Blog - Farm Action Fund

Does Congress Have MAHA’s Back?

Farm Action — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 12:53:21 +0000

The MAHA Commission is developing a national strategy to end America’s chronic disease crisis. We are pleased that Washington is saying out loud what so many Americans have long known: our hyper-consolidated food system is fueling an epidemic of preventable illness.

From rising rates of diabetes and heart disease to entire communities cut off from fresh food, the cost of our corporate-controlled food system is measured in lives and livelihoods. The administration has a key role to play in addressing this crisis—and has already taken important steps by launching the MAHA initiative. But to build a food system that truly protects public health, Congress must also act.

Some Lawmakers Are Undermining MAHA’s Mission

Unfortunately, some lawmakers are already taking actions that fly in the face of the MAHA mission:

The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill” expands subsidies for the largest farms growing industrial commodity crops—rewarding the top 1% while small farms growing nutritious food for their communities are left behind.
The House Appropriations Committee advanced a bill shielding pesticide companies from liability—putting chemical giants over public health.
House Ag Committee leaders held a Prop 12 hearing without a single independent farmer at the table. Chair GT Thompson is pushing to overturn the law—a key market for independent hog farmers—in favor of global meatpackers.

These attacks are being led by Republican lawmakers aligned with the interests of multinational agribusiness—not the people or farmers MAHA is supposed to serve.

A Political Opportunity—If Congress Chooses to Act

Here’s the deeper truth: the MAHA Commission’s food system goals aren’t new. They reflect core priorities that some Democrats in Congress have championed for decades—like food as medicine, antitrust enforcement, and regenerative agriculture. But now that these ideas are gaining traction under the MAHA banner, some Democrats are pulling back. That’s a mistake.

Meanwhile, House Republican agriculture leaders appear to be abandoning their newly found MAHA base of support. This leaves a strategic opening.

Democrats have a real opportunity here: they can reclaim these ideas, help shape their implementation, and deliver the food and public health reforms their constituents have long demanded—while gaining a new base of support from the MAHA movement. But only if they show up. Republicans also have a real responsibility: to deliver on the Trump campaign’s commitments to this new MAHA-aligned constituency—or risk losing them. If they course-correct and govern accordingly, they can maintain this base and help secure their congressional majority.

If both Republicans and Democrats acted accordingly, the real winner would be the American people.

The 7 Reforms Congress Can’t Ignore

1. Protect Public Rights and Local Control

Congress must oppose any legislation that shields pesticide manufacturers from liability or strips state and local governments of their right to enact stronger food and farming standards.

Support the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to restore the rights of individuals harmed by pesticide exposure, and oppose any efforts to shield pesticide manufacturers from immunity.
Oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act (formerly the EATS Act), which would override local MAHA laws and undermine public health protections.

2. Support Healthy Food Access and Local Producers

Expand programs like the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and other purchasing programs that help families access fresh, nutritious food and create strong markets for local farmers.

Support the GusNIP Improvement Act to strengthen this vital tool for health and economic resilience.
Support the Strengthening Local Food Security Act, a bipartisan bill that expands nutrition incentives and creates a new Local Food Security Access Program—helping underserved communities access healthy food while supporting local farms and food food businesses.

3. Reform EQIP to Prioritize Public Health and Family Farmers

Modernize the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) so that it supports conservation practices and family farmers—not industrial agriculture.

Support the EQIP Improvement Act to broaden access for more diversified agriculture and ensure the program prioritizes proven, pollutant-reducing practices by limiting subsidies to large industrial operations.

4. Modernize Crop Insurance for Regenerative and Specialty Crop Farmers

Current crop insurance programs leave out the very farmers we need most.

Support reforms to Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) and Noninsured Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) to make them work for small-scale, regenerative, and specialty crop producers.
Back the Save Our Small Farms Act and the Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform Measures Act to expand access and limit wasteful subsidies.

5. Restore and Enforce Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

Bring back mandatory COOL for beef and pork so that consumers know where their food comes from and U.S. producers aren’t undercut by imports.

Support the American Beef Labeling Act to put transparency and fairness back on the menu.

6. Reform Commodity Checkoff Programs

Checkoff programs were meant to support farmers, but today they fund marketing for ultra-processed foods and help corporate agribusiness lobby against transparency, labeling, and public health reforms. From cheese-stuffed pizzas to sugary coffee drinks, checkoff dollars have been used to promote products that directly undermine MAHA’s mission while failing to support farmers.

Support the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act to ban conflicts of interest, increase transparency, and restore oversight in federal checkoff programs.

7. Expand Public Seed Development and Protect Seed Access

Counter consolidation in the seed and pesticide sectors by investing in public innovation.

Support the policies contained within the Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act to strengthen public plant breeding and protect farmer seed rights.

The Bottom Line

The MAHA Commission can shine a spotlight on the crisis, and the administration has already taken meaningful steps. But Congress must do its part to deliver the reforms needed to solve it. If lawmakers are serious about ending chronic disease, this is their chance to prove it.

Does Congress Have MAHA’s Back? We’re watching. Want to see real action on MAHA? Share this agenda and call on your representatives to get behind it.

The post Does Congress Have MAHA’s Back? first appeared on Farm Action Fund.

Election’s Over: What Does It Mean for the Farm Action Movement?

Farm Action — Thu, 07 Nov 2024 20:58:56 +0000

As the saying goes, “Change is the only constant.” Former President John F. Kennedy once said, “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”

Tuesday’s election brought notable changes to Washington, D.C.: Donald Trump will return to the White House, and the U.S. Senate will shift to Republican control. While key results are still coming in, here’s our initial take on what the 2024 election could mean for the movement toward fair competition in food and agriculture.

The New Landscape in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Senate

As of today, the final makeup of the U.S. Senate remains unknown, but it’s clear that control has flipped from Democratic to Republican. With Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stepping down, Republican Senators will choose a new Majority Leader, with candidates reported to include Senators Thune (R-SD), Cornyn (R-TX), Scott (R-FL), and Barrasso (R-WY).

The Senate Agriculture Committee will see changes as well. With Republicans taking control, Committee Ranking Member Boozman (R-AR) is expected to assume the chair, while retiring Chair Stabenow (D-MI) is expected to be replaced by Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) as the top Democrat on the Committee. Senator Boozman’s past policies – including his Farm Bill framework released earlier this year – align closely with Big Ag interests, while Senator Klobuchar, although supportive of many antitrust issues, has historically been hesitant to confront corporate power in the food and agriculture sectors.

Additionally, the defeat of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), a champion of local and regional food systems, and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), the Senate’s only active farmer, will be felt, even though Tester wasn’t on the Agriculture Committee. These shifts introduce uncertainty regarding the future of food and agriculture antitrust reforms. We remain committed to educating policymakers on the abusive power of corporate monopolies in the food system and pushing for the necessary protections for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

U.S. House of Representatives

The outcome of several uncalled House contests will determine which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives. If Republicans retain control, it seems certain Speaker Johnson (R-LA) and Agriculture Committee Chair Thompson (R-PA) are likely to keep their positions. If Democrats gain control, Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) could become Speaker, though it’s uncertain who would lead the Agriculture Committee. Notably, nine Agriculture Committee races are still undecided, and three members won’t return, including Reps. Molinaro (R-NY), Spanberger (D-VA), and Slotkin (D-MI) (Slotkin has won Stabenow’s vacated Senate seat).

The new Congress won’t convene until January 2025, and with final results still coming in, it’s too early to make a concrete assessment of how the election will impact food and agriculture antitrust efforts. However, the future of our Farm Bill priorities depends heavily on these outcomes. For those interested in understanding how Congress reorganizes, we recommend the article, “A New Congress: A New Beginning.”

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Once in office, President-Elect Trump will make nearly 4,000 political appointments, including 15 cabinet members that must be confirmed by the Senate. The USDA Secretary, though typically among the last cabinet appointments, will be crucial to our efforts. There is much speculation about who will be appointed to lead the “People’s Department,” a term President Lincoln used to describe USDA after its creation.

In a recent blog post, Joel Salatin wrote he has accepted one of six “Advisor to the Secretary” spots, and indicated that Rep. Thomas Massie may be considered for the Secretary position. Rep. Massie has been a strong ally on many of our issues and we are glad to see his name in the mix. Others reported by Politico to be in the mix are Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Sid Miller; Co-Chair of Farmers and Ranchers for Trump, Kip Tom; and former USDA Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, Ted McKinney. Sid Miller and Kip Tom have shown signs that they would be open to some of our work. While President-Elect Trump has indicated that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will have a substantial role in health and food safety policy, it does not appear that he is in contention for the Secretary nomination.

Despite President-Elect Trump’s commitment to draining the swamp, his reported choice of once again including Brian Klippenstein on the USDA transition team is concerning due to Klippenstein’s close ties with Big Ag and his work with trade and lobbying groups that have historically co-opted commodity checkoff funds. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which receives nearly 70% of its budget from checkoff funds, has already urged the incoming administration to “execute a hard reset” on all of the Biden administration’s competition reforms, which includes dismantling new Packers and Stockyards Act protections for farmers and ranchers. We will vigorously oppose any efforts to repeal these vital protections.

Rough Waters Ahead for Antitrust Enforcement?

During his first term, President Trump’s administration swiftly rolled back Obama-era protections for livestock producers under the Packers and Stockyards Act, designed to guard against unfair practices by large corporations. With Brian Klippenstein, who led USDA planning in 2016, now returning to Trump’s team, there are concerns that Biden-era advancements under the Act could face similar rollbacks.

In a notable move in 2017, then President-Elect Trump met with Bayer and Monsanto executives days before taking office, signaling support for their high-profile agrochemical merger. However, this hands-off approach changed course when conservative voices raised alarms over the tech sector’s perceived alignment with progressive causes. In response, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued legal action against Google, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a suit against Facebook. Today, as scrutiny builds around high-stakes deals such as the Kroger-Albertsons merger and antitrust cases like that against Agri Stats — an agriculture tech platform — uncertainty looms over their future.

And in late October 2024, Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) released a report accusing FTC Chair Lina Khan of “weaponizing” the agency against Elon Musk, a figure Trump has praised as a “super genius.” Musk, in turn, signaled that if Trump assumes office, Khan’s removal will be a priority. Chair Khan’s tenure has been marked by historic steps to counter corporate consolidation across various sectors, and her potential ouster could be a significant setback for efforts to rein in corporate power.

Opportunities for Antitrust Legislation in the Cattle Market

A reasonable opportunity has emerged for advancing antitrust legislation, particularly in the cattle market.

Although Democrats in the Senate have been more vocal on antitrust reform, bipartisan initiatives open the door for legislative action in the new Congress. Notably, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the Strengthening Antitrust Enforcement for Meatpacking Act (S.2818) with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and we will work to promote this bill in the new Congress.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a leader on cattle market competition and member of the Agriculture Committee, has advanced the 50/14 Spot Market Protection Act. We strongly support his ongoing efforts.

Additionally, Senator John Thune (R-SD), who is vying for Senate Majority Leader, has sponsored the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act (S.228) and has previously pushed for Senate review of beef market practices. If successful, his leadership could further prioritize these antitrust issues in the Senate.

A Focus on Shutting the Revolving Door and Supporting a Healthy Food System

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is set to play a key role in food and health policy within the Trump administration. He has said as recently as Wednesday that he will shut the revolving door between corporations and government regulatory agencies, and support regenerative agriculture to combat the epidemic of chronic disease and reduce carbon emissions.

If Kennedy is able to follow through, we see potential to advance our Food, Not Feed campaign to bring healthy, safe food grown by U.S. farmers to our neighbors and local communities. Currently, the majority of taxpayer-funded agriculture programs support monoculture production of corn and soybeans as cheap industrial feed for corporate-controlled livestock operations, as well as the production of unhealthy processed foods and seed oils. As a result, our country’s food sovereignty has been eroded, we import too many of the fruits and vegetables we consume, and we are now left with a ballooning agricultural trade deficit. This backwards system exists for a reason: the multinational corporations that profit from this “Feed-Meat Complex” have captured the government agencies that dole out taxpayer subsidies, ensuring they flow into their own pockets to the detriment of America’s farmers and eaters. A shift in resources toward healthier, domestically produced food — including fruits, vegetables, and regeneratively raised livestock — could improve access to nutritious food and bolster American health outcomes.

Proposed Tariffs Will Make Winners and Losers

While we continue to oppose President-Elect Trump’s tariff proposal of up to 20% across the board, as much as 60% on all Chinese imports, and 200% on John Deere components and equipment manufactured in Mexico, we see that there will be both losers and winners.

Broad-based tariffs are a tax on the consumer or a cost to the U.S. business importing the goods. As discussed in Farm Action’s blog, in today’s highly concentrated global markets, farmers can expect to pay more for their tractors, trucks, electronics, and fertilizer as a result of this plan.

However, a select group of farmers stand a chance to benefit from the proposed tariffs. With meatpackers using their ability to import beef to put downward pressure on the domestic cattle market, a tariff would give U.S. cattle producers some needed protection. As Farm Action has reported, the United States has become more and more dependent on imported fruits and vegetables. President-Elect Trump’s tariff proposal would provide additional protection for U.S. fruit and vegetable producers, allowing them to grow their production to meet the U.S. demand. This would be a win for our Food, Not Feed campaign and help balance the U.S. agriculture trade deficit.

We will push the new administration to use tariffs only where they make strategic sense, advancing either an emerging U.S. industry or farmers and ranchers under market pressure from imported goods.

What’s Next?

The Biden-Harris administration took historic action to bring fair competition to food and agriculture. These policies have begun to level the playing field for America’s farmers and ranchers, and we will work to keep them in place. Heeding John F. Kennedy’s advice, we will not miss the future by only looking to the past or present.

The Trump campaign made commitments to farmers, ranchers, consumers, and families for a better food system. We will soon submit a policy roadmap to the Trump transition team, and work to ensure they deliver on their promises. To provide more information and to build momentum for our work, we will be hosting a webinar on November 20, 2024. We hope you will join us.

As a nonpartisan organization, we fight corporate monopolies and work to hold government accountable no matter who is in office. Regardless of change in Washington, D.C., we will stay focused on our mission to deliver a fair, healthy, and sustainable food and agriculture system.

Written by Joe Maxwell, edited by Christian Lovell and Angela Huffman, data by Sarah Carden.

The post Election’s Over: What Does It Mean for the Farm Action Movement? first appeared on Farm Action Fund.

Exposing the Truth about NCBA: a Public Service Announcement

Farm Action — Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:13:59 +0000

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is seen on Capitol Hill and in the agriculture press as the leading expert and voice of America’s cattle producers. This is largely because they have been the primary beef checkoff contractor for nearly 30 years, raking in tens of millions of dollars out of ranchers’ pockets annually through a government program.

The truth is, less than three percent of cattle ranchers in the U.S. are members of NCBA.

What’s more, the policies NCBA lobbies for only benefit the world’s biggest meatpacking conglomerates: Cargill, National Beef Packing, and Tyson Foods are all members.

NCBA has spread misinformation about any efforts to reform the beef checkoff program in op-eds riddled with misleading statements and testimonies to Congress laced with false claims.

Because of their oversized budget (flush with millions from the checkoff), most are reluctant to take them on.

Our team at Farm Action Fund felt a responsibility to call NCBA out, so we launched the informational website www.whoisncba.com and hired a mobile billboard to share this public service announcement.

We knew that if we didn’t speak up, we might lose any chance at passing meaningful checkoff reform.

NCBA purports to be the voice of the cattle industry, but less than three percent of cattle ranchers in the U.S. are actually members.

HOW DOES NCBA MAKE THEIR MONEY?

Many members of Congress don’t know that NCBA is funded primarily with mandatory government fees collected from every U.S. rancher through a program called the beef checkoff.

While NCBA receives some dues from their limited membership as well as corporate sponsorships at their trade shows, more than 70 percent of their income — $26 million dollars — came out of the pockets of ranchers in 2020 as mandatory fees paid through the beef checkoff program.

Every year for nearly thirty years, NCBA has received the lion’s share of checkoff funds.

How is this possible?

By seizing control of the committee that awards checkoff contracts, NCBA rigged this government system to pour ranchers’ dollars into their own pockets.

Even ranchers who don’t agree with NCBA’s work and have opted not to join as members must fund the association through mandatory checkoff fees.

Farm Action Fund hired this truck as a public service, to ensure that Congress knows that NCBA is a government checkoff contractor.

HOW DOES NCBA SPEND THEIR MONEY?

NCBA claims their mission is simply to increase demand for beef. And yet when you look at the expenditures on their tax forms, a quick calculation tells you they’re spending only about half of every dollar on actual beef promotion and research initiatives.

The other half of that dollar mostly goes to salaries: In 2020, NCBA spent $17.5 million on a 180-person staff, with 50 of those employees making six-figure salaries and the CEO and CFO each raking in nearly half a million dollars every year.

As for the state of today’s beef industry: Beef consumption has fallen from 79 pounds to under 57 pounds per person today. The rancher’s share of every dollar consumers spend on beef has plummeted from more than 60% in the late 1980s to as low as 37% in recent years.

And since the beef checkoff was established, half a million ranchers have gone out of business.

WHAT IS NCBA’S POLITICAL AGENDA?

NCBA is a lobbying group that works to advance initiatives that strengthen the dominance of their multinational meatpacker members. This work is at odds with the interests of America’s independent cattlemen and women.

In 2015, NCBA successfully lobbied to kill Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef, which was a powerful marketing tool for independent American ranchers to distinguish their products from lower-quality imported meat sold by giant meatpackers like Brazil’s JBS.

NCBA’s more recent efforts to defeat the bipartisan Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act are clearly motivated by self-interest: The OFF Act would prevent checkoff funds from being awarded to lobbying groups, and 70% of NCBA’s budget is derived from checkoff funds.

NCBA has also been a critic of ongoing USDA rulemaking that would give farmers more legal rights against meat processors and poultry conglomerates. NCBA joined other groups in lobbying against the rules; altogether, these agribusiness interests spent $7.79 million in 2010 to successfully lobby against them.

WHO BENEFITS FROM NCBA’S WORK?

NCBA’s lobbying efforts have paid off for the largest members: Meatpacking conglomerates Marfrig (the Brazil-based parent company of National Beef) and Cargill increased their profits by 53% and 23% respectively in fiscal year 2022. Tyson’s impressive 48% year-over-year profit increase in 2021 pulled in more than $3 billion for the company.

Meanwhile, America’s ranchers are going out of business at an alarming rate.

Even though NCBA gets the lion’s share of beef checkoff dollars in order to promote beef, demand for it continues to fall, with per capita beef consumption falling from 79 pounds to under 57 pounds per person today. Since the beef checkoff was established, half a million U.S. cattle producers have been driven out of business.

IS NCBA TRUSTWORTHY?

NCBA has a history of misrepresenting facts and concealing the truth to protect their interests. Here are a few high-profile instances.

At a 2023 House Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, NCBA’s president failed to disclose that NCBA receives federal grants and contracts related to the hearing’s subject matter — even though NCBA is a contractor for the federal beef checkoff program which is overseen by the USDA. In fact, beef checkoff funds make up approximately 70% of NCBA’s annual budget.

During his testimony at the hearing, NCBA’s president misrepresented the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act as “defunding” the beef checkoff program. In truth, the OFF Act would simply add transparency and accountability to checkoff programs, and prohibit funds from being granted to lobbying organizations such as NCBA. NCBA’s failure to disclose to the committee that they rely on government checkoff contracts gave greater weight to this misrepresentation.

In a Western Ag Reporter op-ed, NCBA claimed that the OFF Act “would prevent…land-grant universities, and many research institutions from contracting with the Beef Checkoff.” This is untrue. According to the bill text, the OFF Act provides an exception for universities and land grant institutions, allowing them to continue to contract with checkoff programs.

In a news article, NCBA stated that the OFF Act would prevent checkoff programs from contracting with “entities that employ a registered federal lobbyist.” The example NCBA gave was that of the American Lung Association’s research into the health impacts of soy-based products.

So by saying that the OFF Act prevents funds from going to any entity that employs a registered federal lobbyist, NCBA is implying that the OFF Act would somehow endanger critical funds for research into cancer and other illnesses.

The truth is that the American Lung Association would only be prohibited from contracting with the checkoff if they lobby on agricultural policy. NCBA, on the other hand, does lobby extensively on agricultural policy — mainly to the benefit of the world’s largest meatpacking conglomerates.

ALL CASH, NO CATTLE

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association wants you to think they speak for cattlemen and women, but ranchers know the truth: that “Beef” in their name is just short for “beef packer,” and that is where their real priorities lie.

The post Exposing the Truth about NCBA: a Public Service Announcement first appeared on Farm Action Fund.