SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
agriculture
Critics Warn Trump Beef Orders 'Won't Help Consumers or Ranchers' and Could Kill Protected Wolves
One conservation advocate said the impact of wolves on livestock pales in comparison to that of "recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Sep 04, 2026
Although President Donald Trump was surrounded by farmers and ranchers while signing a pair of beef-related executive orders in the Oval Office on Friday, some critics cast doubt on their effectiveness—plus highlighted how one proposal could prove lethal for protected wolves.
Trump is facing high beef prices and the looming midterm elections. After meeting with Brazilian billionaire Joesley Batista, a key shareholder for JBS, the world's largest meatpacker, the president last month paused tariffs on 300,000 metric tons of beef for 90 days to be sold at a discount. While signing the new orders on Friday, Trump signaled that the cheaper beef will be imported from Argentina, Brazil, and "a couple of other places."
Trump's latest orders are intended to appease the US cattle industry, which was angry about the August proclamation, by "cracking down on major meatpackers' dominance of the industry and seeking to implement new labeling standards," Politico explained. However, "it's not clear whether any of the steps announced Friday will assuage ranchers' concerns or have any impact in the short term, given that most of them would require regulatory changes or congressional action."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) food policy director Rebecca Wolf said in a statement that "President Trump is on an apology tour after his deal to flood US markets with foreign-imported beef—it's not working. Today's executive orders will do nothing to reverse the last two years of Trump's disastrous food policy."
"Under his watch, consumer beef prices are at record highs, and ranchers can't make ends meet, all while the multinational meat monopolies profit hand over fist," she stressed. FWW found last month that while JBS reported $131.7 billion in revenue and $2.4 billion in profit, and fellow industry giant Tyson reported $82.65 billion in revenue and $681 million in profit, "prices are up 23% for choice beef, 24.2% for ground beef, 24.7% for ground chuck, and 25.2% for chuck roast."
Wolf noted that "US agencies charged with protecting market competition sit on the sidelines, made toothless by Trump's reckless job cuts," pointing to thousands of staff reductions across the Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and threats to slash funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Packers and Stockyards Division.
Since Congress repealed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork in 2015, FWW has been among those pushing for its restoration. Trump's order directs Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, to "review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment" of MCOOL for beef products, then issue or amend regulations, as permitted by law, and develop legislative recommendations.
"Consumers deserve to know where their food comes from. There is no excuse for keeping consumers in the dark."Tell the #WhiteHouse and #Congress, restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling for #Beef.#MCOOLSign & Share: form.jotform.com/262434091212...
[image or embed]
— Consumer Federation of America (@consumerfed.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 8:52 AM
As a diverse coalition that includes FWW circulates a "Label Our Beef" petition, Wolf said Friday that "it is clearer than ever that Congress must heed popular demand and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling to give American producers an even playing field. And Trump must put his money where his mouth is and fund antitrust and fair trade enforcement to truly help American families and ranchers."
While FWW declared that "Trump's beef executive orders won't help consumers or ranchers," Angela Huffman, president and CEO of Farm Action, was more diplomatic, welcoming the language on MCOOL, meat processing, and Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement.
"These actions show the administration is listening to problems farmers and ranchers have raised for years, and we appreciate that," Huffman said. "They move in the right direction, but stop short of the stronger reforms independent producers need."
Farm Action supports legislation to restore MCOOL for beef, as well as Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement, but has argued that the latter "should be paired with stronger producer protections" and urged USDA "to reverse its planned rescission of the Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity rule, which would protect producers against undue prejudice, unjust discrimination, retaliation, and deceptive practices."
As for the harm that Trump's orders could do, one directs Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to "make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met," begin the process to end protections.
In addition to working with other officials on a legislative recommendation to strip federal protections from wolves, Trump told Burgum to "engage with states to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any state-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards" for killing the animals "to assist ranchers in combating predation."
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Trump falsely suggested that ranchers can now shoot protected wolves.
Trump’s audience uncomfortably laughs as he makes a premature announcement that ranchers can now kill wolves who are on the endangered species list
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 4, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, responded Friday that "the war on wolves needs to end, not escalate. They remain absent from much of their historic range and vulnerable to the same cruel trophy hunting, recreational trapping, bounties, and other relentless killing that nearly wiped them out of the lower 48 states. Rolling back federal protections now—or setting that process in motion—would jeopardize decades of recovery and open the door for brutal killing."
"Gray wolves are essential to healthy ecosystems, and decisions about their survival should be based on science, not political favors to farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods are threatened not by wolves but by tone-deaf global trade policies," she added.
Advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife for All, and Wolf Conservation Center also ripped the order's wolf language.
"This is a huge distraction to placate a handful of ranchers and make them believe that wolves are a greater threat than President Trump's own policies," said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. "The impact of wolves on the livestock industry [pales] in comparison to the impacts of recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, emphasized that "the Mexican gray wolf is not recovered simply because the population has grown... With just 317 wolves in the wild and a population still facing serious genetic challenges, weakening federal protections now would put decades of recovery work at risk. Decisions about the future of lobos must be based on the best available science and what these wolves need for long-term recovery, not political pressure."
Arguing the wolves "desperately need more care and less persecution," Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, promised that "we’re prepared to prove in court that downlisting Mexican wolves and a steep increase in killings would not only be cruel but also deeply unwise and illegal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wendell Berry, Writer and Activist Who Fought Corporate Takeover of US Farming, Dies at 92
“I was taught that taking care of land was one of the primary human responsibilities,” Berry said in 2009.
Sep 01, 2026
The death of poet, activist, and conservationist Wendell Berry on Monday was called by one labor organizer "a loss of morality and clarity and compassion," as admirers of Berry's lifelong crusade to defend the environment honored his memory by sharing favorite poems and other works.
Berry died at the age of 92 at his home in Port Royal, Kentucky, where he spent decades writing about his farming the land, teaching, and writing about the need to fight "the concentration of farmland into larger and larger holdings and fewer and fewer hands," as he wrote in one of his best-known works, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture.
"The true measure of agriculture is not the sophistication of its equipment, the size of its income, or even the statistics of its productivity, but the good health of the land," wrote Berry in the essay collection, published in 1977.
He stressed that the "increase in overhead, debt, and dependence on machines" in the agricultural sector "is a matter of complex significance, and its agricultural significance cannot be disentangled from its cultural significance."
The Unsettling of America was one of more than 50 works published by Berry, whose commitment to interdependent community-building, small farms, and the protection of nature was woven into his fiction, poems, and essays alike.
In America magazine in 2021, Jon Sweeney wrote in a review of What I Stand On, a collection of Berry's writing, that "he writes about what he has experienced, what he has learned, and always with humility for what he does not know."
"The natural world is his primary teacher: its rhythms, its largesse, its mysteries,” Sweeney wrote. “And in the essays, the natural world often reflects how change in humans is also natural, inexplicable, and possible. I think this is what many who love his writing appreciate most about Berry, whether they realize it or not."
Berry traveled and taught briefly at New York University as a young man before returning to his Kentucky roots, remaining there for six decades. He told The New York Times in 2018 that writing and working in rural Kentucky "made a permanent connection between me and my native place, and with its landscape. The landscape was there to check me if I was wrong. I could never go away and make up stuff at cocktail parties about the backwoods of Kentucky. I worked with people here in all walks of life and learned from them."
In his 1969 essay "The Long-Legged House," named for the two-room cabin his ancestors had lived in, to which Berry returned to write his books and other works, he offered an early warning about the harm humans and their industries—agribusiness and fossil fuels—were doing to the Earth.
“We have lived our lives by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world," wrote Berry. "We have been wrong. We must change our lives so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption, that what is good for the world will be good for us. And that requires that we make the effort to know the world and learn what is good for it.”
The writer Joyce Carol Oates said on social media on Monday that "long before it became a more familiar subject, Wendell Berry was conscious of the endangered natural environment; indeed, Berry helped to raise this consciousness."
In addition to making his views on the environment and corporate control over the natural world known through his writing, Berry took part in direct actions to protest mining, war, and capital punishment.
He rallied against the US war in Vietnam, saying, "Peace is more important than victory," and was arrested in 1979 for protesting the Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant in Madison, Indiana. Thirty years later he was one of thousands who marched on Washington against the Capitol Power Plant, and two years after that, in 2011, Berry spent the night at a sit-in in the Kentucky governor's office to protest mountaintop removal mining.
In 2009 he also withdrew his writings from the collection of University of Kentucky, his alma mater, to express opposition to the university's $7 million donation from a coal producer; the school then named a dormitory Wildcat Coal Lodge.
“I was taught that taking care of land was one of the primary human responsibilities,” Berry told the student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, at the time. “In the long run, the top soil, the forests, and the woodland of this state will be more valuable than the coal deposits.”
Silas House, another writer who hailed from Kentucky, said that with Berry's death, "another great light" had gone out.
House described the writer as "complex. Brilliant. Revolutionary."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corporate Consolidation Spree That Enabled 'Massive Reach' of Taylor Farms Blamed for Cyclospora Outbreak
"Taylor Farms’ repeated connection to major outbreaks and recalls warrants a closer look at whether these are unrelated incidents or signs of recurring weaknesses."
Aug 18, 2026
An agricultural industry watchdog on Tuesday released a report examining how corporate consolidation enabled this summer's widespread outbreak of Cyclosporiasis, a foodborne illness that causes explosive diarrhea.
The report, published by Farm Action, argues that the wide reach of produce giant Taylor Farms, which is the source of the outbreak, spread food contaminated by the Cyclospora parasite far and wide before an issue was detected.
One problem with Taylor Farms' reach, the report states, is that it is often hidden, leaving people unaware of the source of certain products.
"Taylor Farms produces 40% of the salad kits sold in the country and grows about one-quarter of its own vegetables, sourcing the rest through partner farms," the report says. "That makes it a major link between farms and some of the nation’s largest food buyers."
The company's produce is used at popular fast-food chains such as Taco Bell, McDonald's, and Chipotle, and is sold at big-name grocery stories including Whole Foods, Target, Safeway, and Costco.
Beyond that, its produce is bought by foodservice distribution giants Sysco and US Foods, who send it to assorted schools, hospitals, and hotels.
The report says that the consolidation of the produce production industry was itself enabled by the industry consolidation of grocery stores, restaurant chains, and foodservice distributors, which found it more efficient to buy from conglomerates such as Taylor Farms, which the report categorizes as "grower-shipper-packers (GSPs)."
"Like other large GSPs, Taylor Farms sources produce through regional and international networks rather than relying primarily on nearby farms," writes Farm Action. "That helps explain why investigators traced lettuce implicated in the 2026 Cyclospora outbreak to Mexico, even in the middle of summer when much of the US is capable of growing lettuce."
Because Taylor distributes its produce to so many places under so many different brands, the report continues, consumers have a hard time avoiding them even if they are actively trying.
What's more, the 2026 Cyclospora outbreak isn't the first time Taylor has been linked to a food safety event, as Farm Action found that it was connected to "the 2026 Salmonella outbreak linked to jalapeño products, previous Cyclospora outbreaks, the 2024 E. coli outbreak linked to McDonald’s onions, the 2021 E. coli cluster involving romaine lettuce, and numerous recalls for allergens, labeling errors, contamination risks, and processing defects."
"These incidents do not by themselves prove a pattern of systemic problems," the report adds. "But Taylor Farms’ repeated connection to major outbreaks and recalls warrants a closer look at whether these are unrelated incidents or signs of recurring weaknesses."
The report concludes by recommending stronger enforcement of US antitrust laws to break up big distributors, as well as stronger food safety and traceability policies.
Sarah Carden, senior director of research and policy at Farm Action, said the report on Taylor Farms should be a wakeup call to food safety regulators about the dangers of corporate centralization.
"Taylor Farms has extraordinary reach across the produce supply chain, a history of connections to major food safety events, significant political spending and access, and a workplace record that raises serious questions," said Carden. "Its growth also shows how consolidation has left farmers with fewer buyers and made our food supply increasingly dependent on a small number of powerful companies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Slap in the Face': Trump Moves to Gut Biden-Era Rules Reining In Meatpackers
"We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices," said one campaigner.
Jul 06, 2026
A leading government accountability watchdog group on Monday ripped the Trump administration's move to rescind Biden-era rules enacted to protect ranchers and farmers from abuse by meatpacking corporations and boost competition in the key industry.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the reversal of three Biden administration rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. One of the rules prohibits meatpackers, swine contractors, and poultry companies from retaliating against producers for actions like joining associations, speaking with regulators, or seeking other buyers.
Another rule mandated improved transparency in poultry grower contracts. The third rule‚ which was set to take effect this month, would have limited how poultry companies use the tournament payment system.
USDA said it plans to start the revocation process with proposed rulemakings scheduled for later this month and October.
Farm groups and antitrust advocates argue the move removes protections against monopolistic, deceptive, and retaliatory practices by dominant meatpacking and poultry companies.
“For years, meat corporations have abused hardworking farmers and ranchers. Now, the Trump administration is proposing to undo long-overdue progress made to level the playing field," Emily Miller, staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, said Monday in a statement. "This move is a slap in the face to all those who have long fought for fair treatment in livestock and poultry markets."
The USDA's move comes amid increased meat sector consolidation, which studies by Food & Water Watch, More Perfect Union, and others have found results in higher consumer prices and lower farmer profits.
Over the course of his two terms in office, Trump has boosted the meatpacking industry at the expense of worker rights, competition, and public health. His administration refused to issue binding rules requiring businesses to institute safety measures amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and he invoked the Defense Production Act to classify meatpacking plants as critical infrastructure and force them to stay open even as the coronavirus ravaged industry workers.
Trump has also supported corporate monopolization in meatpacking, and his administration has shut down a Department of Justice antitrust probe of alleged industry collusion. Just four meatpackers control approximately 80% of the market. Meanwhile, cattle producers who in 1980 received 63 cents for every dollar paid by consumers for beef were receiving just 37 cents four decades later.
"We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices," Miller said on Monday. "These rollbacks will do the opposite. We won’t rest until USDA does its job by putting producers above corporations.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A National Outrage': Days After Monsanto Ruling, Trump EPA Approves More Forever Chemical Pesticides
Ripping "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides," one critic said his legacy will be the millions "his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Jun 30, 2026
The US Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday continued its betrayal of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," approving the use of multiple "forever chemical" pesticides on crops despite public health concerns.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called forever chemicals because they don't naturally break down—instead accumulating in human and animal bodies as well as the environment. They have been used in everything from fabrics for clothing and furniture to firefighting foam to nonstick cookware, and are tied to various health problems, including increased risk of some cancers.
The Trump EPA on Tuesday finalized its approval of using two PFAS pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, on corn and soybeans, the two most widely grown crops in the United States.
The agency also expanded its allowances for another previously approved forever chemical pesticide, bifenthrin, and greenlighted the first food use of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues.
"While the Biden administration had approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years, this is the third and fourth approval of a PFAS pesticide under Trump in just his second year in office," the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted in a Tuesday statement. "The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram."
As the center detailed:
The EPA has stated in press materials that these new fluorinated pesticides are not PFAS. That assertion is based on the fact that they do not meet the chemicals office's unilateral regulatory PFAS definition. But the new pesticides do meet the much more widely accepted PFAS definition that was developed transparently by dozens of scientists around the world. That definition has subsequently been endorsed by more than 150 leading PFAS researchers, is used by nearly every US state for regulating PFAS, and specifically was written into past versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Using the scientific definition of a PFAS that is widely accepted in this country and around the world, these pesticides are PFAS.
The EPA had even initially acknowledged that these pesticides met the more broadly accepted PFAS definition on its fluorinated pesticides webpage. Yet three weeks after creating the webpage, it removed any mention of the conflicting definition, instead portraying the agency’s unilateral definition as the only PFAS definition.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBD obtained documents showing that those website revisions were overseen by EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's assistant administrator, Douglas Troutman, and Kyle Kunkler—a former American Soybean Association (ASA) lobbyist controversially installed as the office's deputy assistant administrator for pesticides—and reviewed by agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.
While ASA president and Ohio soybean farmer Scott Metzger welcomed the Tuesday approvals, saying that "we appreciate EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the agency" for advancing the registrations, Nathan Donley, CBD's environmental health science director, was deeply critical and tied the developments to the Trump administration's other actions serving the pesticide industry.
"It's a national outrage that Trump's EPA is expanding use of dangerous, cancer-linked PFAS pesticides just days after the Supreme Court limited the American people's right to sue pesticide companies," said Donley, referring to last week's ruling in favor of Monsanto and against thousands of people who argue that its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
In addition to the Trump administration backing Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, the president in February issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate. Since returning to office last year, Trump has also faced criticism for EPA approvals of other pesticides, from atrazine to dicamba, and for his administration's MAHA report that echoes industry talking points.
Donley declared Tuesday that "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides ensures his legacy won't be the many monuments he's built to himself, but the many millions of people his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mark June Dairy Month with Industry-Wide Reform
Congress should pass measures like the Milk From Family Dairies Act (MFDA), which ensures farmers a decent price without driving up costs for consumers and relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Jun 16, 2026
Sometimes the truth stares you right in the face.
Case in point—in the middle of his agricultural roundtable event with farmers and Republican representatives held this past June 5 in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, President Donald Trump took a moment to reflect about a different meeting he once had with another group of producers. As the president remembered, he told the farmers, “I’m going to get you a subsidy.” To his surprise they responded that they didn’t want subsidies, but rather, “a level playing field.”
It would be easy to gloss over the truth in Trump’s recollection, especially as he rambled on about many things unrelated to farming such as repairing monuments around Washington DC, his disdain for Democrats, and how the Southern border was closed to migrants. This, as NFL Hall-of-Famer Joe Thomas sat to Trump’s side and drew gushing remarks from the president about the retired player’s body.
Unlike Thomas, most farmers cannot draw on millions to stay on the land. Instead, they can turn to the government to promote fair markets. As much could happen now, during June Dairy Month, as the Farm Bill is working through Congress and much needed relief could come by including in the ominous piece of legislation key reforms to the dairy industry.
Instead of such piecemeal fixes, the dairy industry needs industry-wide reform, as the farmers who spoke with Trump once said, “to level the playing field.”
To be fair, discussion during Trump’s roundtable did include some dairy policies.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, for instance, alluded to trade deals that would increase exports. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), whose district the roundtable took place in and who appears in danger of losing his seat to the daughter of dairy farmers, Rebecca Cooke, touted the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act. The act restores whole and reduced fat (2%) milk options at schools.
The problem is that both initiatives don’t do much.
First, the evidence shows that increasing exports doesn’t keep people farming.
Farm Bureau data shows that since 2016, total dairy export value has doubled from just over $4 million to over $8 in 2024. But during this same period, the number of licensed dairy herds has collapsed, from over 40,000, to under 25,000.
Meanwhile, serving milk at school lunch does open markets. And nationwide, since 2024, more people have been consuming milk after years of decline. But even amid rising demand, in 2025 Wisconsin saw a 700% increase in bankruptcies, particularly hitting dairy farmers.
Instead of such piecemeal fixes, the dairy industry needs industry-wide reform, as the farmers who spoke with Trump once said, “to level the playing field.”
The proposal that would advance such change is the Milk From Family Dairies Act (MFDA). Created by the National Family Farm Coalition and endorsed by over 90 organizations, the MFDA ensures farmers a decent price without driving up costs for consumers and relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The principle behind the MFDA is supply management, similar to the system in Canada. In this system, consumer supply demands are balanced with prices that farmers are paid for their milk in regular meetings of stakeholders. For farmers, receiving compensation for at least the cost of production is a big deal, as since 2021, even taking into consideration advantages of increasing herd size, dairy producers across the board have consistently had to sell their milk at a loss as the price of feed, seed, and fertilizer rise.
Consumers benefit as the MFDA makes investments in local dairy processors, increasing competition to drive down prices, and corporate concentration in the industry is targeted with anti-trust enforcement to curtail price gouging by large-scale retailers at the grocery store. Currently, taxpayers pick up the tab for farmers who have financial troubles with subsidies, or direct payments, which Trump has handed out repeatedly across his administrations.
Unlike Joe Thomas, most farmers don’t have millions to keep them going. Instead, they have the government, which should ensure fair markets. So, to mark June Dairy month, our lawmakers should listen to farmers, level the playing field, and include elements from the MFDA into the Farm Bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details How Climate Crisis Fuels Crop Failure Risk in Global Breadbaskets
"As globally important food-producing regions face growing risks of climate-driven disruption, the effects can ripple through livelihoods, supply chains, food assistance systems, and geopolitical relationships."
Jun 09, 2026
The climate emergency is sharply increasing the risk of crop failure in regions that produce an outsized share of the world's staple food grains, according to a report published Tuesday that warns of "serious threats to Europe, the NATO alliance, and global stability" if cooperative resilience initiatives and other mitigation strategies aren't pursued.
The report, "Global Breadbaskets: Food System Resilience as a Strategic Imperative," was published by the Center for Climate and Security—part of the Council on Strategic Risks, a Washington, DC-based security policy think tank—and the Woodwell Climate Research Center, an independent nonprofit located in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
"Geopolitical fragmentation, conflict, extreme weather, and global aid cuts already strain food security. Meanwhile, climate change is increasing the likelihood of crop failures in the American, European, and Asian breadbaskets, which produce most of the staple crops underpinning global food security," the report states.
🆕 Across India, France, and Germany, in the next decade and a half, the odds of key crops failing are set to increase by between two- and six-fold. This isn't just a food story. It's also a #NATO security story.
[image or embed]
— Council on Strategic Risks (@councilonstrategicrisks.org) June 9, 2026 at 12:13 AM
The publication follows an April report from a pair of United Nations agencies on how extreme heat is impacting food production and food security around the planet. The new report includes a storymap that explores climate change-driven threats to wheat, rice, and maize (corn) crops in France, Germany, and India—three of the world's "global breadbaskets."
The analysis' authors note that compared with 2010 threat levels, by 2040, "the risk of a given year’s crop failing is projected to grow roughly twofold for Indian wheat and German maize, roughly threefold for French wheat, roughly fourfold for French maize, and roughly sixfold for Indian rice, with sharp increases in critical producing regions."
Climate-driven extreme heat "not only threatens crops, but also the laborers and infrastructure that translate them into food security," the report continues. "Extreme heat is projected to reduce the suitability of 15-40% of India’s rain-fed rice-growing regions by 2050, and to reduce physical work capacity during the average growing season to as little as 40% of 2000-era levels by 2100."
"By 2040, southwestern France will average up to 16 additional days per year above 35°C (95°F), exceeding thresholds that reduce yields, impact grain quality, and cause heat stroke," the paper warns. "Extreme heat also threatens to damage or disable road and rail networks critical to food transportation, agricultural machinery, civil defense, and military mobilization."
The publication also states that global breadbasket failures in Europe "could open rifts for Russian meddling, fuel instability in key partners, and elevate food production as a geopolitical lever."
The Council on Strategic Risks operates within the transatlantic security policy community, whose work often overlaps with NATO's interests.
“We have plenty of examples of how crop failures can contribute to political instability, from the French Revolution to the Arab Spring," Center for Climate and Security deputy director and report lead author Tom Ellison said Tuesday in a statement. "In today’s environment, global breadbasket failures could strain NATO priorities, prompt unrest in key countries, and upend trade relationships."
Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist and report co-author Alexandra Naegele warned that “climate change doesn't just threaten crop yields and grain quality—it destabilizes entire food systems, from labor and livestock to food storage and transport."
"Quantifying these climate-driven risks is an essential step toward building resilient food systems and safeguarding global food security," she added.
The report recommends steps countries—specifically members of the European Union and NATO—can take to mitigate risks to food security, including strengthening cooperative resilience, anticipating instability and hybrid warfare, supporting strategic and vulnerable partners, coordinating trade responses, and investing in agricultural research and development.
"Amid climate change, geopolitical uncertainty, food shocks from the war in Iran, and Russian hybrid warfare, investing in a resilient food system isn’t in competition with security—it’s a key part of it," Ellison stressed.
Monica Caparas, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center and report co-author, said, "Understanding and preparing for breadbasket failures is both a national security priority and a humanitarian imperative—one that can help protect lives, reduce instability, and strengthen food resilience before a regional shock becomes a wider crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Talarico Calls on Trump USDA to 'Fully Staff' Agency to Confront Flesh-Eating Parasite Found in Texas Cattle
A key pest control office "lost 1,300 employees due to cuts and firings" said one public health expert. "That’s the thing about prevention: You don’t notice it when it works, only when it is gone."
Jun 04, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico called on the Trump administration to reverse the massive job cuts at the US Department of Agriculture—some of the largest that were imposed last year as President Donald Trump and his then-adviser Elon Musk embarked on a "slash-and-burn exercise" to reduce the government workforce—as the agency announced Wednesday that it had detected the country's first case of New World screwworm since 1966.
The parasitic fly was found in a three-week-old calf in La Pryor, Texas, after months of warnings from Texas agricultural officials and the state's $15 billion cattle industry that the flesh-eating pest, whose larvae exclusively feed on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals, could soon make its way to the US after spreading through Latin America in recent years. Mexico reported its first case in 2024 and saw a 53% increase in the number of cases in animals between July-August 2025.
"Following a historic drought that has reduced our herd size and driven up prices," said Talarico late Wednesday, "the New World screwworm outbreak is further disrupting supply chains that impact all of us who rely on the cattle industry—from meatpacking facilities to feedlots to grocery stores."
"We must fully staff the USDA so that the federal government can provide clear and predictable guidance for ranchers and work alongside the Texas government and the cattle industry to keep pests like the New World screwworm out of our herd," said Talarico.
Catharine Young, a senior fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, noted that the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Prevention Service "helps prevent threats like screwworm from ever reaching US livestock."
"In 2025, it lost 1,300 employees due to cuts and firings," said Young. "That’s the thing about prevention: You don’t notice it when it works, only when it is gone."
The Department of Government Efficiency also cut funding that supported outbreak investigations, response efforts, and testing laboratories in 22 countries and helped build laboratories for testing.
The parasite does not pose a food safety threat, according to officials. A top concern is that an outbreak could raise beef prices—which have already been driven up by the fact that the US cattle herd is the smallest it's been in 75 years following years of drought conditions, the surging costs associated with ranching, and corporate consolidation.
The USDA estimates that an outbreak could cost Texas' economy $1.8 billion in losses before it is contained.
The pest can infect humans—and 41 human cases were reported in Mexico last year—but experts say such cases are rare and that the detection of screwworm in Texas poses little risk to the public.
Instead of spreading from animal to animal, screwworm females lay eggs in animals' open wounds. The larvae then burrow into living flesh and feed on tissue, causing severe infections and death if the livestock goes untreated.
For decades, agricultural officials deployed a technique that successfully eradicated screwworm in the US: releasing sterilized male flies into affected areas. Female flies generally only mate once in their lifespan, so those that mate with a sterile male produce no offspring.
The USDA has begun releasing sterile flies into the part of South Texas where the parasite was found and is investing in sterile fly production facilities in the state. It has also established a 12-mile quarantine zone around the affected area.
US officials are also reportedly working with Mexico and Panama to use the sterile fly technique in those countries.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said Wednesday that US has deployed 8,000 traps capable of detecting screwworm, and blamed the case in South Texas on "the open-border policies of the last administration and the resulting illicit cattle movement."
Rollins had denied screwworm was in the United States a day before she confirmed the case at a press conference on Wednesday.
Experts believe pandemic-era disruptions to sterile fly programs, increased movement of livestock and people, and weather conditions that have allowed the parasite to thrive may all have contributed to the screwworm's gradual journey toward the US.
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said Wednesday that "for months, the screwworm has advanced rapidly through Mexico in spite of the USDA’s existing gameplan," and called on the Trump administration to approve the deployment of the Screwworm Adult Suppression System, which uses bait and insecticides and was tested by the US in the 1970s to eradicate the parasite.
“We have the ability to shut that and eradicate that screwworm," Miller told The Texas Tribune. "We can do it in about 60 days. USDA has the tools and the knowledge to do it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Time for a Progressive Policy to Protect Agricultural Supply Chains
Price floors and supply management programs seem common sense to policymakers when it comes to oil and minerals, but what about US farmers and our overall food system?
Jun 03, 2026
The race to obtain critical minerals and the war in Iran have not only exposed a dangerous dependence on fossil fuels and mining, but they have also uncovered something more surprising—Republicans in Congress actually understand progressive agriculture policy. They just don’t want to admit it.
In February, Vice President JD Vance announced at the State Department that the administration must institute a price floor to protect the US critical mineral market. “This morning, the Trump administration is proposing a concrete mechanism to return the global critical minerals market to a healthier, more competitive state: a preferential trade zone for critical minerals protected from external disruptions through enforceable price floors,” Vance explained. Meanwhile, the US—and other countries around the world—are deploying oil reserves to buffer price shocks caused by the Israel-US attacks on Iran. Price floors and supply management programs seem common sense to these policymakers when it comes to oil and minerals, but what about US farmers and our overall food system?
Like oil and critical minerals, food and agriculture supply chains, such as corn, soy, and dairy, are vulnerable to global shocks, including extreme weather events, wars, and other supply disruptions. The public also needs to understand that without inflation-adjusted price floors, agricultural commodity prices may sink to disastrously low levels, leaving farmers no choice but to increase production with more chemicals and GMO seeds at the expense of our land and water. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture can avoid low prices by creating reserves accumulated during large harvests and, just like the federal petroleum reserve, bringing them back on the market to stabilize prices in times of shortage. We can all agree that food shortages would be disastrous, so guaranteeing its citizens food security should be imperative for any democratic government.
So while Republicans can recognize the importance of price floors and supply management during this administration, Democrats should look at history to understand how the same instruments were developed for agriculture during the Great Depression under the Democratic Party’s New Deal. The twin crises of farm bankruptcies and the Dust Bowl spurred militant farm organizations to demand a response from the federal government. The response was parity farm bills that stopped farm bankruptcies and stabilized the farm economy so that conservation measures and preservation of diversified farming could lead to food security and a balanced economy. Federal leadership in the White House and Congress recognized that price and supply management benefited both farmers and society as a whole. The policy was simple and transparent: The farm bill would ensure that during years of good harvests, public grain reserves would purchase the surplus at the parity rate (price floor adjusted for inflation) and store it to protect consumers in future times of shortage.
A productive agricultural economy that conserves our resources, challenges agricultural consolidation, and offers economic opportunity in rural communities should be a top priority for all our citizens.
However, both parties abandoned this common-sense approach to farm policy in the early 1950s, so that costs of farming have totally outpaced commodity prices. Subsequently, headlines warning of a farm crisis in 2026, like during the Great Depression and the 1980s, are not uncommon. The prices paid to farmers for commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and dairy have dropped to record lows in real dollars. Over the years, this imbalance has led to the loss of family farms, the consolidation of agribusiness and food processing monopolies, along with their profits benefiting handsomely. Stabilizing the ratio of farm prices to farm costs (the correct goal of any Farm Bill) is the key to a sustainable agriculture that avoids soil loss, water pollution, and the decline of rural communities.
A supply management program would not only help revive family operations and rural economies but would also be essential to combat the expansion of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and lower costs for taxpayers. As reported by Food & Water Watch, CAFOs are a disaster for our climate, air, and water, especially for nearby communities. CAFOs are among the most egregious features of today’s low-price, commodity-based industrial agriculture. Thousands of livestock (owned or vertically integrated with large food processors) are confined in small facilities without fresh air or sunlight and fed cheap corn and soy.
CAFOs have been replacing conscientious family farmers who are stewards of the soil and their animals. When family farmers are forced out of livestock production, they face the dilemma of “get big or get out” and often have no farming alternatives other than to tear up their pastures to grow corn and soybeans that will end up feeding animals in CAFOs.
The Trump administration is applying often-forgotten policy instruments to sustain our fossil fuel dependence and our high-tech future, rather than prioritizing a resilient, sustainable economy. Managing a price floor and creating federal food reserves in the agriculture sector are necessary to combat the adverse effects of food processor monopolization, farm consolidation, soil and water degradation, and external shocks, such as wars.
A productive agricultural economy that conserves our resources, challenges agricultural consolidation, and offers economic opportunity in rural communities should be a top priority for all our citizens. “We love farmers” and “We put America’s farmers first” are just political slogans to get votes with no substance behind them. These slogans lead to the usual sleight of hand to send taxpayer dollars to get some farmers through the next planting season. This policy leaves the disastrous cheap commodity regime in place—encouraging CAFO production and exporting commodities at a loss.
The administration’s discovery of the logical policy of price floors and reserves for oil and minerals must open new doors to applying these logical and transparent mechanisms to agriculture to restore the security of family farmers and conservation of our precious resources—after all, we can’t eat petroleum or precious minerals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tariffs Won't Save America’s Farms; Community-Rooted Solar Power Might
Rethinking how we use the land means American farms can stay in business, producing food and energy that remains local while we invest back into our communities.
Jun 01, 2026
America’s farmers are in big trouble. Despite the recent politically timed purchase of 12 million metric tons of US soybeans by China, after months of cancelled or stalled sales, the market remains volatile and uncertain. China now publicly favors cheaper Brazilian soybeans, and US soy exports to China have fallen to their lowest level in more than two decades.
The decline of this important market compounds other struggles farmers like me are facing, including falling commodity prices and rising costs. The number of farm bankruptcies remains troublingly high.
But there’s a solution that can help farmers lower their costs and reduce dependence on volatile foreign markets, while producing cheaper, cleaner energy for all Americans. It’s called agri-energy, and it offers a viable pathway to both food and energy independence.
American farmers were hurting long before the tariffs were put in place. Despite record yields, farming accounts for less than 1% of the American GDP and we have now entered an agricultural trade deficit.
When small farmers are forced to “get out,” our land is typically sold to large farm corporations, to real estate developers, or, God forbid, to the Dollar General corporation.
Any healthy economy relies on diversity, but we put all of our eggs into the corn and soy baskets long ago. Corn and soy are the top two agricultural commodities produced in the United States. This means that any shift in global markets—like the current trade war—can leave farmers with full silos and empty bank accounts.
Now, we’re scrambling to figure out how to recover our investments when we’ve already put so much money, time, and generational resources into these monocultures. Our yields might be excellent, but with corn and soy prices declining sharply relative to production costs, that may not matter much.
The Trump administration’s “solution” is to provide assistance to farmers in the form of relief checks and subsidies, which is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bleeding femoral artery. Might look okay for a minute, but it’s not going to stop the flow (in this case, the flow of bankruptcies and foreclosures).
What we need to do is start focusing on whole-systems approaches. That’s where agri-energy comes into play.
Agri-energy, also known as agrivoltaics or dual-use solar, involves growing crops or grazing livestock under solar panels, allowing farmers to double dip on their land. By leasing their land for solar energy production, farmers get a nice bumper crop each year—with lease payments averaging $1,000 or more per acre. It’s consistent, reliable income that’s not dependent on the global commodity market.
Because solar leases are long—20 to 30 years or more—there’s more predictability and stability in this kind of setup than perhaps any other agricultural model. If a farmer is ready to lease his land and get out of farming entirely, agri-energy allows for another farmer to manage that land in his place. That’s the case for our family farm—we receive payment from the solar company for vegetation management services on other sites.
On a broader scale, practices like rotational grazing (typically the go-to on solar farms) improve soil quality and leave the land healthier than it was prior to the solar farm’s installation. The animals benefit, too, from improved forage and shade, reaching heavier finishing and weaning weights at a lower cost to the farmer. This, too, we’ve seen firsthand on the solar farms we graze.
Rethinking how we use the land means American farms can stay in business, producing food and energy that remains local while we invest back into our communities.
Some worry that agri-energy will take good land out of agriculture. But the reliable income from solar leases can actually keep farmers on the land. This is especially important for small farmers like me who were once told to “get big or get out.”
When small farmers are forced to “get out,” our land is typically sold to large farm corporations, to real estate developers, or, God forbid, to the Dollar General corporation. Remember: Prime farmland doesn’t remain farmland if it’s not farmed.
If we really want to reduce our reliance on global trade, agri-energy—not tariffs—may be the silver bullet we’re looking for.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy