Connect with us

Agriculture

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

Published

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.

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

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on

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

Agriculture

Grain farmers warn Canadians that retaliatory tariffs against Trump, US will cause food prices to soar

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

 

One of Canada’s prominent agricultural advocacy groups warned that should the federal Liberal government impose counter-tariffs on the United States, it could make growing food more expensive and would be a nightmare for Canadian farmers and consumers.

According to Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) executive director Kyle Larkin, the cost of phosphate fertilizer, which Canada does not make, would shoot up should the Mark Carney Liberal government enact counter-tariffs to U.S. President Donald Trump’s.

Larkin said recently that there is no “domestic phosphate production here (in Canada), so we rely on imports, and the United States is our major supplier.”

“A 25% tariff on phosphate fertilizer definitely would have an impact on grain farmers,” he added.

According to Statistics Canada, from 2018 to 2023, Canada imported about 4.12 million tonnes of fertilizer from the United States. This amount included 1.46 million tonnes of monoammonium phosphates (MAP) as well as 92,027 tonnes of diammonium phosphate (DAP).

Also imported were 937,000 tonnes of urea, 310,158 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, and 518,232 tonnes of needed fertilizers that have both nitrogen and phosphorus.

According to Larkin, although most farmers have purchased their fertilizer for 2025, they would be in for a rough 2026 should the 25 percent tariffs on Canadian exports by the U.S. still stand.

Larkin noted how Canadian farmers are already facing “sky-high input costs and increased government regulations and taxation.”

He said the potential “tariff on fertilizer is a massive concern.”

Trump has routinely cited Canada’s lack of action on drug trafficking and border security as the main reasons for his punishing tariffs.

About three weeks ago, Trump announced he was giving Mexico and Canada a 30-day reprieve on 25 percent export tariffs for goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on free trade.

However, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, despite the reprieve from Trump, later threatened to impose a 25 percent electricity surcharge on three American states. Ford, however, quickly stopped his planned electricity surcharge after Trump threatened a sharp increase on Canadian steel and aluminum in response to his threats.

As it stands, Canada has in place a 25 percent counter tariff on some $30 billion of U.S. goods.

It is not yet clear how new Prime Minister Mark Carney will respond to Trump’s tariffs. However, he may announce something after he calls the next election, which he is expected to do March 23.

Continue Reading

Trending

X