As rural communities still suffer from the so-called digital divide, the Biden administration has announced the rollout of more than $42 billion for the expansion of high-speed internet access. That includes $1 billion dollars for Wisconsin. The funding comes from the multi-year federal infrastructure law that was adopted in late 2021. Federal officials say more than 8 million households and small businesses in the U.S. are in areas where there is no high-speed internet infrastructure.

Deb Reinbold, president, Thrive Economic Development, said it is welcome news for smaller towns.

"It's a huge opportunity for the state," she said. "In today's interconnected world, broadband's not just a luxury, it's a lifeline, and especially for rural communities."

Reinbold added her area has seen progress thanks to separate grants in recent months, but said there are still some areas that need service, and there is hope the new funding will close remaining gaps. According to a statewide task force report, nearly 7% of Wisconsin residents lack access to the FCC standard for download speed, mostly in rural areas.

Reinbold is also a board member with the Wisconsin Rural Partners group, and said beyond helping rural residents and small businesses, the extra funding allows health providers in these communities to easily connect with patients.

"Telehealth is also something that we're seeing such a significant investment in from our area, medical clinics and hospitals," she said. "Honestly, the impact is very widespread."

Wisconsin's Public Service Commission will be in charge of distributing the grants. In a statement, it says it will ensure the funding gets to where it is needed as quickly as it can while maintaining transparency in being stewards of taxpayer dollars.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The “Got Milk?” campaign is one of the most infamous advertisements campaigns funded by the food industry. Though the images of people sporting milk mustaches were once practically ubiquitous, consumers may have difficulty pinpointing who exactly funded the project. The source was a unique agricultural marketing partnership of both industry and government commonly referred to as “checkoffs.” Today, checkoffs promote a wide range of foods — eggs and pork, and also watermelon and Hass avocados — but a growing number of critics, including farmers, are raising objections to the mandatory payment scheme. Some critics have even called for Elon Musk’s DOGE to curb checkoff programs, yet that kind of cut may not be popular, or legal.

Historically, checkoffs were a way for farmers to “self-tax” — paying a fee into a consolidated pool to market their product — University of Iowa agricultural resource economist Silvia Secchi tells Sentient. Once a voluntary practice, farmers could elect to pay into the checkoff to support their own commodity — agricultural products sold at a large scale, like corn, beef and hogs. The funds would go toward one big marketing pool, and the checkoff was to promote and provide information about the commodity rather than a particular brand — selling milk rather than DairyPure, for instance.

The first commodity checkoff was the formation of the Cotton Board in 1966, eventually institutionalized by Congress in 1996, when lawmakers officially sanctioned the use of “industry-funded, Government-supervised” commodity checkoff programs. More than a quarter-century later, checkoffs have ballooned into a combined pot of almost $1 billion supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture but operated by commodity boards. It is mandatory for producers selling cattle to pay $1 per head to the checkoff. Beef imported to the U.S. is “self-taxed” too. Ready to capitalize on the sweeping governmental changes, some farmers and farm groups are calling for a change.

Signs the Trump Administration Might Slash Checkoffs 

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is moving through federal agencies slashing positions and programs, put out a call on X (formerly known as Twitter) asking for the public’s help with what to cut from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Some advocacy groups, like Farm Action, asked DOGE to investigate illegal checkoff spending on lobbying. They also penned a letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins asking her to halt checkoff expenditures, which she has neither confirmed nor denied she will do.

Checkoffs were a target of Project 2025, where author Daren Bakst wrote that “Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious programs run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax — a means to compel speech — and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation.” Bakst called for the elimination or reduction of checkoff programs.

“That could’ve come out of the mouth of Senator Sanders or Senator Warren,” Austin Frerick, antitrust expert and author of “Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry,” tells Sentient. Frerick sees checkoff reform as essential. “We can’t make meaningful reforms in the American food system until we bring in the checkoffs, because they’re just too much money. They’re too much of a slush fund. They control the conversation too much.”

What Checkoff Programs Do

The goal of checkoff programs is to increase the reputation of and desire for a commodity, like beef, among consumers. Checkoffs tend to promote food made by large-scale, industrial agriculture, Secchi says; there are overwhelmingly the kinds of farms that produce most of the feed crops and meat consumed in the U.S. “If you’re the kind of farmer who is doing a lot to promote soil health on their farm, or who is really concerned about animal welfare and things like that, the checkoff doesn’t really benefit you,” she says. “The checkoff benefits the commodity, right? And the commodity, by definition, is homogeneous.”

Checkoffs also fund a hefty amount of university research. This industry-funded research is not a behind-the-scenes aspect of checkoffs, either. In fact, the USDA labels these programs under a “research & promotion” umbrella.

It’s also not an insignificant sum. According to reporting by Investigate Midwest, “between 2012 and 2022, the pork checkoff gave $17,184,763 in funding to land-grant colleges across the country. More than half went to research at Iowa State University…” In the same time period, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association gave $6.4 million and the dairy checkoff, Dairy Management Inc., gave almost $5.8 million to land-grant colleges.

How Checkoffs Can Skew Academic Research

Industry-funded research is ubiquitous in the field of agriculture. While defenders of the practice say working with conventional agriculture is a way to improve it, critics say industry-funded research ends up favoring questions of interest to industry over other research areas. And a growing body of industry-funded research is going toward messaging to defend the meat industry — like building trust in the pork industry, for instance. 

“I actually think checkoffs are the main reason why our efforts in climate change and agriculture have been largely a farce,” says Frerick. Agriculture is one of the largest contributors to climate change, responsible for around a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, most of which is driven by beef. Frerick says industry-funded research is often focused on the false solutions. “We’re getting a lot of dumb scholarship, like ethanol and airplanes and other digesters for industrial animal facilities. And as all that, to me, is being driven and led by checkoffs.”

One recent paper claims that the beef industry (via the checkoff funded National Cattlemen’s Association) “planned to obstruct efforts to shift U.S. diets to reduce emissions,” funding university research that downplayed the effects of the industry on climate change. Frerick says research is what drives hiring in academia, and some researchers may feel pressured to write favorably about the big-funders.

“If you write a bunch of articles about how you squeeze more hogs into a metal shed, you’re probably more likely to get tenure than if you are talking about the fact that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in America,” he says. “The structures are really, really broken right now.”

Secchi is critical of the kinds of research land grant institutions are investing in. “The research that this kind of money finances is what I call small science research that perpetuates the practices of conventional agriculture,” she says. “It basically is just increasing demand for these products without any thinking about their environmental impact [or] their human health impact in a real way.”

Some Farmers Say Checkoffs Offer Them Little

On February 25, 2025, the USDA released a radio broadcast talking up the benefits of checkoffs, telling listeners that they do not know the extent to which the checkoff touches their lives, citing campaigns like “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner,” and educational programs such as “Pork Loin Roast vs Tenderloin.” The checkoff can also support events, the host said, such as the American Lamb Board’s Lamb Jam, “a tour of cities where local restaurants feature their best bites of lamb, along with games, music and giveaways to attract audiences and potential new customers of lamb.”

But not all farmers are convinced. Iowa farmer John Gilbert wrote to Sentient that, “Check off taxes are built on a faulty premise that prices can be increased by working only on the demand side.”

He wrote that the checkoff system “went to crap” when it became mandatory, causing the revenue to “invariably [shift] to the organization’s preservation, self promotion and influence peddling.”

“The checkoffs invariably led to the commodity cartel that has a stranglehold on Iowa politics and agriculture,” he wrote.

Aaron Lehman, President of the Iowa Farmers Union, wrote to Sentient that “Commodity checkoff programs must be accountable to the needs of family farmers,” noting that the term “checkoff” implies that they should also all be voluntary, “or at the very least should have built in regular farmer elections regarding the collection of funds from farmers.”

In conversations with farmers, Frerick has heard similar complaints. For decades, he says, many farmers have vocally opposed the checkoff, feeling like “their own money is being used against them.”

DOGE As Enforcer?

When the advocacy group Farm Action took to X to blast checkoffs, they highlighted the “lack of transparency and oversight.” Yet even though Project 2025 called for the elimination, or complete reform of the program, DOGE cannot (legally) single-handedly eliminate checkoffs, Secchi says.

“I have never been a fan of the checkoffs. But I think what’s really dangerous here is to concede that the process doesn’t matter,” she says. “If they get rid of the checkoffs, that’s not good, because that’s illegal. That’s not their job to get rid of the checkoffs.”

Moreover, checkoffs are not funded by the average taxpayer, they are funded by the farmer, making the DOGE goal of saving the average taxpayer money moot.

“It is not conducive to good policy to think that eliminating the subsidies in the system we have now is going to result in good outcomes,” Secchi says. “The people who are going to survive are the people who are already big.”

Project 2025 likely targeted checkoffs because, at its core, the plan calls for less government and more free market ideology, Secchi explains. But the entire agricultural market in the U.S., as Secchi explains in a recent paper, is based on government-driven extraction of the land; things like railroads to ship pigs across the country and corn yield advancements because of land grant university research.

“This tech bro idea that the market exists in a vacuum, and it’s this ideal that we have to aspire to is really not based in any reality,” she says. “The market is created by institutions like the state.”

DOGE aside, Frerick does not believe that much is likely to change at USDA with Brooke Rollins at the helm. “Her whole career is being a hack for [corporations] and the oligarch class, so I just don’t expect her to find the light all of a sudden,” he says. “But who knows?”

Based on an initial review of the DOGE website, one contract within the Agricultural Marketing Service has been terminated. It is unclear how this might affect checkoffs.

When asked if checkoffs were on the chopping block, Rollins told Farm Journal, “That is to be determined … I have not even begun to look at those. I know we’ve got a team looking at them. We’re going to get through the next few weeks and then we’ll start evaluating.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

The South Dakota region has seen some wet weather in recent days, but the entire state is still in varying levels of drought status.

That has farmers prepping for a potentially dry planting and growing season.

Data show persistent droughts have become a headache for farmers in this part of the country, even with South Dakota's long history of dry conditions.

Jim Faulstich farms in the central part of the state. After nearly losing his ranch during a devastating drought in 1976, he's learned to adapt over the years.

Faulstich said diversifying his business model by welcoming hunters has eased the pressure, as well as planting "warm season grasses."

"The warm season grasses are a lot deeper rooted," said Faulstich, "they tend to stay greener into the summer."

He said that spreads out the grazing season for livestock. And if cows are in better shape, he said that means consumers have a better beef product at the grocery store.

Faulstich said he hopes emerging farmers and ranchers embrace sustainable practices so they, too, can withstand periods of drought and help their communities thrive.

Faulstich, also vice-chair of the South Dakota Grassland Coalition, said this holistic approach to managing a healthier landscape means farmers aren't caught flat footed when weather disasters strike.

"These weather cycles have been really extreme the last few years, and we don't give up," said Faulstich. "It's just a way of life, and we have to be prepared for it."

He said improving soil quality also benefits surrounding waterways for things like outdoor recreation.

Faulstich said that's important because much of the state still struggles with water quality in lakes, rivers and streams, despite recent progress.

That overview is reflected in a recent summary from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Illinois News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Cases of influenza A or H5N1, also known as avian flu, are now being detected in humans across the United States. At least one person has died from the virus, and at least 67 people have been infected. For now, at highest risk of infection are poultry and dairy farm workers — people who often have close contact with animals. But as with any outbreak, the risk could change. And a number of former public health officials say the current testing approach falls short.

Researchers are monitoring avian influenza through wastewater tracking, direct testing of people who may have been exposed displaying symptoms and surveillance testing, which involves testing random samples of influenza A in humans for the H5N1 subtype.

The virus has already mutated, spreading from poultry to cattle, causing it to have “pandemic potential,” says Meghan Davis, Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“If it would mutate or reassort with other viruses to the point where it could transmit human to human, that would be a big concern,” she tells Sentient. “This is the reason that we say that the virus has pandemic potential.”

States Decide Their Own Tracking Protocol for Avian Flu

“There’s a lot of mistrust for the government right now, so the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] has been very dependent on the states to call the shots,” Amy Liebman, Chief Program Officer of Workers, Environment and Climate at Migrant Clinicians Network tells Sentient. That approach has led to mixed results, Liebman says. “I think there are some states that are responsive, but it’s really been somewhat piecemeal…It leaves room for us to not really understand the extent of what is happening.”

One gap in testing is that not everyone who tests positive for the flu is also tested for the H5N1 subtype. In Iowa, a state dominated by factory farms and meat processing facilities, influenza A samples are usually only tested if patients meet certain criteria and if they present symptoms.

State health departments are also relying on doctors to ask the right questions. “Physicians are being urged by Iowa Health and Human Services to ask a patient if they have a potential to be exposed to infected birds or cattle,” Michael Pentella, microbiologist and director of the State Hygienic Laboratory at the University of Iowa tells Sentient. “There’s people who have been exposed that we definitely want to test and subtype.”

In addition to these measures, Iowa has a state surveillance program, through which two random positive tests from all the clinical labs in the state are subtyped for H5N1. To date, there is one confirmed positive case of avian flu in a human in the state.

In California, where the majority of human H5N1 cases have been found, physicians also play a large role in surveillance efforts. Healthcare providers are instructed to consider the possibility of infection in patients with “Signs and symptoms consistent with acute respiratory tract infection and/or conjunctivitis;” as well as a “history of exposure in the last 10 days to animals suspected or confirmed to have avian influenza A, or who have had exposure to raw milk.”

Clinicians are on the frontlines of diagnosis, and in this case, on the frontlines of tracking this virus throughout the human population. But most of those on the frontlines of the virus are migrant and immigrant workers, who may face barriers to acquiring medical care in the first place.

Workers Most at Risk Have Limited Healthcare Access

“When you have migrant and immigrant workforces who may distrust authority, then you also potentially have workforces that lack access to healthcare,” Johns Hopkins public health researcher Davis says. This could be driven by “distrust, fear of recognition, or perhaps a status issue,” she says. Some workers may also be infected without major symptoms. “If it presents more mild, like sniffles, a little upper respiratory sign, some conjunctivitis, even someone with access to health care might not get tested.”

In practice, getting someone tested for avian flu can be a multi-pronged maze that includes educating workers about risks, getting them access to healthcare if they are sick and hoping that a clinician has the time and knowledge to query about exposure. And even then, departments of health are relying on doctors to decide to test the person.

In her role at Migrant Clinicians Network, Liebman is working to increase knowledge of H5N1 among clinicians, as well as “raise the index of suspicion” on whose tests can get subtyped, or tested for the particular variant.

“The majority of people that have been diagnosed with H5N1 are workers. Workers are at higher risk,” Liebman says. “We need to think about this disease in terms of worker health and safety…public health guidelines, while they are important, really have to consider what it means for workers and the agency that workers have to protect themselves.” For Liebman, that means better education efforts for avian flu and PPE, not only for workers but food producers and healthcare centers that serve workers.

Change of Leadership and Policy at Federal Agencies Under Trump

As President Donald Trump begins his second term as president, unexpected changes to federal agencies could upend tracking efforts. During his first week in office, the president halted all communications from governmental agencies — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In his last term, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act and required meatpacking workers to re-open and re-enter slaughterhouses during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As many as 269 meatpacking employees died and 59,000 workers tested positive for the virus.

“When you’re talking about workers and a workforce and a food supply chain in this country, understand one of the most valuable links there are those workers that are doing that job,” Mark Lauritsen, International Vice President and Director of United Food and Commercial Workers Food Processing and Meatpacking Division, tells Sentient. “The best way to protect the fragile food supply chain in this country is through workers having a voice and a collective agreement to take care of them while they are at the workplace.”

Liebman is concerned that the new administration might be placing less of an emphasis on infectious disease during a critical time. A proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule that would provide extra protections for employees from infectious diseases is now in limbo as the new administration reviews all proposed rules.

“I’m sure that this administration does not want another pandemic as it moves forward. My concerns are that we might be taking our focus off of infectious disease in general, and then off of H5N1, when we actually need a lot more focus,” she says. “We need to remember that there are really important roles that government plays in protecting human health.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email