A consortium of 27 former leaders of agricultural associations representing row crops, livestock, biofuels in addition to prominent farmers, retired academics and former USDA administrators combined to address a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Agricultural Committees emphasizing the perilous state of farmers and agriculture in the U.S.

The collective experience of the signatories to the letter probably exceeds a thousand years.  They include CEOs of the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, US Grains Council, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Pork Producers Council and Directors of State Departments of Agriculture and Administrators of Land-grant colleges.

The letter noted the alarming increase in bankruptcies among family farms and the growing agricultural trade deficit.  Soybean exports have fallen from 47 percent of the world market share in  2018 to 24 percent at present.  Producers in South America including Brazil have gained market share at the expense of U.S. farmers.

The major points of contention relating to Administration policy that impact farmers include: -

• Tariffs on imported fertilizers and machinery.
• Tariff policy that has eroded international trade partnerships coupled with bellicose rhetoric and threats.  Erratic decisions on tariffs have seriously degraded the image of the U.S. as a reliable supplier and trade partner.  The Administration has failed to negotiate meaningful trade agreements during the current term of office. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2016, deprived farmers of export markets estimated at over $4 billion each year.  Concurrently the BRICS group of nations is competing against the U.S. The MERCOSUR countries have created free-trade agreements with the EU and Canada is establishing links with the People’s Republic of China.
• Cuts to domestic and foreign food assistance programs based on ideology have resulted in unintended consequences that have directly affected farmers who supplied commodities to foreign aid and SNAP programs.
• The Administration has not fully supported the biofuels program that is critical to the profitability of both corn and soybean farmers.  The Administration has granted refinery exemptions and has neglected to pressure Congress to allow year-round marketing of E15 blend.
• The Administration has neglected to reform and expand the H-2A visa program. This omission coupled with mass deportations of undocumented workers has reduced the labor pool available to dairy, produce and fruit farmers and to meat packers.
• Reduction in the USDA complement by forced attrition, unproductive reorganization and intended relocation of employees has weakened the capacity of the department to serve farmers.  Cuts in research grants to academia and cancellation of departmental programs not only affect current agriculture but will place the U.S. in a noncompetitive situation over years to come.

In an attempt to buttress eroding farmer support for the Administration, $11 billion has been made available for “Farmer Bridge Assistance” with a promise of an additional $15 billion.  The letter to Congressional committees clearly stated, “Farmers do not want government handouts – they want markets.”  The letter continued “They want world-class research so that they can compete.  They want their families and communities to have affordable healthcare services.”

The signatories recommended nine steps required to reverse the crisis in agriculture and place the farm economy on a dependable footing: -

• An immediate exemption from tariffs on all farm inputs
• Establishing a rational tariff structure with removal of impositions that disrupt traditional, existing and future markets for agricultural commodities.
• Extending Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) leading to free-trade agreements.
• Entering into meaningful negotiations and trade agreements with existing and prospective importers of U.S. commodities.
• Completing the review of the USMCA and extending the agreement for 16 years.
• Allowing nationwide E15 sales year-round.
• Finalizing and enacting the Farm Bill that expired in September 2025.
•  Reforming labor legislation including a new and extended H-2A program.
• Restoring funding for land-grant agriculture research and rehiring USDA scientists that were capriciously terminated by DOGE and by unstructured reorganization.
• Reestablishing domestic and international food aid programs.

The letter addressed to the House and Senate Agricultural Committees urged hearings to gather input that could lead to cancellation of deleterious programs based on political ideology and to establish realistic policies to address the farm crisis.  Hearings would be a necessary first step in attempting to restore the financial health of farms and to establish long-term competitiveness for U.S. commodities and to secure international markets.

It is considered significant that the expression of complaints and the list of required changes was signed by past presidents and CEOs of agricultural organizations. Is this attributed to the fact that current leaders cognizant of problems are restrained from expressing their views based on fear of retribution for expressing opinions or advancing suggestions that are considered critical to the Administration?  Due to the prevailing current of intimidation is it imprudent for seated presidents and CEOs of commodity groups and academics to express their views?

Editorial postscripts:-

A draft of the House version of the delayed Farm Bill will be released in late February but will face opposition. The Senate has yet to introduce a text of their version

A February 5th ageement with Argentine will allow a TRQ of 80,000 metric tons of beef for 2026 1n 20,000 ton tranches. It is unknown whether Argintine would be capable or willing to divert whole muscle cuts from established imorters to th U.S. market

The USDA has released funding according to legislation passed in early 2025 to expanded Matket Access and Foreign Market Development Programs

Circana recently published the results of a consumer survey relating to acceptance of pork from genetically modified hogs.  The study comprised 5,000 subjects from eight industrialized nations with a questionably high response rate of 96 percent. In this case, consumers were requested to provide an opinion as to whether they would purchase pork from genetically modified hogs, thereby reducing potential antibiotic use. Overwhelmingly (94 percent) of consumers were willing to purchase pork from gene-edited hogs with a proviso that the process would offer tangible benefits to consumers and that appropriate transparency including packaging would be maintained. This said, interpretation of survey results are highly dependent on the framing of questions and selection of participants.

The study presumably relates to the biotechnology introduced by UK-based Genus plc.  This company pioneered deletion of the CD163 gene by applying CRISPR to produce piglets resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).  Genus plc has applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the gene-deleted strain of hogs since CRISPR is regarded inexplicably by FDA bureaucrats as an “investigational new drug”.  It is anticipated that the Agency will expedite approval since CRISPR involves deletion of genetic material not involving insertion of novel genes.  It is noted that acceptance of genetically modified salmon by the FDA required decades before the Aqua Bounty® strain of salmon was approved since the technology involved introduction of genes from other salmon and marine species.

The response of potential consumers to the hog study has relevance to possible gene modification of chickens to enhance growth and livability and in the short term for gender sorting of egg-production strains.  NRS Poultry Sustainability and Transformation Inc. in association with scientists at the Volcani Institute in Israel has developed a unique genetic approach to identifying and eliminating cockerel chicks.  Dr. Yuval Cinnamon affiliated to the Institute and founder of NextHen has promoted the ‘Golda’ approach to eliminating male embryos in-ovo. 

The technique involves application of CRISPR-CAS9 to a sequence of the z chromosome, a co-determinant of gender in chickens.  Males carry the zz chromosome and females are zw.  The construct developed by NRS with intended commercialization by NextHen requires insertion of promoters adjacent to the 5’HA end of the sequence and insertion of a lethal gene adjacent to the 3’HA end.  Lethality is activated by exposure to light of a highly specific blue wavelength.  The construct must be inserted into the pure line C strain to pass the altered z chromosome to the grandparent C-line hen.  The female of the parent level (CD) will therefore carry the modified z chromosome.  The male line AB parents are normal in all respects.  At the parent level CD females carrying the modified z chromosome mated to AB males produce pullet chicks with a normal z and w chromosomes.  Eggs from the mating are subjected to blue light that is optogenic in its action on the z chromosome carrying the lethal gene.  This results in inhibition of development of male (zz) embryos since they carry the lethal trait on the z chromosome acquired from the CD parent female (zw).  Female embryos carry an unaltered z chromosome and therefore hatch normally.

The NRS/NextHen approach to eliminating male chicks is elegant, based on establish scientific principles and offers advantages with respect to cost, practicality and rate of implementation.

Despite the obvious advantages, primary breeders have demonstrated no inclination to adopt the system and have instead applied currently available alternatives to identify eggs bearing male embryos. 

From a scientific perspective, commercial pullet chicks are not genetically modified, but the system relies on insertion of a construct into the pure C line.  There is obvious concern that opponents of intensive livestock production will cite the application of genetic modification to demonize not only the specific Golda hen but will extended deprecation to all commercial egg production.  Neither of the two leading primary breeders wishes to be first to adopt the technology given the “tainted GMO association.” For the NRS/Volcani/NextHen technology to become a reality, it will be necessary to confirm that consumers will accept the highly technical assurance that the commercial level chick is not genetically modified.  In the case of the Genus PRRS-resistant hog the technology involved deletion of a gene applying CRISPR. The survey revealed that approximately half of U.S. consumers evidently are aware of gene editing. 

It is possible that China may adopt the technology given their volume of production and with Governmental support of GMO, justifying application.  China is rapidly developing pure lines and has aspirations to be independent of major primary breeders located in the E.U. and the U.S. for domestic needs and export.

There is no obvious benefit to consumers from applying the genetic approach to eliminating cockerels given that non-GMO alternatives are commercially available and are currently in use.

For the NR technology to become a practical reality the first hurdle will be for one or more of the primary breeders to enter into a strategic alliance with the developers and incorporate the z chromosome construct into the pure C line.  The second challenge will be to convince consumers and regulators that the pullet chicks are effectively non-GMO.  Since the issues are interwined the commercialization of the GM technology is an example of the “chicken-or-the-egg” paradox. 

Editor’s Comment:

The GM approach to in-ovo elimination of cockerels was reviewed in the November 18^th 2021 edition of EGG-NEWS.  The fact that there has been no commercial adoption of the technology in more than four years suggests that acceptance of the genetic approach is highly unlikely, notwithstanding its potential.

On December 11^th, senators representing both sides of the aisle addressed a letter to the White House urging adoption of vaccination as an adjunct to biosecurity to address the endemic and widespread incidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) manifest as an epornitic since 2021.

The group of 23 senators including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), with Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), respectively Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food and Forestry, urged Brook Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture to implement “renewed action” to address the problem of HPAI.  The letter stressed the need to apply science and to take into account the needs of all stakeholders. This implies balancing enhanced protection afforded to farmers against the possible loss of export markets for broiler leg quarters.

The USDA is apparently developing a vaccination policy but has yet to release any document.  In response to the letter, an unnamed USDA administrator noted, “Farmer biosecurity efforts are the most effective tool for mitigating the bird flu.”  For the edification of this individual, HPAI can be introduced onto farms by the aerogenous route, effectively negating even the most stringent structural and operational biosecurity.  The additional statement that USDA policy “Is grounded in decades of scientifically validated epidemiological practices and biosecurity protocols” is a self-validating misstatement of reality. The effectiveness of tactical preventive vaccination using a range of currently available commercial vaccines has proven effective in the industries of many nations including our southern neighbor. Essentially HPAI is the ‘Newcastle disease of the 2020s’. The infection was effectively controlled by immunization during the 1970s and is currently a problem only in nations without vaccination programs, defective vaccines or inappropriate administration.

At the end of the first quarter of this year, as depopulation of large egg production complexes and turkey growing farms attained a high level, the USDA announced a “more-of-the-same” program funded by $100 million to “research vaccines and therapeutics.”  More than 400 research proposals have been submitted to USDA to investigate aspects of HPAI. Even if the most promising of these avenues of research receive support, and achieve positive results it will not have any impact on the anticipated losses during seasonal migration of free-living birds during 2026 and 2027.

If the USDA has in fact developed a policy for vaccination then it should be released for review by the scientific community including epidemiologists and poultry health professionals in addition to flock owners, consumer advocates, exporters of poultry products and other stakeholders. There is concern that those advocating the status quo persist with their opposition to vaccination based on the potential impact on exports to the detriment of egg and turkey producers in high-risk areas.  Inactivity is impacting adoption of preventive vaccination consistent with endorsement by the World Organization for Animal Health as an adjunct to biosecurity but with surveillance.

Persistence of infection in the U.S. poultry industry represents a public health threat with the possible emergence of a zoonotic strain of H5N1 avian influenza. Some mutants of H5N1 have crossed the barrier from avian to marine and terrestrial mammalian species.  The debate over vaccination is also clouded by opposition to proven vaccination as a modality to protect human populations by immunization as exemplified by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his appointed acolytes.  The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services previously advocated allowing HPAI outbreaks to simply run their course, a sentiment echoed by the USDA Secretary until she was appraised of the realities of the infection and the consequences of her support for an inane, simplistic and irresponsible approach to the control of HPAI. 

We do not need interminable research on vaccines.  The U.S. poultry industry needs an honest evaluation based on risks and potential consequence of either withholding or applying currently available commercial vaccines according to a predetermined program for hens and turkeys in high-risk areas.  The USDA as an institution should stop temporizing and flirting with the promise of a policy on vaccination against HPAI and release their policy document for open discussion and scientific and economic evaluation.

Transparency is an effective disinfectant against bureaucratic intransigence and hidden agendas.

Following a Presidential directive, the federal government has established a taskforce to investigate “anti-competitive behavior” among meat processors and other segments of the U.S. food industry.  Initially the probe involving the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will focus on the red meat industry with the high price of beef as the dominant economic and political issue.

Announcing the Presidential Executive Order establishing the taskforce, the White House noted that “all necessary appropriate actions will be taken not just to the food supply chain but whether control of food-related industries by foreign entities is increasing the cost of food products in the U.S. or creating a national or economic security threat to Americans.”  The statement added, “anti-competitive behavior, especially when carried out by foreign-controlled corporations threatens the stability and affordability of America’s food supply.” In the event of disclosure of criminal collusion, proceedings will be initiated as appropriate.  Red meat processing in the U.S. is an oligopoly with a high proportion of foreign ownership.

So much for the $5 million ‘donation’ by JBS.

Agriculture economists attribute the high price of beef to disparity between supply and demand occasioned by herd reductions following drought and low prices in recent years. Placing tariffs on imported beef and especially from Brazil exacerbated the supply side of the equation.

It remains to be seen whether the Food Supply Chain Security Taskforce will confirm collusion or whether this is an exercise in scapegoating.  Should food inflation continue, the probe initially directed at the beef industry may be extended to other sectors including broiler meat and eggs. 

It is apparent that the largest five egg producers and possibly others in the U.S. will be confronted by the same intrusive and ultimately expensive civil law suits as experienced by the broiler and hog industries. The same claims of collusion using commercial databases and alleged price-fixing will form the basis of class-action lawsuits experienced by hog packers and broiler integrators that led to significant payouts to plaintiffs and generous fees for law firms.

With the restoration of shelf prices for shell eggs, pressure on the industry, exemplified by previous action by state attorneys general has abated.  Unprecedented escalation in the price of eggs following significant depopulation resulting from HPAI focused attention on the product, eroding consumer goodwill and stimulating the ire of the White House. Should losses that occurred during the first quarter of this year reoccur in 2026, the industry could well be faced with investigations by the task force especially given an election year.  Price restraint by both producers and retailers would appear prudent given that the Administration has politicized supply-demand realities, agricultural economics and the preparation and interpretation of USDA production statistics.

In a recent interview Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture acknowledged the increasing incidence rate of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) especially affecting turkey and egg production.  It is apparent that USDA is justifiably promoting biosecurity as an essential but sole component of prevention through a program of farm audits.  Producers are encouraged to use the resources of USDA to identify deficiencies in either structural or operational biosecurity and to effect improvements. 

In his interview Vaden stated that “vaccination isn’t available yet.” This is completely wrong and an institutional USDA self-delusion.  Major EU biopharmaceutical companies offer a range of vaccines of proven efficacy ranging from conventional inactivated oil emulsion preparations to advanced live, modified vector vaccines suitable for mass administration by in ovo injection

Vaden points to the “Poultry Innovation Grand Challenge” funding 58 projects to combat avian influenza. He further indicated that “vaccine development and rollout will take time”.  Again, this is a manifestation of USDA policy of temporizing or opposing immunization as an additional modality in the face of a prolonged U.S. epornitic.

Effectively the USDA continues to make appropriate noises about vaccination but appears to be delaying a decision under duress that deploying vaccines against HPAI would impact export of broiler leg quarters. The World Organization of Animal Health (WOAH) has approved vaccination as an adjunct to control and prevent the ongoing HPAI pandemic. Notwithstanding  the official position of the Agency, the USDA remains recalcitrant to consider a change in policy to allow controlled, tactical immunization of egg production and turkey flocks in high-risk areas accompanied by high levels of biosecurity and with appropriate surveillance.

USDA should accept reality in that:-

• HPAI is endemic in the migratory waterfowl and marine populations of the world,
• The infection will simply not ‘go away’
• Ongoing HPAI represents a cost to consumers, the public sector and producers far exceeding the value of the potential loss of export revenue from leg quarters
• HPAI is transmitted inter alia by the airborne route effectively invalidating even the strictest biosecurity measures
• Many importing nations accept the WOAH principles of controlled vaccination with surveillance, regionalization and compartmentalization
• H5 HPAI is potentially zoonotic

ByHeart a small-scale manufacturer of infant formula, in a market dominated by a few majors, has recalled all products as a result of contamination with spores of Clostridium botulinum. Since August, 31^st 35 cases have been confirmed in infants with at least 70 under investigation.  Fortunately, no fatalities have been reported. The diagnosis is based on clinical observations and is followed by effective available treatment.

Similarities with this case and the major 2022 recall from the Abbott, Sturgis, MI. facility are striking.  At issue is the failure of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to effectively monitor production plants and to enforce either corrective action or closure.  The most recent investigation disclosed three isolations of Clostridium spores from 36 unopened containers suggesting a high level of contamination in the Allerton, IA. facility.  Disclosures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act confirmed an unsatisfactory situation with regard to the plant dating back to 2022.  Deficiencies documented in official warning letters included the presence of pests, defective structures including ceilings and floors, failure to maintain an appropriate pathogen surveillance program, incorporation of untested ingredients, previous isolations of Cronobacter and an observation that “the Byheart plant was not designed to facilitate maintenance and sanitary operations”.  It is significant that the company received approximately 2,000 complaints relating mainly to organoleptic quality but also some health-related complaints including nine characterized by the FDA as “sensitive/serious”.

It appears that FDA has not learned anything from the Abbott episode and that the Agency has obvious deficiencies in their oversight of plants manufacturing food products and pharmaceuticals.  Regrettably the Agency has been politicized and there is little hope for practical improvement given the exodus of experienced managers, a deliberate reduction in staff, resignations and retirements all prompted by current policies of the Department of Health and Human Services. The appointment of incompetent or unqualified management based on ideology and conformity with non-scientific principles as expressed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Secretary of the Department suggest future health problems related to failure of the FDA to fulfil the missions detailed and funded by Congress.