The Lunatic Farmer

OPPOSITE POLICY

If you're keeping up with Sec. of Ag. Brooke Rollins' big audacious shake-ups in the USDA, you know the main goal is exports. This theme is exactly opposite what our nation needs.

While the new decisions have some good points, they're kind of like moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic. Here are the four pillars of the new policy:

1. downsize USDA to match finances (15,000 employees took early retirement)

2. move USDA offices to 5 cities besides Washington D.C.: Kansas City, Fort Collins, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Raleigh

3. consolidate redundant support functions

4. eliminate management layers and bureaucracy

Did you know the USDA has the largest firefighting contingency? I wonder if they'll release the chainsaws and chippers to turn all that fire fuel into compostable biomass to eliminate all chemical fertilizer in the nation by going to composting? Not on your life.

The big push right now is to exempt all chemical companies from product liability as long as the pesticide, herbicide, insecticide is endorsed by the EPA. This will do for the chemical companies what vaccine liability protection did for the vaccine industry. The conservatives and Republicans are lining up behind this effort. Anything to protect the ag-industrial complex, which is far more powerful than the pharmaceutical complex.

The big news surrounding all these initiatives is that the U.S. now has deals to ship beef to Australia, Ireland, and the UK. Have you been following the U.S. beef shortage story lately? And goodness, I've been to Australia 16 times. They don't have enough population to eat half the beef they produce. Why in the world do we need to be shipping beef to Australia? And why would they buy it? None of this makes sense.

Unless those countries have a conspiracy to eliminate their domestic cattle industry, I can't imagine why this new freedom to export will result in any additional sales. And that actually makes sense. Get somebody to agree to buy our stuff knowing they won't buy our stuff so we can put out press releases touting our good deeds that really don't amount to anything but hot air. Now that makes sense.

This is all much ado about nothing. Let's imagine some initiatives that would really accomplish something:

1. A FOOD EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION so a producer and buyer could engage in a food transaction without asking the USDA for permission.

2. A famer who substitutes compost for chemical fertilizer gets a tax break.

3. SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) pays for no ultra-processed food.

4. The school lunch program buys only compost-grown whole foods.

5. All food safety regulations move to empirical benchmarking using infrared camera technology to eliminate scratch and sniff politics and subjectivity.

6. Legalize surface runoff farm ponds and prohibit aquifer-sourced irrigation.

What is one initiative you'd like to see from Rollins that would indicate true change at the USDA (besides eliminating it).

joel salatin

July 29, 2025

Comments (13)Most Liked

Oldest First

Preview Post Comment…

7 minutes ago · 0 Likes

What authority does the state of Virginia have to provide relief?

Mike Harpster

13 minutes ago · 0 Likes

Joel, Thank you once again for making a difference! Here's my attempt to do the same. Here's a template of the letter I plan to mail today. I hope it can be copied and resent by all.

[Your Name] [Address]

[City, State, ZIP] [Date: July 29, 2025]

The Honorable Brooke Rollins

Secretary of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20250

Re: Strong Opposition to Proposed Product Liability Exemptions for Chemical Companies

Dear Secretary Rollins,

I write to you as a concerned citizen to respectfully express my deep objection to the notion—as presented in a blog post attributed to Joel Salatin (dated July 29, 2025)—that all chemical producers should be exempt from product liability, provided their pesticides, herbicides, or insecticides are endorsed by the EPA.

This proposed policy position is abhorrent and fundamentally unsound for several critical reasons:

1. EPA endorsement does not guarantee safety in all contexts.

Regulatory approval—even by the EPA—is based on narrow, controlled assessments. It cannot anticipate every real-world application, misuse, cumulative exposure, or long-term environmental effects. Granting blanket immunity to manufacturers removes essential accountability when unforeseen harms occur.

2. Product liability is essential for consumer protection and corporate responsibility.

Liability drives rigorous adherence to safety standards, transparency in risk communication, and post market accountability. Removing it incentivizes cost cutting and undermines protections built into the U.S. legal and regulatory ecosystem. Courts and consumers would lose a vital check on corporate negligence or misconduct, even when products have received regulatory approval.

3. Exemptions would disproportionately harm communities and ecosystems.

Chemical exposure disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, including agricultural workers, low-income and rural communities, and nearby ecosystems. Without liability, these individuals lose recourse. Companies would face little incentive to pursue safer formulations or robust mitigation strategies.

4. The policy disregards precedent and undermines trust.

Historically, regulatory endorsement has not prevented major product failures—from asbestos to DDT to glyphosate litigation. Insurance claims and lawsuits have been critical to uncovering harms and enforcing reforms. Eliminating liability erodes public trust in both regulatory agencies and the companies they oversee.

In light of these concerns, I respectfully urge you to reject any initiative or legislative recommendation that would immunize chemical companies from liability on the basis of EPA endorsement alone. If an exemption is being considered, I urge you to publicly reaffirm the essential role of liability in ensuring safety, accountability, and consumer protection.

Thank you for your service and the opportunity to weigh in. I welcome any opportunity to discuss these issues further or provide additional insight from an industry perspective.

Respectfully,

[Your Name] [Contact Information]

Jeff H

27 minutes ago · 0 Likes

Exempting small farms from Commercial Kitchen requirements as long as they can demonstrate appropriate sanitation.

30 minutes ago · 0 Likes

I'm all for the initiatives you've listed. Notably, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. I have to admit I have no clue what number 5 means, but I'm sure it's just as valid as the others. I recall that many months ago you said you had accepted a consulting position in this department. I haven't seen mention of it since then, but I do hope you're still in that position. We need you there.

Pam from Vermont

33 minutes ago · 0 Likes

"Why in the world do we need to be shipping beef to Australia? And why would they buy it? None of this makes sense."

Because somebody is getting a kickback or other quid pro quo compensation that won't be obvious to laissez-faire auditors.

For instance, I've been on the same inhaler for over 20 years. My insurance company insisted I use the name brand. 18 months ago, the original manufacturer, Glaxco Smith Kline stopped making it. Don't know why. There are approximately 25million people using this product. There were other companies manufacturing the generic version but the insurance wouldn't approve. I had to trail a different "new" medication. I had to use it for a month. Then my physician had to see me and request a preauth again, third time, and the authorized one year of my original prescription. My lung capacity never fully recovered from the period of time without any inhaler and a month of their preferred new inhaler. Now, repeat the above because a year has elapsed and the prescription has expired Why? No one can give me a coherent explanation. I the absence of a credible explanation, that essentially leaves money... some type of monetary compensation for forcing one prescription over another. Utter nonsense.

That's my two cents worth Mr. Salatin. Have a blessed day.

Pam from Vermont

33 minutes ago · 0 Likes

"Why in the world do we need to be shipping beef to Australia? And why would they buy it? None of this makes sense."

Because somebody is getting a kickback or other quid pro quo compensation that won't be obvious to laissez-faire auditors.

That's my two cents worth Mr. Salatin. Have a blessed day.

Kirk

33 minutes ago · 0 Likes

From your list- Number 1

See Number 1

Sarah

34 minutes ago · 0 Likes

Soil health testing and quarterly test reports available to the consumer via our wonderful technology. Nutrient dense food grows on healthy soil, plants and livestock.

Enzo

37 minutes ago · 0 Likes

You should be and advisor to the Secretary. How these folks can form policy without the insights from actual FARMERS is beyond me. It’s like the blind leading the blind. Problem with politicians is they never admit that they don’t know what they don’t know.

Tyler

41 minutes ago · 0 Likes

You are right on!

Joel, you should post these suggestions on X. You have a big following and your words mean a lot! Many ideas/ movements have been started and implemented through the power of X. This is common sense and common sense resonates with people. If you post on there and get more eyes on it, the better chances of changes happening.

Anyhow, thanks for shining some light onto these issues.

Tyler

42 minutes ago · 0 Likes

IMHO, get rid of almost ALL conventional food or teach them all to be less conventional and more organic, without fillers and junk, NO SEED OILS, etc and turn all meat farms into regenerative and grassfed ones like Joel and White Oak Pastures in GA does among many others.

Shirley

46 minutes ago · 0 Likes

From the first time I heard Brook speak I realized she is utterly clueless about what is really needed.

May your emancipation be blessed and enacted!

Tara Baldwin

52 minutes ago · 0 Likes

Well said! Thanks!

PORTABLE TREES