Latest news with #DepartmentofAgriculture
GMA Network
40 minutes ago
- Business
- GMA Network
NFA to sell P20 rice to registered farmers beginning Aug. 13
The government's P20-per-kilo rice initiative, initially for vulnerable sectors, will be opened to farmers registered under the Department of Agriculture's Registry System for Basic Sectors in Agriculture (RSBSA) starting mid-next month. In a news release on Wednesday, the DA said, beginning August 13, RSBA-registered farmers will be allowed to participate in the 'Benteng Bigas, Meron Na!' program. 'It is only fair that those who produce the rice we eat have access to the P20-per-kilo rice we make available to vulnerable sectors, including minimum wage earners,' said Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. 'There will be KADIWA-FTI booths in NFA warehouses that will sell P20 rice,' he added. The P20 rice program for RSBA-registered farmers will be launched in Regions II and III next month. Farmers listed under the RSBSA will initially be eligible to purchase up to 10 kilos of P20 rice per month. Currently, around 2.9 million rice farmers are registered under the RSBSA, according to the DA. Moreover, plans are being fine-tuned, particularly logistics, to include fisherfolk in the subsidized rice program, said Tiu Laurel. There are 2.8 million RSBSA-registered fisherfolk. The subsidized rice is sold primarily through the KADIWA ng Pangulo centers and in participating government agencies and local government units. The rice is sourced by Food Terminal Inc. from the NFA, which is required by law to build a buffer stock with rice bought only from local farmers. Farmers could avail of their monthly allocation in bulk. 'This means that if they want, they could buy a 50-kilo sack of the P20 rice to cover their allocation from August to December,' said Tiu Laurel, who also chairs the policy-making NFA Council. If all registered farmers avail of their monthly entitlement, the NFA will release approximately 520,000 50-kilo bags of rice from its stocks each month, the DA said. To replenish these stocks, the agency will have to procure two bags of palay for every bag of rice released—creating more selling opportunities for rice farmers at better prices and helping stabilize palay farm-gate prices, the Agriculture Department noted. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in his fourth State of the Nation Address, has directed the DA to expand the coverage of the P20 rice program to benefit as many as 15 million households—or around 60 million Filipinos—by next year. The administration aims to sustain the program until the end of the President's term in June 2028, fulfilling a major campaign promise to ensure accessible, affordable rice for all. The Agriculture chief said an P18 billion budget has been approved by President Marcos for the rice program for 2026. —AOL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
an hour ago
- Business
- GMA Network
PH lifts import ban on Australian poultry
The Philippine government, through the Department of Agriculture, has lifted the ban on importing domestic and wild birds and related products—including poultry meat, day-old chicks, eggs, and semen— from Australia. In a statement on Wednesday, the DA said it issued Memorandum Order No. 39, lifting the ban on Australian bird and poultry products issued in June last year through Memorandum Order No. 21. With the latest order, future shipments of the affected commodities from Australia will now proceed, subject to existing regulations and biosecurity requirements. The import ban was lifted after Australian agriculture authorities and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) have confirmed that all reported bird flu cases in the said country had been resolved, with no new outbreaks occurring since June 13, 2025. With this, under WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Australia is now officially recognized as HPAI?free. Following thorough assessment, the DA said that the risk of bird flu contamination via Australian poultry imports is negligible. To recall, the ban was issued following reported outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Poultry goods produced in Australia on or after July 25 will be allowed entry to the Philippines. 'This diversifies our sources of poultry, especially with the expected increase in demand as we head towards the Christmas season,' said Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. 'This aligns with the vision of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of a food-secure Philippines,' he added. Reopening the Australian market—especially of day-old chicks and poultry meat—could ease supply pressure, stabilize prices, and support local production during transition periods, according to the DA. The Agriculture Department said that standard import controls, including health certifications, testing, and sanitary protocols, remain in full effect to safeguard domestic poultry industries. Non?compliance may lead to denial of entry or quarantine. 'The order took effect immediately and applies to all pending and forthcoming import arrangements involving Australian poultry products. The DA will continue to monitor global HPAI developments and may adjust import policies should new risks emerge,' DA said. —AOL, GMA Integrated News
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
New live animal export welfare rules — will they stop the suffering? Critics say it's just ‘window dressing'
The controversial debate on whether the live export trade can ever be humane – or should be banned altogether – has been reopened by the Department of Agriculture's release of draft regulations governing the export of live animals by sea. The regulations appear to represent a major tightening of oversight in a sector long criticised for exposing sheep, cattle and goats to prolonged suffering on the high seas. The rules are so stringent that it's unlikely that any of the existing live-animal transport vessels would be able to comply, raising the possibility that the legislation could simply prevent live-animal transport completely. Or simply be ignored. Published under the Animals Protection Act of 1962, the 60-page document details new standards for everything from the condition of vehicles and vessels, to the qualifications of on-board veterinarians, the layout of pens, the density of animals per square metre and even the permissible levels of ammonia gas created when animals urinate. For Humane World for Animals South Africa (HWASA) the draft rules fall short of what's needed and are not a reason to celebrate. 'The science is clear: live export by sea is fundamentally incompatible with animal welfare,' said Tony Gerrans, executive director of HWASA. 'This is our moment to choose compassion over cruelty.' His organisation sees the call for written comments as the last chance to stop what they describe as a fundamentally cruel trade that no amount of regulation can fix. Al Mawashi say they will respond to the regulations. Its MD, Sake van der Wal, said it would do this within the next few days. 'We are positive that Al Mawashi will be able to continue to export live animals by sea,' he told Daily Maverick, 'and that more exporters might enter the market as the regulations will bring clarity to all the relevant stakeholders.' A history of suffering The impact of live animal transport hit Cape Town in 2024 when the Al Kuwait, a vessel infamous for its cramped and unsanitary conditions, docked in the harbour to transport thousands of sheep to the Middle East. The images that emerged – heat-stressed animals, some dead on arrival and an overpowering stench that local residents said lingered for days – triggered public outrage and led to renewed calls for South Africa to ban the live export trade altogether. The DA condemned the shipment, saying: 'Live export, as evidenced by this situation, exposes animals to perilous conditions such as dangerous levels of ammonia, rough seas, extreme heat stress, injuries, dirty environments, exhaustion and even death.' The same year, the Al Messilah docked in East London with 60,000 sheep and 1,500 cattle, raising a similar outcry. The public backlash is likely to have shaped the department's decision to revisit its regulatory framework. The new draft rules acknowledge the suffering inherent in transporting live animals by sea – an undertaking that can last weeks, with animals confined in tight, sweltering pens, exposed to fluctuating temperatures, poor air quality and rough seas. No matter how many welfare boxes you tick, the reality is that these animals endure weeks of confinement, heat stress and rough seas – conditions that simply can't be made humane. The draft attempts to mitigate these risks with a detailed list of provisions: ample feed and clean water must be stocked, with reserves to cover at least seven extra days in case of delays. All vessels will be required to have working ventilation systems, drainage to remove waste and backup power supplies to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a mechanical failure at sea. On-board veterinarians must monitor panting scores to detect early signs of heat stress – with specific numeric thresholds that, on paper, look reassuring. But can they be implemented on foreign vessels? A deeper look at the 'safeguards' These measures are undeniably more robust than the previous patchwork of guidelines. For example, the regulations require that animals be given enough space to stand naturally, move, lie down and access feed and water troughs without contamination by urine or faeces. Sick or injured animals must be isolated and treated immediately – or euthanised humanely if suffering is severe. The draft even spells out mundane details such as the minimum distance animals must be kept from engine rooms to avoid excess heat, or the need for lairage lighting that doesn't create dark spots where animals can become distressed. Regular cleaning is required to prevent ammonia levels exceeding 25 parts per million, a common hazard on crowded ships. But for Humane World, these measures amount to window dressing. 'It's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic,' said Gerrans. 'No matter how many welfare boxes you tick, the reality is that these animals endure weeks of confinement, heat stress and rough seas – conditions that simply can't be made humane.' This is the crux of the disagreement. The government's position, implied in the regulations, is that the live export trade can continue, provided stricter controls are enforced. But for animal welfare campaigners like Humane World, the entire premise is flawed. It argues that live export is driven not by necessity, but by the economics of supplying fresh meat to overseas markets unwilling to invest in their own slaughtering and processing capacity. It contends that a more humane alternative is clear: slaughter animals locally, under South Africa's existing welfare laws, and export the chilled or frozen meat instead. According to NSPCA inspector Nazareth Appelsamy, 'rich Saudis are stripping the country of livestock, which is good for some farmers but depleting the local market. Prices for meat are going to rise and local people who depend on meat processing are going to lose their jobs.' New Zealand banned live exports by sea in 2022, Australia has passed legislation to end live sheep exports by 2028 and the UK banned live exports for slaughter in 2024. Public sentiment and legal leverage Legally, the Animals Protection Act gives the government broad powers to regulate the trade, but not to ban it outright without a change in legislation. That's why Humane World is urging the public to submit comments on the draft before the 25 August deadline, hoping to demonstrate widespread opposition. It argues that even the world's strictest standards – such as Australia's controversial live export rules – have failed to prevent shocking welfare breaches. In South Africa's case, it points to the high summer temperatures in the Middle East, which regularly exceed the animals' heat stress thresholds, despite new requirements that routes through extreme heat be avoided. Experience suggests that oversight can be patchy, especially once ships leave port. At that stage South African regulations will be unenforceable. For Gerrans, the risk of animals dying or suffering en route is simply too high. 'It's a policy choice,' he said. 'Are we willing to accept that thousands of animals will suffer so a few exporters can make a profit?' For Humane World this is an opportunity for South Africa to reposition itself as a leader in humane farming practices – instead of following a model that other nations are increasingly rejecting. A question of enforcement The regulations rely heavily on the presence of on-board veterinarians, competent authorities and official inspectors to ensure compliance – but experience suggests that oversight can be patchy, especially once ships leave port. At that stage South African regulations will be unenforceable. The department's draft does acknowledge this, setting out rigorous documentation requirements and real-time data logging for temperatures, humidity, ammonia levels and animal deaths. But whether these records will be transparent and accessible to the public remains unclear. The regulations are silent on penalties for noncompliance, raising the possibility that breaches will result in little more than a slap on the wrist. Next steps The final version of the regulations are scheduled for later this year, after the public comment period closes in August. Humane World for Animals has undertaken to mobilise its supporters – urging every South African who cares about animal welfare to submit comments demanding a full ban. 'This is a test of our values,' Gerrans said. 'We have a chance to show that our country's laws reflect compassion and scientific evidence, not just outdated economic interests.' DM
Newsweek
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Sued Over SNAP Benefits Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration, seeking to block a data request that would require states to turn over private information about millions of low-income Americans receiving food assistance. Under a directive issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), states have been ordered to share private recipient and applicant information relating to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries with the federal government. Attorneys general across 19 states and Washington, D.C., have said they will not comply with the USDA's request, citing concerns over its legality and SNAP recipients' privacy. Newsweek contacted the USDA for comment via email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters The USDA, which oversees SNAP, first announced this data push in May as part of President Donald Trump's executive order to increase data sharing across federal and state programs. The USDA issued the directive last week, giving states a deadline of July 30 to comply. The requested data includes information such as names, dates of birth, personal addresses and Social Security numbers—data that state officials argue is protected under existing privacy laws. According to the USDA, the goal of the data collection is to help root out fraud in the program, which currently serves some 42 million people nationwide. The Department of Agriculture building in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 2020. The Department of Agriculture building in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 2020. GETTY What To Know States attorneys general involved in the legal challenge—including New York's Letitia James and California's Rob Bonta—say the request violates federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution. They also cite concerns that the information could be used to facilitate immigration enforcement. The USDA directive does not mention immigration enforcement as a reason for data collection. The lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction blocking the transfer of SNAP recipient data. It also seeks a ruling that prohibits the administration from sharing the requested information with the Department of Government Efficiency or the Department of Homeland Security for any purpose beyond administering the SNAP program. The legal action comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to access private data from various federal and state programs. Agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have been directed to share personal information with immigration authorities in recent months. Prior to the directive issued last week, the USDA said it would pause data collection after its original request on May 6 was met with a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a group of nonprofits and SNAP beneficiaries. The group argued that the demand violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act and other statutes. At the time, a USDA spokesperson told Newsweek, "We do not comment on pending litigation." Which States Are Involved? The attorneys general of the following states and the District of Columbia have signed on to the lawsuit: Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Illinois Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico Oregon Rhode Island Washington Wisconsin The office of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear is also a plaintiff in the case. What People Are Saying New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a Monday news conference regarding the lawsuit: "We will not allow this lifesaving program to be illegally used to hunt down immigrants and their families." California Attorney General Rob Bonta said: "It's a bait-and-switch of the worst kind. SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president's inhumane immigration agenda." Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a May 6 news release announcing the data-sharing plans: "President Trump is rightfully requiring the federal government to have access to all programs it funds, and SNAP is no exception. For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data. The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP, and today's request is one of many steps to ensure SNAP is preserved for only those eligible." What Happens Next The USDA has not publicly responded to the lawsuit.
GMA Network
a day ago
- Business
- GMA Network
DA expanding P20 per kilo rice program to cover middle class
The coverage of the Marcos administration's P20 per kilo rice initiative—currently accessible to members of vulnerable sectors—will include middle-class families by 2026, the Department of Agriculture (DA) said Tuesday. The P20 per kilo rice is currently being sold at KADIWA ng Pangulo outlets across the country, but only members of vulnerable sectors—including indigents, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and solo parents—are eligible to buy the subsidized National Food Authority (NFA) rice. The rice is sourced from the stocks of the NFA, which are procured directly from local farmers. The government subsidizes the program through the Food Terminal Inc. 'Our plan is… we will sell the P20 [per kilo] rice to 15 million households… or about 60 million Filipinos. These are middle-income families and below,' Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. said at the Post-State of the Nation Address (SONA) forum in San Juan City. The DA will set a monthly cap of 10 kilos that middle-class households can purchase. 'This can be increased further as we go along,' Tiu Laurel said. Vulnerable sectors have a higher limit of 30 kilos a month. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in his fourth SONA, said that the P20 rice program is expanding nationwide, adding that his campaign promise has already been achieved. The Agriculture chief said the DA is setting aside P18 billion next year for the P20 per kilo rice initiative. 'But in the future, the way to make it sustainable is we plan to buy rice from the farmers with the additional funds,' he said. He added that the DA is eyeing selling 80% of rice procured from local farmers in the retail market. The DA chief said the agency is pushing for the amendment of the Rice Tariffication Law to bring back the powers and market intervention functions of the NFA ''so we can buy rice as we sell rice; unlike now, it's just for buffer stocking.' —VBL, GMA Integrated News
