Connect with us

Agriculture

‘Stealing family farms’: Big Ag gets billions in taxpayer-funded loans while small farms starve

Published

9 months ago

9 minute read

Attorney Dustin Kittle (left) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

From LifeSiteNews

By John-Michael Dumais, The Defender

In a recent RFK Jr Podcast episode, attorney Dustin Kittle alleged the Farm Credit System, created to protect small farmers, now primarily serves corporate agriculture. Kittle claimed systemic corruption is forcing family farms off their land and concentrating control of the food supply.

The Farm Credit System (FCS), created nearly a century ago to save the family farm, now primarily serves corporate agriculture interests — even forcing small farmers off their land.

Attorney Dustin Kittle, a former cattle and poultry farmer turned agricultural law specialist, sounded the alarm on a recent “RFK Jr Podcast” episode, describing systemic corruption within FCS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Kittle told Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman on leave, about a web of alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest and policy shifts that he claimed are decimating America’s family farms while enriching corporate agricultural giants and foreign investors.

Kittle’s crusade against these practices stems from personal experience. Raised on a farm in Geraldine, Alabama, he later found himself embroiled in a legal battle with the very system designed to protect farmers like himself.

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), a federal agency charged with overseeing the FCS, took 657 days to investigate his case. After nearly two years, it concluded that while federal laws had been violated, it could offer no remedy as he was no longer a borrower in the system.

Kittle’s firm represents about 200 farmers facing similar challenges. “Those farmers … even though they can speak to me as their lawyer … are scared to death,” he told Kennedy.

Big Ag getting ‘billion-dollar loans’

FCS was established in 1933 during the Great Depression to support America’s farmers, but it has strayed far from its original mission, according to Kittle.

Kittle alleged that FCS made a “complete shift” around 2009, changing its mission from saving family farms to saving the agriculture industry as a whole.

The FCS began prioritizing large corporations over small farmers, “doling out loans to JBS [Foods]” and Tyson, he pointed out. “We are not talking about $100,000 lines of credit. We are talking about billion-dollar loans to those companies.”

Kittle contended that these policy changes also opened the door to foreign interests.

“I wouldn’t have even thought that U.S. Farm Credit, a government-sponsored enterprise, could do business dealings and … loans with foreign interests,” he said, noting that this practice began in 1997 “when they adjusted some loopholes.”

‘A manipulated plan to take that land’

As further evidence of farm credit policy failures, Kittle pointed to the 5 million family farms lost since FCS was created. “We are down to 1.8 million family farms,” he said.

Loan distress declarations are a prime example of how the system now serves corporate agricultural interests, Kittle said. The practice involves declaring loans in distress even when farmers are current on their payments.

“You might have a default provision in your mortgage that says, ‘If someone whose name is on that deed passes away, we can default on them,’” Kittle explained, illustrating the often arbitrary nature of these declarations.

“It was part of a manipulated plan to put pressure on the farmers to take that land,” Kittle told Kennedy.

Kennedy agreed that forcing farmers to hire lawyers is essentially “stealing family farms from the farmer using our federal dollars.”

Kittle said his loan was placed in distress in retaliation for representing a group of farmer-borrowers.

‘Zero oversight all the way to the top’

Kittle’s allegations extend beyond individual cases to what he described as systemic failures in oversight. “There is zero oversight all the way to the top” of FCS.

He pointed to structural issues within the FCA, where only one member serves on the board instead of the legally required three.

Kittle sued President Joe Biden, the FCA and others over this lapse.

He also criticized the political maneuvering that he believes contributes to this lack of oversight, citing an instance involving a nominee for the FCA board who was blocked from confirmation for two years.

Kittle pointed to conflict-of-interest issues. He alleged that Dallas Tonsager, who served as undersecretary at the USDA and as chairman of FCA, had business ties to Redfield Energy, a company involved in carbon capture technology for ethanol plants.

This resistance to outside oversight, Kittle argued, is symptomatic of a larger problem.

“We have an entity that was set up for the farmers, but we have created a lobbying branch that is going in and lobbying against the interests of the farmers,” he stated, referring to the Farm Credit Council‘s lobbying activities.

‘Running it as a private bank’

Kittle unveiled a disturbing practice within FCS that he argues amounts to an unauthorized and unregulated banking operation. The scandal, as Kittle described it, centers on loan assignment agreements.

FCA institutions require borrowers, particularly poultry farmers, to divert a significant portion of their income — sometimes up to 65% — into holding accounts as additional security for loans. However, these loans are already secured by the farmers’ land and are often backed by government guarantees.

“What happened in the state of Alabama, this is a tragedy that should be on the front page of every newspaper,” Kittle asserted. He revealed that over 1,000 poultry borrowers at Alabama Farm Credithad their funds, estimated between $60 and $100 million, effectively vanish from these holding accounts.

When questioned about the missing funds, Alabama Farm Credit reportedly told farmers the money would be applied to the end of their loans. However, farmers are still required to make regular payments, essentially paying twice.

“They’re running it as a private bank, but getting the benefits of government protection,” Kittle charged.

‘The last bastion of American independence’

Throughout the interview, Kittle emphasized the broader implications of these issues.

“Family farms is really the last bastion of American independence,” he declared, arguing that the loss of family farms threatens not just agriculture and the environment, but American democracy itself.

“Corporate agriculture has got them,” he said of organizations like the Farm Bureau. It “has our government and we’ve got to do something to break that hold.”

Kittle called for a “national voice” to advocate for family farms and a return to “growing quality food as opposed to quantities of food.”

The attorney invited supporters to join his “Save Our Farms” campaign on X (formerly Twitter).

Watch the ‘RFK Jr Podcast’ on Spotify:

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

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
International / 4 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Agriculture / 4 hours ago

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

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