Family Farm Defenders

Farmers are in Trouble—Restructuring the USMCA Could Turn Things Around

Posted on September 24, 2025 by admin

New labeling requirements to ensure the integrity of domestic markets, as well as price guarantees tied to anti-dumping measures, could improve the economic prospects of producers amid our ongoing trade war.

By: Anthony Pahnke, FFD Vice President and Associate Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University Originally Published by Common Dreams 9/17/2025

Farmers may be the proverbial “canaries in the coal mine” when it comes to the effects of US President Donald Trump’s grand tariff experiment.

Point in fact—corn and soy prices are experiencing precipitous falls in no small part due to tariffs that China has placed on US imports. Cotton prices are dropping for the same reason, as nearly 80% of this crop is destined for export and China slapped a 15% retaliatory tariff on it. Prices for pork and beef appear on a different trajectory, with the latter benefiting from domestic shortages. But even here, trouble is on the horizon as China has cut back on imports from the US. This, as Brazil is exporting more soy, beef, and cotton to China to replace what US farmers once sent. It is no coincidence that the percentage of farm income in 2025 coming from government payments—25%—is approaching the level it was at when the Covid-19 pandemic devastated markets in 2020. The $59 billion dedicated for farmers’ relief payments in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is testament to the fact that the economic future of rural America appears bleak.

The economic challenges our farmers face places even more pressure on the upcoming United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) renegotiations. Even though set for next year, Mexico, Canada, and the US are already staking positions and signaling their intentions. Look no further than Mexico contemplating placing tariffs on Chinese imports, a move clearly meant to stay in the good, however fickle, graces of the Trump administration.

Looking out for US farmers, there are some concrete policies that a renegotiated USMCA could feature. Specifically, new labeling requirements to ensure the integrity of domestic markets, as well as price guarantees tied to anti-dumping measures, could improve the economic prospects of producers as they struggle to weather the uncertainty of our ongoing trade war.

The problem is that in the past, the Trump administration took the wrong approach for how to improve the situation of producers when dealing with our neighbors. Concretely, when Trump renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) last time he was in office, besides rebranding it the USMCA, he also sought to open Canadian markets for US dairy exports.

Eking out marginal increases, those gains ultimately made no real improvement in the prices that farmers received. Proof of this is how dairy farmers have consistently struggled to stay in business, as we have witnessed a 25% nationwide decline from 2017 to 2023 in the number of licensed dairy herds. The recent uptick in dairy prices has nothing to do with USMCA, but instead to a reduction in feed costs and farmers cutting down their herds by selling heifers for beef.

Failing to finagle improved prices for farmers from changing exports, this time USMCA negotiations should focus on ensuring the integrity of markets.

The first step toward this would be for the US to reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL). Originally part of the 2002 Farm Bill before being removed after Canada and Mexico put pressure on the World Trade Organization (WTO), this program would make retailers disclose the origins of their products, including milk, dairy, meat, fish, and fruits, and vegetables. As such, MCOOL allows consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and choose our products instead of picking the cheapest goods of dubious quality that may come from abroad.

Such a change would assist ranchers particularly, as since Trump has taken office, Brazilian beef imports flooded US markets. And since the WTO has been paralyzed since Trump’s first term when he chose not to appoint judges to the institution’s appellate court, now MCOOL can return without opposition.

Next, pricing policies could be put in place to assure a decent income for farmers and prevent dumping.

The US has already made one move in this direction, placing a 17% tariff on tomato imports and accusing Mexican growers of dumping, that is, exporting goods into another market at below cost to drive competitors out of business.

Preventing dumping also cuts both ways, as when NAFTA was first introduced, US corn imports drove Mexican farmers out of business, into poverty, and then to cross the border. Accordingly, if Mexico wants to restrict the flow of some commodity south, such as corn, they should be allowed to.

To avoid a tit-for-tat battle, resolving this issue requires setting floor prices in some capacity. Like what they have already done with wages for automobile workers, negotiators could do the same for grains, as well as for livestock. They could also set limits on what comes from outside the trade bloc, like Mexico appears ready to do with China. The same could be done with Brazil and its beef, or perhaps with the many European countries that send billions of dollars of cheese a year into the US. Cheese is a critical element of dairy pricing, and decreasing imports could lead to more US production and better prices for farmers.

Farmers are known for their resiliency. At the same time, they can only take so much. Export-driven growth may sound like a good idea, but the reality has been different. A renegotiated USMCA that actually puts farmers first could turn things around and give producers a fighting chance to make a decent income and stay on the land.

Posted in Fair Trade | Comments Off

FFD Stands with Farmworkers, Calls Attention to the True Causes of our Immigration Crisis

Posted on August 15, 2025 by admin

Since our organization, the Family Farm Defenders (FFD), began in the early 1990s, we knew that the fate of food and farm systems around the world are inexorably linked to one another. We witnessed how free trade deals uprooted people globally, depressing prices for all farmers thus destroying rural communities worldwide. Visits our members have taken around the world, including to Mali, the European Union, Brazil, and Mexico, among other places, have helped us understand the realities of farmers and farm workers, and how the health of our planet and one another are intricately linked.

This knowledge grounds our strong opposition to the Trump administration’s program of mass deportation. Facts and reporting show that the administration’s claim that they are “going after the worst first,” is a lie. We know that the mass, indiscriminate arrests of migrants, including of farm workers and day laborers, silences workers by terrorizing them. Not to help the country, mass arrests and detention lines the pockets of executives in the private, for-profit immigration detention complex, led by corporations like Geo Group and CoreCivic. Always central to Trump’s racist and dehumanizing rhetoric concerning migrants, his administration’s plans are different this time for their scale and intensity.

“No Hate in the Dairy State” – Family Farmers and Farm Workers Unite to Defend Immigrant Rights at WI State Capitol

Meanwhile, most farm groups also denounce the plan to engage in mass deportations, because they view migrants – particularly farm workers – as critical inputs to their businesses as well as the food processing and distribution industry. We, too, understand that representation. It is a fact that there are more farm workers now than there are farmers (between 2 to 3 million of the former, under 2 million for the latter), and that without these laborers, about half of whom do not have legal authorization to be in the country, US farming would be in dire straits. Accordingly, some organizations promote visa reform, including plans to increase the H2A program, while others seek legal pathways for fish processing workers, and some advocate for undocumented people to receive driver’s licenses so that they can get to work safely.

But we emphasize that farm workers are more than inputs for businesses. Workers are members of our communities who have families and children. We share a common humanity regardless of where we were born, or the color of our skin. As people born in this country, citizens have done nothing to gain that privilege. We have passports that allow us to travel the world, while most others on this planet risk their lives to come here to work in dangerous, poorly-paid jobs just to have a chance of making a better living for themselves and their families. To tell migrants to “do it the right way,” or “like our ancestors did,” simply doesn’t make sense, because most do try to “do it the right way”.

We know the reasons why migrants, many of whom lack legal status, come to the US – global economic shifts and violence that they are not responsible for. The immigrants picking lettuce in California or milking cows in Wisconsin did not sign NAFTA when it came into force in 1994. Still, they felt its impact as their domestic markets were flooded with cheap goods, losing their way of life and ability to farm and feed their communities. To speak of law and order in this context is nonsense; the laws migrants break when they cross the border – many of whom came in the 1990s and 2000s – were passed in the 1950s and 1960s, at a time when migration to the US was virtually nil. The lack of real legal reform since then is the fault of our politicians, not immigrants.

A comparison to the Fugitive Slave law of 1850 is apt – just prior to the civil war, Congress’ passing of this law required that escaped slaves had to be returned to their owners if they made it to free states. As part of the abolition movement, many immigrant farmers and workers, along with local officials, actively resisted federal agents who were kidnapping people in their community. Similarly today, FFD supports the right of private citizens and government officials to NOT cooperate with ICE or other federal entities who are engaged in abusive and violent deportation activities.

Slavery and farm work in the US are not the same, although at times that may be the case. Instead, the larger point is that our laws need to be reformed. The reason people are in the US is not some nefarious plot to commit crimes, but to improve their economic realities. Moreover, the US depended on importing farm labor for over twenty years with the Bracero program (1942-1964). Before that, workers crisscrossed the border freely, as did Indigenous people. With the US’s system’s roots in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, the H-2 program only really begins with the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act when then President Reagan created the H2A program for farm workers. But since its inception, this program has woefully understaffed farms – with just under 400,000 workers coming in 2024. Moreover, this program is rife with abuse, as various farm worker organizations have researched and noted. Farm workers also have their pay determined before arriving, with no rights to form a union or complain about working conditions.

Various legal reforms are possible in this context, including:

*provide a path to citizenship for undocumented workers

*reform visa programs and the asylum process to end abuse, and give the right to workers to form unions and collectively bargain over wages and improving work conditions

We also know that migrants crossing borders are not individuals seeking to commit crimes, but instead people trying to escape from a combination of social factors. Accordingly, we:

*call for ceasefires at places where wars are currently waging, including with ending the use of food as a weapon

*demand trade deals, global and/or regional, that respect worker and farmer rights, giving people the chance earn a dignified living where they live, rather than being the victims of corporate globalization.

Our organization respects the principles of food sovereignty, which includes striving for dignified work conditions for everyone in agriculture. Our government violates these principles when they terrorize workers with the threat of deportation, family separation or a return to the violence they hope to escape through migration. As our changing government policies show, they do not care either about the dignity of workers or farmers (as their export-first, slapdash agricultural policy makes clear). We will do everything within our power to defend the dignity of both farmers and farm workers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

For June Dairy Month, Trump Should Celebrate the Canadian System, Not Denounce It

Posted on June 30, 2025 by admin

Trump’s plans don’t work for U.S. farmers. In fact, his intention to increase exports and enter the Canadian market fails both American farmers and our partner to the north.

By: Anthony Pahnke, FFD Vice President and Assoc. Prof. of International Relations at San Francisco State Univ., and Jim Goodman, FFD board member and retired organic dairy/beef farmer from Wonewoc, WI

Originally published by Common Dreams 6/29/2025

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-canada-dairy

Uncertainty is nothing new for farmers.

My future is in doubt… Does anyone have parity?

Freak weather changes and fluctuations in the market make planning for the future a gamble, never a sure thing. Dairy farmers have to deal with the additional issues of needing to keep their herds healthy and well-fed, as the price farmers receive in part depends on bacteria counts, and also the fat and protein content of the milk. If things weren’t hard enough, milk is a highly perishable product, which, unlike grains, cannot be stored and then sold when prices improve.

Giving farmers even more headaches these days is President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again trade war. Specifically, farmers have to endure even more uncertainty than normal as prices for inputs like seed or fertilizer may rise with tariffs, while their export markets abroad are endangered. In this mix of the president’s ongoing trade spats, he’s ridiculing Canada for protecting its dairy farmers with their supply management system, alleging that it harms U.S. farmers.

The moral of the story is that exports don’t keep farms in business, but instead allow larger operations to capture market share for themselves while driving out the smaller operations that have long defined U.S. dairy.

But here’s the reality—Trump’s plans don’t work for U.S. farmers. In fact, his intention to increase exports and enter the Canadian market fails both American farmers and our partner to the north.

Mexico has long been the main customer for our dairy exports and is regularly the No. 1 importer of all U.S. goods. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement as Mexico is a milk deficit country and meeting their domestic consumption needs requires imports. That’s how trade should work—when one country has stuff to sell that another country wants to buy, everyone wins.

With our neighbors to the north, the story is much different.

Canadians do not want our products forced into their market. Actually, Canadians want their system to stay as it is. It’s not difficult to see why. The Canadian supply management system ensures dairy farmers a fair price for their milk by tying domestic dairy production to consumption. Prices are negotiated in periodic meetings between farmers and processors to assure a baseline cost of production for producers and an adequate supply for domestic needs. Unlike the U.S. system, in which price controls were lifted for dairy in the 1980s, Canadian dairy farmers have a semblance of certainty year after year. U.S. dairy producers must fend for themselves, adopting a “get big or get out” mentality and increasing production whenever they can to maintain some kind of financial security. This push to constantly increase production leads to chronic overproduction and price volatility. Also unlike the U.S. system, Canadian farmers do not rely on tax-payer financed bailouts, or inadequate insurance payments that keep American farmers hanging on by a thread.

Furthermore, the production treadmill promoted by U.S. government policy has caused the loss of small farms and the hollowing out of rural communities. Trump continued this “get big or get out” mantra the first time he was in office, targeting Canadian dairy much like he is doing now. During the renegotiation of North American Free Trade Agreement into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Canadian market was slightly opened to U.S. dairy exports.

Despite the heralding of this change a “win” for farmers, it has proved to be anything but.

Specifically, even though exports to Canada have nearly doubled since 2018, U.S. farmers continue to exit the industry at alarming rates. While U.S. dairy operations numbered at about 34,000 operations in 2020, the year when the USMCA was officially passed, that number fell to just about 26,000 by 2023—a 25% decrease.

Particularly as we celebrate June Dairy Month, we should learn from the Canadian system instead of denouncing it. Granted, Canada’s supply management is not perfect—few government policies are. But their system provides for fair returns for farmers and certainty in a profession already marked by so many challenges. A similar production management system in the U.S. could ensure farmers a fair milk price thereby eliminating the need for taxpayer subsidies, while providing consumers with fairly priced, locally produced dairy. Let’s stop championing an economic vision for agriculture that has already been shown to be a failure.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Enbridge Line 5: A clear and present danger

Posted on June 14, 2025 by admin

By: Jim Goodman, FFD board member and retired organic dairy farmer (Wonewoc, WI)

Originally published by the Wisconsin Examiner, June 11, 2025

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/06/11/enbridge-line-5-a-clear-and-present-danger

Canadian energy company Enbridge’s Line 5 traverses an extremely sensitive ecological area across northern Wisconsin, 400 rivers and streams as well as a myriad of wetlands, in addition to a path under the Mackinac Straights between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, all the while skirting the southern shore of Lake Superior. Such close proximity to the Great Lakes, lakes that hold over 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, lakes that supply drinking water to nearly 40 million people, yes, that does indeed make Line 5 a ticking time bomb.

Northern Wisconsin is also a very culturally sensitive area, home to the Bad River Reservation. The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa were guaranteed rights to their lands by an 1854 treaty with the U.S. government. The easements for Line 5 across the reservation, granted to Enbridge by the Chippewa, expired in 2013 and the Bad River Band chose not to renew them. Enbridge continues to operate the line, illegally and in direct violation of the Bad River Band’s right to sovereignty over their land.

The Bad River Band has a guaranteed legal right to their land. They also have a right to Food Sovereignty, the internationally recognized right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds and water while rejecting the privatization of natural resources. Line 5 clearly impinges on the Band’s right to hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, to farm and have access to safe drinking water.

A federal court ruled that Enbridge has been trespassing on lands of the Bad River Band since 2013 and ordered the company to cease operations of Line 5 by June of 2026 (seems that immediate cessation would make more sense), but rather than shut down the aging line, Enbridge plans to build a diversion around the Bad River Reservation. They plan to move the pipeline out of the Bad River Band’s front yard into their back yard, leaving 100% of the threats to people and the environment in place.

Liquid petroleum (crude oil, natural gas and petroleum product) pipelines are big business in the U.S. With 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines, the U.S. network is the largest in the world. If we continue our heavy and growing dependence on liquid fossil fuels, we must realize that we will continue to negatively impact the climate and the lives of everyone on the planet.

Instead of moving to a just transition away from fossil fuels, liquid or otherwise, the government continues to subsidize the industry through direct payments and tax breaks, refusing to acknowledge the cost of pollution-related health problems and environmental damage, a cost which is of course, incalculable.

There are nearly 20,000 miles of pipelines planned or currently under construction in the U.S., thus it would appear that government and private industry are in no hurry to break that addiction, much less make a just transition. While no previous administration was in any hurry to break with the fossil fuel industry, they at least gave the illusion of championing a transition to cleaner energy.

The current administration is abundantly clear. Their strategy is having no strategy. They don’t like wind and solar and they plan to end any support for renewable energy. They don’t care if they upend global markets, banking, energy companies or certainly any efforts to help developing countries transition away from fossil fuels.

Pipelines are everywhere across the U.S., a spiderweb connecting wells, refineries, transportation and distribution centers. The vast majority of pipelines are buried and many, if not all, at some point cross streams, rivers, lakes and run over aquifers. Pipeline ruptures and other assorted failures will continue and spillage will find its way into the bodies of water they skirt around or pass under. It’s not a question if they will leak, but when.

Enbridge controls the largest network of petroleum pipelines in the Great Lakes states, and they are hardly immune to spills. Between 1999 and 2013 it was reported that Enbridge had over 1,000 spills dumping a reported 7.4 million gallons of oil.

In 2010 Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured and contaminated the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Over 1.2 million gallons of oil were recovered from the river between 2010 and 2014. How much went downstream or was buried in sediment, we’ll never know.

In 2024 a fault in Enbridge Line 6 caused a spill of 70 thousand gallons near Cambridge Wisconsin. And Enbridge’s most infamous pipeline, the 71-year-old Line 5 from Superior Wisconsin to Sarnia Ontario, has had 29 spills in the last 50 years, loosing over 1 million gallons of oil.

Some consider Line 5 to be a “public good” because, as Enbridge argues, shutting the line down will shut down the U.S. economy and people will not be able to afford to heat their homes — claims they have never supported with any evidence. A public good is one that everyone can use, that everyone can benefit from. A public good is not, as Enbridge apparently believes, a mechanism for corporate profit.

Line 5 is a privately owned property, existing only to generate profits for Enbridge. If it were a public good, Enbridge would certainly be giving more attention to the rights of the Bad River Band, the well-being of all the people who depend on the clean waters of the Great Lakes and to protecting the sensitive environment of northern Wisconsin and Michigan. They are not. Their trespassing, their disregard for the environment, their continuing legal efforts to protect their bottom line above all else, only points to their self-serving avarice.

The Bad River Band wants Enbridge out, and in their eyes it is not a case of “not in my back yard” they do not want Line 5 in anyone’s back yard.

Posted in Climate Justice, Food Sovereignty, Land Grabbing, Treaty Rights | Comments Off

Trump’s Trade Deals Endanger Farmers and Our Food System

Posted on May 20, 2025 by admin

Trump’s efforts to undo the previous administration’s policies set up our food system for disruption and crisis, subjecting farmers to the uncertainties of international markets and developments elsewhere.

By: Anthony Pahnke, Family Farm Defenders vice president and Associate Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University

Originally published by Common Dreams on May 16, 2025

Former presidential adviser-cum-rightwing podcaster Steve Bannon often mentions that discerning the truth of President Donald Trump’s policy goals entails focusing on the signal and not the noise.

But doing so has been next to impossible when trying to figure out the rationale behind the administration’s moves in agriculture, which since January have generated widespread confusion and uncertainty.

Specifically, while Trump publicly proclaims that he stands with farmers, his tariff war with China stands to rob producers of their markets. Since Trump’s last term, China has already been looking to countries like Brazil for soybeans as the U.S. has proven an unreliable partner. Adding insult to injury, unexpectedly cancelling government contracts with thousands around the country early in his term placed undue stress on farmers who already have to contend with what extreme weather events throw their way.

Taken together, the bailouts along with the freshly inked U.K.-U.S. trade deal and easing of tariffs on China illustrate how the Trump administration prioritizes export agriculture as the driving force of our country’s farm system.

Now, with the details of the U.K.-U.S. trade deal becoming known, the signal—that is, the truth—of the Trump administration’s vision for agriculture is coming into view. To the point, not unlike how U.S. agriculture has been directed for the past few decades, it is becoming clear that this administration will prioritize exports. The problem with this vision is that, even if it generates short-term profits, it endangers our long-term national food security by dangerously further internationalizing our agricultural system.

Consider the praise that U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins heaped on the U.K.-U.S. deal that was made on May 8, singling out its supposed gains for farmers.

Following the announcement, the secretary announced a tour that she will take through the United Kingdom to tout the agreement. While details are still being hashed out, we are told of a promised $5 billion in market access for beef and ethanol.

Contrast that clear messaging—the signal—with how government contracts with farmers were frozen and made subject to administrative review, and the funding for local food programs was slashed.

The contracts were connected with the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which included resources for initiatives like those dealing with soil and water conservation, and supporting local food processing. Additionally, programs that connected local producers with schools and food banks, for example, the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, had their funding cut in the amount of about $1 billion.

Since February, some of the contracts have been unfrozen if they aligned with the administration’s political objectives (i.e. not promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI). Despite court orders ruling that all contracts must be honored, if and when the funds will be distributed, remains to be seen.

Overall, the noise surrounding the unfolding contract drama signals to farmers who want to diversify their operations and serve local markets that they should second guess looking to the government for help.

At the same time, Trump has not abandoned all producers.

In fact, amid the commotion about freezing some contracts, Secretary Rollins ok’d billions in direct payments, or bailouts, for growers of commodity crops such as corn. Thanks to such payments and not any improvements to markets, it is expected that farmers will see theier incomes increase when comparing this year with the last.

Such dynamics smack of contradiction, as Trump appears eager to send our food abroad while he’s willing to do whatever to bring manufacturing back to America’s shores in the name of strengthening the national economy.

Still, the deeper problem is with how export promotion makes our food system insecure, subjecting farmers to international political upheavals and economic disruption.

Remember the 1970s, when a grain production crisis prompted sudden demand in the Soviet Union. Then-Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz told farmers to “plant fence row to fence row” and “get big or get out” to profit from the newfound export opportunity.

The promise of international markets came—and went. President Jimmy Carter’s embargo of grain exports to the Soviet Union in 1980 for that country’s invasion of Afghanistan came as a body blow to the farmers who made commodity exports central to their financial plans. Farmers then struggled to pay off the debt for the land and machinery that they acquired just a few years before, which, with rising gas prices, contributed to the 1980s farm crisis. Parallels abound now, including the initial effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine increasing fertilizer and gasoline costs, and most recently, the ongoing dynamics of Trump’s trade war with China.

Concerning the U.K.-U.S. deal, U.K. imports of ethanol may seem a boon for corn growers. But without future terms of the deal becoming clear, it is unclear if this is simply a continuation of what the British already import. Similarly, the significance of the slated $250 million in purchases of beef products is of questionable importance, as last year the U.S. exported $1.6 billion to China. Regardless of the recent 90 day truce in the China-U.S. trade dispute, the remaining 30% tariff would still hurt American farmers. The Trump administration’s export push will find farmers without markets and in need of more bailouts.

Besides subjecting U.S. farmers’ livelihoods to international uncertainty, the other concern is the lack of concern for the next generation of food producers. Year after year, the country’s farmers are getting older, with no one stepping up to replace them. According to the 2022 Agricultural Census, the average farmer is over 58 years old, up over half a year from when the last census was conducted in 2017. During that same time, we lost nearly 150,000 operations. Since 2012, over 200,000 farmers have left the industry, representing a 10% decline.Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, upwards of 70% of farmland is expected to change hands over the next 20 years.

Export promotion serves a temporary fix, but places farmers at the whims of international politics. Moreover, it threatens our country’s already economically pressed farmers, making our country even more dependent on a dwindling number of people for our food, as well as imports. In fact, since 2004, while exports have nearly doubled from $50 billion to $200, our food imports have increased slightly more so.

Trump’s efforts to undo the previous administration’s policies set up our food system for disruption and crisis, subjecting farmers to the uncertainties of international markets and developments elsewhere. If there is a signal with the noise that Trump is making with our food system, then this is it—farmers better get ready for a volatile next few years and more bailouts, as operations will continue to go under. Overall, Trump’s nationalist rhetoric amounts to little, as our food system becomes more global, increasingly made vulnerable to dynamics outside our control.