As excerpted from The Baltimore Sun : George Zahradka, a third-generation farm owner in Essex, mostly sells directly from his farm stand or to nearby restaurants. With new tariffs on tomatoes from Mexico falling during Maryland’s tomato season, he’s hopeful that more people will make the switch to local produce. “If you can grab a really good tomato or a very bland tomato for the same price, which one would you take?” Zahradka said. Nationwide, tomato prices are expected to rise this week as the United States imposes a 17.09% import tax on tomatoes from Mexico, which Maryland farmers expect will bring some demand for locally-grown tomatoes. The anti-dumping duty was announced on Monday, as the U.S. Department of Commerce said the country withdrew from a 2019 agreement with Mexico regarding fresh tomato sales. The Tomato Suspension Agreement, originally signed in 1996, provided some stability to the tomato market. A version of this decades-long agreement expired during President Donald Trump’s first term and was renewed in 2019, requiring tomatoes from Mexico to go under U.S. inspection and adhere to minimum prices for tomatoes. However, the Trump administration now says that importers in Mexico are selling tomatoes at an unfair rate, also known as dumping, leading to the administration’s withdrawal. The Trump administration is also threatening 30% tariffs on all goods from Mexico and other countries, which could start in August. Even as farmers hope for more local purchases, food industry groups told The Baltimore Sun that the tariffs will be most felt by grocery store shoppers and restaurants, as many won’t be able to easily switch from their typical suppliers. ... In a statement, the National Restaurant Association told The Sun that American restaurants rely on a steady flow of imported produce, including tomatoes, that cannot be grown at the same level in the United States. The statement added that the association is pushing the Trump administration to “pursue policies that will secure fair trade agreements while ensuring the supply chain.” The longstanding agreements on tomato imports have provided stability for growers and consumers, said Cailey Locklair, president of the Maryland Retailers Association, which represents the Maryland Food Industry Council. The duty may also impact American jobs transporting tomatoes, she said. “Cost increases will occur. Businesses, consumers are concerned,” Locklair said. “In grocery, a lot of pricing is out of our control, but this will impact that for consumers.” Click here to read the full article from The Baltimore Sun .

A s excerpted from Maryland Matters : It won’t happen immediately, but advocates and state officials are predicting that changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the budget reconciliation bill signed last week will deliver “a devastating blow” to many of the 680,000 Marylanders who get SNAP benefits. The biggest change that recipients will see are new work requirements for some able-bodied recipients that analysts say many Marylanders simply will not be able to meet, for a number of reasons. The bill also includes a massive shift in costs from the federal to the state governments. Currently, the split administrative costs for the program 50/50 and the federal government pays for all the costs of the actual benefit. Beginning next year, states will pay 75% of administration, at a cost of $172.5 million, according to estimates from the Maryland Department of Human Services. A year later, they will pay for up to 15% of the actual benefits, according to a formula based on current performance. Maryland will pay the most, 15%, at a cost in current dollars of $240 million. The bill also caps future benefit increases at the rate of inflation and limits eligibility to citizens and lawful permanent residents; refugees and asylum-seekers would be kicked off the program. The Urban Institute estimated this month that about 369,000 Maryland families would lose some or all SNAP benefits. Of those, 81,000 would lose an average of $150 a month — the current average monthly benefit in Maryland is $180 — and 51,000 families with children would lose and average of $81 a month. ... SNAP cuts could also affect some businesses in the state: For groceries that get a significant amount of their business from SNAP recipients, the reductions could pose a threat. Maryland Retailers Alliance President Cailey Locklair said there’s no indication yet whether that will happen. But any reduction in consumer spending could have a serious impact on grocers, she said, given the industry’s low average profit margins of 3% or less. “I have some retailers where the majority of the revenue that’s coming in is from individuals who are receiving benefits,” Locklair said. “So the sheer viability of some of those brick-and-mortar retailers in communities that are underserved is going to be contingent on the same level of spending going on.” Click here to read the full article from Maryland Matters .

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

As excerpted from The Baltimore Sun: Lobbyists and advocates looking to wield their influence with Maryland officials — with a record $58 million behind them — saw both wins and losses this year in Annapolis. For the viewing public, it’s sometimes difficult to discern one from the other. The Baltimore Sun analyzed data from thousands of new lobbying disclosures , reviewed other public records and interviewed individuals to understand where lobbyists and advocates tried to put their fingers on the scale in the months before and during the 90-day session that ended in April. ... Another business group, the Maryland Retailers Alliance, became the third-largest lobbying entity this year, with total expenses of $625,190. Cailey Locklair, its president and top lobbyist, said retailers’ top priority was a success — the creation of a new felony-level “organized retail theft” crime for property with an aggregate value of more than $1,500. Two other high-profile goals gained little traction. One aimed to adjust the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act, which lawmakers passed in 2024 to limit the amount of personal data that companies can collect. Locklair said the law went too far, severely limiting how retailers can target ads to potential customers. The other was the repeal of Maryland’s ban on beer, wine and liquor being sold in supermarkets and other retail establishments. All four of the new lobbyists hired by the Retailers Alliance this year, in their disclosures to the State Ethics Commission that showed they were collectively paid $119,000, only listed those bills as their focus. Moore said in December he supported the change and indicated he was confident lawmakers would send him a bill. Senate President Bill Ferguson soon dampened those expectations, saying in an interview with The Sun in January that it was “not something that we’re going to be spending a lot of brain power trying to figure out.” Legislation in both chambers never received even an initial committee vote. Locklair acknowledged the “very strong lobby on the other side” — referring to groups like the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, whose $144,000 in lobbying expenses was about $36,000 more than the previous year. But the support from the governor and increased conversation this year was a good sign, she said. “Absolutely we will be bringing it back,” Locklair said. “I think there’s a lot of momentum on this and a lot of positive conversations taking place.” Click here to read the full article from The Baltimore Sun .

As excerpted from The Baltimore Sun: A Baltimore County Council bill that would have created an environmental enhancement fund partially financed with money retailers charge for paper bags failed Monday night. The legislation would have required retailers to give the county a minimum of 2 cents from each 5-cent fee collected from distributing paper or reusable bags. The money collected would have gone to a fund that could have been used to give grants to groups for cleaning waterways or picking up litter. ... The Maryland Retailers Alliance opposed the bill, not because it disliked the concept of an environmental education and enhancement fund, but because it opposed reducing the amount retained by retailers, putting Baltimore County businesses at a disadvantage. “Maintaining the fee as-is provides transparency for customers because they know what they’re paying for — they’re paying for that bag,” Sarah Price, the alliance’s vice president of communications and government affairs, said at an April work session. “It reduces competition between businesses and it ensures that the mandate is paid for by the people who choose to continue using single-use bags.” Click here to read the full article from The Baltimore Sun.