SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
agriculture
'Pretty Much Put Us Out of Business': Uproar After Shutdown Bill Targets Hemp Industry
"Recriminalizing hemp will force American farms and businesses to close and disrupt the well-being of countless Americans who depend on hemp," warned one critic.
Nov 13, 2025
Advocates for hemp on Wednesday decried a provision of the Republican government funding law signed by President Donald Trump that tightens restrictions on the versatile plant—a move critics say will devastate a $30 billion industry.
The new restrictions set a stricter limit on the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the psychoactive chemical in cannabis—in order to close a loophole that allowed for the sale of unregulated food and beverages containing intoxicating hemp-derived compounds.
Twenty-two Democratic senators—including advocates for legal recreational or medical marijuana—joined almost all Republicans in voting against an amendment introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to strip out the restrictions from the final bill. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only other Republican to back Paul's effort.
"Our industry is being used as a pawn as leaders work to reopen the government," Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the US Hemp Roundtable, an industry group, warned ahead of the vote. "Recriminalizing hemp will force American farms and businesses to close and disrupt the well-being of countless Americans who depend on hemp."
Hemp—which is used in a wide range of products from clothing to construction materials to fuel, food, and biodegradable plastics—was legalized under the 2018 farm bill signed by President Donald Trump during his first term.
But lawmakers including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—who backed the 2018 legislation—argued that cannabis companies are exploiting a loophole in the farm bill to legally manufacture products with enough THC to get consumers high.
Paul, however, ripped the provision, arguing in a Thursday Courier Journal opinion piece that it "destroys the livelihood of hemp farmers."
"This could not come at a worse time for our farmers," Paul wrote. "Costs have increased while prices for crops have declined. Farm bankruptcies are rising."
"For many farmers, planting hemp offered them a lifeline," he continued. "Hemp can be used for textiles, rope, insulation, composite wood, paper, grain, and in CBD products, and growing hemp helped farmers to mitigate the loses they’ve endured during this season of hardship."
Paul noted that "the provision that was inserted into the government funding bill makes illegal any hemp product that contains more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container."
"That would be nearly 100% of hemp products currently sold," he said. "This is so low that it takes away any of the benefit of the current products intended to manage pain or other conditions."
Charles and Linda Gill have grown hemp on their family farm in Bowdoinham, Maine since the plant was legalized in 2018.
“We are not in the business of these intoxicating hemp products on the market, which are the ones that are screwing it up for everybody,” Charles Gill told Maine Morning Star's Emma Davis on Wednesday. “They’re abusing the system.”
“All our current products would be banned,” Gill said of the new restrictions. “It would pretty much put us out of business.”
Hemp defenders vowed to contest the new law.
"The fight isn't over," Hemp Industry & Farmers of America executive director Brian Swensen said on X after the law's passage.
"In 2018, President Trump and Congress legalized hemp, delivering more jobs and opportunities to American farmers and small businesses," Swensen said, adding that the restrictions "will devastate American farmers, business owners, veterans, and seniors."
"The hemp ban will also open up dangerous black markets for hemp and allow China to take over the entire hemp market," he added, claiming "it kills over 325,000 American jobs and destroys the industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Aren't American Farmers Protesting in the Streets?
Perhaps farmers in the United States should look south, to Mexico specifically, for guidance on what they should do to improve their economic situation.
Nov 08, 2025
If there ever was a time for American farmers to protest, then that time is now.
Contract cancellations and frozen grant payments early in Trump's term paralyzed a series of projects for American producers, from financing new irrigation systems to strengthening local markets. Adding insult to injury, soy farmers nearly became a casualty in our administration’s trade war with China. But details of the current deal, while a much-needed reprieve, show that the negotiated soy purchases from China do nothing more than return farmers to Biden-level acquisitions. This, as US cattle ranchers have been left stretching their heads when a deal was brokered to purchase beef from Argentine ranchers, and American farmer calls for country of origin labeling and to challenge meat industry corporations are ignored.
Perhaps farmers in the United States should look south, to Mexico specifically, for guidance on what they should do to improve their economic situation. There, since mid-October, over 100,000 farmers from all over the country have participated in protests—roadblocks, to be precise—to demand that the Steinbaum government pass policies to address their economic problems. More than symbolic, the Mexican farmer protests have got results—spurring the government to make concessions and engage in dialogue.
Mexican farmers, even though they are on average smaller than their counterparts in the US, face the same general problem of dealing with low commodity prices alongside high fertilizer and pesticide costs. What has triggered the Mexican protests of late is how corn farmers are enduring the lowest prices since 2017, as over the course of 2025 they have seen the price for their product drop 21%.
To face this situation, the farmers took matters into their own hands and went to the streets.
Coordinated by el Frente Nacional para el Rescate del Campo Mexicano (the National Front to Rescue the Mexican Countryside), which emerged in 2023 and includes groups from around the country, farmers launched a national strike on October 14th. Their strike doesn’t stop production, but the circulation of goods, blocking roads around the country including at tollways. They demand a floor price, and that their government renegotiate the USMCA to stop the flow of cheap corn and other products from the United States. Joining the corn farmers, avocado and lemon producers are also demanding stable prices. In addition to their economic demands, the farmers have denounced the lack of law and order in the countryside, with some having to pay cartels so that they can market their crops. Such demands have been met with violence, with one farmer, Bernardo Bravo Manríquez, killed on October 20th for speaking out when seeking economic justice.
President Steinbaum has listened, acknowledging the farmers’ demands recently in her daily morning press meetings, Las Mañaneras. On October 29th, her Secretary of Agriculture, Julio Berdegué, announced proposals to respond to the farmers, including a direct payment this year of 950 pesos per ton of corn sold for farmers with farms up to 20 hectares in size (~40 acres) and a subsidized line of credit. A third proposal from the Mexican government is for a long-term plan to stabilize farmer income by setting a guaranteed reference price for corn that producers, the government, and food processors would negotiate, and also a government-backed initiative to assist with commercialization. The devil will be in the details, as what that price will be is not clear.
To keep the government honest, many farmers have maintained their protests, especially because the one-time direct payment does not reach the producers’ original demand of 7200 pesos per ton of corn.
This ensemble of policies being debated now in Mexico is neither radical nor strange. In the United States, there was the counter-cyclical payment program from 2002-2007 for various commodities when prices fell below a certain threshold. Another, similar initiative was the non-recourse loan program, which first appeared during the Great Depression, which then reappeared in 2014. This program has the government purchase products from farmers to keep reserves, or stocks, when prices fall below a certain level. The problem in the United States is that the threshold prices in these programs for when the government steps in either to purchase product or offer payments is so low as to make little real difference for most farmers.
Farmers in the US could organize and demand a better floor price in such programs that would cover, at minimum, the cost of production for their goods, and perhaps a little more so that they earn a profit. Instead, too often farmers believe that they alone can fix their economic problems, engaging in overproduction, which actually drives prices even further down and often pushes them into environmentally destructive practices.
Also not strange is the idea that American farmers would take to the streets to demand change. Back in 1979, thousands of farmers drove their tractors to DC to call for fair prices so that they could stay on the land, blocking streets and negotiating with lawmakers on potential policy options. These actions, while not securing significant changes at the time, did spur subsequent activism and movements to emerge in groups like Farm Aid.
Trump takes farmers’ support for granted. Look no further than how soy producers were treated during the China trade spat, as if they had no agency and were made into pawns. Mexican farmers show another way—one where farmers take control over their collective destiny, taking to the streets to call not just for improved economic returns, but dignity. Producers in the US should follow their lead, perhaps even join them. It's not just the Mexican countryside that needs saving, but the American one also needs rescuing.
The current administration seems content to let conditions for US farmers continue to decline, but our food producers shouldn't stand for it any longer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Land Degradation Threatens Billions of Lives Worldwide, Warns UN Food Agency
"Sustainable land management requires enabling environments that support long-term investment, innovation, and stewardship," said the head of the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Nov 03, 2025
A report published Monday by a United Nations agency revealed that nearly 1 in 5 people on Earth live in regions affected by failing crop yields driven by human-induced land degradation, “a pervasive and silent crisis that is undermining agricultural productivity and threatening ecosystem health worldwide."
According to the latest UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Food and Agriculture report, "Today, nearly 1.7 billion people live in areas where land degradation contributes to yield losses and food insecurity."
"These impacts are unevenly distributed: In high-income countries, degradation is often masked by intensive input use, while in low-income countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, yield gaps are driven by limited access to inputs, credit, and markets," the publication continues. "The convergence of degraded land, poverty, and malnutrition creates vulnerability hotspots that demand urgent, targeted and, comprehensive responses."
#LandDegradation threatens land's ability to sustain us. The good news: Reversing 10% of degraded cropland can produce food for an additional 154 million people.
▶️Learn how smarter policies & greener practices can turn agriculture into a force for land restoration.
#SOFA2025 pic.twitter.com/8U3yQk9lX4
— Food and Agriculture Organization (@FAO) November 3, 2025
In order to measure land degradation, the report's authors compared three key indicators of current conditions in soil organic carbon, soil erosion, and soil water against conditions that would exist without human alteration of the environment. That data was then run through a machine-learning model that considers environmental and socioeconomic factors driving change to estimate the land’s baseline state without human activity.
Land supports over 95% of humanity's food production and provides critical ecosystem services that sustain life on Earth. Land degradation—which typically results from a combination of factors including natural drivers like soil erosion and salizination and human activities such as deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable irrigation practices—threatens billions of human and other lives.
The report notes the importance of land to living beings:
Since the invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago, land has played a central role in sustaining civilizations. As the fundamental resource of agrifood systems, it interacts with natural systems in complex ways, influencing soil quality, water resources, and biodiversity, while securing global food supplies and supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Biophysically, it consists of a range of components including soil, water, flora, and fauna, and provides numerous ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and water purification, all of which are subject to climate and weather conditions.
Socioeconomically, land supports many sectors such as agriculture, forestry, livestock, infrastructure development, mining, and tourism. Land is also deeply woven into the cultures of humanity, including those of Indigenous peoples, whose unique agrifood systems are a profound expression of ancestral lands and territories, waters, nonhuman relatives, the spiritual realm, and their collective identity and self-determination. Land, therefore, functions as the basis for human livelihoods and well-being.
"At its core, land is an essential resource for agricultural production, feeding billions of people worldwide and sustaining employment for millions of agrifood workers," the report adds. "Healthy soils, with their ability to retain water and nutrients, underpin the cultivation of crops, while pastures support livestock; together they supply diverse food products essential to diets and economies."
The report recommends steps including reversing 10% of all human-caused land degradation on existing cropland by implementing crop rotation and other sustainable management practices, which the authors say could produce enough food to feed an additional 154 million people annually.
"Reversing land degradation on existing croplands through sustainable land use and management could close yield gaps to support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of producers," FAO Director-General Dongyu Qu wrote in the report’s foreword. "Additionally, restoring abandoned cropland could feed hundreds of millions more people."
"These findings represent real opportunities to improve food security, reduce pressure on natural ecosystems, and build more resilient agrifood systems," Qu continued. "To seize these opportunities, we must act decisively. Sustainable land management requires enabling environments that support long-term investment, innovation, and stewardship."
"Secure land tenure—for both individuals and communities—is essential," he added. "When land users have confidence in their rights, they are more likely to invest in soil conservation, crop diversity and productivity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular