Governmental Regulations

Bayer Proposes Class Settlement Deal in Monsanto’s Roundup Litigation

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:36:07 GMT

Announced today, Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto has reached a class settlement deal —pending court approval—to reach the company’s goal of containing glyphosate litigation.

The deal includes $7.25 billion over 21 years for current and future glyphosate cases.

Almost two years ago, then-new CEO Bill Anderson said it was his goal to have the legal liabilities “under control” by 2026, which had weighed on Bayer. Company leaders said the settlement provides the greatest possible closure for the Roundup litigation by addressing all present and potential claims of non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL) allegedly due to Roundup exposure.

In his statement today, Anderson said the company is “choosing speed and containment over a lengthy battle in the courts.”

“Today’s announcement does not take away from the truth, a truth that scientists and regulators around the planet continue to uphold: that glyphosate is a safe and essential tool for farmers in the U.S. and around the world,” Anderson said.

He continued, “This settlement comes at a cost, even beyond its direct monetary price. It has cost employees their jobs. It’s diverted funding away from new medicines and new seeds and towards litigation, an industry that costs the average U.S. household more than four thousand dollars every year. So, while this settlement is necessary for the company today, we maintain our significant objections to the broken tort system that makes it necessary.”

The settlement is filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The class includes people who allege Roundup exposure before Feb. 17, 2026 and who already have NHL or are diagnosed within 16 years after final court approval.

“With more than 40,000 Roundup personal injury non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma claims already in court or under tolling agreements, new filings arriving daily, a pending Supreme Court petition that could restrict plaintiffs’ recovery rights, and crowded dockets offering limited trial dates, Motley Rice began negotiating with other proposed class counsel to reach a settlement with Monsanto,” said Motley Rice co-founder and settlement negotiator, Joseph F. Rice. “I believe this $7.25 billion proposed national class settlement reached in Missouri state court is the best path forward to finally bring the Roundup® litigation to a closing chapter. Based on the hard work of class counsel and Monsanto’s counsel, both occupational and residential exposures will be covered, the rights of future claimants have been uniquely protected, and payments should begin in 2026.”

Six years ago, Bayer proposed a class settlement which did not move forward. That proposal was limited to four years of funding and future litigation beyond those four years required an expert science panel for determination of qualifications.

Beyond the class proposal, Bayer says it has reached separate confidential agreements to settle certain other Roundup cases.

Today’s news comes one month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of the cases , referred to as a the Durnell case, which calls into question federal preemption of pesticide labels.

How Language Rules Have Impacted Trucking, Plus Where the Road is Headed in 2026

Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:40:56 GMT

It’s been almost six months since President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring English language proficiency rules to be enforced for commercial vehicle drivers took effect, but the impact of that enforcement on the trucking industry has been tough to determine.

According to Logan Cooper, senior manager of regional traffic for logistics provider and trucking broker OEC Group, the impacts have been and will likely continue to be localized. The areas where the fresh produce industry intersects with the trucking industry, however, will likely see less effect.

“Where you’re going to see most of the impact is just the drive-in, warehouse-to-warehouse business; stuff that’s simple ‘pickup and deliver,’ where the drivers aren’t really too involved in it,” he says, adding that most of that business is dry van compared to the more specialized refrigerated trailers that fresh produce depends on.

“When you start talking about reefers or flatbeds or just any kind of specialized equipment, a lot of times those are going to be your more qualified drivers,” he adds. “I don’t think you’re going to see as many of the issues with that segment of the industry.”

Localized Impacts of Enforcement

The April 28 executive order specifically directed the Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to enforce existing English language proficiency requirements. It took effect in late June.

In a Dec. 11 post on the social platform X , Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wrote that DOT had “already removed nearly 10,000 unqualified drivers” since enforcement was stepped up.

Cooper explains that CDL drivers could always be cited for violation of this requirement, but “the driver would get a violation or a fine, but they could keep driving.” The change in enforcement now means that the drivers are “put out of service.” On the ground, this usually looks like a driver pulling into a weigh station, found to be in violation, put out of service, and the truck and its load can’t move until another qualified driver comes to pick it up.

“We would see major delays in those cases if the driver was put out of service. Then they would be reviewed for having their license revoked if they can’t meet those qualifications,” Cooper says.

He tells The Packer that the difference between drivers being put out of service and actually having their licenses revoked muddies the water on exact numbers, estimating that it could be anywhere between 10,000 to 20,000 drivers impacted. But that’s out of 2 million to 3 million active commercial driver license holders, he adds.

“It’s too small of a segment at the moment to really have that big of an impact on the overall industry,” he says.

The impacts Cooper does foresee are localized, both geographically and within specific segments of the trucking industry. This would include the simpler hauls with dry vans and recent immigrant entrants into the trucking industry.

“They’re going to jump into just dock-to-dock dry van, so I think that’s going to be the segment of the industry we’re going to see the most,” he says. “Obviously, that’s going to have some impact on the reefer side because that is dock-to-dock stuff as well, but just with the specialized equipment, I think you’re going to see less of an impact than you would just the straight dry van.”

He also says that any trucking that involves crossing a border into the U.S., as a lot of produce does these days, already has higher levels of scrutiny than dock-to-dock or warehouse-to-warehouse hauling. This usually means more experienced, heavily vetted drivers who would not be impacted by the English proficiency requirement.

Trucking Issues to Watch in 2026

Enforcement of English proficiency for CDL drivers isn’t the only 2025 development in trucking that could impact the industry in 2026.

For example, that same executive order directed Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to review non-domiciled CDLs issued by state agencies “to identify any unusual patterns or numbers or other irregularities.” Non-domiciled CDLs are CDLs issued to qualified non-citizens who are in the U.S. legally. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued an interim final rule to apply this order in late September, but that was blocked by an administrative stay in mid-November.

“The rule is still in place, but they’re not enforcing it again,” Cooper says. “So, it’s this back and forth of things changing, new rules put in place, and are we enforcing it or not enforcing it?”

He says he expects additional guidance on that in early 2026. He also expects that a new round of arguments will happen sometime in January on the Montgomery v. Caribe case currently before the Supreme Court. Cooper says the case “could be hugely impactful to the industry.”

It effectively asks if states can hold trucking brokers liable for the actions of a driver or carrier. Cooper says that depending on how the case goes, brokers might have to dramatically increase their insurance coverage, which could drive small-to-midsize brokers out of the industry.

“It could make it where the big carriers or the big brokers have a lot more power in the industry and the small guys get chopped off at the bottom because they just can’t pay to play in this case,” he says.

Abuse of Liberty? Landowner Demands End to DNR’s Warrantless Entries on Private Acres

Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:13:38 GMT

David Martin is raising hell in Michigan, determined to curtail the power claimed by government officials to enter private land without restrictions and surveil at will.

Martin, a landowner and 68^th District representative in Michigan, hopes to end adherence to the Open Fields doctrine that gives conservation officers open access to private property.

“Open Fields is an abuse of liberty and we want it to stop in Michigan. It’s the 250^th anniversary of the American Revolution and our forefathers would be disgusted to see how much government control the state has over private land. Enough.”

Co-sponsor of two bills blocking unfettered access for Department of Natural Resources (DNR) game wardens on private acreage, Martin’s legislative fight is echoed by pending Open Fields lawsuits around the U.S. in Alabama, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

“At a basic level,” Martin emphasizes, “when people find out about Open Fields, they know it’s wrong.”

Without Reason
Open Fields ranks among the most consequential of all government powers. The doctrine stems from two Supreme Court decisions in 1924 (Hester) and 1984 (Oliver), giving federal officials permission to enter private land with no limits on frequency, duration, or scope. Essentially, the government can access any acreage without warrant or probable cause, excluding a personal residence and immediate yard/lawn/curtilage. Open Fields asserts that on private land, the Bill of Rights’ Fourth Amendment protections from search and seizure do not exist.

However, Martin contends the Michigan State Constitution provides protection from Open Fields, at least at the state level. House bills 4073 and 4421 require probable cause or a warrant for any DNR agent seeking access to private land without owner permission.

Open Fields provides the government with access to at least 1.12 billion private acres.

(Graphic courtesy of IJ)

“It’s past time for people to remember who we are as Americans. I’m not going to capitulate to excuses or the latest trends in legal thought. Open Fields is fundamentally wrong and bad law, but in Michigan we are protected by our state constitution. No private property owner should be subject to the presence of government officials on their private land without reason. I own 40 acres and the last thing I expect is to turn around and see a game warden unannounced. That’s crazy.”

Get a Warrant
Removal of Open Fields powers would impede DNR, says Jason Haines, chief of the DNR’s Law Enforcement Division.

“We oppose the bills ( 4073 and 4421 ) in their current form which would significantly hinder efforts to protect Michigan’s natural resources and environment on private lands in Michigan,” he explains. “These resources are held in the public trust for the benefit of all, and the DNR is charged with the responsibility of protecting those resources. The Open Fields doctrine says that acreage outside the curtilage of a private residence does not have the same Fourth Amendment protections like persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

Open Fields ranks among the most consequential of all government powers.

(Photo by IJ)

“Also, wildlife and fish don’t respect private land boundaries,” Haines continues. “No individual owns the wildlife that happens to be on their property at the time. These are public resources.”

Despite citing Open Fields, Haines contends DNR entries on private land must include reasonable suspicion or probable cause. “In Michigan we require every officer to document their justification for entering private land. We also don’t put up trail cameras on private property without a court issued warrant.”

However, Martin’s bills would establish probable cause as a baseline for state entries onto private property. “DNR should be subject to the exact same bar as our regular law enforcement,” Martin says. “Our bills allow the state entry onto private land when in pursuit of criminals or something nefarious. That should be fairly rare and fairly obvious. It should be simple: If someone is doing something illegal on private land—get a warrant.”

Reasonable Limits
Including Michigan, how much nationwide private acreage is subject to Open Fields? At least 1.12 billion acres , estimates Institute for Justice.

Since 2020, lawsuits challenging Open Fields at the state level have been successfully litigated in Tennessee (game wardens in Tennessee must now obtain a warrant before entering privately marked land), and are ongoing in Alabama , Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Louisiana.

According to the Supreme Court, federal officials from USDA, DOJ, FBI, Interior, Treasury, FWS, EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Corps of Engineers, and other departments or agencies all possess the power the enter and surveil private land without restriction.

Martin’s legislative fight in Michigan is echoed by pending Open Fields lawsuits around the U.S. in Alabama, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

(Photo by IJ)

In Michigan, Martin wants to draw a line. “I swore an oath to uphold the Michigan Constitution, and I will do so. The Michigan Constitution, Article I, Section 11, protects all our possessions, including land. The U.S. Supreme Court has taken the wrong view of the Fourth Amendment, but we’re still protected here by our state constitution.”

How does the public in Michigan view Martin’s bills? “We’ve had overwhelming support, and we even hear from people out of state supporting us,” he notes.

Bills 4073 and 4421 passed the Michigan House on Nov. 4, 2025, with a 63-37 vote, with all 56 Republicans in support, along with seven Democrats. Next up, the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“The DNR has far too much latitude on private property,” Martin concludes. “It’s time to recognize reasonable limits in law.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Outraged Farmers Blame Ag Monopolies as Catastrophic Collapse Looms

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

USDA Extends Reorganization Comment Period to Sept. 30

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 12:50:51 GMT

The USDA has extended the public comment period for its proposed reorganization plan , with the new deadline set for Sept. 30.

Originally, the comment period was slated to end on Aug. 26, according to the USDA’s Aug. 1 emailed version of the announcement . This was then changed to Aug. 31 late in August , and then again to Sept. 30 on Aug. 28.

According to the comment notice page , anyone interested in commenting on the proposed reorganization can provide feedback by emailing reorganization@usda.gov .

Proposed Reorganization

The reorganization plan , announced July 24, proposes to move over half of USDA personnel residing in the Washington, D.C., area to one of five hub locations across the country: Salt Lake City, Utah; Fort Collins, Colo.; Raleigh, N.C.; Indianapolis, Ind.; and Kansas City, Mo.

In addition to moving personnel, the plan outlines several location closures and downsizing of physical facilities, primarily in the nation’s capital.

The plan’s stated goal for these and other changes is “to achieve improved effectiveness and accountability, enhanced services, reduced bureaucracy and cost savings for the American people.”

The Senate Ag Committee held a hearing shortly after the reorganization plan was announced, with senators from both sides chiding Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden for not including Congress in the decision. In his recently-released written responses to senators’ many questions , Vaden repeatedly answered that more information will be shared following the closing of the public comment period.

Funding Uncertainties for Disabled Farmer Program

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 19:34:14 GMT

Paul Jones, project manager for the National AgrAbility Project , told a story that typifies how AgrAbility helps those in agriculture dealing with disability .

He told of a small diversified produce and livestock operation in Indiana. The farm sells its fresh produce and value-added products at its own little market stand and at local farmers markets. But the proprietor has rheumatoid arthritis, which can cause joint pain that affects mobility and stamina that can worsen in extreme temperatures, and is slowly losing her vision.

AgrAbility worked together with Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation to help her keep farming. This took the form of a utility vehicle with a cab to help extend her ability to work in different conditions, and burying water lines so she doesn’t have to haul water.

But recent funding changes at the federal level — including H.R. 1 or the “Big Beautiful Bill Act” and grant funding changes — cast uncertainty on the program’s future.

About AgrAbility

“AgrAbility’s focus has always been on helping virtually anybody in agriculture who has any type of disability or functional limitation,” Jones explains. While a disability could be things like an amputation, blindness or PTSD, “functional limitation” includes many of the common complaints of aging.

“Things like back problems are really a big issue for a lot of people in agriculture,” Jones notes. “Arthritis too, especially with the average age of farmers being around 58, is fairly common and can be a significant barrier to completing the tasks people need to complete.”

He adds the need for AgrAbility’s services is only increasing.

“The farming population keeps aging, and there’s all kind of issues related to that,” Jones says. “All the way from mobility to incidents of diabetes and other diseases that are more prevalent in older people. And agriculture is always going to be a physical task. No matter how much mechanization you include in agriculture, there’s always going to be some physical component.”

The program is also increasingly working in the farm stress and mental health realm too, Jones adds, as well as helping veterans returning from military service.

AgrAbility began in 1990 as both the National AgrAbility Project and State/Regional AgrAbility Projects. Both are required to be partnerships between a land grant university and at least one nonprofit disability organization. There are currently 21 official state programs.

“The reason that there’s not 50 is because, basically, funding limitations,” Jones says.

Funding uncertainty

The current federal situation has caused a lot of changes and uncertainty for groups and programs that receive federal funding. This included funding freezes on federal grants earlier this year, the passage of H.R. 1, the recent executive order on federal grantmaking, and the reorganizations of federal agencies like USDA.

When asked if these changes have or will hit AgrAbility, Jones says yes.

“But we’re not exactly sure how that’s going to work at this point,” he adds. “We’re still a little bit in the dark.”

He explains that the program did experience the pause in funding in May and June that hit many federal grant funding recipients. That funding was later reinstated for the current fiscal year.

Things look somewhat hopeful for fiscal year 2026, Jones notes. H.R. 1 actually included a funding increase for fiscal year 2026 that benefits the program. Though even with that boon, there are uncertainties, such as the funding source shifting.

“Funding was designated to come through the Commodity Credit Corporation,” he explains. “We’re not familiar with the Commodity Credit Corporation. And it indicates that the funding will be available until expended. So, it leaves us with questions about what happens after that funding is expended. And it’s just designated for fiscal year 2026.”

Jones says the question now is: What happens after 2026?

The future focus

For now, Jones says AgrAbility is “driving on as if we’re going to continue to have funding, continuing to do the work we’ve always done.”

“We’re not prepared to just totally abandon the ship after 35 years of doing this,” he adds. “We know from the success stories that we are definitely making an impact.”

The program is also looking into various funding strategies. One has been setting up an AgrAbility foundation separate from USDA funding that could fundraise for the programs.

“There are some corporations that have been willing to provide funding through foundations or through corporate giving, so those are options we want to continue to explore,” he adds. “We haven’t always done that, but it may be more of a necessity than an add-on in the future.”

AgrAbility has always appreciated USDA’s support, Jones says, but it also understands the current pressures on federal funding. He adds that he thinks the competitive process that keeps people and projects honest on how federal money is spent is important.

“That’s a good thing,” he says, adding that he thinks AgrAbility is “a pretty good value.”

“We’re not a big money program, but we try to deliver a high rate of return for the dollars we get, and we also try to raise additional money to expand on the money we get from the federal government,” he adds.

As the agricultural population ages, Jones says the demand for AgrAbility’s services will only continue.

“None of us are going to be able bodied forever — it’s only a temporary state.”

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 18:44:44 GMT

It ranks as a monumental injustice and ruin of an American family.

Seizing on a paperwork violation and over $500,000 in fines, Department of Labor (DOL) agents hounded a fourth-generation farm into collapse, trapping brothers Joe and Russell Marino in nine years of bureaucratic hell.

Denied access to an outside court or jury, the Marinos were subjected to an in-house agency process from pillar to post. Pursuit by DOL agents, enforcement by DOL personnel, trial by DOL attorneys, decision by DOL judge, and approval by DOL appellate judges.

“They took us down a dark, dark hole that I can’t describe properly with words,” says Joe Marino. “I never thought honesty and facts wouldn’t matter in America, but that’s what happened. We were presumed guilty from the start, and it’s shameful what they did to us.”

Shameful, indeed, according to a panel of independent federal judges. In a landmark decision, the Marinos were vindicated after the 3^rd Circuit unanimously ruled DOL’s actions in violation of the Constitution.

“People need to know our whole story because this is how government agencies operate,” Joe says. “The public will be sickened to find out what DOL did. I don’t want this to ever, ever happen to another farmer or small business owner or American. The time for change is right now. It has to be now.”

Beginning of the End
Arriving on U.S. shores from Sicily in roughly 1900, the Marino family carved out a farming operation in Gloucester County, New Jersey. For the next 125 years, from a toehold in dirt to an expanse of 3,000 acres, four generations of Marinos grew vegetables outside Swedesboro at Sun Valley Orchards. No more. Their farm is gone.

Integrated from seed to sale at its peak, and helmed by Joe and Russell, Sun Valley became the largest produce farm in New Jersey, and one of the biggest on the East Coast, growing asparagus, cucumbers, broccoli, cabbage, bell peppers, eggplant, sweet corn, and more. At the heart of crop season, Sun Valley employed approximately 180 seasonal workers and was a hive of industry, with 15-20 tractor-trailer loads of produce per day exiting the facility, bound for the Northeast, South, Midwest, and Canada.

DOL claimed Sun Valley fired its H-2A workers without compensation and stole food money from their pockets.

(Photo by Andrew Wimer, IJ)

Department of Labor (DOL) inspections were par for the course. DOL popped on site in mid-summer to examine payrolls, transport, living conditions, and more clipboard categories, usually wrapping up in less than a day.

“That was our experience with DOL inspections. Basically, they’d give us a few things to repair and we’d fix them immediately,” Joe explains. “As far as how we treated our employees, our workers were invaluable. They busted their asses for us and we thought the world of them. To think we’d later be accused of mistreating any of them was the furthest thing from the truth. But that’s where the whole craziness was headed.”

In 2015, feeling the pressure of a building labor crisis in U.S. agriculture, the Marinos turned to the federal H-2A Temporary Agriculture Worker Program, filling over half their seasonal manpower needs with foreign nationals. Sun Valley’s first H-2A workers arrived in early spring, and as the crop year marched on, DOL, as expected, popped in for an on-site inspection.

However, instead of the typical lone official, DOL arrived with three inspectors. And rather than a day or less, the trio stayed at Sun Valley for roughly four days. “I kept telling my brother, Russ, ‘Something feels off. Something feels different,’” Joe recalls. “It was like DOL knew something we didn’t and had already made up their minds.”

His intuition was in the bull’s-eye. It was the beginning of the end for Sun Valley.

Pay Up or Else
Silence speaks volumes. Typically, DOL provided findings upon completion of inspection, but into fall 2015, DOL did not send the Marinos a report or checklist of corrections. DOL let the entire 2015 season pass without indication of any concerns. In January 2016, DOL brass from Washington, D.C., arrived at Sun Valley’s farm gate in New Jersey.

“They showed up in person, a director from D.C. and two agents,” Joe recalls. “I’ll never forget the scene. They came walking in with hellos, small talk, and stupid little jokes, as if they were conducting some kind of everyday bureaucratic procedure. And for them, maybe it was. For me and my family, it was a life-altering moment.”

“It’s incestuous,” Joe Marino contends. “That’s how all our government agencies operate and maintain power. They play judge, jury, and executioner.”

(Photo by Andrew Wimer, IJ)

Seated in the Sun Valley farm office on opposite sides of a large desk, the tiny space separating two farmers and three federal bureaucrats was chasmic. Minutes beyond a handshake and greeting, the D.C. director dropped a bomb, accusing Sun Valley of mistreating H-2A workers: You owe $550,000 in back wages and civil penalty fines.

“I felt the ground spinning underneath me,” Joe recounts. “One minute they were smiling and asking how we were doing, and the next telling us the results of their inspection showed we had to pay them an incredible amount of money. For our entire lives we worked to be the best farmers we could ever be and carry our family legacy. In an instant, I was numb, stunned, angry, horrified, and shocked, all wrapped together. It was a $550,000 accusation.”

Literally, the federal government had sent agents on-site to Marino’s farm, demanding over a half-million dollars, most of it for a single paperwork violation. Pay up or else.

Kangaroo Court?
In a nutshell, DOL claimed Sun Valley fired its H-2A workers without compensation and stole food money from their pockets.

Back in late spring 2015, when Sun Valley’s first wave of H-2A workers, 17 Mexican nationals, arrived in Gloucester County, the Marinos were preparing to cut asparagus—notoriously difficult harvest labor. In the H-2A paperwork process, Sun Valley’s employment requirements had included asparagus cutting. The 17 prospects all attested to asparagus experience.

Yet, after a single day in the fields, the 17 workers went to Russell and threw in the towel. No mas.

“They told my brother, Russ, ‘Asparagus cutting is not for us. We’re leaving,’” Joe recalls. “Apparently, some of these 17 people had never even been on a farm, and some of them didn’t complete the first day of work. But we were desperate because asparagus grows every day. We talked and talked and tried to reason with them, but they were done.”

“What the hell could we do? We documented the whole deal with advice from our H-2A consultant,” Joe continues. “The 17 signed off saying they wanted to go home and didn’t want to work. They left. We picked up the pieces and kept going.”

However, according to DOL, Sun Valley terminated the 17 workers. Therefore, Sun Valley owed each of the 17 three-quarters of their total work contracts for the crop year—one of several DOL concerns never raised during the onsite inspection, according to Joe.

(When contacted by Agweb regarding the Sun Valley case, DOL referred all questions to DOJ. When contacted by Agweb, DOJ did not respond.)

“The charges were insane,” Joe exclaims. “And then they got crazier. They basically charged us with exploiting food from our own workers.”

During the initial H-2A application process, Sun Valley had a food choice: Give workers a kitchen to self-prepare meals or provide a meal plan. Sun Valley’s H-2A consultant chose the “kitchen” option—a paperwork error, contends Joe.

“There was no sinister food plot,” Joe exclaims. “Our consultant checked the wrong box on the paper. The wellbeing of our workers was vital to our operation and everyone’s success. There’s no way in hell we would steal their food or money. Outrageous and ridiculous.”

Sun Valley workers had long been provided on-site meals cooked by a crew member’s family. DOL already knew this from past inspections, Joe insists. “This was an arrangement for years and DOL inspectors used to rave about the wonderful smells and fantastic food. The crew leader followed all federal guideline pertaining to the meal plan and was able to feed everyone for roughly the DOL-federally mandated $80 per week—a tremendously low-cost deal for our workers. Instead, DOL said we tricked all our H-2A workers, about 96 people, into thinking they’d get a kitchen when they arrived, but instead forced them onto a meal plan. Total bullshit.”

DOL hammered Sun Valley for the meal plan, demanding full reimbursement, along with a $2,400 penalty per person, not only for the 96 H-2A visa workers, but also the additional domestic workers—all to the tune of over $300,000 for ticking the wrong box.

“Again, no mention of this mid-season during the inspection so that it could be cleared up,” Joe notes. “Instead, they let the 2015 season pass and charged us for the entire season. Not to mention Sun Valley never deducted, collected or garnished workers’ wages for food or any other reason”.

“And things only got darker from there,” Joe adds. “Much darker. Guilty until proven innocent. We hired private attorneys and decided to go down fighting, even though we knew it was a kangaroo court.”

Case closed, according to DOL. The Marinos bounced into a fixed government game. No jury of peers allowed to hear the evidence; no independent judge allowed to hear the case. Essentially, DOL fined the Marino brothers $550,000 ($212,250 in civil penalties and $369,703 in back wages) without having to prove anything beyond agency walls.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Move along.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat
DOL knew. They knew. If Marino was able to sit before a jury and explain Sun Valley actions, the DOL case might crumble.

“That was the most frustrating thing of the entire affair,” Marino says. “It’s not hard to tell the truth. I wanted to tell a jury with passion and conviction, but the government machine would not let me. I tried so hard to fight and expose DOL. I sent emails to all the big news outlets, politicians, and reporters, but no one in the big media responded. They wouldn’t touch us.”

The Marino brothers were cast by DOL as cruel farmers and unscrupulous businessmen. Yet, for decades, Joe, along with his father, Russell Sr., had served as state ag board members, crop association presidents, township mayors, congressional ag testimony witnesses, and national ag organization participants.

“No one should forget: The Marino family had to close their farm,” says IJ attorney Bob Belden. “Their hardship is not adequately conveyed in a court decision. It’s so good they won, but the toll on them was heavier than words.”

(Photo by Google Earth)

Yet, by DOL edict, the Marinos were instant lepers. “The people that truly knew us knew the truth. But the ag associations and organizations? They ran away. Their assumption? We were charged; therefore, the charges were true; and therefore, we were guilty. DOL made certain nobody outside the four walls of the agency could hear the facts and evidence.”

At a week-long trial in July 2017, Joe and Russell faced the agency machine in a DOL courtroom before a DOL judge who was a former DOL attorney. “It’s incestuous,” Joe contends. “That’s how all our government agencies operate and maintain power. They play judge, jury, and executioner.”

DOL, via video link, allowed testimony from three of the original 17 H-2A workers initially hired at Sun Valley. “What a farce,” Joe says. “DOL used a human rights group rep, posing as a federal DOL agent, to locate three workers in Mexico. The three didn’t have to appear in person, and we couldn’t even see on camera who was off to the side coaching them, and we didn’t know if they’d been promised a payout, and it was outrageous. A Mickey Mouse trial.”

“Through it all, not a single witness said they’d been fired. Didn’t matter. The DOL judge found us guilty anyway, on all counts. I will never forget when the DOL judge read her decision, she wouldn’t even look me in the eye while she made her remarks. I could see it on her face that she knew what she was playing a part in was wrong. I said to myself, “This can’t be America. This can’t happen here,’ but it did and it does.”

What about an appeal? Sure—in DOL appellate court, before another DOL judge. Wash, rinse, repeat.

“That’s the system,” Joe says. “Does anyone really think one DOL judge is going to reverse what their friend in a DOL courtroom just ruled on? They bleed you until you’re all appealed out, and by that time you can finally take it to an outside court, but almost no one has money for that. Through and through, it’s abuse by a government agency weaponized by elected officials.”

Gamechanger
At the bottom of a bureaucratic hole, having spent $180,000 in attorney fees and still facing a $500,000-plus fine, Joe found a lifeline.

“It was a true gamechanger,” he recalls. “A gift from God. We were done until the cavalry showed up.”

The “cavalry” was Institute for Justice (IJ), and when the liberty-loving, legal heavyweight organization caught wind of Sun Valley’s plight, IJ attorneys launched a lawsuit against DOL in 2021.

IJ came out swinging in its initial complaint on behalf of Sun Valley: The enforcement proceeding at issue in this case was initiated by DOL personnel, tried by DOL attorneys, heard and decided by a DOL judge, and then affirmed by a panel of DOL appellate judges.

“The Marinos today; any of us tomorrow,” says IJ attorney Bob Belden . “This case doesn’t need flowery explanations. When people hear the details, they quickly recognize it’s wrong to have government actors trying to take money or property from you as a punishment, and the same government actors getting to decide if you are guilty. That is as un-American as you can get.”

Sky-High Win Rates
In 2021, as Sun Valley’s lawsuit against DOL was launched, another parallel case was funneling through federal court: SEC v. Jarkesy. In a seismic 2024 ruling with direct relevance to Sun Valley, SCOTUS ruled that citizens are entitled to a jury trial when hit with civil penalties imposed by administrative law judges.

Jarkesy punched a massive hole through agency walls, and IJ drove a Sun Valley truck through the breach. In July 2025, a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the Marinos, declaring DOL actions in violation of the Constitution.

The Marino victory, spearheaded by IJ, was landmark. “This type of agency abuse happens to so many people everywhere in the country, and across so many agencies,” Belden notes.

Currently, the federal government contains at least 400 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies, and their internal courts, such as DOL’s in-house system, have sky-high win rates. “Think about it,” Belden describes, “They get to litigate disputes in front of their colleagues instead of independent judges.”

Emblematic of Belden’s contention, former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright made stunning remarks in 2015 regarding a phenomenally high agency win rate from roughly 1995 to 2015: “In 100 percent of cases where the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the FTC staff, the Commission (appeals board) affirmed liability; and in 100 percent of the cases in which the administrative law judge found no liability, the Commission reversed. This is a strong sign of an unhealthy and biased (emphasis added) institutional process.”

The institutional, in-house system is about more than control and power, Belden notes. Money is a significant player. In 2024 alone, according to an IJ release, DOL collected $4.9 million in back wages and imposed $5.8 million in penalties on agricultural employers.

“The truth is, in these cases, DOL very often fails to return money to workers,” Belden says. “DOL keeps much of the money it collects or kicks it back to Congress. An independent judge or jury would not have money floating in the backs of their minds as potential influence.”

The Bloodbath
Sun Valley’s David v. Goliath victory came with a bitterly painful precursor. Joe and Russell lost their farm in 2021.

A perfect storm of weather and depressed markets from 2019-2021, in tandem with DOL fines and legal fees, crushed Sun Valley. In December 2021, the Marino farming operation—from shovel to tractor to combine to land—went under the gavel. For the last time, the brothers cranked their farm machinery and lined up the vehicles for public purchase.

After surviving for 125 years, Sun Valley disappeared in a two-day farm sale. The Marino brothers sent their father out of town to ensure he wouldn’t witness the gut-wrenching process: hundreds of strangers on the property, pawing the equipment and hauling away a legacy piece by piece. Joe and Russ walked away, pockets empty.

“Tough as hell two days. So heavy on my spirit,” Joe remembers. “I’ve always had a burning passion for agriculture, but at the end of the day, it’s a business and you’ve got to make money. All along, while we were dealing with DOL, I was mindful that we wouldn’t go down with the ship. We are family men with kids and their futures to consider. We also had my father’s and uncle’s buyout balances to protect at all costs.”

“We sold out, took care of my dad and uncle, and got out with next to nothing, but at least we didn’t owe anyone. The DOL played a major role in our demise. At the point when we sold everything, we still didn’t know what would happen in court.”

Four years later, after almost a decade-long legal nightmare, Joe received the news of the Third Circuit’s vindication via a phone call from IJ. Struggling to process the victory, he fell to his knees under a flood of tears—and let go of nine years of pain.

Weaponization
Sun Valley v. DOL was a massive victory for constitutional rights and the ability of common Americans to be heard in independent courts. However, the Marinos paid an extreme price for their fellow citizens’ liberty, Belden explains.

“No one should forget: The Marino family had to close their farm. Their hardship is not adequately conveyed in a court decision. It’s so good they won, but the toll on them was heavier than words.”

“I don’t want this to ever, ever happen to another farmer or small business owner or American,” says Joe Marino. “The time for change is right now.”

(Photo by Andrew Wimer, IJ)

Joe takes solace in the establishment of precedent for genuine change in bureaucracy and agriculture.

“H-2A is a failed system. Everyone knows it. We need a fair, stable, and affordable means of getting skilled seasonal labor to feed this country, but control of the program should be with USDA and not in the hands of DOL. Our elected officials now have what they need to make a switch.”

“In the end, we got our good name cleared, but more important than that, I’m truly thankful because I know our case will help others down the road, and there are people right now enduring this same kind of government abuse,” Joe adds. “It’s time for the weaponization of our government agencies to stop.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

City Gov to Seize 175-Year-Old Farm by Eminent Domain, Replace with Affordable Housing

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Sisters of Farm Fraud: How 4 Siblings Fleeced USDA for $10M

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

Recent Funding, Staffing Changes at USDA Could Risk Ag Research

Thu, 14 Aug 2025 21:05:08 GMT

Concerned. Uncertain. Worried. Unsure.

These were the most common words members of the Science Societies — including American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America — participating in an Aug. 13 webinar used to describe the current agricultural research funding world they live in today.

“There has been a lot of disruption in the normal funding process, especially at USDA,” said Julie McClure, agricultural policy expert with Torrey Advisory Group and the Societies, who MCed the webinar. “There have been a lot of actions taken by this administration that have implications for the research enterprise.”

Those actions included the deferred resignation program offered to federal employees in late January and the late February requirement that all federal agencies plan for and implement reorganizations and reductions in force . On July 8, USDA issued a guidance that, among other things, restricts who federal researchers can co-author research articles with. By the July 24 announcement of USDA’s planned reorganization , it had already shed over 15% of its total workforce.

According to panelists, the on-the-ground results have been the chilling effect of uncertainty, lost research, lost opportunities for students, and a potential future where public-private partnerships in ag research are in doubt and research is driven by politics rather than science.

Uncertainty abounds

The sharp reductions in staffing at USDA agencies have left university researchers awash in uncertainty according to panelists. For example, Michael Thompson, a soil science professor at Iowa State University and past SSSA president, described his experience at Iowa State University where soil scientists collaborate closely with colleagues in USDA agencies and programs.

“The USDA reductions in force have affected personnel and programs in the National Cooperative Soil Survey Program,” he explained, describing it as a collaborative initiative of local, state, federal agencies and experiment stations that improves soil maps around the country.

“Because of the reductions in personnel and the potential reorganization, there’s really a lot of concern that USDA’s larger plans for reorganization could reduce or eliminate the National Cooperative Soil Survey Program,” he added. “The future of that kind of federal-state collaboration is certainly in serious doubt.”

The funding disruptions have also cast doubt beyond just academia, according to panelist Colin Campbell, vice president of research, development, engineering and software at Meter Group, an agricultural and environmental research and technology company.

“USDA funding is a big part of how we fund our research to make more instrumentation,” he said. Campbell described worry over if already granted funding or personnel will be pulled as resulting in inaction. “For example, the Climate Smart Agriculture grant that we worked really heavily on and all got funded, but now the work’s not getting done.”

Lost opportunities

Panelists talked about lost opportunities. In some cases, finished government-funded research cannot cross the proverbial finish line because of recent changes, according to Thompson, pointing to the recent guidance that bars USDA employees from “authoring or co-authoring a scholarly publication” without some logistically taxing requirements.

“Completed research projects cannot now be published,” he said of the situation.

Panelists cited the obvious loss of research opportunities as well; canceled grants and pulled funding. Thompson said there had been 14 projects canceled or stopped permanently, including two in his soil science department. One project that dealt with renewable natural gas production from anaerobic digestion of biomass and manure mixture, while the other focused on training technical service providers about soil sampling for carbon content.

“The loss of funding led to the layoff of a professional soil scientist in our department and to shifting support for grad students to other projects.”

The impact on students was a point of concern for panelists. Diane Rowland, director of the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station at the University of Maine, described the impact on workforce development as huge.

“We’re training the next generation that will feed into the workforce,” she said.

Questions about the future

On Aug. 7, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that changed oversight processes for federal grants. Very generally, it requires federal agencies to appoint one or more senior appointees to review federal grant applications to ensure they “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” This was an area of uncertainty for the future.

“There are a lot of questions about exactly how this executive order will be enacted, what that means for particularly universities that receive a lot of federal funding through different grants,” McClure noted. “I do think this will add significant time to the process of grant review and funding distribution. And obviously a lot more scrutiny, and scrutiny that won’t be scientific in nature, it will be more of a political scrutiny.”

She said her understanding is that, for the USDA specifically, very few of the necessary appointees that have either been made or cleared through Congress where applicable.

“There are just so many hours in the day that a single person can be reviewing what are often very technical proposals,” she said, adding that reports of delays on grant funding or responses on grants are unsurprising in that situation.

Thompson also raised concerns about the future of independent science with the closing of EPA’s Office of Research and Development , which began in July.

“That office was EPA’s independent science arm that conducted research on detecting pollutant mobility and toxicity in soils and water,” he said, adding the office informed policy decisions and funded many soil- and water-related grants at universities like ISU.

“While it’s possible that a new EPA office on applied science and environmental solutions may be created, its science is not going to be politically independent like the office of research and development was,” he said. “A lot of soil scientists like me have had funding from EPA. The future of that funding is in serious doubt.”

USDA Awards Millions for Packaging Innovation Research

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:15:37 GMT

Packaging is an unsung hero of fresh produce accessibility and sustainability. Improvements in packaging have allowed more fruit and vegetables to make it to more consumers and last longer. Feeding more people and reducing food waste is a win-win born of continued innovation.

USDA recently announced it has awarded almost $10.5 million to fund continued improvements in produce packaging.

Western Growers received $486,000 of those funds as part of the 2025 Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program. The funds will continue the work of the Sustainable Produce Packaging Alignment for North America (SPPA) , a partnership between Western Growers and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association that started last year.

SPPA’s goal is to address the evolving landscape of packaging requirements across governments and retailers throughout North America, something Jeana Cadby, director of environment and climate at Western Growers, calls “an incongruent mish-mash of contradictory regulations.”

She explains that not only are there different regulations for sustainable packaging between the U.S. and Canada, but states often have varying standards for what can be recycled or counts as compostable. Even retailers have their own sustainability efforts.

“Say you have Produce Buyer A over here who wants only compostable packaging and Produce buyer B over there who only wants recycled content. You’ll have these different requirements, and you have to figure out how to ensure the packaging has the same functionality,” she says. “There’s need for harmonization here.”

SPPA is trying to bring that harmony to the packaging innovation landscape. It is developing guidelines for industry to align packaging development efforts with the disparate requirements while maintaining functionality.

“What the funding can do is really expand the work that we’re doing, so we can do more outreach and get more stakeholder input, which is always critical,” Cadby says.

All of this serves the paired goals of getting more healthy food to more people and reducing food waste.

“What’s unique about fresh produce is that it is alive. We harvest the fresh produce, and the job of the packaging is to keep it as fresh and alive for as long as we possibly can,” Cadby says.

She added that those working in produce packaging innovation are “being really intentional about being good stewards of the environment and also provide ... fresh, safe and affordable fresh produce.”

Other Awards From USDA

On July 29, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service additionally launched its Sustainable Packaging Innovation Lab , part of the Assisting Specialty Crop Exports Initiative. The effort is intended to help U.S. fresh produce exporters stay competitive with rapidly evolving international packaging requirements.

The lab will be led by Clemson University and the International Fresh Produce Association’s Foundation for Fresh Produce and will be administered by the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research .

“This lab is all about enabling U.S. specialty crop exporters to succeed in markets that now demand sustainable packaging,” James Sternberg, assistant professor of sustainable packaging at Clemson and a leader of the initiative, said in a news release. “We’re building the future of ag packaging with real-world technologies that ensure compliance and competitiveness.”

The lab’s first round of funding has already been awarded to 22 grant recipients. They include:

Akorn Technology Inc. — Validating an edible thin-film coating for cucumbers and bell peppers.
Corumat Inc. — Piloting compostable bioplastic styrofoam-like packaging for berries, tree fruit and fresh-cut produce.
Metalchemy — Developing biodegradable antimicrobial packaging to extend the shelf life of table grapes, berries, mushrooms and tomatoes.
Nat4Bio — Finalizing a biopolymer coating apples, citrus, pears and blueberries.
Nvirovate Materials — Testing compostable PLU labels for compliance with foreign regulatory requirements for apples.
PeelON — Piloting compostable plant-based thin film and bags for leafy greens, citrus, grapes, blueberries and fresh herbs.
Sway — Scaling compostable seaweed-based packaging for table grapes, cherries, citrus, apples and leafy greens.
Vireo Advisors — Establishing a food-grade production process for cellulose-based food coating and achieving regulatory approval for cherries and blueberries.

For a full list of grantee winners and their projects, visit the SPIL webpage on www.fas.usda.gov .

Farmers, Truckers and Gear Heads Rejoice: EPA Rolls Out Streamlined Diesel Engine Fluid Guidelines

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 18:04:22 GMT

EPA is rolling out new guidance for manufacturers of farm equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, removing regulatory red tape requiring diesel-powered farm equipment to reduce engine torque dramatically when a problem arises with the machine’s Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system.

You can read EPA’s statement on the announcement here.

The new rule making goes into effect immediately for all new diesel engines on model year 2027 machines. It should also be noted the new guidance from EPA is voluntary for all non road equipment. Ultimately, each manufacturer will have the right to choose whether it implements the new inducement strategy or maintains the status quo with its own machines.

To fix the problem for farm machinery already in the field, EPA’s new guidance, developed in collaboration with farm equipment manufacturers, will work to ensure necessary software changes can be made on the existing fleet.

(EPA)

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin says now all non-road equipment, like farm tractors, combines and sprayers, must be configured so there is no impact on engine power for up to 36 hours when a DEF system malfunction occurs. Once 36 engine hours have passed, a 25% reduction in engine torque will go into effect until the machine is serviced. If the farm equipment is not fixed within 100 engine hours, then a 50% reduction in torque is activated until the machine can be serviced.

Additionally, farm equipment can be restarted with full engine power three times for up to 30 minutes after inducement, according to the EPA release.

“This is the first crack in the ice toward saying we don’t need these expensive systems on our farm equipment,” says Ben Reinsche, owner, Blue Diamond Farming Company in Jesup, Iowa. “We don’t need to immediately shut off an engine or be restricted for 36 hours if you have DEF unavailable or a malfunction.

“This is a positive step and maybe a formative step toward saying that having these emission standards on farm or off-road equipment is not critically necessary,” adds Reinsche. “There are so many other things farmers can do that are planet positive, like using conservation and sustainability practices, rather than having an after treatment system on our diesel engines.”

Small Business Administration (SBA) leader Kelly Loeffler says the new rule will save 1.8 million family farms across America a staggering $727 million per year while offering “vital financial and operational certainty.”

“This announcement today is such a big deal, especially on behalf of our farmers and ranchers,” says USDA secretary Brook Rollins. “At a time when our ag sector is really hurting, our farmers have had to endure a 30% cost increase in inputs, and a $30 billion Biden-era trade deficit, these everyday regulations being lifted makes such a difference.”

The new guidance greatly reduces a machine setting known as DEF derating and allows operators more time to secure DEF, refuel and make repairs. The new guidance also reportedly retains the environmental benefits of Tier 4 engine and DEF regulations for farm equipment and trucks.

“Today we are taking another important step forward by undoing these diesel fluid guidelines that have hurt our farmers and small rural businesses,” says U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). “Not only will these new guidelines save family-run farms hundreds of millions of dollars per year, but it is also just common sense, folks. No farmer should have their tractor come to a halt in the middle of a field due to Green New Deal-style regulations from Washington.”

How Did We Get Here?

EPA ushered in DEF requirements for large farm equipment when it enacted broader Tier 4 emissions standards in 2004.

Tier 4 Interim rules, which required DEF for farm machines 750 horsepower and up, then went into effect in 2008.

In 2015, EPA’s final Tier 4 regulations were put in place, meaning all new non-road diesel engines — regardless of horsepower rating — had to comply with new emissions standards.

Curious where your farm equipment is made? Check out Farm Journal’s “Who Makes What Where” feature to learn more.

Why Do Many Farmers Hate Using Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)?

American farmers say they detest using DEF due to the challenges and additional fuel cost it tacks onto their operations.

Here are some reasons farmers aren’t big fans of DEF:

Higher Costs and More Maintenance: DEF adds on extra materials costs for machinery-based field work. Farmers must purchase large amounts of fluid, and the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) framework that processes DEF is prone to malfunctions and expensive to repair. Often a simple-but-unexpected repair can pop up out of nowhere and end up costing farmers thousands of dollars and leave equipment inoperable.
Field Work Interruptions: If a tractor runs out of DEF or if the system breaks down, under the now-defunct previous guidelines engine power was greatly reduced, which is known by many farmers as “going into limp mode.” For farmers who rely on their equipment to operate consistently and reliably during planting and harvesting, any issue quickly becomes a major headache.
Storage Issues: DEF has a limited shelf life and is sensitive to temperature ups and downs. A quick Google search says DEF freezes at around 12°F and can degrade if stored in temperatures above 86°F. And who wants to look at a giant pallet of DEF cartons stacked in their machinery barn? Nobody, that’s who.
Contamination/Quality Control: DEF fluid must be pure and free of contaminants. Accidentally using the wrong type or getting foreign substances in the tank during refilling can wreak havoc throughout the system, leading to repairs and downtime.
Engine Performance Concerns: There are farmers who believe newer emissions systems, including those that use DEF, reduce the machine’s total power output and lower fuel efficiency.

Your Next Read: MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:40:07 GMT

In late May, farmers and the agricultural industry were bracing for the release of the Make America Healthy Again report, which was to focus on children’s health and chronic diseases. Then came the 68-page report, which was responded to by farmers and  more than 300 agriculture organizations  sharing their concerns. Per the President’s executive order establishing the timeline for the MAHA report, policy recommendations were to be given to the president by Aug. 12.

Today, the White House said to not expect MAHA policy recommendations to be announced tomorrow. The Commission will deliver its recommendations by the deadline, per the executive order, however, per White House spokesman Kush Desai schedules of the President and cabinet members need to be coordinated for the public announcement.

Particularly in focus for the agricultural groups in their response to the MAHA movement has been any references to three crop protection active ingredients: glyphosate, atrazine and chloripyrifos. These three were included in the MAHA report as a list of products that can contribute to chronic disease in children.

In its response to the MAHA report, National Corn Growers Association said its findings show that if the three pesticides were to disappear completely, crop yields could decrease by more than 70% due to pests, weeds and disease.

Politico reported on unnamed sources saying the White House has been meeting with stakeholder groups leading up to the policy announcements.

USDA Opens Public Comment Period on Reorganization Plan

Mon, 04 Aug 2025 18:24:03 GMT

Late in the evening Aug. 1, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the opening of a 30-day public comment period on the agency’s recently released reorganization plan .

According to the announcement, “all stakeholders, including USDA employees, members of Congress, and agricultural and nutrition partners, are encouraged to provide feedback by emailing reorganization@usda.gov .” The comment period ends on Aug. 26.

The call for public comment came after USDA’s reorg plan received strong pushback from Congress during a July 30 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.

“It is unacceptable that we learned about this proposal just minutes before it was announced,” said Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. “It is apparent that USDA did not consult with or even bother to notify Congress with this plan.”

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. — Senate Ag Committee member as well as chairman of Senate’s Appropriations Committee’s agricultural subcommittee — voiced support for the agency’s goals.

“But we want it to be a process where you work with Congress, with the Senate, both the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee on it, and we achieve those results together, and I think that’ll help garner a lot more support for the effort,” he said.

Others have pushed back against the reorganization plan as well. National WIC Association President and CEO Georgia Machell , for example, described the effort as “politically motivated acts of bureaucratic disruption, designed to erode USDA’s ability to function.”

Some have voiced support for the reorg plan, however. The California Avocado Commission endorsed the move , with the commission’s president, Ken Melban, describing Rollins as “helping restore confidence among growers and consumers alike.”

USDA Reorganization Draws Fire From Both Sides of Aisle

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:54:08 GMT

USDA’s reorganization plan is already drawing questions and fire from both sides of the aisle in Congress. The Senate Ag Committee held a hearing on Wednesday to get more details about its plan to relocate 2,600 employees from Washington, D.C., to five regional hubs to achieve $4 billion in savings.

USDA’s makeover plans took Congress by surprise, and at this week’s Senate Ag Committee hearing, Democratic members blasted Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden, including the ranking member.

“It is unacceptable that we learned about this proposal just minutes before it was announced,” said Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. “The first months of this administration do not inspire confidence given the months of freezes, cancellations, unfreezes, firings, hiring back, lease terminations, firings and subsequent attempts to rehire veterinarians, farm loan officers and other critical positions.

“It is apparent that USDA did not consult with or even bother to notify Congress with this plan,” she said.

Stephen Vaden, deputy secretary of USDA, told the committee that was by design.

“The employees are the ones who are most directly affected by the secretary’s decision,” he said. “Out of common courtesy and respect, they should hear that decision from the secretary first and not from a leak that originates from somewhere else.“

Vaden said he understands the need to work with Congress but the consultation process has just started.

“The 30-day notification period required by law ensures that now is the time for us to receive feedback from stakeholders, from our employees and from members of Congress as well,” he said.

As part of the process, Vaden and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins will be conducting site inspections.

“We will be engaging in further conversations with USDA’s eight mission areas as well as their agency leadership on connecting the right functions of each agency and mission area to a particular hub location,” he said.

They’ll also work with the General Services Administration regarding leases in the hubs and in Washington, Vaden added.

Senator Klobuchar also expressed concern about how this will impact ag research.

“Do you believe that vacating research sites, eliminating offices and losing researchers will improve outcomes for farmers who depend on this research?” she asked Vader.
Vaden responded: “Senator, 91 of 94 ARS research labs are unaffected by the secretary’s memorandum.”

Senate Ag Committee Chairman John Boozeman, R-Ark., added they support efficiency and cost savings, but not at the expense of service to farmers.

“Can you tell us about how the plan is going to improve programs that support Americans who live in rural areas as we go forward?” Boozeman asked.

Vaden said it’s a greater ability to attract talent that is going to improve.

“It’s going to allow us to build the next generation of USDA leadership. Simply put, the hardest problem that any federal agency faces, and this is not limited to the Department of Agriculture, is talent retention,” he said. “The cost of living here in Washington, D.C. is prohibitive.”

Vaden added that cost of living was the principal consideration for where to put the hubs.
North Dakota Senator John Hoeven, R-N.D., who is also the appropriations chair, told Vaden the agency needs to work with, not against Congress.

“We support the goals, but we want it to be a process where you work with Congress, with the Senate, both the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee on it, and we achieve those results together, and I think that’ll help garner a lot more support for the effort,” Hoeven said.

Hoeven also questioned the location of the five hubs and if they were open for discussion.

“Senator, if you read the memorandum, it has built-in flexibility,” Vaden said. “The memorandum lays out a vision, but then there is a line in that memorandum which says the vision and the plans laid out here can change.”

Hoeven said USDA will need show flexibility to get their plan to the finish line.

Speakers Tell EPA Not To Mess With Clean Water Act 401 Rule

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:47:06 GMT

The EPA held its second and final listening session regarding Section 401 of the Clean Water Act on July 30. The session was part of the agency’s call for comments that it says it will use to determine if a new rulemaking on Section 401 is necessary.

For almost all of those who gave public testimony, the answer was “no.”

“We encourage EPA not to introduce a new rulemaking associated with section 401 of the Clean Water Act,” said Julie MacNamara, national water projects coordinator for Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. “We do not believe a new rulemaking is necessary, and we strongly oppose any regulatory changes that would limit the ability of states and tribes to protect their own water resources.”

The CWA’s Section 401 outlines states’ and tribes’ role in certifying, denying or limiting federal projects that could impact federal waters in their jurisdiction. Examples of when a Section 401 certification process might happen include the Army Corps of Engineers issuing a Section 404 discharge of dredge or fill material permit or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issuing a natural gas pipeline license.

Over 230 remote participants joined the Section 401 listening session, and more than a dozen people gave prepared testimony. Most who spoke represented environmental- or water quality-focused nonprofits, though there were also a couple state-level officials, lawyers, representatives from industry, and even private citizens.

Section 401 Rules: 2020 vs. 2023

The focus for many commenters boiled down to the so-called 2020 Rule versus the 2023 Rule for Section 401.

In her introductory overview, Lauren Kasparek — Section 401 team lead and biologist in the EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds — explained the 2020 Rule was the first amendment to Section 401 since it was enacted in 1972. The 2023 Rule represented revisions to the 2020 Rule that generally realigned Section 401 implementation with earlier interpretations.

“If you want regulatory certainty, I encourage you not to whipsaw the country back to the 2020 Rule,” advised Kelly Wood, senior counsel with the Washington state attorney general’s office. He urged EPA to look back at the feedback the agency received in lead up to both the 2020 Rule and the 2023 Rule. “People around the country that actually implement Section 401 are almost universally opposed to making sweeping changes. That is for the simple reason that the interpretation of Section 401 that had successfully governed that work without problem or controversy for 50 years prior to the 2020 rule, and was restored in the 2023 rule, simply works. Almost all Section 401 certifications are granted on time, without controversy, without fanfare.”

A common complaint about the 2020 Rule voiced by many commenters was that it limited the role of states and tribes in safeguarding water quality.

“It’s that role specifically granted to states and tribes that’s threatened by the EPA rulemaking contemplated by this administration, just as it was by a similar attempt to limit state and tribal authority in a previous rulemaking by the first Trump administration,” said Nancy Stoner, senior attorney at the nonprofit Environmental Law and Policy Center, in reference to the events that led up to the 2020 Rule.

“At that time, 19 states and D.C. challenged that rule, alleging that it could upend 50 years of cooperative federalism by arbitrarily rewriting EPA’s existing water quality certification regulations to unlawfully curtail state authority under the Clean Water Act,” she added.

Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, also described the 2020 Rule as “grossly illegal” and as having “dramatically weakened state and tribal authority.”

Concerned About States Rights

Many commenters framed potential changes to Section 401 away from the 2023 Rule as a likely states’ rights issue. Jaimie Sigaran, associate director of American Rivers, called it “a bedrock principle of cooperative federalism ,” for example.

“This authority is not just a bureaucratic hurdle; it reflects the delicate constitutional balance between state sovereignty and federal oversight,” he said. “We’ve heard from [EPA Administrator Lee] Zeldin that he emphasizes the importance of state primacy in water issues. He’s advocated for joint federal and state solutions, not federal preemption. So, we need to support this cooperative federalism model.”

Jim Murphy, legal counsel for National Wildlife Federation, also referenced Zeldin and the Trump administration’s stated goals.

“This administration and administrator Zeldin have repeatedly promised that they will provide the cleanest water,” Murphy said. “They have also expressed a desire to return more power to the states to protect their own resources. Leaving the current rule in place will help advance both of these goals.”

Critical Comments on CWA Changes

In addition to offering their recommendations to the EPA, several commenters offered criticism. For some, the stated motivation for the call for comments is a non-issue.

Wood, referencing the nearly five years of litigation following the 2020 rule, said that he has “been struck by what industry has not been able to show here, and that’s any actual harm from the well-established scope of Section 401.”

Stoner offered a similar observation.

“Having read this administration’s criticisms of the 2023 Section 401 rule, I was surprised to see that it doesn’t actually talk about traffic or climate or noise or any of the other broad readings that this administration claims it is used to address,” she said.

For Devine, the whole comment solicitation effort was suspect, characterizing it as disingenuous and a waste of time.

“EPA’s current notice practically begs the polluting industries to give it an excuse to undo the law by submitting any examples of specific legal vulnerabilities, implementation challenges or regulatory uncertainty. This is essentially an admission that the agency has no basis to change the regulation,” he said. “Anyone can see where this is going. No matter how weak the examples industry lobby groups put forward, EPA will likely say that the input it solicited shows that there are concerns with the rule that justify weakening the regulation.”

He added his perspective that, if the 2023 Rule changes or reverts to the 2020 version, the future would also be foreseeable.

“The kinds of changes the EPA’s notice suggests it is considering would make the rule unlawful,” he said. “The final regulations will inevitably be challenged in court, and I fully expect they will be struck down. In the meantime, a bunch of damaging projects will likely barrel forward without adequate protections for state and tribal waters.”

Sen. Ernst Introduces Bill to Bring WOTUS Certainty

Tue, 29 Jul 2025 19:52:50 GMT

On July 23, Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced SB 2421, titled the Clarifying Legal Exclusions Around Regulated (CLEAR) Waters Act . The short bill was cosponsored by six other senate Republicans and seeks to categorically exclude certain types of water bodies from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Given the focus, the bill overlaps with the Waters of the U.S., which is currently being reworked by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.

“I am making it CLEAR that the federal government has no businesses regulating cooling ponds, municipal treatment plants, groundwater and streams that only flow after rainfall under WOTUS,” Ernst says.

The bill , which was referred to the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee, would make the following exclusions to the definition of “navigable waters” within the Clean Water Act:

Any element of a waste treatment system, such as settling lagoons or treatment ponds.
Ephemeral water bodies that flow only after rain.
Groundwater.
“Any other features determined to be excluded by the Administrator and the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.’’

The bill in context

The bill is redundant to many elements of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision , which is directing EPA’s on-going WOTUS rework effort. For example, the 2023 Sacket decision already excludes waste treatment system features like lagoons and treatment ponds.

Though groundwater has not been regulated as navigable waters, EPA notes groundwater “ is often hydrologically connected to navigable waters ” as it relates to carrying pollutants. Under the 2023 Sackett decision, however, groundwater would only count as navigable waters if a groundwater-fed wetland connected to a traditionally navigable water.

Still, agricultural voices have praised the bill. Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Naig, praised Ernst for championing the state’s farmers and businesses for instance.

“This legislation will provide much-needed clarity and consistency when it comes to WOTUS, helping end the constant policy whiplash that changes with each new administration. It’s a common-sense approach that brings certainty to those who are working every day to responsibly manage our land and water.”

WOTUS rework recent action

Agricultural stakeholders have long demanded regulatory certainty around WOTUS and its implementation. This was a resounding theme of listening sessions held by EPA earlier this year .

“By making federal regulation consistent, clear and by leaving room for state primacy in regulating other streams, lakes, wetlands and water features, EPA and the Corps can implement a rule that is both consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions and with Congress’s intent in the Clean Water Act,” said Laura Campbell of Michigan Farm Bureau in the May 1 listening session held for agricultural stakeholders.

EPA has said it expects to release a proposed final WOTUS rule this summer , updating it to correspond with the 2023 Sackett decision. Once released, the rule will be available to the public for comment. The agency expects the new rule will go into effect by the end of 2025.

Though not directly connected to the WOTUS rework effort, EPA has recently put out a call for public comment on challenges stakeholders have had with CWA Section 401 implementation. This deals with individual states’ ability to put limits on certain types of federal action that might impact water quality within their jurisdiction. Interested stakeholders have until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Aug. 6 to submit comments on Regulations.gov or the Federal Register .

USDA Set To Downsize With Reorganization Plan

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 17:43:04 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced July 24 that the USDA would reorganize, representing consolidation and elimination of programs and personnel.

Dubbed the “ USDA Department Reorganization Plan ,” the move will include moving more than half of the agency’s Washington, D.C.-area staff to five different hubs across the country, “refocusing its core operations” on USDA’s founding mission, and reducing overall staff. According to the announcement and plan document, the move is intended to “improve the internal management” of the department.

“Here at USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers,” Rollins wrote Thursday morning on social platform X.

Here @USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers.
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 24, 2025

The reorganization is built around what the agency calls four pillars:

Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with financial resources and priorities.
Bring USDA closer to its customers by relocated resources outside of the national capital region.
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy.
Consolidate support functions.

USDA Workforce Costs and Location Changes

Highlighting the high cost of living in the nation’s capital — where average monthly rent in January 2024 was $2,475, according to real estate and rental search site RedFin — USDA’s reorg seeks to move roughly 2,600 of its current 4,600 D.C.-area personnel to five “hub locations” across the country.

According to the plan document, these locations were selected considering cost of living and “existing concentrations of USDA employees.”

These hubs (and their January 2024 average rent levels) are:

Salt Lake City, Utah ($1,627)
Fort Collins, Colo. ($1,607)
Raleigh, N.C. ($1,371)
Indianapolis, Ind. ($1,265)
Kansas City, Mo. ($1,140)

“In addition to these five hubs, USDA will maintain two additional core administrative support locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Minneapolis, Minnesota,” the reorg plan reads. “USDA will continue to maintain critical service centers and laboratories including agency service centers in St. Louis, Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Missoula, Montana.”

The department says it aims to have no more than 2,000 staff members remain in the National Capital Region.

“The details are still to be determined,” adds Callie Eideberg, a Principal with The Vogel Group. “It will be helpful when we know the pace and cadence of these changes, as that will determine how smooth or chaotic this move will be.”

She agrees that the reorganization could benefit those employees looking for a lower cost of living, but the distance between hubs will make for its own workforce management issues.

“Different administrations have tried, in smaller ways, to move the federal workforce to other regions and they’ve been met with these management obstacles,” adds Eideberg. “Stakeholders, as well, will now need to travel to five different locations around the country to have their conversations with USDA instead of ‘one stop shopping’ in Washington.”

The location changes are not limited to personnel only, however. The physical buildings USDA will be occupying in the capital area will also change. The reorg plan cited costs associated with maintaining and repairing some of the overly large buildings as part of the motivation.

Announced building changes include:

The South Building and Braddock Place facilities will be vacated.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center will be vacated over several years “to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”
George Washington Carver Center, currently being used for area USDA personnel during the reorg, will be sold or transferred eventually.

The department said the Whitten Building will remain the USDA headquarters, and both the Yates Building and the National Agricultural Library “will be retained for use.”

Consolidation and Elimination

Though the reorg document stressed that “USDA is not conducting a large-scale workforce reduction” as part of the change, it also highlighted that the move is part of its ongoing process of reducing its workforce.

“Much of this reduction was through voluntary retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool. As of today, 15,364 individuals voluntarily elected deferred resignation,” the reorg document read.

According to the agency’s own site — both currently and during the previous administration — the USDA has “nearly 100,000 employees.” This makes the stated number of USDA employees who have taken deferred resignation slightly more than 15% of the agency’s overall staff.

Programs within USDA will also be consolidated or eliminated. Those programs and efforts highlighted include:

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will eliminate its area offices, with “residual functions” to be preformed by its Office of National Programs.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will consolidate its current 12 regions into five “over a multi-year period.”
The Food and Nutrition Service will reduce its current seven regions into five, aligned with the five hubs, in the next two years.
The Forest Service will “phase out” its nine regional offices in the coming year. It will maintain a reduced state office in Juneau, Alaska, and consolidate its stand-alone research stations into one in Fort Collins, Colo. It will keep its Fire Sciences Lab and Forest Products Lab.
Most “support functions” previously done within the USDA — such as civil rights functions, Freedom of Information Act responses, IT and HR, legislative and tribal relations, and others — will be moved into other agencies of the federal government in an effort “to reduce duplication” within the department.

The reorg document also notes that it will consolidate grants and financial assistance: “This consolidation will include, where feasible, the transfer of grant making and administration functions from USDA offices and agencies that currently have limited capacity to perform such duties to other offices and agencies.”

Most extension personnel in hub-area institutions whom The Packer reached out to about the potential impacts of the reorg either had not responded as of press time or reported that it is too early to provide any meaningful insight.

The News Service from Colorado State University in Fort Collins said, “CSU is continually tracking changes at the federal level and assessing impact to our work.”

Rollins: Impact in Her Own Words

Midday July 24, Rollins spoke to AgriTalk ‘s Chip Flory to talk about the announcement.

“This is just another step in the implementation of getting the government out of Washington, D.C., and getting it to the people,” she says, adding that the move “will save a lot of money.”

When asked if the existing D.C. staff will make the move to the five hubs or if new personnel will need to be hired in those areas, Rollins says she thinks it will be “half and half.”

“For those that do want to continue leading in the Forest Service or working hard on food stamps or, of course, our key work supporting farmers and ranchers, they’re going to have an amazing opportunity to move to, frankly, a better part of the country,” she says. “Out of Washington, D.C., better quality of life, better cost of living and continue to serve the great people of our country. I think that’s a win-win.”

For those who don’t want to move, she says “there are plenty of opportunities in the private sector.”

Rollins adds that the transition is not going to be easy, but the department is ready to do hard work that will streamline its operations and bring services closer to the communities being served. She gave the example of the Forest Service.

“A lot of people don’t know that the USDA manages all of our national forests. We’ve got 11,000 full-time firefighters on the USDA payroll that are constantly battling our fires and are the frontliners,” she says. “The fact that that leadership is in Washington, D.C., but most of the fires are in the West — that doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t we have the leadership of the Forest Service closer to the fires and the firefighters that they serve?”

EPA Wants to Hear About Section 401 Challenges

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 03:32:56 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to hear from stakeholders about regulatory uncertainty or challenges associated with the certification process under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401.

In its call for comments , EPA says it will use the feedback to determine if an additional guidance or rulemaking is necessary.

The agency is asking specific questions and will accept written comments online through the end of Aug. 6. It will also be holding an online public listening session July 30 where interested stakeholders can give verbal testimony.

CWA’s Section 401 provides for cooperative federalism , allowing states and recognized tribes to certify, deny or put limitations on federal projects that might impact federal waters in their jurisdiction. The call for comments listed Section 404 discharge of dredge or fill material permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and natural gas pipeline licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the most common examples of federal projects where Section 401 certification might be in play.

The EPA is specifically asking stakeholders to comment on the following topics:

The definition of scope of certification in an addendum 2023 rule to CWA’s Section 401 , whether and how states and tribes must demonstrate that their decisions under the section are within the appropriate scope, and if further clarification is needed on the topic.
The definition of “water quality requirements” as it relates to state or tribal certification decisions under Section 401.
How EPA should consider impacts to neighboring jurisdictions’ water quality.
Specific types of activities, geographic regions, types of waterbodies or other types of circumstances that should be included in categorial determinations related to neighboring jurisdiction’s waters.
Their own experiences with the Section 401 certification process since the September 2023 passage of the 2023 rule, particularly related to challenges, areas in need of improvement or greater transparency, positives, best practices or lessons learned.
Examples of application of the 2023 Rule that stakeholders believe exceeded its scope.

Interested stakeholders have until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Aug. 6 to submit comments on Regulations.gov or the Federal Register . Those who wish to attend the virtual July 30 listening session must pre-register for the event , which will be held via Microsoft Teams.

Right to Farm Fight Erupts After Family Ordered to Tear Down Greenhouse

Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:00:04 GMT

Tear down the greenhouse and comply with code — or face regulatory ruin.

On private, unincorporated land flanked by a Rocky Mountain horizon, Jenny Loop broke ground on a greenhouse in June 2024. At the cusp of completion in 2025, officials in Teller County, Colorado, shut her down, citing a breach of code.

Loop is unbowed: “They use regulations like a battering ram, but they’re not above state law. Our state’s Farm Stand Act of 2019 gives me the right to operate.”

The right to farm is yesterday’s footnote, but zoning regulations reign supreme, according to the county.

Knock on the Door
The public saw bare shelves. Jenny Loop saw opportunity.

In 2021, during the Covid era, Loop stared at empty grocery store racks and responded with a self-reliant remedy. “I decided to build a greenhouse on our property. As a little girl, I learned from my grandfather to tend a garden. Grow and share — that’s what he taught me.”

At 9,200’ in elevation, outside Divide, Colo., Loop, 36, and her husband, Zach, 40, along with two sons (10 and 11) and two daughters (twins, 19), have four acres of unincorporated and unannexed ground. Loop owns a mortgage brokerage; Zach owns a tractor dealership and mobile repair company.

Loop’s back-yard view: “Out of the city limits and on our own land,” she says. “We sure weren’t bothering anyone.”

(Photo courtesy of Loop family)

Their greenhouse plan was a family affair: “It was a huge 4-H and FFA opportunity for our boys,” Loop says. “There’s also a young entrepreneurship program at our farmer’s market. The kids planned ahead and took online marketing classes to get ready.”

“The more I talked with neighbors and friends, the more excited I got,” she continues. “Fresh produce at a reasonable price is exactly what our county needs. Our state imports 70% of its food, and locally something as simple as heirloom tomatoes can run $7 per pound. A single kiwi can be $3.”

Intending to grow cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms, and kiwis behind her home, Loop began building a 168’ long (2,800 square feet) greenhouse in June 2024, aiming to maximize space via 40 hydroponic towers—each potentially producing 400-600 lb. of tomatoes, according to her projections.

“Work hard, grow our own food, supply a serious need in our community, and teach our kids along the way,” Loop summarizes. “Out of the city limits and on our own land. We sure weren’t bothering anyone.”

And then came a knock on the door from a county code enforcement official: What are you building?

Green Light?
Loop hid nothing, she insists.

“I was proud and excited. I told the county officer exactly what I was building and why.”

Initially, the officer told Loop a permit was required for greenhouse construction.

One-two punch of stop-work-orders issued to Loop roughly a month apart.

(Photo by Loop family)

“I showed him the agricultural definitions in county code that stated a permit wasn’t required. This was agricultural, as in attempting to grow with intent of profit. Right then, from the start, the county knew I’d be selling crops.”

(Teller County officials did not respond to Agweb interview requests regarding Loop’s greenhouse.)

Loop cited Section R105 Permits R105.2, Work exempt from permit … 12. Agricultural buildings that meet all the following: (a) are used solely for the agricultural uses that are the basis for the property being classified as agricultural land by the County Assessor, (b) are not used for residential purposes, such as storing household items, personal vehicles, etc., and (c) meet the setback requirements of the Land Use Regulations that would apply were a building permit required. Although no permit for such buildings is required, all construction is required to follow all current building codes in place.

“The officer gave me a green light, but said I’d need to get a permit for the electricity when I put in electricity. Absolutely.”

Fast forward a year into May 2025. Loop obtained an electrical permit. The greenhouse was near completion, almost ready for installation of a fan-circulation system. “Teller County then came out for inspection and put a stop-work-order on me,” Loop recounts. “I’d spent $150,000 and was on my own land, out in the county, and about to meet a genuine food need. But none of that mattered. Only the regulations mattered.”

Tomato Crimes?
Thus began a hamster wheel of appeals, letters, and meetings.

“They pulled the stop work order knowing I needed a profit for an FSA application. I got the stop work order pulled and we put in $15,000 worth of electricity. They came and inspected that, and once again, they hit me with a second stop work order,” Loop recalls. “That was the bottom line —they would find a way to block our greenhouse, no matter what hoops we jumped through. Literally, you have to appeal to basically the same people that say you’re in violation to begin with.”

“That was the bottom line—they would find a way to block our greenhouse, no matter what hoops we jumped through,” Loop says.

(Photo courtesy of Loop family)

“I showed county officials their own code definition: ‘Agricultural land is located in an incorporated or unincorporated area (without regard to zoning),’ but they didn’t seem to know what I was talking about. I met with Planning Director Dan Swallow and he was completely dismissive. I was treated awfully in front of my kids and he didn’t want to hear a word.”

On June 17, Teller County sent Loop a letter listing her violations: Your property is classified as residential by the Teller County Assessor. This classification disqualifies you from the agricultural exemption from building permits.

“The permit isn’t the problem,” Loop details. “I have applied for the permit and they denied the permit too, citing zoning for commercial use. I can have the building if I don’t sell, but even if I say I wont sell, they still won’t give me the permit.”

“That’s it, according to the county,” she continues. “They said my appeal privileges were over and to tear down the structure. They sent another letter in July from Swallow and it included all the ways they could ruin me with penalties, take me to county and district court, and count every single day I’m in violation as a separate offense.”

And all stemming from the crime of attempting to grow tomatoes in a greenhouse beyond code — an agricultural action, Loop insists, that is protected by an overriding authority: The Farm Stand Act.

Word Games
Regardless of county codes, regulations, or rules, Loop cites an agricultural trump card as her greenhouse protection. Specifically, Colorado’s Farm Stand Act , passed in 2019: Concerning the ability of a farm stand to be operated on a principal use site of any sized land area regardless of whether the site has been zoned by a local government for agricultural operations.

“I’d spent $150,000 and was on my own land, out in the county, and about to meet a genuine food need. But none of that mattered. Only the regulations mattered.”

(Photo courtesy of Loop family)

The Act’s final paragraph is particularly explicit, she says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a farm stand may be located on a parcel of any size. The retail sale of goods to the public by a farm stand must include goods or other agricultural products that are grown or produced on the principal use site on which the farm stand is located or may include agricultural products resulting from the agricultural operation that not conducted on the principal use sit to the extent permitted by the applicable local government. Nothing in this Article 31 prohibits a local government from requiring the operator of a farm stand to obtain a valid license or permit or to comply with any other applicable laws prior to operating the farm stand but in no way shall such local permitting, licensing, or other applicable legal requirements deny the use of the site as described in this section.

“I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t have to play word games to understand what the Act says. The county has no way around the text, other to pretend I don’t have a farm stand. However, my greenhouse is a dual farm stand — a place to sell and grow, and I’m protected by this very state law.”

Regulation and Reason
How did Teller County respond to Loop’s assertions regarding the Farm Stand Act?

“They told me they ‘didn’t have to follow state law’ in this case,” Loop contends. “I asked, ‘Why?’ and they still haven’t given me a response because they know there’s not a straight answer. State law supersedes county regulations and they know it.”

Colorado State Senator Mark Baisley , representing eight counties, including Teller County, has taken interest in Loop’s case. Baisley has spoken with all three county commissioners, the county attorney, the Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services, and Capitol attorneys regarding Right to Farm.

In an email statement to Agweb, Baisley states his support of Loop and the Farm Stand Act. He references the aforementioned final paragraph: “My advice to Ms. Loop is that she attempt to resolve the matter informally with the County directly or obtain legal counsel to assert the position that her property meets the description of a farm stand and ‘IN NO WAY SHALL SUCH LOCAL PERMITTING, LICENSING, OR OTHER APPLICABLE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS DENY THE USE OF THE SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION.’”

“In the end, I hope for a positive outcome for Ms. Loop,” Baisley adds. “She has invested a tremendous amount of treasure and energy into this entrepreneurial dream.”

“They use regulations like a battering ram, but they’re not above state law,” Loop contends. “Our state’s Farm Stand Act of 2019 gives me the right to operate.”

(Photo courtesy of Loop family)

Teller County’s reaction to Loop’s greenhouse comes with a heavy dose of irony, she believes. On page 14 of the county’s 15-year Strategic Plan 2021-2036 , the report lists a particularly relevant “anticipated” need: Financial support to implement programs that support healthy eating, active living for aging senior population.

“You gotta be kidding. How ironic can you get?” Loop exclaims. “It’s in black-and-white in their own plan. They’re concerned about getting finances to boost healthy eating. In reality, they don’t have to find the funding. I’ve already paid for it myself, but look how I’m being treated for daring to supply my community with food.”

What happens next?

If necessary, Loop intends to fight in court. “I’m up against unreal power, but I’m willing to fight for several reasons. One, my family and I want to provide vegetables to our community at scale — something that hasn’t been done around here since about 1930. Two, I want to bring attention to this overregulation so it helps someone else down the road. Regulation shouldn’t override basic reason.”

Loop’s legal fight includes a GoFundMe account : “If I have to go to court, then that’s what I’ll do,” she concludes. “I have the right on my own land to both grow and sell crops.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:
County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

City Gov to Seize 175-Year-Old Farm by Eminent Domain, Replace with Affordable Housing

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Sisters of Farm Fraud: How 4 Siblings Fleeced USDA for $10M

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

IFPA Urges MAHA to Increase Nation's Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Fri, 18 Jul 2025 19:11:53 GMT

The Make America Healthy Again Commission is one of President Donald Trump’s focus efforts. However, there has been a disconnect between the stated goals of the commission and its actions. But a focus on fresh produce could help.

On July 15, the International Fresh Produce Association issued a letter containing 10 recommendations that the association says offer proven strategies to reduce diet-related disease and improve public health.

The 10 recommendations are:

Make produce prescriptions a covered benefit within the health system
Improve transparency in food labeling, especially as it relates to fruits and vegetables
Expand financial incentives for fruit and vegetable purchases
Expand the fresh fruit and vegetable program (FFVP)
Modernize USDA purchasing programs to expand fresh produce purchases
Increase fruit and vegetable access for SNAP recipients
Enhance data collection for federal nutrition programs
Support access to safe crop protection tools
Invest in specialty crop research and innovation
Incentivize regenerative agriculture practices

“For too long, our nation has fallen short of consuming the recommended daily amounts of fruits and vegetables, resulting in serious public health consequences,” says IFPA CEO Cathy Burns, who called on the MAHA Commission for a bold, coordinated strategy to increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Robert Kennedy Jr., the MAHA Commission chair and Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, says one of the commission’s and HHS’ top priorities is to end chronic disease, highlighting diet-related illness diabetes. According to the CDC, roughly half of Americans have diabetes or prediabetes .

However, recent MAHA Commission action has included initiatives such as removing artificial food dyes from processed foods.

“If you look at what the MAHA leadership has prioritized to date, while they reference whole foods, there hasn’t been a true championing of fresh fruits and vegetables,” says Mollie Van Lieu, IFPA’s vice president of nutrition and health.

“If we’re going to address those underlying prevalent conditions, we’re going to need to do more than take artificial food dyes out of food.”

Nutrition-focused recommendations

The food-as-medicine mentality is a common one among Americans, and fresh produce can be just what the doctor ordered. If the doctor can order it, that is.

IFPA’s first recommendation to the MAHA Commission is to make “produce prescriptions” more widespread in the U.S. healthcare system.

“There are a handful of states that have what are called Medicaid 1115 waivers, where they can incorporate food as medicine strategies, including produce prescriptions,” Van Lieu explains. She adds that there has been a lot of success in states that have offered produce prescription programs.

“Our ask in general is that the federal government and HHS make produce prescriptions a standard practice of clinical care,” she says. “The onus wouldn’t be solely on the states to do this if that happens.”

Another of IFPA’s asks is to improve labeling related to fruit and vegetable content. Pointing to the recent front-of-package nutritional label summary proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Van Lieu says IFPA would like to see that and more.

“We would like to see that taken one step forward to disclosure of meaningful amounts of fruits and vegetables,” she says. “One only needs to go through the grocery store to find a ton of products that are implying significant inclusion of fruits and vegetables, either in their name, their description or the imaging.”

Those implications are often not accurate, particularly when snack foods are involved, she says. IFPA wants labeling that would list, “in normal household measurements,” how much fruit and/or vegetables are in products making such claims.

“We want to ensure transparency with consumers and that is something the MAHA Commission has said they want — radical transparency — and we think this [recommendation] fits in with that nicely,” she says.

SNAP, Medicaid, and the OBBB

Most of the nutritional recommendations focused on nutrition and federal levers of food and nutritional support. These included the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, and the National School Lunch Program. IFPA called these proven programs that show “that when access improves, consumption increases.”

However, these programs and Medicaid saw steep cuts with the passage of H.R.1 — the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Van Lieu says it is hard to say what the implications of Medicaid cuts might be for the produce industry at this point. But for SNAP, she says, “I think it’s logical to think that if people have fewer dollars to spend on food, there’s a real chance that fresh produce may be impacted.”

Nonetheless, she says IFPA feels its SNAP- and Medicaid-related recommendations are workable and pragmatic. Still, the association is watching the issue of school meal access in the wake of H.R.1’s passage.

“One of the main implications that we are watching is — because individuals are expected to lose their eligibility for the Medicaid or SNAP programs — what happens in the state structure for how meals are determined.”

Van Lieu explains that in the past decade, eligibility for the school lunch program became tied to SNAP or Medicaid participation.

“If a family qualifies for snap or Medicaid, there’s automatic eligibility for school meals,” she says of many states. “So, there is a concern there about losing access to school meals.”

Grower-focused recommendations

The IFPA recommendations also include produce grower-focused issues.

“To deliver on our shared goal of transforming the American diet, any policy framework must ensure that resources, incentives and regulations are appropriately aligned with the dynamic structure of fresh produce production,” the letter reads.

The recommendations call for increased funding for things like crop protection tools and research funding for specialty crop growers. The OBBB increased funding to programs like this and more, but there’s more that needs to be done according to Sara Neagu Reed, IFPA’s director of production and environmental policy.

“It is vital that the administration continue to utilize the funds appropriated by Congress for these purposes to support work happening at USDA-ARS, and the necessary staffing at EPA-OPP,” she says. “Unfortunately, we’ve had months of uncertainty regarding the continuation of this work both through USDA-NIFA and ARS. Additionally, NIFA has yet to release a Request for Proposals for programs that have been appropriated funds. These funds will be lost if not allocated before the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30).”

In the spirit of continued growth into the future, the last IFPA recommendation deals with regenerative agriculture practices.

Neagu Reed says this recommendation was included to reflect the fresh produce industry’s focus on regenerative ag, something IFPA defines as: “A holistic farming approach that aims to restore and enhance the natural resources of agro-ecosystems while supporting the long-term health and viability of agricultural businesses and communities. The foundation of this farming system is the integrated management of soil health, biodiversity, water resources, human health and climate.”

Some of IFPA’s recommendations for how the federal government could incentivize regenerative ag practices in specialty crop growers include:

Voluntary, incentive-based support that recognizes the diversity of needs that come with the wide variety of specialty crops
Direct financial incentives, such as a federal cost-share system or grant programs, that help offset the costs of transitioning to regenerative practices
Targeted, technical assistance and extension services that involve technical experts who understand the fresh produce industry and the specific crops
Increased funding for research and data collection on regenerative practices as they impact specialty crops specifically

Neagu Reed notes that there are some current programs that could be expanded to support regenerative practices, such as the USDA’s Advancing Markets for Producers (previously called Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities) and NRCS conservation programs.

“These already offer frameworks and funding for soil health, water efficiency and conservation practices,” says Neagu Reed of the NRCS programs. “However, these programs often aren’t tailored enough to the diverse, high-value crops in fresh produce.”

To make those programs more specialty crop-friendly, she says they need to take into account the crop rotation, scale and intensity of specialty crop operations, as well as ensuring program staff are trained in specialty crop systems.

“At the core of the MAHA Commission’s work is the understanding that healthy people need healthy food — and that starts with healthy farms,” Neagu Reed says. “Fresh produce is the most nutrient-dense category in the American diet, but without policies that support the viability and sustainability of growing it, we risk falling short of our national nutrition and health goals.”

IFPA launches new campaign along with recommendations

A day after it issued its recommendations letter, IFPA launched the complementary “ Fresh Produce for a Healthier America ” campaign. According to the association, the D.C.-area digital campaign is “spotlighting fruits and vegetables as nature’s original prescription for better health, lower healthcare costs and longer lives.”

“For too long, fruits and vegetables have been the quiet, essential workhorses of public health,” says IFPA CEO Cathy Burns. “This campaign reminds us of a truth we’ve always known: Nutrition is the foundation of prevention, and produce is an undeniable cornerstone to any wellness plan.”

She continues, saying of the campaign, “This is a call to action to invest in the farmers, programs and policies that make fresh produce accessible and affordable for every American — because you can’t make America healthy again without fruits and vegetables.”

Comment Period Nears Close on EPA's Proposed Residue Levels

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:48:14 GMT

On May 22, the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a proposed rule that would, among other things, increase the residue tolerance levels for several pesticides used in various fresh produce crops. Public comments can be submitted on this proposed rule by 11:59 p.m. Eastern on July 21.

The EPA says in its proposed rule that the changes may affect those involved with crop production and/or pesticide manufacturing.

Along with some housekeeping-style changes, the proposed rule would increase residue tolerance levels for certain pesticide/crop combinations, including:

Diflubenzuron (an insecticide) in mushrooms from 0.2 parts per million to 8 ppm, as well as shifting crop categories related to brassica leafy greens and setting a 10 ppm tolerance for the group (up from 9 ppm in most cases).
Flutolanil (a fungicide) in turnip greens and other brassica leafy greens from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 ppm.

Other changes in the proposed rule include shifting category definitions for certain crops and changing language related to crops and crop products for clarity and ease of use. For example, the proposed rule would replace older language “Apple from preharvest or postharvest use, including use of impregnated wraps” to simply “apple” in relevant regulatory language .

Interested members of the public can submit comments on this proposed rule online at Regulations.gov or at the Federal Register .

Rising Ag Tides Lift Fertilizer Boats

Mon, 14 Jul 2025 18:57:15 GMT

Many sectors of the agricultural world have had a lot to celebrate in the passage of House Resolution 1 , often called the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The fertilizer industry was no different, though it was not the direct focus of the bill’s agricultural elements.

“Any results that are positive for farmers typically bring a boost to the nutrient markets in terms of further buying of nitrogen, phosphate and potash supply,” says Mark Milam, fertilizer specialist and editor at Independent Commodity Intelligence Service. He notes the fertilizer industry at large has not immediately reacted to the passage of H.R.1, but that he expects the next round of demand will emerge after crops are harvested in the coming weeks.

“Policies that provide for industry growth, expansion and innovation are critical for the continued success of the U.S. fertilizer industry,” says Corey Rosenbusch, The Fertilizer Institute’s president and CEO.

“Our competitiveness on the global level comes in part from certainty and the ability to plan and invest in the future,” he adds. “The tax policies included within this legislation will allow our industry to continue providing our farmers with the crop nutrients they need to grow the food that feeds our country.”

Primary among those tax policies were:

Making the 20% deduction for pass-through business income permanent
Increased manufacturing investment credit from 25% to 35%
Making permanent the Opportunity Zone program for rural communities
Farm program funding for reference pricing, crop insurance, price loss coverage and agricultural risk coverage

Milam notes, among other things, that the bill raises reference prices under the Price Loss Coverage program and the Agricultural Risk Coverage program, and that crop insurance programs would see about $6.3 billion in increased spending.

“There is sentiment this commitment by the federal government will help improve crop prices, bring about more affordable crop insurance and improvements to livestock disaster program,” he says. “When evaluating the new bill, U.S. farmers certainly would be deemed as having a favorable outcome as it is estimated it will provide as much as $68.3 billion in spending for farmer programs over 10 years.”

Your next reads:

Public Comments Open on USDA’s NEPA Cuts

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 20:28:06 GMT

USDA has proposed sweeping cuts in how it implements a law requiring public participation in its environmental actions. And the public can comment on it.

On July 3, USDA published a proposed interim final rule in the Federal Register that will change how the agency implements the National Environmental Policy Act . The move will drastically cut NEPA regulations from USDA processes.

Very generally, the proposed changes alter how and when USDA and its agencies can conduct environmental assessments, when environmental impact statements must be issued, and how they can be dealt with. These include extensive rescinding of NEPA regulations from USDA agency actions and making several USDA agencies mostly to entirely exempt from NEPA regulations.

The public can submit comments on the move via the Federal Register or Regulations.gov through July 30.

What’s behind these NEPA changes

NEPA is one of the oldest comprehensive environmental regulations in the U.S., signed into law Jan. 1, 1970. It requires federal entities to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed actions, document their findings and make them available for public comment.

But the requirements have long been criticized for leading to endless litigation.

“USDA is updating and modernizing NEPA so projects critical to the health of our forests and prosperity of rural America are not stymied and delayed for years,” says U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in a June 30 news release ahead of the proposed interim final rule being published. She characterizes NEPA as an overly burdensome regulation. USDA describes its proposed changes as “resulting in a 66% reduction in regulations.”

USDA isn’t the only department making such moves, however. The Department of Transportation , Department of Energy , Department of Defense , and many others announced similar proposals. The different departments used similar language, describing the changes as “cutting red tape” and likely to minimize time-consuming litigation over agency projects.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm frequently involved in NEPA-related lawsuits, characterizes the moves as cutting the public out of the federal decision-making process, however.

“NEPA — the People’s Environmental Law — plays a vital role in ensuring that government decisions are transparent, well-informed and accountable to the public,” says Andre Segura, Earthjustice vice president of litigation.

The government-wide moves to change how NEPA is implemented in federal departments are the result of several recent legislative and regulatory changes:

The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 , in part, amended how NEPA should be implemented.
President Donald Trump’s Unleashing American Energy executive order directed the Council on Environmental Quality to provide guidance on how departments and agencies should implement some parts of NEPA and rescind others.
On Feb. 19, the CEQ issued a guidance memorandum directing federal agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures “to expedite permitting approvals” and to be consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

USDA change details

USDA’s proposed changes include the agency-wide removal of several sections of NEPA ( 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 ). These sections deal with definitions, purpose and scope, compliance details, dispute resolution processes and decision-making processes among other topics.

These sections also include removal of some public comment elements. For example, Part 1503 outlines that draft environmental impact statements be made available to the public and appropriate stakeholders for comment. The proposed changes would alter this requirement, noting: “…a request for comment may be undertaken at any time that is reasonable in the process of preparing an EIS, as the publication of a draft EIS is no longer required.”

The changes also note that obtaining and addressing comments must not extend the new EIS deadlines outlined in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

The proposed changes also remove various NEPA regulations from specific USDA agencies . Some agencies, such as the Agriculture Research Service, are being made exempt from NEPA regulations entirely with minor exceptions.

Examples of change topics of note from USDA’s proposed changes:

Applicability of NEPA: “NEPA does not apply to “non-Federal actions”; therefore, under the terms of the statute, NEPA does not apply to actions with no or minimal federal funding, or with no or minimal federal involvement where a federal agency cannot control the outcome of the proposal.”
Scope of significance in environmental effects: “When defining considerations for significance, USDA is using the concept of “affected environment” and a list of types of effects that include both short- and long-term effects, both beneficial and adverse effects, effects on public health and safety, economic effects, and effects on the quality of life of the American people.”
Notice-and-comment procedures are not required: “…although USDA is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, it has determined that notice-and-comment procedures prior to issuance are not required [for agency NEPA reviews].”

Proposed Final WOTUS Rule Coming This Summer

Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:24:09 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army announced June 17 that the groups expect to issue a final Waters of the U.S. that will bring it in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision by the end of 2025.

The announcement came in the wake of nine listening sessions the groups conducted to get input from key stakeholders. Those listening sessions included one that sought comments from the state level and another that focused on industries including agriculture .

“When it comes to the definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ EPA has an important responsibility to protect water resources while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and opportunity,” says EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. “These listening sessions gave us real-world perspectives as we work toward a proposed rule that follows the Supreme Court decision in Sackett, ends the regulatory uncertainty and ping-pong that has persisted for years, supports our nation’s farmers who feed and fuel the world, and advances the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback initiative.”

During the state-level listening session, commentors stressed the need for cooperative federalism and flexibility. During the industry-focused listening session, those representing agricultural interests frequently echoed the need for a predictable, understandable definition that is consistently enforced.

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a key role in implementing the Clean Water Act. The importance of input from all our stakeholders including landowners, local governments, the states, Tribes and others is critical to how we undertake our statutory responsibilities,” says Lee Forsgren, acting assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “We understand the importance of communication and appreciate the feedback we received as we move forward together with EPA on this important effort.”

What’s coming for WOTUS

EPA’s press office tells The Packer the agencies expect a proposed final rule will be issued in the coming months during the summer. This proposed rule will be available on the Federal Register .

“Once proposed, EPA and Army will open a public comment period, review comments and finalize a rule. Per typical agency practice, public comments would be submitted to the rulemaking docket, including via Regulations.gov ,” the EPA press office says.

The process of reviewing public comment can take some time, particularly on regulations that come with as much public attention as WOTUS. The EPA press office noted that it received over 45,000 letters submitted via the recommendations docket that was open alongside the listening sessions, for example.

The agencies said they intend to issue a final rule by the end of 2025 after the public input is reviewed.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office says.

More information about WOTUS can be found online . Interested members of the public can also subscribe to specific agencies on the Federal Register to be alerted when new documents for public comment are available.

Senate Ag Committee Pens Windfall Funding to Specialty Crops

Fri, 13 Jun 2025 13:33:25 GMT

On June 11, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry released its legislative text for the budget reconciliation bill . The expansive text covers numerous topics, including funding changes to crop insurance, livestock programs and several ag-focused grants, as well as extensive changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel and fiber in the world,” says Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., in a news release. “It’s an investment in rural America and the future of agriculture

For the fresh produce industry, there were some considerable investments in the draft text.

“The specialty crop research initiative funding was up from its current $80 million a year to $175 million a year,” Kam Quarles, National Potato Council CEO, tells The Packer. “That is very significant for the fruit and vegetable industry widely.”

Quarles also cites the increases in the Pest and Disease Program funding — $90 million annually starting in 2026, up from $75 million currently — and to the Specialty Block Grant program — $100 million annually in 2026, up from $85 million currently — as being essential to the specialty crop industry. Additionally, the limitation on adjusted gross income was eliminated if 75% or more income is derived from farming

“We are grateful to Chairman Boozman and his staff for advancing these vital investments in specialty crops,” the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance said in a news release.

“Our message today is simple: Any Congressional investment in American agriculture must include specialty crops,” the release continues. “America’s specialty crop growers confront a host of unprecedented challenges. Rising input costs, limited access to labor, unfair trade practices, disruptions to foreign markets and natural disasters ranging from flood to drought all impede the competitiveness of these family farms. Nothing short of the survival of our domestic industry is at stake.”

Reconciliation vs Farm Bill

While the U.S. is waiting on a new farm bill, many elements that might have gone into a farm bill are making their way into the reconciliation bill.

“Chairman Thompson was playing the hand that he was dealt in terms of reconciliation versus the traditional farm bill process,” says Quarles about Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture. “Chairman Bozeman is doing the exact same thing, and we are very happy that both sides of Congress have included these important investments for specialty crops.”

There is still work to be done, however, according to the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance.

“Senate rules prohibit the inclusion of some innovative policy initiatives we proposed, such as investments in mechanization and automation, and reforms to crop insurance to provide many of our growers with an affordable and effective safety net for the first time,” according to the alliance.

Quarles explains that the reconciliation bill process only allows for funding changes, not the creation of new funding programs; that requires a full farm bill. But both the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance and the National Potato Council, which is a member of the alliance, thanked both ag committee chairmen for their efforts.

“No subsection of agriculture has gone through more change and volatility since the last farm bill was signed than specialty crops,” Quarles says. “Waiting around for a new farm bill has been very challenging for producers, and we are very happy to see both chairmen taking that seriously and investing in this part of the U.S. ag industry.”

Research is American produce’s path forward

Investing in research is extremely important to the future of the produce industry, Quarles stresses.

“The innovation that goes on through public private partnerships in research in the United States is what is going to keep us competitive into the future,” he says. “In terms of our global competitiveness, it’s going to be those type of research investments that keep us in the game and hopefully winning that game.”

He acknowledges research is often time-consuming, complicated, expensive and often so technical as to be out of mind for a lot of people, but the benefits are key. He cites novel potato varieties that are more durable, heartier and consume fewer resources developed with public-private partnerships as an example of the value of research.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that we are going to be one of the highest-cost production areas on the globe for a very long time,” Quarles says. “But we are going to remain competitive through these types of high-risk, high-reward research innovations that are able to prepare our producers forward even when others have the tailwind of low-cost labor or lower environmental regulations.”

“It’s our innovation that’s going to keep us front and center,” he adds.

Public comment period open for new nutrition label

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:28:24 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently proposed a new front-of-package nutrition label. The proposed label would give consumers of packaged foods a quick-glance shorthand for how a product compares nutritionally. The proposal is open for public comment through the Federal Register through July 15.

The new label would list the serving size — the daily value percentage of saturated fats, sodium and added sugars — and rank those three elements as low, medium or high.

“The proposed rule would provide consumers, including those who have lower nutrition knowledge, with interpretive nutrition information that can help them quickly and easily identify how foods can be part of a healthy diet,” the FDA wrote in its call for comments.

The proposed new label would apply to foods that must currently carry the full nutrition facts label. It would also make slight changes to the wording of certain phrases on the full nutrition facts label.

Public comments can be submitted in the following ways:

Online at Regulations.gov or the Federal Register
Hard copy by mail, addressed to Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

Comments will be accepted through July 15 at 11:59 pm EDT. All comments will be published in the final docket as submitted and be publicly available unless commenters follow the instructions for submitting confidential comments, available at the online comment opportunities.

NCAE advocates for end to regulatory red tape

Tue, 27 May 2025 14:57:42 GMT

The National Council of Agricultural Employers says it recently shared comments on seven regulatory roadblocks that impede U.S. farmers and ranchers’ ability to achieve and sustain the American dream. The remarks come as a Department of Justice task force seeks suggestions to unearth anticompetitive regulations.

“Over the past four years, America’s farm and ranch families have found themselves drowning in a turbulent regulatory sea,” Michael Marsh, NCAE president and CEO, said in a letter to Abigail Slater, assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s antitrust division. “Many of these were promulgated by federal regulators who were seduced by special interest groups which aim to weaken American families, businesses and the American economy.”

Marsh warned in the letter that these regulations have resulted in more family farms and ranches going out of business, which impacts the availability of U.S.-grown food in grocery stores. Marsh cited an 18-month period where agricultural businesses had to incorporate more than 3,000 pages of new federal government requirements.

“Over the past four years, the disdainful tenor used throughout the promulgation of many of these regulations make it clear that their promulgation is a direct result of the regulatory capture as described in the task force’s statement,” Marsh said.

In soliciting stakeholder comments , the DOJ’s Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force said it will support deregulation initiatives of agencies for regulations that pose the greatest barriers to economic growth, NCAE said.

In the letter, the trade organization focused on agricultural employers’ labor issues said it advocated for the examination, withdrawal or rescission of regulations including the Department of Labor’s Adverse Effect Wage Rate, as well as the Labor Department’s Worker Protection Rule and the H-2A Program Rule; the Department of Homeland Security’s Asylum Fee Rule, as well as the DHS Worker Protection Rule; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Walkaround Rule and the OSHA Heat Rule.

“Rather than resulting in any benefit to American farmers and ranchers, American workers or American taxpayers, the point of the regulations seems merely to create more paperwork for employers to file and federal employees to push from desk to desk, while simultaneously increasing compliance costs, reducing efficiency, and crippling America’s competitiveness in the marketplace,” NCAE said in the letter. “For American agriculture to remain competitive at home and in foreign markets, this cannot continue.”

MAHA report spurs fresh look at diet

Wed, 21 May 2025 21:07:50 GMT

Today’s release of a report by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) commission, led by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has raised awareness about the potential contributors to chronic illness in American children.

Among the possible culprits identified: processed foods, chemical exposure, stress and the overprescription of medications and vaccines.

Will Clower, a neuroscientist and CEO of Mediterranean Wellness , where Clower works with companies to improve the well-being of their employees, believes this is an important time to focus on local and regional foods, produce in particular.

For many regions — the Mediterranean, in particular — this is nothing new. In countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain, fresh fruits and vegetables have always been the foundation of a healthy, flavorful diet, free from additives and synthetic shortcuts.

Clower believes this shift away from synthetic dyes offers a pivotal opportunity for the produce industry. By embracing lessons from regions where fresh food has always been the foundation, growers and retailers can lead the way in offering the authentic, additive-free nourishment naturally found in fresh produce.

In a conversation with The Packer, Clower emphasizes the importance of eating real, whole foods and returning to the family table, noting locally grown produce is fresher, tastes better and offers higher nutritional value.

Mediterranean Wellness CEO Will Clower shares how cultures centered around fresh produce offer valuable lessons for the future of clean-label eating.

(Photo courtesy of Will Clower)

The Packer: Tell us about your background and what led to your consulting business promoting healthy eating.

Clower: In my previous life, I was a neuroscience Ph.D. researcher, and my first position was at the Cognitive Science Institute in Lyon, France, where I was introduced to this culture of health.

In France, the people are thinner, they’re healthier, so as a behavioral neuroscientist, I wanted to know what the behaviors were that led to the outcome. So I wrote books to explain how healthy cultures can enjoy their rich, healthy foods while maintaining low weight, healthy hearts and longer lives.

When I returned home [to the U.S.], I wanted to find the success behind their lifestyle — to share what they do to get those results. But we don’t live there, and we don’t have their culture, their relaxed atmosphere — and we don’t have access to all of those things. So I decided to share that this is accessible if you abstract it into principles [that people can follow anywhere].

One of those principles is to ‘eat food.’ If it isn’t food, don’t eat it. When you look around the planet, there are lots of different approaches, whether it’s the Mediterranean diet, Asian diet, Norwegian … all of these people, all of them, eat everything that they want, but everything that they eat is real food. It grew. It was part of the food chain. It’s real food.

From a physiological point of view, the reason that makes sense is that we, as a species, have a relationship with the things that grow on this planet. Our body does, and that relationship is eons. We are who we are because of that relationship with our food. This physiology, it knows carrots, it knows onions. It knows fish. It has never known hydrogenated oil.

So the bizarre assortment of preservatives, stabilizers and chemicals that give our food its shelf life is not food. When we think about the movement to take out preservatives and synthetic colors, these artificial products from our foods, it’s a welcome change because we’re getting back to something that we used to know that our own culture of health has since forgotten.