Federal funding cuts hit Feeding the Gulf Coast food bank
Feeding the Gulf Coast serves three states and 24 counties. President and CEO Michael Ledger told WKRG News 5 that the impacts of the lack of funding will hit hard within the next couple of months.
Spring Hill College ends stipends to SGA members due to ongoing budget issues
'Unfortunately, hunger rates continue to rise, and so the food we need today is greater than ever,' Ledger said.
In the past year, the food bank hit a new record of providing 35 million meals to those in need. Five million of those meal boxes are funded through federal programs like LFPA.
'It seems unlikely that we are going to meet that record again,' Ledger said.
LFPA helped provide funds for food banks to purchase fresh produce from local small farmers. Over 35% of their food supplies are fresh produce.
'It has made a great difference locally to buy from a farmer down the street, get it here and then into the hands of a neighbor in need,' Ledger said.
Ledger said he hopes the Trump administration will recognize the empty shelves and the need to feed the hungry and will find a solution.
WEATHER ALERT: Severe storms likely Saturday into Saturday night
Right now, he is calling on the community to help donate and volunteer their time.
'Together we are going to fight our way through this and meet the need,' Ledger said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows How SNAP Bills Would Rise For States Under Trump Bill
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Senate lawmakers have passed their version of the sprawling One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and within it are some significant changes to the funding of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits that will impact every state in America. Why It Matters The bill, which is the central tenet of President Donald Trump's fiscal agenda, marks the biggest overhaul to SNAP benefits in recent years, with implications for the 40 million recipients across the country. Republicans have said the changes will better defend the integrity of the program, while critics of the bill have warned that already strained state budgets will not be able to cope with the extra financial demand, with some warnings that states could drop out of the program entirely. Senate Bill Changes Explained The bill proposes shifting more of the financial burden for the food stamps program onto states. Currently, states split the administrative costs of SNAP evenly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), while the USDA covers the full cost of the benefits. The measures propose that states be required to pay a portion of the benefit cost, but only if they have high payment error rates. An error payment (also called an improper payment) means that the amount of benefits issued to a household was incorrect — either too high or too low. This can happen due to recipient reporting errors or miscalculations by the administering state agency. Under the Senate plan, states with an error rate less than 6 percent would not have to share the cost of benefits with the federal government. For states with rates above this, they will need to pay according to how high their error rate is: 6 to 8 percent: 5 percent cost-share 8 to 10 percent: 10 percent cost-share 10 percent or greater: 15 percent cost-share Here is what each state would be required to pay, as a percentage, based on their 2024 error rate: Support House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson and Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman, both Republicans, said the USDA has "failed at maintaining program integrity" and will incentivize states to reduce improper payments. On June 29, the White House said the "mission of the program has failed" and that the bill "promotes work, responsibility, and restores SNAP to serve the truly needy." Criticism Critics have warned the measures could have far-reaching consequences on state finances and, in turn, SNAP recipients. Several states have warned they will have to pay hundreds of millions per year to shore up benefits for recipients. For example, Michigan previously warned that cost-sharing would set the state back $800 million per year under House-approved rules, which mandated states pay up to 25 percent of the cost of benefits. If increased bills on state coffers prove unaffordable, states can stop offering federal food assistance altogether. In a letter to Senate and House minority and majority leaders, all 23 Democratic Governors warned against the policy, arguing it would "effectively gut this critical food assistance that helps families with children, older adults, and working people afford the rising cost of groceries and put food on the table." "The combination of massive cost increase to states, the unpredictability of how much a state will be on the hook for from year to year, and the need for states to balance their budgets creates a significant risk that states have to leave SNAP altogether," the letter reads. What People Are Saying The White House said in a memo published on June 29: "The One Big Beautiful Bill protects and strengthens SNAP. Right now, almost three-quarters of able-bodied adults without dependents on SNAP have no earned income and the fraud rate is high. The mission of the program has failed: SNAP was intended to be temporary help for those who encounter tough times. Now, it's become so bloated that it is leaving fewer resources for those who truly need help. We are committed to preserving SNAP for the truly needy." Representative Glenn "GT" Thompson and Senator John Boozman, said in response to the USDA publication of 2024 error rates: "Another year, another troubling payment error rate in SNAP, a clear sign that the program lacks the state accountability measures hardworking taxpayers deserve. The status quo, slap-on-the-wrist penalties from USDA have failed at maintaining program integrity in SNAP. This is exactly why we need to get the One Big Beautiful Bill to the President's desk. Its historic reforms will give states skin in the game on SNAP benefits and ensure they have a real incentive to improve oversight and stop improper payments before they happen." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank said in its analysis of the Senate proposals: "The Senate Agriculture Committee proposal would slash billions in federal funding for food assistance and impose those costs on states for the first time. This would likely lead many states to cut food assistance for low-income families, worsening hunger and undermining SNAP's ability to meet greater need when the economy weakens. States could even end SNAP altogether if they decide the costs they would bear are too great." What Happens Next SNAP cost-sharing rules will come into force in 2028 if the bill becomes law. The bill now heads back to the House of Representatives, where lawmakers will cast a final vote. If it passes, it will head to President Trump's desk to be signed into law.
2 days ago
Nationwide bologna lunch meat recall: What to know about the products
A New Jersey-based wholesale grocer is recalling more than 143,000 pounds of ready-to-eat bologna due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced Friday. Gaiser's European Style Provisions Inc., based in Union, New Jersey, has recalled approximately 143,416 pounds of bologna products because they "contain meat or poultry source materials that are not declared on the product labels," the FSIS stated. Details of lunch meat recall Seven types of ready-to-eat bologna items produced between March 20, 2025, and June 20, 2025, are subject to this recall, according to the FSIS announcement. They include: Vacuum-packed packages of "FAMILY TREE BOLOGNA VEAL" containing undeclared pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "BABUSHKA'S RECIPE CHICKEN BOLOGNA" containing undeclared pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "FANCY BOLOGNA" labeled with pork as an ingredient but containing undeclared beef and chicken. Vacuum-packed packages of "GAISERS RUSSIAN BRAND DOKTORSKAYA BOLOGNA" containing undeclared beef. Plastic-wrapped packages of "GAISERS BOLOGNA VEAL" containing undeclared chicken and pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "GAISERS TURKEY BOLOGNA" containing undeclared chicken and pork. Plastic-wrapped packages of "CHICKEN BOLOGNA KYPOYKA PABA" containing undeclared pork. Click here to see photos of each product label. The recalled products were distributed to both wholesale and retail locations nationwide, according to the company, and bear the establishment number "EST. 5385" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the label. "Some products would have been weighed, wrapped, and labeled in retail store locations at the time of purchase," the recall announcement noted. According to the FSIS, the issue was discovered when the agency "was notified by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of a complaint received through the OIG's hotline." "FSIS investigated the complaint and determined that the products contained source materials that were not declared on the label," the agency said Friday. "Although FSIS does not expect any adverse health effects for Class III recalled products and there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products, anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider." The FSIS has advised consumers who purchased the recalled products not to consume them. Restaurants and businesses in possession of the recalled products have also been urged not to serve them. "These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase," the FSIS stated. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Gaiser's by phone at (908) 686-3421 or by email at gaisers@
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
Senate Republicans' new SNAP proposal prompts GOP concern
A GOP-backed proposal that would shift some of the cost of food assistance to states for the first time is drawing renewed concern in the party, as critics argue the effort could lead to states cutting benefits on their own. Republicans are pushing to pass the proposal — which could see states with higher payment error rates covering a greater share of benefit costs — as a part of the broader spending cuts and tax package in the coming days. But that doesn't mean some Republicans aren't concerned about the measure. 'Our big thing is the data to be used, the data to be used on the error rate,' Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska.) told The Hill on Friday. 'So, that's important to make sure that the data is as accurate and reflective of the year you're judging as possible.' Numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed Alaska's payment error rate — which factors in overpayment and underpayment error rates — hit above 60 percent in fiscal year 2023. The national average hit at 11.68 percent. Sullivan noted the state has seen much lower payment error rates prior to the pandemic and is on a path to improving those figures, noting new numbers are expected soon. But he added, 'It's still higher than our traditional error rate, and as you know, the cost share is based in part on that.' According to the Alaska Beacon, the state's error rate hiked after state officials said they violated federal rules in order to continue feeding people amid a significant backlog in applications. Under the initial plan crafted by the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans sought to require states to cover some of the cost of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. The proposal in the megabill would also allow states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent and 15 percent. However, Senate Republicans tweaked the plan after facing a setback when their 'state cost-share' proposal was rejected by the chamber's rules referee as part of a megabill the party hopes to pass in the coming days. A release from the agriculture committee said the updated plan would allow states to choose the payment error either fiscal year 2025 or 2026 to 'calculate their state match requirement that begins in Fiscal Year 2028.' For the following fiscal year, the 'state match will be calculated using the payment error rate from three fiscal years prior,' the committee said, adding a 'state must contribute a set percentage of the cost of its SNAP benefits if its payment error rate exceeds six percent.' Asked about further potential changes to the plan, Agriculture chairman Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Friday that negotiators 'worked really hard to try and get a situation that worked for as many people as we could, and I think we've achieved that.' 'Alaska is a unique state, unique situation, so I know that everybody's trying to work hard to accommodate situations that don't fit,' Boozman said Friday afternoon. 'So, I haven't heard of any changes, and I'm sure that, you know, [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune [(R-S.D.)] will grab me if that comes about.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) also expressed concerns about the proposal, telling reporters earlier on Friday that she's raised them with others in the party, according to Politico. Asked briefly about the party's SNAP proposal later, Murkowski told The Hill, 'We're still in trouble on SNAP.' 'The implementation is still next to impossible for us,' she said. Republicans say the states' cost-share proposal would incentivize states to improve their error rates. But Sullivan and Murkowski aren't the only Republicans who have voiced concerns about the effort in recent weeks. Originally, the House plan called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its initial version of Trump's megabill, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 percent and 25 percent. However, the proposal was dialed back after concerns from other Republicans, including Sens. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and Jim Justice (W. Va.) over the measure. Asked if he's meeting with Boozman or Thune on the matter, Sullivan also told The Hill on Friday evening that he's 'meeting with everybody.' 'For me, it's just important to get the data as close to the date that you're judging,' Sullivan said, adding that he expects Alaska to see a notable drop in its error rate in a coming report.
