The Biden-Harris administration has announced 103 grant awards to Nevada farmers, ranchers and forest landowners through the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said it is all about doing what is right, as over the years, Black and other minority ranchers and farmers have experienced discrimination in farm loan programs, which in turn has limited their access to federal resources and support. Advocates now are hoping for more transparency about the selection criteria for the payouts.

Sharon Mallory, executive director of the 2020 Farmers Cooperative, said the payments are a step in the right direction but the program could be improved.

"I'm not personally dazzled about numbers or dollar amounts," Mallory noted. "Unless I can connect that to the people that are being most impacted, which is our Black and small-scale farmers."

Earlier this year, the University of Nevada, Reno announced a partnership with the USDA to work on initiatives to "strengthen" the food supply system in the Southwest. But Mallory emphasized the USDA should disclose more information about how the grant recipients were chosen, including who reviewed them and the racial demographics and farm sizes of the payouts. The awards range from a few thousand dollars to $500,000, with the average about $82,000.

The money comes from the Inflation Reduction Act and the majority of recipients are from the deep South. Mallory pointed out agriculture has been consolidating in recent decades and smaller minority farmers have often been forced out of business. She is pushing for the USDA's program to improve, in part because of the history of discrimination.

"You can be like an ostrich and put your head in a hole, you can put your blindfolds on, you can turn your head the other way," Mallory observed. "But the fact of the matter is, it did happen. It's documented. It's not a secret, so let's address it."

One study found Black American farmers lost more than $300 billion worth of land in the 20th century, due in part to the USDA's discriminatory practices.


get more stories like this via email

A new report looking at agribusiness consolidation found decades of mergers have reduced competition, leading to higher costs for farmers and consumers in Maryland and nationwide.

The report, titled "Kings Over the Necessaries of Life," showed a smaller number of large companies are using their market power to dominate nearly all sectors of the food system from inputs such as seeds and pesticides all the way to grocers.

Basel Musharbash, principal attorney for the Antimonopoly Counsel and the report's author, said the nonenforcement of the nation's antimonopoly laws since the 1980s has taken a toll.

"We found that either a single firm or a small, tightly coordinated group of firms have amassed monopoly power," Musharbash explained. "The power to control prices or exclude competitors from a given market, in nearly every major industry that manufactures and sells farm inputs, that buys or processes farm crops, or that distributes food to the public."

Among other abuses, the report found companies have engineered shortages to keep prices high, as in the egg and fertilizer sectors. Despite rising prices for beef, consolidation has reduced the share of the consumer's dollar going to cattle farmers, which fell from 70% in the 1970s to 30% today.

The fertilizer sector has been gradually consolidated over decades, and the report showed three large firms are now in control. With one dominating the market for each of the three primary components of fertilizer: nitrogen, phosphate and potassium. The so-called Big Three are able to control prices in their respective markets but are also keeping competition out by controlling access to both the raw materials supply and the specialized distributors that sell fertilizer around the country.

The report found since the 1990s, the Big Three have raised fertilizer prices, cut output and reduced the quality and selection of fertilizer available in the U.S. Fertilizer prices increased 60% in 2021 and 132% the next year. Companies attributed the increases to supply-chain problems, but Musharbash found their own financial reports proved otherwise. He argued it amounts to extraction from farmers and ultimately, consumers.

"Because of their power, they've been able to reap Apple-style profits on products that haven't been improved materially since the 1960s," Musharbash asserted. "It's that sort of extraction that has been facilitated by the monopolization that we've seen across the agriculture sector."

The report includes an Agriculture Consolidation Data Hub where different sectors are outlined. Consolidation and its effects are tracked in agricultural finance, crop insurance, farm machinery, the grain and oilseed sector, along with fruits, vegetables, livestock, poultry, seed and fertilizer. The seed industry is now dominated by four large firms and has seen prices rise faster over the past 20 years than any other farm input.

Musharbash argued the nation needs to continue to expand recent efforts to enforce antitrust laws.

"It doesn't have to be this way," Musharbash contended. "These firms are smart and powerful. They've executed strategies over decades, the U.S. government allowed it because we made policy decisions not to enforce the antitrust laws to the fullest extent. We can take action to fix that."

He added after a period of neglect, the agriculture sector was also highly concentrated by the 1930s. But the report outlined how over a decade the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission brought thousands of cases against cartel actors in the agricultural economy, eventually restoring competitive markets.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for a fair, sustainable, and healthy food system have released a report showing that nearly all of the corn seed in Iowa is controlled by just four companies.

Economists say concentrations that large can lead to market manipulation.

Farm Action's report shows nearly 90% of the corn seed in Iowa is controlled by Corteva and Bayer. AgReliant and Syngenta control the rest.

Farm Action President Angela Huffman said that kind of control and concentration is happening all the way from seeds to the consumer's plate, and she warns it makes market conditions ripe for abuse.

"This is the scenario in almost every sector of the food supply chain," said Huffman. "Seeds, fertilizer, farm equipment - beef, pork, and poultry processing - and retail groceries. Every one of those sectors I just named has upwards of 60%, to even 85%, of those markets controlled by four corporations."

The same type of consolidation is happening in ag operations where livestock are raised in large confinements - and manure runoff is known to damage the air, ground, and surface water in rural Iowa.

Operators have said they're always looking for more efficient and environmentally friendly ways to raise livestock.

Huffman argued that monopolies like this can lead to collusion, price fixing, and other types of market manipulation.

She and other advocates have called on lawmakers in Congress to address the issue in the pending Farm Bill.

"We're calling on the government to reclaim its role as an enforcer of our antitrust laws, and break up these dominant corporations," said Huffman, "in order to free our economy to start working for the people who are producing, processing and distributing our food."

The current Farm Bill, which was supposed to expire in September of last year, has been extended - but debate still hasn't started on a new version.




get more stories like this via email

A federal bill could spell trouble for New York farmers.

The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act would remove local and state governments' power to enact policies affecting farms. Studies show it could spell the end for more than 1,000 public health, safety and welfare laws.

Michael Chameides, a member of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors, said farmers do not want such vital farm laws terminated.

"There's a real urgency to pass a robust Farm Bill that really does support rural communities and support farmers and support people all around the country to get healthy, safe and affordable food," Chameides contended. "There's lots of reasons for Congress to take action to support farmers and the EATS Act is not it."

The measure began as a way to counter the animal welfare laws enacted through California's Proposition 12. The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court about Proposition 12. After the court rejected it, several Republican governors sent a letter to Congressional lawmakers urging the reintroduction of the act.

Recently, the Columbia County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution opposing the EATS Act.

Some lawmakers want to put elements of the act into the Farm Bill. But Chameides noted what farmers really need is access to land, loans and support from the federal government through the Farm Bill. He argued the bill's effects on New York would mean repealing laws ranging from controlling invasive species to animal welfare.

"Rolling those laws back you might see the spread of either diseases or invasive species which are going to have both public health impacts," Chameides pointed out. "But also that it could impact the viability of certain kinds of farming."

Chameides noted regional response laws are important because of the rapid and often unpredictable nature of certain invasive species and the spread of disease. He added passing the act could upend states' rights.