Ranching and agriculture groups say the federal government has taken a positive step in ensuring truth in labeling on meat from the United States, and they want Congress to go further.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed a rule to only allow voluntary "Product of U.S.A." labeling on meat, poultry and eggs derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the country.

Current loopholes allow companies to import meat from other countries and stick this label on even if it is only processed in the U.S.

Jeanie Alderson, a southeastern Montana rancher and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council, said the loophole makes current labels misleading.

"Fraudulent labeling really betrays American ranchers and our rural communities and consumers by misrepresenting imported beef as American," Alderson asserted.

The USDA will take public comment for 60 days after the proposed rule change is published in the
Federal Register.

The proposed rule pointed out other labels which might be acceptable. For example, it said "sliced and packaged in the United States using imported pork" would work, as long as it is accurate. Alderson appreciates the USDA's rule but argued members of Congress need to go further and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling.

"A true free market depends on transparency," Alderson contended. "We need that information, and consumers can't make informed decisions without that. And so we need a free market, we need a fair market, and consumers deserve to know where their food's coming from."

Lawmakers, including Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., have reintroduced the American Beef Labeling Act, which includes mandatory country-of-origin labeling. This labeling requirement was repealed in 2015.


get more stories like this via email

If you live in a flood prone community, soil health from nearby farmland may have something to do with it. Ag voices in Wisconsin say government-funded conservation programs are effective in mitigating risks and disaster expenses.

Congress will soon renew debate over long-term Farm Bill funding, including incentives for producers to adopt practices like no-till farming, which allow the soil to hold more water after heavy rain.

Juli Obudzinski, sustainable agriculture policy consultant for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said it is not only an issue for farmers and policymakers. She emphasized taxpayer dollars come into play when programs are underfunded.

"Some of the costs that they pay because of the lack of investment in soil health practices, especially municipalities, rural communities, even state budgets when they're looking at costs to repair flooding damages," Obudzinski outlined.

Her research showed between 2009 and 2019, Wisconsin suffered nearly $36 million in flood damage. On the other side, she acknowledged soil health investment and improved water quality pay off for communities, such as boosting home values along watersheds. The discussions also follow recent conservation funding boosts from the Inflation Reduction Act, with advocates noting they are poised to help more rural areas.

Ron Schoepp, a farmer from south-central Wisconsin, is among those who have tapped into Inflation Reduction Act incentives this year through the federal Conservation Stewardship Program. He is adding to the soil health practices he has carried out over the years, providing benefits reaching beyond his property.

"We farm right on Lake Wisconsin and so there's less runoff," Schoepp explained. "That definitely helps neighbors by keeping a cleaner Lake Wisconsin."

He also contended making incentives more accessible could place less stress on disaster aid programs for farmers. Congress has until next fall to adopt a new Farm Bill after extending the recent version for another year. While many programs have bipartisan support, it is unclear how funding disagreements and the 2024 election will influence reauthorization.

Women, LGBTQ, and minority farmers in Ohio face compounding stressors, according to a study from Ohio State University.

Researchers surveyed and interviewed a group of nontraditional, mostly first-generation organic farmers. Results showed 58% of survey respondents reported mild to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Fiona Doherty, doctoral candidate in the College of Social Work at Ohio State University and the study's lead author, said the survey was done in 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. She said many farmers expressed disappointment at the financial reality of farming, including not making ends meet and having to pick up a second or even third job.

"Part of what inspired us to do this particular research study was really acknowledging the generations, the decades of structural discrimination in the U.S. agricultural industry," Doherty explained. "That's led to unequal access to land, unequal access to farm resources."

Some study participants also identified climate change and unpredictable weather as sources of stress.

Doherty pointed out the research is a step toward creating structural support such as policies to improve equity, accessibility, and representation for beginning, women, racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ farmers, especially as traditional farmers age out of the field.

"Really thinking about those cumulative impacts and what that does to someone's well-being, to their success as a farmer, as a beginning farmer," Doherty outlined. "That's one main take-away, is just thinking about those cumulative stressors."

According to census data, in 2017, the U.S. had around 321,000 farmers age 35 or younger, accounting for just 9% of the country's roughly 3 million producers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said as legacy producers retire, the nation will need a new generation of farmers to grow food and feed.

Mexico has issued a ban on importing genetically modified corn from the U.S., potentially opening a new market for American farmers.

Mexico is the second-largest importer of U.S. grown corn. The latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show Mexico imported about $18.7 billion worth of American corn, or about 40% of what the U.S. exported. Now, the Mexican government is moving to ban genetically modified corn, opting for natural, organic options, much to the dismay of American ag product and fertilizer companies.

Joe Maxwell, co-founder of the group Farm Action, said the government should not be involved in deciding what other countries can import.

"We disagree with the United States government's position," Maxwell explained. "They ought to be representing a market opportunity for America's farmers that pays a premium."

Maxwell argued market opportunities would be created by Mexico's demand for more naturally grown corn, which could yield American farmers willing to grow it an additional 50 cents per bushel and as much as 75 cents more in Iowa, based on the state's soil quality for growing a specialty crop. Corn growers have continued to modify crop genetics in search of higher, more predictable yields.

Maxwell emphasized farmers deserve the right to capitalize on the opportunity, but argued the USDA is pushing back on the ban because of support from U.S. corporate farm interests who stand to profit on genetically modified crops, especially fertilizer companies, who are working to stop Mexico's ban.

"In this case, marketing Bayer-Monsanto's patented traits," Maxwell noted. "Marketing their particular chemicals when it goes against an opportunity for farmers to have access to a premium market that could pay over $80 an acre more on almost 4 million acres of U.S. corn ground."

Farm Action has submitted an application to testify before a panel discussing the trade dispute between the U.S. and Mexico created by the genetically modified corn ban.


get more stories like this via email