A New York bill would change food procurement laws for municipal institutions.

The Good Food New York Act would allow municipal institutions to use value-based standards when awarding food contracts. Typically, food-purchasing contracts are given to the lowest bidder. The measure would permit contracts to be awarded based on a company's handling of workers' rights, climate resiliency and other issues.

Ryan Healy, advocacy manager for the nonprofit Feeding New York State, said the bill opens up opportunities for local growers and farmers.

"What this bill would do in the short term, however, is enable municipalities -- some across the state have really significant purchasing power -- to better support our own farmers and producers here in New York state," Healy explained.

New York City purchases more than $300 million in food each year. Under the bill, the city would have more options to evaluate who's awarded contracts beyond being the lowest bidder. While the bill passed with bipartisan support, some conservative farmers and farming groups opposed it based on politics more than its central elements. The bill awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul's signature.

Another element of the bill is a transparency measure, in which all bidders must include certain supply-chain information about distributors, and others involved with producing the bidder's supplies.

Ribka Getachew, campaign director of the New York Good Food purchasing program for Community Food Advocates, said although New York-based growers and farmers are excited about the opportunities the bill creates, implementing it will take a lot of effort.

"This is going to require a paradigm shift and is going to require a lot of support on the part of many within the food system," Getachew pointed out. "To ensure the supply chain at large is actually ready to meet the demand that will hopefully be coming from municipalities."

A federal good food bill has been introduced in the Senate. It calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to procure food for child, senior and community nutrition programs nationwide using a value-based approach. The federal bill also prioritizes food purchases from independent operations rather than large corporate farms.


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