Some Illinois farmers say a lawsuit against equipment manufacturing titan John Deere is long overdue, and they hope the outcome is not more laws but rather, the right to repair their own equipment.

The Federal Trade Commission and Attorneys General from Illinois and Minnesota have sued Deere for monopoly practices they allege unfairly drive up costs and resolution times for fixing farm equipment.

Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, said manufacturers use intellectual property as an excuse to not share the details of their equipment technology.

"If folks could imagine being told by the manufacturer of their car, their minivan or their pickup truck that they, number one, cannot repair it on their own -- that they have to take it into the dealer and get the dealer equipment every single time and get those repairs made -- that would be outrageous," Larew contended.

As a company, John Deere said it has taken a number of steps to support customers' ability to maintain their machines and called the lawsuit "baseless."

Many states have considered so-called "right to repair" legislation, but only Colorado has passed a law specifically related to farm equipment. Larew noted manufacturers have long used promises or nonbinding agreements with equipment dealers to maintain their autonomy.

"In those agreements, it actually prevents farmers from fighting for their right to repair, and in exchange for that they promise to do better and to grant some additional access," Larew explained. "But I think as farmers, we see this really as pretty straightforward, common sense, and we need this issue completely resolved."

Larew added it is a bipartisan issue and is hopeful for a resolution, either through legal or legislative channels. President Donald Trump's new appointee for FTC chair, Andrew Ferguson, has said while he is in favor of right to repair legislation, he does not agree with the decision to file a lawsuit.


get more stories like this via email

Some experts predict arable land per person will shrink by two-thirds by 2050. To combat it, Michigan students are being trained in "smart" agriculture.

Researchers believe smart agriculture is a promising solution to food production challenges as land becomes scarce because of climate change and water shortages. It involves methods such as vertical farming and urban gardens, combined with technologies using sensors, drones and artificial intelligence to improve productivity and yield.

Sara Masoud, assistant professor of industrial and systems engineering at Wayne State University, leads a program training students in smart agriculture.

"One of the options that we are putting together in my lab, in order to expose the students to is something called the hydroponic system," Masoud explained. "The idea is that if you don't have access to good soil to grow your plants, you can be growing your plants in, for example, water."

Critics of smart farming contended automation could displace farmworkers and, along with the high cost of technologies such as drones and AI, leave small-scale or low-income farmers behind.

They also worry farmers may rely too much on technology, which could be problematic if systems fail or there are disruptions such as data breaches or software glitches. Masoud believes the students' training in smart agriculture will help prepare them for the future.

"Hoping that this exposure is not only going to let them see what's in smart agriculture, but also help them to gain expertise, for example, in data science, or advance technologies that might help them even if they are not pursuing a smart agriculture in the future," Masoud added.

As of 2023, about 68% of large crop farms in the United States use precision agriculture technologies, which are needed for smart farming.

The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act would have prevented states from enforcing their own agricultural regulations, but has failed to advance in Congress this session.

While the measure was excluded from the most recent Farm Bill extension, food policy advocates warn that efforts to revive it remain a concern, particularly for Mississippi's agricultural industry.

Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst with Food and Water Watch, called the legislation a direct attack on states' rights to regulate their own food systems.

"The EATS Act would preempt state regulation of the factory farm and agribusiness industry. This includes animal welfare, consumer protection, labeling and food-safety laws and regulations, and the bill is so broad that it could also jeopardize state laws that protect rural communities and preserve our environment," Wolf said.

The bill, introduced in response to California's Proposition 12, which bans the sale of pork products from pigs raised in tightly confined gestation crates, was backed by major agribusiness groups.

Supporters argue that it is essential for maintaining a unified national agricultural market and preventing individual states from imposing regulations that could disrupt interstate commerce. Critics argue that the measure would've gone far beyond its stated intent, effectively overriding state agricultural policies nationwide.

Wolf said Mississippi's agricultural sector, which plays a vital role in the state's economy, could face significant consequences if similar legislation is reintroduced. She raised concerns that eliminating local control over agricultural standards could hurt small farmers and expose consumers to products that do not meet higher state-enforced safety and welfare regulations.

"When it comes to food safety, it's a really big concern right now with the avian flu, the kinds of standards in which animals are raised and really big concern being overcrowding of animals," she continued.

Advocacy groups view the bill's exclusion from the latest Farm Bill as a victory, but Wolf warns the fight isn't over.
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., a sponsor, argued, "Congress shouldn't allow any one state to single-handedly upend the country's agricultural economy and force the American people to bear the burden of higher food prices."

Wolf highlights the success of a bipartisan group of 171 lawmakers who opposed the EATS Act in the 2023 Farm Bill.


get more stories like this via email

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