ST. PAUL, Minn. - St. Paul Public Schools have attracted so much recent attention that Kathleen Merrigan, U.S. Department of Agriculture deputy secretary, says she's "going back to school," touring the public school commissary to learn how the district is implementing a successful farm-to-school program.

The district featured a dozen local fruits and vegetables in school lunches during the first six weeks of the academic year, purchasing 110,000 pounds of locally grown produce. Merrigan says more than half (56 percent) of the fresh produce used in school means is bought locally.

"They are pioneers in this, and I want to learn what they're doing; I want to learn from that and extend it across the country. But I also know, even in the face of the great efforts they're making, they're still facing challenges. The need is great, the challenges are great, but just because they're great doesn't mean we're not ready to tackle them."

Those challenges, she adds, include a lack of cold storage and cooking facilities in schools, as well as the ability of small and mid-sized local farm to meet the demand.

The Minnesota School Nutrition Association and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy are in partnership to spearhead farm-to-school efforts with districts across the state. Merrigan says the effort helps kids make healthy food choices and supports increasing economic opportunities.

Getting there nationwide, she adds, is another story. The USDA is currently putting staff in place to figure out how to make farm-to-institution programs work.



get more stories like this via email

The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act would have prevented states from enforcing their own agricultural regulations, but has failed to advance in Congress this session.

While the measure was excluded from the most recent Farm Bill extension, food policy advocates warn that efforts to revive it remain a concern, particularly for Mississippi's agricultural industry.

Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst with Food and Water Watch, called the legislation a direct attack on states' rights to regulate their own food systems.

"The EATS Act would preempt state regulation of the factory farm and agribusiness industry. This includes animal welfare, consumer protection, labeling and food-safety laws and regulations, and the bill is so broad that it could also jeopardize state laws that protect rural communities and preserve our environment," Wolf said.

The bill, introduced in response to California's Proposition 12, which bans the sale of pork products from pigs raised in tightly confined gestation crates, was backed by major agribusiness groups.

Supporters argue that it is essential for maintaining a unified national agricultural market and preventing individual states from imposing regulations that could disrupt interstate commerce. Critics argue that the measure would've gone far beyond its stated intent, effectively overriding state agricultural policies nationwide.

Wolf said Mississippi's agricultural sector, which plays a vital role in the state's economy, could face significant consequences if similar legislation is reintroduced. She raised concerns that eliminating local control over agricultural standards could hurt small farmers and expose consumers to products that do not meet higher state-enforced safety and welfare regulations.

"When it comes to food safety, it's a really big concern right now with the avian flu, the kinds of standards in which animals are raised and really big concern being overcrowding of animals," she continued.

Advocacy groups view the bill's exclusion from the latest Farm Bill as a victory, but Wolf warns the fight isn't over.
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., a sponsor, argued, "Congress shouldn't allow any one state to single-handedly upend the country's agricultural economy and force the American people to bear the burden of higher food prices."

Wolf highlights the success of a bipartisan group of 171 lawmakers who opposed the EATS Act in the 2023 Farm Bill.


get more stories like this via email

Conservation groups are celebrating the end of a Massachusetts-based biotech company's pursuit of bringing genetically altered Atlantic salmon to market.

AquaBounty was the first company to get regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration to sell a genetically modified animal for human consumption in 2015, but it faced continuous legal challenges and consumer pushback.

Dana Perls, food and technology senior program manager with Friends of the Earth, said people just don't want to eat it.

"Grocery stores are refusing to sell it," said Perls. "Big restaurants are refusing to sell it. So, it's a market response."

Perls said the altered salmon put wild salmon - along with the fishing and Indigenous communities that rely on it - at risk.

In a statement, AquaBounty says it failed to raise enough capital to maintain its operations.

AquaBounty's AquaAdvantage brand salmon contained added genes from both Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout to make it grow faster.

But polls show most Americans believe genetically engineering animals for protein production isn't an appropriate use of biotechnology.

Perls said consumers are increasingly rejecting industrial food production, and demanding their food be clearly and accurately labeled.

"People want to be able to choose what it is they're eating and what they're feeding their families," said Perls, "and we need to ensure that the food we raise is truly healthy, truly sustainable, and fully regulated for safety."

Perls said the demise of AquaBounty salmon will set a precedent for other companies investing in genetically altered animals.

At least 35 fish species are currently being modified around the world, including trout, catfish, and striped bass. The FDA has also approved genetically altered pigs and cows for food and medical use.





get more stories like this via email

Farmers in North Dakota and the rest of the country are monitoring an evolving legal case against a giant equipment manufacturer and they said repair restrictions are not the only service headaches farmers encounter.

The Federal Trade Commission last week sued John Deere, accusing the company of an unfairly dominant market share. It said farmers have to rely on Deere's network of authorized dealers for necessary repairs, driving up costs and creating scheduling delays.

Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said he hopes the case brings out the facts in securing a resolution. He added the need for flexibility covers other ground, too.

"Items such as technology fees, and items such as, 'Well, you can only use this chemical with this seed, and it's got to be this brand,'" Watne outline. "Those things start to play out that we think are concerning."

He pointed out another area is transportation, where farmers might encounter vastly different price structures in getting their commodities shipped out, depending on the railway competition in various parts of the country. John Deere called the lawsuit "meritless," and said it plans to offer self-repair capabilities as farmers work with emerging technologies on tractors.

Watne acknowledged depending on the administration in the White House, they will see either aggressive or more lax approaches in confronting repair issues. He sees a long-standing pattern of laws being underutilized.

"There's really rules in place that have been there for 50 years or more that, through a number of administrations, haven't necessarily been enforced," Watne emphasized.

He admitted some of the progress seen in the Biden administration faces an uncertain future in the second term of President-elect Donald Trump, as some Trump appointees might prioritize certain fairness issues but could pass on other concerns voiced by smaller, independent farmers. Trump's selected appointee for FTC Chairman has been a vocal critic of the John Deere lawsuit.