Tag: farms

Global First: Denmark Starts Taxing Farm Animals’ Burps, Farts And Poop

Denmark, known for its inventive restaurants and elegant design studios, is about to become known for something more basic: the world’s first belch and manure tax.

That’s because there are five times as many pigs and cows in Denmark as there are people. Nearly two-thirds of its land is taken up by farming. And agriculture is becoming its largest share of climate pollution, putting lawmakers under intense public pressure to reduce it.

So now, Denmark’s unlikely coalition government, made up of three parties from across the political spectrum, has agreed to tax the planet-heating methane emissions that all those animals expel through their poop, farts and burps. The measure, under negotiation for years, was passed by the Danish Parliament this month, making it the only such climate levy on livestock in the world.

“I think it’s good,” said Rasmus Angelsnes, 31, who was shopping for dinner in Copenhagen one recent afternoon. “It’s kind of a nudge to make different choices, maybe more climate-friendly choices.”

Never mind that his shopping cart contained thick slices of pork belly, which he planned to cook that rainy evening with potatoes and parsley. “Comfort food,” he said sheepishly.

The tax is part of a larger package designed to clean up the country’s agricultural pollution and eventually restore some farmland to its natural form, like peat lands, which are exceptionally good at locking away planet-heating gases underground but were drained decades ago to grow crops.

Denmark’s quest is also part of a reckoning for many agricultural powerhouses, including the United States, as they face calls to clean up pollution from farms, while balancing the needs of politically powerful agricultural lobbies.

Globally, the food system accounts for a fourth of greenhouses gases, and reducing those emissions requires making tough choices on diets, jobs and industries. At the same time, farmers are vulnerable to the hazards of climate change, with punishing heat, droughts and floods exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels. That makes food a particularly vexing climate problem to take on.

No wonder that efforts to reduce agriculture’s climate emissions have faced stiff resistance, from Brussels to Delhi to Wellington, where the New Zealand government proposed a burp tax in 2022 only to have a later government scrap it.

Keep reading

UK government’s tax plans will destroy family farming; farmers to gather in London to protest

A rally is being held in London to protest against the UK government’s agricultural policies.  Organised by the National Farmers’ Union (“NFU”), which represents more than 46,000 farming and growing businesses, the rally is taking place on 19 November.

In a vlog published on Friday, NFU President Tom Bradshaw outlined the plans and urged NFU members to send in their videos to demonstrate the impact that the Budget announcement will have on their business.

Bradshaw began, “Members, farmers, I know that today many of you are feeling angry and betrayed. And we absolutely share that frustration. We understand what the impact of the removal of APR [agricultural property relief], or this family farm tax, which has been implemented could have on you, your farm and your family. We want you, our members, to be involved in the next steps.”

Farmers have also been posting videos on social media, see HERE and HERE.

Agricultural Property Relief (“APR”) is a relief from inheritance tax on the transfer of agricultural property.  In her budget,  Rachel Reeves announced significant changes to the UK Inheritance Tax regime. Business Property Relief (“BPR”) and APR claims will be capped at £1m per taxpayer with inheritance tax of 20% applying on the full value of farms and rural estates above £1m.  The tax is effective from April 2026.

The cuts to APR potentially jeopardise thousands of family farms by increasing the Inheritance Tax burden. APR provides critical relief on the transfer of agricultural property, allowing farming families to pass their established food-producing business down to future generations.

This change could force family farms to sell off land to pay inheritance tax, potentially breaking up family businesses and destabilising food security. Why should non-farmers care? “Preventing farms from being sold or broken up is a public interest issue, too. Food security in the UK is declining in several sectors, making the country more dependent on imports,” The Guardian reported.

The Country Land and Business Association will be making urgent representations to the Treasury on how this will affect 70,000 farms.

Keep reading

The Globalized, Industrialized Food System Is Destroying the World—We Urgently Need to Support Local Food Economies

We can thank small farmers, environmentalists, academic researchers, and food and farming activists for advancing ecologically sound food production methods. Agroecology, holistic resource management, permaculture, and other methods can address many of the global food system’s worst impacts, including biodiversity loss, energy depletion, toxic pollution, food insecurity, and massive carbon emissions.

These inspiring testaments to human ingenuity and goodwill have two things in common: They involve smaller-scale farms adapted to local conditions and depend more on human attention and care than energy and technology. In other words, they are the opposite of industrial monocultures—huge farms that grow just one crop.

However, to significantly reduce the many negative impacts of the food system, these small-scale initiatives need to spread worldwide. Unfortunately, this has not happened because the transformation of farming requires shifting not just how food is produced but also how it is marketed and distributed. The food system is inextricably linked to an economic system that, for decades, has been fundamentally biased against the kinds of changes we need.

Keep reading

Government Can Fix neither Food nor Farm

With the national health crisis, food debauchery, and farm exploitation suddenly jumping to headlines via RFK, Jr., numerous people have offered solutions but nothing I’ve seen truly gets to the heart of the problem.

Recently RFK, Jr. gave his recipe but in general, it’s yet another request for government intervention in these fields (pun intended). Capping drug prices, prohibiting research grants from going to people with conflicts of interest, and reforming crop subsidies to incentivize healthier alternatives all sound nice. Eliminating SNAP (formerly food stamps) from being spent on high fructose corn syrup drinks ($9 billion annually) sounds good too. 

Who can disagree with requiring nutrition courses in medical schools and demanding government research grants go toward holistic and alternative health approaches? All of this sounds good in theory, but how? Goodness, we now have official government findings that Cheerios and Fruit Loops are more nutritious than beef. Who is going to make the kinds of U-turns within the bureaucracies that such changes would require?

I remember well when President Obama was elected and Michelle put a garden on the White House lawn. My friends in the organic farming community thought the country would enter ecological farming nirvana…until someone said, “Remember, 10 miles of USDA offices will not change.” Therein lies the Achilles’ heel of all this nice-sounding rhetoric.

Epoch Times carried a full-page column by pediatric Dr. Joel Warsh last week titled “America’s Health Crisis: Expanding on RFK Jr.’s Plan to Make America Healthy Again.” As much as his thoughts may sound good, they still suffer from the same old government interventionist mindset. He wants a “National Emergency Declaration of Health.” Can you imagine the wrangling, jet fuel, focus groups, and lobbying that would occur with such an initiative?

He suggests we should “recreate the food pyramid” with good food and pastured meat and eggs on the bottom instead of the top. You’d have to move the entire climate change, cow farts narrative to make this happen. Then yet more government mandates: corporations with more than 100 employees “should be required to offer wellness programs that include fitness classes, nutritional counseling, and mental health services.” Oh my, we’ve now exchanged one nanny for another.

He wants health education taught in all public schools, regulations banning junk food ads when children watch TV, and subsidies for organic and transitioning farms. This is just a sampling of his list and much of it would indeed be good…if it were possible. But it’s not. Simply put, to get a legislative and bureaucratic push on these kinds of agendas is insanity according to Albert Einstein’s definition: “trying to solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.” I believe we are where we are in all these areas due to government micro-management; asking for government to get us out is asking for all the agencies, all the politicians, all the lobbyists, all the Happy Meals addicts, all the Chick-fil-A cultists, to do a 180. Ain’t gonna happen.

So you ask “Well, it’s easy to be negative. What’s your solution?” I think when we engage in these kinds of same-thinking solutions, we obfuscate the simple and consistent argument that carries the most weight.

Keep reading

Rising cancer rates in Iowa linked to agricultural chemicals like glyphosate, atrazine and chlorpyrifos

Iowa is grappling with a stark and troubling reality: the state has recently been identified as having the fastest-growing cancer rates in the nation. This alarming increase in cancer rates has prompted a closer examination of environmental factors contributing to this troubling trend. A 2024 report by the Iowa Department of Public Health reveals that cancer rates in rural areas of the state, where pesticide use is more intensive, are significantly higher compared to urban regions. The study highlights that communities with heavy agricultural activity have seen a rise in cases of leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer.

Iowa’s cancerous frontier dominated by glyphosate, atrazine, nitrates, chlorpyrifos

Iowa has seen a dramatic rise in cancer diagnoses, with 486 new cases per 100,000 people in 2024, surpassing the national average of 444 cases per 100,000. The estimated number of new cancer cases this year stands at 21,000, with approximately 6,100 deaths expected. This surge in cancer rates is particularly concerning given that Iowa’s cancer incidence now outpaces other states facing their own unique health challenges, such as industrial pollution, smoking and high obesity rates.

The state, known for its expansive agricultural landscape, relies heavily on pesticides to protect crops and maximize yields. The state’s agriculture sector uses a variety of chemical treatments, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. The most commonly used pesticides in Iowa include glyphosate, atrazine and chlorpyrifos.

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, is used extensively in the cultivation of corn and soybeans. Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway of gut microbes and has been linked to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer that affects the lymphatic system.

Atrazine, another herbicide, is frequently applied to control weeds in cornfields. Atrazine has been associated with endocrine disruption, which may increase the risk of certain cancers. Studies have found atrazine is responsible for alterations in the HPG axis, damaging reproductive function. It also has estrogenic effects, leading to  aromatase activation, including inhibition of PDE4 and altered hormone secretion — precursors to breast cancer.

Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide, is employed to combat pests in a variety of crops. Chlorpyrifos, although banned for residential use, is still permitted in agriculture and has been linked to developmental and cancer risks.

Nitrates, which are key ingredient in fertilizers used across Iowa, are linked to colorectal cancer.

In addition to herbicides, insecticides and fertilizer, radon — a naturally occurring radioactive gas — also poses a significant risk. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers and is particularly problematic in Iowa, where levels are six times higher than the national average. Radon can seep into homes undetected, further exacerbating health risks for residents.

Keep reading

From Agrarianism to Transhumanism: The Long March to Dystopia

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain.

The big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.[1]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and big financial institutions, like BlackRock and Vanguard, are also involved, whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, pushing biosynthetic (fake) food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating and financing the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.[2]

The billionaire interests behind this try to portray their techno-solutionism as some kind of humanitarian endeavour: saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. But what it really amounts to is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.

It involves a shift towards a ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of agritech and the data giants, which is to be based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food, ‘precision’ and ‘data-driven’ agriculture and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail, being governed by monopolistic e-commerce platforms determined by artificial intelligence systems and algorithms.

Those who are pushing this agenda have a vision not only for farmers but also for humanity in general.

The elites through their military-digital-financial (Pentagon/Silicon Valley/Big Finance) complex want to use their technologies to reshape the world and redefine what it means to be human. They regard humans, their cultures and their practices, like nature itself, as a problem and deficient.

Farmers are to be displaced and replaced with drones, machines and cloud-based computing. Food is to be redefined and people are to be fed synthetic, genetically engineered products. Cultures are to be eradicated, and humanity is to be fully urbanised, subservient and disconnected from the natural world.

What it means to be human is to be radically transformed. But what has it meant to be human until now or at least prior to the (relatively recent) Industrial Revolution and associated mass urbanisation?

To answer this question, we need to discuss our connection to nature and what most of humanity was involved in prior to industrialisation — cultivating food.

Many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories, myths and rituals that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs.

Keep reading

The Rockefeller Foundation and the destruction of global agriculture

In their latest report, ‘True Cost of Food: Measuring What Matters to Transform the US Food System’, the Rockefeller Foundation is deeply engaged in a coordinated effort to radically change the way we produce food and how we calculate its true cost. They claim it is part of a global consensus, through the UN, to create “sustainable” agriculture amid the ongoing covid breakdown crisis. Far from being a positive change, it is intended to radically change our access to healthy food and our choice of what we eat. The Foundation, which has just released the second food report in two years, is partnering with the Davos World Economic Forum and big agribusiness to lead the drive. Their new slogan is “True Cost of Food.”

True Cost?

Rajiv Shah, President of the Foundation writes, “We spent the past year working with experts and advocates across the field to measure impact of the US food system. The result is the first US-wide set of metrics that can help us measure the cost of our food more accurately. With this new analysis, governments, advocates, food producers, and individuals are better equipped to transform our food system to be more nourishing, regenerative, and equitable …”

Here is where the words must be looked at more closely. These guys are experts at neuro-linguistic programming (“NLP”). In effect, it reads as if the same Rockefeller Foundation responsible for our industrialised, globalised food chain and the destruction that process has wrought on not only the family farm but also the quality of our global agriculture and diet, is now blaming their creation for huge external costs of our food. However, they write as if the greedy family farmer is to blame, not corporate agribusiness.

Shah states, “This report is a wake-up call. The US food system as it stands is adversely affecting our environment, our health, and our society.” Shah’s Rockefeller study states, “The US food system’s current set-up has led to costly impacts on the health of people, society and the planet. Global warming, reduced biodiversity, water and air pollution, food waste and the high incidence of diet-related illnesses are key unintended consequences of the current production system.” This is ominous.

The study adds, “ The burden of impact of these costs are disproportionately borne by communities that are marginalised and underserved, often communities of colour, many of whom are the backbone as farmers, fishers, ranchers and food workers.”

Using a Dutch group, True Price Foundation, the report calculates that the “true cost” of the US food system is not the $1.1 trillion that Americans spend annually on food, but rather at least $3.2 trillion per year when taking into account its impact on the health of people, livelihoods and the environment. This huge added cost is calculated mainly from health effects including cancer and diabetes and environmental effects such as CO2 emissions of what they call “unsustainable” agriculture. True Cost Foundation has a three-man board including Herman Mulder, a former banker with ABN Amro, one of the world’s leading agribusiness banks; Charles Evers, former Corporate controller and CFO with Unilever NV (1981-2002), one of the world’s leading agribusiness giants; and Jasper de Jong, Partner at Allen & Overy, one of the world’s largest law firms based in London. This is the team behind pricing such abstractions as a tonne of CO2 and other costs for the Rockefeller report. The only point is that CO2 is a harmless essential component of all life and is no cause for a rising global temperature.

Also notable about the Rockefeller report, True Cost of Food, is that the contributors included law school professors, university economists, the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”), and the True Cost Foundation. No single farmer organisation was included.

Keep reading

No Farms, No Food

We live in a world where oligarchs accumulate land, use their media assets to denigrate natural foods and invest in fake alternatives. On the other ‘side’, wealthy professionals calling themselves freedom fighters travel the world and the internet insisting we should eat organic and local. Meanwhile, the food security of many of the eight billion-plus of us remains at the mercy of the weather, diseases and insects. Neither side offers a viable solution or much benefit for many beyond themselves.

An increasing realisation of the corruption and greed that drives much of our New Normal is motivating a growing movement for self-sufficiency. Local sourcing of natural-grown foods is coupled with denigration of big agribusiness and industrialised food production. Incoherently, it is also often coupled with claims that those backing the big agribusiness enemy are aiming for depopulation, while the way in which small-scale agriculture will feed the world’s growing population is left unexplained.

From the comfort of big jet planes made in huge factories, it is now possible to gain likes by posting photos of the organic and rather cute livestock we left back home. These can be supplemented with pictures of the Thai rice, Costa Rican coffee and Mexican avocados from our favorite brunch spot. This approach to food and agriculture is a hobby, and a good one. But the world cannot support eight billion such hobbies.

The other side of the agriculture coin has also been doing us harm: an obese population in rich countries with declining life expectancy, fat on industrial corn syrup, seed oils and other unnatural metabolism adulterators, coupled with declining physical activity. Nor are we benefiting from unevidenced claims that diets including meat or raw milk will somehow restart an age of plagues. Or that humans should transform themselves into insectivores.

Regulating independent family farmers out of business, with their generations of knowledge, is not a step forward either but a decimation of rural society and human dignity – of the reason for living in the first place. Replacing them with centralised fake food factories funded by wealthy investors and their pet celebrities will concentrate wealth rather than food security. To survive and thrive – all of us – we need to face the realities of growing and delivering huge quantities of healthy human food.

We feed far more, and live far better, than past Malthusians predicted because we grow more food and store and transport it more effectively than they thought we could. That is not an ‘elitist’ thing, it is quite the opposite. Like the rest of life, we need to continue to progress, but keep that progress in all our hands rather than a greed-driven few – which is the unavoidable challenge of all human progress, and a challenge our agencies are now failing. But in fighting for food freedom, we must still feed over eight billion. This means investing in large-scale farm machinery and supply and food management infrastructure – in large agricultural enterprises.

Keep reading

Farming To Feed Eight Billion Is A Business, Not A Hobby

We live in a world where oligarchs accumulate land, use their media assets to denigrate natural foods, and invest in fake alternatives. On the other ‘side’, wealthy professionals calling themselves freedom-fighters travel the world and the internet insisting we should eat organic and local. Meanwhile, the food security of many of the eight billion plus of us remains at the mercy of the weather, diseases and insects. Neither side offers a viable solution, or much benefit for many beyond themselves..

An increasing realization of the corruption and greed that drives much of our New Normal is motivating a growing movement for self-sufficiency. Local sourcing of natural-grown foods is coupled with denigration of big agribusiness and industrialized food production. Incoherently, it is also often coupled with claims that those backing the big agribusiness enemy are aiming for depopulation, while the way in which small-scale agriculture will feed the world’s growing population is left unexplained.

From the comfort of big jet planes made in huge factories, it is now possible to gain likes by posting photos of the organic and rather cute livestock we left back home. These can be supplemented with pictures of the Thai rice, Costa Rican coffee and Mexican avocados from our favorite brunch spot. This approach to food and agriculture is a hobby, and a good one. But the world cannot support eight billion such hobbies.

The other side of the Agriculture coin has also been doing us harm; an obese population in rich countries with declining life expectancy, fat on industrial corn syrup, seed oils and other unnatural metabolism adulterators, coupled with declining physical activity. Nor are we gaining by unevidenced claims that diets including meat or raw milk will somehow restart an age of plagues. Or that humans should transform themselves into insectivores.

Regulating independent family farmers out of business, with their generations of knowledge, is not a step forward either but a decimation of rural society and human dignity – of the reason for living in the first place. Replacing them with centralized fake food factories funded by wealthy investors and their pet celebrities will concentrate wealth rather than food security. To survive and thrive – all of us – we need to face the realities of growing and delivering huge quantities of healthy, human food.

Keep reading

Watchdog sues Treasury Dept. for records on foreign purchases of US farmland

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit has been filed by the watchdog Judicial Watch against the Department of Treasury for records of communication between the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the purchase of US farmland by foreign entities.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the Treasury Department failed to respond to an April 10, 2024, FOIA request for:

  • Any and all records of communications between the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture concerning, regarding, or relating to the purchase of U.S. agricultural real estate by foreign entities.  

On January 19, 2024, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report which found significant gaps in information collection and timely information sharing between the Committee on Foreign Investment and other government agencies, including the USDA, concerning foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land.

Keep reading