NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. regulators on Monday cleared the way for the sale of beef from gene-edited cattle in coming years after the Food and Drug Administration concluded the animals do not raise any safety concerns.

The cattle by Recombinetics are the third genetically altered animals given the green light for human consumption in the U.S. after salmon and pigs. Many other foods already are made with genetically modified ingredients from crops like soybeans and corn.

The cattle reviewed by the FDA had genes altered with a technology called CRISPR to have short, slick coats that let them more easily withstand hot weather. Cattle that aren’t stressed by heat might pack on weight more easily, making for more efficient meat production.

The company did not say when home cooks or restaurants might be able to buy the beef, but the FDA said it could reach the market in as early as two years.

Unlike the salmon and pigs, the cattle did not have to go through a yearslong approval process. The FDA said the cattle were exempt from that because their genetic makeup is similar to other existing cattle and the trait can be found naturally in some breeds.

Dr. Steven Solomon, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said the agency’s review of Recombinetics' cattle took several months. He said there’s no reason meat from the animals or their offspring would need to be labeled differently.

Solomon said a genetically altered animal marketed as having a special advantage — such a higher than normal ability to withstand heat — might need to go through the full approval process.

“This opens up a completely different pathway,” he said, noting the decision could be encouraging for other biotech companies, many of which are small startups.

The gene-edited trait in the Recombinetics cattle can be passed down so semen and embryos from them could be used to produce offspring with the same shorter coats.

The trait will make beef production more sustainable and to improve animal welfare in warmer climates, Recombinetics said in a statement without providing further details.

Greg Jaffe, who specializes in biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the FDA’s announcement made clear it wasn't exempting all gene-edited animals from the longer approval process.

“They reinforce the idea that this is a case-by-case review,” Jaffe said.

He said the agency should be more transparent about the review process so people know what's in the works. That could lead to better public acceptance and minimize any potential economic disruptions from global trade, since other countries might consider the animals genetically modified foods that need to be labeled, he said.

Jaydee Hanson, of the Center for Food Safety, said the agency should keep track of the animals for several generations to ensure there aren’t any unintended issues.

The genetically modified pig is intended mainly for medical purposes, not meat, according to the company that developed it. The firm recently provided a pig heart that was transplanted into a dying man in an experimental surgery.

The company behind the modified salmon said the fish are being sold to distributors in the Midwest and Northeast.

Alison Van Eenennaam, an animal geneticist at University of California, Davis who has worked with Recombinetics, said requiring all companies to go through the lengthy approval process could end the possibility of commercializing gene-edited animals in the U.S.

For the gene-edited cattle cleared by the FDA, she said it could take about two years for beef from the offspring to reach the market.

Once the semen is used to create embryos, she said gestation would take about nine months and the resulting calves might be slaughtered after about 10 months. She noted the market isn’t limited to the U.S., given the way cattle are bred.

“Let’s face it, bull semen goes all over the world,” she said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/5/1590681306227.jpeg" alt="Image from Pixabay&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Image from Pixabay&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>By CANDICE CHOI, Associated PressNEW YORK (AP) — U.S. regulators on Monday cleared the way for the sale of beef from gene-edited cattle in coming years after the Food and Drug Administration concluded the animals do not raise any safety concerns.The cattle by Recombinetics are the third genetically altered animals given the green light for human consumption in the U.S. after salmon and pigs. Many other foods already are made with genetically modified ingredients from crops like soybeans and corn.The cattle reviewed by the FDA had genes altered with a technology called CRISPR to have short, slick coats that let them more easily withstand hot weather. Cattle that aren’t stressed by heat might pack on weight more easily, making for more efficient meat production.The company did not say when home cooks or restaurants might be able to buy the beef, but the FDA said it could reach the market in as early as two years.Unlike the salmon and pigs, the cattle did not have to go through a yearslong approval process. The FDA said the cattle were exempt from that because their genetic makeup is similar to other existing cattle and the trait can be found naturally in some breeds.Dr. Steven Solomon, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said the agency’s review of Recombinetics' cattle took several months. He said there’s no reason meat from the animals or their offspring would need to be labeled differently.Solomon said a genetically altered animal marketed as having a special advantage — such a higher than normal ability to withstand heat — might need to go through the full approval process.“This opens up a completely different pathway,” he said, noting the decision could be encouraging for other biotech companies, many of which are small startups.The gene-edited trait in the Recombinetics cattle can be passed down so semen and embryos from them could be used to produce offspring with the same shorter coats.The trait will make beef production more sustainable and to improve animal welfare in warmer climates, Recombinetics said in a statement without providing further details.Greg Jaffe, who specializes in biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the FDA’s announcement made clear it wasn't exempting all gene-edited animals from the longer approval process.“They reinforce the idea that this is a case-by-case review,” Jaffe said.He said the agency should be more transparent about the review process so people know what's in the works. That could lead to better public acceptance and minimize any potential economic disruptions from global trade, since other countries might consider the animals genetically modified foods that need to be labeled, he said.Jaydee Hanson, of the Center for Food Safety, said the agency should keep track of the animals for several generations to ensure there aren’t any unintended issues.The genetically modified pig is intended mainly for medical purposes, not meat, according to the company that developed it. The firm recently provided a pig heart that was transplanted into a dying man in an experimental surgery.The company behind the modified salmon said the fish are being sold to distributors in the Midwest and Northeast.Alison Van Eenennaam, an animal geneticist at University of California, Davis who has worked with Recombinetics, said requiring all companies to go through the lengthy approval process could end the possibility of commercializing gene-edited animals in the U.S.For the gene-edited cattle cleared by the FDA, she said it could take about two years for beef from the offspring to reach the market.Once the semen is used to create embryos, she said gestation would take about nine months and the resulting calves might be slaughtered after about 10 months. She noted the market isn’t limited to the U.S., given the way cattle are bred.“Let’s face it, bull semen goes all over the world,” she said.

Gene-edited beef cattle get regulatory clearance in US

By JARED STRONG <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/02/07/usda-pledges-1b-for-climate-smart-ag-products/">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>

The U.S.
 Department of Agriculture plans to spend up to $1 billion to foster the
 creation of climate-friendly agricultural and forestry products by 
offering grants to facilitate their production and the markets to sell 
them.

The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in those industries.

“Agriculture is such an exciting but 
challenging, critical but dynamic space. It’s easy to make the case to 
young people to get engaged in this,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom 
Vilsack said Monday in announcing the program at Missouri’s Lincoln 
University, a historically Black university with a robust agricultural 
program. “It’s at the heart of our fight against climate change.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
estimates that about 10% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions — 
which are key drivers of a warming climate — come from agriculture, 
especially livestock production. Cattle are agriculture’s primary 
emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

The USDA’s new Partnerships for 
Climate-Smart Commodities program will provide up to $100 million for 
individual pilot projects to plan and implement emission-reducing 
practices, create new markets to sell the products that result from 
those practices and quantify the effectiveness of the practices.

Measuring livestock emissions has long been a
 tricky proposition for federal regulators. An example: The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency suspended its enforcement of the Clean 
Air Act as it might pertain to animal confinements about 16 years ago as
 it seeks to develop a reliable way to measure the buildings’ emissions.

Beef production is potentially a bigger 
quandary because the animals are often raised in open-air lots. However,
 researchers have been able to estimate the average annual methane 
production from cows and how much it can be reduced with <a href="https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/2020/01/unh-scientists-expand-seaweed-research-benefit-regions-dairy-farmers" target="_blank">specialized diets</a>.

The <a href="https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities" target="_blank">new USDA grant program</a>
 is open to a wide variety of entities: businesses, nonprofit 
organizations, governments, Native American tribal governments and 
organizations, and colleges and universities.

The department has set an April 8 deadline 
for proposals that range from $5 million to $100 million and a May 27 
deadline for those that would cost less than $5 million, according to 
the department’s <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/climate-smart-nfo-usda-nrcs-comm-22-nofo0001139-02062022-web-final.pdf" target="_blank">public Notice</a><a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/climate-smart-nfo-usda-nrcs-comm-22-nofo0001139-02062022-web-final.pdf" target="_blank"> of Funding Opportunity.</a>
 Small and “historically underserved” agricultural producers and 
“minority-serving institutions” will get priority, the notice says.

“This might look, for example, like a group 
of small farmers working with a nonprofit to implement and quantify 
climate-smart practices in partnership with a retailer,” Vilsack said. 
“Or it could be a network of commodity organizations recruiting 
specialty crop farmers to quantify reduced emissions and market the 
resulting products. It may be a farmer-partner organization working with
 universities to test innovative approaches to monitor and verify 
climate benefits to aid in marketing. It could be all of that or any of 
it, along with a lot of other ideas and concepts.”

Vilsack did not say whether the products 
would bear a “climate smart” label that is subject to USDA 
certification, similar to organic foods.

This article first appeared in the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>, a sister site of the Nebraska Examiner in the States Newsroom&nbsp;network.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/2/1644333577889.png" alt="U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced a $1 billion grant program to boost agricultural and forestry products that are made with reduced greenhouse gas emissions. (Screenshot from USDA video)" />
 <figcaption>U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced a $1 billion grant program to boost agricultural and forestry products that are made with reduced greenhouse gas emissions. (Screenshot from USDA video)</figcaption>
 </figure>By JARED STRONG <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/02/07/usda-pledges-1b-for-climate-smart-ag-products/">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>The U.S.
 Department of Agriculture plans to spend up to $1 billion to foster the
 creation of climate-friendly agricultural and forestry products by 
offering grants to facilitate their production and the markets to sell 
them.The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in those industries.“Agriculture is such an exciting but 
challenging, critical but dynamic space. It’s easy to make the case to 
young people to get engaged in this,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom 
Vilsack said Monday in announcing the program at Missouri’s Lincoln 
University, a historically Black university with a robust agricultural 
program. “It’s at the heart of our fight against climate change.”The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
estimates that about 10% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions — 
which are key drivers of a warming climate — come from agriculture, 
especially livestock production. Cattle are agriculture’s primary 
emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.The USDA’s new Partnerships for 
Climate-Smart Commodities program will provide up to $100 million for 
individual pilot projects to plan and implement emission-reducing 
practices, create new markets to sell the products that result from 
those practices and quantify the effectiveness of the practices.Measuring livestock emissions has long been a
 tricky proposition for federal regulators. An example: The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency suspended its enforcement of the Clean 
Air Act as it might pertain to animal confinements about 16 years ago as
 it seeks to develop a reliable way to measure the buildings’ emissions.Beef production is potentially a bigger 
quandary because the animals are often raised in open-air lots. However,
 researchers have been able to estimate the average annual methane 
production from cows and how much it can be reduced with <a href="https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/2020/01/unh-scientists-expand-seaweed-research-benefit-regions-dairy-farmers" target="_blank">specialized diets</a>.The <a href="https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities" target="_blank">new USDA grant program</a>
 is open to a wide variety of entities: businesses, nonprofit 
organizations, governments, Native American tribal governments and 
organizations, and colleges and universities.The department has set an April 8 deadline 
for proposals that range from $5 million to $100 million and a May 27 
deadline for those that would cost less than $5 million, according to 
the department’s <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/climate-smart-nfo-usda-nrcs-comm-22-nofo0001139-02062022-web-final.pdf" target="_blank">public Notice</a><a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/climate-smart-nfo-usda-nrcs-comm-22-nofo0001139-02062022-web-final.pdf" target="_blank"> of Funding Opportunity.</a>
 Small and “historically underserved” agricultural producers and 
“minority-serving institutions” will get priority, the notice says.“This might look, for example, like a group 
of small farmers working with a nonprofit to implement and quantify 
climate-smart practices in partnership with a retailer,” Vilsack said. 
“Or it could be a network of commodity organizations recruiting 
specialty crop farmers to quantify reduced emissions and market the 
resulting products. It may be a farmer-partner organization working with
 universities to test innovative approaches to monitor and verify 
climate benefits to aid in marketing. It could be all of that or any of 
it, along with a lot of other ideas and concepts.”Vilsack did not say whether the products 
would bear a “climate smart” label that is subject to USDA 
certification, similar to organic foods.This article first appeared in the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>, a sister site of the Nebraska Examiner in the States Newsroom&nbsp;network.

USDA pledges $1B for ‘climate smart’ ag products

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden met virtually with independent farmers and ranchers on Monday to discuss initiatives to reduce&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-health-business-poland-f559465c6a822d12b2dd513f122d5a31">food prices</a>&nbsp;by increasing competition within the meat industry, part of a broader effort to show his administration is trying to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-health-business-richard-nixon-ae06d5cccf066239f9aa7f06491c7698">combat inflation</a>.

“Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism — it’s exploitation,” Biden said.

Higher-than-expected inflation has thwarted Biden’s agenda, hurt his public approval rating, become fodder for Republican attacks and prompted&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/manchin-rejects-biden-spending-bill-democrats-election-e7a0ca4c25c686e91cb21e166c44821b">Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.</a>, to cite higher prices as a reason to sideline the Democratic president’s tax, social and economic programs. In November, consumer prices&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/latest-inflation-numbers-consumer-prices-616055db3bf67691b4fdc0015fc00783">rose 6.8%</a>&nbsp;over the prior 12 months — a 39-year high.

On food costs, Biden is building off a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/" target="_blank">July executive order</a>&nbsp;that directed the Agriculture Department to more aggressively look at possible violations of the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which was designed to ensure fair competition and protect consumers. Meat prices have climbed 16% from a year ago, with beef prices up 20.9%.

The president said the higher prices have been the subject of frustration at his own kitchen table. His wife, Jill, was talking on Sunday with her sister and a friend about a pound of hamburger meat costing $5 a pound, compared with less than $4 before the pandemic.

The administration is targeting meat processing plants, which can shape the prices paid to farmers and charged to consumers. The White House issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-more-competitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultry-supply-chain/" target="_blank">fact sheet</a>&nbsp;saying that the top four companies control 85% of the beef market. In poultry, the biggest four processing firms control 54% of the market. And for pork, the figure is 70% for the four biggest firms.

Many industry groups are pushing back against the administration’s planned oversight of the food industry.

Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the coronavirus and higher costs for energy and labor are driving meat prices higher, not the corporate structure of the industry.

Bradley said the administration is practicing politics instead of economics and “government intervention would likely further constrain supply and push prices even higher.”

Mike Brown, president of the National Chicken Council, said, “This looks like a solution in search of a problem.” He said the administration is using the food industry as a “scapegoat for the significant challenges facing our economy. ”

Biden outlined plans to distribute $1 billion from the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-vote-coronavirus-relief-package-33f4902ca9a2aed4e76274af6bb2ea5c">coronavirus relief package</a>&nbsp;to help independent meat processors expand. He also highlighted money to train workers in the industry and improve conditions, as well as issue new rules for meatpackers and labeling requirements for being designated a “Product of USA.”

The Justice Department and the Agriculture Department will launch a joint effort to make it easier to report anti-competitive actions to the government. The administration will also seek to improve the transparency of the cattle market, with Biden saying, “A free market isn’t truly free without transparency around prices.”

The effort is part of a broader attempt to regain control of America’s economic narrative. Besides inflation, the repeated&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-lifestyle-health-travel-80caac77e0cfed7e0e08cfa024ed3a9b">waves of coronavirus outbreak</a>&nbsp;have dampened people’s opinions about the economy despite&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-economy-gross-domestic-product-119b8182404771d0362da6d0d49891c0">strong growth</a>&nbsp;over the past year.

Biden will have an opportunity to highlight the economy’s strengths with the December jobs report being released Friday. Economists surveyed by FactSet expect that the United States added 362,000 jobs last month with the unemployment rate ticking down to 4.1%. Gains of that magnitude would indicate that the U.S. added roughly 6.5 million jobs last year, more than in any other previous year in a reflection of population growth and government spending.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/1/1641245951468.png" alt="The president said the higher prices have been the subject of frustration at his own kitchen table. His wife, Jill, was talking on Sunday with her sister and a friend about a pound of hamburger meat costing $5 a pound, compared with less than $4 before the pandemic-White House photo" />
 <figcaption>The president said the higher prices have been the subject of frustration at his own kitchen table. His wife, Jill, was talking on Sunday with her sister and a friend about a pound of hamburger meat costing $5 a pound, compared with less than $4 before the pandemic-White House photo</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden met virtually with independent farmers and ranchers on Monday to discuss initiatives to reduce&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-health-business-poland-f559465c6a822d12b2dd513f122d5a31">food prices</a>&nbsp;by increasing competition within the meat industry, part of a broader effort to show his administration is trying to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-health-business-richard-nixon-ae06d5cccf066239f9aa7f06491c7698">combat inflation</a>.<div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWhiteHouse%2Fvideos%2F1615116315497364%2F&show_text=true&width=560&t=70" width="560" height="429" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe></div>“Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism — it’s exploitation,” Biden said.Higher-than-expected inflation has thwarted Biden’s agenda, hurt his public approval rating, become fodder for Republican attacks and prompted&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/manchin-rejects-biden-spending-bill-democrats-election-e7a0ca4c25c686e91cb21e166c44821b">Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.</a>, to cite higher prices as a reason to sideline the Democratic president’s tax, social and economic programs. In November, consumer prices&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/latest-inflation-numbers-consumer-prices-616055db3bf67691b4fdc0015fc00783">rose 6.8%</a>&nbsp;over the prior 12 months — a 39-year high.On food costs, Biden is building off a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/" target="_blank">July executive order</a>&nbsp;that directed the Agriculture Department to more aggressively look at possible violations of the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which was designed to ensure fair competition and protect consumers. Meat prices have climbed 16% from a year ago, with beef prices up 20.9%.The president said the higher prices have been the subject of frustration at his own kitchen table. His wife, Jill, was talking on Sunday with her sister and a friend about a pound of hamburger meat costing $5 a pound, compared with less than $4 before the pandemic.The administration is targeting meat processing plants, which can shape the prices paid to farmers and charged to consumers. The White House issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-more-competitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultry-supply-chain/" target="_blank">fact sheet</a>&nbsp;saying that the top four companies control 85% of the beef market. In poultry, the biggest four processing firms control 54% of the market. And for pork, the figure is 70% for the four biggest firms.Many industry groups are pushing back against the administration’s planned oversight of the food industry.Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the coronavirus and higher costs for energy and labor are driving meat prices higher, not the corporate structure of the industry.Bradley said the administration is practicing politics instead of economics and “government intervention would likely further constrain supply and push prices even higher.”Mike Brown, president of the National Chicken Council, said, “This looks like a solution in search of a problem.” He said the administration is using the food industry as a “scapegoat for the significant challenges facing our economy. ”Biden outlined plans to distribute $1 billion from the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-vote-coronavirus-relief-package-33f4902ca9a2aed4e76274af6bb2ea5c">coronavirus relief package</a>&nbsp;to help independent meat processors expand. He also highlighted money to train workers in the industry and improve conditions, as well as issue new rules for meatpackers and labeling requirements for being designated a “Product of USA.”The Justice Department and the Agriculture Department will launch a joint effort to make it easier to report anti-competitive actions to the government. The administration will also seek to improve the transparency of the cattle market, with Biden saying, “A free market isn’t truly free without transparency around prices.”The effort is part of a broader attempt to regain control of America’s economic narrative. Besides inflation, the repeated&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-lifestyle-health-travel-80caac77e0cfed7e0e08cfa024ed3a9b">waves of coronavirus outbreak</a>&nbsp;have dampened people’s opinions about the economy despite&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-economy-gross-domestic-product-119b8182404771d0362da6d0d49891c0">strong growth</a>&nbsp;over the past year.Biden will have an opportunity to highlight the economy’s strengths with the December jobs report being released Friday. Economists surveyed by FactSet expect that the United States added 362,000 jobs last month with the unemployment rate ticking down to 4.1%. Gains of that magnitude would indicate that the U.S. added roughly 6.5 million jobs last year, more than in any other previous year in a reflection of population growth and government spending.___

🎥 Biden talks with farmers, ranchers on reducing food prices

DETROIT (AP) — Deere &amp; Co. workers approved a new contract Wednesday that will deliver 10% raises immediately and end a monthlong strike for more than 10,000 employees.

The United Auto Workers union said 61% of its members approved the deal with the tractor maker on their third vote, even though this offer was strikingly similar to one that 55% of workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">rejected two weeks ago</a>.

Deere workers — and other unions — have been emboldened to ask for more this year because of the ongoing worker shortages and because workers didn’t always feel appreciated while working long hours during the pandemic.

This latest proposal made only modest changes to the details of Deere’s internal incentive pay plan. The new contract covers 12 plants in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas where the Moline, Illinois-based company’s iconic John Deere green agricultural and construction equipment is made.

The company said work would resume on Wednesday night.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 -Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 -Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>DETROIT (AP) — Deere &amp; Co. workers approved a new contract Wednesday that will deliver 10% raises immediately and end a monthlong strike for more than 10,000 employees.The United Auto Workers union said 61% of its members approved the deal with the tractor maker on their third vote, even though this offer was strikingly similar to one that 55% of workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">rejected two weeks ago</a>.Deere workers — and other unions — have been emboldened to ask for more this year because of the ongoing worker shortages and because workers didn’t always feel appreciated while working long hours during the pandemic.This latest proposal made only modest changes to the details of Deere’s internal incentive pay plan. The new contract covers 12 plants in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas where the Moline, Illinois-based company’s iconic John Deere green agricultural and construction equipment is made.The company said work would resume on Wednesday night.

Deere workers approve 3rd contract offer, will end strike

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed his $1 trillion infrastructure deal into law Monday on the White House lawn, hailing it as an example of what bipartisanship can achieve.

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?516100-1/president-biden-signs-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill&amp;live">Click here </a>to watch the President's comments

The president hopes to use the law to build back his popularity and says it will deliver jobs, clean water, high-speed internet and a clean energy future. Support for Biden has taken a hit amid rising inflation and the inability to fully shake the public health and economic risks from COVID-19.

A smattering of Republican lawmakers were on hand for what might be one the last celebratory displays of bipartisanship ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

“My message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better,” Biden said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1637009964663.png" alt="President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris embrace ahead of Monday's bill signing-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris embrace ahead of Monday's bill signing-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed his $1 trillion infrastructure deal into law Monday on the White House lawn, hailing it as an example of what bipartisanship can achieve.<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?516100-1/president-biden-signs-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill&amp;live">Click here </a>to watch the President's commentsThe president hopes to use the law to build back his popularity and says it will deliver jobs, clean water, high-speed internet and a clean energy future. Support for Biden has taken a hit amid rising inflation and the inability to fully shake the public health and economic risks from COVID-19.A smattering of Republican lawmakers were on hand for what might be one the last celebratory displays of bipartisanship ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1637013446903.png" alt="Photo courtesy White. House" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy White. House</figcaption>
 </figure>“My message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better,” Biden said.

🎥 Pres. Biden signs $1T infrastructure plan into law

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Deere &amp; Co. and union officials have reached a third preliminary contract agreement that workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">who began striking four weeks ago&nbsp;</a>will vote on soon.

The United Auto Workers said in a statement Friday night that the proposed contract with the agricultural machinery giant “includes modest modifications” to the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">latest rejected proposal,&nbsp;</a>which included immediate 10% raises. The union described the new proposal as the company’s “last, best and final offer” in its&nbsp;<a href="https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-companys-last-best-final-offer/" target="_blank">statement</a>.

The contract, which union members will vote on on Wednesday, would cover more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, who make the company’s iconic John Deere green tractors and other equipment.

UAW spokesperson Brian Rothenberg said he wasn’t sure when members would be filled in on the proposed contract’s details, The Des Moines Register&nbsp;<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/11/12/john-deere-strike-uaw-reach-third-potential-contract-agreement/8594811002/" target="_blank">reported.</a>

Deere spokesperson Jennifer Hartmann declined to comment Friday night.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 -Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 -Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Deere &amp; Co. and union officials have reached a third preliminary contract agreement that workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">who began striking four weeks ago&nbsp;</a>will vote on soon.The United Auto Workers said in a statement Friday night that the proposed contract with the agricultural machinery giant “includes modest modifications” to the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">latest rejected proposal,&nbsp;</a>which included immediate 10% raises. The union described the new proposal as the company’s “last, best and final offer” in its&nbsp;<a href="https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-companys-last-best-final-offer/" target="_blank">statement</a>.The contract, which union members will vote on on Wednesday, would cover more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, who make the company’s iconic John Deere green tractors and other equipment.UAW spokesperson Brian Rothenberg said he wasn’t sure when members would be filled in on the proposed contract’s details, The Des Moines Register&nbsp;<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/11/12/john-deere-strike-uaw-reach-third-potential-contract-agreement/8594811002/" target="_blank">reported.</a>Deere spokesperson Jennifer Hartmann declined to comment Friday night.

Striking Deere & Co. workers prepare to vote on 3rd contract

MOLINE, IL.&nbsp; (AP) —Deere executives said Wednesday that the company wouldn’t return to the bargaining table with striking workers because it wouldn’t offer a better contract than one they rejected that included immediate 10% raises.

Marc Howze, the chief administrative officer of Deere &amp; Co., said the deal the United Auto Workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">union rejected</a>&nbsp;on Tuesday represented the most it could offer and still keep its costs competitive.

Howze declined to discuss how much the ongoing strike is costing Deere, which will release its next earnings report later this month. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">disputed contract</a>&nbsp;would cover more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, who make the company’s iconic John Deere green tractors and other equipment.

The company plans to reach out to employees directly now to stress the virtues of its offer while it tries to keep its plants running with salaried employees and other workers to meet customer commitments. Other Deere plants globally are also working to pick up the slack.

“We want to make sure they understand the value of the agreement, to make sure they understand that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to hold out,” Howze said. “To some degree, because we were able to come to a resolution as quickly as we were, I think there’s some folks who believe there must be some more available.”

In addition to the initial raises, this week’s offer included 5% raises in the third and fifth years of the six-year deal, and it would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.

UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg said union leaders were meeting to discuss their next moves. With a majority of workers voting against the latest offer, union officials face demands to deliver more but that might be difficult given the Moline, Illinois-based company’s stance. And pressure to reach a settlement will mount the longer workers go without pay.

The vote Tuesday was much closer than when 90% of the workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">rejected the company’s first offer</a>&nbsp;last month, but 55% of the workers still rejected the latest offer. Workers have been encouraged to seek more now because of the current worker shortages and Deere’s strong profits.

“It seems general membership feels emboldened by this current political moment of labor power. They’re pushing things further than the union leadership apparently wants to go,” said Victor Chen, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies labor. “It’s a gamble, but the economic wind is against their backs, given widespread supply chain problems and the current worker shortage.”

Deere officials, who have predicted that the company will report record profits of between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion this fiscal year, don’t want to miss out on sales to farmers who are ready to buy thanks to strong crop prices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that farmers’ net income will increase by nearly 20% this year, to $113 billion.

Observers say the rejection of the deal shows pent-up anger among Deere workers over how much of its profits the company has been willing to share with workers.

“Although the proposed contract was a significant improvement over the previous offer, the Deere workers evidently felt that the company could afford more,” Fordham University sociologist Chris Rhomberg said. “For decades, wages across the economy have lagged behind productivity growth, and workers may be tired of seeing the gains from their efforts go predominantly to corporations making record-breaking earnings.”

Now the challenge for the UAW and Deere will be finding a way to resolve their differences in a way that workers will accept, said Todd Vachon, a former member of a carpenter’s union who now teaches about labor relations at Rutgers University.

“There is always the risk of overplaying one’s hand — on both sides, really,” Vachon said. “It appears the final mile will likely involve some changes to work rules and working conditions in addition to just wage increases.”

The longer the strike continues, the more painful it will become for everyone, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss said.

“During the dragging on, both sides lose,” Goss said. “Workers are looking at lost income. John Deere is looking at lost sales. So they both have sort of guns pointing at each other’s heads, economically speaking.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered only 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered only 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, IL.&nbsp; (AP) —Deere executives said Wednesday that the company wouldn’t return to the bargaining table with striking workers because it wouldn’t offer a better contract than one they rejected that included immediate 10% raises.Marc Howze, the chief administrative officer of Deere &amp; Co., said the deal the United Auto Workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-strikes-united-auto-workers-7124f0d5f729c0a722e62c87c94fc14a">union rejected</a>&nbsp;on Tuesday represented the most it could offer and still keep its costs competitive.Howze declined to discuss how much the ongoing strike is costing Deere, which will release its next earnings report later this month. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">disputed contract</a>&nbsp;would cover more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, who make the company’s iconic John Deere green tractors and other equipment.The company plans to reach out to employees directly now to stress the virtues of its offer while it tries to keep its plants running with salaried employees and other workers to meet customer commitments. Other Deere plants globally are also working to pick up the slack.“We want to make sure they understand the value of the agreement, to make sure they understand that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to hold out,” Howze said. “To some degree, because we were able to come to a resolution as quickly as we were, I think there’s some folks who believe there must be some more available.”In addition to the initial raises, this week’s offer included 5% raises in the third and fifth years of the six-year deal, and it would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg said union leaders were meeting to discuss their next moves. With a majority of workers voting against the latest offer, union officials face demands to deliver more but that might be difficult given the Moline, Illinois-based company’s stance. And pressure to reach a settlement will mount the longer workers go without pay.The vote Tuesday was much closer than when 90% of the workers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">rejected the company’s first offer</a>&nbsp;last month, but 55% of the workers still rejected the latest offer. Workers have been encouraged to seek more now because of the current worker shortages and Deere’s strong profits.“It seems general membership feels emboldened by this current political moment of labor power. They’re pushing things further than the union leadership apparently wants to go,” said Victor Chen, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies labor. “It’s a gamble, but the economic wind is against their backs, given widespread supply chain problems and the current worker shortage.”ADVERTISEMENTDeere officials, who have predicted that the company will report record profits of between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion this fiscal year, don’t want to miss out on sales to farmers who are ready to buy thanks to strong crop prices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that farmers’ net income will increase by nearly 20% this year, to $113 billion.Observers say the rejection of the deal shows pent-up anger among Deere workers over how much of its profits the company has been willing to share with workers.“Although the proposed contract was a significant improvement over the previous offer, the Deere workers evidently felt that the company could afford more,” Fordham University sociologist Chris Rhomberg said. “For decades, wages across the economy have lagged behind productivity growth, and workers may be tired of seeing the gains from their efforts go predominantly to corporations making record-breaking earnings.”Now the challenge for the UAW and Deere will be finding a way to resolve their differences in a way that workers will accept, said Todd Vachon, a former member of a carpenter’s union who now teaches about labor relations at Rutgers University.“There is always the risk of overplaying one’s hand — on both sides, really,” Vachon said. “It appears the final mile will likely involve some changes to work rules and working conditions in addition to just wage increases.”The longer the strike continues, the more painful it will become for everyone, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss said.“During the dragging on, both sides lose,” Goss said. “Workers are looking at lost income. John Deere is looking at lost sales. So they both have sort of guns pointing at each other’s heads, economically speaking.”

Deere warns striking workers as walkout moves into 4th week

MOLINE, IL (AP) —Most workers at Deere &amp; Co. rejected a contract offer Tuesday that would have given them 10% raises and decided to remain on strike in the hopes of securing a better deal.

The raises in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">new agreement</a>&nbsp;reached over the weekend were twice as big as the ones in the original offer United Auto Workers union members rejected last month, but those raises and improved benefits weren’t enough to end the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">strike that began</a>&nbsp;on Oct. 14. The new agreement also would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.

The disputed contract covers more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. A smaller group of about 100 workers at two Deere facilities in Colorado and Georgia voted to accept an identical deal.

The union said 55% of its members at the 12 main plants voted against this latest contract offer Tuesday.

Last month, 90% of union members also rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.

Deere officials said they were disappointed the agreement was voted down.

“Through the agreements reached with the UAW, John Deere would have invested an additional $3.5 billion in our employees, and by extension, our communities, to significantly enhance wages and benefits that were already the best and most comprehensive in our industries,” said Marc A. Howze, Deere’s chief administrative officer. “This investment was the right one for Deere, our employees, and everyone we serve together.”

Tuesday’s vote means that the first major strike since 1986 will continue at the maker of agriculture and construction equipment. Currently, many companies are dealing with worker shortages, making workers feel&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-4895e84ab6ed4bb61e9cb8d6c0bcfad5">emboldened&nbsp;</a>to demand more.

Forklift operator Irving Griffin, who has been with Deere for 11 years, told&nbsp;<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/11/02/john-deere-strikers-uaw-told-nation-watching-afl-cio-president-liz-shuler/6180383001/" target="_blank">the Des Moines Register</a>&nbsp;Monday that he planned to vote against the contract because he believed the company can offer even more.

Griffin said he thought workers should hold out for a better offer even though workers are receiving only $275 a week from the union while they’re on strike.

“Now is the best time to strike and take a stand for what we’re really worth,” he said to the newspaper.

Sales have been strong at the Moline, Illinois-based company this year as the economy continued to recover from the pandemic. Deere has predicted it will report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, IL (AP) —Most workers at Deere &amp; Co. rejected a contract offer Tuesday that would have given them 10% raises and decided to remain on strike in the hopes of securing a better deal.The raises in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-illinois-moline-united-auto-workers-7e85b3d6aa34955f7c0be633e201c87f">new agreement</a>&nbsp;reached over the weekend were twice as big as the ones in the original offer United Auto Workers union members rejected last month, but those raises and improved benefits weren’t enough to end the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">strike that began</a>&nbsp;on Oct. 14. The new agreement also would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.The disputed contract covers more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. A smaller group of about 100 workers at two Deere facilities in Colorado and Georgia voted to accept an identical deal.The union said 55% of its members at the 12 main plants voted against this latest contract offer Tuesday.Last month, 90% of union members also rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.Deere officials said they were disappointed the agreement was voted down.“Through the agreements reached with the UAW, John Deere would have invested an additional $3.5 billion in our employees, and by extension, our communities, to significantly enhance wages and benefits that were already the best and most comprehensive in our industries,” said Marc A. Howze, Deere’s chief administrative officer. “This investment was the right one for Deere, our employees, and everyone we serve together.”Tuesday’s vote means that the first major strike since 1986 will continue at the maker of agriculture and construction equipment. Currently, many companies are dealing with worker shortages, making workers feel&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-4895e84ab6ed4bb61e9cb8d6c0bcfad5">emboldened&nbsp;</a>to demand more.Forklift operator Irving Griffin, who has been with Deere for 11 years, told&nbsp;<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/11/02/john-deere-strikers-uaw-told-nation-watching-afl-cio-president-liz-shuler/6180383001/" target="_blank">the Des Moines Register</a>&nbsp;Monday that he planned to vote against the contract because he believed the company can offer even more.Griffin said he thought workers should hold out for a better offer even though workers are receiving only $275 a week from the union while they’re on strike.“Now is the best time to strike and take a stand for what we’re really worth,” he said to the newspaper.Sales have been strong at the Moline, Illinois-based company this year as the economy continued to recover from the pandemic. Deere has predicted it will report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion.

Deere employees reject contract offer, will stay on strike

MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Union workers at Deere &amp; Co. would get wage increases of 10% in the first year and 5% each in the third and fifth years under a tentative contract reached between the farm-equipment maker and the United Auto Workers union.

The workers would get 3% lump sums in the second, fourth and sixth years of the deal. They would also get a ratification bonus of $8,500 and no changes in the cost of their health insurance, according to a summary of the agreement posted Sunday on the union website.

The company and the UAW reached a tentative agreement Saturday that would cover more than 10,000 workers at 12 Deere locations in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois">Illinois</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas">Kansas</a>. However, a strike that began Oct. 14 will continue while workers review the terms of the deal ahead of a ratification vote.

Union members previously rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.

The Moline, Illinois-based company reported $4.7 billion in net income for the first nine months of its fiscal year, more than double the $2 billion of the same period a year earlier.

A labor shortage affecting many industries also gave workers more leverage to demand better pay and benefits.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Union workers at Deere &amp; Co. would get wage increases of 10% in the first year and 5% each in the third and fifth years under a tentative contract reached between the farm-equipment maker and the United Auto Workers union.The workers would get 3% lump sums in the second, fourth and sixth years of the deal. They would also get a ratification bonus of $8,500 and no changes in the cost of their health insurance, according to a summary of the agreement posted Sunday on the union website.The company and the UAW reached a tentative agreement Saturday that would cover more than 10,000 workers at 12 Deere locations in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois">Illinois</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas">Kansas</a>. However, a strike that began Oct. 14 will continue while workers review the terms of the deal ahead of a ratification vote.Union members previously rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.The Moline, Illinois-based company reported $4.7 billion in net income for the first nine months of its fiscal year, more than double the $2 billion of the same period a year earlier.A labor shortage affecting many industries also gave workers more leverage to demand better pay and benefits.

Deere workers would get immediate 10% raises under new offer

By BRIAN GRIMMETT <a href="https://www.kmuw.org/2021-10-25/a-changing-climate-will-cost-kansas-farmers-millions-in-future-harvests">Kansas News Service</a>

WICHITA — Increased heat and drought driven by climate
 change could cost Kansas corn and soy growers tens of millions of 
dollars a year in yield losses by the end of the century.

A new study from Columbia University <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00341-6.epdf?sharing_token=0MFzgyezlY2l2RVSPFYl8tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nxppe7iyc5DE0aCBOZw3qYUSDEWDpVcYa-n-8smVqkj3kf-crK8k6SmirhXLpDvkmt1B7mP6eD4MbBgdWjTvelU5Fw-Cbc5rBGSn98iallrM3j5e3dbSRopylaq_wiQxsi3p2o2XOrOW0oW2QSEDmZS2kY4Z-go4NODZbp1PKgT8iUll48X9xg_nJeT8FmsbYLB1CYHeIg9jwF-uxzbMq3&amp;tracking_referrer=medialibrary.climatecentral.org" target="_blank">concluded that corn and soybean yields in Kansas will drop by as much as 20% to 30%</a>.
 But Kansas corn growers hope that better technology and research into 
drought-resistant varieties will offset potentially disastrous results.

The
 study looked beyond just the impacts of increasing temperatures, which 
is fairly well documented, and found where those higher temperatures 
also led to drier conditions.

“This is kind of a new risk we’ve 
uncovered,” said Corey Lesk, the lead author of the paper. “And it kind 
of adds up on top of the impact of warming itself.”

When analyzed 
together, the link between hot and dry conditions could cut corn and 
soybean yields by 5% worldwide compared to looking at the impacts of 
temperature increases alone.

In Kansas, where the coupling of 
higher temperatures and worse drought is expected to increase, the 
impact on corn and soybean harvests will be double what was previously 
expected.

Lesk and a team of researchers looked at historical 
records of crop yield and temperatures. They then made a separate map to
 look at moisture conditions over the same time period. The scientists 
found that places that were both hot and dry appear doomed to lose more 
of their ability to grow crops.

They then used climate models to project their findings into the future.

“The
 worst impact of warmer temperatures on those crop yields occurred in 
places where those couplings were the strongest,” Lesk said.

Corn 
is a $5 billion industry for Kansas. Decreased yields of that magnitude 
would cost some parts of the state as much as $40 million a year.

Greg Krissek, the CEO of <a href="https://kscorn.com/overview/" target="_blank">Kansas Corn</a> which represents corn growers and promotes the industry, said it’s already adapting to the changing climate and plans to use technology to limit future damage.

“We’ve
 got technology in the corn plant that is much more drought tolerant 
today than it certainly was 15 or 20 years ago,” he said.

He said 
whether it’s a better corn variety or irrigation upgrades that improve 
efficiency, technological advancements will prevent Kansas corn growers 
from experiencing the worst-case climate scenarios.

It’s helped so much already that in the past 15 years non-irrigated acres of corn in Kansas have increased more than irrigated.

“Kansas
 is very well placed to weather something like what this study might 
project because we’re already used to doing that,” Krissek said.

The
 paper also suggests the adoption of more sustainable agriculture 
practices, such as planting cover crops and no-till farming.

But 
ultimately, it suggests treating the problem, and not just the symptoms.
 That means attacking the primary cause of climate change by reducing 
the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit.

“If we’re worried about 
the impact of climate change on our crops and we really think that’s a 
problem, it’s got to translate to real climate policy that actually does
 something to reduce emissions,” Leak, the researcher said.

But 
whatever strategies farmers ultimately adopt, they’ll have to keep the 
progress going if they want to continue to overcome the expected 
changes.

“We need to make sure that we are taking the lead on 
recognizing that these are potential challenges we will be facing in the
 future,” said <a href="https://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/people/faculty/ciampitti-ignacio/" target="_blank">Ignacio Ciampitti</a>, professor of farming systems at Kansas State University.

He said research like the paper from Columbia, which he was not a part of, is another reminder of what’s at stake.

“We need to continue working on this,” Ciampitti said. “We cannot relax.”

Brian
 Grimmett reports on the environment, energy and natural resources for 
KMUW in Wichita and the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on 
Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/briangrimmett?lang=en" target="_blank">@briangrimmett</a> or email him at grimmett@kmuw.org.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1635187475627.png" alt="A center pivot irrigates corn field in Kansas. Chris Neal / Kansas News Service" />
 <figcaption>A center pivot irrigates corn field in Kansas. Chris Neal / Kansas News Service</figcaption>
 </figure>By BRIAN GRIMMETT <a href="https://www.kmuw.org/2021-10-25/a-changing-climate-will-cost-kansas-farmers-millions-in-future-harvests">Kansas News Service</a>WICHITA — Increased heat and drought driven by climate
 change could cost Kansas corn and soy growers tens of millions of 
dollars a year in yield losses by the end of the century.A new study from Columbia University <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00341-6.epdf?sharing_token=0MFzgyezlY2l2RVSPFYl8tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nxppe7iyc5DE0aCBOZw3qYUSDEWDpVcYa-n-8smVqkj3kf-crK8k6SmirhXLpDvkmt1B7mP6eD4MbBgdWjTvelU5Fw-Cbc5rBGSn98iallrM3j5e3dbSRopylaq_wiQxsi3p2o2XOrOW0oW2QSEDmZS2kY4Z-go4NODZbp1PKgT8iUll48X9xg_nJeT8FmsbYLB1CYHeIg9jwF-uxzbMq3&amp;tracking_referrer=medialibrary.climatecentral.org" target="_blank">concluded that corn and soybean yields in Kansas will drop by as much as 20% to 30%</a>.
 But Kansas corn growers hope that better technology and research into 
drought-resistant varieties will offset potentially disastrous results.The
 study looked beyond just the impacts of increasing temperatures, which 
is fairly well documented, and found where those higher temperatures 
also led to drier conditions.“This is kind of a new risk we’ve 
uncovered,” said Corey Lesk, the lead author of the paper. “And it kind 
of adds up on top of the impact of warming itself.”When analyzed 
together, the link between hot and dry conditions could cut corn and 
soybean yields by 5% worldwide compared to looking at the impacts of 
temperature increases alone.In Kansas, where the coupling of 
higher temperatures and worse drought is expected to increase, the 
impact on corn and soybean harvests will be double what was previously 
expected.Lesk and a team of researchers looked at historical 
records of crop yield and temperatures. They then made a separate map to
 look at moisture conditions over the same time period. The scientists 
found that places that were both hot and dry appear doomed to lose more 
of their ability to grow crops.They then used climate models to project their findings into the future.“The
 worst impact of warmer temperatures on those crop yields occurred in 
places where those couplings were the strongest,” Lesk said.Corn 
is a $5 billion industry for Kansas. Decreased yields of that magnitude 
would cost some parts of the state as much as $40 million a year.Greg Krissek, the CEO of <a href="https://kscorn.com/overview/" target="_blank">Kansas Corn</a> which represents corn growers and promotes the industry, said it’s already adapting to the changing climate and plans to use technology to limit future damage.“We’ve
 got technology in the corn plant that is much more drought tolerant 
today than it certainly was 15 or 20 years ago,” he said.He said 
whether it’s a better corn variety or irrigation upgrades that improve 
efficiency, technological advancements will prevent Kansas corn growers 
from experiencing the worst-case climate scenarios.It’s helped so much already that in the past 15 years non-irrigated acres of corn in Kansas have increased more than irrigated.“Kansas
 is very well placed to weather something like what this study might 
project because we’re already used to doing that,” Krissek said.The
 paper also suggests the adoption of more sustainable agriculture 
practices, such as planting cover crops and no-till farming.But 
ultimately, it suggests treating the problem, and not just the symptoms.
 That means attacking the primary cause of climate change by reducing 
the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit.“If we’re worried about 
the impact of climate change on our crops and we really think that’s a 
problem, it’s got to translate to real climate policy that actually does
 something to reduce emissions,” Leak, the researcher said.But 
whatever strategies farmers ultimately adopt, they’ll have to keep the 
progress going if they want to continue to overcome the expected 
changes.“We need to make sure that we are taking the lead on 
recognizing that these are potential challenges we will be facing in the
 future,” said <a href="https://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/people/faculty/ciampitti-ignacio/" target="_blank">Ignacio Ciampitti</a>, professor of farming systems at Kansas State University.He said research like the paper from Columbia, which he was not a part of, is another reminder of what’s at stake.“We need to continue working on this,” Ciampitti said. “We cannot relax.”Brian
 Grimmett reports on the environment, energy and natural resources for 
KMUW in Wichita and the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on 
Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/briangrimmett?lang=en" target="_blank">@briangrimmett</a> or email him at grimmett@kmuw.org.

Changing climate will cost Kan. farmers millions in future harvests

KANSAS CITY (AP) — A judge on Wednesday issued a temporary restraining order that details how picketing workers at the Deere &amp; Co. plant in Davenport must conduct themselves.

In seeking the injunction Wednesday, Deere officials alleged that striking workers had disrupted access to the Davenport Works plant and put others at risk.

District Court Judge Marlita Greve ordered the union to allow only four picketers at a time near the gates of the plant. The order also banned the use of chairs and barrel fires, and prohibited picketers from harassing or intimidating people entering and leaving the plant.

Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company sought the injunction to provide a safe environment for contractors and employees, including those participating in the strike.

The injunction prohibits picketing or congregating “near the Contractor Gate entrance,” which is regarded a neutral gate that cannot be picketed, according to Deere.

The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">went on strike&nbsp;</a>on Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract. Contract negotiations have resumed.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack met with striking workers Wednesday at Deere’s plant in Ankeny. Vilsack told the union workers that he stood with them, noting the UAW had long supported him in his political career, WHO-TV&nbsp;<a href="https://who13.com/news/tom-vilsack-repays-support-to-uaw-members-with-visit-to-john-deere-picket-line/" target="_blank">reported</a>.

A contract would cover 10,000 striking workers at 14 Deere plants, including seven in Iowa, four in Illinois and one each in Kansas, Colorado and Georgia.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) — A judge on Wednesday issued a temporary restraining order that details how picketing workers at the Deere &amp; Co. plant in Davenport must conduct themselves.In seeking the injunction Wednesday, Deere officials alleged that striking workers had disrupted access to the Davenport Works plant and put others at risk.District Court Judge Marlita Greve ordered the union to allow only four picketers at a time near the gates of the plant. The order also banned the use of chairs and barrel fires, and prohibited picketers from harassing or intimidating people entering and leaving the plant.Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company sought the injunction to provide a safe environment for contractors and employees, including those participating in the strike.The injunction prohibits picketing or congregating “near the Contractor Gate entrance,” which is regarded a neutral gate that cannot be picketed, according to Deere.The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-united-auto-workers-moline-strikes-447c2d911c1314c247011522e30f9bd2">went on strike&nbsp;</a>on Oct. 14 after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract. Contract negotiations have resumed.U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack met with striking workers Wednesday at Deere’s plant in Ankeny. Vilsack told the union workers that he stood with them, noting the UAW had long supported him in his political career, WHO-TV&nbsp;<a href="https://who13.com/news/tom-vilsack-repays-support-to-uaw-members-with-visit-to-john-deere-picket-line/" target="_blank">reported</a>.A contract would cover 10,000 striking workers at 14 Deere plants, including seven in Iowa, four in Illinois and one each in Kansas, Colorado and Georgia.

Restraining order: Strike at Deere plants moves into 2nd week

MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Contract talks between Deere &amp; Co. and its 10,000 striking workers have resumed, but it wasn't immediately clear how far apart the two sides remained Monday.

Both the Moline,&nbsp;Illinois-based company and the United Auto Workers union confirmed that talks had resumed.

The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.

Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company remains “committed to the collective bargaining process and resolving the strike.”

The last major strike at the maker of agricultural and construction equipment came in 1986. This year's strike comes as companies are dealing with worker shortages. Deere had predicted it would report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion on strong sales.

The contracts under negotiation cover 14 Deere plants, including seven in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>, four in Illinois and one each in&nbsp;Kansas,&nbsp;Colorado&nbsp;and&nbsp;Georgia.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Contract talks between Deere &amp; Co. and its 10,000 striking workers have resumed, but it wasn't immediately clear how far apart the two sides remained Monday.Both the Moline,&nbsp;Illinois-based company and the United Auto Workers union confirmed that talks had resumed.The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company remains “committed to the collective bargaining process and resolving the strike.”The last major strike at the maker of agricultural and construction equipment came in 1986. This year's strike comes as companies are dealing with worker shortages. Deere had predicted it would report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion on strong sales.The contracts under negotiation cover 14 Deere plants, including seven in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>, four in Illinois and one each in&nbsp;Kansas,&nbsp;Colorado&nbsp;and&nbsp;Georgia.

Contract talks resume between Deere and its striking workers

By DANIAL VOCK <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/19/struggle-over-tax-break-for-inherited-farmland-churns-below-surface-in-reconciliation-bill/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — Agricultural groups and 
farm-state lawmakers notched a significant win when U.S. House Democrats
 chose not to touch a big tax break for inherited property, avoiding for
 now a confrontation.

But opponents remain wary
 that the idea could come back at any time as Democrats shape their 
massive $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, and search for ways
 to help pay for the most significant expansion of the social safety net
 since the New Deal.

Farm lobbies and Republicans, along 
with influential Democrats like House Agriculture Chairman David Scott 
of Georgia, strongly objected to tax changes that President Joe Biden 
proposed in his “Build Back Better” plan for farmland and other assets 
handed from one generation to the next.&nbsp;

Biden, along with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack, wanted to end the “stepped-up basis” for 
determining capital gains taxes on those assets. Vilsack, the former 
governor of Iowa, has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
 popped into a White House press briefing to make the case that closing 
loopholes like these is necessary to make sure the wealthy pay their 
fair share.

Over the next decade, the 
administration’s plan for taxing farmland inheritances could bring in as
 much as $322 billion in new federal tax revenues.

But U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, an Iowa
 Republican, said farmers in his district have been complaining to him 
about the proposal ever since it was unveiled earlier this year. The 
farmers, he said, are worried that a new tax scheme would make it 
impossible to keep farms in the family.

“Let’s say a mom and dad bought their
 farm at $2,000 an acre, and now it’s worth $12,000 an acre. If they 
want to give it to their son or daughter or whoever, (the heir) would 
have to pay tax on the difference of that,” Feenstra said in an 
interview with States Newsroom.

“A son or a daughter wouldn’t have 
that money, so they’d have to sell the land to pay the tax,” he 
continued. The buyer would most likely be a large corporation, not a 
local farmer, he said. “That’s why so many people are worried that it 
will destroy the family farm, literally destroy the family farm.”

Proponents for the change say those 
concerns are overblown or easily addressed through policy tweaks. But 
the emotional pleas to save small-town America appear to have won this 
round.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means
 Committee, the group that handled the tax aspects of Biden’s economic 
revival plan, left out the president’s proposed changes to the 
stepped-up basis when they approved their piece of the reconciliation 
bill last week.

The idea could reemerge later, as the
 package continues its journey through the House and Senate. But the 
committee’s decision reflects how politically radioactive the idea has 
become.&nbsp;

Several <a target="_blank" href="https://axne.house.gov/sites/axne.house.gov/files/5.6.21%20Stepped%20Up%20Basis%20Final.pdf">Democrats balked</a> at Biden’s proposal, as well. Scott, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, <a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/06022021letter.pdf?utm_campaign=1099-520">wrote the president</a>
 in June, arguing that the stepped-up basis was “a critical tool 
enabling family farming operations to continue from generation to 
generation.”

“I have been working tirelessly to 
ensure that stepped-up basis is protected,” Scott said in a statement 
last week, “and I am very pleased that the package released does not 
impact the benefit’s operation.”

But Vilsack, who owns 600 acres of 
farmland, argues that the stepped-up basis is really just a way for rich
 people to avoid paying taxes.

“This policy has allowed the wealthy to amass large fortunes,” Vilsack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/vilsack-biden-tax-changes-step-up-in-basis-estate-death-tax-family-farm-small-business-11631116907">wrote</a> earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;

“Millionaires and billionaires borrow
 against their assets, usually stock or real estate, but also art and 
collectibles, really anything a bank will lend against. When those 
assets are transferred upon death, their heirs can sell the property 
without being taxed to pay off the debt. This is one of the most popular
 ways the rich avoid taxation, and it must end.”

The agriculture secretary said Biden’s proposal had special protections for family farms.&nbsp;

First, the administration wanted to 
impose the capital gains tax only when the heir sold the property. So in
 Feenstra’s example, the son or daughter wouldn’t have to pay taxes when
 they inherited the farm, only when they sold it.&nbsp;

Second, Vilsack said that the Biden 
plan would exempt all capital gains of up to $2.5 million. He claimed 
that 95 percent of family farms would not owe anything with that level 
of an exemption.

Marc Goldwein, a senior vice 
president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible
 Federal Budget, said the fact that House Democrats so far have not 
included changes to the stepped-up basis was a “discouraging starting 
point.”&nbsp;

Getting rid of the policy, he said, should be a “no-brainer.”

“You want tax policy that treats 
people in similar situations similarly, that doesn’t create bad 
incentives and that raises revenue in a progressive way,” he said. 
“Stepped-up basis fails all three of those.”

It makes no sense, he argued, that 
someone who sold their property the day before they died would have to 
pay capital gains on it, but that someone who inherited the same 
property and sold it a day later would have to pay none.&nbsp;

The policy encourages people to hold 
on to their assets longer than they otherwise would, just to avoid 
taxation. And it disproportionately benefits rich taxpayers, Goldwein 
said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

He also said the policy mostly affects people with assets other than farms.&nbsp;

A 2014 U.S. Treasury study, for 
example, found that farm assets made up only 2 percent of the fair 
market value of assets that are protected by the policy.&nbsp;

Stocks and bonds, on the other hand, made up more than half of the value of protected assets.

But Dustin Sherer, the director of 
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said 
the administration is underplaying the potential consequences for 
farmers if stepped-up basis is removed.

While Vilsack touted the 
administration’s proposed exemption of the first $2.5 million of capital
 gains, Sherer noted, that would not be enough to shield farmers with a 
typical 500-acre farm in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.&nbsp;

There are more than 18,000 farms in Iowa that are bigger than 500 acres, Sherer said.

“More to the point,” Sherer asked, “if you’re trying to go after billionaires, why is $2.5 million your exemption level?”

And the administration’s proposal to 
impose the capital gains tax when property is sold, rather than when it 
is inherited, still causes problems, Sherer said.&nbsp;

The lingering tax obligation would make it harder for the new property owner to take out a loan, for example.

“It completely changes the dynamics of the transfer,” he said.

Sherer said he was encouraged that 
the policy hasn’t gained traction in the House so far, but he worries 
that it could become part of the deal later.

“As long as politicians in D.C. are looking for money to offset their spending, it’s not over,” he said.

The reconciliation bill now goes to 
the House Budget Committee, which will consolidate input from other 
House committees. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants the full 
chamber to vote on the package before the end of the month, but that 
deadline could slip.&nbsp;

Daniel C. Vock is a correspondent for the States Newsroom Washington, D.C., bureau.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632147076214.jpeg" alt="Farm lobbies and Republicans object to changes in how taxes are applied to farmland and other assets as they are handed down from one generation to another. Pixabay photo" />
 <figcaption>Farm lobbies and Republicans object to changes in how taxes are applied to farmland and other assets as they are handed down from one generation to another. Pixabay photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By DANIAL VOCK <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/19/struggle-over-tax-break-for-inherited-farmland-churns-below-surface-in-reconciliation-bill/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — Agricultural groups and 
farm-state lawmakers notched a significant win when U.S. House Democrats
 chose not to touch a big tax break for inherited property, avoiding for
 now a confrontation.But opponents remain wary
 that the idea could come back at any time as Democrats shape their 
massive $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, and search for ways
 to help pay for the most significant expansion of the social safety net
 since the New Deal.Farm lobbies and Republicans, along 
with influential Democrats like House Agriculture Chairman David Scott 
of Georgia, strongly objected to tax changes that President Joe Biden 
proposed in his “Build Back Better” plan for farmland and other assets 
handed from one generation to the next.&nbsp;Biden, along with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack, wanted to end the “stepped-up basis” for 
determining capital gains taxes on those assets. Vilsack, the former 
governor of Iowa, has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
 popped into a White House press briefing to make the case that closing 
loopholes like these is necessary to make sure the wealthy pay their 
fair share.Over the next decade, the 
administration’s plan for taxing farmland inheritances could bring in as
 much as $322 billion in new federal tax revenues.But U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, an Iowa
 Republican, said farmers in his district have been complaining to him 
about the proposal ever since it was unveiled earlier this year. The 
farmers, he said, are worried that a new tax scheme would make it 
impossible to keep farms in the family.“Let’s say a mom and dad bought their
 farm at $2,000 an acre, and now it’s worth $12,000 an acre. If they 
want to give it to their son or daughter or whoever, (the heir) would 
have to pay tax on the difference of that,” Feenstra said in an 
interview with States Newsroom.“A son or a daughter wouldn’t have 
that money, so they’d have to sell the land to pay the tax,” he 
continued. The buyer would most likely be a large corporation, not a 
local farmer, he said. “That’s why so many people are worried that it 
will destroy the family farm, literally destroy the family farm.”<h2>Emotional pleas</h2>Proponents for the change say those 
concerns are overblown or easily addressed through policy tweaks. But 
the emotional pleas to save small-town America appear to have won this 
round.Democrats on the House Ways and Means
 Committee, the group that handled the tax aspects of Biden’s economic 
revival plan, left out the president’s proposed changes to the 
stepped-up basis when they approved their piece of the reconciliation 
bill last week.The idea could reemerge later, as the
 package continues its journey through the House and Senate. But the 
committee’s decision reflects how politically radioactive the idea has 
become.&nbsp;Several <a target="_blank" href="https://axne.house.gov/sites/axne.house.gov/files/5.6.21%20Stepped%20Up%20Basis%20Final.pdf">Democrats balked</a> at Biden’s proposal, as well. Scott, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, <a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/06022021letter.pdf?utm_campaign=1099-520">wrote the president</a>
 in June, arguing that the stepped-up basis was “a critical tool 
enabling family farming operations to continue from generation to 
generation.”“I have been working tirelessly to 
ensure that stepped-up basis is protected,” Scott said in a statement 
last week, “and I am very pleased that the package released does not 
impact the benefit’s operation.”But Vilsack, who owns 600 acres of 
farmland, argues that the stepped-up basis is really just a way for rich
 people to avoid paying taxes.“This policy has allowed the wealthy to amass large fortunes,” Vilsack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/vilsack-biden-tax-changes-step-up-in-basis-estate-death-tax-family-farm-small-business-11631116907">wrote</a> earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;“Millionaires and billionaires borrow
 against their assets, usually stock or real estate, but also art and 
collectibles, really anything a bank will lend against. When those 
assets are transferred upon death, their heirs can sell the property 
without being taxed to pay off the debt. This is one of the most popular
 ways the rich avoid taxation, and it must end.”The agriculture secretary said Biden’s proposal had special protections for family farms.&nbsp;First, the administration wanted to 
impose the capital gains tax only when the heir sold the property. So in
 Feenstra’s example, the son or daughter wouldn’t have to pay taxes when
 they inherited the farm, only when they sold it.&nbsp;Second, Vilsack said that the Biden 
plan would exempt all capital gains of up to $2.5 million. He claimed 
that 95 percent of family farms would not owe anything with that level 
of an exemption.<h2>A no-brainer?</h2>Marc Goldwein, a senior vice 
president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible
 Federal Budget, said the fact that House Democrats so far have not 
included changes to the stepped-up basis was a “discouraging starting 
point.”&nbsp;Getting rid of the policy, he said, should be a “no-brainer.” 
“You want tax policy that treats 
people in similar situations similarly, that doesn’t create bad 
incentives and that raises revenue in a progressive way,” he said. 
“Stepped-up basis fails all three of those.”It makes no sense, he argued, that 
someone who sold their property the day before they died would have to 
pay capital gains on it, but that someone who inherited the same 
property and sold it a day later would have to pay none.&nbsp;The policy encourages people to hold 
on to their assets longer than they otherwise would, just to avoid 
taxation. And it disproportionately benefits rich taxpayers, Goldwein 
said.&nbsp;&nbsp;He also said the policy mostly affects people with assets other than farms.&nbsp;A 2014 U.S. Treasury study, for 
example, found that farm assets made up only 2 percent of the fair 
market value of assets that are protected by the policy.&nbsp;Stocks and bonds, on the other hand, made up more than half of the value of protected assets.<h2>Consequences for farmers</h2>But Dustin Sherer, the director of 
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said 
the administration is underplaying the potential consequences for 
farmers if stepped-up basis is removed.While Vilsack touted the 
administration’s proposed exemption of the first $2.5 million of capital
 gains, Sherer noted, that would not be enough to shield farmers with a 
typical 500-acre farm in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.&nbsp;There are more than 18,000 farms in Iowa that are bigger than 500 acres, Sherer said.“More to the point,” Sherer asked, “if you’re trying to go after billionaires, why is $2.5 million your exemption level?”And the administration’s proposal to 
impose the capital gains tax when property is sold, rather than when it 
is inherited, still causes problems, Sherer said.&nbsp;The lingering tax obligation would make it harder for the new property owner to take out a loan, for example.“It completely changes the dynamics of the transfer,” he said.Sherer said he was encouraged that 
the policy hasn’t gained traction in the House so far, but he worries 
that it could become part of the deal later.“As long as politicians in D.C. are looking for money to offset their spending, it’s not over,” he said.The reconciliation bill now goes to 
the House Budget Committee, which will consolidate input from other 
House committees. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants the full 
chamber to vote on the package before the end of the month, but that 
deadline could slip.&nbsp;Daniel C. Vock is a correspondent for the States Newsroom Washington, D.C., bureau.

Struggle over tax break for inherited farmland churns in budget bill

By ARIANA FIGUEROA <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/07/06/white-house-says-executive-order-coming-on-labeling-beef-as-a-product-of-usa/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON
 — The White House will unveil an executive order in the coming days 
that directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clarify that meat can
 only receive a “Product of USA” label if that livestock is raised in 
the U.S. rather than abroad, press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters 
Tuesday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625690364448.png" alt="The White House plans to issue an executive order to clarify the labeling for beef produced in the United States, the president's press secretary said Tuesday. (May 10, 2021, photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>The White House plans to issue an executive order to clarify the labeling for beef produced in the United States, the president's press secretary said Tuesday. (May 10, 2021, photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By ARIANA FIGUEROA <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/07/06/white-house-says-executive-order-coming-on-labeling-beef-as-a-product-of-usa/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON
 — The White House will unveil an executive order in the coming days 
that directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clarify that meat can
 only receive a “Product of USA” label if that livestock is raised in 
the U.S. rather than abroad, press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters 
Tuesday.“The
 EO directs USDA to develop a plan to increase opportunities for farmers
 to access markets and receive a fair return, including supporting 
alternative food distribution systems like farmers markets and 
developing standards and labels so that consumers can choose to buy 
products that treat farmers and agriculture workers fairly,” Psaki said.Psaki
 said that the executive order will make it easier for farmers to 
economically compete against international meat industries.Under
 current labeling rules, most grass fed beef labeled “Product of USA” is
 actually raised and slaughtered abroad, but imported to the United 
States for processing.“The
 president and the USDA believe it is unfair for domestic farmers and 
ranchers to have to compete with foreign companies that are misleading 
consumers,” she said.USDA
 Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement last week that the agency 
would initiate a “top-to-bottom” review of the “Product of USA” label 
that will help determine what the label means to consumers. The 
announcement followed <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-issues-rule-deter-rampant-made-usa-fraud">a Federal Trade Commission move </a>on strengthening the labeling.“We
 have taken note of the many comments submitted to USDA and the FTC 
regarding meat labeling and understand that the current ‘Product of USA’
 label on meat products may no longer effectively serve either of those 
purposes, to the detriment of consumers, producers, and fair and 
competitive markets,” said Vilsack.Psaki
 said the order also aims to make it easier for farmers to bring claims 
against corporate agriculture companies under the Packers and Stockyards
 Act to prevent chicken processors from underpaying farmers, and would 
protect from retaliation those farmers who report companies that are not
 following the rules.Ariana Figueroa covers the nation's capital for States Newsroom, a network of state-based nonprofit news outlets that includes Kansas Reflector.