LINCOLN, Neb. – Agriculture is the fourth largest producer of climate pollution, and farmers and ranchers from across the U.S. have launched a campaign urging Congress to pass the Green New Deal, which supports regenerative family farm and ranching practices over industrial scale agribusiness.
Graham Christensen, who runs an independent farm in northeastern Nebraska, says farmers across the political spectrum are seeing the proposal as an opportunity to level the playing field.
"Farmers have a chance to be able to lead in reduction of greenhouse gases, as well as clean up the water, and at the same time develop a more nutritional food system that probably benefits their bottom line as well," he states.
Christensen says 85% of the nation's $25 billion farm subsidies go to the biggest 15% of businesses, which rely on factory farming, synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides and other practices linked to increased air and water pollution.
Christensen says supporting cleaner practices will produce healthier food and enrich soil by capturing more carbon.
Critics of the Green New Deal say it's too expensive and argue that a better way to address climate change would be to encourage innovation in the private sector.
Katherine Paul, communications director for the group Regeneration International, says the Green New Deal is an opportunity to reinvest money already being spent in innovative private family scale farms.
But she admits change won't come easily, noting that agribusiness currently spends more than the defense industry lobbying Congress.
"And what they want is rarely good for small, independent farmers and ranchers who are interested in farming in a way that benefits everyone," she stresses.
So far, more than 10,000 farmers and ranchers have joined the campaign.
The coalition's next steps include creating alliances with conservation and business groups, and inviting lawmakers to come out and see the benefits of clean land use, along with the economic challenges facing a growing number of the nation's family farms.
get more stories like this via email
From North Dakota to Texas, the beef raised on farms goes through a production process controlled by four major companies and independent ranchers hope a proposed federal rule gives them more power to act if they feel they have been ripped off.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the plan it unveiled last week would provide clarity regarding unfair market practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
Aaron Shier, government relations director for the National Farmers Union, said in the past, some courts have said there needs to be proof the broader market is harmed. He noted the update addresses the problem within the long-standing law.
"It has many producer protection elements," Shier explained. "Over the long history of this law, that has gotten confused and muddled. And so, this proposed rule is meant to set the record straight on that issue."
Supporters said not only does it help prevent smaller farmers from going out of business but potentially gives consumers a fair shake on the prices they pay for meat and poultry. Industry groups like the Meat Institute are criticizing the move, saying it would set meat production back decades by encouraging litigation while actually hurting consumers.
The Institute also questioned such efforts when cattle prices are at record levels. Shier suggested there are specific examples of questionable tactics beyond current market dynamics.
"Failure to pay," Shier emphasized. "If a meatpacker, someone in the market fails to pay a producer, that is something USDA has consistently taken action on."
With more clarity under the law, policy analysts said there might be more consistency regarding court decisions when individual farmers push back against an industry giant. Shier pointed out the ultimate goal is to avoid lawsuits with this action and similar steps recently taken by the USDA setting a tone to foster market competition. A public comment period is the next step ahead of the rule becoming final.
get more stories like this via email
Family farm advocates are calling for cuts in federal subsidies to large animal feeding operations - technically known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - in the Farm Bill being debated in Congress.
Iowa family farmers want more support for conservation programs that benefit smaller agriculture operations.
Right now, CAFOs can qualify for as much as $100 million every year to reduce some of the environmental damage they can cause.
That's taxpayer money that Barb Kalbach - a fourth-generation family farmer in Adair County, Iowa - said could be put to much better use by small family farmers on their land.
"Things like filter strips along streams and rivers," said Kalbach, "which helps with erosion, and it also helps with nitrates and other pollutants entering the water."
CAFO operators contend they use the federal money to defend against environmental damage and that they're always looking for cleaner, safer ways to raise high-quality meats while responding to increased consumer demand.
As a board member for the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, Kalbach said she is calling for more support of conservation programs that would help family farmers. But she said she is just as adamant that the long-standing rules governing CAFOs are changed.
"Industrial-scale factory farms, even though they are industrial scale, they do not have to go by industrial standards," said Kalbach. "They go by ag standards. And that's why we have the problem with pollution that we have. That should be addressed in the Farm Bill."
The Farm Bill saw its first action in the House Agriculture Committee May 23.
The House version of the measure also proposes $30 billion in cuts to SNAP benefits over the next decade, including $170 million in Iowa.
Disclosure: Campaign for Family Farms & the Environment contributes to our fund for reporting on Environment, Rural/Farming, Social Justice, Sustainable Agriculture. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
For 15 years, U.S. restaurant chains have pledged to stop using gestation crates for pregnant pigs but a new report from an animal welfare group showed many are still dragging their feet.
Devon Dear, institutional outreach manager for the group Animal Equality, said too many restaurants still source their pork from suppliers who lock pregnant pigs in cages so small they cannot turn around. Eleven states, not including New Mexico, have already made the practice illegal, for good reason, Dear emphasized.
"Pigs are under lots of stress in crates," Dear explained. "More stress means more antibiotics; more and more antibiotics means higher chances of antibiotic resistance, and stressed animals are less healthy."
Hog production is not a major contributor to New Mexico's ag statistics, but the state does have its fair share of fast food restaurants. Dear pointed out some big chains have moved away from crates including McDonald's, Wendy's and Chipotle. The report lists Denny's, Chick-fil-A, Dunkin and KFC among 13 companies it contends have not been aggressive enough in reducing their use of crates.
The report comes as Congress is debating an update to the Farm Bill. As proposed, Animal Equality's analysis shows it would have negative effects for animals across the board. She hopes the report will put the inhumane treatment of pregnant pigs in the spotlight.
"One thing we do want to emphasize is that these corporate commitments predate any version of this Farm Bill," Dear noted. "Many are back from 2009, 2012, so irrespective of what happens with the Farm Bill, consumers expect companies to do better for animals."
U.S. pork production is highest in Iowa, while New Mexico is better known for crops such as chili peppers, corn, pecans and onions.
get more stories like this via email