Legislation aimed at stopping U.S. adversaries from owning farmland in Indiana will be argued before the full state Senate today.

Rep. Kendell Culp, R-Rensselaer, authored House Bill 1183. If approved, it would bar citizens and companies from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela from buying or leasing agricultural land in the state, any property located within 10 miles of military armories or within 50 miles of military bases.

"If we lose even a fraction of our food production this quickly would become a national security issue," Culp asserted. "Chinese interests, for example, own about 400,000 acres in the U.S. In Indiana, 2.2% of Indiana's farmland is owned by foreign entities."

Culp noted Indiana's Attorney General would be tasked with enforcing the law. Opponents argued the bill goes too far and punishes Hoosiers who fled one of the six targeted countries to legally become U.S. citizens.

Chris Daley, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, asked state lawmakers to step back and ask whether the proposed legislation represents Hoosier values.

"You are telling them they are no longer welcome here except for as employees of someone else," Daley contended. "The attorney general's representative was very helpful and making very clear this isn't just about ownership; it's about leasing. This bill is far too broad for the goal that you have stated."

However, proponents of the bill say the issue goes beyond food security.

Brian Cavenaugh, senior vice president of the national security consulting firm American Global Strategies, warned the Senate Ag Committee our adversaries are strategic and do their homework.

"The one that keeps me up at night is the People's Republic of China," Cavenaugh explained. "Many national security experts, including myself, believe that China represents the greatest threat to our national security in this generation. What they're doing is prepositioning stuff in a way to cripple our economy, cripple the society."


get more stories like this via email

Rural communities across Massachusetts are benefiting from state grants aimed at strengthening the local food supply and building climate resilience.

State officials have awarded nearly $4 million to help farmers improve soil health, upgrade irrigation systems and prepare for extreme weather events, including the current critical drought conditions.

Ashley Randle, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, said farms are helping the state meet its ambitious climate goals.

"They're a mitigation and resilience strategy so that farms can be best positioned to withstand the changing weather conditions that they are facing," Randle explained.

Randle pointed out grants will help farms improve efficiency and environmental controls and reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

From cranberries to oysters, the majority of farms in Massachusetts are smaller, family-owned operations. Randle noted grants will help farmers purchase high tunnels and other equipment needed to extend their production season. She emphasized it helps secure jobs and provides income to local economies during the winter months.

"All of these grants are really helping to ensure that we have a stable food supply," Randle stressed. "And to continue to grow and adapt should there be climate change impacts like we saw last year that devastated the sector."

Last year, a deep freeze in February spoiled the peach crop while a late frost in May damaged most tree fruits. Significant flooding last summer severely damaged 13,000 acres, resulting in more than $65 million in losses. Randle added farms often face unpredictable factors but grant programs can help them adapt and thrive in the face of uncertainty.


get more stories like this via email

A Missouri-based farm group is fighting to keep the proposed "FARM Act" from becoming law, warning it would benefit large corporate farms at the expense of smaller ones.

The Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan advocacy group, contended the proposed legislation in Congress, which is an extension of the five-year Farm Bill, would funnel more money to big corporate farms, giving them an unfair advantage and making it harder for small and mid-sized farms to survive.

Joe Maxwell, president of the Farm Action Fund, believes the legislation is making history but not in a good way.

"As far as I know, and I've been doing this for about 40 years, it's the first time there's been policy that would discriminate among the commodity crop growers in the United States, saying that the largest ones get more money," Maxwell explained. "Oftentimes, they're the ones that need the least money."

The National Farm Coalition reported 20% of farms control nearly 70% of U.S. farmland, which it said shows significant consolidation. If passed, The FARM Act would allocate around $21 billion in aid.

Nearly 90% of Missouri farms are smaller, family-owned operations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, small farms are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. They make up 88% of all farms, controlling nearly half of the nation's farmland. Maxwell pointed out his organization is urging them to take a stand on the FARM Act, because the competition is formidable.

"I think it's the power of the dollar expressing itself in the halls of our United States Capitol," Maxwell contended. "The largest farmers have brought in the lobbyists and the trade organizations, to give them an upper hand."

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., are cosponsors of the FARM Act.


get more stories like this via email

As President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in next month, the farming community wonders if he'll follow through on tariff threats. One expert says for top soybean states such as North Dakota, farmers aren't in a great position to withstand any fallout.

The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture farm income forecast paints a gloomy picture, with declines in commodity prices dragging things down. And the incoming administration appears poised to enact more tariffs - as it did during Trump's first term.

Ben Palen, who runs the consulting firm Ag Management Partners, said this time around, there's increased political instability on the global front and greater export competition.

"I just don't think that you can have a coherent and consistent policy for agriculture if you go from one crisis to another," he said.

Trump regained strong support from agricultural counties in this election, but Palen said his fellow producers need to be prepared for what happens now that the votes have been counted. In Trump's first term, emergency aid was sent to farmers affected by the initial trade war. But Palen noted there's a strong push for the new administration to pursue budget cuts, so financial relief could be harder to come by.

Even though many farmers still back Trump, Palen said he feels this sector doesn't want to get swept up in trade rhetoric and have to be bailed out.

"I think farmers are very good at production," he said. "It's just part of our DNA; we want to produce, produce, produce."

He argued that it's up to policymakers to find new markets for farmers to sell their crops, as opposed to simply focusing on trade disputes.

Other voices, such as the Texas agriculture commissioner, have welcomed the idea of new tariffs, saying the U.S. needs to hold firm against countries such as China.

In the first trade war, U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion.


get more stories like this via email