Many shoppers assume the beef they buy is clearly labeled. It isn’t.

Unlike most products in the grocery store, beef is often sold without telling shoppers where it came from. That means imported beef can be sold alongside beef raised by American ranchers without consumers knowing the difference.

Congress now has a chance to fix that. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is pushing to restore Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling by including the American Beef Labeling Act in the Farm Bill. The legislation would require beef labels to tell consumers where an animal was born, raised, and slaughtered.

One of the biggest opponents is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. That may come as a surprise. After all, NCBA says it represents America’s cattle producers. But last week, the organization made its position unmistakably clear, urging Congress to reject Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (MCOOL) and calling it “failed policy.”

The post quickly drew criticism from ranchers on social media. NCBA disabled comments on the post, and users added a Community Note pointing out that R-CALF USA, the nation’s largest producer-only cattle organization, supports restoring MCOOL. The note challenged NCBA’s implication that it speaks for cattle producers on the issue.

The exchange highlights a question that has divided the cattle industry for years: Why is one of Washington’s most influential beef lobbying organizations fighting a policy that many independent ranchers have spent years trying to restore?

Why Is NCBA Fighting Country-of-Origin Labels?

It’s easy to assume an organization called the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association speaks primarily for ranchers. The reality is more complicated. Many agricultural trade associations also represent large corporations whose interests don’t always align with the independent producers they claim to speak for.

While 3% of U.S. ranchers are NCBA members, the organization also includes some of the largest meatpacking companies in the world among its corporate members, including Tyson Foods, Cargill, and National Beef. Those companies have a very different business model than the average rancher. They buy cattle and beef from multiple countries and benefit when imported beef can be sold without identifying its country of origin.

U.S. ranchers have a different interest. They want consumers to know which beef was raised here. Country-of-origin labels give them a way to distinguish their product from imported beef.

That difference helps explain why the debate has become so contentious. While many ranchers have spent years urging Congress to restore MCOOL, NCBA is lobbying to keep it out of the Farm Bill.

The Checkoff Controversy

The debate over MCOOL isn’t happening in a vacuum. Every time cattle are sold in the United States, ranchers pay a mandatory one-dollar fee into the government’s beef checkoff program. Those dollars are intended to fund research, education, and beef promotion—not lobbying.

NCBA is the largest recipient of those funds. According to WhoIsNCBA.com, about 62% of NCBA’s revenue in 2024 came from beef checkoff contracts.

That relationship has been controversial for years. A 2010 independent audit found that NCBA improperly charged numerous expenses to the beef checkoff, including policy-related activities, legislative conference travel, spouse travel, and work related to MCOOL.

But the debate goes beyond improper spending. The checkoff helps fund much of NCBA’s operations, giving the organization the staff, infrastructure, and national presence to be one of the most influential voices in agricultural policy.

Because NCBA administers major beef checkoff contracts, lawmakers, federal agencies, and the media often treat the organization as the voice of America’s cattle producers.

At the same time, many ranchers object to being required by the government to help fund the organization lobbying against them on issues like MCOOL.

What’s Next

Farm Action has already helped close the misleading Product of USA loophole and pushed USDA and the FTC to crack down on deceptive meat labeling. Those reforms made it harder for companies to mislead consumers with voluntary claims.

But they didn’t restore the one protection Congress eliminated in 2015. Today, beef can still be sold without telling shoppers where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered. Congress has the chance to change that by restoring MCOOL in the Farm Bill.

Now it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether consumers deserve that information and whether American ranchers should be able to compete in a marketplace where their product can be clearly identified.

Tell your senators to include the American Beef Labeling Act in the Farm Bill and restore honest country-of-origin labels for beef.

This post was also published by Farm Action.

Federal investigators traced iceberg lettuce implicated in the Taco Bell cyclospora outbreak to Taylor Farms de Mexico’s supply chain. The outbreak has sickened thousands of Americans.

The investigation answered one question. It also raised another: How did lettuce from one supplier reach so much of the country?

The answer lies in decades of consolidation. As fewer companies came to supply more of America’s food, a problem involving one supplier gained the potential to reach far more people.

From Regional Markets to National Suppliers

Taylor Farms didn’t become one of the country’s largest fresh produce companies overnight. It is part of a generation of large produce suppliers known as grower-shipper-packers, or GSPs, that emerged as major food buyers began purchasing produce from fewer suppliers.

Over the past three decades, major food buyers—including grocery retailers, restaurant chains, food distributors, and processors—have consolidated, and many stopped buying through regional produce markets. Instead, they increasingly turned to GSPs that could provide a reliable, year-round supply. Buying from a handful of GSPs was simpler than sourcing produce from dozens of regional farms.

Today, an estimated 80 to 90 percent of fresh produce is marketed through GSPs, meaning most fruits and vegetables pass through one of these companies before reaching grocery stores or restaurants. That shift favored companies capable of filling large national contracts, making it harder for many smaller regional farms to compete.

As GSPs expanded, many built production and sourcing networks in Mexico and other countries rather than relying primarily on nearby farms. That helps explain why investigators traced the lettuce implicated in this outbreak to Mexico—even in the middle of summer, when much of the United States is capable of growing lettuce. Companies like Taylor Farms source produce through regional and international networks designed to serve customers across the country.

Why One Supplier Can Reach So Many People

Farm Action’s research found that Taylor Fresh Foods alone controls more than 11 percent of the nation’s fresh-cut salad market, making it one of the country’s largest suppliers. Just four companies control 54 percent of the market.

Many people never buy a bag labeled “Taylor Farms.” The company supplies lettuce to restaurant chains, grocery retailers, institutional food-service companies, food manufacturers, and other businesses that sell food under many different names. If contaminated lettuce enters that system, restaurants and grocery stores across multiple states can receive it before anyone realizes there’s a problem.

Foodborne illness has always existed, and contamination can occur on farms of any size. But when one company supplies food to customers across much of the country, more people are exposed when something goes wrong.

It’s Not Just Produce

The concentration that transformed the produce industry has reshaped much of the food system.

Farm Action’s research found that four grocery retailers now control 69 percent of grocery sales, while food distribution has become increasingly concentrated as well. As large retailers and restaurant chains grew, they increasingly relied on fewer suppliers capable of filling massive contracts. That pressure helped drive consolidation throughout the food supply chain.

The outbreak shows the consequences of that system. Federal investigators traced the implicated lettuce to Taylor Farms de Mexico’s supply chain, which serves customers through a nationwide distribution network.

A generation ago, a single supplier was far less likely to serve so many customers. Today, that’s increasingly common. The result is a food system where a single breakdown can have national consequences.

The Department of Justice has settled its antitrust investigation into three of the nation’s largest egg producers. Under the settlement, Cal-Maine Foods, Versova, and Hickman’s Egg Ranch will pay a combined $3.3 million and donate 53 million eggs to food banks.

Cal-Maine says it admitted no wrongdoing, was assessed no fines or penalties, and will pay approximately $1.5 million as part of the settlement. In fiscal year 2025, while egg prices remained historically high, Cal-Maine reported roughly $1.2 billion in profit. That means its settlement payment is less than 1% of that year’s profit.

For millions of Americans who struggled through record grocery prices, this settlement looks less like a deterrent than another cost of doing business.

What Investigators Found

For years, Americans were told avian flu was driving high egg prices. Farm Action began questioning that explanation in 2023 after finding that egg production had not fallen enough to explain the unprecedented increase in prices, even as dominant egg producers reported extraordinary profits.

We documented the gap between supply, prices, and profits and called for federal antitrust scrutiny. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice opened an investigation.

According to the Department of Justice and a bipartisan coalition of 17 state attorneys general, investigators found that Cal-Maine, Versova, and Hickman’s unlawfully coordinated for years to influence the Urner Barry egg price index, a benchmark widely used in egg supply contracts. The states say the companies’ conduct artificially increased prices paid by retailers and consumers across the country.

The allegations are detailed. According to Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown’s office, investigators found that in December 2022, Hickman’s CEO emailed executives at Cal-Maine and Versova urging them to submit “strong bids, early and often” to push prices higher. Investigators say the companies then collectively submitted higher bids that increased the benchmark price used throughout the industry.

According to the government’s allegations, consumers paid more than they otherwise would have because dominant companies coordinated to influence a benchmark used throughout the egg market.

Farmers Didn’t Benefit

One of the most revealing findings from Farm Action’s investigation came from a Cal-Maine contract farming family.

While consumers were paying as much as $8 or $10 for a dozen eggs, the family producing those eggs was paid just 26.75 cents per dozen. They told us they are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, yet had received little more than a one-cent-per-dozen raise in more than a decade.

The farmers doing the work did not share in the industry’s record profits.

Farm Action also documented that Cal-Maine used its cash windfall to acquire smaller competitors rather than substantially increase compensation for the farmers producing its eggs, further strengthening its position in an already concentrated market.

Taxpayers Paid, Too

Consumers weren’t the only ones paying more.

The federal government had already provided billions of dollars in avian flu assistance to the egg industry. Then, the Trump administration canceled approximately $1 billion in funding for local and regional food system programs and redirected those funds to its avian flu response.

That money had been intended to expand local and regional processing, strengthen food supply chains, create new market opportunities for independent farmers, and increase food system resilience. Instead, it was redirected to an industry dominated by companies that federal and state investigators were simultaneously examining for unlawfully coordinating to increase egg prices.

Accountability Should Mean Something

This case is bigger than eggs.

When a handful of corporations dominate a market, they have greater power to influence prices, squeeze farmers, and profit from disruptions that leave everyone else paying more.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said lowering grocery prices is a priority. But it is the government’s job to enforce the rules, and a settlement this small does not do that.

If the government believes companies coordinated to raise prices, it should be willing to take that case to court. And if executives knowingly participated in illegal conduct, they should be held personally accountable under the law.

If companies can earn extraordinary profits during a crisis, receive taxpayer assistance, and later settle government allegations for a tiny fraction of those profits, they can treat enforcement as the cost of doing business.

Americans deserve competitive food markets where companies make money by serving customers, not by coordinating prices behind the scenes.

That requires penalties that outweigh the profits gained from wrongdoing, limits on taxpayer bailouts for dominant firms, and structural reforms that restore competition throughout our food system.

Last week, a front-page story in the local paper stopped me cold: the Upper Sandusky Planning Commission had heard a proposal involving a $900 million data center and power plant on the north edge of town.

I live near Upper Sandusky. I also work on rural policy at Farm Action, where we’ve been tracking the data center boom in farm country with growing concern. It’s personal when the story is suddenly about a nearby community, farmland, infrastructure, and neighbors trying to figure out what is happening before decisions are made.

This is a fight about who pays when Big Tech comes to rural America looking for land, water, and power.

What Appears to Be Proposed in Upper Sandusky

According to the local newspaper and Smartland Energy’s similar use petition, the company wants to build a large data center and power project on about 146 acres of Koehler property in the Columbus-Toledo Midway Industrial Park Phase II.

Smartland says the project has two main parts: a power generation facility and a data center. The company is asking the city to treat both parts as “similar uses” under the General Manufacturing zoning district.

The project has been described as roughly $900 million total: about $300 million for the power generation side and $600 million for the data center. The setup reportedly includes natural gas generators, diesel backup, and battery storage.

The representative said the data center side alone may use up to 100,000 gallons of water per day. That is roughly the household water use of about 2,000 people in a city of about 6,600. Smartland’s petition says the project would not strain city water or raise electric costs for residents, but residents deserve to see the numbers behind those claims.

This is not a small zoning question. The city is being asked to decide whether a large power facility and data center should be treated as similar enough to uses already allowed under current zoning rules.

Residents deserve answers, and local officials should not be asked to make a decision this big without full information, either.

Why Residents Are Already Fired Up

People here are not looking at this data center in isolation.

Upper Sandusky is already dealing with the new Louis Dreyfus Company soybean plant and the concerns that come with it: water, wastewater, truck traffic, infrastructure, noise, odors, and the look and feel of the community.

Louis Dreyfus is not a small local buyer. It is one of the major global grain traders. So Upper Sandusky has already been asked to absorb a Big Ag project, and now Big Tech is asking for land, water, and power, too.

A small town can only absorb so many “economic development” projects before people start asking whether the town is being improved or simply used.

This Is Part of a Bigger Rural Pattern

What is happening in Upper Sandusky is happening across rural America.

At Farm Action, we recently warned that data centers are moving into rural communities with promises of jobs and investment, while the costs can fall on farmland, water, electric systems, local infrastructure, and public budgets.

That means the burden should not be on residents to prove why this is a bad idea. The burden should be on the developer to prove why a small rural community should accept it. And if the risks are too high, the answer should be no.

Other Ohio communities are already hitting pause.

Grove City passed a one-year moratorium after residents packed a council meeting. Twinsburg adopted a one-year moratorium on zoning and occupancy permits for data centers as a principal use. Kent adopted a moratorium of up to one year while the city reviews whether its planning, zoning, resources, and infrastructure are ready for projects like this.

Other towns are learning the political cost of rushing these projects. In Festus, Missouri, backlash over a $6 billion data center proposal became an election issue after city leaders approved the project, and voters removed four incumbent council members who were up for reelection.

Upper Sandusky can avoid that kind of breakdown by slowing down, listening to residents, and acting in the interests of the people it represents.

The Questions Residents Deserve Answered

Before any approval, similar use decision, permit, utility commitment, infrastructure agreement, or tax incentive moves forward, residents deserve clear answers in writing.

Land and zoning: What parcels are involved? Who owns the land? Has it been sold, optioned, or placed under contract? Is it farmland? Why is a 150 MW power plant and 100-acre data center being considered through a “similar use” process? Who decides, and can that decision be appealed?

Water and wastewater: What is the water source for up to 100,000 gallons per day? How does that compare with current city water capacity? How does it interact with the Louis Dreyfus Company soybean plant’s water needs? How much wastewater would be produced? Who pays for any upgrades?

Power and pollution: Who would own and operate the 150 MW power plant? What fuel would it use? How often would diesel backup generators be tested or used? What air permits would be required? What noise and emissions limits would apply?

Public costs: Are tax abatements, tax increment financing deals, Enterprise Zone benefits, Foreign Trade Zone benefits, grants, discounted utilities, infrastructure reimbursements, or other public subsidies being discussed or already attached to the site? Who pays for roads, water, sewer, electric infrastructure, emergency services, and long-term maintenance? Would residents, schools, farmers, or utility customers be left shouldering any of the costs?

Transparency: Have any public officials, city staff, consultants, or development officials signed confidentiality agreements or nondisclosure agreements related to this project?

Jobs: How many permanent jobs are guaranteed? How many would be local? What wages and benefits are expected? Are there enforceable local hiring commitments?

Cumulative impact: Has the city studied how this project would add to the Louis Dreyfus Company soybean plant, water plant expansion, wastewater capacity, roads, utilities, emergency services, and other development already affecting the community?

How Residents Can Push Back

Get the records. Residents can contact the City of Upper Sandusky and request the June 1 Planning Commission agenda, minutes, meeting packet, site layout, similar use petition, maps, correspondence, staff reports, legal opinions, and any materials involving Smartland Energy, the Koehler property, the 150 MW power project, water use, natural gas generation, diesel backup, battery storage, tax incentives, and infrastructure needs.

Get the approval process in writing. Residents can ask the city: “Please provide a written explanation of every approval required for this proposed data center and power project, including who decides each approval, what public meetings will be held, whether City Council will vote, whether utility or infrastructure commitments require separate approval, whether tax incentives are being discussed, and whether any decision can be appealed.”

Consider legal help. For a project this large, residents may want to consult a land-use or municipal attorney who understands zoning, public records, open meetings, moratoriums, utility agreements, and appeals. Even a short legal review can help residents understand where the real decision points are.

Show up. The next City Council meeting is scheduled for June 15 at 7 p.m. at 119 North 7th Street in Upper Sandusky. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July 6 at 6:30 p.m. at the same location. The goal is to fill the room and ask clear questions officials must answer.

Push for a moratorium. Upper Sandusky should not approve a similar use request, permit, utility commitment, infrastructure agreement, or incentive before the city studies the impacts and adopts clear rules. Other Ohio communities have used moratoriums to slow down data center approvals while they review zoning, infrastructure, and public impacts. Upper Sandusky can do the same. See the Twinsburg and Kent moratoriums as models.

Use the moratorium period to write strong rules. A moratorium is not the end goal. It gives a community time to close the “similar use” loophole, decide where data centers and related power projects are not allowed, block public subsidies, require developers to pay their own infrastructure costs, require a cleanup and closure plan with funding secured, and set strict protections for water, farmland, electric customers, and nearby residents.

Rural Communities Deserve the Power to Say No

Upper Sandusky should not be rushed into a decision that could reshape the community for generations.

Big Tech has consultants, lawyers, and engineers. Rural residents deserve time, information, and the power to say no.

A War Shock Turns Into an Oil Windfall

Shell just reported nearly $7 billion in quarterly profit after oil prices surged during the war with Iran. That was more than double what the company reported the previous quarter, and up 24 percent from the same time last year.

Shell’s CEO described the disruption as a chance for the company to “create value.” Farmers would probably call it something else.

Diesel Runs Farm Country

When oil prices jump, farm country feels it fast. Diesel powers the tractors, combines, grain trucks, freight rail, cargo ships, and delivery trucks that move food from fields to grocery stores.

Farmers can plan around some costs. They can pre-buy seed, fertilizer, chemicals, and feed. Fuel is harder. When it is time to plant, harvest, haul grain, or move livestock, the work has to get done. That makes fuel one of the fastest ways a war overseas can reach farm country and, eventually, the grocery aisle.

Sarah Mock made this point in her recent piece on food, fertilizer, and the Strait of Hormuz. She explains that diesel is the more direct link between the conflict and U.S. grocery prices than fertilizer, since many farmers may have bought fertilizer months ago. Food moves long distances by truck, train, ship, and warehouse network.

When fuel rises, distributors pass those costs along as best they can. Food companies also know consumers expect prices to rise during a crisis, which gives them cover to raise prices whether their costs justify it or not.

Farmers do not have that same power. A farmer selling corn, cattle, milk, hogs, or eggs cannot simply charge more because diesel went up. So when diesel rises, farmers get squeezed. When grocery prices rise, consumers get squeezed. In the middle, the biggest corporations keep cashing in.

Shell is just the latest example.

Fertilizer Showed the Same Pattern

We saw this during the fertilizer price spike around the Russia-Ukraine war.

Fertilizer companies blamed supply-chain problems and higher natural gas costs. Those pressures were real, but they did not explain the size of the price hikes or the profits that followed.

Farm Action’s 2022 Big Fertilizer report found that dominant fertilizer firms raised prices far beyond what rising costs justified. Nutrien, one of the largest fertilizer manufacturers, reported a 51 percent increase in nitrogen production costs over one three-month period, but its gross manufacturing margin rose 680 percent.

Those margins point to concentrated corporate power. In 2019, four corporations controlled 75 percent of U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production and sales: CF Industries, Nutrien, Koch, and Yara-USA. Just two companies supply all of North America with potash: Nutrien and Mosaic.

Most farmers today cannot farm without fertilizer. When a handful of companies control it, farmers have little room to bargain. And when a crisis hits, those companies know how to use it.

Eggs Showed It, Too

Eggs followed the same playbook. For years, consumers were told egg prices were high because of avian flu. Avian flu did affect egg production. But Farm Action’s 2025 letter to the FTC and DOJ showed that the hit to production was far smaller than the price spikes suggested.

From 2022 through 2024, the national egg-laying flock was only a few percentage points smaller on average compared to 2021 levels. Still, egg prices surged.

Meanwhile, Cal-Maine Foods, the country’s largest egg producer, saw gross profits soar. Before the current avian flu outbreak, Cal-Maine reported annual gross profits of about $160 million to $180 million. After the outbreak began, the company reported $1.2 billion in gross profits in FY23, while sales volumes stayed roughly flat.

Farmers Need Fair Markets

Fuel, fertilizer, and eggs all tell the same story: when a crisis hits, farmers and consumers pay more while the biggest companies come out ahead.

That will keep happening as long as a handful of corporations control the essentials farmers need and the markets where farmers sell. A war, a drought, a disease outbreak, a trade fight, or a shipping disruption can all become excuses for higher prices and bigger margins.

So what do we do?

First, we must confront monopoly power in agriculture. That means stronger antitrust enforcement and real action to break up concentration in fertilizer, seed, chemicals, grain trading, meatpacking, and food processing.

Second, we need price-gouging protections for agricultural inputs during crises. Farmers should not be left at the mercy of dominant corporations every time there is a war, a trade fight, or a supply shock.

Third, we need to rebuild regional food systems. Farmers need more local and regional buyers, processors, storage, and distribution. A resilient food system cannot depend only on global markets and a few giant corporations.

Farmers and consumers should not have to absorb the cost of every crisis while the most powerful companies use those same crises to widen their margins. Food security starts with fair markets.

The Department of Justice is preparing to file an antitrust case against some of the largest egg producers in the country, according to new reporting.

For years, Americans were told that egg prices were high because of avian flu and simple economics: Supply was down, so prices increased.

But the numbers didn’t add up. Farm Action began digging into the egg market in 2023, and what we found raised serious questions. Dominant egg companies were maintaining production while dramatically increasing prices and profits.

We brought those findings to federal antitrust enforcers in 2023 and 2025, pushing for an investigation. Shortly after our 2025 letter to the Trump administration, the DOJ opened one. Now, that investigation appears to be turning into a lawsuit.

Avian Flu Wasn’t a Free Pass

The biggest egg companies used the avian flu crisis to justify price increases and profit levels that went well beyond what the underlying disruption appeared to support. Our analysis found that the actual impact on overall production was far more limited than the public was being led to believe, even as prices shot up and profits exploded.

That is exactly why concentrated markets deserve scrutiny. When only a few firms dominate an industry, they have far more room to turn a crisis into a windfall.

The Wall Street Journal now reports that the DOJ’s planned case centers on allegations that major egg producers coordinated pricing through a benchmarking service used across the industry, similar to the meat industry’s Agri-Stats, which is also under antitrust scrutiny. If that is what happened, then consumers were not just paying more because birds got sick. They were paying more because dominant firms had the power to take advantage of the situation.

The Farmers Raising the Eggs Weren’t Getting Rich

One of the most important things Farm Action exposed is that family farmers were not the ones cashing in.

In March 2025, we published documentation from a Cal-Maine contract farming family showing they were being paid just 26.75 cents per dozen eggs. That family told us they are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and yet had received just over a penny-per-dozen raise in more than a decade.

So while shoppers were paying $8 or $10 a dozen, the farmers doing the work were getting about a quarter.

This unfair setup is a good window into how concentrated agriculture works. The corporation at the center captures the upside. The farmer shoulders the labor, the risk, and the rising costs. Consumers get squeezed at the checkout line.

Farm Action also found that Cal-Maine had used its cash windfall to buy smaller competitors rather than increase grower pay, which only deepened its control over the market and left farmers with even fewer options.

Government Bailouts Made It Worse

While all of this was going on, the federal government kept sending huge sums of taxpayer money to the same dominant egg firms.

As Farm Action documented, the Biden administration paid $1.4 billion to the egg industry to offset avian flu losses. Then the Trump administration pledged another $1 billion, shifting money that had been allocated to support local food systems. That relief was geared primarily toward the largest operations using the same crowded, caged production systems that are especially vulnerable to outbreaks.

These bailout recipients were the same firms posting enormous profits while contract growers stayed stuck in one-sided contracts and consumers kept paying inflated prices. If the Trump administration finds these companies guilty of price-fixing, it should demand a return of those billions of taxpayer dollars, in addition to imposing heavy penalties.

What the DOJ Does Next Will Matter

If the DOJ follows through with this case, it will be a significant test of whether antitrust law is actually going to be used to challenge concentrated power in the food system.

Enforcers should hold these companies accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less risks teaching dominant firms that even if they get caught, the penalty will still be manageable, especially when they’re cushioned by government bailouts.

The larger issue goes beyond eggs. This is about whether a handful of corporations can keep using crisis conditions to increase prices, consolidate further, and then rely on taxpayers to clean up the fallout.

Today, farmers stepped into a Supreme Court fight against Monsanto.

Farm Action joined a coalition of farmer and farmworker groups, represented by FarmSTAND, in filing an amicus brief opposing Monsanto’s attempt to escape liability in Monsanto v. Durnell, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 27.

Monsanto is asking the Court to block people from suing when its products cause harm, arguing that federal pesticide approvals should override state law. Farmers are saying no.

This case is being framed as protecting agriculture, but it doesn’t. It strips farmers and farmworkers of one of the only tools they have left to hold powerful corporations accountable.

If Monsanto gets what it wants, a company could fail to warn about known risks and still avoid responsibility. The rest of us would be left facing the consequences.

The Story Monsanto Is Telling

Monsanto and its allies want the public to believe this case is about protecting farmers’ access to an important tool, but that argument falls apart fast.

The question before the Court is whether Monsanto can avoid responsibility when its product causes harm. Farmers’ ability to control weeds is not what is on trial here.

Our brief makes that clear. Holding Monsanto accountable would not threaten farmers’ ability to grow food. Farmers can access glyphosate from other manufacturers. They can use other herbicides. They can also control weeds without herbicides at all.

The Pressure Campaign

Bayer, which owns Monsanto, has been telling policymakers and the public that holding the company accountable would put the food system at risk.

The company has threatened to pull Roundup from the market, hoping that fear of disruption will do political work for them. But Roundup is a major source of revenue for Bayer, and glyphosate would still be available from other manufacturers even if Bayer changed course.

The point of these threats is not to warn about a real supply crisis. Instead, it is to build pressure for legal protection by making policymakers afraid to challenge the company.

What’s at Stake

Monsanto wants federal approval to serve as a shield against failure-to-warn claims under state law. If the Court agrees, people harmed by these products could lose one of the last remaining ways to seek justice.

Farmers and farmworkers would still bear the risk, but the company that made the product could be let off the hook.

And the impact would not end with Monsanto. A ruling like that would give pesticide companies a much stronger path to avoid accountability when their products cause harm.

The Bigger Picture

This case is part of a broader pattern in agriculture. Over time, the seed and chemical industries have consolidated, leaving a handful of corporations with control over inputs farmers rely on.

Seeds, chemicals, and contracts are tied together in ways that limit farmers’ choices and deepen their dependence on the companies selling them.

Giving those companies legal immunity would only tighten that grip. It would mean less accountability in a system where corporate control is already too high.

Where This Leaves Us

This case gets to a basic question: Can a company sell a product, fail to warn people about known risks, and then avoid responsibility when harm follows?

Farmers are stepping in because they know exactly what that means. They are the ones using these products. They are the ones exposed to the risks. And too often, they are the ones left without any real recourse when something goes wrong.

No company should get a pass for that, and farmers are making that clear at the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, USDA and the White House were all over social media talking about the “Product of USA” meat label. If you just saw that, you’d think this was something the Trump administration just came up with. It’s not.

As of January 1, 2026, corporations can no longer lie to us with fraudulent “Product of USA” labels. For years, imported meat could be brought into the country and sold under a label that made people think they were buying American food when they weren’t.

We spent six years fighting to fix this. Ranchers were getting undercut, shoppers were being misled, and global meatpackers were cashing in. Now, if a company uses a “Product of USA” label, the animal has to be born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.

How This Actually Happened

This fight started back in 2018, during the first Trump administration. Leaders from the American Grassfed Association brought the issue forward. Joe Maxwell and I were working on it with them, and we went to USDA and asked them to fix the label. They wouldn’t do it.

So we filed a formal petition. Ranchers showed up, spoke out, and made it clear this was not going away. Still, in 2020, USDA denied our petition.

Then we took it to the next administration. Under Biden, USDA picked it up. In 2023, the agency proposed the rule ranchers had been asking for, and in 2024, it finalized it. The rule went into effect on January 1, 2026. Now, under the current Trump administration, USDA is enforcing it.

Why This Mattered So Much

The fraudulent labeling hurt ranchers across the board, but it was especially hard on grassfed producers and others marketing their own beef. They were doing the work to build trust with customers and explain why their product was different, while imported meat could still carry a “Product of USA” label. That made it harder for ranchers selling the real thing to stand out and get paid for it.

This rule still does not force companies to tell you where your meat comes from. But it does stop them from slapping “Product of USA” on imported meat and calling it American.

The Part That Still Has to Be Fixed

The problem is the label is still voluntary. Corporations do not have to use it, and if they don’t, shoppers still have no clear way to know where that meat came from. That’s why this is not the end of the fight.

What we still need is Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling. It requires meat labels to disclose where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered. We have country of origin labeling on all kinds of products, from T-shirts to dog bones. We should have it on meat.

Farm Action and allies have been pushing this for years, and it is one of our top priorities for inclusion in the 2026 Farm Bill. Congress should pass the American Beef Labeling Act to restore MCOOL for beef, and the White House should renegotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement so MCOOL can apply to all beef, pork, and meat products traded between the three countries.

And according to Meriwether Farms, ranchers were also working with people inside the current administration on an executive order to move MCOOL forward, but USDA leadership stopped it over “affordability” concerns. If so, then while USDA is celebrating this voluntary label, it also helped stop a mandatory one.

Where This Leaves Us

“Product of USA” label reform is a real win. Ranchers fought for years to get this done, and we beat the packers on it. A label that was being used to mislead people now has a real standard behind it. It matters for ranchers trying to compete and for consumers who want to know what they’re buying.

But we are still stuck with a system where meat can be sold with no origin information at all. “Product of USA” finally means what it says. And, every package should say where the meat comes from. Until that happens, there is still work to do.

Fertilizer prices are rising again just ahead of planting season, and the federal government is considering sending relief to farmers.

The price spike is being blamed on conflict and shipping disruptions in the Middle East. But that explanation is already being questioned by farmers, watchdog groups like Farm Action, and federal investigators.

Farmers have seen this before. Fertilizer prices surged well before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. But that spike was blamed on global disruption, too. Fertilizer companies posted record profits while farmers absorbed the costs.

About a quarter of U.S. farmers still need to buy fertilizer for this year’s crop as planting season gets underway. Most are stuck in a system built around expensive chemical inputs sold by a handful of powerful companies.

So the federal government is talking about stepping in with taxpayer-funded support.

Farmers may need relief. But when bailout money goes out, where does it actually end up?

The Subsidy Cycle

Over the past two years alone, the federal government has sent tens of billions of dollars to agriculture. That includes $10 billion in emergency aid in late 2024, a farm subsidy expansion worth more than $65 billion over the next decade in 2025, and another $12 billion late last year for farmers dealing with the trade war and falling crop prices.

That money is supposed to keep farms afloat. But farms run on tight margins and constant bills. Relief money goes to operating loans, land rent, seed, fuel, chemicals, and fertilizer—quickly flowing to the companies selling those inputs.

When farmers have more money to spend, fertilizer companies raise prices. One industry handbook says grain prices explain about half of fertilizer price changes.

Nebraska farmer Kevin Fulton, reflecting on his years in conventional farming, said, “We’re only going to make money one year. Then all the companies raise the price of fertilizer and chemicals, and we struggle until corn prices go up again.”

That is the hamster wheel: fertilizer companies raise prices, farmers get squeezed, Congress sends money, and the companies capture it. They can keep doing so because of market power.

The Power Behind the Cycle

The fertilizer market in North America once included dozens of companies. After decades of mergers and acquisitions, only a handful remain.

One company produces roughly 80 percent of phosphate fertilizer in North America. Two companies control more than 90 percent of potash capacity, and the top four firms control more than 80 percent of nitrogen fertilizer production capacity.

When so few companies control supply, farmers cannot simply shop around for a better deal.

That concentration gives fertilizer companies enormous power during disruptions. A war, shipping problem, or supply scare can quickly become the excuse for another price jump.

We have already seen what that looks like.

Wholesale fertilizer prices rose more than 60 percent in 2021 and averaged 132 percent higher in 2022 than in 2020. Farmers absorbed those costs while trying to keep their operations running.

At the same time, major fertilizer companies reported record profits. One firm increased the profit it made on fertilizer by 680 percent between 2020-2022, even though its costs rose far less.

Why This Price Spike Is Raising Questions

Now the Department of Justice is examining whether fertilizer companies coordinated pricing. Members of Congress are pressing for answers. In a recent letter, Senator Josh Hawley questioned whether fertilizer producers were restricting supply or exploiting global turmoil to push prices higher.

A new class-action lawsuit filed in federal court makes similar allegations, claiming major fertilizer manufacturers have conspired since 2021 to raise prices and keep them high.

Farm Action recently warned federal officials that concentrated fertilizer markets are especially vulnerable during supply disruptions. When a handful of firms control most of the supply, sudden price spikes can quickly turn into windfalls for the companies selling the inputs.

And the fertilizer market is not the only place this happens. Across food and agriculture, consolidation has let dominant corporations raise prices during disruptions, making record profits while farmers and consumers absorb the cost.

Breaking the Cycle

Farmers may need help when input costs surge. A sudden fertilizer price spike right before planting can threaten a farm’s survival for the year.

But bailouts alone will not fix the system that created the problem.

First, regulators must confront concentration in fertilizer markets. That means enforcing antitrust laws, stopping further consolidation, and breaking up companies that control too much of the supply chain.

Policymakers should also expand domestic fertilizer production in ways that increase competition. Public investment should help independent and regional producers enter the market so farmers are not left dependent on a handful of global suppliers.

And farmers should not be trapped in a system that requires buying more expensive inputs every year. Federal policy should support soil health and alternative fertility systems that help farmers rely less on concentrated fertilizer markets and keep more of what they earn.

Farmers do not want endless bailouts. They want fair markets, real competition, and a chance to earn a living from the crops they grow.

President Trump has promised since 2024 to get toxic chemicals out of our food supply.

Last week, an Executive Order declared glyphosate “critical to national security,” boosted production, and granted legal protections to manufacturers.

A weedkiller is now being treated as essential to the stability of the United States.

That didn’t happen by accident.

The “Overnight” Scare Story

Many farmers use glyphosate. Cropping systems were built around it.

No serious proposal calls for eliminating it overnight. Yet that’s the defense we keep hearing: If glyphosate disappeared tomorrow, yields would crash. Food prices would surge. Farms would collapse.

So where did this “overnight” threat come from? The only one publicly raising the possibility of pulling supply is Bayer. The company has warned it may stop selling in states that refuse to pass liability shields.

The biggest long-term vulnerability is that U.S. glyphosate supply is overwhelmingly sourced from imports, especially China. But Bayer’s threats show how dependence creates a second vulnerability: a single powerful firm can use the fear of disruption to extract policy concessions.

When one company can hint at cutting off supply and lawmakers move to protect it, that says something about power.

How We Got This Dependent

Glyphosate didn’t become central by accident.

Antitrust enforcement weakened and the seed and chemical industries consolidated. Farm policy rewarded monocultures and maximum yield.

Today, a chemical-heavy row crop system dominates. Corn and soybeans cover millions of acres. Much of that production feeds livestock, fuels ethanol, supplies processed foods, or is shipped overseas.

That is where most glyphosate is used.

Nebraska farmer Kevin Fulton puts it plainly: “When’s the last time you sat down to a bowl of #2 yellow field corn?”

Calling this setup “food security” only defends the structure that created the dependence.

Concentration Creates Leverage

Bayer, the German-based multinational that acquired Monsanto in 2018, is a dominant player in the glyphosate market and the maker of Roundup.

The company faces billions in litigation over Roundup and has pushed for liability protections in state legislatures, in Congress, and at the Supreme Court. It has warned it may restrict sales if it doesn’t get its way.

Glyphosate is deeply embedded in how U.S. row crops are grown. When a single company controls a product that millions of acres depend on, policymakers feel pressure to keep that product flowing.

If lawmakers believe a supply disruption could ripple through commodity markets, they move to prevent it. That’s how dependence turns into influence.

And when the entire system is built around a narrow set of inputs supplied by a handful of firms, protecting agriculture gets confused with protecting those firms.

Promises of Transition

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says pesticides are toxic by design and admits the system depends heavily on them. He warns that removing them overnight would be disastrous.

Dependence is real. But the response so far has been to expand production and secure legal protection, while promising a gradual shift to alternatives.

There is a regenerative pilot program. There is talk of laser weed control and other new technologies.

Those won’t unwind decades of chemical dependence on their own.

What’s missing is scale. Farmers across the country are already reducing or eliminating herbicide use and maintaining competitive yields. They report stronger margins because they spend less on inputs. Diversified rotations, cover crops, and integrated livestock systems are not theories. They are working on real farms.

If glyphosate is both toxic and “critical,” that tension should drive serious investment in helping farmers transition at scale. Right now, the scale of action does not match the scale of the problem.

A Fork in the Road

If President Trump meant what he said in 2024 about getting toxic chemicals out of our food supply, this is the moment to prove it.

We are losing roughly 63 farms a day in this country. The farmers who remain are squeezed by thin margins, rising input costs, and markets shaped by consolidation. Doubling down on chemical dependence under pressure from one dominant corporation will not reverse that trend.

We cannot eliminate glyphosate overnight. But we can stop treating it as untouchable.

If the administration is serious about reform, three steps would signal it immediately.

• First, retract federal support for a liability shield for Bayer. Granting a sweeping liability shield to pesticide manufacturers would lock in the very leverage that created this crisis.

• Second, commit to phasing out pre-harvest desiccation with glyphosate and other synthetic chemicals. That practice is not inevitable. Setting a clear timeline would send a market signal and give farmers time to adjust.

• Third, invest at scale in regenerative agriculture to support diversified rotations, soil health, integrated livestock, and regional processing. Farmers are already proving these systems can compete. They need alignment from policy, not resistance from it.

The question is simple: will this administration keep its promises and reform the system it inherited, or protect it?

Independent farmers cannot afford another decade of the same approach.

A group of former agriculture officials and commodity leaders just sent a letter to Congress warning that American farmers are in trouble. The letter is getting a lot of attention, and I understand why.

Farmers are under pressure. Bankruptcies are rising. Costs are up. Margins are thin. Rural communities feel it every time another farm is forced to sell, and someone bigger is waiting to buy it up.

But the letter mostly lists symptoms, then reaches for the same Washington, D.C. fixes that helped build this mess in the first place.

Farmers Don’t Need More of the Same Playbook

The authors point to tariffs, trade disruptions, labor shortages, and underfunded USDA programs. They call on Congress to pass a farm bill, expand ethanol markets, and pursue new trade agreements.

Some of that matters, but none of it gets at the heart of the problem. Farmers are living with an economy where a handful of corporations hold the leverage.

The Real Problem Is Market Power

Across agriculture, farmers run into consolidation at every turn.

A few companies control seed and chemicals. A few giants dominate fertilizer. A few processors and meatpackers control what farmers can earn for livestock. A few retailers set the terms farther down the chain.

When power gets concentrated like that, farmers get squeezed at both ends. Input companies can charge more for seed, chemicals, fertilizer, and equipment, and the buyers on the other side can pay less for crops and livestock. That is what a lack of competition looks like.

Trade policy won’t fix that on its own. Biofuels policy won’t either. A farm bill won’t change it unless Congress is willing to take on corporate power directly.

The Truth About These “Leaders”

It’s hard to ignore who’s signing this letter.

Many of the people presenting themselves as the responsible grown-ups in the room are the same leaders who spent decades backing the policies that built today’s farm economy. They cheered consolidation. They normalized the export-and-ethanol model that pushed farmers into a race for volume. They helped write farm bills that rewarded bigness and punished independence.

Now they are asking Congress for another round of the same tools, with farmers left holding the risk again.

Tariffs and Input Costs

The letter calls for exempting farm inputs from tariffs. That’s fine. Nobody wants higher costs for fertilizer, chemicals, parts, and equipment.

But tariffs are not why farmers are stuck paying too much for the basics. Farmers are paying too much because input markets are concentrated. When one or two firms dominate, there is no real pressure to compete on price. Farmers get whatever terms show up on the invoice.

If lawmakers want to lower costs in a lasting way, they need competition. They need enforcement. They need to stop letting companies buy up their rivals and call it efficiency.

“Pass a Farm Bill” Is Not a Plan

The letter urges Congress to pass a farm bill. That is not an agenda.

A farm bill can reinforce consolidation, reward the biggest operations, and keep farmers producing more for less. A farm bill can also rebuild resilience, restore fairness, and help family farms survive.

The difference is not the title on the bill. The difference is whose interests it serves.

A Way Out of the Commodity Trap

The letter also misses something bigger. Farmers need a real path to a future that is not locked into producing commodities for feed, fuel, and export while rural communities struggle to afford food.

Federal policy pushes farmers toward a narrow set of crops and markets, then acts surprised when farmers get stuck in boom-and-bust cycles.

If Congress wants family farms to survive, it should invest in farmers feeding Americans with profitable markets closer to home.

That means:

• supporting farmers who want to diversify and transition into food crops, livestock, and mixed systems

• rebuilding regional processing and distribution we are missing, including slaughter capacity, cold storage, milling, and aggregation

• creating steady demand through institutions like schools, hospitals, and food assistance

• making sure farmers are not taking all the risk while middlemen take the margin

Farmers grow what the system rewards. If we want more food for Americans, policy has to reward it, and markets have to pay for it.

What Policymakers Should Focus On

If lawmakers want to help farmers, they should stop pretending this is just a rough patch. The structure of the farm economy is failing farmers.

Policymakers should start with restoring competition:

• enforce antitrust laws in meatpacking, fertilizer, seed, and grain trading

• block mergers in sectors that are already dangerously concentrated

• strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act and protect farmers from retaliation

• require real transparency in pricing so farmers are not negotiating blind

• crack down on price gouging and abusive market practices

Farmers do not want handouts. They want fair markets. The farm crisis is real, and Congress should stop dancing around the cause. Corporate control of agriculture is breaking farm country.

First published at Farm Action (farmaction.us), with analysis by the Farm Action policy team.

For decades, the farm bill has been the big package where Congress handles farm programs and food assistance in the same bill. It’s never pretty, but it’s where the main decisions usually get made.

This time, Congress made a lot of those decisions outside the farm bill.

Last summer, lawmakers used a fast-track budget process called “reconciliation” to make major changes to farm and food policy in a separate bill. Translation: they handled a bunch of the big-ticket items early. So the next farm bill will be narrower than past ones. Policymakers are calling it a “skinny farm bill” or “Farm Bill 2.0.”

The biggest money fights were mostly settled already. What’s left are the rules: who they’re written for, and whether they serve farmers and the public or protect special interests. That’s why Farm Action is launching our farm bill platform now, as Congress starts putting pen to paper.

What Changed, and Who Benefited

The changes Congress made through reconciliation in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act followed a familiar pattern.

Commodity programs and crop insurance got bigger, but they’re still built around a narrow set of commodity crops and still favor the largest producers. Nutrition assistance was cut, weakening one of the main pillars that has long helped families afford food and helped hold farm bills together politically. Conservation funding was reshuffled to pull support away from farmers transitioning to healthier soil and lower-chemical systems.

Taken together, these changes only reinforced the status quo. The biggest benefits flowed to the largest operations and the most consolidated parts of the food system. Farmers growing fruits, vegetables, and other food crops were largely left where they’ve always been: with fewer safety nets and higher risk. Families relying on nutrition assistance were left with less help at a time when food prices remain high.

That context shapes what the next farm bill is really about.

What’s Left for the Farm Bill to Decide

With the biggest spending programs already changed through reconciliation, the next farm bill is less likely to be about expanding the farm safety net or rebuilding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It’s more likely to be about the rules that shape how the food system works day to day.

Those rules will decide things like:

• Who can access stable markets and who can’t

• Whether local and regional food systems have a fair shot

• How transparent food supply chains are

• Whether states and farmers keep their rights, or Big Ag gets preemption and immunity

• Whether consolidation keeps accelerating or finally hits some guardrails

If these rules are written to protect Big Ag’s business model, independent farmers won’t get a level playing field. We’ll get fewer options and less leverage.

Where the Real Risks Are

Two of the biggest risks to watch closely are federal preemption and pesticide immunity. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson has said he wants both in this farm bill.

Preemption proposals would block states from setting their own food, farming, or animal welfare standards, even when voters approved them. California’s Proposition 12 is the clearest example: it created a real market for independent hog farmers, and now Big Ag wants Congress to wipe it out.

Pesticide immunity provisions would make it harder, or impossible, for farmers, workers, and communities to hold chemical companies accountable when they’re harmed.

Both are federal overreach, and both would move power away from farmers and communities and toward the largest corporations.

What We’re Fighting For

Farm Action’s farm bill platform focuses on the parts of the bill that are still in play, where policy changes could meaningfully shift power, strengthen food systems, and better serve farmers and the public.

That includes using federal food procurement to support local and regional producers, instead of funneling taxpayer dollars to the same handful of corporations. It also means improving access to risk management tools for diversified and specialty crop farmers, who are growing the real food people are told to eat more of, but still face higher financial risk. And it means supporting farmers who want to build healthier soil and cut chemical dependence, with conservation and technical help that makes those transitions possible.

We’re also pushing to rebuild regional processing and distribution, so farmers aren’t dependent on a handful of bottleneck facilities. And we want stronger transparency tools like country-of-origin labeling, so farmers can compete and consumers can make informed choices.

Finally, we’re fighting back against policies that strip states of authority or shield powerful companies from accountability.

Each of these issues comes down to the same question: who are the rules written for?

The Bottom Line

The next farm bill won’t look like the ones that came before it. Many of the biggest spending decisions have already been made elsewhere.

But that doesn’t make this bill a sideshow. It makes it a fight over the rules that shape our farms and our food.

This farm bill will help determine whether markets stay stacked for the biggest players, or whether independent farmers and rural communities get a fair shot. It will shape whether we rebuild the capacity to feed ourselves as a nation, or keep drifting toward a system that depends more on imports and a handful of corporations.

And it will help decide what kind of food our policies reward: the same commodity crops and processed products, or healthier food grown by farmers who can stay in business.

That’s why Farm Action is laying out our priorities now, while Congress is writing the bill. We believe government should serve the public, not special interests, and we’re fighting for a food and farm economy that works for farmers, workers, and all of us who eat.

Tyson Foods just agreed to pay $48 million to settle claims that it helped fix pork prices. In plain terms, the lawsuit says big pork companies used shared data from a firm called Agri Stats to keep prices higher than they should have been. Tyson denies wrongdoing, but is paying to settle.

Tyson is the sixth company to settle in this broader case. JBS, Smithfield, Seaboard Foods, Hormel, and Clemens have already reached agreements. Court filings show total settlements now exceed $114 million.

You might read that and be glad they had to pay up. But these settlements are a drop in the bucket next to what these companies rake in off the backs of consumers.

Pocket Change for Big Pork

In a highly consolidated meat industry, penalties like this are easy to absorb. Tyson is a company that measures results in billions, not millions. When a corporation can clear billions in profit and later pay a settlement that barely registers, the settlement becomes part of the business plan.

This is not unique to Tyson. Farm Action has tracked the same pattern across Big Meat. In one recent fiscal year, Tyson reported about $4 billion in net income and paid roughly $135 million across multiple price-fixing settlements. JBS reported $4 billion and paid $72.5 million across two settlements. Checks like these do not force a change in conduct. They confirm what the industry already assumes: getting caught is affordable.

Who Pays When Markets Are Rigged

This class-action case was brought by restaurants, delis, and other food businesses that purchased pork for commercial use between 2014 and 2018. These businesses do not have the leverage to bargain with national suppliers. They pay what the company demands, then scramble to make it work.

If prices are inflated, owners raise menu prices and lose customers, or hold prices and absorb the hit. That pressure moves fast to workers, hours, and paychecks. Small businesses take the damage first.

Farmers feel the squeeze too, from the other end of the chain. Consolidation gives processors leverage over the farm gate and the grocery shelf at the same time. Since 1970, the producer share of the consumer beef dollar has fallen from around 70 percent to about 37 percent. That gap reflects the slow transfer of wealth out of rural communities and into corporate boardrooms.

The Data Sharing Problem

Agri Stats is a company that sells detailed industry data to meatpackers. It shows them how their competitors are performing, down to things like costs, production levels, and profit margins.

The lawsuit alleges big pork companies used that shared data to coordinate to keep prices higher than they should have been. They did not need to sit in a room and make a formal deal. When the biggest players are all looking at the same numbers, it gets easier for them to make the same moves at the same time.

In a normal market, companies compete by cutting prices and trying to win customers. In a market dominated by a few giants, shared data can weaken that competition. That is why price-fixing allegations are rampant across pork, beef, and poultry.

Investigations Are Not Enforcement

This pork case is not an outlier. The same companies dominate beef and poultry.

In November, President Trump said DOJ would investigate possible price manipulation in beef. We have seen this before. In 2020, DOJ investigated the Big Four after cattle prices collapsed while beef prices rose. Publicly, it went nowhere. The market stayed concentrated, and the lawsuits kept coming.

If DOJ is serious this time, it has to do more than investigate. It has to enforce. Otherwise, Big Meat will keep treating settlements like a business expense, and consumers will keep paying more at the checkout.

What Has to Change

DOJ already has the authority under the Sherman Act. It needs to use it. Settlements that companies can shrug off will not change this market.

DOJ should bring real antitrust cases and break up monopoly power in meatpacking. When a handful of corporations control the market, coordination becomes easier and consumers end up paying more.

USDA has tools under the Packers and Stockyards Act to crack down on unfair and retaliatory practices that squeeze farmers and ranchers. That law has been underused for decades.

Lower food prices and fair markets require consequences that change corporate behavior and reduce corporate power.

The Bottom Line

This settlement is not a refund. Consumers will not get their money back, and the next case is already on the way unless something changes.

The fix is enforcement that hits where it counts, and real competition so these companies can’t keep rigging the market.

Subscribe now

For years, Bill Gates has been the name people bring up when they talk about billionaire farmland owners.

But now Stan Kroenke tops the list, with nearly 10 times more land than Gates.

“Silent Stan” Kroenke is famously reclusive. He owns the Los Angeles Rams and built his fortune in real estate, developing shopping centers, many anchored by Walmart. He is also married to a Walmart heiress.

The Land Report ranks Kroenke as the largest private landowner in America, with more than 2.7 million acres, after a reported purchase of nearly a million acres of New Mexico ranchland in December 2025.

To put this in perspective, Bill Gates owns about 275,000 acres total, and roughly 250,000 of that is farm ground.

These are big numbers. But the real question is not who is winning billionaire farmland Monopoly. It is this:

What Happens When the People Buying Land Are Not the People Farming It?

When land ownership concentrates into fewer hands, it gets priced for investors, not farmers.

Farmers bid based on what land can earn. Investors can bid based on what land can store: portfolio value, tax strategy, and long term appreciation, even if the farm income does not pencil out. That disconnect pushes prices beyond what working farms can support.

That raises barriers for beginning farmers. If you do not already own land, it gets harder to get started because prices exceed what farming can pay.

It also blocks expansion for working farms. Land is how you scale your operation, add family members, spread fixed costs, and survive bad years. When land is priced for wealth, not farm income, growth becomes a gamble.

So more farmers rent. Renting is not new, but it becomes the default when ownership is out of reach. And it comes with less security. You can improve a place for years and still lose it.

That uncertainty discourages long term investments in soil health, water, fencing, perennials, and infrastructure. Why sink money into improvements when you cannot be sure you will be farming that land next year, or five years from now?

Over time, power shifts to landlords and outside owners. Farmers have less leverage, decisions move away from the community, and more money leaves rural economies.

Beginning farmers feel this first, and it is not subtle. Erin Foster West of the National Young Farmers Coalition said it clearly:

“It makes it much harder for farmers to compete, especially beginning farmers who are maybe trying to acquire their first farm, or even an existing farmer who might want to grow and expand,” Foster West told Fortune.

The bottom line is that when fewer farmers can own land, fewer farmers can stay independent. That makes the food system less secure for everyone.

Who Gets to Farm?

This is not just about one or two billionaires. It is about whether farming stays something people can enter and build a life in, or whether it becomes something you do only if you inherit land or can rent it from someone who did.

If we want farmers on the land, we need more paths to ownership, fewer incentives that reward land speculation, and more transparency about who is buying what. That can look like farmer friendly financing for first time buyers, better public reporting on major land deals, and closing loopholes that make land speculation more profitable than production.

When land is bought to build wealth instead of grow food, it is a risky way to run a food system.

The federal government just released the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and for once the message is refreshingly simple: eat real food.

Whole, minimally processed foods are front and center. Vegetables and fruits, proteins, dairy, whole grains, and healthy fats. The Guidelines call for cutting back on the ultra-processed products that now dominate the Standard American Diet.

Now comes the harder part: making sure our farmers can actually produce it, and that families can actually afford and access it.

Because right now, the American food system is built to do the opposite.

The Guidelines Shape What the Government Buys, and That Shapes the Market

Most people think of dietary guidelines as advice for individuals. But the biggest impact is not what happens in your kitchen. It’s what happens in the federal budget.

As I told The Hill, the federal government is the largest purchaser of food in the country. These Guidelines influence what schools serve, what the military buys, and what public institutions feed people with taxpayer dollars.

That purchasing power shapes markets farmers depend on. It shapes which crops get planted, which sectors grow, which industries consolidate, and which foods remain expensive.

So when the federal government tells Americans to eat more fruits and vegetables and fewer processed foods, the next question is this:

Are our farm programs and procurement policies aligned with that goal?

Right now they’re not.

We Don’t Grow Enough of the Food We’re Being Told to Eat

The Dietary Guidelines want Americans to eat more fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. That’s been true for decades. But we’ve never built a farm system capable of delivering it at scale.

In fact, the opposite has happened.

A 2023 Farm Action–commissioned analysis found that Americans were eating 50–70% less produce, legumes, and whole grains than recommended at the time. That means the Guidelines are effectively calling for 2–3x more of these foods than Americans currently consume.

Yet instead of increasing domestic production, we’ve actually reduced it.

From 2018 to 2022:

• Vegetable acreage fell about 20%.

• The U.S. became a net importer of all five top vegetables by 2021.

• Imports rose and exports fell for produce and key food grains like wheat and rice.

Relying on imports for basic, healthy foods creates real vulnerability. We are increasingly dependent on other countries for the foods the Guidelines say we should be eating most.

And that trade imbalance is growing.

The Trade Deficit Is a Symptom of a Farm System That’s Tilted Toward Livestock Feed, Fuel, and Processed Foods

The United States is currently running an agricultural trade deficit driven in large part by rising imports of fruits and vegetables. These are foods we absolutely could be growing here.

Meanwhile, most American farmland is still dedicated to commodity crops, especially corn and soybeans, largely used for:

• livestock feed

• processed food ingredients (cheap sugars, starches, oils)

• and fuel

At 2022 prices, it would take only 3.5 to 4.4 million acres of additional fruits, vegetables, and melons to generate enough sales to offset the entire trade deficit. That is less than half a percent of U.S. farmland.

That number is so small because fruits and vegetables are much higher-value crops than commodity inputs.

And that’s the point. If we can make that much difference with less than one percent of our farmland, then this and more is doable. We can build a farm system that actually matches the plate we say we want, and the system taxpayers actually finance.

The Guidelines Talk About the Plate, but Policy Determines What Ends Up On It

The Dietary Guidelines focus mostly on diet. That’s their job. But the biggest force shaping American diets isn’t personal choice.

It’s what’s affordable. What’s available. What’s marketed. What’s subsidized. What schools serve. What hospitals stock. What the government buys.

And those things are determined by policy.

Federal farm programs are still skewed toward a handful of commodity crops, while nutrient-dense “specialty crops,” including fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and whole grains, are treated as an afterthought.

If the federal government is serious about the “eat real food” reset, then implementation has to focus on the systems behind the plate:

• what farmers are paid to grow

• what risk management tools support

• what procurement programs purchase

• and who controls the supply chain

We Need a Food System That Rewards Real Food, Not Highly Processed Products and Consolidated Supply Chains

Right now, corporate power sits at the choke points of our food system. Seed, fertilizer, meatpacking, processing, retail.

A food system run by monopolies will always prioritize scale and margins over health.

So if the government is serious about reducing ultra-processed foods and returning to whole foods, the implementation has to match that ambition.

That means procurement and farm programs can’t keep reinforcing the same market dynamics that got us here.

If the Government Wants Americans to Eat Real Food, It Must Start Buying Real Food

Here’s the most straightforward test:

Do federal food dollars go toward farmers growing minimally processed food for people? Or toward the same consolidated middlemen who profit off cheap processed inputs?

If the Guidelines are going to matter, implementation must:

• shift subsidies toward food crops aligned with the Guidelines

• leverage federal procurement to build markets for farmers growing real food

• expand risk management for diversified and regenerative farms

• reform conservation programs so they support public health outcomes

• and prioritize local and regional supply chains rather than corporate concentration

The Guidelines tell Americans what to eat. Now the federal government has to decide whether it’s willing to build a system that can deliver it.

On January 1, 2026 two rules take effect that most people will not hear about. But they will change what you see at the meat case and how animals are treated on farms.

One stops meat companies from labeling imported beef as American. The other limits the use of cages so small that mother pigs cannot even turn around.

I was part of both campaigns, one early in my career as a volunteer and one more recently. So I have seen how these fights get won.

Government policy has favored corporate special interests for a long time, and it can feel like the public never wins. The system is rigged, but these two rules show that it can change when we fight back.

Truth at the Meat Case: “Product of USA” Finally Means Something

Starting January 1, “Product of USA” can only be used on meat from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. If you see that label, it should finally mean what you think it means.

For years, ranchers were getting undercut and shoppers were getting fooled, all so the biggest meat companies could make more money.

This fight started when ranchers noticed imported meat taking over the shelves while the label still said “USA.” In 2018, the American Grassfed Association raised the alarm. A small group of us worked with them to push USDA to close the loophole.

First we asked USDA to fix it. They refused.

So we filed an official petition and built public pressure around it. Thousands of people sent in comments. We held a rally in Omaha, and ranchers rode in on horseback to make the point clear.

In 2024, USDA finally wrote a real rule to close the loophole, and it goes into effect on January 1.

Decency for Mother Pigs: Ohio Limits Gestation Crates

Ohio is one of the top pig-producing states in the country. Starting at the new year, Ohio’s rules limiting extreme confinement for breeding pigs finally take effect.

These rules go back to 2011, when Ohioans organized and demanded a basic standard for how farm animals are treated.

The standard is simple. For most of her pregnancy, a mother pig cannot be kept in a gestation crate.

A gestation crate is a metal cage barely larger than her body. In crate systems, a mother pig can spend much of her adult life unable to turn around.

Plenty of farmers already do better than this. These rules are about setting a floor so the worst corporate practices don’t define the whole industry.

These rules matter for animal welfare, and they matter for health. Public health experts have warned for years that intensive confinement increases stress and makes animals more vulnerable to disease.

On January 1, Ohio draws a line. Mother pigs have to be able to move.

People Fought Back and Won

It is easy to feel like nothing good happens in government anymore. These two wins show what can happen when people fight back.

For too long, government policy has favored the biggest corporations. It has protected their profits and given them loopholes to exploit. The result was meat that could be imported and sold as American, and confinement systems that treat animals like widgets.

These wins show that the rules are not set in stone. When people get organized and keep the pressure on, government policy can change to put the public first.

Truth shouldn’t be rare. Decency shouldn’t be optional. Let’s keep fighting for more wins like these in 2026.

Four bailouts in about a year.

That is what the federal government has now delivered or is preparing to deliver to farmers. When an industry needs emergency rescue this often, the problem is bigger than one bad season. The system itself is not working.

The Short Timeline

1. In December 2024, Congress passed $10 billion in emergency assistance for farmers. USDA moved to get that money out in early 2025 because many farmers were already in trouble.

2. In July 2025, Congress passed a major bill that expanded farm subsidies by more than $65 billion over the next decade. This was not framed as a bailout, but it expands long-term support because the farm economy is not delivering fair prices on its own.

3. In December 2025, the federal government announced another $12 billion in aid for farmers facing trade problems and low prices. In that package, $11 billion was set aside for major row crops like corn and soybeans, and $1 billion for specialty crops and other commodities.

4. Now, lawmakers are already discussing another round of aid for January 2026. Some are floating $10 billion. Others have mentioned numbers closer to $20 billion.

Farmers do not want bailouts. In USA Today, I said the December 2025 aid was welcome and desperately needed because farmers are struggling. But repeated bailouts are a sign the underlying system is not working for farmers the way it should.

Why This Keeps Happening

We keep getting bailouts because farm policy has been shaped by powerful corporations, building an economy where everyone in the supply chain can make money except the farmer.

For decades, government policy has pushed farmers to overproduce commodity crops like corn and soybeans, mainly for export markets and livestock feed. That ties farm income to global demand and trade fights. When exports drop or tariffs hit, prices fall fast.

As a result, when so much land and investment goes into corn and soybeans, we grow less of the food Americans actually eat. That is one reason we import about $50 billion more farm and food products than we export, relying on other countries to feed us.

Consolidation makes the squeeze worse. A handful of corporations control key parts of agriculture, from seed, fertilizer, and chemicals to meatpacking, grain trading, and processing. They can raise what farmers pay and hold down what farmers earn.

When the math does not work, emergency checks become the backstop.

Where the Money Really Goes

A bailout check can keep a farm from going under. But it often does not stay on the farm for long.

Most farms run on thin margins and heavy monthly bills. When aid arrives, many farmers use it to catch up on operating loans, pay interest, and cover payments that are already due. A large share can end up flowing straight through farmers to lenders.

The same is true for inputs. Farmers have to buy seed, fertilizer, chemicals, feed, fuel, repairs, and equipment. When those costs are set by a handful of dominant corporations, farmers do not have much room to shop around. Relief money meant to help farmers can quickly end up boosting the revenues of input suppliers and other gatekeepers.

Bailouts can keep a farm alive for a season, but they do not change the pricing and power problems that caused the crisis.

What It Looks Like on the Ground

Across the country, farmers are cutting costs wherever they can. They delay equipment maintenance. They try to renegotiate land rents. Many take off-farm jobs to stay afloat.

And many are not surviving. Since 2017, the United States has lost more than 160,000 farms, which works out to about 63 farms a day.

Farm bankruptcies are rising, and more farmers fear we are headed toward a farm crisis not seen since the 1980s.

What Needs to Change

This system is working the way it was designed. More checks do not change that. They just keep it going. If we want fewer bailouts, we need to change the rules so farmers can earn a living from the market and we grow more real food here at home.

That means shifting support toward fruits, vegetables, and other foods people eat, not just feed and export crops.

It means rebuilding regional processing, storage, and distribution so farmers have more than a few buyers.

And it means breaking up the corporations that dominate seeds, fertilizer, chemicals, grain trading, and meatpacking, so they cannot keep raising farmers’ costs and holding down what farmers earn.

Relief matters right now. But without structural change, we will be back here again with the next bailout.

Subscribe now

For years, farmers were told to trust the safety process. Use the product as directed. Follow the label. Regulators have reviewed the science.

Most people assume that means the government did the testing. The truth is: the company did. And now we have a rare, public glimpse of what that can look like.

A scientific journal retracted a widely cited paper that has been used for decades to argue that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, poses no cancer risk. The retraction points to serious ethical concerns. It says the paper leaned on unpublished Monsanto studies, and that Monsanto employees helped write it without disclosure.

When there’s billions on the line, companies don’t just sell a chemical. They sell the safety story around it, too, and they push that story through journals, regulators, and the public until it becomes part of daily routines on farms and, ultimately, what we all eat.

Why This Matters In Farm Country

In rural America, exposure is part of life. It’s in the air on spray days. It’s on our clothes and equipment. Farmworkers and farm families live closer to it and spend more time around it than anyone else.

So when the system says a product is safe, people build their routines around that. They assume the basics were done right.

Glyphosate isn’t some niche product. It’s one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, used on millions of acres of farmland and woven into the food system. When something is used at that scale, the safety bar has to be airtight. A retraction like this is a sign it wasn’t.

The Story We’ve Been Told: “Regulators Reviewed The Science.”

Most people picture a simple process. A company invents a chemical. The government tests it. If it’s dangerous, it gets stopped. If it’s approved, it must be safe.

What usually happens is different. The company funds most of the testing and submits a package to regulators. The agency reviews what it’s given, and a lot of the studies never get published where the public can easily see or question them. EPA’s pesticide program is also funded in part by industry fees, which means the agency depends on the companies it regulates.

That’s why certain peer-reviewed papers end up carrying so much weight. They become the go-to proof in courtrooms, headlines, and talking points.

Subscribe now

What This Retraction Shows

In this case, the journal says the paper leaned on unpublished company studies and raises concerns about undisclosed company involvement in the writing. That should make anyone pause, because peer review is supposed to mean independence.

When a company controls key parts of the evidence and also helps shape the paper used as public proof, that paper becomes marketing dressed up as science.

What We Should Demand Now

This retraction shouldn’t just be a headline. It should be a turning point. Here are a few common-sense lines we should draw:

• If a study is used to reassure the public, its underlying evidence should be available to the public. No more “trust us, it’s in the file.”
  

• Industry involvement must be disclosed clearly, including funding, authorship, and behind-the-scenes editing. Scientific credibility depends on transparency.
  

• Regulators should not rely on unpublished, company-controlled studies as a stand-in for independent research, especially for chemicals used at enormous scale.
  

• The burden of proof should match the scale of exposure. Millions of acres and millions of people touched by the system means the standard has to be higher.
  

This retraction is a reminder that pesticide companies have spent years managing the science and the regulators. That power shapes government decisions, and the costs land on farmers, farmworkers, rural communities, and the rest of us, often without realizing it.

Share

I grew up in rural Ohio where the closing of a plant, a school, or even a diner could shift the rhythm of a community overnight. In a small town, everything’s connected. So when I read the news about Tyson closing its beef plant in Lexington, Nebraska, it hit me the way these stories always do. You feel it in your stomach before you even get to the numbers.

I’m starting this Substack to speak more directly and personally about what’s happening in our food system. I’ve spent years working on these issues, and this will be a place to dig into food, health, rural life, and the corporate and political forces shaping them. If you’d like to stay connected, you can subscribe for new posts.

A Warning for Rural America

Tyson Foods’ decision to close its beef plant in Lexington is a major hit to a town of about 10,000 people. The plant employs 3,200 workers, and its loss will reshape the community. But the impact doesn’t stop there. When a handful of corporations dominate a market, their decisions send shockwaves through entire regions and affect the stability of our food supply nationwide.

Workers Feel the Impact First

The UFCW is right to call the closure “a devastating blow” to workers. When a single employer dominates a small town, thousands of families lose income at once. Next, businesses that depend directly on the plant feel the impact. Nebraska Public Media reports that a sanitation contractor at the plant has announced it will lay off all 139 of its workers because of the closure.

From there, the strain spreads quickly. Local businesses see spending drop, and churches and community groups often step in with whatever support they can manage. A plant this size can define the local economy, and its sudden loss creates fear and instability for everyone.

But the story does not end there.

Ranchers Lose Their Market Next

The Lexington plant could process about 5,000 head of cattle a day. With so few large plants left, there aren’t many other places for that volume to go. Removing that demand weakens cattle markets across the country. The Associated Press reports that this closure, along with cuts at a Tyson plant in Texas, could shrink national processing capacity by 7 to 9 percent.

Ranchers were already dealing with high costs, drought, and years of uneven prices. Now they face even less competition for their cattle. When there are fewer packers active in the market, ranchers have less bargaining power, and cattle prices fall even as beef prices in grocery stores stay near record highs.

Some, including independent Nebraska Senate candidate Dan Osborn, argue that Tyson chose to close the plant instead of selling it in order to manipulate the market, which they say may violate federal antitrust law.

This is what happens when just four corporations control almost all U.S. beef processing. Tyson and the other big packers can slow down or speed up processing with little cost to themselves. Ranchers, workers, and rural communities are the ones who pay the price.

Imports from Argentina Add More Pressure

Domestic processing capacity is shrinking, and the United States already imports more beef than it exports. Shipments from Argentina are now increasing as well. Farm Action raised concerns about this recently when President Trump suggested relying on Argentinian beef to bring prices down.

More imported beef in an already consolidated market makes it harder for U.S. ranchers to stay afloat. Rebuilding the American cattle herd takes time and money, and ranchers are less likely to invest when imported beef fills shelves instead of cattle raised here at home.

And because we still do not have mandatory country of origin labeling, consumers cannot tell where their beef comes from. Multinational corporations benefit from that lack of transparency. U.S. ranchers and rural communities do not.

When a Town Depends on One Company

Lexington’s story shows what happens when a rural town depends on one large, distant corporation. A plant like this anchors the local tax base, the housing market, and the strength of schools and hospitals. When the corporation leaves, those supports start to erode. Families move, enrollment drops, staffing gets harder, and long-term investments stall.

This is the deeper risk of consolidation. Rural towns need diverse and stable economies, but decades of corporate concentration have left many communities with only one major employer. When that employer shuts a plant, the effects reach far beyond the immediate job losses and can strain an entire region for years.

There Is a Better Path Forward

What happened in Lexington is not an accident. It reflects policy choices that concentrated power and weakened the position of workers, ranchers, and rural towns. We can make different choices.

Here are a few places to start:

• Rebuild competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws and reducing the power of dominant meatpackers.

• Support local and regional processing so no community is left dependent on a single plant.

• Restore transparency by reinstating mandatory country of origin labeling for beef.

• Strengthen the U.S. cattle herd so we do not continue sliding toward greater reliance on foreign imports.

Workers, ranchers, and rural communities deserve better than this. They should not be left at the mercy of a few global corporations. A fair and resilient food system is possible, but only if we stand with the people who keep it going.

A Note Before You Go

In the weeks ahead, I’ll share more updates on what’s happening across rural America and in our food system. If you know someone who would find this helpful, feel free to pass it along or subscribe. Thanks for being here.

Subscribe now