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

The last Farm Bill allocated $75 million to reduce feral hog populations around the country but this year, funding has expired, which could be a setback for Missouri farmers.

The Feral Swine Eradication Program focused on eliminating wild hogs in five states and reducing populations in six others. In Missouri, more than 12,000 feral hogs were removed in 2020 and nearly 5,000 last year, a more than 60% reduction.

Kevin Crider, outreach educator for the University of Missouri Extension, who specializes in feral hog issues, said the animals wreak havoc in farm fields.

"When they run out of food sources, or when they're just out looking for food in general, they tend to like to root up fields," Crider explained. "Especially hay fields or crop cover, or crops there on the landscape. Row crops are another big issue that we've had with them, where they go in the corn fields and such and root up the corn fields, soybean fields."

Feral hogs also carry diseases including a bacterial infection, which can be transmitted to humans and livestock. Lawmakers emphasized the future of the eradication program depends on passing new laws and getting money included in future Farm Bills.

Farmers said reducing feral hog populations has also helped restore ecosystems, improve wildlife habitats and lower the risks of vehicle collisions. Crider emphasized how the program has benefited them.

"Obviously, we are tied to the Farm Bill funding for this program," Crider acknowledged. "That would definitely affect our operation. We'll have to wait and see what the final numbers are, on what happens with that funding."

He added Missouri has a $93 billion agricultural industry. Feral hogs first got a foothold in the Show-Me State in the 1990s, when wild game hunting gained popularity.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for small communities in Iowa are calling on state lawmakers not to pass the so-called "Cancer Gag Act," which they said would give pesticide companies immunity from lawsuits by Iowans harmed by their products.

Iowa lawmakers considered Senate File 2412 last year but ran out of time to act on it.

Caitlin Golle, Community Organizer for the advocacy group Iowa Citizens for Community Action, said lawmakers are already poised to take up a similar measure in the new session. She and the Iowa Cancer Registry think it is the wrong thing to do in a state already seeing high cancer rates.

"In 2023, the Iowa Cancer Registry reported that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the country," Golle pointed out. "The National Cancer Institute reported Iowa is the only state where the rate of new cancers increased significantly from 2015 to 2019."

Pesticides often waft into the air and seep into groundwater. Golle worries giving pesticide manufacturers immunity from lawsuits will add to the problems in rural Iowa, where large animal confinement operations are already polluting ground and surface water with manure runoff. Ag companies said they apply pesticides safely and are always looking for better ways to produce meat while keeping up with consumer demand.

Golle and other grassroots advocates want to see Iowa join a growing list of states refusing to give pesticide makers like Bayer immunity from lawsuits brought by Iowans, who said they have suffered health effects from chemicals like glyphosate.

"Chemicals like glyphosate, or 'Roundup,' are known to cause cancer," Golle noted. "A study published by Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society finds that pesticides may cause cancer on a level equivalent to smoking cigarettes."

The pesticide company Bayer has four registered lobbyists in Iowa compared to other large companies with just one, if any.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement held a webinar late last week to mobilize people on the issue before the bill is introduced.

In North Dakota, 2025 could be another year when the state puts out the welcome mat for the livestock industry.

Following task force recommendations, the Legislature will consider updating how much local governments can restrict feedlot operations. The panel was specifically looking at distances allowed between larger livestock sites and homes, businesses and schools.

Doug Goehring, North Dakota's agriculture commissioner, took part in the discussions and argued while the rules would be more relaxed, they are still tougher than those in other states. He said exemptions could be carved out -- moving feedlots back a bit -- by the use of an "odor modeling tool"

"It looks at prevailing winds and information that's collected from different data points, weather stations," Goehring explained. "Counties can actually look at it and determine if the setbacks that are in place are sufficient, or they could actually grant a variance."

Feedlots with large animal herds, sometimes known as concentrated animal feeding operations, are under scrutiny from environmentalists over the effects on air and water quality. State leaders say North Dakota lags behind neighboring states in animal agriculture but some projects have faced local backlash. A Senate bill, based on panel recommendations, calls for reducing the maximum setback distance by a quarter mile in most cases.

Supporters of expanding livestock output said it brings more jobs to smaller towns.

Aaron Birst, executive director of the North Dakota Association of Counties, who sat in on the task force, said it recognized the need but cautioned it cannot outweigh how a local community values quality-of-life metrics and whether they would be harmed by an industry.

"It's not even just concentrated feeding-lot operations. It's any economic development, whether it's oil activity or putting in a large Amazon station," Birst outlined. "Those all, if they want to be successful, have to have local government buy-in."

While Birst acknowledged a healthy balance is desirable, his group has yet to take a stance on the proposed changes. There were similar debates in 2023 when the Legislature narrowed the scope of corporate farm regulations. More broadly, researchers at the University of Missouri found despite what backers of large livestock operations say, their economic strengths do not stretch as far as advertised.


get more stories like this via email