At last Tuesday's virtual Midwest Pork Conference, keynote speaker Ray Starling recounted a meeting he had with President Trump in the Oval Office in early 2017. During the meeting, Trump abruptly stopped the discussion and aggressively pushed a red button on his desk. Fearing the worst, Starling said he was both surprised and much relieved to learn that was a signal for a White House staffer to bring the president a diet Coke.
"I wish agriculture had a red 'easy button' like the president, but that's not the case," he said. "Agriculture could use one now, because we have a number of thorny issues confronting us."
A North Carolinian, Starling is a former special assistant to the president for ag policy, and former chief of staff to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue. He said of the things that keep him up at night, first was the massive infusion of cash coming to farmers from the federal government's direct payments over the past three or four years.
He said that for 2020, total government payments to farmers are likely to exceed $40 billion. And to those who would suggest that out of a federal budget in the trillions, "Well, isn't that just a small piece, agriculture's fair share?" Starling suggested otherwise.
"The entire annual budget for NASA is $22.4 billion," he said. And back in the late 2000s, when we railed against the government for bailing out the auto industry, after those companies repaid their loans, the net federal payment to the whole industry was only $20 billion."
Starling added that may not be all. He said there are currently stand-alone bills in both the House and Senate that appear to be poised to send agriculture another $15 to $20 billion in direct payments, which could bring the total to near $60 billion.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side. My family is farmers, and I do a lot of work in the ag sector," he said. "But that said, I'm just sharing with you that this amount of money coming into the coffers of farmers is neither economically nor politically sustainable. And there's beginning to be more and more criticism about where those dollars went. At some point there has got to be some attention to how me manage the landscape."
Starling summarized by saying there was a fiscal cliff coming, and suggested some courses of action. 1) First, we are going to have to get along, to an extent, with our financial critics, and at least start to think about some of the things they are saying, and also better understand our consumers; Second, agriculture as an industry needs to be behind at least incremental changes to some of the current policies; Third, push for better leadership in Congress.
"Congress is going to have to quit punting on issues like labor and immigration policy, genetic engineering policy, particularly as it relates to animal agriculture, and, of course, trade," he said. "And I think we can do more things on the conversation front—promoting conservation, continuing to push renewable fuels; promoting that people wear cotton, not oil; and making agricultural research a top investment, not an 'also-investment.'"
Starling then moved on to his second concern, lawyers and activist organizations, and the threats they pose to agriculture. He specifically mentioned a movement called Public Justice, and its strategy of impact litigation.
"They refer to the larger good food movement, and addressing the structural and institutional inequities upon which the current system is built," he said. "That seems to me like these folks don't like the way you do business."
Starling also said there was a whole industry of people attacking agriculture from the academic world. In his home state, he said professors from Duke University, along with other law schools, are attacking animal agriculture policy from a litigation approach.
"I believe that in agriculture, we're going to have to lock arms and fight back against what I call the legal undertow that's working against us," he said. "Lewis and Clark Law School, in Portland, Ore. is seeking to expand legal rights and protections for farm animals by challenging the production of 'common, inhumane farming practices.' There are organizations raising and spending a lot of money, litigating against modern agriculture. If you're not paying attention to this, you could be the next victim."
In response to a participant question, Starling said that land grant universities could play a crucial role in this fight.
"Our adversaries aren't just one or two organizations, but a whole consortium of entities," he said. "Our land grant universities need to collaborate with state legislators, other land grants, USDA and others, as we push back against these challenges, and be held accountable for how they're spending our tax dollars."
Last on his insomnia list, Starling discussed the agricultural implications of the recent election. He prefaced his comments by saying that the roots of the word "politics" can be broken down into two parts—"poly," meaning many, and "ticks," which are blood-sucking animals. In brief, his major points included:
• With the defeat of Collin Peterson, D-Minn. chair of the House Agriculture Committee, and the retirement of Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan. of the Senate Ag Committee, Congress will be losing a combined 85 years of ag policy leadership experience from those committees.
• The Senate runoff in Georgia has huge implications for which party controls the U.S. Senate, and along with that, the direction of much of our national agricultural policy.
• The changing leadership and membership of the House and Senate Ag Committees has the potential to change the focus to a different region of the United States, and could have a significant impact.
• Regarding who becomes the secretary of agriculture, two leading possibilities are former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio. Regarding Heitkamp, Starling said that President-elect Biden has received a letter signed by a coalition of 160 environmental, food justice, sustainable agriculture, workers' rights, animal welfare, animal rights, public health, and other organizations, objecting to her candidacy and ties to agribusiness. He said this characterized the challenge of the Biden administration in choosing between the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and those who would be more supportive of rural America.
• Of those on Biden's agricultural transition team, members include those with primary expertise in climate change, alternative meats and workers' rights. "If USDA winds up mirroring the folks on the transition team, it's going to be a very different USDA," he said.
• The winners for agriculture could be farmers, if they can figure out a way to participate in this environmental economy that may be created over the next few years. And farmers could also benefit from less drama over trade. And the losers? Anything related to combustible fuels, including a massive challenge for the ethanol industry. Also ag's labor needs, with more focus on worker protection, and not on the economics of that system working well.
Starling closed by saying that despite agriculture's challenges, that results from a survey done in North Carolina showed that as an industry, that it had the most positive image of any in the state, including medical and banking. He encouraged farmers and pork producers to remain positive and to be thankful for their blessings.
"Don't just think about the problems, but the relationships you have, your career, your family, and your time here on earth," he said. "Be proud of what you've done as a farmer, and what you've helped to accomplish."