
With only weeks to go until the election, Jenni Bass says she hopes voters see through what she describes as Trump’s empty attempts to appeal to farmers by invoking the U.S. farm imaginary, while simultaneously proposing billions of dollars in cuts to rural housing and utility programs.
As Successful Farming reports, the “Trump bump” in farm income from programs like CFAP is set to drop precipitously, by 17 percent in 2021. “I just wish politicians actually thought about farm policy in a real way,” Bass says. “In a loving way, not just a bureaucratic way.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.