The U.S. Department of Agriculture is doling out direct payments to minority farmers and ranchers who the government had previously discriminated against but some advocates are hoping for more transparency about selection criteria and other information.

More than $2 billion will go to tens of thousands of food producers, including 68 awards going to Colorado. The USDA has a long history of discriminatory practices, including denying loans to Black and other minority farmers at greater rates than their white counterparts.

Sharon Mallory, executive director of the 2020 Farmers Cooperative, said the payments are great but the program could be improved.

"I'm not personally dazzled about numbers or dollar amounts unless I can connect that to the people that are being most impacted," Mallory observed. "Which is our Black and small-scale farmers."

She wants the USDA to disclose its methodology for choosing applicants for the payments, plus more information about who reviewed the grants and the racial demographics and farm sizes of the payouts. The range of awards is large; between a few thousand and $500,000, with the average about $82,000.

Adding to decades of discrimination, the rapid consolidation of big agriculture has forced many smaller minority farmers out of business. Mallory emphasized even after the payments are made, the USDA needs to make substantial improvements, in part because of its history.

"You can be like an ostrich and put your head in the hole, you can put your blindfolds on, you can turn your head the other way," Mallory noted. "But the fact of the matter is, it did happen. It's documented. It's not a secret, so let's address it."

One study found Black American farmers lost more than $300 billion worth of land in the 20th century in part due to the USDA's discriminatory practices. The discrimination payments were authorized through the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act and the majority of the recipients are from the deep South.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Since becoming the Democratic nominee for president, Vice President Kamala Harris has said little-to-nothing about her views on agriculture policy. Agriculture admittedly isn’t the flashiest of political topics — but it’s still an extremely important one that shapes millions of lives, human and animal alike. So, where exactly does Harris stand on agriculture, meat and factory farming?

Harris has had a long career. Prior to becoming vice president, she was a U.S. Senator, Attorney General of California and District Attorney of San Francisco. While a politician’s past isn’t always a perfect indicator of what they’ll do in the future, looking at her positions on agricultural matters could offer some hints as to where she stands on factory farming, meat and other agricultural issues.

How a President Can Change Food Systems

There are many ways a president can affect change in America’s food and agricultural policies.

In addition to signing or vetoing bills, the president can issue executive orders, appoint agency heads, issue agency directives and implement or suspend certain regulations. They can use the bully pulpit to try and shift public opinion, and if their party controls Congress, they can be very influential in determining which legislation lands on their desk.

“If Congress knows that a president’s priority is to work on a climate bill that includes certain values around climate smart agriculture, for example, or the prioritization of more climate-friendly diets and a shift towards plant-based eating, that’s much more likely to get pushed through,” Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of the nonprofit Farm Forward, tells Sentient. Farm Forward advocates for the end of factory farming, including in food policy.

Federal regulations are another area in which the president has significant latitude to affect food policy. For instance, under President Obama, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced new standards for organic livestock. Under the new rules, livestock farmers would have to adhere to higher (and specifically enumerated) standards of animal welfare in order for their products to be certified as organic by the federal government.

But these new organic regulations weren’t scheduled to be implemented until after Obama left office. When Donald Trump assumed the presidency, he reversed course and had the USDA withdraw the new organic regulations before they could take effect, upsetting many animal welfare activists. Three years later, when Joe Biden became president, the USDA re-issued the Obama-era standards, and they now have the force of law.

Were she to become president, Harris would have these and many other tools at her disposal. But how would she use them? There’s no way to say for sure, but looking at the positions Harris has taken on agricultural and meat-related issues in the past might give us some clues.

Harris Helped Reinstate the Foie Gras Ban in California

Foie gras is a meat dish that’s made by force-feeding a duck or goose until its liver is engorged beyond its natural size. The animal is then killed and the bloated liver is served as a delicacy. This stomach-churning process has made foie gras controversial even among meat eaters, and in 2004, California banned the sale or production of it in the state.

This kicked off a 15-year court battle between foie gras producers and animal welfare groups, with the law repeatedly being struck down, reinstated, appealed, and so on.

In 2015, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the ban was illegal. At this point, Harris was the Attorney General of California, and she appealed the ruling in an attempt to get the foie gras ban reinstated. She was successful, and after more back-and-forths, the Supreme Court allowed the foie gras ban to stand.

Harris Defended California’s Ban on Battery Cages

On factory farms, many egg-laying hens live their lives in battery cages — small, cramped wire enclosures that severely restrict the chickens’ mobility. Hens in battery cages have just 67 square inches of space, or less than the surface area of an 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper, and are frequently subject to harsh light 18 hours a day in order to manipulate their reproductive systems and increase egg output.

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, which banned the use of battery cages in the state. Two years later, the state’s legislature expanded upon Proposition 2, and banned the in-state sale of eggs that were produced using battery cages in other states, which totally phased out battery cages by 2015.

The attorneys general of six major egg-producing states sued California to overturn the law. As with the foie gras ban, Harris’s office defended the battery cage ban, and it was ultimately allowed to stand, with the judge determining that the ban would not inflict any harm upon the residents of the other states (or any state).

Harris’s Voting Record on Animal Welfare When She Was a Senator

In 2016, Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate, and we can glean a few things about her stance on animal welfare by looking at her voting record during her time in Congress.

Over the course of her four years in the Senate, Harris co-sponsored many animal welfare initiatives, including bills to ban the possession and trade of shark fins, crack down on the painful practice of horse soring, prohibit the private ownership and sale of primates and more.

For these reasons and others, the Humane Society Legislative Fund gave Harris a perfect grade during her years in the Senate on its “Humane Scorecard,” the organization’s system for ranking elected officials’ actions on animal welfare.

Harris’s Record on Proposition 12

Harris was elected vice president in 2020. Two years earlier, however, California voters approved Proposition 12, a landmark ballot initiative that banned extreme confinement of livestock, and also banned the sale of animal products that were produced using extreme confinement in other states.

Not surprisingly, Proposition 12 was extremely unpopular with meat producers, and two industry groups — the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation — sued to overturn it. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Proposition 12, and it’s now law in California, though the Council recently held a fly-in event in Washington, D.C. for pork farmers to lobby federal lawmakers for a “legislative fix” to Proposition 12.

Before that ruling, however, the Biden administration weighed in on the issue, and sided with the meat producers. The Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that Prop 12 should be blocked, writing that “voters in pork-producing States must determine what constitutes ‘cruel’ treatment of animals housed in those States, not voters in California.”

This was ultimately inconsequential, as the court upheld the law. At the time, however, the administration’s stance angered not only animal rights groups, but also over a dozen Democratic senators who’d signed a letter urging the administration to support the law.

As vice president, Harris was a member of the administration when it advocated against Prop 12 — though she didn’t express any position on the proposition itself, or the Biden administration’s actions against it.

It’s worth noting here that the vice president has no control over what the Solicitor General’s office does, and that the actions of a presidential administration on any given issue aren’t always an indicator of how the sitting vice president feels about that issue.

This doesn’t mean that Harris secretly supports Prop 12. It does mean, though, that she doesn’t necessarily oppose it. Sentient has reached out to the Harris campaign for clarification on her position on Prop 12, but has received no comment at the time of publication.

Debunking the False Claim That Harris Wants to Ban Red Meat

Recently, some conservatives have erroneously claimed that Harris supports banning red meat. Republican Senator and vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance said in July that Harris wants to “take away your ability to eat red meat,” and his assertion was quickly parrotted by several right-wing conspiracy websites.

This is categorically false, however. Harris has never voiced support for banning any meat, red or otherwise. She has suggested that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), a nutritional guidance document that the USDA updates every five years, should recommend that Americans reduce their red meat consumption. But that is nowhere near a “ban” on red meat.

In fact, at the very same event in which Harris suggested changing the DGA’s recommendations, she also said that she “love[s] cheeseburgers.” On the morning Biden announced that he was dropping out of the race, Harris was reportedly cooking bacon for her nieces.

That said, she has hinted at flexitarian tendencies, and a fondness for a vegan cereal with almond milk in the morning. According to an Instagram post by Tacotarian’s co-owner Kristen Corral, Harris reportedly said when visiting the restaurant that she’s dabbling in veganism before 6 p.m. (though this quote is unconfirmed, so it very well may not be what Harris actually said).

The Bottom Line

Taking a step back, the totality of Harris’s actions on food and meat policies paint the picture of somebody who cares about animal welfare, and is willing to implement more humane policies even if it means upsetting the meat industry. This is somewhat complicated by the Biden administration’s challenge to Proposition 12, which deCoriolis calls “very disappointing.” But again, this isn’t necessarily an indicator of Harris’s views.

One thing is clear: regardless of what approach Harris would take to any number of food-related questions, it would almost certainly be more progressive and climate-focused than with former President Trump.

“It’s too early to say, but my sense is that there’d be very stark differences between what a Harris and Walz administration might do [on these issues] compared to a second Trump administration, given what we know about the first Trump administration,” deCoriolis says.


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Claire Carlson for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Washington News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

The Lower Yakima Valley in Washington state has been home to large-scale animal agriculture for decades, but in 2008 when one dairy operation tried moving onto the Yakama Indian Reservation, the community balked at the proposition.

“The dairies at that time were very bad neighbors,” said Jean Mendoza, a resident of the Yakama Reservation. The community wanted to avoid the issues they’d heard about in Sunnyside, a small town about 50 miles east of the Yakama Reservation. “There was one [Sunnyside] family that had built an outdoor swimming pool for their grandchildren to enjoy, and one of the dairies came in and built a manure lagoon right next to the swimming pool,” she said. The smell from the lagoon made it impossible to enjoy their backyard.

The lagoons, huge pits of animal waste mixed with water, were one of the reasons Mendoza started organizing against the establishment of concentrated animal feedlots (CAFOs) near her home. She later became the executive director of the nonprofit Friends of Toppenish Creek, which advocates for improved oversight of industrial agriculture. 

Discharge from these lagoons into groundwater caused nitrate levels to skyrocket in the drinking water of small towns in the Lower Yakima Valley, where many residents get their water from private wells. Serious health effects like cancer and blue baby syndrome – a life-threatening condition that causes low oxygen levels in infants’ blood – can occur when nitrate levels exceed 10 milligrams per liter, the maximum contaminant level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Despite the health risks, regulating this pollution isn’t easy. Loopholes within drinking water laws and the agriculture lobby’s influence in Congress have prevented substantive policy reform to address the issue, according to food safety experts. 

“That lobby has consistently asked for and gotten policies that favor the large and the higher tech and the consolidation – and therefore corporate control – of agriculture,” said Amy van Saun, a senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety. A 2024 report from the Union for Concerned Scientists showed big agribusiness and other food interest groups spent $523 million on farm bill lobbying between 2019 and 2023 – more than what the lobbies for the oil and gas industry and defense sector spent during that time. 

Agriculture has become one of the most consolidated industries in the country. Across the board, farms have been merged into just a few big companies that control most food sectors.

The dairy industry is no stranger to this: Between 2002 and 2019 the number of licensed dairy herds in the U.S. dropped by half, but milk production increased, according to USDA data. This suggests that small farms are disappearing in place of concentrated animal feedlots operated by large corporations like Land o’ Lakes and Dairy Farmers of America. 

As the number of animals stuffed onto corporate farms increases, so has the amount of waste. And that waste is kept in manure lagoons that are built to leak, according to Adam Voskuil, a staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates. 

“Regardless of whether a manure lagoon is earthen-lined or clay-lined or concrete-lined, there is some acceptable amount of discharge directly to the groundwater, to the aquifer,” Voskuil said. 

As dairy operations have become more consolidated in the Lower Yakima Valley, it’s made it harder for grassroots organizers like Mendoza to advocate for drinking water regulation. “It removes decision-making from the ground level and sends it up the corporate ladder and makes it harder for neighbors, makes it harder for Friends of Toppenish Creek [to demand change],” she said. 

While Mendoza’s organization successfully stopped the 2008 dairy operation from moving onto the Yakama Reservation, they’ve had their work cut out for them because of seepage from other manure lagoons. In June of 2024, the EPA sued three of the area’s dairy operations for failing to comply with a 2013 legal agreement that they reduce nitrate leakage and protect the drinking water of nearby residents.

But it’s difficult to implement effective regulation because water pollution is technically legal under two major laws: the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Clean Water Act is the main apparatus used to protect the United States’ surface water. While its purpose is to prohibit the discharge of pollutants, the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System issues permits that allow exceptions to this rule. Most activities associated with farming, ranching, and forestry can be exempted from the Clean Water Act if the operator obtains a permit to pollute. 

The law directly regulates “point sources” of pollution, which is when there is a clear source of waste discharge like from a pipe, well, or even a manure lagoon from a concentrated animal feeding operation.

But for “nonpoint sources” of pollution, the law relies on voluntary efforts to control pollutants from various sources that accumulate through runoff. A primary cause of these nonpoint sources is runoff from nitrogen fertilizer on cropland. 

This voluntary approach means the EPA and states don’t have the authority to require that landowners reduce runoff, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project. This leaves the work to advocacy organizations. 

“It seems like it has fallen to environmental and clean water and agricultural advocacy organizations to raise awareness and make sure people are protected,” said Leigh Currie, the chief legal officer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. 

The Well Issue

In eastern Oregon’s Morrow and Umatilla counties, more than 400 households have nitrate levels higher than 10 milligrams per liter, the maximum amount deemed safe by the EPA. All of these houses rely on well water, which is one of the least regulated sources of drinking water in the country. 

The counties’ pollution comes from food processing companies in the Port of Morrow. The companies produce nitrate-rich wastewater and funnel it into open-air irrigation ditches that water the area’s farmland. The water is overapplied on these farms and the excess leaches into the groundwater, which is what many local residents rely on for drinking. 

Over the 30 years the state of Oregon has known about this problem, very little has been done to address it. That’s because no one wants to “own the issue,” according to Nella Mae Parks, a farmer and organizer for the nonprofit Oregon Rural Action. 

“The state doesn’t want it, the [Port of Morrow] doesn’t want it, and the county doesn’t want it, because it’s gonna be really expensive,” she said in a 2023 interview with the Daily Yonder. 

The Clean Drinking Water Act regulates “navigable waters,” which does not include groundwater. This leaves groundwater regulation to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which guarantees protections for municipalities that are on public drinking water systems. 

But the law leaves out protections for private wells that support fewer than 25 individuals. About 15% of the U.S. population relies on well water, and the vast majority of them live in rural areas. 

This means the well owner has to take on the cost of monitoring and treating their water if they find it’s being polluted, a cost that many people can’t afford. A nitrate test costs between $35 and $60, and treating the water requires a reverse osmosis system, which is a filtration device that forces water through a membrane that removes nitrate. Depending on the system, the price can range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. 

Some counties will pay for these tests and filters, but this isn’t the case in every affected community. 

For example, in Wisconsin – the dairy capital of the U.S. – rural well owners often choose not to test their wells for nitrate. “That’s because if it comes back that it’s testing high for nitrates, it may not be financially feasible for them to rehabilitate or remediate or dig a new well,” said Voskuil from Midwest Environmental Advocates. 

The state’s well compensation grant program will only provide financial assistance to well owners whose water tests at or more than 40 parts per million of nitrate. That’s four times the amount the EPA says is safe to drink.

A Need for Stronger Regulation

Food safety experts say solving America’s nitrate pollution problem will require stronger regulation of the biggest players in the agriculture industry. 

“This industry has been able to externalize so much of their costs… so that it’s an artificially cheap product for the consumer,” van Saun from the Center for Food Safety said. 

The federal government provides farmers subsidies to protect them from fluctuating revenue year-by-year, but data from the nonpartisan Environmental Working Group shows that 78% of subsidies were given to the largest 10% of farm operations between 1995 and 2021. This means small and mid-size farmers received the fewest benefits, making it harder to stay afloat.

Some bills have been proposed to address the squeeze of big agriculture, but there hasn’t been substantial progress made on the issue. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s Farm System Reform Act of 2023 proposed a moratorium on CAFOs, expanded country-of-origin labeling, and increased competition and transparency in livestock, poultry, and meat markets. The bill was first introduced in 2019 and reintroduced in 2021 and 2023, but all three times, it languished in committee. 

Most of the current reform is coming from more local efforts, like the community organizing in the Lower Yakima Valley that led to the 2024 lawsuit against three dairy farms. 

While these local efforts are important, van Saun said they have to occur in combination with federal regulations to effectively address drinking water contamination. “It’s the people who are the least well off in rural areas, and especially communities of color in rural areas, who are the ones paying the biggest price for this [pollution],” van Saun said.


Claire Carlson wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

October is National Farm to School Month, and New York schools are using grant funding to participate.

School districts statewide have received funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Local Food for Schools program. These grants allow schools to buy food directly from local or regional farmers, so kids have nutritious meals.

Jenny Lester Moffitt, undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the USDA, said this program allows farmers to get more of the "food dollar" back by selling their wares directly.

"So traditionally, a farmer gives about 14 cents of every food dollar back to their farming operation," she said. "But when farmers can sell locally, direct to their community, selling direct to their schools, more of the food dollar comes back to their farm."

She said it also provides them with a reliable and stable place to sell their products.

This year, New York school districts received more than $700,000 in grant funding from the Patrick Leahy Farm to School program. Lester Moffitt noted that a future goal is to expand the program.

This week, the USDA announced an additional $500 million for the grants, with another $200 million for child-care facilities to purchase directly from farms.

Feedback about the program has been positive from farmers and schools. From speaking with food producers, Lester Moffitt said it's been a safety net for them, especially those who have lost other local or international markets. Despite its benefits, she said, there are some challenges for farmers.

"There are barriers, especially if you're a small producer; if you're a producer that has one product to be able to sell directly to schools in the neighborhood and into the region," she said. "Farmers are often very busy farming and harvesting, and don't have a lot of time to be able to make all those different phone calls and deliver products."

Funds are also provided for farmers and schools to overcome these barriers. One solution is an aggregation system, where farmers can bring their products to one location to be distributed to different schools.