China commits to purchasing at least $17 billion a year in farming products, but other agreements aren't as clear.

China's $17 million farming purchase commitment is 
good news for U.S. producers. (Adobe Stock photo)

In some good news for American farmers, following President Donald Trump's summit last week with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a White House fact sheet confirmed that China agreed to purchase "at least $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products annually through 2028, in addition to soybean commitments already agreed to," reports Ari Hawkins of Politico. The announcement is among "the few concrete deliverables" from last week's summit.

Beyond its agriculture purchase commitment, the White House said Beijing has "renewed expired registrations for more than 400 U.S. beef facilities and added new listings," Hawkins writes. "A move aimed at widening market access for American farmers." Additionally, China will now accept U.S. poultry imports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirms are free of avian influenza.

The summit included agreement on several other issues, but the specific engagement between the two countries on topics such as Iran remained vague. For instance, "Both countries agreed Iran cannot get ahold of a nuclear weapon," Hawkins reports. They also agreed that the "Strait of Hormuz shipping corridor should reopen, and that no country or group should be allowed to charge tolls."

The White House fact sheet didn't include details on how, or even whether, the countries planned to work together to resolve issues with Iran's nuclear capability or its blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.

Although President Trump noted that tariffs were not discussed at the summit, that "appears to contradict a statement from China’s commerce ministry, which said the two sides had reached a preliminary agreement to reduce some tariffs and also confirmed agricultural and aircraft deals, though it did not provide specifics," Hawkins adds. "Trump and Xi are expected to meet as many as four times this year."

A Chinese-owned glass plant in Ohio is 'clobbering' its American competitors

Despite the economic boost that foreign investment can bring U.S. manufacturing, its outcomes can sometimes have negative consequences when a foreign-owned company "clobbers" its longtime American-owned competitor. 

"The rise of a Chinese automotive-glass plant in the Ohio heartland shows the risks when America’s biggest rival sets up shop," reports Gavin Bade of The Wall Street Journal.

Over the past decade, Fuyao Glass America has chipped away at its competitor's edge. "Vitro, the company that owns a plant in Crestline, Ohio, has spent the past year considering whether to shut down," Bade writes. "Fuyao is threatening about 250 jobs at the rival glass factory [that has been] operating since the 1950s."

When Chinese automotive glass maker, Fuyao, partnered with state and federal lawmakers to move into an abandoned General Motors factory in tiny Moraine, Ohio, the project "was hailed as a step to reviving a battered Rust Belt region," Bade explains. Ohio taxpayers, who supported Fuyao's move into the region, "now feel duped," according to the report.

Since 2019, Vitro has "shut three auto-glass plants in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana — decisions the company attributes in large part to Chinese competition," Bade reports. American companies like Vitro say they can't compete with Fuyao's pricing and accuse the company of unfair business and labor practices.

A federal raid on the Fuyao plant in 2024 led U.S. authorities to accuse dozens of Chinese business owners of colluding "to facilitate the harboring, transportation, and employment of illegal aliens at various factories,” including Fuyao, which allegedly funneled $126 million to companies in the scheme," Bade writes.

"Fuyao denies any wrongdoing," Bade adds. "Vitro and its Washington allies say Fuyao’s success reflects a way Beijing might try to hollow out American manufacturing capacity and undermine critical industries."

New $100K skilled-worker H-1B visa fee could mean fewer Indian doctors to treat rural residents

One in five immigrant doctors in the U.S. is of 
Indian origin. (Photo via BBC News)

The Trump administration's new $100,000 skilled-worker H-1B visa fee could leave fewer Indian doctors to treat rural populations. "One in four doctors providing care in the U.S. are foreign-trained, and recent data shows that most of them practice in the vast, underserved rural areas where American graduates are reluctant to work," reports Savita Patel of BBC News.

For the roughly 50,000 India-trained physicians currently working in the U.S., the new visa fee does not apply; however, there are worries around "whether the steady supply of Indian medical professionals to the U.S. would continue in the future," Patel explains. "According to research, one in five immigrant doctors in the U.S. is of Indian origin."

And while the administration may eventually decide to exempt medically trained workers from the new fee, currently, "there is no indication that any category of workers, including those in the medical field, has been exempted," Patel reports.

The American Medical Association asked the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristin Noem, to reconsider the new fee, "emphasizing that the fee hike could discourage hospitals from hiring H-1B doctors, affecting future supply pipelines and limiting patients' access to care in communities that need it the most," Patel adds.

Supporters of the fee hike insist it will keep "American jobs for Americans," Patel adds. But research on which jobs foreign medical workers take shows they are filling positions that American doctors don't want -- in regions that are "remote and low-income."

Given the financial straits many rural hospitals are already in, "any hike in the fee would make it harder to bring in new clinicians from abroad," Patel writes. Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, president of the AMA, told Patel, "We have heard from health systems who say this fee would be devastating."

Opinion: Annual harvests in Ohio turned into a 'mess' by trade wars, low prices and sky-high input costs

China hasn't purchased a single soybean from
the U.S. in 2025. (Adobe Stock photo)

 

Despite better weather and decent crop production, many American farmers face extreme financial distress due to tariffs, sinking commodity prices and the lack of trade with China. 

For row crop farmers in Ohio, the tariffs and expenses have turned their annual harvest time into a "mess" riddled with financial loss and insecurity, writes Marilou Johanek in her opinion for the Ohio Capital Journal.

"Some growers have called the fallout from President Donald Trump's chaotic trade war, and the reciprocal tariffs it provoked, a 'farmageddon' that could ruin what made rural America great," Johanek explains.

While some U.S. farmers were not surprised that China's response to American tariffs was to snub U.S. soybeans, the pain is being felt by farmers nationwide, including those who don't trade with China. Johanek explains, "Farmers felt the same creeping despair with the tariff debacle of 2018 when Trump first slapped punitive tariffs on crucial exporters of American crops."

Ohio farmer Chris Gibbs, who left the GOP after 2018 tariffs caused China to increase its farming trade with South America, told Johanek, "We’re back in the same situation, but only worse. In the major commodities, corn, wheat, soybeans, sorghum, rice, cotton, prices are below the cost of production, so there’s built-in loss."

Beyond too few trading partners, farmers face soaring input costs. Johanek writes, "Senseless tariffs on fertilizer, steel, aluminum, and lumber just sent the cost of doing business through the roof. . . . Trump tariffs are especially painful for family farms that make up about 87% of all farms in Ohio."

Farmers and the agricultural industry impact job and business sectors throughout the U.S. and contribute roughly $9.5 trillion, or nearly 20%, to the national economy.

Gulf Coast shrimpers have seen their profits go from jumbo to tiny over the past four decades

A shrimper weighs his catch in Buras, Louisiana. He now makes about $3 less per pound (adjusted for inflation) than he made in the mid 1980s. (Civil Eats photo)

As the U.S. shrimping industry limps along, shrimping advocates are asking for government controls and consumer support to help change their fortunes.

"Shrimpers along the Gulf Coast have struggled to compete with cheaper imported shrimp. . . and dealt with rising fuel costs," report Jake Price and Olivia Shaffett of Civil Eats. "In the 1980s, shrimpers could sell a pound of shrimp for about $4.50 (adjusted for inflation). In recent years, they have been lucky to get $1.50."

Industry experts say Louisiana shrimping's survival depends on the U.S. government establishing guardrails, "whether [through] quotas, import caps, or higher tariffs to curtail the high volume of imported shrimp," Price and Shaffett write. Consumer education on how to spot U.S. shrimp can also help the industry.

Rocky Ditcharo, a seafood wholesaler in Buras, Louisiana, believes government intervention is needed. He told Civil Eats, "If we can’t cap imports, if there is no solution. . . .Then this industry dies in 20 years."

Ditcharo also sees smart consumerism as an equally important piece. "Consumers should inspect the back of the pack to find the country of origin, method of production, and manufacturer," Price and Shaffett explain. "Descriptions such as 'wild-caught,' 'wild,' and 'Atlantic' usually indicate that the shrimp is a product of the U.S."

Eating imported shrimp means the Food and Drug Administration doesn't have authority over product testing before it lands on U.S. shelves. Earlier this week, the FDA issued an urgent recall for Indonesian shrimp sold at Walmart that could be radioactive. "Certain Great Value raw frozen shrimp products sold at Walmart are being recalled due to possible contamination with Cesium-137, a radioactive isotope," reports Erin Keller of the Independent. The shrimp recall details are here.

Beginning in August, the Trump administration "increased tariffs on top shrimp importers, including Vietnam (20%) and Indonesia (19%) . . . India, which accounts for roughly one-third of all shrimp imports in the U.S., faces the highest tariffs of 50%," Price and Shaffet add. 

After an immigration raid takes more than half of its labor force, a meatpacking company looks at ways to begin again

Immigration agents raided Glenn Valley Foods on June 10.
(ICE photo via Nebraska Examiner)

After Immigration and Customs agents arrested roughly half its labor force, meatpacking company Glenn Valley Foods in Nebraska is looking for ways to start over. 

The company had religiously used the federal system, E-Verify, to cross-check employees' eligibility to work in the U.S., but federal agents still arrested 76 workers "who they said were undocumented immigrants using false identification," reports Eli Saslow of The New York Times.

Before the raid, Glenn Valley Foods was expanding with "new hires, new manufacturing lines, and new sales records [as] one of the fastest-growing meatpacking companies in the Midwest," Saslow writes. "But, in a matter of weeks, production had plummeted by almost 70%. Most of the workforce was gone." 

Now, the company is piecing together a new workforce with a new human resource manager, Alfredo Moreno, who believes "the only way to truly prevent fraud is to scrutinize IDs with black lights and magnifying glasses to make sure they aren't fake, and then interview each potential employee in person," Saslow reports. "The government maintained that Glenn Valley employees had been using IDs that were stolen." 

The raid cost Glenn Valley days of business, but slowly, a barebones crew formed, and some lines restarted. Meanwhile, Moreno and his tiny HR staff are still using E-Verify along with their additional verification measures to try to hire as quickly as possible. Still, almost none of their applicants are U.S. citizens.

Since the raid, the company's owner, Gary Rohwer, has "received phone calls from strangers who accused him of 'stealing American jobs,'" Saslow writes. "But Nebraska [has] a work shortage, with only 66 qualified workers for every 100 positions. . . . 'There are some jobs Americans don’t want to do,' Rohwer tried explaining to one caller. 'We’re caught up in a broken system.'"

WSJ EDITORIAL: Ukraine's drone attack is a 'wake-up call' to U.S. about potential vulnerability

Will an increase in defense spending enable the U.S. to close 
the gap in the drone market? (WSJ video snapshot)

Ukraine's recent drone strike battering of some 40 Russian aircraft, sitting unprotected deep inside that country's borders, serves as a warning to the U.S. about the vulnerability of American military bases and the homeland, writes The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

At least 77 U.S. military installations are strategically placed in rural towns and more are in cities with less than 40,000 residents. The editorial suggests that rural communities may want to pay particular attention to military discussions about international drone warfare, domestic missile protections and U.S. drone production problems.

"The details about Ukraine’s daring operation are few, but Kyiv managed to sneak cheap drones across the border and use them to destroy costly Russian military assets," the editorial states. "The bang for Ukraine’s buck was considerable. You don’t have to be a fan of thrillers to imagine a similar scenario in the United States."

In light Ukraine's drone attack success, President Trump’s Golden Dome missile-defense shield idea doesn't sound so outlandish, the WSJ board concluded. "The headlines are preoccupied with space-based interceptors. But the U.S. is exposed to many threats besides ballistic missiles — from drones and spy blimps to cruise missiles launched off submarines."

In 2023, the bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission "warned that the U.S. needs better integrated air and missile defenses against 'coercive attacks' from Russia and China, and such an attack could come from conventional weapons," writes the board. "In a crisis over the Taiwan Strait, Xi Jinping might threaten the Commander in Chief: Stay out of the Western Pacific or you never know what might happen to your pricey F-22s in Alaska."

The editorial cites a January report from Thomas Shugart and Timothy Walton at the Hudson Institute that criticized Air Force plans to protect new B-21 bombers with what they referred to as "sunshades." The report points out that a lack of structural protection "could leave aircraft 'exposed to threats, including lethal' unmanned aerial vehicles," the board adds.

Beyond the tragedy of Sept. 11, Americans are used to wars "fought far from home. . . but everyone in the U.S. will be on the front lines of the next conflict," the editorial states. "Political leaders could be doing much more to educate the country about this vulnerability, rather than boasting that the U.S. military is the best it has ever been. It isn’t."

Watch the entire WSJ video on China's drone dominance, here.

U.S. farmers already had big worries. New tariffs, USDA cuts and funding freezes have hit them 'on all fronts.'

U.S. soybean farmers have yet to regain market share
with China after Trump's first-term tariffs. (A.S. photo)

 

U.S. farmers are getting squeezed from all sides by U.S. tariffs, crackdowns on undocumented workers and changes at the Department of Agriculture. Many of the new administration's policies have put farmers' livelihoods on the chopping block. Some farmers admit the pressure cooker of change and uncertain financial outlook is pushing them to reconsider their support for President Trump's policies and the actions of his appointed officials.

Before the new administration began making dramatic policy changes and cuts, farmers were "already struggling with low prices, high expenses and unpredictable — and at times, destructive— weather," reports Kristina Peterson of The Wall Street Journal. "But now, farmers — traditionally a key block of support for Trump — are also contending with USDA and foreign-aid funding that is frozen or in limbo," plus deportations "in an already tight agricultural-labor market" and the possibility of "another crippling trade war."

Jim Hartman is a military veteran turned North Carolina honey bee farmer who has already lost roughly $100,000 in expected farm revenue from USDA program cuts. The lifelong Republican voter told Peterson, “Stuff like this is pushing me left."

Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association and a soy farmer in Magnolia, Ky., told Peterson, "“It’s hitting us on all fronts. You’re talking about the potential of a flat-out crisis in rural America and the farm economy.”

A recent AgWeb poll shows that a majority of farmers do not approve of Trump's current use of tariffs. "Just over half of farmers, 54%, said they didn’t support Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiating tool, according to a poll of nearly 3,000 farmers," Peterson reports. "Farmers accustomed to dealing with uncertainty from the weather and the markets said the federal government, which spends tens of billions of dollars to support them each year, is usually a force helping them offset that instability."

Trump's enthusiasm for using and increasing tariffs "has many in rural America nervous," Peterson writes. "Trump’s first trade war led to more than $27 billion in losses of agricultural export. In response, China started importing more soybeans from Brazil, and U.S. soybean farmers have yet to regain their market share."

Hartman believes USDA changes will cut his yearly predicted revenue in half. He told Peterson, "This has fallen on the backs of small farmers. . . . The people Trump's appointed and the way they’re going about things, it’s not OK."

Opinion: New USDA leader says she has plans to trim the department and refocus it to help U.S. farmers and families

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said she
aims to 'get back to basics.' (USDA photo)

The Department of Agriculture traces its humble beginnings back to 1862, when it opened with a commissioner and nine employees. Since then, it has grown into "29 sub-agencies with nearly 100,000 employees, and it reported its total outlays last year at $228.3 billion," writes Sierra Dawn McClain in her opinion for The Wall Street Journal. "Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins aims to get back to basics."

At the time the USDA was created, "more than half of all Americans worked on farms," McClain explains. Since the 1860s, the number of U.S. citizens who "work in agriculture has shrunk to less than 2%, but the USDA reaches into every farm, national forest, rural town, grocery store and school cafeteria."

Secretary Rollins sees herself as a bureaucracy trimmer and "says her broader mission is the 'restoration of rural America,'" McClain writes. "The government tends to ignore farmers, she says, except to impose 'burdensome and costly regulations that hamper innovation.'. . . She wants to ease off, and her plan to lower egg prices, announced in these pages, exemplifies her approach — offering services to farmers without rushing to add new requirements."

Rollins also plans to remake the Forest Service, a "USDA sub-agency that manages 193 million acres of land. The service faces a fiscal crisis that Rollins attributes to unprofitable forest-management practices and Biden-era wage and workforce increases," McClain writes. Rollins told her, “This is the classic case of government gone awry." 

As far as entitlements such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Rollins aims to "reduce fraud, establish stricter work requirements for SNAP recipients and re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Planants," McClain adds. "She wants to make sure the program continues 'serving the families that need it the most,' and she says she grew up in such a family: She and her two sisters were raised by a single mother making $5 an hour." She told McClain: “I will do everything I can to make sure that the people that truly need that will get it."

To read more about USDA plans for bird flu management, tariff responses and Rollins' approach to working with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary at Health and Human Services, click here.

Opinion: Jimmy Carter brought human rights to the forefront and 'made a lasting impact on the U.S. and the world'

Statue of Jimmy Carter outside the
Georgia State Capitol. (Adobe Stock photo)

Jimmy Carter was one of the few U.S. presidents in the past 50 years who grew up in a rural area. He was cherished by many Americans as a man of deep intelligence and wisdom who spent his life actively working to improve the lives of others. In her opinion for The New York Times, Samantha Power reminds readers of Carter's political and personal dedication to humankind. A selection of her thoughts is excerpted below.

"Jimmy Carter’s elevation of human rights in U.S. foreign policy offers many urgent lessons for today. . . . As president, he made a radical break with decades of foreign policy tradition, changed the world’s understanding of America’s aspirations, showed deep empathy for individuals who had suffered human rights abuse and, in so doing, made a lasting impact on both the United States and the world.

"As president, his foreign policy legacy. . . includes the negotiation of the Camp David Accords, which brought about an enduring peace between Israel and Egypt, and the establishment of diplomatic relations with China.

"Carter didn’t just change the way U.S. officials talked; he also changed the way they worked, taking steps no American president had taken. When he assumed office, the United States Agency for International Development had nearly twice as many staff members in Washington as in the field — an imbalance his administration corrected, in addition to significantly expanding the agency’s presence in sub-Saharan Africa.

"He issued Presidential Directive 30, which stipulated that 'countries with a good or substantially improving record of human rights observance will be given special consideration in the allocation of U.S. foreign assistance, just as countries with a poor or deteriorating record will receive less favorable consideration.'

"Carter was the first U.S. president to publicly denounce apartheid in South Africa and the first to make a state visit to sub-Saharan Africa. . . . He was the first president to assert clear American support for a 'Palestinian homeland.' . . . He was the first American president to elevate environmental conservation to a global concern.

"He became president after public trust in government had plunged. More than 70% of Americans believed the Vietnam War was not just a mistake but was 'fundamentally wrong and immoral.' He viewed his embrace of human rights as a means of restoring faith in America.

"As we mourn the loss of Jimmy Carter, we should remember that in doing something so radical for his time — elevating attention to the plight and dignity of individuals in U.S. foreign policy and then living those values until his final days — he changed our world for good."

Samantha Power is the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

Leaders and economists worry over what Trump's planned tariffs might do to business profits and consumer wallets

Businesses and U.S. economists are worried about how tariffs
could impact profits and American budgets. (Adobe Stock photo)

World leaders and CEOs are working to convince President-elect Donald Trump to reconsider his hard-line plans for tariffs against the country's biggest trade partners, which could "disrupt global trade and pummel profits," report Andrew Ross Sorkin, Ravi Mattu, Bernhard Warner, Sarah Kessler, Michael J. de la Merced, Lauren Hirsch and Tariq Panja of The New York Times. They "feel they’re making little headway in warning him of the consequences." Meanwhile, if Trump makes good on his threatened levies, U.S. consumers will likely pay higher prices.

Trump's first tariff announcements targeted Canada, Mexico and China. He said "he would impose 25% levies on Canada and Mexico, if they didn’t tighten their borders and stem the flow of illegal migration to the U.S.," The Times reports. "In subsequent social media posts, he went after BRICS countries," which include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other emerging markets.

Even though many Americans list high inflation, particularly on groceries and household staples, as a primary concern, "Trump conceded that he 'can’t guarantee tariffs won’t hit consumers hard," the Times reports. "That’s a concern among economists and big companies such as Walmart and Costco, who fear that levies could lead to price rises."

An estimate from The Budget Lab at Yale "found that the cost to consumers from Trump’s proposed tariffs could reach as much as $1,200 in lost purchasing power on average based on 2023 incomes, assuming retaliatory duties on U.S. exports are put into place," reports Rob Wile of NBC News. "While Trump has insisted other countries end up paying the cost of tariffs, most economists agree those costs wind up getting passed on to shoppers."

The National Retail Federation warned about "the impact of tariffs to everyday households," Wile writes. "Some Trump allies suggested the president-elect doesn’t actually plan to follow through with the proposed tariffs. . . . Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, conceded, 'Tariffs will hurt the American consumer, that’s true. But they also make for good negotiation tools.'"

Hackers who claim to be the 'Cyber Army of Russia Reborn' disrupt a water tower system in rural Texas

The FBI has been investigating the hack in Muleshoe, Tex.
(City of Muleshoe, Texas photo via CNN)

While the number of computer hacks on American businesses by foreign actors has steadily increased, a hack in Muleshoe, Texas, in January might be the "first disruption of U.S. water system by Russia," reports Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post. A Muleshoe citizen drove past the town's water tower, saw it was overflowing and alerted the police. "Authorities soon determined the system that controlled the city's water supply had been hacked. . . . Thousands of gallons of water had flowed into the street and drain pipes."

The hackers, who identified themselves as the Cyber Army of Russia Reborn, "Posted a video online of the town's water-control systems showing how they reset the controls," Nakashima writes. Using the messaging platform Telegram, the hackers posted a caption that read, "We're starting another raid on the USA." The hackers proceeded to explain how they were going to target U.S. infrastructure.

Location of Muleshoe, Tex., pop
5,200 (Wikipedia map)

Experts from the cyber security firm Mandiant believe "that the water tank overflow in a Texas panhandle town may well be linked to one of the most infamous Russian government hacking groups," Nakashima reports. "If confirmed, analysts say it would mark a worrisome escalation by Moscow in its attempts to disrupt critical U.S. infrastructure by targeting one of its weakest sectors: water utilities."

The notorious Russian hacking group, nicknamed "Sandworm, has achieved notoriety for briefly turning out the lights in parts of Ukraine at least three different times; hacking the Olympics Opening Games in South Korea in 2018; and launching NotPetya, one of the most damaging cyberattacks ever that cost businesses worldwide tens of billions of dollars," Nakashima explains.

Muleshoe's city manager, Ramon Sanchez, told Nakashima, "You don't think that's going to happen to you. It's always going to happen to the other guy." Nakashima reports, "Sanchez said the hackers brute-forced the password for the system's control system interface, which was run by a vendor. That password hadn't been changed in more than a decade."

Opinion: Why prescription drugs have little to do with the current illicit drug epidemic in the United States

The 1990s marked a time in U.S. medicine where doctors were taught to give narcotics.
(Graphic via Life and Limb blog, Edwin Leap)

Emergency physician Edwin Leap explains that U.S. doctors in training during the 1990s were instructed to treat pain with pills. He said a medical career taught him how misdirected those practices were. He adds that the nation's current addictions and overdoses aren't centered on prescription drugs anymore; they're all about super cheap, available and deadly fentanyl -- other opioids are almost an afterthought. An excerpted version of his commentary from MedPage Today is included below.

"When I was in my residency training, from 1990 to 1993. . . . We were told, over and over, that we should treat pain aggressively and should not be afraid to give narcotics to patients in pain. Who were we to judge someone's pain, after all? The young man who fell onto his knees at work, with a normal blood pressure and heart rate, looking about the room, might well categorize his pain a '10/10,' and we should honor that, respect it, and treat it."

Pain medicines such as hydrocodone and oxycodone (Oxycontin) were first marketed to doctors as a miracle for patients in pain. Given their addictive nature, it didn't take long for the drugs to take hold. Leap writes, "Much of our work as physicians was a balancing act between trying to show genuine compassion, mandated compassion, and appropriate skepticism about pain scales and the lies concocted in pursuit of drugs."

Given doctors' role as the prescription writers who "started" patients on the path to addiction, physicians are now forced to take additional narcotic treatment training. "I have to take a new 8-hour class on proper prescribing habits and pain management," Lead adds. "[But] nobody really argues with me about pain pills anymore. . . .We're only supposed to give a 3-day supply. We tell people that, and they shrug."

The likely reason a 3-day narcotic supply isn't a problem is the availability of fentanyl. "It's just so easy to get the stuff. It's inexpensive, and it's everywhere. It's in drug houses and gas station parking lots. It's in high schools and college campuses," Leap writes. "It's in prisons and homeless encampments. In fact, according to independent journalist Jonathan Choe, it can sometimes be found for 50 cents per dose in homeless camps."

U.S. physicians have little to do with fentanyl's street dominance. Leap writes, "The flood of illegal fentanyl precursors from China, which then become fentanyl and began flowing across the Southern border, continues unabated. . . . It's all rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic until someone gets a handle on the crisis from a geopolitical standpoint. And yes, that means dealing with the border as well. . . . I'm not blaming one political side or another. I'm just saying that if it isn't taken seriously, then the deaths will keep skyrocketing."

This piece was originally published on Leap's blog, Life and Limb.

All creatures: Thousands of boar hybrids; loss for Cajun cooking; the better animal spy; is too much bacon possible?

A herd of boars roaming through a forest.
(Photo by Rolf Scmidbauer, Unsplash)

With thick fur to guard against stifling cold, keen minds and tusks as sharp "as steak knives," wild boar hybrids are "raising hell on the Canadian prairies," reports The Economist. "It seemed like a good idea at the time. When Canadian pig farmers were told in the 1980s that their animals' gene pool was thin, they turned to wild boars from Britain for fortification. . . . In 2001, the boar-meat market plunged. Some farmers, unable to sell their stock, simply released their hybrid pigs into the wild. . . .Today, those pigs' descendants roam the Canadian prairie provinces, a horde some 62,000 strong."

From East Texas to Louisiana's Acadiana region beats the heart of Cajun cooking, where recipes are usually chockablock full of boiled crawfish. But this year, Procambarus clarkii, also known as the red swamp crawfish, crayfish, mudbugs or crawdads, is not affordable for most. Its price is up nearly 500%. "Drought and last winter's hard freeze forced crawfish spawn die-offs ahead of their ongoing harvest time," reports Xander Peters of National Geographic. "The shock felt throughout the U.S. crawfish market is absorbed by its blue-collar producers and restaurant owners, as well as folks working in processing plants, deshelling crawfish, and delivery-truck drivers."

Photo by Marco Ugarte, AP

Crawfish aren't the only species having a hard time surviving extreme weather. The annual survey of monarch butterflies "found the second-lowest number of monarchs on record," reports Jenny Peek of Wisconsin Public Radio. "Monarch populations are extremely sensitive to high heat and drought — both of which are becoming more common with climate change. Habitat loss is also a major contributing factor to the species' decline."

 

Understanding chicken life and egg cartons
can be perplexing. (Unsplash photo)

Do happier chickens mean better eggs? Maybe. Read here to find out what kind of "wide open spaces" chickens like and what "label" is the best chicken environment. Still, even with that information, you may need help deciphering the egg carton. Read here to decode egg carton descriptions.

We have too much bacon. Whaattt? Bacon fans might be shocked, but talk to a U.S. pork producer, who will confirm that the nation has more pork than it can eat. "From giant processors to the farmers, they've made production so efficient that demand can’t keep up with supply," reports Patrick Thomas of The Wall Street Journal. "In search of solutions, farmers and processors are looking at everything from new overseas markets to fattier, tastier pigs."

Pigeons are better spies.
(Photo by Rorhof via NG)

Not all spies are Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt. Some have fur, and others have feathers. But which is better? "Amid the high stakes and desperation of the Cold War, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency faced a perpetual espionage challenge: access," writes Christian Elliott of National Geographic. "How do you get a spy inside the secure inner sanctum of a foreign head of state. . . .You send in a feline spy. The CIA called the operation 'Acoustic Kitty.'" Spying kitties didn't share the CIA's agenda. "To find a more promising animal secret agent candidate, the CIA needed look no further than Acoustic Kitty's natural enemy: birds. Specifically, the humble pigeon." 

Human actors might learn a trick or two from this smart, charismatic group.
(Anheuser-Busch photo, AP via The Wall Street Journal)

The Super Bowl might be over, but this herd still deserves applause for elegance, a spot-on performance, and getting beer delivered to a small town in need. It's the famous Budweiser Clydesdale horses. "Less known is their reputation as perhaps the most consummate professionals on the advertising circuit," reports Katie Deighton of The Wall Street Journal. "Industry veterans who shoot commercials consider working with the horses a career pinnacle, like a movie director who finally gets to direct Meryl Streep." 

Surveys show conservative voters in rural areas oppose more military aid to Ukraine

The support for military aid to Ukraine has dropped dramatically among conservative Americans in rural areas, reports Brian Mann of NPR.

The lack of support, including from top candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, could jeopardize continued funding from the United States.

“U.S. support for the country totals more than $100 billion so far and is a lifeline for the embattled country after Russia's brutal invasion last year,” Mann writes.

But many conservatives think the funding should be cut significantly or stopped.

According to Mann, “Overall, polls show American support for financial aid and weapons for Ukraine remains strong. But surveys conducted over the past year show a major shift among Republicans.

“A Pew survey in May 2022 found only 17% of GOP voters thought the Biden administration was doing too much to help Ukraine. But a CNN poll released this month found 76% of self-described conservatives now oppose further aid.”

According to Mann’s report, “Military and foreign policy experts say halting U.S. aid would make it nearly impossible for Ukrainians to defend themselves and also would signal a lack of American resolve in defending a key ally.

“But many small town voters interviewed by NPR said those aren't their top concerns. They want politicians to focus money and energy on problems closer to home.”

Opinion: Russia vs. Ukraine has become 'a war over food'; Ukraine's Danube port is attacked, raising more food worries

By Art Cullen
Storm Lake (Iowa) Times Pilot

Russia’s reprehensible attacks on Ukraine’s food and agriculture systems will backfire, as they will create even more misery among the world’s poor and hungry. Russia pulled out of an agreement brokered by Turkey through the United Nations to allow grain shipments to sail the Black Sea undisturbed. It followed by bombing grain stocks, the port city of Odesa and ports along the Danube near Romania.

UPDATE: Russia attacked Ukraine's Danube River port of Izmail and destroyed port facilities and a grain silo, "raising further concerns over global food supplies," The Financial Times reports.

Art Cullen

Ukraine is a major grain and oilseed exporter to Europe, the Middle East, Africa and China. The attacks immediately drove wheat prices up 17%, and other commodities followed. Russia claimed that it would provide grain to nations in need, but markets obviously know better.

If Russia thought it could deny Ukraine revenue, it already is a welfare state of NATO. Bordering nations like Romania, whose farmers were getting edgy over Ukraine grain flooding their markets, will steel their resolve to unite against Russia. It’s yet another miscalculation by the Kremlin.

It will increase commodity prices for U.S. farmers and complicate efforts to keep inflation in check.

China must be watching this warily. Beset by drought and short wheat yields, it can scarcely afford far higher grain prices. Russian attempts to hurt Ukraine will hurt China, Moscow’s main benefactor. This could be what it takes for China to put brakes on Russia’s lunacy.

The whole episode should remind us how food and agriculture play a critical role in security and geopolitics. We underestimate the issue’s importance at our peril. Russia has become a major grain exporter alongside Ukraine over the past 25 years. One reason for the war is for Russia to consolidate its hold over food exports as its leverage with fossil fuels rapidly declines. The United States should recognize it and be in a position to organize a response that actually fights world hunger. We should be urgently engaging with those affected by Russia’s ill-conceived attacks on food. If we were, it likely would bring an end to the war. We continue to pretend that it is about something else as we ship more cluster bombs. It is not about pride or sentimentality for a lost empire. It is about food. They are attacking grain elevators. Can we not see that?

Senate adds amendment to defense bill to restrict China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing U.S. land

In another sign of U.S. tensions with competing countries, the U.S. Senate "voted overwhelmingly to prohibit China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing U.S. agricultural land and agricultural businesses," reports the Food and Environment Reporting Network. "The language was added to a military spending bill that was sure to pass the Senate and then be reconciled with a House version."

The amendment by Sen. Mark Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, "would instruct the powerful Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interdepartmental panel led by the Treasury Department, to prohibit such purchases," Ag Insider reports. "The Russian invasion of Ukraine and a heightened Sino-U.S. rivalry have fueled concern about foreign ownership of U.S. assets."

Despite concerns, Chinese and Russian interests do not own much American soil. Ag Insider reports, "Foreign entities own 40.8 million acres of U.S. agricultural land, or 3.1% of the privately owned land in the nation, according to USDA data. Half of the foreign-owned land is forests. Canada accounts for one-third of the foreign-owned land. . . . China owns 347,000 acres at latest count."

Hodding Carter III, rural journalist, diplomatic spokesman, documentarian and journalism foundation chief, dies at 88

Hodding Carter III (2003 Associated Press photo by Susan Walsh)

Hodding Carter III, a small-town editor-publisher who became best known as the State Department's spokesman during the Iran hostage crisis, then produced award-winning documentaries and ran the nation's largest journalism foundation, died Thursday in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He was 88 and had suffered strokes.

Carter was the son of Hodding Carter Jr., who won a 1946 Pulitzer Prize for editorials that decried racial, religious and economic intolerance. He worked at the family's Delta Democrat-Times in Greenville, Miss., for 17 years, keeping a gun in his pocket and his desk because of threats the family received for their editorial stances, and won the Sigma Delta Chi Award for editorial writing in 1961. In 1968 he headed "a racially diverse group that won a credentials fight at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, unseating the all-white delegation by Mississippi’s governor, John Bell Williams," The Associated Press notes. He worked on the 1976 presidential campaign of Jimmy Carter (no kin), which led to his administration job. He resigned after the failed raid to rescue the hostages, following Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed it.

The Carter family's 1980 sale of the paper to a conservative chain angered some of their liberal readers, reports Harrison Smith of The Washington Post. But Carter returned to journalism as a columnist and broadcast journalist and won four Emmy Awards for documentaries on foreign policy and civil rights. He liked to say, "Power never likes to be questioned, analyzed or covered at all critically." From 1998 to 2005, he was president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and "grew the organization’s endowment to more than $1.9 billion and more than doubled its grants to journalists and news organizations, to some $90 million annually," Smith notes.

One of Carter's last grants was $250,000 to the University of Kentucky to help start the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, which publishes The Rural Blog and is dedicated to the sustainability of rural journalism. Carter told those seeking the grant that despite his history, the foundation had never done anything for rural journalism, so he was giving them the most he could without running the plan past a foundation committee, according to Al Smith, a retired Kentucky newspaper publisher who was an editor at one of the New Orleans papers when Carter was an intern there. "He taught me how to drink martinis for lunch," Carter said of Smith, who drank himself out of jobs at both New Orleans papers but kicked alcohol in 1962 and was chairman emeritus of the institute's advistory board when he died in 2021.

Carter served two years in the Marine Corps, was a professor at the universities of Maryland and North Carolina, and wrote two books, The South Strikes Back, in 1959, and The Reagan Years, a 1988 collection of essays published from 1981 through 1987. He "held deeply the notion of service — to his country, to justice and equity and to his family — throughout his life, instilling in those he knew personally and professionally 'this incredible sense of social responsibility'," stepson Mike Derian told The News & Observer of Raleigh.

His survivors include his wife, Patricia O'Brien of Brookline, Mass.; four children from his first marriage, to Margaret Ainsworth Wolfe: Hodding Carter IV of Camden, Maine, Catherine Carter Sullivan of Jackson, Miss., Margaret Carter Joseph of Brevard, N.C., and Finn Carter of Worcester, Mass.; three stepchildren from his marriage to Patt Derian: Mike Derian of Takoma Park, Md., and Craig Derian and Brooke Derian of Chapel Hill; a brother, Philip Dutarte Carter; and 12 grandchildren. He will be buried in Greenville. Sullivan told the News & Observer that the family will hold a celebration of life in Chapel Hill at a date to be determined.

Amid skepticism, Congress considers restricting farmland purchases by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea

Photo via USDA

Congressional support is building to "restrict China and other foreign adversaries from purchasing U.S. farmland, a reflection of a similar push by some states as well as apprehension over Chinese spy balloons, rising land prices and growing international competition," reports Adam Goldstein of the Washington bureau of States Newsroom. A bipartisan group of House members told Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a Feb. 27 letter, "Foreign ownership of agricultural land threatens small family farms and the overall health of the agricultural supply chain."

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., has introduced a bill to prohibit North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia from purchasing U.S. farmland and add the Agriculture Department to the Committee on Foreign Investment, "a multi-agency council that reviews financial transactions that affect national security," Goldstein reports. "Renée Johnson, an agricultural policy analyst, noted that these bills have much more to do with military infrastructure and conflict between the U.S. and the governments of China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea."

"Vilsack said in a Thursday Senate hearing that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea together own under 400,000 acres of agricultural land as of 2021. He added that the nation's largest foreign landholders include Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Vilsack expressed concern over how federal foreign ownership restrictions could be implemented in a way that was fair and legally sound for international investors."

Clay Lowery, former assistant treasury secretary for international affairs, told Goldstein, "I do believe strongly in the ability for countries and entities to invest in the United States because I think that is actually a positive." Jennifer Zwagerman, director of the Drake University Agricultural Law Center in Iowa, told Goldstein, "My bigger fear is that we limit groups or entities or individuals that are really interested in farming or production themselves. And in doing so, we end up with land that is purchased by those less interested in farming and more in development."

Some doubt federal-level restrictions would be effective. "John Schwarz, a row crop farmer and lawyer in Cass County, Indiana, questioned if any national bill would be enforceable due to the sheer scope of farmland in the country," Goldstein writes. "He suggested it may be better left to counties and localities to handle." Schwarz told Goldstein, "If this is going to work, it really has to be on a micro level. I don't think a macro level is going to do it because there's just way too many ways to slip through, getting cute with the ownership and companies."

Some states want to sanction Russia over Ukraine despite legal barriers and dubious impact; more about 'moral weight'

A New York protest (Associated Press photo by Seth Wennig)

State officials in both parties, "outraged by the Russian invasion of Ukraine ... are seeking to impose economic sanctions of their own" despite legal barriers, Stateline's Sophie Quinton reports.

"Governors in at least 11 states—Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, New York and Virginia—are pushing state entities to review or cut financial ties with Russian companies," Quinton writes.

"Lawmakers in at least seven states—California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and West Virginia—have proposed divestment bills. Some state agencies have announced plans to cut ties with Russian businesses. And the governors of at least a dozen states have issued executive orders or sent letters to liquor regulators and state-run stores to stop sales of Russian vodka and other spirits."

Courts have ruled state sanctions against other nations are pre-empted by federal law, Quinton reports, so "The wave of state sanctions likely will be more symbolic than substantive, experts say." Also, "State pension funds and state agencies aren’t deeply dependent on Russian companies. Russian goods aren’t a major presence on U.S. store shelves."

But state sanctions have value as symbols that “reinforce what’s happening at the national level,” Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Quinton. “It does add moral weight. And that’s important.”