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.

Conservation groups are celebrating the end of a Massachusetts-based biotech company's pursuit of bringing genetically altered Atlantic salmon to market.

AquaBounty was the first company to get regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration to sell a genetically modified animal for human consumption in 2015, but it faced continuous legal challenges and consumer pushback.

Dana Perls, food and technology senior program manager with Friends of the Earth, said people just don't want to eat it.

"Grocery stores are refusing to sell it," said Perls. "Big restaurants are refusing to sell it. So, it's a market response."

Perls said the altered salmon put wild salmon - along with the fishing and Indigenous communities that rely on it - at risk.

In a statement, AquaBounty says it failed to raise enough capital to maintain its operations.

AquaBounty's AquaAdvantage brand salmon contained added genes from both Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout to make it grow faster.

But polls show most Americans believe genetically engineering animals for protein production isn't an appropriate use of biotechnology.

Perls said consumers are increasingly rejecting industrial food production, and demanding their food be clearly and accurately labeled.

"People want to be able to choose what it is they're eating and what they're feeding their families," said Perls, "and we need to ensure that the food we raise is truly healthy, truly sustainable, and fully regulated for safety."

Perls said the demise of AquaBounty salmon will set a precedent for other companies investing in genetically altered animals.

At least 35 fish species are currently being modified around the world, including trout, catfish, and striped bass. The FDA has also approved genetically altered pigs and cows for food and medical use.





get more stories like this via email

Farmers in North Dakota and the rest of the country are monitoring an evolving legal case against a giant equipment manufacturer and they said repair restrictions are not the only service headaches farmers encounter.

The Federal Trade Commission last week sued John Deere, accusing the company of an unfairly dominant market share. It said farmers have to rely on Deere's network of authorized dealers for necessary repairs, driving up costs and creating scheduling delays.

Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said he hopes the case brings out the facts in securing a resolution. He added the need for flexibility covers other ground, too.

"Items such as technology fees, and items such as, 'Well, you can only use this chemical with this seed, and it's got to be this brand,'" Watne outline. "Those things start to play out that we think are concerning."

He pointed out another area is transportation, where farmers might encounter vastly different price structures in getting their commodities shipped out, depending on the railway competition in various parts of the country. John Deere called the lawsuit "meritless," and said it plans to offer self-repair capabilities as farmers work with emerging technologies on tractors.

Watne acknowledged depending on the administration in the White House, they will see either aggressive or more lax approaches in confronting repair issues. He sees a long-standing pattern of laws being underutilized.

"There's really rules in place that have been there for 50 years or more that, through a number of administrations, haven't necessarily been enforced," Watne emphasized.

He admitted some of the progress seen in the Biden administration faces an uncertain future in the second term of President-elect Donald Trump, as some Trump appointees might prioritize certain fairness issues but could pass on other concerns voiced by smaller, independent farmers. Trump's selected appointee for FTC Chairman has been a vocal critic of the John Deere lawsuit.

The future looks promising for green energy and manufacturing in Appalachia, and states like West Virginia are slated to receive around $1 billion in federal investment since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, according to experts at ReImagine Appalachia's virtual strategy summit held earlier this week.

A Reimagine Appalachia report has found West Virginia and other Appalachian states are home to a higher-than-average share of manufacturing employment.

Jacob Hannah, CEO of Huntington-based nonprofit Coalfield Development, explained large manufacturing facilities are moving into the state, bringing new local jobs along with them.

"They're focused on localizing energy production at their sites," Hannah pointed out. "Because they consume a lot of energy and they're focused on workforce development because they need to hire a lot of folks and train a lot of folks."

Last year the Biden administration announced $475 million for projects in West Virginia and other states to boost clean energy development on current and former mine land. The funds will be used in Nicholas County to repurpose two former coal mines with utility-scale solar infrastructure, to power around 39,000 homes and create hundreds of construction jobs.

Solar development on degraded land and brownfields is expected to increase, along with use of residential solar. West Virginia's Office of Energy received $106 million last year from the Environmental Protection Agency's Solar for All
program to install solar panels on homes and reduce utility costs for low-income residents.

Mustafa Santiago Ali, executive vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said continued federal investment is needed to help Appalachian residents build in healthy and thriving communities.

"We need to ensure communities without clean air and water, especially those suffering disproportionate environmental burdens from years of disinvestment and legacy pollution, get the funding and support that they need," Santiago Ali urged.

Green industries manufacturing alternatives to plastic including biodegradable and mycelium-based products are also on the horizon as potential regional economic drivers.


get more stories like this via email