By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient Climate.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Keystone State News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

American consumers spend roughly $11.6 billion on candy each Halloween, but even at that rate, candy companies end up with a surplus. Those leftovers end up in some interesting places, including farms, where some farmers end up feeding candy to their animals. Chocolate and other treats that can’t be sold, or candy bits leftover from production, are being sold to some meat and dairy producers to add to their animal feed. While the practice has been going on for years, more recently, the agriculture and candy industries have been framing the practice as “sustainable” — a way to curb waste that would otherwise go to landfills. Major meat producer Cargill, for example, deems it “upcycling” and a “win-win” for the animals and the environment.

A deeper dive reveals that both meat and candy companies also benefit financially from feeding candy waste to farm animals. And some food waste experts say consumers should be questioning why there is so much of this waste to begin with.

Where the Practice Originated, and Whether It’s Healthy

Feeding candy to farm animals was initially motivated by rising corn prices during times of drought, making the practice a way for producers to reduce feed cost. Candy can apparently fill in for corn as a required sugar source. As one former cattle nutritionist turned dairy farmer, Laura Daniels, claims via social media, sugar is needed to feed bacteria in the stomach of cattle that breaks down the fiber in plant foods they consume.

However, at least one farmer doesn’t see the benefit. “Empty, nutritionally void, chemical laden sugars are being foisted on cattle and their rumens,” writes Minnesota farmer Lauren Kiesz,“all in the name of the conventional food system’s four horsemen: bigger, fatter, faster, cheaper.” Kiesz, who says she farms animals exclusively on pasture, notes, “a mouthful of grass and a mouthful of Mounds are extraordinarily different.”

The debate doesn’t end there. While some advocacy groups for pigs kept as pets urge owners not to feed candy to their animals, there are hog farmers who also add candy waste to their feed.

And it continues. “Candy of all forms is unhealthy for pigs,” says the North America Pet Pig Association. Yet, according to National Hog Farmer, “Waste chocolate can also be added up to 30 percent of finishing pig diets to support optimal growth performance without affecting carcass composition or pork quality.”

Feed is the greatest expense for most animal farmers, so cheap candy waste offers an economical solution. “When producers find a way to blend in other, cheaper ingredients into the standard cow meal, they frequently will,” reports The Counter. “As long as the stuff doesn’t hurt milk and meat output, they’re going to make more money.

Many consumers learned of the practice of feeding candy to cows in 2017, when a truckload of red Skittles spilled onto a highway in Dodge County, Wisconsin. The story went viral, making news across the country. Those particular candies were reportedly defective, lacking the signature “S” due to a power outage at the factory. Interestingly, while the truck was reportedly on its way to a nearby dairy farm, Mars (the owner of Skittles) later denied that it had sold the candy to be fed to cattle.

Questioning Candy Waste

The Hershey Company has been selling candy waste to Cargill since 2011; which the chocolate maker describes as an “innovative” “sustainability partnership.”

“Today we have an entire plant in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (U.S.), dedicated to this environmentally, economically, nutritionally friendly effort,” states Cargill on its site. “There, our team turns tens of thousands of pounds of Hershey’s chocolate waste per year into feed ingredients for cows, pigs and other species of livestock.”

As the farmer Kiesz notes, though, claiming that feeding castoff candy to cows is a net positive to the environment, is, “on closer inspection […] completely misleading.” She explains that with all steps considered, “middle-men, inputs, and expended resources” — including the added transport of the candy — “there is no way anyone can make the argument that our environmental system is better off.”

Dr. Kathryn Bender, assistant professor of economics at the University of Delaware, seems to agree. Bender says that while “it’s always great to see these innovative solutions,” meaning the diverting of candy waste to livestock, “the most ideal thing would be if we just didn’t have that waste in the first place.”

She says that programs such as the one employed by Hershey and Cargill should be there to aid companies in measuring and subsequently cutting their waste. “Oftentimes, there’s just a lot of food waste that’s not measured, and so programs like this can allow companies to start tracking what that waste is, and then we would hope that companies would say, ‘Okay, what can we do to decrease that waste?’”

But that doesn’t seem to be happening. According to news reports, candy companies have been selling their waste to animal farmers for over a decade, at least. It turns out that having such a fallback may be quelling the motivation of a company to cut their waste, says Bender. A similar example of these perverse incentives played out in a study she worked on regarding consumer food waste that showed waste increased when consumers believed it was being composted rather than going to a landfill.

Inside the U.S. Corn Surplus

While both Hersey and Cargill tout the benefits of the partnership, Dr. Tammara Soma, associate professor and research director of the Food Systems Lab at Simon Fraser University, says consumers should be questioning why so much candy is being produced to begin with. The reason, she tells Sentient, “is because we’ve commodified corn,” and we have so much high fructose corn syrup being produced as a result.

As Soma explains, because corn is “produced in such excess and is highly subsidized in the U.S., high fructose corn syrup —- which became a cheap sweetener in lieu of sugar cane or beet sugar — got put into everything.” She says this is what spurred the production of many corn syrup based items, “like all of the candies we see for Halloween.”

Corn (and, for the record, this is dent corn not the sweet corn you eat off the cob) is considered the most valuable commodity in American agriculture, with the U.S. being the largest producer and consumer of corn in the world. Though dent corn, also called field corn, is grown mostly for feed for livestock and for ethanol, it also plays a massive role in processed food. “Corn is in the sodas Americans drink and the potato chips they snack on,” writes Roberto A. Ferdman for the Washington Post. “It’s in hamburgers and french fries, sauces and salad dressings, baked goods, breakfast cereals, virtually all poultry, and even most fish.” It’s also in candy.

Tom Philpott, a researcher at John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, and former food and agriculture correspondent for Mother Jones and Grist, tells Sentient that the agri-food industry, “is just always looking for another profitable way to get rid of this overproduction of corn.” He adds that “someone’s going to find a use for that and a way to make a buck off of it. Selling high fructose corn syrup to the candy industry is just one way.” And because corn syrup is so cheap, he says there is little risk to candy companies to overproduce, especially when livestock farmers are there, ready to pay for it.

Hershey’s classic chocolate bar contains sugar — another product Soma explains is produced in surplus — but many of the brand’s other products, such as Twizzlers licorice, Almond Joys and York Peppermint Patties, contain corn syrup.

Soma says the commodification and surplus of corn and sugar results in waste, including “too many surplus candies, that are then fed to commodified animals.” Because animal farming has become so industrialized, she adds, “the large scale [of animals] can somewhat absorb the large scale of waste.” And on top of that, everyone gets paid.

Feeding candy to cows is not only done to curb waste and allow major corporations like Cargill to claim to be more sustainable. It also saves them money. Large companies like Hershey would otherwise likely have to pay private waste haulers, Soma explains, to either transport and dump the waste in landfills, or to be dealt with by anaerobic digesters that turn food waste into biogas. Instead, candy companies can charge meat and dairy producers to take the waste off their hands — producers who then save money thanks to the cheaper feed. They can also continue over-producing, rather than working to cut waste, while claiming to be sustainable.

Sentient reached out to Cargill for this story, but did not receive a reply.

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, Soma says that without the option of using commodified animals to absorb the surplus candy waste, “we would be able to question more why cows would ever need to eat highly processed candy derived foods,” as well as question why there is so much waste being produced to begin with, and be pushed to seek better solutions.

Overall, she says, “we need to critically question industrial agriculture and industrial commoditized food systems,” which she says are “very wasteful, very extractive, focused on profits alone at the expense of the environment, promotes monoculture and takes nature out of the equation.”


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The meat industry and its proponents worked hard in 2024 - not only to increase sales, but also to rebrand and remain relevant. While overwhelming climate science continues to point out the harmful impacts of animal agriculture, and plant-based competitors continue to challenge the status quo, meat promoters stepped up this year, crafting and perpetuating clever narratives to keep consumers hooked.

"Amidst a climate crisis driven in no small part by agriculture, there is a growing interest in healthy, sustainable food," Jennifer Molidor, senior food campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity, tells Sentient. "The industry has responded by flooding climate conferences with lobbyists promoting meat and dairy - in full force."

And that's not all. From promoting "beneficial" regenerative meat, to criticizing "ultra processed" plants, to promoting cow fat for skin care, to manipulating data, Big Meat sidestepped accountability to keep consumers coming back in 2024.

Disinformation Trend #1: Meat Is 'Natural'

One of the more popular PR messages regarding meat in 2024 was that animal products are healthier and more "natural" compared to "ultra processed" plant-based meat alternatives.

This messaging is not new. It's years in the making, with full-page ads in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal back in 2021, and a $5 million Super Bowl commercial in 2020. Backed by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), the ads vilified newly popular "fake meats" as full of "real chemicals," highlighting "scary" ingredients like methylcellulose - a generally harmless compound used in many foods.

CCF is led by former tobacco lobbyist Richard Berman, and is supported by "restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers," according to its website. Forbes once described it as a front group for meat, tobacco and alcohol companies.

The narrative of "natural" meat versus "processed" plants persisted into 2024. The marketing tactic conveniently ignores the fact that 99 percent of animals raised for food in the U.S. are factory farmed in inherently unnatural conditions, and undergo much processing to become meat, dairy and eggs.

But this natural meat fantasy didn't stop at food in 2024, spreading into lifestyle content, and feeding into a growing anti-technology, off-the-grid (though often still on YouTube), homesteading, carnivore and tradwife trend. Raw milk surged in popularity in 2024, as did eating raw meat, and using cow fat for skin care.

The FDA, CDC and New York State Department of Health put out statements this year warning of the health risks of consuming raw milk, and experts have taken to the media to warn of the risks associated with the carnivore diet, and with eating uncooked meat. Dermatology experts also told Sentient that the benefits of beef fat for the skin are minimal.

Though plant-based meat alternatives vary greatly when it comes to nutritional profiles, they are generally considered healthy. In fact, a 2024 review published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology found that risk factors for heart disease, such as LDL cholesterol and body weight, showed improvement when animal-based meats were substituted with plant-based meat alternatives.

Disinformation Trend #2: Meat Is 'Eco-Friendly'

Another pervasive meat message in 2024 was that beef - the highest-emitting meat - can somehow be good for the environment so long as raised on a farm that is regenerative, eco-friendly, carbon neutral or some other variation of such terms.

Regenerative agriculture, particularly holistic grazing, promises an alternative to our current food system that incorporates livestock in a way that can regenerate depleted soils. Such promises, however, fall short when it comes to actually curbing climate pollution.

Though regenerative agriculture aims to "bring back bovines," as described in the 2023 documentary Common Ground, this grouping of grass-fed cattle with wild ruminants like bison is not accurate - at least as far as the environment is concerned. "That's like comparing apples to oranges," Molidor told Sentient earlier this year. While there is some debate about this, bison tend to graze over further distances in ways that cause less damage to plants and waterways. Cattle, on the other hand, tend to stick close together and eat just one type of plant until it's gone.

The regenerative movement - which does offer some benefits for soil health - has also since been co-opted by the industrialized meat industry. A 2024 study by New Climate Institute found that 24 of the world's top 30 food and beverage producers, including Cargill, Danone and Fonterra, refer to regenerative agriculture in their sustainability communication.

That said, 2024 also saw a possible win in the fight against misleading claims about climate-friendly meat, with Tyson Food's Brazen Beef brand potentially no longer available for sale. After the U.S. Department of Agriculture rolled out a new "climate-friendly" beef label last year, Tyson soon rolled out its own version: Brazen Beef. Journalists and academics were quick to note serious issues with the claims on the product's label, particularly the claim (with no data in support) of a 10 percent reduction in emissions.

"In order to claim a 10 percent reduction, you need to establish scientifically a baseline that everyone agrees is the common amount that beef produces," New York University environmental scientist Matthew Hayek told Corporate Knights Magazine. "There doesn't seem to be any data that the company itself, or the government who it created that certification in conjunction with, is able to provide."

Tyson was subsequently sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for misleading consumers about its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The suit asked the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to ban Tyson from making "false or misleading marketing claims." It remains before the court.

At the time this story was published, the webpage for Brazen Meats was not functioning, and the product appeared unavailable for sale, raising questions about the future of the brand. Sentient contacted Tyson about the status of the Brazen line, but did not receive a response by email. We also called Tyson's consumer relations hotline, and were told by the representative, "I don't see anything active with that name." It also appears that a New Jersey meat packer that sold Brazen Beef no longer lists the product on its website.

Caroline Leary, chief operating officer and general counsel for EWG tells Sentient that despite the Brazen Meats webpage being down, the group "remains committed to holding Tyson accountable, by demanding transparency to ensure that consumers are not deceived by false promises of sustainability," which still exist elsewhere on its site.

Disinformation Trend #3: Meat Feeds the World

Inflation and food insecurity were also pressing issues in 2024. Meat, dairy and egg industries were there to capitalize, particularly at climate conferences held throughout the year.

At COP28 last spring for example, the Guardian reports that meat lobbyists "celebrated the cut-through of their message that industrial animal agriculture has an important role to play in addressing global hunger." It adds that U.S. Pork Board representative Jamie Burr also stated that COPs provide an opportunity for U.S. agriculture groups to show how they "feed the world."

At COP29 last month, the strategy was the same, according to a report by DeSmog. Documents produced by the industry-funded Global Meat Alliance, obtained by DeSmog, encouraged members "to stick to key comms messages, including the idea that meat is beneficial to the environment and will help to 'feed the world.'"

A spokesperson for the Global Alliance for the Future of Food told the Guardian in April that the idea that industrial agriculture is "critical to address hunger" is one of the greatest myths used by the industry to fend off criticism. Animal agriculture in fact contributes to world hunger, due to the inefficient use of arable land and resources to grow crops for animals, instead of people. Not only that, but the industry's framing around food insecurity ignores how many climate researchers limit "eat less meat" recommendations to global north populations like the U.S., who consume far more than the global average. Studies suggest that food insecurity could actually be addressed, in-part, by transitioning to a more plant-based food system. Reducing the massive amount of land needed to grow food to feed livestock could lead to more crops being fed directly to people. One study theorizes that if everyone in the U.S. went vegan, an additional 350 million people could be fed.

Disinformation Trend #4: Trustworthy Academic Research Supports Meat

The year 2024 also saw the meat sector lean even further into academia as a means to appear credible and sustainable.

As environmental scientist Jonathan Foley writes for Project Drawdown: "The livestock industry has spent enormous sums telling us fictitious stories of 'environmentally-friendly' beef," including, he notes, "documentaries, think tanks, university labs, and social media influencer campaigns touting so-called 'solutions' to beef's environmental footprint."

In 2023, the Guardian exposed The Master of Beef Advocacy, or "MBA" program, created by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, to help meat promoters influence and educate the public on the "sustainability" of beef. That same year, the National Pork Board funded a nearly $8.5 million program with researchers from a variety of U.S. universities, to research and improve the industry's reputation by boosting public "trust" in pork factory farms. And the year prior, The New York Times exposed how the UC Davis Clear Center did not disclose just how much industry funding it received to promote the environmental friendliness of meat and dairy, under the guise of public sector science.

In 2024, the meat industry took this method of information manipulation a step further, targeting another major competitor: cultivated meat. Once again backed by Richard Berman, another "think tank" was created, the ironically named Center for the Environment and Welfare, this time under the guise of helping "consumers, companies, and stakeholders navigate issues related to sustainability and animal welfare." In 2024, the group conducted "research" and published media op-eds to thwart the progress of cultivated meat.

The Bottom Line

In 2024, the meat industry's aggressive rebranding efforts, fueled by clever messaging and industry-backed research, sought to counteract competition from more sustainable plant-based alternatives.

As the inevitable impacts of climate change - along with other issues like bird flu - usher us into 2025, "it's going to be increasingly difficult," Molidor says, "for the meat and dairy lobby to rebrand their way out of these serious environmental and human harms."


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Greater Dakota News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

On a Wednesday summer evening on the Rosebud Reservation, members of the Siċaŋġu Nation arrange twelve tables to form a U around the parking lot of a South Dakota Boys & Girls Club. The tables at the Siċaŋġu Harvest Market are laden with homemade foods for sale — tortillas, cooked beans, pickles and fresh squeezed lemonade. The market is one of many ways the nonprofit increases access to traditional and healthful foods that also happen to come with a low climate impact. The Lakota, of which Siċaŋġu is one of seven nations, were traditionally hunters and gatherers, but today, the Siċaŋġu Co nonprofit is building on both new and old traditions to fulfill its mission.

The market is one component of the group’s food sovereignty work, which also includes cultivating mushrooms and caring for a bison herd. Siċaŋġu Co is also working on housing, education and programs that support physical and spiritual wellness. But food came first. “We started with food because it’s so universal. Not just as a need but as a grounding cultural and family force,” says Michael Prate, who spearheaded the program in its initial stages. “It’s where people come together to build relationships.”

The food inequities that Siċaŋġu Co is working to address can be traced back to the eradication of bison herds by white settlers during the 1800s. For many Lakota, bison are akin to family and play an integral part in both their physical and spiritual lives. Millions of bison used to roam these plains, but when colonizers pushed West, they slaughtered the animals en masse, both to make room for the cattle herds they brought with them and to disrupt the Lakota way of life and force them onto reservations.

Mushrooms For Health and Sustenance

At the market, Siċaŋġu Co member Frederick Fast Horse shows off the mushrooms that he has foraged and raised to passersby. According to an important story passed down in Lakota history, the Lakota were once cave dwellers, and mushrooms were key to their survival, Fast Horse tells Sentient. These critical fungi are more than just calories though, as Fast Horse believes mushrooms are part of what helped Lakota stay so healthy for centuries, until the effects of colonization, which shifted the Nation’s diet to a heavy reliance on dairy and processed meats. “Every single mushroom actually coincides and targets a specific organ inside of your body,” he tells me.

In addition to being a skilled mycologist and forager, Fast Horse is also the chef at the nonprofit’s school, where he is reintroducing culturally significant ingredients to the students. Fast Horse makes breakfast and lunch for around 70 students and staff each day. The typical fare is pretty simple, he says: dishes made of just a handful of ingredients, plus a broth and spices.

In collaboration with school leadership, Fast Horse is developing dietary guidelines that reflect more traditional foods and agricultural practices. This way of eating amounts to “living off of the land.” It means eating “all the foods that are already around us, everything that you grow and very simplistic methods of preparing food and eating it,” says Fast Horse.

The diet they’re launching at the school isn’t just culturally important, it’s also better for the students’ health, according to Fast Horse who is very critical of the modern, industrialized food system. When discussing the FDA, he says “They don’t care about your health. They’re only caring about mass production.”

A diet that leans more on mushrooms and plants also happens to be more climate-friendly than the typical U.S. diet, in which beef is consumed four times more than the global average. In the big picture of global greenhouse gas emissions, somewhere between 12 and 20 percent of all emissions comes from meat and dairy farms. While the goal of Siċaŋġu Co isn’t explicitly to eat less meat, it does aim to boost access to traditional foods. This includes both low-emissions plants and mushrooms that are locally harvested and bison raised on a very small scale, treated as “kin,” in a way that looks nothing like a factory farm.

Native-Owned Bison Are Family

Rosebud Reservation is home to the largest Native-owned bison herd with over a thousand animals roaming 28,000 acres. Bison are ruminants, like cattle, which means they too belch methane, but bison offer a variety of ecosystem benefits thanks to the way they live on the land.

While herds of cattle also graze nearby, the differences are stark. Cattle are destructive to everything, says Siċaŋġu Nation member Karen Moore. Moore, who manages the food sovereignty initiative and lives on the reservation, describes how grazing cows tend to concentrate together, sometimes feasting on a single type of plant until it’s depleted. Bison are more likely to cover more ground when they graze, eating a variety of plants, which has a gentler impact on the ecosystem.

Last year, two animals from the Nation’s herd were donated to the school. With that meat, Fast Horse says he has been able to replace 75 percent of the red meat the school would have otherwise procured.

Getting the students to eat more culturally significant foods is not without its challenges, however. If one popular student decides they don’t like a particular dish then all the other kids follow suit, says Fast Horse. He avoids the problem by trying to make foods more palatable. For example, by grinding mushrooms into small pieces. “They get the flavor, but they don’t see the actual mushroom,” he says.

Another Siċaŋġu Co member, Mayce Low Dog, teaches community cooking classes that instruct participants how to use traditional ingredients in their dishes.

The work is paying off. “It seems like more people are into trying weirder foods, not necessarily like your tomatoes and cucumbers,” says Moore. “It’s been really, really exciting to see.” Her coworkers raved about her stinging nettle pesto, made from plants she foraged.

Harvesting local plants is also a critical part of the group’s work. The Nation has “been in crisis for hundreds of years,” says Moore, but harvesting their own food is part of “getting back to being self-reliant.”

On a brisk morning during my visit, Moore and Low Dog invite me to join them to harvest local plants that they’ll dry and turn into herbal teas, both for the farmers market and a community-supported agriculture program that subsidizes food shares for some residents. The teas are a way residents can reconnect with traditional foods even if they’re not skilled foragers themselves.

Gravel crunches under the tires, as we pull off of the main road and slowly roll along the banks of a pond. Along the way, Moore and Low Dog keep their eyes peeled for useful plants for tea. For both Moore and Low Dog, foraging is a newer skill. As we walk, they consult each other about different plants, making sure they’re selecting the correct ones and that everything is ready for harvest. It’s a skill they’re intentionally learning from each other and their elders.

Moore reaches down to gather some Ceyeka, or wild mint, for the teas. She’s sure to leave behind about half of the plant, to ensure the plant continues to grow on the banks so there’s more when they come back again on a later day.

Forging Connection and Community

Victoria Contreras was introduced to the food sovereignty initiative as a high school volunteer. Now, two years later, Contreras, who manages the Siċaŋġu Harvest Market, has learned to be more intentional about incorporating Indigenous ingredients in her meals, she tells Sentient. “I’m actively looking for something that I can swap out, or a recipe that I can try,” she says, fondly recalling a stinging nettle ice cream one of her coworkers made.

In addition to expanding community knowledge of traditional ingredients, the harvest market and other programs have also brought community residents together. The market helps create new friendships and revive old connections, says Sharon LaPointe who helps her daughter, Sadie, with her stand selling flavored lemonades and homemade pickles and bread. It’s a sentiment shared by many of the vendors there that Wednesday.

Michael Prate, who helped get the group off the ground, remembers some Nation members weren’t so sure of the group in the early days. “I think people have a skepticism that things are gonna go away,” he says, “because that’s the trend,” as many programs that pop up on the reservation tend to be temporary. There are challenges, including growing crops under the harsh weather conditions in South Dakota, conditions that will become even more severe in a changing climate.

The many shifting challenges facing the Siċaŋġu Nation is why food sovereignty is so critical. “They’re here to teach us how to be food sovereign because someday food is gonna get too expensive for our people,” says Brandi Charging Eagle. “The prices of food are going up, but our wages aren’t,” adds Charging Eagle, who is part of the Siċaŋġu nonprofit, but also follows its mission in her own home, where she is teaching her children how to grow their own food.

The Siċaŋġu Nation’s nonprofit will have to stay nimble in order to survive. “There’s always going to be something else that the community is going to be weathering and adapting to,” Prate says. “That’s just reality.”


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A new president will move into the White House in less than a month and Illinois farmers are questioning whether Donald Trump's tough talk on tariffs will become a reality, and how his decision will affect their livelihood.

The National Corn Growers Association said a trade war with China could reduce corn and soybean exports nationwide by millions of tons. The projection could harm Illinois farmers, in a state that is second in the nation for corn acreage.

Ben Palen, co-owner and manager of Ag Management Partners, a Denver-based sustainable agriculture advisory firm, said increased political instability on the global front and greater export competition are creating some anxiety.

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

Last weekend's last-minute spending bill in Congress to keep the government running through mid-March includes $10 billion in one-time payments to farmers, and another $20 billion for those affected by natural disasters in the last two years.

During Trump's first term, emergency aid was sent to farmers affected by the initial trade war. But the emphasis now is a push for budget cuts, which could include rolling back billions in unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Palen looks to legislators to identify new markets for farmers to sell their crops and thinks it is not the time to dwell on trade disputes.

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

The most recent U.S. Census of Agriculture data for 2022, showed Illinois farms and ranches produced almost $27 billion in products, a 55% increase from 2017.


get more stories like this via email