Topic: Farmers
“The Biden Administration’s extreme climate policies have worsened global food insecurity and hunger. Its anti–fossil fuel agenda has led to a sharp spike in global energy prices. Inflation has hit the poor the hardest as they expend a higher proportion of income on food purchases. Farmers in poor countries can no longer afford to buy expensive natural gas–based fertilizers that are key to achieving high yields of food production. Under advice from climate radicals, the government of Sri Lanka even banned chemical fertilizers entirely without having any replacements in place. The result has been hunger and violent political instability.”
Primorac exaggerates so aggressively that if I were going to debunk every instance, this essay would be prohibitively long. Suffice it to say, almost none of this is true. There’s little direct evidence that the Biden Administration’s climate policies are responsible for worsening global food insecurity. Global food insecurity is driven by a complex set of factors, including climate change, conflict, supply chain disruptions (such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), and, most recently, the Russia-Ukraine war (which severely disrupted grain and fertilizer supplies).
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“If farmers are allowed to operate without unnecessary government intervention, American agriculture will continue to flourish, producing plentiful, safe, nutritious, and affordable food.”
Next paragraph:
“The USDA should recognize what should be self-evident: Agricultural production should first and foremost be focused on efficiently producing safe food. (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 321, paragraph 2.)
See the fundamental disconnect here? The primary reason we have safe food is BECAUSE of governmental regulations. The Boar’s Head plant in Virginia is just one recent example. The plant was at the center of a deadly listeria outbreak, which was linked to 9 deaths and 57 hospitalizations. In addition to shuttering its doors, the corporation is permanently discontinuing the production of liverwurst. [Source]
“It pains us to impact the livelihoods of hundreds of hard-working employees. We do not take lightly our responsibility as one of the area’s largest employers. But, under these circumstances, we feel that a plant closure is the most prudent course. We will work to assist each of our employees in the transition process.”
This is how deregulation costs jobs. 500 workers at this one plant alone were displaced. In a town like Jarratt, VA, that’s devastating. Their entire population as of 2022 was 935.
Was the incident actually linked to deregulation? It’s likely that it was DIRECTLY related. See this article: Trump administration allows pork slaughterhouses to have fewer USDA inspectors From the linked article:
“This rule puts industry profits ahead of public health,” said Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy for the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy group. He called the rule “a recipe for food safety disaster.”
So right on the first page of this section, we have a major disconnect from reality.
More breakdown of this statement in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“The federal government does not need to transform the food system or develop a national plan to intervene across the supply chain. Instead, it should respect American farmers, truckers, and everyone who makes the food supply chain so resilient and successful. One of the important lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain – not to increase them.”
This claim suggests that the U.S. food supply chain is already effective and resilient, and that transformation or national-level planning is unnecessary. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities in the food supply chain, such as disruptions in meatpacking plants, shortages of labor in agriculture and trucking, and difficulty in shifting food supplies from commercial to retail sectors. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses in the system that national coordination or transformation could address, such as improving worker protections, enhancing logistics, or diversifying supply chains.
To say that it’s “critical to remove barriers in the food supply chain” is oversimplifying. While some regulatory flexibility, such as relaxing transportation restrictions or allowing temporary worker visa programs, helped ease supply chain issues during the pandemic, other interventions were critical for public health and safety. For example, the government had to impose health and safety regulations in meatpacking plants to protect workers, many of whom were disproportionately affected by the virus. Additionally, government assistance, such as financial support for farmers and direct aid to food banks, was vital in preventing food shortages.
In fact, Trump’s deregulations of the food supply chain during COVID had some predictably terrible results, and in fact, the Trump administration was accused by House lawmakers of “exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to push [the Administration’s] reckless deregulatory agenda.” [Source]6
More breakdown of this statement in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“A recent USDA-created program captures both the disrespect for American farmers and the Biden Administration’s effort to dictate agricultural practices. The USDA explained that it was concerned with farmers not transitioning to organic farming, and therefore announced that it will dedicate $300 million to induce farmers to adopt organic farming. There was no recognition that farmers know how to farm better than D.C. politicians or a that organic food is expensive and land-intensive. The Biden Administration has also been pushing so-called “climate-smart” agricultural practices which received additional support in the partisan Inflation Reduction Act.”
How is providing incentives to participate in a voluntary program an act of “disrespect” to farmers? Framing this as “dictating” is completely disingenuous and inflammatory. “There was no recognition that farmers know how to farm better than D.C. politicians.” And why should there be? That seems like an obvious point. Should there have been recognition on the farmers’ parts that D.C. politicians are likely to be better at addressing broader challenges like sustainability, climate resilience, or public health?
Bakst’s statement here reflects nothing more than anti-government intervention rhetoric and totally fails to recognize the broader challenges that the agricultural sector faces. A more balanced approach would acknowledge the need for both farmer autonomy and government support to promote sustainable, resilient, and economically viable farming practices.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“Remove the U.S. from any association with U.N. and other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production.”
It’s hard to know where to start with that. It’s…just unbelievably ridiculous to halt all efforts into sustainable food production. Does he think we have unlimited food supplies? Bakst goes on to make a few other recommendations, then advocate for the next Administration imposing these via executive order, bypassing Congress.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“To accomplish these objectives, a new Administration should announce its principles through an executive order, the USDA should remove all references to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-disseminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these principles through legislative efforts.”
There’s the Bruno Strategy at work there as well – if we don’t mention the need for sustainability in food production, it doesn’t exist! Not a thing! Don’t need to worry about it!
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.”
He’s oversimplifying again. The Federal Sugar Program is a complex system that aims to maintain domestic sugar prices above global market levels. Potential impacts of repealing it include loss of price supports – meaning that sugar producers (both sugar beet and sugarcane farmers) would be exposed to lower global market prices, which are often more volatile and lower than U.S. prices. This could result in significant financial difficulties, with smaller or less efficient farms at risk of going out of business, which could lead to reduced domestic sugar production.
Without the import quotas and tariffs, cheaper sugar from countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand could flood the U.S. market, putting further pressure on domestic producers. I suspect this is another example of “Republicans not properly understanding tariffs.” Increased reliance on imported sugar could negatively affect domestic employment in the sugar industry, particularly in states like Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota, where sugar production is significant.
U.S. food manufacturers would benefit, since they would no longer have to buy domestic sugar and could get it cheaper at the global market price. If the price of sugar decreased, food manufacturers may drop prices, which would benefit U.S. consumers if that were indeed the result. Removal of the pricing supports leaves us open to global market volatilty, potentially resulting in unpredictable sugar prices, which translates to unpredictable manufacturing prices and therefore unpredictable and fluctating consumer costs.
On the other hand, if domestic sugar production declines due to the removal of price supports, it could lead to environmental benefits, especially where sugarcane production is water- and chemical-intensive, such as the Florida Everglades (where sugarcane farming has been linked to water pollution.) (Although I’m sure that environmental harm reduction isn’t something that Bakst wants or cares about.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.”
Repealing these key safety nets, which are designed to help manage revenue and price risks for commodity crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice, would have significant consequences for farmers (which in turn affects rural economies.) Let’s break that down a little:
The ARC and PLC programs provide financial assistance to farmers when crop prices or revenues fall below certain thresholds. If repealed, farmers would be more exposed to price fluctuations and yield variability, which could be particularly destabilizing in years of low prices or poor harvests. In the absence of these safety nets, periods of low prices could drive some farmers out of business, particularly smaller or more marginal producers. At the very least, it reduces income stability for farmers, which would lead to increased farm bankruptcies and financial stress in rural communities.
Bakst is correct that crop insurance is already a key tool for farmers, but ARC and PLC provide additional layers of protection. Without them, farmers might need to rely more heavily on crop insurance. While this could work for some, insurance generally doesn’t cover price drops as well as ARC and PLC, so farmers would still face greater exposure to price-related risks. Result: Farmers may have to buy more comprehensive and expensive crop insurance, increasing their operational costs without fully replacing the benefits of ARC and PLC.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“[The next Administration should] Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program.
Bakst couches the program as “paying farmers NOT to farm their land.” The reality is obviously more complex. The primary purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is to improve environmental health and sustainability by incentivizing farmers and landowners to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and implement conservation practices. This provides benefits such as preventing soil erosion, improving water quality, enhancing wildlife habitats, promoting carbon sequestration, and improving air quality. The program was introduced in 1985 under Reagan following concerns over unacceptably high levels of soil erosion. It authorized the USDA to enroll up to 45 million acres in the program. So yes, it “pays farmers not to farm their land”, but for environmental reasons. [Source]
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“The next Administration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use – especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science.”
This appears under the heading “Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology”. It is absolutely, laughably RICH that a climate change denier would even be able to utter the phrase “scare tactics that ignore sound science” with a straight face. This is unworthy of dignifying with further response.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.