Latest news with #BigAg
Kuwait Times
21-06-2025
- Science
- Kuwait Times
Climate change could cut crop yields up to a quarter
PARIS: Climate change is on track to reduce by 11 percent in 2100 the yields that today provide two-thirds of humanity's calories from crops, even taking into account adaptation to a warming world, scientists said Wednesday. As soon as 2050, this 'moderate' scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions peak around 2040 and slowly taper off - a trajectory aligned with current trends - would see global losses of nearly eight percent. And if carbon pollution worsens, the loss of calories across the same six staples - corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, sorghum and cassava - rises to nearly a quarter by century's end, the researchers reported in Nature. More generally, every additional degree Celsius of warming reduces the world's ability to produce food from these crops by 120 calories per person per day, or nearly five percent of current daily consumption, they calculated. 'If the climate warms by three degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast,' said co-author Solomon Hsiang, a professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability in California. The steepest losses will occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy: in modern, Big Ag breadbaskets that currently enjoy some of the world's best growing conditions, and in subsistence farming communities that typically rely of small cassava harvests. North America would be hit hardest, losing a fifth of yields by 2100 in the moderate carbon pollution scenario, and two-fifths if emissions from burning fossil fuels continue apace. Working with more than a dozen scientists, Hsiang and co-leader Andrew Hultgren, an assistant professor at the University of Urbana-Champaign, sifted through data from more than 12,000 regions in 55 countries. Previous calculations of how a warming world will impact crop yields generally failed to consider the ways in which farmers would adapt, such as switching crop varieties, shifting planting and harvesting dates, and altering fertilizer use. The scientists estimated such adjustments would offset about a third of climate related losses over the next 75 years in the scenario of rising emissions, but that residual impacts would still be devastating. 'Any level of warming, even when accounting for adaptation, results in global output losses for agriculture,' said Hultgren. With the planet about 1.5C hotter than preindustrial levels in the late 1900s, farmers in many regions are already experiencing longer dry spells, unseasonable heatwaves and erratic weather that undermines yields. The nutritional value of most crops also declines with hotter temperatures, earlier research has shown. The study revealed sharp variations in the impact of global warming on different crops and regions. In the 'worst-case' scenario of rising carbon emissions, corn yields would plummet 40 percent by 2100 across the grain belt of the United States, eastern China, central Asia, and the Middle East. For soybeans, yields in the US would decline by half, and increase by a fifth in Brazil. Wheat losses would drop by a fifth in eastern and western Europe, and by 30 to 40 percent in other wheat-growing regions: China, Russia and North America. Cassava would be hit hard everywhere it's grown. 'Although cassava does not make up a large portion of global agricultural revenues, it is an important subsistence crop in low- and middle-income countries,' the researchers pointed out. Among the six crops examined, rice is the only one that stands to benefit in a warmer climate, mainly due to warmer nights. — AFP
GMA Network
18-06-2025
- Science
- GMA Network
Climate change could cut crop yields up to a quarter, says scientists
PARIS, France - Climate change is on track to reduce by 11 percent in 2100 the yields that today provide two-thirds of humanity's calories from crops, even taking into account adaptation to a warming world, scientists said Wednesday. As soon as 2050, this "moderate" scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions peak around 2040 and slowly taper off -- a trajectory aligned with current trends -- would see global losses of nearly eight percent. And if carbon pollution worsens, the loss of calories across the same six staples -- corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, sorghum and cassava -- rises to nearly a quarter by century's end, the researchers reported in Nature. More generally, every additional degree Celsius of warming reduces the world's ability to produce food from these crops by 120 calories per person per day, or nearly five percent of current daily consumption, they calculated. "If the climate warms by three degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast," said co-author Solomon Hsiang, a professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability in California. The steepest losses will occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy: in modern, Big Ag breadbaskets that currently enjoy some of the world's best growing conditions, and in subsistence farming communities that typically rely of small cassava harvests. North America would be hit hardest, losing a fifth of yields by 2100 in the moderate carbon pollution scenario, and two-fifths if emissions from burning fossil fuels continue apace. Working with more than a dozen scientists, Hsiang and co-leader Andrew Hultgren, an assistant professor at the University of Urbana-Champaign, sifted through data from more than 12,000 regions in 55 countries. Erratic weather Previous calculations of how a warming world will impact crop yields generally failed to consider the ways in which farmers would adapt, such as switching crop varieties, shifting planting and harvesting dates, and altering fertiliser use. The scientists estimated such adjustments would offset about a third of climate related losses over the next 75 years in the scenario of rising emissions, but that residual impacts would still be devastating. "Any level of warming, even when accounting for adaptation, results in global output losses for agriculture," said Hultgren. With the planet about 1.5C hotter than preindustrial levels in the late 1900s, farmers in many regions are already experiencing longer dry spells, unseasonable heatwaves and erratic weather that undermines yields. The nutritional value of most crops also declines with hotter temperatures, earlier research has shown. The study revealed sharp variations in the impact of global warming on different crops and regions. In the "worst-case" scenario of rising carbon emissions, corn yields would plummet 40 percent by 2100 across the grain belt of the United States, eastern China, central Asia, and the Middle East. For soybeans, yields in the US would decline by half, and increase by a fifth in Brazil. Wheat losses would drop by a fifth in eastern and western Europe, and by 30 to 40 percent in other wheat-growing regions: China, Russia and North America. Cassava would be hit hard everywhere it's grown. "Although cassava does not make up a large portion of global agricultural revenues, it is an important subsistence crop in low- and middle-income countries," the researchers pointed out. Among the six crops examined, rice is the only one that stands to benefit in a warmer climate, mainly due to warmer nights. — Agence France-Presse
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - In its war against small farmers, Congress says the quiet part out loud
It's never been clearer where the loyalties of congressional agriculture committees lie. In their seemingly endless quest to shift prosperity from small farmers to large ones — to erode any protections for animals and producers that actually value organic farming — the House-passed budget reconciliation plan plants a flag firmly in the realm of 'profits over people.' The plan cuts nearly $300 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits to support (in the amount of about $60 billion) industrial agriculture operations. This is on top of the existing $180 billion projected in future subsidies for programs like Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage and crop insurance. That goes without mentioning the $10 billion recently allocated to big agriculture through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, which an American Enterprise Institute report called 'probably not justified.' That's a lot of bacon going disproportionately to America's largest producers. At the same time, congressional agriculture committees are promising to override state and local regulations that protect small farmers, as well as set basic humane agriculture standards. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has introduced the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — formerly known as the EATS Act — to override any state law that 'affects' an out-of-state producer. Directly in her crosshairs are laws like California's Proposition 12, which sets humane welfare standards for farm animals. That ballot measure, which voters approved in 2018, was the single biggest win for the meek and miserable farm animals who feed us. It was the result of legislative decision-making that the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed perfectly constitutional. It also created more demand for animal products sourced from farms employing more traditional husbandry practices — i.e., smaller ones. The biggest problem for rank-and-file farmers is that the Food Security and Farm Protection Act is vague enough that it could be used to disrupt or derail any state or local agricultural regulation that companies with the means deem inconvenient. That includes, notably, procurement regulations that may favor local producers. According to a study from Harvard, there are more than 100 food and agricultural procurement laws already on the books. In Louisiana, for example, procurement officials are required to purchase agricultural goods from Louisiana unless out-of-state goods are both cheaper and of higher quality. This would likely qualify as a 'standard or condition on the preharvest production of … agricultural products' that would fall under the Food Security and Farm Protection Act's broad scythe. Ernst's effort is no outlier. The House Agriculture Committee said that the new farm bill would prevent states from passing animal welfare regulations that others must follow. They are no doubt talking about the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — and, again, it's going to have the effect of overriding state sovereignty not just on the animal protection front but in all areas under the penumbra of state farming policy. Some commentators have couched the Food Security and Farm Protection Act as an affront to federalism — but, really, all of this activity amounts to an outright fight against small farmers, particularly those interested in something different than the status-quo of factory farmed, chemical- and antibiotics-ridden, steroid-pumped franken-food. Consider that the Trump administration already axed two programs giving food banks and schools $1 billion in funding to purchase from small farmers and ranchers. And they want to put the kibosh on $754 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which assists farmers with resilience efforts and reduced chemical use. Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)? More like 'HAHA.' Congressional agriculture policy has become the epitome of the self-licking ice cream cone. We cut programs that help small and organic farmers, then redirect tax dollars to provide subsidies. Those subsidies largely go to the biggest agricultural interests, inoculating them against having to make any broader systemic reforms. Then, under the next administration, we create new programs to support small and organic farmers. Rinse and repeat. To give congressional agriculture folks their due, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act could go a long way towards ending this loop by making any state-level support for smaller farmers obsolete and allowing the largest interests — like China's Smithfield Foods — to kill any law they don't like. No more demand for humane products — and, hey, higher profit margins while we're at it. Obviously, this is ridiculous, for all sorts of reasons. What we should do is drop the charade and end or dramatically reduce the crony-capitalist corporate welfare system when it comes to Big Agriculture. Let states pass laws reflecting their own health and safety priorities. Let the consumers speak for themselves. And then let the free market do its work. Marty Irby is president of Competitive Markets Action and secretary at the Organization for Competitive Markets. John Cleveland is a senior fellow at Wilberforce Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Intercept
02-06-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
How the FBI and Big Ag Started Treating Animal Rights Activists as Terrorists
As COVID raged across northern California in March 2020, a pair of farm industry groups were worried about a different threat: animal rights activists. Citing an FBI memo warning that activists trespassing on factory farms could spread a viral bird disease, the groups wrote a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom to argue that their longtime antagonists were more than a nuisance. They were potentially terrorists threatening the entire food chain. 'The safety of our food supply has never been more critical, and we must work together to prevent these clear threats of domestic terrorism from being realized,' the groups wrote. A coalition of transparency and animal rights groups on Monday released that letter, along with a cache of government documents, to highlight the tight links between law enforcement and agriculture industry groups. Activists say those documents show an unseemly relationship between the FBI and Big Ag. The government–industry fearmongering has accelerated with the spread of bird flu enabled by the industry's own practices, they say. The executive director of Property of the People, the nonprofit that obtained the documents via public records requests, said in a statement that the documents paint a damning picture. 'Transparency is not terrorism, and the FBI should not be taking marching orders from industry flacks.' 'Factory farms are a nightmare for animals and public health. Yet, big ag lobbyists and their FBI allies are colluding to conceal this cruelty and rampant disease by shifting blame to the very activists working to alert the public,' Ryan Shapiro said. 'Transparency is not terrorism, and the FBI should not be taking marching orders from industry flacks.' Industry groups did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the FBI defended its relationship with 'members of the private sector.' 'Our goal is to protect our communities from unlawful activity while at the same time upholding the Constitution,' the agency said in an unsigned statement. 'The FBI focuses on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security. The FBI can never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity.' The dozens of documents trace the industry's relationship with law enforcement agencies over a period stretching from 2015, during James Comey's tenure as FBI director, to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the more recent outbreak of bird flu, also known as avian influenza. Animal rights activists have long said that federal law enforcement seems determined to put them in the same category as Al Qaeda. In the 2000s, a wave of arrests of environmental and animal rights activists — who sometimes took aggressive actions such as burning down slaughterhouses and timber mills — was dubbed 'the Green Scare.' The law enforcement focus on animal rights groups continued well after Osama bin Laden's death, news clippings and documents obtained by Property of the People show. In 2015, a veterinarian with the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate told a trade publication, Dairy Herd Management, that eco-terrorists were a looming threat. 'The domestic threat in some ways is more critical than international,' Stephen Goldsmith said. 'Animal rights and environmental groups have committed more acts of terrorism than Al Qaeda.' Four years later, emails obtained by Property of the People show, Goldsmith met with representatives of a leading farm trade group, the Animal Agriculture Alliance, at a government–industry conference. The meeting happened in April 2019, and within weeks the AAA's president was warning Goldsmith in an email about planned protests by 'by the extremist group Direct Action Everywhere,' a Berkeley-based group that conducts 'open rescues' of animals. Within months, the FBI was touting the threat from animal rights groups in stark terms in an official communication: the intelligence note partially produced by Goldsmith's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. The August 2019 note written with the FBI Sacramento field office said activists were accelerating the spread of Virulent Newcastle disease, a contagious viral disease afflicting poultry and other birds. The note claimed that activists were failing to follow proper biosafety protocols as they targeted different farms, and could spread the disease between farms on their clothes or other inanimate objects. While the note did not point to genetic testing or formal scientific analysis to back up this assertation, it said the FBI offices had 'high confidence' in their assessment. Activists have rejected the idea that they are not following safety protocols, pointing to protests where they have donned full-body disposable suits. The most withering criticism of the FBI note may have come from another law enforcement agency, however. Four months after the FBI document came out, the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center rebutted the idea that activists were spreading disease. Those activists, the Bay Area-based fusion center said in the note to local law enforcement, were nonviolent and posed a 'diminishing threat to law enforcement.' Citing the activists' use of safety precautions and U.S. Department of Agriculture research, the fusion center said that 'animal rights activists are probably not responsible' for any of the Virulent Newcastle disease outbreaks. Emails obtained by Property of the People suggest that the FBI regularly shared information with the Animal Agriculture Alliance, as both sought to spotlight the threat of animal rights activists. As new animal disease outbreaks occurred, the activists were regularly cast as potential vectors. The nonprofit trade group, based in Washington, D.C., describes itself as an organization that defends farmers, ranchers, processors, and other businesses along the food supply chain from animal rights activists, on whom it regularly distributes monitoring reports to its members. The industry's concerns grew in 2020, as activists created a nationwide map of farms, dubbed Project Counterglow, that served as reference for locating protest sites. The AAA's president, Hannah Thompson-Weeman, sent out an email to industry leaders hours after the map was published. 'This is obviously extremely troubling for a lot of reasons. We are contacting our FBI and DHS contacts to raise our concerns but we welcome any additional input on anything that can be done,' she said. In multiple emails, Goldsmith, the FBI veterinarian, distributed to other FBI employees emails from the AAA warning about upcoming protests by the activist outfits, including Direct Action Everywhere. Another email from a local government agency in California showed that the AAA sent out a 'confidential' message to members in June 2023 asking them to track and report 'animal rights activity.' The trade group provided members with a direct FBI email address for reporting what it called ARVE: 'animal rights violent extremists.' The AAA was not the only industry group using the FBI as a resource. The March 2020 letter to Newsom casting activists as potential terrorists was penned by the leaders of the California Farm Bureau Federation and Milk Producers Council. Those groups did not respond to requests for comment. As the bird flu outbreak ramped up in 2022 and beyond, the industry's claims that animal rights activists could spread disease were echoed by government officials, emails obtained by Property of the People show. Animal rights activists say the claims by law enforcement and industry groups that activists are spreading disease have had real-world consequences. In California, college student Zoe Rosenberg faces up to 5-and-a-half years in prison for taking part in what movement members describe as an 'open rescue' of four chickens from a Sonoma County farm. 'It's always a shocking thing when nonviolent activists are called terrorists.' Rosenberg, a member of Direct Action Everywhere, has been identified by name in monitoring reports from the Animal Agriculture Alliance. For the past year and a half, she has been on an ankle monitor and intense supervision after prosecutors alleged in a December 2023 court hearing that she was a 'biosecurity risk' because of ongoing bird flu outbreaks. Rosenberg said last week she was taken aback by the similar allegations contained in previously private emails between law enforcement and industry. 'Instead of taking responsibility for what they are doing, they are trying to blame us. Of course, it's always a shocking thing when nonviolent activists are called terrorists or framed as terrorists,' she said. 'It just all feels backwards.'
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrat Rebecca Cooke launches bid to unseat Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin battleground seat
WASHINGTON – Rebecca Cooke is hoping the third time really is the charm. The Eau Claire Democrat will launch another campaign to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden in the state's 3rd Congressional District after losing her previous bid by just under three points this past November. It will be her third consecutive run for the western Wisconsin House seat. 'I think there needs to be a check on this administration's worst instincts, and Derrick Van Orden is somebody that is like a talking head for those folks,' Cooke told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this week. 'I think that we need to hold people accountable and really put their feet to the fire.' She plans to formally announce her campaign at a farm in Chippewa Falls on Tuesday morning. The move officially kicks off the 2026 race for Wisconsin's tightest battleground district. Cooke, who fell to Van Orden by about 2.8 points last cycle but ran ahead of the top of her ticket in the process, is the only Democrat to announce a run so far. She first ran for the seat in 2022 but placed second in the Democratic primary that year. Cooke, 37, told the Journal Sentinel this week that she believes key issues like health care costs and women's reproductive rights 'only are going to get exemplified' under the first two years of the Trump administration. She pointed to recent cuts to agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the new administration's tariffs on top trading partners as developments that will significantly impact Wisconsin farmers and businesses. More: Tony Evers slams congressional Republicans for not pushing back on Trump tariffs Last year, Cooke campaigned as a moderate Democrat seeking to take on 'Big Ag' and make health care more accessible. Those issues are still prominent, she said. 'I think there's just a finer point to that, and I know they're not going to get better,' she said of her top campaign issues. 'In fact, they will probably get worse.' Another factor motivating Cooke is her performance this past November. She gained about 9,000 more raw votes in the district than former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost the 3rd District to President Donald Trump by 7.4 points, and about 5,000 more votes than Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who lost the region to Republican Senate candidate Eric Hovde by about 4 points, though won statewide. Van Orden and Republicans, for their part, have noted Van Orden defeated Cooke in 2024 by a nearly identical margin to his victory over Democratic state Sen. Brad Pfaff in 2022 — about 11,000 votes — despite a higher turnout last year. A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee this week called Cooke 'a deeply radical and sleazy political activist who remains out-of-touch with Western Wisconsin.' 'Wisconsinites rejected proven loser Rebecca Cooke last year and will do the same in 2026,' said Zach Bannon, the NRCC spokesman. Still, some Democrats have pointed to Cooke's November performance as evidence the district is in play for the party in 2026. Top national Democratic groups like House Majority PAC have signaled they'll continue to focus on the 3rd Congressional District after spending millions more than their Republican counterparts there in 2024. The looming question now is whether other Democrats plan to jump into the race. Eau Claire City Council President Emily Berge told the Journal Sentinel this week she is seriously considering a run, but no other Wisconsin Democrat has publicly expressed interest in running for the seat. A source close to Pfaff, who defeated Cooke in the 2022 Democratic primary, told the Journal Sentinel that the Onalaska Democrat initially ruled out another run for the district but has since received encouragement to mount a new campaign from others in the party. Stevens Point state Rep. Katrina Shankland, who lost to Cooke in last year's heated Democratic primary, said she will not run again this cycle. Regardless, Cooke is seen as a front-runner in the race. 'When someone comes off of a strong race and is able to raise a lot of money and get a lot of endorsements, they clearly are in the lead position to run,' said Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, one of Van Orden's loudest detractors who initially supported Shankland last cycle. 'I understand people want to have their strongest candidate forward,' Pocan said. 'I think Becca proved to be a strong candidate.' Cooke raised more than $6.3 million last cycle to Van Orden's $7.6 million, according to Federal Election Commission reports, and she gained the support of members of Congress like the congressional moderate Blue Dog Coalition. A number of top Democrats in both Wisconsin and Washington, including those in leadership positions, encouraged her to consider another run following her loss. This week, Cooke said Democratic unity will be 'critically important' in 2026, noting she spent millions in last year's bitter Democratic primary that saw Cooke and Shankland trade public jabs. She slammed Van Orden for not scheduling in-person town halls to hear from constituents and said getting into the race early 'allows us to check him and to check this administration.' 'It takes time to build a movement,' Cooke said. 'And it's something that we've been doing for some time.' This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Democrat Rebecca Cooke launches bid to unseat Derrick Van Orden
