Lawfare, Loopholes, and Landed Gentry: The Ag Industry’s Anxiety Playbook | Rising Anxieties

Don't forget we're podcasts, we're on YouTube, please subscribe and hit like wherever you listen, and first of all, I'm just gonna talk about something that you all know about probably, and that is what's going on with the Ridglan defendants.

This is from WMTV in, I assume in Wisco- yeah, in Madison, Wisconsin. More than 50 people charged following March break-in to Ridglan Farms. And so this is about the first break-in, not the really big one. Well, the first was the bigger break-in, the second was a bigger gathering of people. And, so a few people had already been charged, but Wayne Hsiung, Aditya Aswani, Michelle Lunsky and Dean Wyrzykowski and, they have pleaded not guilty. That already happened, but now they've added all these other charges, and this really sh- they don't know what to do. I mean, they have spent an enormous amount of effort investigating this, and figuring this out, and figuring out how to bring these charges.

They never, as everybody is pointing out, they never spent any time at all investigating the actual crimes which were actually found to have been committed at Ridgeline. that was up to individuals, these individuals, to find out about and, get prosecuted. They never did anything about that.

They just wanna prosecute the activists, and they have put a lot of the money of this peop- of this county, in, in, into doing it. So yeah, they're fa- they're not facing as much time as the other people, but they are facing, I think up to 12 years. Burglary charges, damage to property charges, theft charges.

And of course, they will be bringing a necessity defense and, and also, you know, large amounts in, in restitution are sought. And, I know this is, that this is part of the plan of the open rescue theory of change, but boy, it's upsetting. Boy, just hate to see this happening. All right, and that's just the first time. We haven't even gotten to the second time yet.

All right, the next one is crazy. I mean, now we are really in, in la-la land. Not... And I don't mean LA. this is from Drovers. "Facing a land or grazing dispute? USDA's new partnership may offer a path forward. New MOU, memorandum of understanding, between USDA and the Small Business Administration creates a formal channel for producers to report regulatory disputes with federal agencies, building on the lawfare portal producers can already use today."

I didn't know about the lawfare portal, I'm ashamed to admit. This is by Elena Hand and Andrew Stump-Denton. And you may have noticed something weird there, that, all right, the USDA is going to help these producers not, just in fighting when so- when anybody, old person sues them, but when the federal government goes after them.

The USDA is the federal government. Like I, I don't even know how to talk about this. All right, I'll just read it. Producers dealing with grazing allotment disputes, land seizures, or enforcement actions from federal agencies now have a new formal channel to seek help following a memorandum of understanding announced July 2nd between USDA and the Small Business Administration.

And it formalizes this working relationship, and creates a process to route, investigate, and help resolve complaints producers file against other federal agents- regulatory agencies. So a regulatory agency, the federal government goes after somebody. They wanna file a complaint, the ranchers wanna file a complaint that, they're being unfairly prosecuted, so they're seeking the help of the federal government to do that.

So they already had this existing lawfare portal, which is this making it really, easy, for them to do that. And, here's a tweet from Brooke Rollins, who of course is the Secretary of Agriculture. "Farmers and ranchers deserve a government that fights for them, not against them."

Like, what? I mean, fine, we all deserve a government that fights for us until we break the law, until we break federal law, and then we deserve a government that goes against those who break... it's not a one, just because you're a farmer or rancher, we know that you didn't break the law. Today, alongside the folks from the, from the Small Business Administration, we launched an unprecedented partnership between USDA and the Small Business Administration to push back against the lawfare targeting America's producers from arbitrary regulations to activist lawsuits, so it's not only apparently when the federal government goes after you.

It's also when we go after them. We're standing up for our farmers and ranchers. Food security is national security, and protecting our producers is protecting America. I'm, I'm flabbergasted. So, the USDA says this is needed because, I'll quote Rollins again, "Producers and ranchers who feed this nation should never face the full power of government alone."

They should have the help of the government to face the government, apparently. All right, she goes on, "This partnership with the SBA creates clear pathways for redress, ensures fairness in enforcement, and demonstrates that Washington stands with, not against, the hardworking Americans who sustain our country."

Apparently, regardless of whether they break the law, we're just with them. And, yeah, there's, th- this is, there's a, this is in Drovers, and there's a lot in here about this, ab- about this lawfare thing that they had already set up. This is just, like, expanding it to include the participation of the Small Business Administration.

Are they aware that the Trump administration runs the federal government? Or are we still like, you know, anti-government even though they're in char- I don't understand how this works. She's the Secretary of Agriculture. I, the, th- there's this special envoy, I don't know what he's an envoy from, John Rich, and he re-framed this partnership as a response to years of producers spending time and money on regulatory disputes instead of their operations.

Well, maybe it's because they're violating regulations. Quote, "I've traveled across this country and met families who have spent years fighting bureaucrats instead of tending their cattle, working their land, or passing their operations on to the next generation. This partnership sends a clear message.

The federal government is done standing on the sidelines while producers are buried in red tape and abusive enforcement," which is apparently from the federal government. All right, so any producer with an active dispute invol- involving a federal regulatory agency is able to file a complaint through this lawfare portal.

They're making it really easy for them, and they will now be jointly reviewed under this new process with the Small Business Administration. And since, since launching the portal itself in late April, more than 600 complaints have been filed. 600. Oh.

Prior to the portal, Rollins launched a Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework in February to end what she calls abusive government overreach. She is the government. I don't even know how to talk about this Oh my God. Oh my God. And you know, I, I've been watching this YouTube channel. It's not an animal rights YouTube channel at all. But it's by a farmer. The name of the channel is Farm to Taber, T-A-B-E-R. So I assume that's her name.

And, it's very enlightening, and she is constantly making the point that, th- that, that agriculture is, like people in agriculture are making lots of money. Far- farmers, the whole scam of this image that people have of struggling farmers, i- is just bullshit. Like, that was in the '80s, but they got rid of all the struggling farmers.

Well, not all of them. I mean, there are probably at least some, but the vast majority of the major farmers are incredibly wealthy people, like millionaires, eh, making, you know, well into six figures. Like, it, and she made one video that I really loved. It was likening Americans' agriculture system to th- to what was going on in Jane Austen's time, and she called...

They're not, it's not corporate farms. I mean, they, very well would be maybe family farms. I mean, they're owned by very wealthy families. I know I say this all the time. She calls them the landed gentry, and I think that is perfect. I mean, this whole thing about passing it on to the next generation, the, most of the la- farmland in this country is owned by the landed gentry, and they apparently run the government as well

Unbelievable. All right, I'll go on. Hordes Dairymen: Why Agriculture Must Keep Telling Our Story. Are they really gonna tell us the true story? Why proactive storytelling is essential as activist messaging becomes more strategic. They're scared of us. This is by Nikki Hardy, who's with the Animal Agriculture Alliance, and she's talking specifically about the recent AVA Summit in Toronto in May.

And approximately 825 registered attendees gathered for sessions focused on challenging public trust in animal agriculture, refining industry messa- refining industry messaging. I don't know. That's a mistype. Diversifying activist strategies and strengthening collaboration across the activist movement.

Yeah. This one really is a classic Rising Anxieties. We've got 'em scared. Coefficient Giving, formerly Open Philanthropy. Did you know Open Philanthropy had changed its name? Why? I don't know. And they sh- they're very nervous about Open Philanthropy, that's for sure. they gave a lot of money for the event.

The takeaway for agriculture is clear. If animal rights activist groups are investing in better communication strategies, we must be just as intentional about telling our story and commitment to modern agriculture, modern animal agriculture. All right, so we're both supposed to tell our stories, but in, in, point of fact, we're telling the truth.

It's not just a story. It's the actual story of what's really happening. What they wanna do might be something a little different. She talks about a few AVA sessions that particularly disturbed her, how to reach millions of people through social media. How dare they? It showed how activists are thinking about online influence, storytelling, short-form video, shareable content, audience psychology.

And I'm not sure these are new ideas, but, you know, she's noticed that, that, we're getting better. What can I say? Language matters. It signals the act- that activist content is not meant to inform, but to trigger a reaction and move audiences toward a specific conclusion. As she's re- she's referring specifically to a quote from one speaker, "How can we create something that will get them to look and also disarm them in a way?"

That is not exactly saying that, that it's not meant to inform. It's try, like, like, like it's meant to, like, how do we reach people? A major... And sh- another thing that she objects to is the fact that a major theme throughout the conference was the importance of nudging a behavioral change to consumers instead of inciting debate.

Yeah, how outrageous. How outrageous. No, and that's not how it should be she sa- she makes clear, the people who live agriculture every day are the ones best equipped to explain it with accuracy, transparency, and credibility. The people who live it and who make money from it, that always increases the likelihood of the truth being told, when there's money on the line.

So what else is she saying? The goal is to keep the animal agriculture community top of mind as the subject matter expert about where our food comes from, despite misleading information they may see or hear from antagonistic groups. Yeah, that is their goal, and they're not bad at it. I'm not saying they are.

Another thing that she was, she was pleased with was a session called Controlling the Narrative: How the Canadian Animal Agriculture Industry Is Shaping Public Opinion, Corporate Policy, and Activism. She likes it because it's showing that, you know, we think they're winning, but it's actually really good that we're on top of it.

And, and she says that speakers acknowledge that agricultural outreach efforts in Canada are helping promote animal agriculture while maintaining public trust, social license, and industry influence. And, you know, I mean, it would be ridiculous for us , to imply that they're not succeeding in many, ways.

But you know what? The truth is, the truth can be powerful. Oh, that leads me right into my next article from Pork Business. The Truth About CAFOs: Animal Welfare, Efficiency, and Food Security. The... I, could read this whole article. It's so unbelievably, like, just complete total propaganda. This is from UC Da- the UC Davis CLEAR Center, and it features many quotes from Frank Mitloehner, like one of the worst people in the world, without a doubt, who just is a huge, defender, and you know, who is, I guess, a scientist of some sort, and so they drag him out all the time to defend everything.

And here they're defending CAFOs, i.e. factory farms. While misconceptions cause consumer skepticism, yeah, that's what's going on, concentrated animal feeding operations provide the vital efficiencies, strict animal welfare standards, and economies of scale needed to feed a growing global population. Now, one of the things they do here, and this is a standard, standard technique, is they point out problems with more extensive kind, not less intensive kinds of animal agriculture, you know, of which there are many.

I mean, let's face it, animal agriculture, no matter how you do it, has problems. So they say that's why we should have CAFOs. No. No. That's why we shouldn't have animal agriculture. Oh, a longstanding, this article says, a longstanding false representation of agriculture has made consumers skeptical of how their food is produced.

Yeah, they're not skeptical enough in my point of view. And there are so many, benefits of CAFOs. You can track illness and care for animals Yeah, well, there is a lot of illness, I'll give you that, and when they're all jammed into the same place, it's probably easier to find them, so there's that.

"If anything goes wrong with the animal, whether it shows signs of illness or discomfort," this is from Frank, "that animal can be taken out of the herd and put into"-- The herd. The herd. Like, it's not what most people think of as a herd. So like a pack, packed full of-- A, a building packed full of animals, "and put into a separate pen where trained personnel or veterinarians can provide needed care," or they can just kill it or whatever.

Control manure. You can control manure, and this is particularly useful because, anaerobic digesters offer an opportunity to process manure, capturing the methane it, it emits and using it to generate energy, thereby creating and emitting fossil fuel gases into the world. That's a real plus.

Predator reduction and disease control. Well, there are definitely predator reductions. Fewer predatory predators inside than there are outside. That's the kind of thing that you really can't deny. And that's why we shouldn't have animal agriculture. And but keeping animals protected benefits animal welfare and producers bottom line. Yeah, it's those two things always get confused.

Optimal diets. Yeah, I'm sure they're eating just really optimal diets. utilizing marginal land. This is mostly about cattle, I guess. And Midloiner explains that a common misconception of CAFOs is they are using land that would otherwise be cropland. That's not true. Well, it is true in a way, but not the way that he's saying.

The CAFOs are, very small, I mean, compared to... They're not, I mean, the animals are jam-packed in there, so they're not that big. And then he goes on to explain that there are two kinds of agricultural land, arable and marginal. And marginal land is not suitable for crop growth, and livestock is an efficient way to make use of this land to produce food because they are the only animals that can digest what grows on this type of land.

All right. He seems to be talking about grazing cattle outdoors. He's completely ignoring the fact that in CAFOs or factory farms, as I prefer to call them, they're feeding the animals grain or beans or whatever feed that has been grown on arable land, using arable land, and then they're feeding it to the animals, thereby drastically reducing the number of calories that end up in people's stomachs because they're not eating the soybeans, they're eating the pig who ate the soybeans.

But he's ignoring that part, which is... And then this goes for chickens as well. And for cattle, it goes for them when they're in feedlots. The only thing it doesn't is cattle who are out on the range, 'cause he says because cattle are ruminants, they're able to digest the grass that grows on arable land.

Blah, blah, blah, all about cellulose and blah. Who cares? Like, that's not where most of the animals are, and you're talking about CAFOs, how great CAFOs are. This isn't about CAFOs. This is such bullshit. Oh my... Oh, God, literally. and then he says that CAFOs allow us to produce enough food. We would have enough food if we weren't eating animals. It's very simple.

All right. Here are just a few follow-ups, just things that, showing that it's not just the industry, but of course humans, all the humans who are eating animals who are demonstrating rising anxieties, and this is by, like, believing anything they're t- they're told.

Nearly 75% of British shoppers incorrectly think farm chickens are no longer caged. This is from Plant Based News, and most British people wrongly believe that egg-laying hens are no longer caged in the UK. Contrarily, there was, because, you know, the UK used to be in the EU, they were following the EU developments in 2012 and when they put a ban on traditional battery cages and, and had enriched cages.

They are enriched compared to traditional battery cages, but they're these huge, big cages that can hold up to 80 birds, and each bird would be given usable space as smaller than an A4 piece of paper. Really, it was not all that much progress from battery cages. And they're still there. 7.3 million egg-laying hens are still there in those cages in the UK, even though everybody thinks that, you know, they're all, maybe not free-range, but at least not in cages.

And the article can... This is from Plant Based News. Did I mention that? While most British people may be unaware that enriched colony cages exist, 94% of those who are aware of the practice believe it is unacceptable. Well, maybe they should find out, you know? Maybe we've gotten to the point where you should do a little investigating about where your food comes from, since we know that the industry is, is not necessarily telling the truth.

All right, just a quick update on screwworm from an article from Ag Daily by Van Carlson, "Screwworm could create a financial shock ranchers cannot ignore." And, he says that New World screwworm, which of course is like this horrific parasite that is now in the US, but it should be viewed as more than an animal health emergency.

It is a financial warning. Oh, now we're getting serious. Now we're getting serious. For ranchers, livestock producers, and the broader beef supply chain. Most of this article is about some insurance thing that he thinks people should do, which might be... It's under the tax code, so there might be a lot of benefit, another way the federal government...

But I don't really know, and I'm not gonna figure that out. I just wanted to mention that he points out here, "The economic stakes are significant. USDA estimates its federal response could exceed $1 billion." So yeah, your tax dol- your tax dollars at work.

And finally, again from Plant Based News, "Industry-backed research more likely to say meat is beneficial, finds study." Well, what a surprise. Who would've guessed? Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable conclusions, finds study. This is a meta study, a meta review of 500 relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023. It was published in Obesity Reviews, and it was investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption, and the review found that 15.6% of the 500 studies reported industry involvement, and that's when they reported industry involvement.

And research with industry ties was 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption than other studies. What a- I'm so shocked. I'm so shocked. 75% of the industry-backed studies linked meat consumption to favorable outcomes, and just one reported negative outcomes. Well, that researcher is in a lot of trouble.

Favorable outcomes, just 10% of independently funded research said meat had a positive impact. Yeah, well, we're all shocked.

I guess that's it for this week's Rising Anxieties. that was fun. I hope I was able to transfer some of my anxiety onto you, which is always my goal. So thanks for tuning in.

Don't forget to subscribe, like, and comment on your favorite podcatcher on YouTube. Tune in to The Hen Report and the Our Hen House interview, The Hen Report on Thursday and the interview on Friday, and I will see you next time.