Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Agriculture

DC-based think tank warns US gov’t failing to prioritize food security while China ramps up efforts

Published

9 months ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By J.M. Phelps

The Biden administration has incentivized many farmers to reprioritize the use of their land away from cultivating it for food production.

The United States government and the Chinese Communist Party see “national security” in two very different ways – and that includes food security.

Historically, the CCP has been known to weaponize its food supply, which it has done against millions of its own citizens, resulting in mass starvation and suffering. But today, it appears the communist government is stockpiling food, indeed, making it a major national security priority for its people. Why?

Tommy Waller, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Center for Security Policy, says most Americans do not understand that “food security is national security”. And that currently, the safety of American citizens is, indeed, being jeopardized by the U.S. government. The retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, in an interview with WND, explained that “at the federal level, our nation has catastrophically failed to prioritize food security while all of our adversaries, both hostile nations and globalists, have had their crosshairs on food for quite a while.”

For example, Waller said, in stark contrast to “having no problem starving its own people,” the Chinese government has an entire agency called the National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration. It is largely responsible for laws and regulations that oversee grain and material reserves of the East Asian country.

In statistics often touted by members of the Chinese regime, Waller said, “China’s grain inventories are so abundant that the stock-to-use ratio is well above the international grain security threshold.”

“The U. S. government has not put a major priority on food security or preparedness,” Waller warned. In contrast to the Chinese regime’s prioritizing strategic reserves of food, he told WND, “under the Biden administration, the USDA and FEMA have transitioned from a culture of preparedness to priorities of diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – and climate change.”

“Less than two percent of our population produces food for everybody else in this country,” Waller noted. “The average American isn’t prepared to go without food for any duration, so you can see the importance of keeping our farmers farming.”

“Take away farming and you take away food,” he said starkly, while warning that the average person is extremely unprepared for shortages of food. “They just take it for granted, and it’s understandable because we’ve always had it very easy in this country,” Waller said, but warning about one scenario in which Americans could find themselves hungry right away: “That number one scenario is a loss of electricity caused by widespread electric grid blackouts.”

Waller’s interest in food security, he said, steadily grew due to his work to secure America’s electric grid. “All of the infrastructure we have is dependent upon electricity,” he said. “When considering the second and third order effects of electric grid outages, you can see how food becomes a very significant item of importance.”

“Most Americans don’t think twice about paying for home insurance, automobile insurance, life insurance, but for whatever reason, they don’t think about food insurance,” Waller told WND. “They don’t think about stocking up.”

While the federal government may be failing to stress the importance of preparedness, Waller attests that food security “is the one area where individual people and their communities could actually enhance national security,” adding that the lack of preparedness is “a fixable problem, if we are smart about our policies and more.”

In a 41-page report, the Center for Security Policy has published recommendations to bolster food security at the federal, state, local and individual level. With little action at the federal level, he said, it is important for Americans to do what they can at the state and local, as well as individual levels.

For example, the Center, which has a 20-year track record of helping state governments shape policies to bolster national security, is actively supporting numerous lawmakers seeking to outlaw agricultural land from being owned by foreign adversaries. The security-oriented nonprofit also promotes the concept of community-supported agriculture and the importance of citizens purchasing their food from local farmers. “By helping sustain their work,” Waller told WND, “it’s going to create more resilience at the community level.”

“Everything the Center for Security Policy does is for the public interest,” Waller said. “We exist to provide uncompromised analysis, unflinching leadership and unconventional solutions to keep Americans safer,” he explained, adding that “there are no corporations behind what we are doing.” He shared that CSP can also “provide threat briefings at the county level for emergency managers and law enforcement”.

Ultimately, as Waller explained, “food security is national security, and everyone – from citizens to lawmakers – can do their part to increase both.”

Reprinted with permission from WND News Center. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 19 mins ago

Federal government’s accounting change reduces transparency and accountability

Business / 27 mins ago

Carney poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history

Alberta / 37 mins ago

Pierre Poilievre will run to represent Camrose, Stettler, Hanna, and Drumheller in Central Alberta by-election

Agriculture

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

Published on May 1, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois 

A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?

The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.

This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.

For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.

First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.

While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.

Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.

The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.

Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.

On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.

Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.

Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.

Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on  competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.

If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X