“The state is blessed with some of the world’s best soil: ‘black gold,’ which, coupled with consistently good rainfall, makes for ideal farming conditions,” writes Frerick, a fellow at Yale University’s Thurman Arnold Project, a research effort focused on competition policy and antitrust enforcement. “I wanted to understand how this blessing has, over the past 40 years, turned into a curse.” How, he wonders, has the countryside become “so industrial that it no longer feels like countryside at all?”

But Barons, which took Frerick five years to write, is not a memoir. It’s a detailed look at seven families that have risen to power within the food industry and, more importantly, the story of the system that has allowed them to concentrate power, reap enormous profits, and shape our political landscape. He digs into the policies that allowed white farmers to displace farmers of color in the 20th century and contrasts the “New Deal Farm Bill”—his term for the bill as it was originally intended—with today’s “Wall Street Farm Bill.”

“I refer to these people as ‘barons’ to hearken back to Gilded Age robber barons such as John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan because I believe that we are living in a parallel moment when a few titans have the power to shape industries,” writes Frerick, in the book’s introduction.

Some of the barons, like the Waltons and the Cargill-MacMillan family, may be familiar to his readers. But most—including Driscoll’s “berry barons” J. Miles and Garland Reiter; Joesley and Wesley Batista, the brothers behind the Brazilian beef company JBS; and the Reimanns, the German family behind JAB Holding Company, the fast-growing company that has come to dominate the U.S. coffee industry in a single decade—will likely be new.

Civil Eats spoke to Frerick recently about several of the barons, the systemic levers that have allowed food monopolies to thrive, and why he thinks lawmakers should completely rethink the farm bill.

There have been a lot of books about the food system. What did you think was missing from the existing canon and why did you want to write this book?

I didn’t start off with wanting to write a book. I wanted to write about what I’ve seen happen to Iowa. In 2021, I wrote an article [about “hog baron” Jeff Hansen and his company Iowa Select Farms] with Charlie Mitchell. And that started over beers in a bar in Des Moines where a political operative told me the largest donor to the governor in the big race that year was this hog farmer who had given her $300,000.

He had a private jet, and the rumor was that it had “when pigs fly” painted on the side of it. To me, that just said everything about what had happened in my home state in my lifetime, how [a few big agribusiness families] run the state government to the detriment of the environment—and our communities. That article did well online; a whole lot of people reached out to me afterwards.

And I realized that missing in the larger story of the rise of Iowa hog confinement in the media is the fact that people there did fight them for years; there was a rural rebellion—and they lost. In these little towns of 2,000 people, hundreds packed gyms, trying to organize against hog confinements. When [current Agriculture Secretary] Tom Vilsack ran for governor in 2002, he even campaigned against them.

Then, after he won, he oversaw the largest expansion of confinements in Iowa history. So, I wanted to call attention to how intentional the rise of industrial farms was by the business community in Iowa, as well as the failure of public servants like Vilsack to do what voters had wanted. And after working on that story, I realized the baron framework was a powerful way to tell larger structural stories.

You write, “I was born near a Cargill soybean mill and went to church near a Cargill corn mill. I even played soccer next to a Cargill grain elevator.” Yet, like most people, you didn’t know how powerful the company was—it is now the largest private company in America—until much later.

It is truly mind-blowing how massive they are and how little attention they’ve gotten. And it’s because they’re the middleman. The Cargill-MacMillans are like your classic smart monopolists. The best monopolies are the ones that fly under the radar.

Cargill also doesn’t give donations—it funnels money through other people. Ninety percent of the company is owned by one family. That is an insane amount of money and power. I would argue they’re probably some of the scariest barons.

Can you speak to how the farm bill has changed since its inception? You describe what began as a “New Deal Farm Bill” and detail the events that transformed it into what you call the “Stock Market Farm Bill.” How are those different?

The “New Deal Farm Bill” was about managing production. What we saw during the Dust Bowl and after the crash of agriculture markets after World War I was the result of markets overproducing. Farmers were pushing their land [to produce as much food as possible] just to keep their land even though it was cratering the market.

The “New Deal Farm Bill” was an attempt by the federal government to try to figure out a balance between producing enough but understanding that the soil, air, water, etc., are common goods, and we shouldn’t push our lands too hard. And the two programs were tied together; in order to get farm subsidies, you had to engage in conservation programs. The carrot and stick were interlocked. And there were caps—each farm could only get so much in subsidies.

Fast forward to what I call the “Wall Street Farm Bill.” It is designed specifically to incentivize overproduction of grain. If you grow carrots, you don’t really get anything. The dark joke I keep telling after writing this book is that the only farmer really on the free market is the CSA vegetable farmer.

That push to produce corn in places like Iowa led to the ethanol industry. Farmers overplanted corn, and that pushed a lot of animals off the land. But it didn’t happen all at once. It’s like what we’ve seen in the last few decades of deregulation in America—there has been this slow removal of checks and balances. Now you have [farm bill-funded] conservation programs that come out of the Dust Bowl and are now being used to finance hog confinements, a fact that Civil Eats has reported on extensively.

The “New Deal Farm Bill” did some important things, but it was ultimately a bill to support white farmers. Ricardo Salvador [a Civil Eats’ advisory board member] helped me understand that the system has long been broken for farmers of color. Black sharecroppers did all the farming in the South. The white people were just the landowners who pocketed money and kicked Black people off the land.

So, rather than romanticize the “New Deal Farm Bill,” I think we should be looking forward. Because at the end of the day, agriculture in America is rooted in genocide and slavery. The question is: How do we incorporate the awareness we have now and move to a better system?

The GOP is often associated with leading the shift toward free-market capitalism in the ’80s and ’90s, but you highlighted the way the Clinton administration played a rather large role in creating the policy environment that has allowed the barons you write about to thrive. How should we be thinking about the role of neoliberalism in all this?

It was both Republicans and Democrats that led to the system we have now. That said, it wasn’t equal. You still had people like Tom Harkin trying to do the right thing. And in Iowa, the only people standing up against the proliferation of hog confinements were the Democrats. But, yes, you had [Democratic leaders] like President Clinton and Vilsack, who is a former lobbyist, willing to do the bidding of corporate America.

When JBS [bought dozens of meat processing companies in the U.S. and drove down prices for cattle ranchers], Vilsack didn’t stop them. The company will just keep pushing the limit, because they only get slapped on the wrist. They get fined and it’s considered part of the cost of doing business.

There are plenty of politicians out there—take Terry Branstad, governor of Iowa, or [former Agriculture Secretary] Sonny Purdue. They don’t pretend to be reformers. They’re there to do the bidding of corporate America. Vilsack is a different story.

Today, we have children working in our slaughterhouses, and there are no consequences. I haven’t seen something in modern American history so ripe for bipartisan reform than the meat industry. Vilsak had everyone [on his side]. He had Republican-leaning ranchers, the mostly Latino workers, and the consumers being gouged in the store.

All these non-American companies have moved in [in the last decade], and the largest one, JBS, admitted to bribing its way to monopoly status. And Vilsack couldn’t do anything? On top of it, the markets have gotten more concentrated during his second stint. JBS was an intentional creation of the Brazilian government. They realized they were over being shortchanged by international companies, so they decided to create their own monopoly. That was very much an intentional development strategy. But you let concentrated power happen and guess what? It corrupted the political system. And that’s why you also saw the rise of [former Brazilian President Jair] Bolsonaro.

You describe the Biden administration’s investment in small- and mid-scale meat processing to promote competition as “dumping money on Ask Jeeves and wishing it luck in competing with Google.” Can you say more about that? There are people who have attached a fair amount of hope to those investments.

To my knowledge, there has never been an example where markets have been de-concentrated by throwing government money at them. You have these meat monopolies, which have shown how ruthless they are—someone might even argue they’re quasi-mafia capitalists. Do you think they’re going to let an ounce of market share go to a local mom-and-pop butcher market space? No. There are a lot of people excited to get free money from the government to go build [or expand meat processing facilities].

But common sense just tells you the two most likely outcomes. One: they will just create more niche products for the Whole Foods Consumer. And, honestly, that has been the story of the food system for the last 30 or 40 years. Two: Most people assume these facilities will go broke in a few years. Then the big meat companies can buy them for pennies on the dollar. Vilsack will be a lobbyist again at that point. And he got the media he wanted about pretending to care about the little guys.

Here in California, the investments seem to have mostly gone to strengthen and expand existing operations, and there are some early signs that it might help build up the market for regenerative beef alongside institutional procurement.

You have some decent regulators there. But much of the “change the food system with your fork” framework is just concerned about the Whole Foods class. My goal is to change the food in Dollar General and Walmart. None of this does that.

Walmart has made an aggressive move into [producing its own] meat and dairy, and that says everything. My understanding is they did that because they were being gouged by the big meat monopolies, these [other] barons. Walmart is known as one of the most ruthless players, and they weren’t happy. Walmart didn’t fully make a vertical play like Costco did with chicken; it created its own companies to gain cost insights. So, now it knows the cost of beef production, and that way when it negotiates with the [other] barons, they can’t screw Walmart over. That’s where we are now: We’re depending on the world’s richest family to police the markets for themselves.

You write about the way that Walmart has driven prices down to such a degree that the companies who make the food it sells must find other ways to eke out a profit.

Yes, that’s true. My favorite disturbing fact about Walmart is the company’s 30 percent rule, because that’s so much about power. [From Barons: “The company is very cognizant of the power asymmetry between it and its suppliers. It requires that no more than 30 percent of their sales come from Walmart. This rule may seem counterintuitive at first, but an industry expert told me that Walmart implemented it to manage its own supply chain risk. It knows that if suppliers cross that threshold, they are at risk of going out of business because Walmart is such an unprofitable and difficult client.”]

The 30 percent rule shows us how the company just keeps tilting the field toward its own advantage.

In the book’s concluding chapter, you point to the existing tools for dismantling the system in which these barons are able to maintain so much control. Where do you see possibilities for change?

I think the heartland in America hasn’t grappled with what the shift to electric vehicles will mean for us all. It is like watching Wile E. Coyote run full-speed toward a cliff. Cars are moving to batteries; that’s going to happen. And it stands to destroy the ethanol industry—one of the largest markets for corn.

Right now, so much wealth in the Midwest is predicated on land wealth. Farmland is worth over $23,000 an acre right now in Iowa. That will plummet if half the corn’s no longer in use. We’re gonna face the death of ethanol soon. The question is what we do with that?

My silver lining is that we could use that moment to put animals back on the land. Because we’re playing with fire by having so many genetically similar animals packed into these metal sheds. We’re just asking for [more] disease.

You also make a radical set of proposals in the last chapter to scrap the farm bill, completely rethink federal support for farms, and re-organize U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Can you say a little about why?

I think the current farm bill is just too broken. The 2024 Farm Bill will uphold the status quo. They’re going to try to ram it through in the lame duck session after the election. That’s pretty clear at this point. The current “Wall Street Farm Bill” really doesn’t change between [reauthorizations] in my opinion. They add little pilot programs, they do little tweaks, and there’s usually a little bit more deregulation. But I really think a bigger conversation needs to be had over putting the farm bill out to pasture and stripping USDA for parts.

I think a lot of reformers in the food space get played. What Vilsack types do is they bring them into the room, they let them say their peace. And then they can go back and tell their funders, “We had a meeting with the ag secretary.” And the status quo is maintained. That is what you see over and over. Secretary Vilsack oversaw the death of the family hog farm as governor of Iowa, and then he oversaw the death of the family dairy farm as Secretary of Agriculture, and that happened mostly because he didn’t do anything. If you’re not playing on a level playing field [as a farmer] at some point, you can’t play anymore.

I understand food reformers are trying to [make change] day to day, but once in a while, you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. This [bill] was built in a different world. It is so corrupted and corroded. We need to rethink it. And the USDA goes back to the Civil War.  It’s not a bad thing to look at reorganizing the system. Let’s put food research under Health and Human Services. Why does USDA have antitrust authority? We should give that to the FTC.

The problem with USDA now is it acts like a chamber of commerce, or a promotional agency for the barons. And with every metric—except corporate profits—they’ve failed: The farmer’s share of the dollar is at an all-time low. One in 10 Americans works in the food system, and the way workers are treated is appalling. And by health standards, Americans are not doing well. It’s hard to make a case that they should continue as-is based on this checklist of failures.

I want readers to understand that the system we have now is radical. It is radical that one man in Iowa raised 5 million hogs a year. The reforms in that last chapter, a lot of it is going back to the way systems used to be—like putting animals back on land. That is not radical; that’s how animals have lived for most of their existence. I understand that the barons and their lackeys will frame me as a radical, but no, it is their corporate capitalist system that is incredibly radical. And you can’t talk about fixing or reforming something unless you have an honest conversation about where it’s at.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post In ‘Barons,’ Austin Frerick Takes on the Most Powerful Families in the Food System appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2024/03/26/in-barons-austin-frerick-takes-on-the-most-powerful-families-in-the-food-system/feed/ 1 https://civileats.com/2024/02/05/should-a-plan-to-curb-meat-industry-water-pollution-consider-the-business-costs/ Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:00:03 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=55187 However, tackling the problem won’t be straightforward. A new EPA proposal to significantly reduce water pollution from slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants is facing backlash from the meat industry as well as environmental groups, with one side expressing concerns about increased costs and the other worried that the agency may choose significantly weaker rules to minimize […]

The post Should a Plan to Curb Meat Industry Water Pollution Consider the Business Costs? appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessments, water pollution from the meat industry poses an urgent problem. The agency recently reported that more than half of the country’s rivers and streams are in poor condition due to nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from agriculture, which later contributes to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. Much of that pollution flows off farm fields, but the EPA’s data also shows the facilities that slaughter animals and process meat are the leading industrial source of phosphorous pollution and the second highest source of nitrogen.

However, tackling the problem won’t be straightforward. A new EPA proposal to significantly reduce water pollution from slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants is facing backlash from the meat industry as well as environmental groups, with one side expressing concerns about increased costs and the other worried that the agency may choose significantly weaker rules to minimize financial impacts on the industry.

“EPA’s continued failure to stand up against industry pressure ignores and perpetuates the potentially devastating impacts of industrial animal agriculture on our communities.”

In 1974, after the Clean Water Act was signed into law, the agency tried to tackle water pollution from meat processing for the first time. In 2004, it made a minimal update, but the current limits only apply to about 150 of the more than 5,000 facilities in the country, and they address nitrogen only, with no constraints on phosphorous. That lax approach to regulation prompted a lawsuit filed in 2019 by environmental groups, which then prompted the agency to begin the process of revising the standards in 2021.

However, after at least two years of work, instead of presenting one plan to bring the regulations in line with what the Clean Water Act requires, the EPA provided three options along a continuum. Now, the agency is taking public comments before deciding on which path to take.

Option 3, the most restrictive, would prevent 76 million pounds of nitrogen and 20 million pounds of phosphorous from entering waterways; option 1, the weakest, would prevent 9 million pounds of nitrogen and 8 million pounds of phosphorous.

Less pollution would be stopped in option 1 primarily because the rules would not apply to smaller processing plants, which currently send their wastewater to public treatment plants before it enters waterways. And the EPA has stated that plan is its “preferred” option, because stricter regulations of those plants could clash with the Biden administration’s recent efforts to reduce concentration in the industry by supporting smaller, independent meat processors. Based on an economic analysis included in the proposed rule, its analysts predict 53 facilities could close under option 3.

At a public hearing at the EPA’s headquarters last week, Jon Elrod, an executive vice president at Darling Ingredients, testified that the stricter options would hurt the company’s smaller facilities, many of which are located in metropolitan areas and “could make it impossible for some facilities to continue to operate.” Darling is a rendering company that processes meat industry byproducts, with annual revenue just under $7 billion in 2023.

After Elrod, environmental advocates stepped up to the podium one by one to counter that argument and push the agency toward option 3.

“We at Waterkeepers’ Alliance and our supporters are deeply concerned that EPA is proposing to exempt most slaughterhouses and rendering facilities from updated water pollution control standards,” said Jacqueline Esposito, the nonprofit’s director of advocacy. “EPA’s continued failure to stand up against industry pressure ignores and perpetuates the potentially devastating impacts of industrial animal agriculture on our communities.”

Sarah Kula, an attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, told Civil Eats that by her reading, the agency’s decision to even consider business impacts while setting pollution limits is outside the scope of what it can do under the law. While the EPA contends that it’s allowed to consider other factors, Kula said that is meant to apply to other things within their purview, such as environmental justice, not entirely different goals outside of the work the agency is tasked with.

Many of the advocates also noted that while industry players have said the rules are not needed for the smaller plants since the water already goes through a public treatment plant, the EPA’s analysis found that most of those public treatment facilities lack technology to remove nitrogen or phosphorous. As a result, they found meatpacking plants “may be causing or contributing” to high rates of permit violations at those facilities.

Advocates also highlighted the agency’s findings that the technology needed to reduce processing plants’ nutrient pollution is already available and being used successfully, resulting in pollution well below what the rules would require.

Many of the meatpackers, however, say even option 1 is too restrictive, and the industry is pushing back forcefully.

At the public hearing, representatives from JBS, which operates more than 50 slaughter and processing plants that could be subject to the new regulations, sat quietly, listening. A week earlier, in an online hearing, industry speakers asked the EPA to extend the comment period on the proposal, echoing a request from the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) the industry’s largest trade group.

In addition to needing more time to assess the three options, NAMI President Julie Potts told Meat + Poultry that plant closures under all three options would hurt farmers and ranchers. She believes EPA “has grossly underestimated the costs to comply.”

While the EPA has made the most significant attempt in decades to change how it regulates water pollution from slaughterhouses, the battle over what the effort will ultimately accomplish is just getting started.

Then, last week, Representatives Eric Burlison (R-Missouri) and Ron Estes (R-Kansas) introduced a bill that would stop the EPA from finalizing or implementing the proposed rule, regardless of which option they chose.

The bill has little chance of going anywhere, but it signals a larger fight behind the scenes that has precedent. Seemingly endless battles over the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which regulated a different aspect of water pollution from agriculture, are still ongoing. Now, while the EPA has made the most significant attempt in decades to change how it regulates water pollution from slaughterhouses, the battle over what the effort will ultimately accomplish is just getting started.

The EPA is planning a third hearing for March 20. It has not yet responded to the industry’s requests to extend the comment period, which currently ends March 25.

Read More:
EPA to Revise Outdated Water Pollution Standards for Slaughterhouses
The Clean Water Act Has Failed to Curb Ag Pollution
Farm Runoff in U.S. Waters Has Hit Crisis Levels
Biden Targets Consolidation in the Meat Industry (Again)

Farm Bill Slog. Agriculture committees in the House and Senate are publicly doing very little at the moment to move the long-delayed 2023 Farm Bill process forward, aside from slowly hinting at priorities. But that hasn’t stopped lawmakers from continuing to introduce additional marker bills or slowed advocates pushing to advance their priorities.

Last week, lawmakers introduced two separate bills that would tweak conservation programs toward rewarding practices that build soil health and store carbon. At the same time, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) released an analysis of how additional funds funneled to popular conservation programs from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for climate-smart practices impacted participation in the programs. The IATP analysis found that while 3,000 additional farmers were awarded contracts in fiscal year 2023, demand also increased so much that the proportion of farmers turned away did not decline.

The data is especially relevant because some Republican lawmakers would like to move the IRA funding to other programs. Democrats, meanwhile, are fighting to keep it focused on climate, citing unmet demand. American Farmland Trust also released a report on the climate benefits of easements that ensure that land stays in farming rather than being developed and called for more funding—including in the farm bill—for easements.

This week, the National Family Farm Coalition will bring a group of small-scale farmer members to D.C. to advocate for farm bill policies that level the playing field via proposals for fair credit, farmland access, and milk prices.

Read More:
This Farm Bill Really Matters. We Explain Why.
Climate Change Is Walloping U.S. Farms. Can This Farm Bill Create Real Solutions?

A Potential Bite Out of Hunger. In the kind of bipartisan compromise that is nearly unheard-of these days, House lawmakers passed a tax bill to reinstate Trump-era deductions for businesses while also expanding the child tax credit. The bill is headed to the Senate, where it is facing resistance from Republican senators for policy and political reasons.

In 2021, during the height of the pandemic, expansions of the child tax credit kept more than 2 million children above the poverty line, and most families used the credit to pay for basic necessities such as food, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“The bill’s enhancements to the tax credit will benefit 16 million children currently left out of receiving the full or any credit, and will lift 400,000 above the poverty line,” Luis Guardia, president of the Food Research & Action Center, said in a statement. “Investing in families is crucial to ending hunger and fostering a more prosperous society.”

The move comes despite lawmakers’ recent decision not to boost funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which will likely lead to a shortfall for the program which supports the nutrition needs of mothers and young children.

Read More:
WIC Shortfall Could Leave 2 Million Women and Children Hungry
For Many Kids, a Boost to Summer School Meals Is a “Game Changer”

Food as Medicine. Government officials and members of Congress came together with representatives from nonprofits and big food companies for the first “Food as Medicine” summit last week. Integrating food and nutrition into health care is a popular initiative among Biden administration officials and was featured prominently at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in September 2022. In conjunction, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it would increase a $20 million investment in “food as medicine” initiatives and research to $100 million, funding projects like the American Heart Association’s Health Care by Food Initiative.

Read More:
Voices from the White House Conference on Hunger and Nutrition
Can Prescriptions for Produce-Focused Meal Kits Fight Diabetes?

The post Should a Plan to Curb Meat Industry Water Pollution Consider the Business Costs? appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2024/01/24/wic-shortfall-could-leave-2-million-women-and-children-hungry/ https://civileats.com/2024/01/24/wic-shortfall-could-leave-2-million-women-and-children-hungry/#comments Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:00:41 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=55080 Yet Congress recently broke with this precedent in a move—or rather a delay in action—that could jeopardize those nutritional benefits for the most vulnerable families, following a year of record-high food prices and deepening hunger across the U.S. “Our country has always had a promise when it comes to WIC that it will be there […]

The post WIC Shortfall Could Leave 2 Million Women And Children Hungry appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

Since 1997, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has received consistent federal funding from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Even during periods of gridlock, members of Congress have always been able to put aside their differences when it comes to funding nutritional benefits for low-income women and children. As a result, millions of women and children struggling with food insecurity have received healthy food, referrals to other social programs, and breastfeeding support at pivotal times in their lives.

Yet Congress recently broke with this precedent in a move—or rather a delay in action—that could jeopardize those nutritional benefits for the most vulnerable families, following a year of record-high food prices and deepening hunger across the U.S.

“Our country has always had a promise when it comes to WIC that it will be there to serve all eligible participants,” Georgia Machell, the interim president of the National WIC Association, told Civil Eats. “If you’re eligible for the program, you should be able to access it. If that promise is broken, it really puts families at risk.”

“We wouldn’t start to see waitlists until a few months down the road, but I think something that’s important to keep in mind is that it’s going to be different for every state.”

Last week, Congress passed a resolution—for the third time—that would keep the government open and fund WIC at its pre-existing level, or $1 billion less than what’s needed to fully fund the program. At least 2 million women and children  are at risk of being turned away by September if WIC is not funded to its full capacity, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If that happens, women and children will likely be put on waiting lists for the first time in over 25 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

In 2022, a staggering 39 percent of all infants within the U.S. relied on WIC support. In total, the program served nearly 6.3 million pregnant and postpartum women and children under 5 in 2022, providing a consistent source of nutrition to many vulnerable families. Research has found that WIC improves birth outcomes, lowers infant mortality, reduces Medicaid expenses, improves cognitive development, and increases childhood immunization.

This shortfall comes at what would have otherwise been a celebratory time in WIC’s history. This month marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the first WIC clinic in Pineville, Kentucky, in 1974. Yesterday, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear gathered with national and local WIC staff and advocates and other program pioneers at Pineville’s original clinic to honor its legacy and fight for its future.

“Right now, we have a major responsibility to ensure that this program continues,” said Beshear, who is a Democrat, in a speech given at the gathering. “All that I ask is that Congress and our state legislature start not with what party they’re in, or what color they wear on their ties, but with the basic empathy that we are taught to have for one another. We’re taught the golden rule, that we love our neighbor as ourself.”

Since its launch, the WIC program has grown dramatically. It operates in every state and is administered through local health departments, across 10,000 clinics, nearly 2,000 local agencies, and 33 tribal organizations.

If there is a shortfall, it isn’t expected to hit all at once because WIC is so widely administered and depends on individual state policies. “We wouldn’t start to see waitlists until a few months down the road, but I think something that’s important to keep in mind is that it’s going to be different for every state,” said Machell.

According to WIC’s regulations, participants who are most medically at risk are prioritized in a budget shortfall. The waiting lists would first include postpartum women who are not breastfeeding, followed by children between ages 1 and 5, without high-risk medical issues, according to the USDA. However, the agency anticipates that waiting lists could extend even to the most vulnerable groups, including infants.

“Given the size of the funding shortfall, it is likely that waiting lists would stretch across all participant categories, affecting both new applicants and mothers, babies, and young children enrolled in the program who are up for renewal of benefits,” a USDA spokesperson said in an e-mail to Civil Eats.

As a last resort, “if other measures aren’t enough to close the shortfall, some states could be forced to suspend benefits for current participants,” added the spokesperson.

Beyond these drastic measures, budget cuts will probably affect the nearly 7 million participants and lower the quality of service across WIC’s offices. “States are also likely going to pull back in other ways. They’ll limit outreach. They won’t pursue cross enrollment efforts with other programs like SNAP and Medicaid. They’ll reduce their clinic hours,” said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. She notes that this shortfall would also likely deter eligible people from applying to WIC.

Bergh also said that the estimate of “around 2 million” that could be turned away for WIC benefits, if not fully funded, is an underestimate. It will likely be higher now in light of the recent resolution, which gives Congress until March to fund WIC in an appropriations bill and leaves states with less time to plan for a shortfall.

For months, the Biden administration has urged Congress to fund WIC, while seeking the support of community advocates. In December, the USDA warned that “a federal funding shortfall of this magnitude presents states with difficult, untenable decisions about how to manage the program.” And last week, the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter to faith and community leaders to ask for their help in advocating for WIC’s necessity.

“We firmly believe that no child should go hungry in America and we ask that you amplify the importance of WIC among your faith-based community partners and congregations,” reads the letter.

“It would be a huge hit to our budget. We really appreciate that supplemental income on a monthly basis.”

The increased need for funding is partially the result of more eligible people signing up for the program, according to the USDA. This is in some ways a good thing, noted Bergh, as it indicates that WIC has become more accessible. The program used to require in-person appointments to enroll and receive benefits, but that stopped during the early COVID-19 pandemic when it began offering remote services.

The expansion in people signing up for WIC is also likely an indicator of just how desperately people need its services as food insecurity deepens. “We’re seeing the impacts of higher food costs. Families’ budgets have been stretched,” said Bergh. “In many cases, families who were receiving additional aid from other programs during the pandemic have now seen those pandemic measures expire.”

The ongoing uncertainty surrounding WIC’s future has left many of its participants worried and unable to fully plan for their families’ futures.

“On average, we’re talking about $80 to $100 a month as far as what that does for our food budget,” said Emily Church, a current WIC participant living in Ohio who also serves on the National WIC Association’s participant advisory council. She is raising a toddler and teenage son, while working and attending school. “It would be a huge hit to our budget. We really appreciate that supplemental income on a monthly basis.”

“I am fearful of how this is all going to shake out,” said Church, before pausing to check on her 3-year-old daughter. It’s her health and well-being, in her formative years of growth as a toddler, that concerns Church the most.

“I feel frustration and anger over the fact that this is even a question,” said Church, getting back on the call, as her daughter could still be heard in the background.

Meanwhile, lawmakers struck a deal to bring back the child tax credit, a pandemic-era support that provided relief for low-income families and ended in 2021. If the tax breaks are resurrected, it could go part of the way toward helping some families feed their children.

Read more:
Changes to WIC Benefits Would Cut Food Access for Millions of Parents
Do Regulations Designed to Promote Nutrition Make WIC Food Lists Too Restrictive?

Farmworker Women’s Rights: The next farm bill may shape the rights of women farmworkers. The sweeping, trillion-dollar legislative package, reauthorized every five years, has been extended for another year as Congress continues to debate the next version of the legislation. Historically, farmworker and labor rights have been excluded from the bill, but there has been a recent concerted effort among advocates to change that.

In mid-January, a group of women with Alianza Nacional de Campesinas traveled to Washington, D.C., to push for the inclusion of their rights within the large bill. They met with members of Congress to discuss their proposals. Those include: stronger heat protections, more resources dedicated to farmworker housing, guaranteed funding of SNAP benefits regardless of immigration or visa status, more research into pesticides, the development of a fully staffed farmworker office within USDA, and resources to assist farmworkers with transitioning to farm ownership.

“Our journey to Washington, D.C., underscores the urgency of necessary resources and acknowledgement of farmworker needs, particularly women and girls, in the upcoming farm bill,” said Alianza’s Executive Director Mily Trevino-Sauceda in a statement.

Read more:
The End of Roe vs. Wade Makes Reproductive Health Even Tougher for Farmworkers
Threatened by Climate Change, Food Chain Workers Demand Labor Protections
This Group Has Helped Farmworkers Become Farm Owners for More Than 2 Decades

Fertilizer Consolidation: The multinational giant Koch Industries recently acquired Iowa Fertilizer Co. for $3.8 billion, sparking outcry from advocates concerned about the increasing trend of consolidation within U.S. agriculture. Fertilizer prices have spiked in recent years due to inflation and rising gas prices, and the industry’s consolidation—furthered by this recent acquisition, advocates say—clamps down on competition that could drive down prices.

A recent letter, signed by 18 agriculture and environmental advocacy groups, called for a federal investigation into the acquisition. The letter notes that the fertilizer plant was first proposed in 2012 with the intent of lowering fertilizer costs and challenging the “Koch Industries dominance in the fertilizer markets,” while relying on substantial federal, state, and local funding to build the plant. “The unrestricted federal funds left the door open for Koch Industries to purchase the company just six years after the plant opened,” states the letter, delivered to the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

Read more:
Health Concerns Grow as Oklahoma Farmers Fertilize Cropland with Treated Sewage
Excess Fertilizer Causes a New Challenge: Low Crop Yields During Drought
Why Seed Consolidation Matters

The post WIC Shortfall Could Leave 2 Million Women And Children Hungry appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2024/01/24/wic-shortfall-could-leave-2-million-women-and-children-hungry/feed/ 1 https://civileats.com/2024/01/23/these-state-lawmakers-are-collaborating-on-policies-that-support-regenerative-agriculture/ Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:00:09 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=54985 As Georgia state senator Kim Jackson began her welcome speech, she instructed the group to look around the room. “We are female; we are male. We are queer; we are people of color; we are Indigenous. We are rural, urban, and suburban,” she said. “Now raise your hand if this is what your [state’s] ag […]

The post These State Lawmakers Are Collaborating on Policies That Support Regenerative Agriculture appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

On a crisp weekend this past fall, 30 state legislators from across the nation descended on TomKat Ranch, an 1,800-acre ranch focused on regenerative agriculture in Pescadero, California, an hour south of San Francisco. In addition to learning about regenerative farming practices, the diverse group had gathered to understand how state-level agricultural legislation can bring about climate resilience, food security, and social equity.

As Georgia state senator Kim Jackson began her welcome speech, she instructed the group to look around the room. “We are female; we are male. We are queer; we are people of color; we are Indigenous. We are rural, urban, and suburban,” she said. “Now raise your hand if this is what your [state’s] ag committee looks like.” Despite all hands staying down, “this is exactly why we’re here,” she continued, “because we all have a stake in ag.”

The two-day workshop, which was organized by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), a nonprofit, non-partisan national policy, resource, and strategy center, highlighted the power of states to drive progressive change in food and agricultural policy. Against the backdrop of a carefully managed perennial pasture, the gathering focused on legislative approaches to promoting regenerative farming and ranching practices, which the group believes can galvanize support across partisan and rural-urban divides.

The national farm bill often “sucks a lot of the wind out of the room,” says Kendra Kimbirauskas, the senior director of agriculture and food systems for SiX, making state-level initiatives seem like “the little sibling of federal policy.” But local and regional actions can counter the country’s “highly centralized and dominant” industrial food and farm system, she adds, and lay the blueprint for transformative large-scale measures.

Packed with experiential learning sessions with experts and advocates, field walks, and farm-to-table meals featuring ingredients sourced from nearby growers, the forum in Pescadero was primarily designed to connect lawmakers, says Kimbirauskas. Reinforcing the network can arm legislators with the resources needed to tackle “tough decisions” in their State Houses, she adds, and expose them to perspectives outside the typical ag lobbying groups on abstruse measures and less-obvious implications of bills.

Attendees at the TomKat Ranch tour organized by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX). (Photo courtesy of SiX)

And because agricultural policy is typically shaped by large agribusiness interests, advocates say efforts to foster greater inclusivity is paramount to changing the status quo. “This,” proffered Jackson, a Black urban farmer from a multi-generational farming family and Georgia’s first openly gay senator, “is how we raise our collective voices.”

Power of State Policymaking

The Cohort for Rural Opportunity and Prosperity (CROP)—a subset of SiX’s Agriculture and Food Systems program—currently includes elected officials from 43 states who are positioned to advance socially and ecologically responsible rural, agricultural, and food policy.

When it comes to deciphering rural and farm-related issues, progressive legislators often face a steep learning curve, says Kimbirauskas. Many tend to hail from urban areas and are better versed on issues such as public health or education; even those with farming roots may not have direct field experience. As a result, they may lack the capacity to be “champions for food and ag policy,” she notes, despite the broad impacts of farming legislation on cities, the environment, and the larger food system.

Historically, that space has been dominated by state level farm bureaus and the larger federal, Kimbirauskas says. Heavily backed by large agriculture trade groups with deep pockets, the nation’s most powerful agricultural lobbying group is, generally speaking, the sole voice leading those conversations at the state level. “The corporate ag lobby absolutely knows the power of state policymaking,” she says. “That’s why they have a stable of lobbyists in every state house across the country.”

Depending on the state, legislators may be severely under-resourced and overworked—nationwide, their salary averages less than $44,000, with state lawmakers in New Hampshire and New Mexico working as volunteers, requiring many to hold second jobs.

“The corporate ag lobby absolutely knows the power of state policymaking. That’s why they have a stable of lobbyists in every state house across the country.”

State budgets can also hamper in-house agricultural knowledge. Less than half a percent of Hawaii’s annual budget, for instance, goes to its department of agriculture, thereby limiting the robust collection of crop statistics and other data critical to making industry decisions. Recently, the state also slashed 20 percent of university extension staff.

As an “organizing vehicle” designed to help “disrupt the legislator-to-lobbyist pipeline,” CROP equips progressive leaders with robust support and expertise to fill these voids, says Kimbirauskas. Rather than relying on ag industry lobbyists to shape boilerplate legislation—a tactic frequently used by conservative national policy organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—SiX connects lawmakers to policy advocates and agriculture-based organizations to share information and strategies in creating more effective policies.

Although organic practices are federally certified, “regenerative” methods—which hold many commonalities—are not typically strictly defined or certified. However, for the same reason, they are also often seen as more accessible to growers and less divisive than organic agriculture. And when done right, regenerative farming has been shown to have multiple benefits that appeal across partisan, racial, and geographic divides, says Renata Brillinger, executive director of the California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN), an advising partner to SiX.

Along with reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, practices that build healthy soil, for example, make land more resilient to drought, flooding, wildfires, and erosion. And the perks go far beyond the pastures, Brillinger says: “We get cleaner air and water, healthier communities, and a huge reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” through carbon sequestration.

As the gains become more obvious amid the growing challenges of the climate crisis,“the more conservative champions [can] get on board,” Brillinger adds, “because they [also] appreciate the benefits to the farmer and the farm economy.”

Since its implementation in 2017, California’s Healthy Soils program—part of the state’s suite of Climate Smart Agriculture initiatives aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change and fostering sustainability across various sectors—has influenced similar policies throughout the country. Last year alone, six states passed bills that advance healthy soil management policies, programs, and funding.

For lawmakers from states short on resources or lagging in support for these measures, frontrunners like California help gauge effectiveness and build momentum for similar measures back home, says Brillinger. Along with sowing the seeds for incentive programs and educational resources down the line, more moderate initiatives can make it possible to collect federal funds.

Last April, Montana took a notable step in promoting good soil practices by designating an official Healthy Soils Week. Rather than laying out imperatives, the state act helps “gently lead people” towards regenerative practices, says the bill’s author, State Senator Bruce Gillespie, by recognizing the benefits of soil conservation and range management, particularly through rotational livestock grazing.

Despite being one of the country’s driest states, agriculture is Montana’s leading industry, “so there’s a big opportunity here” to promote the merits of building and preserving rich soil, adds the third-generation rancher, who was not in attendance at the Pescadero event. In addition to absorbing precious precipitation, he points to the fact that well-managed pastures can capture carbon, harbor wildlife, and become more resistant to erosion.

The “win-win” proposition has the support of Gillespie’s Republican and Democratic colleagues alike, he says, as well as farmers and conservation groups in the region. He hopes that Montana’s actions inspire other states in the grassland region—a sizable area that includes Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas—to adopt similar measures.

In the best-case scenario, state-level initiatives can influence federal policy, says CalCAN’s Brillinger. Congress is currently mulling the Agriculture Resilience Act, which would incentivize farmers and ranchers to engage in climate-friendly practices if its language gets included in the next farm bill. That proposition has been markedly influenced by similar state policies including California’s Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through pasture-based manure management.

Laying the Foundation for Change

Nevertheless, in most farm states, the existing legislative structure firmly favors commodity agriculture and the companies it benefits, making even incremental policy changes daunting, says Liz Moran Stelk, executive director of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance (ISA), a Chicago-based nonprofit organization. Built to serve “a massive, complex, and incredibly productive and efficient food system,” its presence, she adds, is unyielding.

In past decades, the large-scale consolidation of the food supply chain has reduced processing, aggregation, and transportation to a handful of companies. As a result, smaller producers often face greater hurdles in adopting any practices that sit outside the mainstream. Without access to markets and appropriate infrastructure (think: organic grain elevators and slaughterhouses) growers can’t fetch added premiums for sustainable practices. “It’s hard to do the right thing,” notes Stelk, “if you’re getting paid the same as your neighbor who doesn’t do anything extra.”

“It’s hard to do the right thing if you’re getting paid the same as your neighbor who doesn’t do anything extra.”

Several Western and Midwestern states, however, have managed to promote conservation-minded practices through modest incentives. The Illinois-based Saving Tomorrow’s Agricultural Resources (STAR) Program sets standards for regenerative practices such as crop rotation, tillage, and nutrient applications. Based on their level of stewardship, the voluntary grading system awards farmers with one to five stars, with “pay-for-performance” incentives based on their rating.

Created in 2017, STAR programs have spread to more than 10 states, and a national organization was established earlier this year. As momentum builds throughout various regions, it has spawned wider discussions about incentivizing other parts of the supply chain for regenerative producers, says Stelk.

‘Context Is Everything’

Although the weekend workshop in Pescadero revealed many approaches to strategic state-level governance, it also exposed stark differences in the operational landscape. “Context is everything,” says Hawaii State Representative Amy Perruso, whose state’s plantation history has resulted in a distinct political and agricultural landscape. Big ag continues its outsized presence on the islands in the form of seed companies—GMO seed corn is Hawaii’s top cash crop—so the power they exert “is a big obstacle to systemic change,” she says.

Yet exposure to the broad implications of regenerative farming was eye-opening, says Perruso, in understanding the larger framing of agricultural policy. In the aftermath of her state’s devastating recent wildfires, the effectiveness of policies that promote managed grazing—which reduces fire risk by increasing soil moisture and keeping invasive grasses in check—seem self-evident, she notes.

In addition to bolstering climate resilience, many regenerative practices are also the cornerstone of Native Hawaiian farming systems, which prioritize soil and water stewardship. And because propelling these efforts can impact food sovereignty, it also carries “strong political implications,” she adds.

Perruso’s insight also underscores the importance of considering the diversity of stakeholders invested in regenerative farming. And Indigenous perspectives are especially relevant to shaping effective state-level food and agricultural policy, says Yadira Riviera, associate director at the nonprofit First Nations Development Institute (FNDI).

As a presenter at the Pescadero workshop, Rivera reminded lawmakers that Native farmers, ranchers, and food producers—including foragers and harvesters—hold deep-rooted, traditional expertise. Their insight is essential to creating sustainable, culturally sensitive, and region-specific policies, she says.

Soliciting input from a broad pool of stakeholders also helps lawmakers formulate more effective policy, says Riviera. Funding for fencing, for instance, may not have obvious regenerative benefits, but for farmers and ranchers practicing managed grazing—which requires rotating livestock between multiple fenced paddocks—it’s an absolute necessity.

CalCAN’s Brillinger believes that building a more resilient food and farming system is in everybody’s interest, so collective action is imperative to shoring up effective policies. And unlike the drastic climate solutions needed in the energy and transportation sectors, many agriculture- and land-based strategies don’t require expensive, high-tech approaches, she notes, and can be easily implemented—given the political will. “The benefits are just so multifaceted,” she says, “that it’s kind of a no-brainer.”

And finally, the weekend gathering highlighted yet another perk to regenerative farming: “mind-blowing” produce cultivated in rich healthy soil. “It was such an experience eating that food,” says Perruso, of the generous spreads served on the ranch. “I’ve never tasted vegetables like that.”

Civil Eats receives funding from TomKat Educational Fund. We also receive funding from FNDI to support our Indigenous Foodways reporting.

The post These State Lawmakers Are Collaborating on Policies That Support Regenerative Agriculture appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2024/01/17/op-ed-this-farm-bill-could-rein-in-big-agricultures-lobbying-power/ https://civileats.com/2024/01/17/op-ed-this-farm-bill-could-rein-in-big-agricultures-lobbying-power/#comments Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:00:14 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=54982 The beef ads were paid for with funds collected through federal research and promotion programs, also called commodity checkoff programs. Started as a voluntary way for farmers and ranchers to pool their resources and promote their products, checkoff programs are now mandatory for producers of 22 different commodities, and in addition to paying for research […]

The post Op-ed: This Farm Bill Could Rein in Big Agriculture’s Lobbying Power appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

Back in the ’90s, beef was what was for dinner. As a fourth-generation Georgia cattleman, you’d think I’d be a big fan of that catchy campaign—but the truth is, the ad is the product of a system that has been putting ranchers like me out of business for decades.

The beef ads were paid for with funds collected through federal research and promotion programs, also called commodity checkoff programs. Started as a voluntary way for farmers and ranchers to pool their resources and promote their products, checkoff programs are now mandatory for producers of 22 different commodities, and in addition to paying for research and advertising they also funnel money from farmers to lobbying organizations with little accountability or transparency. Nearly a billion dollars are collected from farmers every year through the checkoff.

In my industry, farmers and ranchers are required to pay $1 for every animal they raise toward the fund. The beef checkoff program then contracts with a group called the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) for its research and promotion efforts. While the NCBA receives some membership dues and some corporate sponsorships, more than 70 percent of its budget—$26 million—comes out of the pockets of ranchers through the checkoff.

NCBA then turns around and lobbies on behalf of its largest members, including Cargill, McDonald’s, and Tyson Foods.

For example, NCBA successfully lobbied against mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef. MCOOL was a powerful marketing tool for independent American ranchers to distinguish our products from lower-quality imported meat sold by giant meatpackers like Brazil’s JBS.

Americans increasingly prefer to buy meat raised in the U.S., and country of origin labels would help them find what they’re looking for. Without this label, global corporations can repackage imported beef and label it “Product of U.S.A.,” deceiving consumers and stealing market opportunities from U.S. farmers and ranchers.

The checkoff reinforces the idea that all beef is equal: The “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” ad and NCBA’s other checkoff-funded promotions do not distinguish between beef that is imported and/or industrially raised and beef that is grassfed and regeneratively raised in the U.S. like mine.

That means that through the checkoff, every cattle rancher in America is being forced to give money to NCBA, even though its promotions often directly counter their interests. NCBA’s work is so unpopular among U.S. cattle ranchers, in fact, that less than 3 percent of them have joined as members.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is supposed to provide oversight of the checkoff program, but its negligence has enabled a history of corruption, collusive relationships, and the normalization of the use of checkoff money to lobby lawmakers—which is against the law.

There is a bipartisan bill on the table that would put a stop to this: the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming or “OFF” Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) to rein in the runaway checkoffs.

Support is growing for the OFF Act, which isn’t meant to eliminate checkoff programs. What it would do is establish basic financial accountability and transparency for the checkoff dollars collected from farmers and ranchers, and prohibit these funds from being used to contract with groups that lobby on agricultural policy.

The OFF Act is one of many so-called marker bills for the upcoming farm bill, meaning it provides suggested policy and language for the lawmakers negotiating the farm bill to consider including in their massive, final bill.

In a recent hearing, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) said he thinks “the farm bill process is the appropriate path forward” for adding transparency to the checkoff.

I couldn’t agree more. If the OFF Act were included in the upcoming farm bill, we could prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the checkoffs. To me, that sounds like the bare minimum requirements for a government program handling nearly a billion in funds taken from farmers.

Not surprising, NCBA is vocally opposed to the OFF Act, but farmers and ranchers across the nation are demanding change. Representing them in support of the OFF Act are groups like Farm Action Fund, R-CALF USA, the American Grassfed Association, the National Black Farmers Association, and the National Farmers Union. These groups say the OFF Act would give farmers and ranchers “a seat at the table” when it comes time to spend checkoff money.

I want my family’s future generations to thrive here in Bluffton, Georgia, where we raise livestock and tend our land according to regenerative principles with a team of butchers, cowboys, and farmers.

There is so much at stake with this farm bill, and Georgia lawmakers are in a pivotal position to create lasting change on behalf of families like mine.

The OFF Act would show farmers where our tax dollars are going and ensure we’re not funding our own downfall. Including it in the upcoming farm bill would go a long way toward empowering farmers like me and reining in corporate domination over our food system. I can only hope Senator Raphael Warnock, Senator Jon Ossoff, and House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member David Scott see this as the opportunity it is.

The post Op-ed: This Farm Bill Could Rein in Big Agriculture’s Lobbying Power appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2024/01/17/op-ed-this-farm-bill-could-rein-in-big-agricultures-lobbying-power/feed/ 6 https://civileats.com/2023/12/26/our-best-farming-and-farm-bill-reporting-of-2023/ Tue, 26 Dec 2023 09:00:18 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=54802 Because the 2018 Farm Bill was due for reauthorization in September—until lawmakers extended it for another year—we committed substantial resources to covering the trillion-dollar legislative package this year. We looked into how the next farm bill could best tackle some of the biggest problems related to food and ag, from climate change to food insecurity. […]

The post Our Best Farming and Farm Bill Reporting of 2023 appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

Telling stories about the land is at the core of what we do at Civil Eats. And over the last year, we’ve covered farming from many angles, from threats to farms and farmworkers—including from the herbicide paraquat, PFAS forever chemicals, and drought-induced air pollution—to ways farmers are improving their soil health and reducing their carbon footprints.

Because the 2018 Farm Bill was due for reauthorization in September—until lawmakers extended it for another year—we committed substantial resources to covering the trillion-dollar legislative package this year. We looked into how the next farm bill could best tackle some of the biggest problems related to food and ag, from climate change to food insecurity.

As part of that effort, we published an ongoing series entitled Faces of the Farm Bill, which is designed to humanize the impacts of ag policy by spotlighting people whose lives have been shaped by the farm bill—from those reliant on nutrition assistance to Indigenous farmers, BIPOC farmers, and other historically marginalized folks and their advocates. Here are some of our best farming and farm bill reporting this year.

Paraquat, the Deadliest Chemical in US Agriculture, Goes on Trial
Amid lawsuits filed by thousands of farmers linking the herbicide to Parkinson’s disease, the EPA is reconsidering its analysis of paraquat’s risks.

Farm Credit Can Make or Break Farms. Should It Be More Equitable?
The biggest lender in American farming is in the spotlight for resisting a requirement to report the demographic details of its loan recipients.

(Photo credit: Amy Mayer)

Bringing Oats Back to American Farms
Adding oats to a farm’s rotation can improve soil health and reduce fossil fuels, but the crop has all but disappeared in the U.S. Now, a nascent movement fueled by oat milk’s popularity may help reverse the trend.

Some Farmers Are Skipping Tomatoes and Eggplants. Their Reasons May Surprise You.
From climate risks to better work-life balance, a small but growing contingent of farmers is giving up summer crops to reap winter’s harvest.

As the Salton Sea Shrinks, Agriculture’s Legacy Turns to Dust
As drought dries up the shallow sea, near a half-million farmable acres in the Imperial Valley, farmworkers living nearby are exposed to toxic dust and airborne pollution from algae blooms. Asthma, allergies, and other health impacts are rising at alarming rates.

(Photo credit: Leia Marasovich, Farmer’s Footprint)

This Network of Regenerative Farmers Is Rethinking Chicken
The team at Tree-Range Farms is pioneering an approach to raising chickens and trees in tandem, storing more carbon and water in the soil while providing an entry point for new and BIPOC farmers often left out of the conventional system.

This Oregon Farmer Is Building a New Model for Indigenous Food and Agriculture
At Sakari Farms, Spring Alaska Schreiner maintains a seed bank, has launched a community kitchen, and teaches Native American youth traditional ecological knowledge.

PFAS Shut Maine Farms Down. Now, Some Are Rebounding.
In the aftermath of state testing that revealed dangerous levels of forever chemicals on some Maine farms in 2021, organizations, farmers, and Indigenous communities are creating blueprints for recovery.

Can Point Reyes National Seashore Support Wildlife and Ranching Amid Climate Change? 
The National Park Service is working with a local tribe to determine how to safeguard the tule elk, which compete with cattle for forage in the dry season. A recent proposal to remove a fence has ranchers and dairy owners up in arms.

The Farm Bill

This Farm Bill Really Matters. We Explain Why.
As communities struggle with food insecurity and farmers face a range of climate-fueled disasters, lawmakers have a chance to build a farm bill that tackles both in 2023. Will they?

(Photo credit: Tom Rafalovich (left) and Wendy Johnson (right).

Op-ed: We Need a New Farm Bill—for My Iowa Farm and Beyond
Wendy Johnson has spent more than a decade building diversity on her Iowa farm, despite financial and cultural pressure to stick to the status quo. Now, she’s pushing for system change.

Climate Change Is Walloping US Farms. Can This Farm Bill Create Real Solutions?
Although it seems like everyone in D.C. is buzzing about a “climate farm bill,” some of the most impactful changes, including crop diversification and shifting diets from meat toward plants, are barely on the negotiating table.

This Farm Bill Could Reshape the Food System. Here Are 10 Proposals at the Center of the Fight.
In this week’s Field Report, an update on how lawmakers are gearing up for a food-and-ag sprint when they return to D.C. in September. Plus: A smaller-than-expected Gulf of Mexico dead zone, and updates on the Better Chicken Commitment.

Faces of the Farm Bill

(Photo credit: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Former SNAP Recipient Calls For Expanded Benefits in Next Farm Bill
In our new Faces of the Farm Bill series, anti-hunger advocate Esperanza Fonseca explains why she wants a farm bill that centers the nutritional needs of all low-income and marginalized Americans.

Farm Bill Funding for Indigenous Food Producers Needs a Boost
Skya Ducheneaux, a lender focused on growing Native food businesses, explains why unequal funding opportunities are harming Indigenous entrepreneurs.

(Photo courtesy of Vero Mazariegos-Anastassiou)

​​Why BIPOC Farmers Need More Protection From Climate Change
Farmer Veronica Mazariegos-Anastassiou of Brisa Ranch in Pescadero, California, has felt the impacts of wildfires, droughts, and floods over the last few years. But the small-scale organic farm has received no federal support to help it recover.

The post Our Best Farming and Farm Bill Reporting of 2023 appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2023/12/14/op-ed-beginning-farmers-are-at-a-crossroads-heres-how-the-next-farm-bill-can-help/ https://civileats.com/2023/12/14/op-ed-beginning-farmers-are-at-a-crossroads-heres-how-the-next-farm-bill-can-help/#comments Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:00:40 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=54670 In 2013, around the time she was getting the operation off the ground, Prusia secured a cost-share loan through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) that helped her install a system to divert water from the roof of the barn away from the barnyard. In addition to the environmental benefit of “keeping clean water clean,” […]

The post Op-ed: Beginning Farmers Are at a Crossroads. Here’s How the Next Farm Bill Can Help. appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

April Prusia’s 78-acre heritage hog operation in the Driftless region of Wisconsin has benefited from two forms of financial support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

In 2013, around the time she was getting the operation off the ground, Prusia secured a cost-share loan through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) that helped her install a system to divert water from the roof of the barn away from the barnyard. In addition to the environmental benefit of “keeping clean water clean,” she said the new system helped the barnyard stay drier. “It’s had a positive side effect, a healthier environment for the animals,” she said.

Around 2018, Prusia received a second federal loan, this time from the Farm Service Agency (FSA), specifically geared toward women and minority producers. With this money, she bought an additional 28 acres on which to grow hay for bedding and feed for the pigs. “It allowed me to triple the size of my operation and have healthier animals—they’re up on pasture [on the new land],” she said.

Additionally, converting the additional parcel from an annual to a perennial cropping site has increased the amount of carbon sequestration happening, and she hears more songbirds. Together, these two pots of funding—both made available through the farm bill—helped Prusia establish and expand her farm.

Despite the existence of federal funds, however, Prusia is in a rare boat. According to the National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC), many new farmers don’t even know such funding exists.

Young and beginning farmers—those who have fewer than 10 years of professional experience—typically operate small-scale farms or those with less than $250,000 in annual income or fewer than 180 acres. BIPOC farmers often fall into the small-scale category as well.

The Farm Credit Administration, the leading loan program under the Farm Service Agency (FSA), reported that small-scale farmers made up just 44 percent of all loan grantees in 2020 even though they represent 90 percent of all farms in the nation. And yet, the definition of “small-scale” is problematic because it also includes hobby farms and other non-commercial operations that can have a diluting effect that prevents some farmers from receiving funds that might be targeted to their specific needs.

“A lot of new and beginning farmers are of a different mindset. We’re thinking more sustainably and regeneratively, thinking outside the monoculture box—about pasture, carbon sequestering, and perennial farming.”

In addition to trouble accessing loans, young, beginning, and historically marginalized farmers face a number of hurdles, the most pressing being a lack of access to secure land, according to NYFC, whose staff interviewed thousands of young, beginning, and BIPOC farmers from across the nation for its latest survey. Without access to land, many of those farmers rely on rented land or work within the confines of urban and suburban spaces.

Prusia has faced this challenge herself. “Having access to affordable land is huge,” she said. “Land prices have gone up substantially in the last 10 years, and there’s a lot of development pressure. Instead of land being used for farming, it is being used to build subdivisions and create urban sprawl.”

Additionally, first-generation farmers often face steep learning curves, and even second-generation farmers face challenges in the early stages of their careers.

With more than 40 percent of American farmland projected to change ownership by 2035, the next farm bill will determine who has access to farmland and technical support—and, therefore how resilient, just, and inclusive the farming landscape is.

The stopgap funding bill signed in November includes a one-year extension on the 2018 Farm Bill, which expired on September 30. As lawmakers deliberate over the bill next year, they will be deciding the shape of land stewardship and agriculture for the next generation—and they have the potential to fundamentally shape the composition of our food system.

“A lot of new and beginning farmers are of a different mindset,” Prusia said. “We’re thinking more sustainably and regeneratively, thinking outside the monoculture box—about pasture, carbon sequestering, and perennial farming. We have to do those things, or we don’t have much time on the earth.”

We’ve made a list of the legislative priorities for agriculture groups supporting young and beginning farmers, including NYFC, according to Climate Campaign Director Lotanna Obodozie.

Farmer-to-Farmer Education Act

Many beginning BIPOC farmers are skeptical of receiving direct training from the USDA due to decades of loan denial, documented discrimination, and a lack of outreach efforts. They would rather talk to farmers and ranchers in their own communities. However, this can place an unfair burden on more experienced farmers, who have their own operations to prioritize.

The bipartisan Farmer-to-Farmer Education Act proposes to compensate farmers who provide technical assistance and mentor to young, beginning, and BIPOC farmers in their communities.

Andrew Bahrenburg, former deputy director of American Farmland Trust (AFT), works with agricultural communities across the United States who stand to benefit from this type of program and believes in the practicality of farmer-to-farmer learning. AFT’s New England team conducted a survey of farmers participating in peer-to-peer training on subjects like reducing tillage and soil health and found that education had the potential to help more farmers adopt regenerative practices.

“The best soil health tests you can get out in the field are from farmers who have . . . experimented with implementing new practices,” Bahrenburg said.

According to the survey, more than half of farmers receive technical assistance from people with whom they have existing relationships. Just one in five farmers prefer technical support from the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—the USDA’s soil health training and support program—over more localized sources.

Increasing financial support for farmer-mentors is important in the Midwest, says Rufus Haucke, an organic produce farmer in Wisconsin and the co-founder of Driftless Curiosity, a land-based learning nonprofit. He says he has also discovered opportunities for funding and technical assistance by joining farmer support groups such as the REAP Food Group.

“That’s how I found out about many of the grants that we ’ve applied for in the last couple of years,” Haucke said.

Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities Act (LASO) 

Taking on too much debt as a beginning farmer can be counterproductive. Introduced in the American Rescue Plan in 2021, the Increasing Land Access, Capital, and Market Access Program is a USDA program designed to help bridge the gap. Last year, the program awarded $300 million in grants to “underserved” farmers involved in more than 50 projects across the United States.

The Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities (LASO) Act would build on the work of the existing program by authorizing an additional $100 million for it every year.

One current grant recipient, the Black Belt Land Access Program, led by the Center for Heirs Property Preservation out of South Carolina, plans to use its money to build on its existing goals to strengthen the property rights of underserved farmers in Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. And the African Alliance of Rhode Island, another recipient, will use its funding to establish the For Us, By Us initiative to support farmers of color in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts through training, mentorship, and financial advisement.

While some grantees, such as the Community Development Organization of Oregon and 2020 Farmers Cooperative are using these funds to directly purchase land they already operate on, many are building the infrastructure to build self-sufficiency beyond the confines of this particular USDA program.

In 2021, the American Rescue Plan, which was then updated by the Inflation Reduction Act, allocated over half a billion to the creation of this program. It also formed an independent equity commission to assess USDA programs more generally. The commission’s first report, released earlier this year, revealed that the USDA has much more work to do in ensuring land access and addressing “longstanding debt that is making it hard for farmers to keep farming.”

TemuAsyr Martin Bey, a land advocacy fellow with the NYFC, former executive director of the Compton Community Garden, and communications coordinator for the California Farmer Justice Collaborative, believes that land access, retention, and the transition of agricultural land are critical.

He’s hopeful that language from the LASO Act will make it into the final version of the farm bill because it would extend the valuable work of the existing program. The bill would also fund support for farmers in economically disadvantaged areas across the nation and encourage collaboration with tribal and state governments, nonprofits, and community organizations that can meet the needs of underserved farmers and communities—in both rural and urban contexts.

“We need something that can really facilitate the whole process,” said Martin Bey. “This is our number one priority because we have a program that really makes sense and really addresses the needs of farmers.”

The lead co-sponsors of the bill span both parties and wings of Congress, including Representatives Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois), Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut), Abigail Spanberger (D-Virginia), and Senator Tina Smith (D-Minnesota).

Small Farm Conservation Act

Proposed by Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), the Small Farm Conservation Act would establish a program for small-scale producers seeking EQIP funding and technical assistance to improve soil management and other practices that protect water quality. The Act would hire and train NRCS staff to be more attuned to the challenges that small-scale farmers face, as well as expedite the application process to improve success rates.

Beginning and young farmers often must choose between using conservation practices and getting their farms off the ground, NYFC points out.

LaDonna Green is a Milwaukee-based community gardener and founder of an agricultural education organization called Growing Green Gardens LLC. She rents plots in several community gardens and Alice’s Garden Urban Farm in her city and offers training for aspiring land stewards. She says farmers like her would benefit greatly from an expedited process when applying for conservation funds.

“I felt overwhelmed,” says Green when talking about the paperwork she had to fill out to begin the application process for conservation funds during planting season. “This form that I printed was about 40 or 50 sheets of paper,” she recalls.

“The USDA is treating small urban farmers who may be growing on a 20-by-20-foot garden plot the same as someone who’s going on 150 acres,” Green added.

Office of Small Farms Establishment Act

Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) introduced the Office of Small Farms Establishment Act to address the concerns of farmers like Green. The act would create an Office of Small Farms within the USDA to provide targeted support for small-scale farmers and producers in the next farm bill.

“The time is now. Now it’s up to us to actually push the policy to hold institutions accountable.”

Booker is proposing that this office be embedded within the Farm Production and Conservation Service Business Center because it coordinates staff from the most farmer-facing agencies across the USDA—the FSA, which administers and distributes funds for most of the USDA loan programs, the NRCS, which provides funding for technical assistance, and the Risk Management Agency, which provides crop insurance among other related services.

While other departments also directly support farmers, these agencies collectively also have the most county offices across the nation. “These agencies have to be more responsive to farmers,” Bahrenburg said.

Although it will likely be months before the next farm bill is complete, new farmer advocates continue to call for more support for new farmers so Congress can meet the moment to build out a more resilient and equitable food system.

“The time is now,” Martin Bey said, pointing out that the result of the farm bill, like most omnibus legislation, is not going to be perfect. However, he added, there are many legislative opportunities that would support beginning farmers of all backgrounds from across the nation. “Now, it’s up to us to actually push the policy to hold institutions accountable,” he said.

This article was updated to correct the name of the senator from Minnesota.

The post Op-ed: Beginning Farmers Are at a Crossroads. Here’s How the Next Farm Bill Can Help. appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2023/12/14/op-ed-beginning-farmers-are-at-a-crossroads-heres-how-the-next-farm-bill-can-help/feed/ 1