Latest / Beyond Labels Premium / Episode #203: Joel Salatin vs. John Klar Showdown: Should Tax Dollars Be Taken from Big Ag and Given to Small Farmers?

Transcript

Episode #203: Joel Salatin vs. John Klar Showdown: Should Tax Dollars Be Taken from Big Ag and Given to Small Farmers? · Beyond Labels Premium

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_02: The real costs, when we look at the externalized costs, when we look at the healthcare costs, actually, it's not cheaper to have cheaper food.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_02: So maybe people need to be willing to spend more for healthy food.
• 0:10
  SPEAKER_02: Well, then we hear about equity and marginalized people and they can't afford this food.
• 0:14
  SPEAKER_02: Well, you're you're actually killing these people that you call marginalized by subsidizing toxic foods and teaching them in the food pyramid that this is good for them to have a high-carb diet and all these other problems that are sickening them with our top killers.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_02: And so if we really looked, again, it's complex, but if we looked at the true cost of cheap food, we'd say, well, maybe we should have people spend more for healthy food, and maybe we should be subsidizing that healthier food by shifting those subsidies to support local farms.
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_01: Hi everyone, welcome to another episode of Beyond Labels.
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_01: I'm Dr.
• 0:50
  SPEAKER_01: Stina McCullough, and today we're going to explore the truth about our food, farms, and our freedom.
• 0:57
  SPEAKER_01: We're going to be diving into a controversial cornerstone of our food supply, farm subsidies.
• 1:03
  SPEAKER_01: Now, this conversation matters because farm subsidies affect all of us, not just the farmer, but also the backyard gardener and anyone trying to afford real food these days.
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_01: Farm subsidies are part of the reason why junk food is cheaper than a head of lettuce, and why corn and soy byproducts dominate our diets and our soil.
• 1:25
  SPEAKER_01: Now, farm subsidies have been in the news the past few months because Robert Kennedy Jr.
• 1:29
  SPEAKER_01: vowed to shift agricultural subsidies away from commodity row crops like corn and soy toward farms using regenerative practice practices.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_01: This brings up a whole bunch of questions.
• 1:41
  SPEAKER_01: Like if he succeeds, what will happen to our grocery bills?
• 1:45
  SPEAKER_01: Will we see more small farms pop up?
• 1:47
  SPEAKER_01: Is this constitutional?
• 1:49
  SPEAKER_01: And is there another solution?
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_01: To help us untangle all of these knots, we're joined by two passionate voices.
• 1:55
  SPEAKER_01: The first, of course, is my co-host of Beyond Labels, Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farm.
• 2:02
  SPEAKER_01: Joel is a staunch critic of subsidies.
• 2:05
  SPEAKER_01: He believes the government interference has distorted the food system, disempowered small farmers, and has fueled the rise of big ag.
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_01: We're also joined by John Clark, who I love.
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_01: He is an attorney, a pastor, an author, and a regenerative farmer from Vermont who advocates for transition translation transitional subsidies for small farms, funded by gradual reductions in existing subsidies for big ag.
• 2:31
  SPEAKER_01: Wow, that's a mouthful.
• 2:33
  SPEAKER_01: And he John is gonna um unpack all of that today on the program.
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_01: But welcome to the program.
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_01: We're happy to have you here.
• 2:41
  SPEAKER_02: I'm honored.
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_02: Thank you.
• 2:43
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so I'm gonna start with basics, just so that everyone's on the same page.
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_01: Because when you say farm subsidies, a lot of people just tune it out, right?
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_01: They think that's for farmers.
• 2:52
  SPEAKER_01: But this really affects all of us.
• 2:54
  SPEAKER_01: Um, John, I'm gonna start with you.
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_01: What um what are farm subsidies?
• 3:00
  SPEAKER_01: Give me like a 60-second rundown of just the main types of farm subsidies in the U.S.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I think Joel is a much better authority, so I'll defer to him.
• 3:09
  SPEAKER_02: But um, but no, I think uh You're already winning, Joel.
• 3:14
  SPEAKER_02: Well, no, generally I think he knows more of the specifics.
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_02: He writes about them a lot in his blog.
• 3:19
  SPEAKER_02: And I've never received a farm subsidy.
• 3:21
  SPEAKER_02: Um I'm small scale, but they are predominantly for large row cropping, as you and Bobby Kennedy are pointing out.
• 3:28
  SPEAKER_02: Uh soy, corn, uh uh cotton, and uh, I think perhaps wheat, um, but they they are for monocultures, generally in the majority of them go to GMO crops, which then are dependent on glyphosate, synthetic fertilizers, and a lot of pesticides and herbicides.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_02: So we're literally subsidizing the products that are most destructive to our water aquifers, uh, both in drying them down and in uh polluting them and destroying our soil and increasing erosion and then ending up in our food.
• 4:03
  SPEAKER_02: And this is very controversial.
• 4:04
  SPEAKER_02: You can't say glyphosate is bad.
• 4:06
  SPEAKER_02: You'll get Monsanto upset with you.
• 4:08
  SPEAKER_02: Um and and so now we've created a system that is really dependent on these chemicals.
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_02: So ultimately, we're actually subsidizing chemical companies.
• 4:18
  SPEAKER_02: A lot of these products, corn, generally, if it didn't have subsidies, uh farmers wouldn't grow it uh because they're it's it the market price is so low that they're they're producing corn at a loss but for these subsidies.
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_02: So this is what I would call a moral hazard.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_02: And these subsidies have, because they've been going on for decades, have destroyed the small farm that everybody says they love, but now we're told we can't we can't depend on organic food.
• 4:45
  SPEAKER_02: We must have industrial agriculture to save the climate and save the planet, and and otherwise we'd have to put so much land into production.
• 4:54
  SPEAKER_02: Well, what about ethanol?
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_02: What about ethanol subsidies?
• 4:57
  SPEAKER_02: That's another one, you know, subsidizing corn.
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_02: And so what um what Bobby Kennedy's talking about is actually pretty radical because he's threatening the pocketbooks of a lot of people.
• 5:09
  SPEAKER_02: And so the discussion then becomes how do we phase them out and what do we do with the money other than give it back to taxpayers, which is a libertarian perspective that I concur with.
• 5:21
  SPEAKER_02: Um, but where Joel and I think have have differed a little bit is in my book, I've advocated to shifting some of those savings to supporting the small local farms and the grass-fed farms, and maybe maybe even subsidizing by giving money to current corn producers to let their grass grow back up again and put put cows on it and get the cows out of the CAFOs.
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_02: And so um, so that hopefully is responsive to your question, Doctor.
• 5:51
  SPEAKER_01: That's a beautiful answer.
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_01: And I want to add on there, just emphasize what you brought up, that this also is an important um point for Kennedy because he is trying to make America healthy again.
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_01: And one of the claims is that these subsidies are contributing toward the declining health of the American people, um, you know, in part because of the chemicals that you mentioned, um, the stripping of the nutrients from the soil through these row crop and the soil erosion, um, and also from the vast consumption of these commodity crops with the corn and the soy and wheat, that basically when you go into the grocery store, your what's on your plate has been chosen for you.
• 6:33
  SPEAKER_01: That it's it's a bunch of corn and soy uh byproducts that are just repackaged into here.
• 6:39
  SPEAKER_01: Let's it's Greek food or it's it's Italian food or it's Asian food.
• 6:44
  SPEAKER_01: It's really just a bunch of packaged, um, processed corn and soy byproducts, um, you know, as you mentioned.
• 6:50
  SPEAKER_01: So this is a key pillar to what he's trying to do, which is to make America healthy again.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_01: So I agree with everything that you said, John.
• 6:59
  SPEAKER_01: I love this perspective.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_01: I think it is important to point out from the get-go that you and Joel are on the same page in terms of overall um subsidies.
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_01: Is that correct, Joel?
• 7:09
  SPEAKER_01: Like the overall concept of subsidies.
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_00: And and I think there's there's more, I mean, there's there are milk, milk price supports that uh that affect the dairy, uh, the dairy industry.
• 7:22
  SPEAKER_00: And, you know, there, as John said, there are only six six crops that are technically subsidized now.
• 7:28
  SPEAKER_00: You know, they don't they don't use the word subsidy anymore, they use the word crop insurance.
• 7:33
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and so those go to six six commodity crops, uh, corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, uh, sugar cane, and rice.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_00: So those are the six commodity crops that have been picked for for that.
• 7:48
  SPEAKER_00: But there are other things as well.
• 7:49
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, right now there are um there are tremendous amounts of monies going in to set aside acres.
• 7:55
  SPEAKER_00: I've just come from several farm consults out in Iowa and Illinois, where you know, the the farms um have been in uh you know, we'll pay you not to farm.
• 8:07
  SPEAKER_00: And and so uh those are supposed to be targeted to fragile acreages, you know, to try to reduce uh acreages.
• 8:15
  SPEAKER_00: And so um, so these, you know, there'll be uh 10-year, 15-year, 20-year um uh uh payouts on those kinds of things.
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_00: And um and and you can't do much with that land.
• 8:29
  SPEAKER_00: You can't graze it, you can't mow it for hay unless you're in a you know in a declared drought emergency situation.
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_00: And so um so a lot of these acres are kind of you know um rewilding, going back to uh nature and uh and and trees and and brush and things like that rather than being productive.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_00: Um and then you have you have KREP, the conservation reserve enhancement program, uh, which often pays for riparian protection, water, water systems.
• 9:03
  SPEAKER_00: Um then there's the coal whole um uh small you know small farm grant program to pay for greenhouses and uh things like that, uh abattoirs.
• 9:16
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, there are many, many uh small uh slaughterhouses now that are that that are trying to people are you know going for grants for local food systems to develop you know those kinds of things.
• 9:29
  SPEAKER_00: So the the the tentacles, the the threads of USDA um uh you know monies are distributed very, very broadly right now.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_00: It's almost like what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
• 9:48
  SPEAKER_00: So they they they you know they help the the monocrop soybean, you know, I think that we all agree in over here, and then they you know they do this other over over here.
• 9:58
  SPEAKER_00: And we uh you know we have we have uh gone onto lands that have been participatory in these allegedly environmental uh type projects.
• 10:10
  SPEAKER_00: And um and in general, what we've found is that you know, water projects and grants for uh small farm development, if you just do it yourself, you can do it for about a uh a quarter of the cost and um and not involve the government engineers that over-engineer everything.
• 10:28
  SPEAKER_00: So that that's that's kind of been that's but kind of been our experience, you know, in these uh in these allegedly environmentally, ecologically um, you know, ecologically demonstrated programs.
• 10:42
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, so as we can see, the farm subsidies are very expansive, right?
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_01: Reaching like all facets basically of our food supply.
• 10:50
  SPEAKER_01: Um, Joel, this question's for you, and then I'm gonna jump back over to John.
• 10:54
  SPEAKER_01: These programs that you're talking about, where you idle the land, um, you know, as you're trying to restore the fragile acres, there's advocates that say that these types of programs yield cleaner rivers and, like you said, grow more trees and bring the soil back and um boost the amount of wildlife in those areas.
• 11:15
  SPEAKER_01: So isn't that a good thing?
• 11:16
  SPEAKER_01: Like isn't there isn't there justification to use tax dollars to actually restore the land?
• 11:21
  SPEAKER_01: Because that's what we want in regenerative agriculture, right?
• 11:24
  SPEAKER_01: We want to restore the land.
• 11:26
  SPEAKER_01: So it does that out, does the outcome of restoration of those areas um does it basically say that yes, this is a good thing to do with our federal tax money?
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, so the so the the qu the crux of the question is here does every human use uh uh impede ecological function?
• 11:52
  SPEAKER_00: And we have a kind of a notion in I think certainly radical environmentalism, that every human touch on the landscape is detrimental.
• 12:03
  SPEAKER_00: Uh pretty you know, pretty, pretty broad brush, you know, get the people remove the people.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_00: And and um I think John and I agree very much that we can have very, very direct human interaction with the land, and it can be uh it can actually be uh uh stimulating to ecology, to clean water, to better air, to you know, soil development.
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_00: Uh this is part of the human mandate, in fact, is to interact, I think, with nature and um and tease out you know more abundance and more production, more clean water, more soil, more you know, air, uh than it would under a natural system.
• 12:47
  SPEAKER_00: And this is a this is a pri this is a primary um uh you know problem that I have with these allegedly ecology type subsidies um because they that it's either one or nothing.
• 13:02
  SPEAKER_00: You're either you're either cropland or you can't do anything with it.
• 13:05
  SPEAKER_00: And and and you prohibit human interaction in that land, which I think is a um is a I think it's a mistake.
• 13:14
  SPEAKER_00: We we as John said, we could we can take all that cropland and convert it to uh you know perennial prairie pasture land, and we can actually produce more food per acre and do it with clean rivers than by you know than by promoting the uh cropland.
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_01: I love that.
• 13:32
  SPEAKER_01: John, piggybacking on something that Joel said, we've had a several listeners um email us asking if they should take money from essentially the National Resource Um Conservation Services, which is part of the USDA, they offer car cost sharing.
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_01: It's usually between 50 and 90 percent.
• 13:51
  SPEAKER_01: And the cost sharing is for conservation activities, it's funded ultimately through the farm bill, but it gives them assistance on their own homestead for creating things like high tunnels, for example.
• 14:05
  SPEAKER_01: And many of our listeners, as I said, have asked, um, should I be taking this money um to help on my homestead?
• 14:14
  SPEAKER_01: John, my question for you is these are like targeted microgrants, right?
• 14:19
  SPEAKER_01: For like hoop houses or water catchment systems.
• 14:23
  SPEAKER_01: Could these be the very tool that lets beginner farmers survive?
• 14:27
  SPEAKER_01: Like that helps them survive on their land and be able to afford these homesteading activities and a small farm for that matter.
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_02: No, don't take them.
• 14:38
  SPEAKER_01: You don't even know how hard it is for me to try to stay unbiased in these questions.
• 14:43
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I'm gonna I I'm being playful there, but um to build a little bit to tie this into what Joel just said, um, he mentioned the um the conservation easements that that we the we pay farmers to let areas grow back and rewild, but they can't put cows on them, as he mentioned earlier.
• 15:04
  SPEAKER_02: That's insane because rotationally grazed cows rebuild soils.
• 15:09
  SPEAKER_02: Uh they actually help detoxify the climate from our manufacturing industries and the forever chemicals being spewed into the land.
• 15:18
  SPEAKER_02: And you mentioned it's kind of, or I think Joel did, it's kind of give with one hand and take away with the other.
• 15:24
  SPEAKER_02: Um he mentioned the sugar subsidies.
• 15:25
  SPEAKER_02: And then we're going to put a syntax on people for eating the sugary drinks that we've subsidized.
• 15:30
  SPEAKER_02: So there are similar problems here, and actually the the whole ecological stuff about wildlife and such is really destroying farms, particularly in England and around Europe.
• 15:41
  SPEAKER_02: And so there are good lessons there.
• 15:42
  SPEAKER_02: It drives up food costs.
• 15:44
  SPEAKER_02: But you know, the person who would most criticize that is Wendell Berry, who has pointed out in his writings that the best way to steward land is intergenerational farming, because farmers know the land, they know the weak spots, they know areas that shouldn't be subsidized to be put to corn.
• 16:02
  SPEAKER_02: Now, in answer to your question, because I said no, um, it's not a no.
• 16:06
  SPEAKER_02: Um, my own experience is I said I haven't taken any subsidies, but some years ago, when we had a larger farm, we actually had an older dairy farm.
• 16:15
  SPEAKER_02: And in the spring, we in Vermont here, we have a lot of water.
• 16:18
  SPEAKER_02: We got extra for those of you who need it.
• 16:20
  SPEAKER_02: We could just put in a pipeline uh maybe to Virginia at the moment.
• 16:25
  SPEAKER_02: Um we get a lot of rain.
• 16:27
  SPEAKER_02: And every spring we had a little stream that came up right near outside of our dairy our dairy barn, and it would overflow, and the water would flow through the downstairs of the barn where our sheep had been bedded all winter, flow back, flow out the back of the barn and into the old manure pit where the also our cow manure came out uh through a whole barn cleaner, and then flow back into the spring, into the stream, and then down into the into the water system.
• 16:54
  SPEAKER_02: And so I went to NRCS and I wanted to get some money.
• 16:59
  SPEAKER_02: I wanted about$1,000 to hire somebody with a bulldozer to just improve the flow of that stream so in the spring it wouldn't come through the barn.
• 17:10
  SPEAKER_02: And they wanted to spend, I think,$15,000 to$20,000.
• 17:14
  SPEAKER_02: And then I also had to sign up.
• 17:16
  SPEAKER_02: At the same time, I had been cutting cedar and I wanted to get some free cedar trees.
• 17:20
  SPEAKER_02: I heard they give you cedar trees, and I would replant them.
• 17:22
  SPEAKER_02: I just wanted the seedlings, you know, wasn't making any money on my cedar.
• 17:25
  SPEAKER_02: But I had to sign up my property basically forever, and I couldn't grow any crop without their approval.
• 17:31
  SPEAKER_02: So I would strongly recommend people looking, if they're going to enlist in these programs, look at the fine print and see what kind of basic ease, basically easements you're giving the federal government over how you can um run your own property.
• 17:46
  SPEAKER_02: So I would definitely be leery of that.
• 17:48
  SPEAKER_02: I'm not against the government helping people with sensible programs and policies.
• 17:55
  SPEAKER_02: Um and and so and I do think that they have a role to play.
• 17:58
  SPEAKER_02: And that's where, you know, maybe Joel and I might differ a little bit.
• 18:02
  SPEAKER_02: Um he's a let's just say a stauncher libertarian than I am.
• 18:07
  SPEAKER_02: I totally agree that the um the subsidy system has has warped our agricultural system.
• 18:14
  SPEAKER_02: And so that's why actually, you know, for instance, maybe with fencing as well, but they somehow seem to manage to spend a dollar to get a quarter uh when it comes out of the federal government.
• 18:25
  SPEAKER_02: They just seem to have a they just seem to throw money at things, and farmers are going to be much more frugal.
• 18:32
  SPEAKER_02: Um, I actually have advocated for uh subsidies that were more linked to actually food production, so that they were based on how many dollars of productive food you generated.
• 18:43
  SPEAKER_02: Because another thing with this is people will go get grants and they'll improve their property, but they're never viable farms.
• 18:49
  SPEAKER_02: The taxpayer doesn't get a return on it, the food supply doesn't get a return on it.
• 18:53
  SPEAKER_02: So I certainly wouldn't say a complete no, as I did jokingly to commence.
• 18:58
  SPEAKER_02: But I would I would watch for the red tape and I would I would look at the return as if it was your money and not just somebody else's.
• 19:08
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, it's so much easier to spend somebody else's money, right?
• 19:11
  SPEAKER_01: Um, John, along those lines, can you explain your idea of this um transitional subsidies for small farmers?
• 19:20
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, um it seems to me, and this is actually Wendell Berry 101 again, we have subsidized the destruction of the small farms.
• 19:28
  SPEAKER_02: And we might have farm aid and have some rock stars come out and do a you know a fundraiser to farmers to what make up for using the federal government to destroy them?
• 19:37
  SPEAKER_02: These are massive subsidies.
• 19:39
  SPEAKER_02: Now, one thing I've learned over the years is that there is a false dichotomy, well, maybe not false, but there's a battle between conventional farmers and organic farmers.
• 19:50
  SPEAKER_02: And the organic farmers, the local farmers, whether organic or not, have been losing for a long time, many generations, including my own family here in Vermont.
• 20:00
  SPEAKER_02: And sometimes that leads you to say, well, let's just give up.
• 20:03
  SPEAKER_02: We can't farm.
• 20:05
  SPEAKER_02: But it also can make you be have a lot of antipathy towards conventional farmers.
• 20:09
  SPEAKER_02: And we get into this battle.
• 20:11
  SPEAKER_02: Well, a lot of these conventional farmers, they've been sold a bill of goods.
• 20:15
  SPEAKER_02: They've been given money to destroy their own soils to grow corn.
• 20:18
  SPEAKER_02: Uh they've been given a lot of money to toxify the ground and groundwater and maybe themselves with glyphosate.
• 20:26
  SPEAKER_02: So maybe they too are victims of a sort.
• 20:28
  SPEAKER_02: And we we shouldn't be in this false sense that we have to battle one another.
• 20:32
  SPEAKER_02: There's room for both.
• 20:34
  SPEAKER_02: And so if we were to take away, for instance, farm subsidies overnight from our industrial farming system, which is what it really has become.
• 20:44
  SPEAKER_02: I think that that might uh destroy some of those farms.
• 20:48
  SPEAKER_02: It might really lead to a loss of food production.
• 20:51
  SPEAKER_02: We saw what happened in Sri Lanka, which is a little bit uh oversimplifying to say that that was solely attributable to eliminating subsidies for synthetic fertilizers and industrial systems.
• 21:02
  SPEAKER_02: But we could we should transition it so that we can reverse what really has been decades in the making over time and not overnight.
• 21:11
  SPEAKER_02: And I advocate for doing that in part by supporting small farmers.
• 21:16
  SPEAKER_02: Again, I am well also by reducing the regulations, because a lot of this is regulatory.
• 21:21
  SPEAKER_02: A lot of the uh the processing rules and a lot of the other regulations are extremely burdensome and onerous for the small producer.
• 21:28
  SPEAKER_02: And so we could do a lot, and I'm hoping that Brooke Rollins will be doing some of that.
• 21:33
  SPEAKER_02: Um and and Joel mentioned our processing facilities, that's an important, a vitally important area for small farms to have diverse and widespread, geographically widespread processing facilities for those who want to raise livestock.
• 21:48
  SPEAKER_02: And so I think that a transition, a reversal, I call it food reparations, farming reparations.
• 21:54
  SPEAKER_02: I'm told don't say that reparations thing.
• 21:57
  SPEAKER_02: Uh well, reparations is built around race.
• 22:00
  SPEAKER_02: And so I'm not supposed to say that because that would be somehow racist.
• 22:02
  SPEAKER_02: Well, these are these are current subsidies.
• 22:05
  SPEAKER_02: These are currently hurting people.
• 22:06
  SPEAKER_02: This isn't from 200 years ago.
• 22:08
  SPEAKER_02: And it doesn't matter about skin color.
• 22:10
  SPEAKER_02: We should help small farmers and but but not demonize or vilify the large farmers.
• 22:16
  SPEAKER_02: Bring them on as allies.
• 22:18
  SPEAKER_02: For instance, you know, what do you do with ethanol plants?
• 22:20
  SPEAKER_02: Whole facilities subsidized by the government and regulated by the government so that they could produce ethanol.
• 22:26
  SPEAKER_02: We make them our enemies if we pull the carpet out from under them.
• 22:30
  SPEAKER_02: How can we repurpose those facilities for the betterment of all?
• 22:34
  SPEAKER_02: And it seems to me that again, we might have to use subsidies in a transitional way, but ultimately, I think Joel and I would agree to remove these artificial money incentives that are incentivizing the wrong thing.
• 22:52
  SPEAKER_02: And that's why, by the way, I should mention, you know, one thing I talk about, I'm talking about transitory subsidies.
• 22:57
  SPEAKER_02: In time, organic farmers and farming can stand on their own, I believe.
• 23:02
  SPEAKER_02: But you know, and a big problem has been real estate taxes as well.
• 23:06
  SPEAKER_02: In some areas, you know, like here in Vermont, real estate taxes are some of the highest in the country.
• 23:11
  SPEAKER_02: It becomes very cost prohibitive for young farmers or new market entrants to start farming and and you know repurpose farmland in a way that's more profitable.
• 23:21
  SPEAKER_02: So sorry to be long-winded.
• 23:23
  SPEAKER_02: It's something Joel will tell you I'm good at.
• 23:29
  SPEAKER_00: No, I I'll go ahead, Joel.
• 23:31
  SPEAKER_00: Well, what what would what what so what other purpose could an ethanol plant be used for?
• 23:37
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that's a good question.
• 23:38
  SPEAKER_02: I'm fake, I'm glad that you're gonna tell us.
• 23:42
  SPEAKER_02: But I you get my point.
• 23:44
  SPEAKER_02: So I've actually heard of that discussions about that exact thing.
• 23:47
  SPEAKER_02: I don't know what.
• 23:48
  SPEAKER_02: Uh can we turn it into a fodder slaughter facility?
• 23:50
  SPEAKER_02: I've never been to one.
• 23:52
  SPEAKER_02: Um but but uh but but the the general idea is how do we not make them enemies of us or and are we not responsible for having paid them to build it for that capital investment?
• 24:04
  SPEAKER_02: Um how how do we do so?
• 24:06
  SPEAKER_02: I'm sure there are going to be some losers, you know, the good the government is is picking losers and winners, but so tell me, is that not possible?
• 24:14
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I I I don't I mean one of the problems when we when the when we build these very capital-intensive single-use infrastructures, remodeling and retrofitting, or let's say re-repurposing, repurposing is really difficult, difficult.
• 24:34
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and you know, this was my and and so what happens is that you build these facilities and then they dominate, they just dominate the decision-making landscape, which then dominates the uh the the the production landscape for who knows decades, even when they're obsolete, even when they're you know um when they shouldn't be there, because we've invested economically and emotionally in this single-use capital-intensive infrastructure, and you can't walk away from it.
• 25:10
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that that's why that's why I tell people when they're wanting to start and do it to do uh, for example, going from continuous grazing to controlled grazing, I say, look, if you're not sure where to put your fences, don't put anything permanent for three years, you know, and make everything portable for three years, and then what you haven't moved for three years, make it permanent.
• 25:29
  SPEAKER_00: Because if you put a permanent fence in and it's in the wrong place, you never want to take it out because fence building is too, you know, it's too uh it's too emotionally and energy intensive to build a fence.
• 25:43
  SPEAKER_00: So, so, you know, so wait.
• 25:46
  SPEAKER_00: And um and and so here we are.
• 25:48
  SPEAKER_00: You know, New Zealand, New Zealand eliminated all their subsidies in a crash about 20 years ago, and about half the farmers went out of business within about within about 24 months.
• 26:02
  SPEAKER_01: The big farmers?
• 26:04
  SPEAKER_00: Yes, the big farmers?
• 26:06
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, uh across the board, across the board.
• 26:09
  SPEAKER_00: But the ones who stayed, the ones who were able to weather it, that's one reason why New Zealand became such a world leader in grazing and and pasture management, was because those were the systems that actually um that actually were you know survived, survived the and and now they have all sorts of private, basically the entire extension service, which is kind of the it's the educational branch of the USDA, um was privatized.
• 26:44
  SPEAKER_00: And and and the best the best government agents went to work for private organizations that were funded by farmers to do trials and do um do uh do things.
• 26:55
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, I I'll give you one example that happened that I know about.
• 26:59
  SPEAKER_00: So all the research had been done on how do we produce more grass.
• 27:03
  SPEAKER_00: And so, I mean, but but before before the uh before the basically the New Zealand equivalent of the USDA was obliterated, um there were trials being done on how to how to how do we produce more grass.
• 27:20
  SPEAKER_00: Well, once their basically equivalent of USDA uh was eliminated, the question was, which grass do the cows like to eat best?
• 27:31
  SPEAKER_00: So you had all these all these uh uh tests, you know, uh growth growth trials pre uh trying to figure out how to grow more volume, but nobody was asking, well, do the cows like it?
• 27:48
  SPEAKER_00: After the collapse, the question was, well, what grasses do the cows like best?
• 27:55
  SPEAKER_00: And it completely, I mean, it completely inverted the entire research, you know, New Zealand research uh mentality when they got the government out that had one agenda and then put the farmers in control that had a completely different agenda.
• 28:14
  SPEAKER_00: A farmer cares, not just I don't care how many pounds of of X I grow, if the cows don't like it, it's not good.
• 28:23
  SPEAKER_00: And farmers figure that out really quick, uh, right after the cow.
• 28:27
  SPEAKER_00: And the cows figure out what they like really well, you know, fast.
• 28:31
  SPEAKER_00: But those, you know, those are the kinds of things that that happen when you, you know, when you put, you know, when you take the government out of the um out of the decision making process and let it go to a functional, you know, we talk about functional medicine.
• 28:49
  SPEAKER_00: Well, this is functional agriculture decision making.
• 28:54
  SPEAKER_01: You know, and so the qu and I think that's a really great example that you bring up, Joel, because it talks about innovation, right?
• 29:00
  SPEAKER_01: Innovation comes out of this.
• 29:02
  SPEAKER_01: Um my question is really aim toward what happens to the price of food during this time period when, like you said, you know, they lost about half their farms.
• 29:13
  SPEAKER_01: Um, one of our listeners, Ethan Johnson, sent in a question specifically for this podcast today.
• 29:19
  SPEAKER_01: And the question is, how would you remove subsidies without causing severe economic turno turmoil?
• 29:24
  SPEAKER_01: Some people actually blame the Great Depression on the fact that farmers were incentivized through high guaranteed prices to grow massive amounts of crops and spend large amounts of money on machinery that they could not afford due to the world war.
• 29:38
  SPEAKER_01: Once the war in exports stopped, the farmers didn't have price guarantees and had too much supply for the demand, and they went belly up.
• 29:46
  SPEAKER_01: Seems like we are doing something similar today, as the demand for these crops is actually artificial because the prices are lower than they should be due to the taxpayer.
• 29:57
  SPEAKER_01: So, John, I'm gonna send this question over to you.
• 30:02
  SPEAKER_01: This is, as we're talking about, a very delicate situation of even just trying to shift like what Kennedy wants to do from the commodity crops to the regenerative farmers.
• 30:13
  SPEAKER_01: Um, what what is the risk here to let's say the grocery bill?
• 30:18
  SPEAKER_01: You know, let's get to the heart of what really matters to a lot of Americans.
• 30:22
  SPEAKER_01: It's can they afford their groceries?
• 30:24
  SPEAKER_01: If we if we do mess with these uh supplement these um subsidies, even though I think all of us here are agreeing that we'd rather have a system that doesn't have these subsidies for big ag.
• 30:36
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and I want to dive more into your transitional subsidies.
• 30:39
  SPEAKER_01: I think this is fascinating.
• 30:41
  SPEAKER_01: But what is the risk here to our grocery store bills?
• 30:46
  SPEAKER_02: Well, and I I think one thing we're learning here is it is complex, for instance.
• 30:50
  SPEAKER_02: The example that Joel gave, which is a great one.
• 30:53
  SPEAKER_02: And actually, just to build on that a little bit, you know, we talk about innovation.
• 30:57
  SPEAKER_02: In both cases, we're innovating.
• 30:59
  SPEAKER_02: It's just what are we innovating?
• 31:01
  SPEAKER_02: And um Gabe Gabe Brown uh talks about this and others, you know, that they often develop GMO crops that, well, the the plant will grow faster.
• 31:11
  SPEAKER_02: It'll grow a greater yield, and then we're told how wonderful that is.
• 31:14
  SPEAKER_02: Oh, but we developed it in a laboratory in sterile soil, so we've now genetically modified it so it will no longer have a relationship with the soil fungi.
• 31:23
  SPEAKER_02: And so it will not grow without um synthetic fertilizers that are made from natural gas in a plant, you know, in a factory, and do not rebuild soil uh that actually destroy the soil microbiome.
• 31:36
  SPEAKER_02: Oh, isn't that an amazing innovation?
• 31:38
  SPEAKER_02: But we've innovated for the wrong traits.
• 31:41
  SPEAKER_02: We we may have serious problems in our in our laying ends because we have innovated to have them lay the maximum number of eggs, not be uh have healthy immune systems, for instance.
• 31:52
  SPEAKER_02: So it's a matter of what we're favoring.
• 31:55
  SPEAKER_02: Now, what I think where I love the question is that it's absolutely true.
• 32:00
  SPEAKER_02: This is Wendellberry 101 again, that that the um the industry, the universities that don't get subsidies to develop what cows like to eat, they don't get subsidies to develop how to augment natural processes.
• 32:16
  SPEAKER_02: They get subsidies and for RD from an industry that wants to maximize profits and find ways always to improve efficiency.
• 32:25
  SPEAKER_02: In the name of efficiency, we've destroyed just about everything, including human health.
• 32:30
  SPEAKER_02: So I would say, first of all, this is an argument for transition because we can help farmers.
• 32:36
  SPEAKER_02: We are already putting money into the wrong kind of farming.
• 32:39
  SPEAKER_02: Uh Joel wrote, I believe a while back, I read on one of his blogs about, I think it was Oklahoma you visited, Joel, where they were subsidizing farmers to spray water on and fur and and uh irrigate crops that were already dead in order for them to get their, I think it was cotton subsidies.
• 32:58
  SPEAKER_02: That's not a good policy.
• 32:59
  SPEAKER_02: That money could go into food production.
• 33:02
  SPEAKER_02: Um but um maybe part of the problem is that we want cheap food.
• 33:08
  SPEAKER_02: The USDA reports that uh food prices dropped because of these gains in technology, which, along with industry, who want to sell you a tractor, who don't mind putting the farmers into the burden of debt, Wendellberry 101 again, um, compressing the ground, too much tilling, releasing carbon dioxide that we now must blame the farmers for, um, consolidating cows into facilities that that are bad for cows and bad for the climate.
• 33:37
  SPEAKER_02: And now let's blame the cows.
• 33:39
  SPEAKER_02: Um, it was never the cows' fault.
• 33:41
  SPEAKER_02: We imprisoned the cows.
• 33:43
  SPEAKER_02: The cows are the solution to the to the problem.
• 33:46
  SPEAKER_02: But maybe we don't value food anymore.
• 33:48
  SPEAKER_02: And so by the year 2000, for about 40 years, because of innovation, because of technological advances and these efficiencies, we made food cheap.
• 33:59
  SPEAKER_02: We also destroyed our farmland, destroyed our aquifers, and are destroying our health.
• 34:04
  SPEAKER_02: And Maha and Bobby Kennedy are actually talking a lot of the ideas from my first book, Small Farm Republic, so I'll take all the credit for it, which is built on Joel's books.
• 34:14
  SPEAKER_02: Uh, it's it's uh, you know, Joel's been writing about these things and the importance of cows and manure for years.
• 34:20
  SPEAKER_02: And so now, in a matter of just about three years, what for decades had been an average, according to USDA numbers, an average cost of American consumers of about 9% of their budget goes to food.
• 34:34
  SPEAKER_02: And that allows them to spend more money on, you know, um flat screen TVs and video games and and and cars and dumb.
• 34:43
  SPEAKER_00: And and and Ozempic.
• 34:45
  SPEAKER_00: And Ozempic.
• 34:46
  SPEAKER_02: And Ozempic, right, and and uh the other drugs to cure the illnesses being seeded by the cheap food.
• 34:52
  SPEAKER_02: So, yes, I mean that point about Ozempic is means that the real cost, when we look at the externalized costs, when we look at the health care costs, actually, it's not cheaper to have cheaper food.
• 35:03
  SPEAKER_02: So maybe people need to be willing to spend more for healthy food.
• 35:06
  SPEAKER_02: Well, then we hear about equity and marginalized people and they can't afford this food.
• 35:10
  SPEAKER_02: Well, you're you're actually killing these people that you call marginalized by subsidizing toxic foods and teaching them in the food pyramid that this is good for them, to have a high-carb diet and all these other problems that are sickening them with our top killers.
• 35:25
  SPEAKER_02: And so if we really looked, again, it's complex, but if we looked at the true cost of cheap food, we'd say, well, maybe we should have people spend more for healthy food, and maybe we should be subsidizing that healthier food by shifting those subsidies to support local farms.
• 35:41
  SPEAKER_02: Now, we see this battle right now, this is very interesting to me.
• 35:44
  SPEAKER_02: We see this battle going on right now because the big food industries and who have a lot of money, kind of like Big Pharma, are influencing the media, including major outlets like National Review and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, all on the left and the right, to tell us that no, no, corn uh chemical saturated corn is better for you than grass-fed organics, because this is going to save the planet, and we'd have to put too much land into agriculture.
• 36:11
  SPEAKER_02: To paraphrase Wendell Berry again, we don't hear people complaining that they're putting too much land into suburban development or mowing lawns every three days, whether they need it or not, and spilling gas on the ground.
• 36:25
  SPEAKER_02: We are meanwhile have consumers who want grass-fed meat, who want meat without antibiotics, without hormones.
• 36:34
  SPEAKER_02: That's what the consumer demand is.
• 36:36
  SPEAKER_02: But industry is saying, no, no, no, you must eat this to save the planet.
• 36:40
  SPEAKER_02: The opposite is the truth, and more and more people are waking up to this.
• 36:44
  SPEAKER_02: And this is a big battle right now, actually, in the US-UK tariff wars that have just announced they're going to increase imports of U.S.
• 36:52
  SPEAKER_02: beef into the UK.
• 36:54
  SPEAKER_02: Only they feel they're going to be cheated because they don't use grass-fed, grain-fed, really, the way we do.
• 37:00
  SPEAKER_02: They don't use uh the hormones in their beef production, and they feel that the farmers there feel they could be threatened by what are called non-tariff trade barriers.
• 37:10
  SPEAKER_02: Well, the consumers both there and here want healthier food.
• 37:13
  SPEAKER_02: Why don't we give it to them?
• 37:14
  SPEAKER_02: And why don't we subsidize by taking again, it doesn't have to cost taxpayers anything.
• 37:18
  SPEAKER_02: We can have a net savings to taxpayers.
• 37:20
  SPEAKER_02: Let's chop part of those conventional subsidies to GMO crops, and whether or not we can repurpose that ethanol plant, maybe we can give them a warning.
• 37:30
  SPEAKER_02: Guess what?
• 37:30
  SPEAKER_02: You're only gonna have a few more years to churn out that soil-destroying algore-promoted ethanol boondoggle, because that's what it is.
• 37:39
  SPEAKER_02: Ethanol is not a net benefit for the uh environment at all, I think Joel would agree.
• 37:45
  SPEAKER_02: Let's phase it out.
• 37:46
  SPEAKER_02: We give you fair notice because we subsidize your stupid plant.
• 37:49
  SPEAKER_02: But we're gonna start putting money into helping farmers get cows out of their uh incarceration facilities.
• 37:56
  SPEAKER_02: Um, we're gonna stop deporting cows to El Salvador prisons.
• 38:01
  SPEAKER_02: We're gonna put them back on the farmland, we're gonna restore soils that have been put to ethanol and corn production.
• 38:08
  SPEAKER_02: And I think that we could get people behind that.
• 38:11
  SPEAKER_02: That would be Maha.
• 38:12
  SPEAKER_02: And then maybe we can actually start to see uh uh an improvement in life expectancy again, lower cancer rates, lower non-Hodgkin's lymphoma rates.
• 38:22
  SPEAKER_02: We could actually start to prove that this pays for itself.
• 38:25
  SPEAKER_02: So, but maybe people do have to pay a little bit more for their food.
• 38:29
  SPEAKER_02: I think throughout history, people paid more like 40 or 45 percent of their food or of their annual budget on food 100 years ago or 200 years ago.
• 38:40
  SPEAKER_02: So we don't want to have food inflation, we do not want to punish the consumers, or then guess what?
• 38:45
  SPEAKER_02: There'll be a backlash and they'll say, oh no, we need more industrial food again, give us cheap food again.
• 38:50
  SPEAKER_02: We need to educate people.
• 38:52
  SPEAKER_02: And that too is part of what I think Bobby Kennedy is doing, what you're doing here.
• 38:56
  SPEAKER_02: All right, rant over.
• 38:58
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, and no, that was awesome.
• 39:00
  SPEAKER_01: You know, and I read somewhere recently that part of I think it's through the SNAP program, is that if that recipient buys things from like a farmer's market or the healthier food options, they will actually give them$2 for every dollar, right?
• 39:14
  SPEAKER_01: So they can act it doubles the amount of SNAP dollars that they are able to spend.
• 39:20
  SPEAKER_01: Is that have you heard of that, John?
• 39:21
  SPEAKER_01: Is that correct?
• 39:22
  SPEAKER_02: Oh, yeah.
• 39:22
  SPEAKER_02: And they use that.
• 39:23
  SPEAKER_02: And here in Vermont, it's a big program and it and it encourages people to buy at farmers' markets and CSAs and direct from farmers.
• 39:30
  SPEAKER_02: Um, nothing that the government administers is without some costs, but um, that's that's a huge area where we could incentivize smart diets, but we've actually used SNAP and the WIC program to incentivize toxic diets.
• 39:45
  SPEAKER_02: Uh guess what?
• 39:46
  SPEAKER_02: We WIC supports uh infant formula, and three manufacturers make it.
• 39:51
  SPEAKER_02: And it's actually it's actually penalized people who want to breastfeed.
• 39:55
  SPEAKER_02: It's actually encouraged women, the people perhaps who are the most marginalized or a low income, to put their babies on infant formula.
• 40:03
  SPEAKER_02: That's not good long term.
• 40:04
  SPEAKER_02: We can change it.
• 40:05
  SPEAKER_02: These are terrible policies.
• 40:07
  SPEAKER_02: I say we can replace them with good policies.
• 40:10
  SPEAKER_02: And then over time, once people become more educated about this, maybe the government could back off.
• 40:15
  SPEAKER_02: But we've done huge damage that we need to we need to restore better food supplies.
• 40:20
  SPEAKER_02: So, yeah, that I'm a big proponent of that.
• 40:22
  SPEAKER_00: You know, look at you know, when you uh when you start down this this path, John, as you were talking, I I couldn't help but think of, for example, uh one of the last times I was in I was in Australia, uh, they were showing me this technology where um with with satellite imaging you can you can map infrared um infrared heat uh radiation essentially from the earth and you can and and you can easily read um ground cover, for example.
• 40:58
  SPEAKER_00: Because because vegetative ground cover cools the earth, and when you don't have vegetative ground cover, uh the earth radiates all that heat back out.
• 41:07
  SPEAKER_00: And um and you know when you start thinking about well, yeah, we've done so much bad, what would be some what would be some parameters for an exchange here for a transition?
• 41:21
  SPEAKER_00: Well, uh you know, you could for example if a if if a wick if a wick mom breastfeeds, for example, let's say that you give her additional benefits that she can spend for good food, um you know, if she breastfeeds.
• 41:46
  SPEAKER_00: So you you you you you create parameters.
• 41:48
  SPEAKER_00: Um if you're going to give money to a farmer, you that farm has to never radiate heat back into the atmosphere.
• 41:59
  SPEAKER_00: And you can literally map this property by property.
• 42:02
  SPEAKER_00: It's very, very easy to do.
• 42:04
  SPEAKER_00: We have the technology.
• 42:05
  SPEAKER_00: This would be a place to use AI, and you and you map which uh you map a farm that never radiates heat back.
• 42:12
  SPEAKER_00: That means if you till, if you open it up and you have bare ground, you're never gonna make the subsidy.
• 42:18
  SPEAKER_00: But what you do is that you you create a transitory uh assistance subsidy for a farm that never radiates heat back into the atmosphere.
• 42:30
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, I I can see you laughing, John, but but you know, I'm sitting here thinking, wouldn't it be neat to just sit down in a room and brainstorm?
• 42:40
  SPEAKER_00: All right, we all know what we've done that's bad for a long time.
• 42:44
  SPEAKER_00: What if we created another set of 12 to 20 benchmarks over on the other side that in order that that that um we just we just shift all that in a in a transitory period, John?
• 42:58
  SPEAKER_00: You're laughing uh because now you win.
• 43:01
  SPEAKER_00: Um but you got it.
• 43:04
  SPEAKER_02: I'm laughing.
• 43:05
  SPEAKER_02: He's agreeing with me.
• 43:06
  SPEAKER_02: I was like, oh no, what am I gonna argue with Joel about now?
• 43:08
  SPEAKER_02: He's agreeing with me.
• 43:10
  SPEAKER_02: Please, please agree with me some more.
• 43:12
  SPEAKER_02: I love it.
• 43:13
  SPEAKER_01: Well, I have some counter questions to that.
• 43:15
  SPEAKER_01: So finish Joel and then we'll get into it.
• 43:19
  SPEAKER_02: That's all I'm laughing about.
• 43:21
  SPEAKER_02: We're we're agreeing that there is potentially a place in it.
• 43:24
  SPEAKER_02: And I don't want to defeat you or anything.
• 43:26
  SPEAKER_02: That's why I'm disappointed.
• 43:27
  SPEAKER_02: I can't argue with you about something.
• 43:29
  SPEAKER_00: Of course we're not.
• 43:30
  SPEAKER_00: We're good good friends for that.
• 43:32
  SPEAKER_00: But uh, but the but to actually sit down and create a totally a totally separate set of of benchmarks, uh, that you get money if you do this, you don't if you if you do this.
• 43:46
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, very, very simple, not not politically oriented.
• 43:50
  SPEAKER_00: Like these, like, like, you know, the these water systems the NRCS installs, uh, like you know, um they don't they don't do portable stuff.
• 44:00
  SPEAKER_00: Systems.
• 44:00
  SPEAKER_00: They do only do they only do these red and white, you know, richie waterers because they won't they won't cost share anything that doesn't add value to real estate.
• 44:12
  SPEAKER_00: And portable systems don't add value to real estate, but portable systems are the key to control, you know, to to uh to moving your animals around a lot.
• 44:20
  SPEAKER_00: So, you know, these are these are things that that that militate against against true true um whatever you know real systemic change in the system and and what would be those 12 or 20 you know things that would that would just if you instituted those would have ripple effects throughout the whole thing.
• 44:46
  SPEAKER_00: And this this infrared thing was one that just popped into my mind.
• 44:50
  SPEAKER_00: You know, uh if a farm if a farm um any time in the year um emits emits heat, then it doesn't get any help.
• 45:01
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that's the other reason I was smiling, and um because there are some gray areas when we start using these technologies, and NASA's gonna infrared everything from satellites and all this technology.
• 45:14
  SPEAKER_02: There always is this is back to Wendell Berry again, that we just need more technology and more technology.
• 45:19
  SPEAKER_02: And a lot of times, as you've proven, we just need to get back to the basics.
• 45:24
  SPEAKER_02: And actually, I wrote about recently about um they used drone technology to study potatoes to figure out how to use the best microbes to grow the best potato crops.
• 45:36
  SPEAKER_02: So that was actually something I had to concede.
• 45:38
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that's a good use of technology.
• 45:40
  SPEAKER_02: But you know what else they want to do with drone technology and satellite technology is they want to shift us all the carbon credits, which is just a scam.
• 45:48
  SPEAKER_02: But what I agree with you, and why I was also smiling is you know, we're also agreeing on something else.
• 45:53
  SPEAKER_02: Let's make it results driven, either in health outcomes for people or for animals.
• 45:58
  SPEAKER_02: Maybe you know, we can benefit, we can use, we can use lower uh lower antibiotic amounts in feeds.
• 46:04
  SPEAKER_02: Um we can we can help subsidize organic feeds, so we're not subsidizing GMO cropping.
• 46:11
  SPEAKER_02: Um we can um, you know, NASA, by the way, says that lawns a net carbon sink.
• 46:17
  SPEAKER_02: Um I'm not a big fan of NASA, all right, because by the way, they exclude the the gasoline burned in the lawnmowers and the production of lawnmowers by reaching that determination.
• 46:27
  SPEAKER_02: But they're indirectly once again confirming, as with the potato study, that um it comes down to microbes and it comes down to knowing, you know, so to learning more about that and then feeding that back into the loop and not having it be an artificial system that actually rewards bad practices.
• 46:44
  SPEAKER_02: So I was double, I was smiling in double agreement with you, Mike.
• 46:49
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it what what the what the interesting thing is in all of this discussion is what is the point of greatest marginal reaction?
• 47:00
  SPEAKER_00: What is the what is one thing that you can do that has the greatest uh benefit and the least um the least risk of a government program going amok, which they tend to do.
• 47:14
  SPEAKER_00: Uh virtually all government programs tend to eventually you know go off their moorings.
• 47:20
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it starts sincerely and then and then the next thing you know, it's headed into uh the abyss.
• 47:26
  SPEAKER_00: And um and like like right now, there's a there's a petition circling to try to ban ractopamine in pork, uh in pork production.
• 47:36
  SPEAKER_00: Uh whatever.
• 47:37
  SPEAKER_00: 90, 95, 97% of the pigs in the U.S.
• 47:40
  SPEAKER_00: get this uh I think it's a hormone, ractopamine.
• 47:44
  SPEAKER_00: And it's been uh isolated as all sorts of you know human human problems.
• 47:49
  SPEAKER_00: And um for me and and I'm looking at the big picture, I I do feel John, and I know you do too, feel like we we have just been we've just been gifted, our our literally, our culture has just been gifted a a chance to um to create some sanity in in where we are.
• 48:12
  SPEAKER_00: And we and we want to leverage it.
• 48:14
  SPEAKER_00: We don't want to we don't want to um you know let this go to waste.
• 48:20
  SPEAKER_00: And so my concern is that we that we spend our here's bottom line.
• 48:26
  SPEAKER_00: My concern is that we spend our times then trying to create, trying to create transitional, uh, you know, repurpose subsidies, repurpose alcohol, all these things.
• 48:43
  SPEAKER_00: And for me, the one thing that would have the greatest benefit and be the easiest would be a food emancipation proclamation so that farmers can service, can, can sell to their neighbors without a bureaucrat in between the transaction.
• 49:01
  SPEAKER_00: And that doesn't take an agency, it doesn't take a big think tank, it doesn't actually collapse or change anything necessarily in the status quo, except that it enables thousands and thousands of farmers and domestic culinary practitioners to access their neighbors with food.
• 49:23
  SPEAKER_00: And that has the benefit of creating rural economic development, it has the benefit of chipping away at the oligarchy, as Bernie Sanders and AOC talk about.
• 49:35
  SPEAKER_00: Um, it has the benefit of creating more choice uh in the marketplace so that voluntary consenting adults can exercise freedom of choice on their microbiome provenance.
• 49:46
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, you you get all these wonderful benefits.
• 49:49
  SPEAKER_00: And so my concern is that we're gonna take this wave that we're on and and we're gonna and we're gonna tweak the system to be similar but different, and we're not gonna actually free up the you know the easy answer that has so many ramifications of something like, for example, a food emancipation proclamation.
• 50:14
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, well, I th I know you had some other questions, and I'm I would like to hand it back to you as our guide, but I I do want to respond to some of that positively.
• 50:23
  SPEAKER_02: I'm I'm gonna try.
• 50:24
  SPEAKER_02: You know, uh it's easy to be positive.
• 50:27
  SPEAKER_02: Um, I love it.
• 50:28
  SPEAKER_02: I'm a raw milk drinker.
• 50:30
  SPEAKER_02: Um, I have actually, you know, I I think others can, and I think you, Cena, have had a similar story that I ended up farming because I got so sick with Lyme disease.
• 50:40
  SPEAKER_02: And over the years, and after being on antibiotics for over 10 years, I finally just threw them away.
• 50:46
  SPEAKER_02: And I have improved so much that I can even be here talking with you because of better food, improving my immune system and my health through more nutrient-dense food.
• 50:56
  SPEAKER_02: And it's interesting what Joel just talked about because I agree with uh constitutional amendments and an emancipation proclamation.
• 51:02
  SPEAKER_02: And and I go, I kind of under the radar on a lot of what I do in um, you know, raising some of my meats and just selling them directly to people.
• 51:11
  SPEAKER_02: I I couldn't do it at scale without probably uh attracting some regulatory oversight.
• 51:17
  SPEAKER_02: Uh, the Prime Act would be a big boom to do because we do have to change some laws to go along with that.
• 51:23
  SPEAKER_02: And this actually comes back to that discussion of this moment we have, this Maha moment.
• 51:28
  SPEAKER_02: I've written we don't have Maha without USDA as well.
• 51:33
  SPEAKER_02: And when we're talking about changing these subsidies, Bobby Kennedy can't wave that magic wand.
• 51:38
  SPEAKER_02: That needs to be Brooke Rollins.
• 51:41
  SPEAKER_02: And um, there's been a big focus by this administration on improving the economy, reducing expenses, making uh more market sales of our agricultural products.
• 51:53
  SPEAKER_02: We're destroying a lot of foreign nations by dumping our cheap corn, our subsidized corn on them and undermining their markets.
• 52:02
  SPEAKER_02: So we have to be able to change some of these laws along with that.
• 52:06
  SPEAKER_02: Now, what's interesting about that is so for instance, is does Bobby Kennedy then start championing raw milk right now?
• 52:14
  SPEAKER_02: Well, the backlash might outweigh that because we're dealing, we are dealing with politics.
• 52:19
  SPEAKER_02: We are dealing with having not just policies but politics and helping people understand this.
• 52:25
  SPEAKER_02: And and Pete Kennedy and I were having, he's an attorney and he's he works with West and Price, and we were having this conversation once.
• 52:32
  SPEAKER_02: And he said, Well, I'm not afraid of that.
• 52:34
  SPEAKER_02: Bring it on.
• 52:34
  SPEAKER_02: Every time the raw milk debate comes up, more people start drinking raw milk because they start investigating it and realizing it, you know, and you'll hear people say, Well, what are we going to do if we stop subsidizing industrial farming?
• 52:47
  SPEAKER_02: How will people grow food without pesticides?
• 52:50
  SPEAKER_02: Gee, how do they ever do it?
• 52:52
  SPEAKER_02: And Joel has talked about meeting with groups of young people who raise their hands and say, yes, the government should inspect every carrot that comes out of my own garden.
• 53:00
  SPEAKER_02: We have a public relations, we can't do that through government subsidies alone unless we're going to subsidize, pay, pay women to breastfeed.
• 53:09
  SPEAKER_02: You know, nothing was more educational for me about the importance of human breastfeeding than when I started raising calves that I bought at auction and realized that if they don't get clostrum, they're gonna die.
• 53:20
  SPEAKER_02: You can't replace that clostrum even with animal uh milk replacer, you can't in a human either.
• 53:28
  SPEAKER_02: And so I'm all for this this movement.
• 53:31
  SPEAKER_02: And by the way, I find this to be very encouraging because it's non, it's it's it's bipartisan, it's it's non-political.
• 53:39
  SPEAKER_02: Maine's done it, we're pushing for it here in Vermont, New Hampshire, to try to have constitutional amendments literally to allow people to raise their food again.
• 53:47
  SPEAKER_02: It destroys small farms and startups uh to have to comply with burdensome regulations and prohibitions.
• 53:56
  SPEAKER_02: And so I don't think, again, I think it's gonna be transitional.
• 54:00
  SPEAKER_02: With you know, not everybody's gonna jump to drinking raw milk again, but we need to start with don't make it illegal for me to drink raw milk because you have to protect my health from drinking raw milk while you give out a Zempik.
• 54:12
  SPEAKER_02: And while you don't do anything about you're basically subsidizing people to kill themselves and weigh 600 pounds and then get a TV show and a contract for being famous because they've destroyed their body.
• 54:23
  SPEAKER_02: But you're gonna not let me drink raw milk.
• 54:26
  SPEAKER_02: The antidote to toxic food is healthy food.
• 54:29
  SPEAKER_02: So that's why I completely agree with Mr.
• 54:32
  SPEAKER_02: Salatin on this issue.
• 54:36
  SPEAKER_00: Do you think that RFK Jr.
• 54:38
  SPEAKER_00: would take more heat if he came out tomorrow and and uh and said we we ought to we ought to um you know uh allow uh raw milk sales uh easier, you know, so that states like like Virginia where we have to have herd shares.
• 54:53
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, yeah, you can get it, but it's clunky.
• 54:55
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, we have a herd share, but it it's clunky, you know.
• 54:57
  SPEAKER_00: If we it technically, if we want to, if we've got guests and we need another gallon this week, um, I can't go, I can't say, well, can you give me two instead of one?
• 55:07
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, technically, it you you know, it it legally you can't.
• 55:10
  SPEAKER_00: Um so anyway, you you think he would take more heat if he encouraged raw milk than what he's taken over his uh dubious view of um of vaccines?
• 55:20
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that's a very interesting question.
• 55:22
  SPEAKER_02: He would be taking heat from a different segment, wouldn't he?
• 55:25
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he would.
• 55:26
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and uh yeah, so he's so that's a really good question in in the politics.
• 55:32
  SPEAKER_02: Um the question is maybe timing as well as direction.
• 55:37
  SPEAKER_02: In other words, if he could gain more trust and and support in general than maybe a year from now, he could bring out the raw milk issue.
• 55:46
  SPEAKER_02: Is raw milk the highest priority given its impact on the broader um uh health of the country?
• 55:55
  SPEAKER_02: For instance, I think getting rid of food dyes and improving the um the food pyramid and food labeling, and uh those are things that I think are low-hanging fruit for him.
• 56:06
  SPEAKER_02: So I really admire the guy.
• 56:08
  SPEAKER_02: He takes flack.
• 56:09
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, if he said to drink uh to drink clean water, I think he'd get attacked right now, kind of like Donald Trump.
• 56:16
  SPEAKER_02: I've I've long said if Donald Trump said you should breathe oxygen, I think there's some people out there who would like would seal their mouths around tailpipes and start sucking down um toxins just in opposition to it.
• 56:28
  SPEAKER_02: And I see that with Bobby, and yet he keeps he amazes me uh with his stamina.
• 56:34
  SPEAKER_02: And you can see he's exhausted sometimes from the attacks, the horrible attacks on him.
• 56:39
  SPEAKER_02: And uh and now more lawsuits to to compel him to not cut people at HHS when, as he pointed out, they weren't coming to work.
• 56:47
  SPEAKER_02: So just so we're clear, I would love to see him stand up for raw milk, but I'm actually a person that thinks he should wait and gain some credibility and get and get some bipartisan support behind him.
• 56:59
  SPEAKER_02: He can't win for whatever he does, right?
• 57:03
  SPEAKER_02: Um, but I I so I'm not sure because uh and then the Pete Kennedy idea that you know maybe it would be a net benefit for him to do that.
• 57:12
  SPEAKER_02: Because they'll call us raw, they call us raw milk crazies, you know, because we're gonna spread bird flu by drinking raw milk, even though there hasn't been a single case of anybody getting bird flu from raw milk.
• 57:24
  SPEAKER_02: So um I'm gonna defer to the politicians on that.
• 57:27
  SPEAKER_02: I know you call me one, but um, I think we all have to be political a little bit in thinking about this.
• 57:33
  SPEAKER_02: But I think that's a really great question, and I'm not sure I have the answer.
• 57:38
  SPEAKER_01: Great.
• 57:39
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, I'm gonna jump in.
• 57:41
  SPEAKER_01: Because I'm fascinated by this transitional plan that you have.
• 57:46
  SPEAKER_01: Um, because anything that helps us get away from subsidizing big ag, I think let's explore this possibility.
• 57:53
  SPEAKER_01: So um I got some basic questions for you.
• 57:56
  SPEAKER_01: Um I like the idea, however, I feel like we might end up with more of the same.
• 58:04
  SPEAKER_01: So let me let me give some examples and have you jump in and basically show where I'm going astray in my thinking here.
• 58:14
  SPEAKER_01: So um there was actually a report that came out in 2024 um from The Hill, and they said that between 2019 and 2023, Big Ag, Big Food, and Big Pharma spent over$500 million lobbying Congress on the farm bill.
• 58:31
  SPEAKER_01: That's over four times the amount of money spent by the public sector and civil society.
• 58:36
  SPEAKER_01: Some of those lobbyists, those efforts included the Chamber of Commerce, the American Crystal Sugar Company, not surprising, um, Bayer, Merck, Landolakes, and Mars.
• 58:46
  SPEAKER_01: Those same groups donated over three million dollars to campaign coffers of key farm bill architects.
• 58:54
  SPEAKER_01: So, in regards to the whole farm bill issue, the government, in my opinion, has become this money pinata, and whoever shows up with the biggest bat is the winner.
• 59:03
  SPEAKER_01: So, in your transitional um idea that you've come up with, what safeguards would be in place to ensure that the small farmer subsidy isn't captured by these same interests?
• 59:16
  SPEAKER_01: So, for example, um, I mean, they have all this lobbying power and the small farmers don't have that.
• 59:21
  SPEAKER_01: What if Tyson decides, okay, well, I want a piece of that pie?
• 59:24
  SPEAKER_01: So now I'm gonna break up my farms into like a hundred thousand small farms and then reap the benefits, you know, that from this um transitional subsidy going to the small farmer.
• 59:38
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I think you're directing that to me because I'm the big transitional proponent.
• 59:43
  SPEAKER_01: Yes.
• 59:44
  SPEAKER_02: Um and so, and so first of all, I'm sure Joel and I would agree that the lobbyist system itself is is another dimension of a problem that could be perhaps regulated against.
• 59:56
  SPEAKER_02: And uh, we've actually shifted a lot of our laws and a lot of our our entire country around big moneyed interests and hedge funds.
• 1:00:07
  SPEAKER_02: We have a moment, as he as Joel pointed out, this is a different administration, meaning Donald Trump, and who actually is willing to fight some of these big globalist interests.
• 1:00:19
  SPEAKER_02: Now, I think the way so so we're gonna have that, and you're you're absolutely right, Cena.
• 1:00:24
  SPEAKER_02: They they jump on that.
• 1:00:26
  SPEAKER_02: They jump on the organic label.
• 1:00:27
  SPEAKER_02: Now you can't trust the organic label.
• 1:00:29
  SPEAKER_02: There's a book called Beyond Labels, I recommend to people all the time.
• 1:00:33
  SPEAKER_02: Uh, and it's helped them navigate.
• 1:00:35
  SPEAKER_02: No, I do all the time.
• 1:00:36
  SPEAKER_02: I tell people and and I say, read that book and don't give up.
• 1:00:40
  SPEAKER_02: Don't resign yourself, get educated, and you can make better and more informed decisions.
• 1:00:45
  SPEAKER_02: The consumer has a role to play here.
• 1:00:48
  SPEAKER_02: I used to say, you know, it's to use, and and I'm not evading your question here, but to make a uh you know a parallel.
• 1:00:54
  SPEAKER_02: I used to say it's terrible that corporations sell people all of these toxic drinks and toxic soft drinks and diet soda that's even worse for you than regular soda.
• 1:01:05
  SPEAKER_02: And I realized, but but that's what people demand.
• 1:01:09
  SPEAKER_02: That's what they buy.
• 1:01:10
  SPEAKER_02: They are guilty.
• 1:01:12
  SPEAKER_02: We are complicit.
• 1:01:13
  SPEAKER_02: So again, we come back to educating the public.
• 1:01:15
  SPEAKER_02: Now, in answer to your question, so my book, Small Farm Republic, a little plug there, uh, my Substack also is called Small Farm Republic.
• 1:01:23
  SPEAKER_02: And I write about a lot of different different things.
• 1:01:26
  SPEAKER_02: And um but one of the things it was built in part on uh what was my 2020 um farming manifesto, Vermont Farming Manifesto for the state of Vermont.
• 1:01:39
  SPEAKER_02: How would we apply these policies at the state level?
• 1:01:43
  SPEAKER_02: And what I thought was interesting and what I proposed, and my background actually was as a tax lawyer.
• 1:01:48
  SPEAKER_02: So studying tax policy and how policies influence people is actually really important.
• 1:01:53
  SPEAKER_02: And as Joel says, often well-intentioned policies, they they squirt out the side and they result in the opposite outcome, right?
• 1:02:02
  SPEAKER_02: And so um, so for instance, by the way, the PrEP Act was supposed to protect people, and now it means that they can give you vaccinations to your children without your consent.
• 1:02:12
  SPEAKER_02: You know, that was not an intended purpose.
• 1:02:15
  SPEAKER_02: We have to be very careful about the impacts of policy.
• 1:02:17
  SPEAKER_02: Sorry to go into vaccines there, but as an example.
• 1:02:20
  SPEAKER_02: Um what if we what if we tied the benefits to actual production through tax credits that were linked to your total sales of food, let's say organic food or regeneratively produced food.
• 1:02:35
  SPEAKER_02: We could get into that definition.
• 1:02:37
  SPEAKER_02: That could pretty quickly be used to be a barrier against large producers because they wouldn't get it.
• 1:02:43
  SPEAKER_02: You only get it on your first 50,000, let's say, of sales.
• 1:02:46
  SPEAKER_02: That's not going to be something Tyson's gonna have to split itself up pretty small.
• 1:02:51
  SPEAKER_02: But you'll notice that they do trip over themselves to jump in and grab that organic label or that sustainable label now.
• 1:02:59
  SPEAKER_02: General Mills is now sustainable because they're using reduced tilling.
• 1:03:03
  SPEAKER_02: They've increased their chemical spray, you know, their chemical applications, but they're now, you know, jASF, the chemical company, calls itself a sustainable producer of chemicals now.
• 1:03:14
  SPEAKER_02: Um I guess it's a good sign that they're trying to ape our ideas.
• 1:03:19
  SPEAKER_02: But the way you distinguish actual sustainability and actual organics and actual regenerativeness is scale.
• 1:03:27
  SPEAKER_02: And I think that Joel would agree with me on this again, and Wendell Berry would, and that we need to reward local scale, um close to home production, and things that cannot be usurped or pirated by those large interests.
• 1:03:42
  SPEAKER_02: And I do think you can do that to a large degree with um uh with regulatory structures and with subsidies.
• 1:03:50
  SPEAKER_02: And that's partly why I say too, I don't say for every dollar in subsidies you save that you put that dollar back into regenerative.
• 1:03:58
  SPEAKER_02: We can actually have a net savings.
• 1:04:00
  SPEAKER_02: Because we're putting a lot of money out there to subsidize horrible practices.
• 1:04:05
  SPEAKER_02: It wouldn't take a lot.
• 1:04:06
  SPEAKER_02: Now, maybe we're also still subsidizing some of those large producers so that we keep them at the table and don't make them into our enemies because they're very powerful lobbying groups, they're very powerful interests.
• 1:04:18
  SPEAKER_02: And these are people, ranchers and farmers, with thousands and thousands of acres, as Joel knows and visits them.
• 1:04:25
  SPEAKER_02: So let's bring them to the table.
• 1:04:26
  SPEAKER_02: So if we're gonna take away your corn subsidy, how about we give you$50 an hour to grow grass and we let you put cows on it?
• 1:04:34
  SPEAKER_02: Maybe it's your neighbor's cows, maybe it's gonna take you a little while to invest in cows, maybe you have to see that there's a a growing market for U.S.
• 1:04:43
  SPEAKER_02: produced grass-fed meats.
• 1:04:45
  SPEAKER_02: We have a huge business opportunity here.
• 1:04:47
  SPEAKER_02: This could be a win-win.
• 1:04:49
  SPEAKER_02: And we could do it at scale with the existing with those existing farms.
• 1:04:54
  SPEAKER_02: They could do that.
• 1:04:54
  SPEAKER_02: They're already set up for it, they already know how to do it.
• 1:04:57
  SPEAKER_02: And maybe we go through NRCS and help them put in some high tensile fencing after waiting three years using rotational fencing first.
• 1:05:05
  SPEAKER_02: Right, John?
• 1:05:06
  SPEAKER_00: Um, you know, this reminds me so much of um one of my most fascinating conversations I ever had with Alan Savory, founder of holistic management.
• 1:05:16
  SPEAKER_00: He was in Parliament uh back when it was Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe.
• 1:05:21
  SPEAKER_02: Yes.
• 1:05:22
  SPEAKER_00: This is my understanding.
• 1:05:23
  SPEAKER_00: And he tried to get a um a thing passed through it didn't pass, but but I I want I want to just just give you a thumbnail sketch uh because I appreciate the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.
• 1:05:40
  SPEAKER_00: So if a if a farm like ours could eliminate, I mean, taxes are our number one thing, and we do a lot of a lot of uh whatever financial gymnastics to avoid paying taxes, you know, and we pay an accountant a lot of money uh to to finagle things.
• 1:06:00
  SPEAKER_00: Uh so that we don't, you know, pay taxes.
• 1:06:02
  SPEAKER_00: So ta yeah, taxes are a big deal, including, as you said, property taxes.
• 1:06:06
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it it I think it's outrageous that that if we if we fail to pay our property taxes, the government can take our land away.
• 1:06:14
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that so do you really own it?
• 1:06:16
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that that's another whole rabbit hole.
• 1:06:18
  SPEAKER_00: But anyway, uh to go down what what savory told me they they tried to do.
• 1:06:22
  SPEAKER_00: So they said they said, let what do we really want our farms to do?
• 1:06:25
  SPEAKER_00: Well, number one, we want them to grow soil.
• 1:06:29
  SPEAKER_00: Number two, we want them to employ people.
• 1:06:33
  SPEAKER_00: Number three, we want them to um produce uh diversified, not monocro.
• 1:06:39
  SPEAKER_00: We want them a lot of diversified crops, not just uh single, single crops.
• 1:06:45
  SPEAKER_00: And so what they did, they said, okay, here's here's gonna be the tax rate.
• 1:06:51
  SPEAKER_00: Whatever it is, X.
• 1:06:52
  SPEAKER_00: All right.
• 1:06:54
  SPEAKER_00: If on your farm you uh you never have um uh heat, heat, um, heat radiation back to the which means you've always got vegetation, um, you're gonna cut your taxes in half.
• 1:07:13
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 1:07:14
  SPEAKER_00: If you for and for every additional economic enterprise, every different kind of you know, crop or plant or enterprise you develop, we'll cut it again.
• 1:07:26
  SPEAKER_00: And then if you employ uh every additional person you employ on your farm, we'll cut it some more.
• 1:07:33
  SPEAKER_00: The bottom line was they had a they had a performance-based benchmark that if you if you hit all of the if you hit all of the uh benchmarks, you paid zero taxes.
• 1:07:45
  SPEAKER_00: So what that what that did, it didn't prohibit somebody from having a you know a 500-acre country club estate and you know and mowing it every day and uh or you know, whatever they wanted to do.
• 1:07:57
  SPEAKER_00: It did it didn't prohibit that, but it it so incentivized, it incentivized all of the behaviors that they were looking for, that if you if you hit all of those points, then you didn't have any taxes whatsoever.
• 1:08:17
  SPEAKER_00: That that uh I could actually, I think I could almost get behind something like that, um uh simply because simply because it it's a it's a very empirical, it's a pretty empirical objective performance test on what everybody can agree on.
• 1:08:39
  SPEAKER_00: We want our farms to be productive, we want them to be diversified, we want them to grow soil, and we want them to stimulate photosynthetic activity and and increase pollinators.
• 1:08:52
  SPEAKER_00: Who can be who can be against that?
• 1:08:55
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know anybody that would be against that.
• 1:08:58
  SPEAKER_01: So let me piggyback on that.
• 1:08:59
  SPEAKER_01: So I love this idea of this performance-based subsidies, um, and that they would get a tax credit, right?
• 1:09:05
  SPEAKER_01: Was it tax credit or you would just you would you would cut the taxes for that person?
• 1:09:10
  unknown: Right?
• 1:09:11
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 1:09:12
  SPEAKER_01: So tax credit.
• 1:09:13
  SPEAKER_01: So would you be uh so for me, one of the big sticking points of the farm subsidies, I will I will call them, is that it comes, it's at the federal level.
• 1:09:24
  SPEAKER_01: But if you took this program you're talking about, this performance-based subsidies, you know, with these um tax credits, these tax cuts, if that was at the state level or even at the local level, would you be in favor of that?
• 1:09:37
  SPEAKER_01: Like as a government program, but it's on the state level.
• 1:09:39
  SPEAKER_01: So we take it off the federal level and we just now bring it to the state.
• 1:09:44
  SPEAKER_01: Joel?
• 1:09:45
  SPEAKER_02: Well, how do you how do you cut state taxes and and not cut federal taxes?
• 1:09:49
  SPEAKER_02: You know, the the state taxes is a smaller proportion, it's not going to be as strong of an incentive, right?
• 1:09:56
  SPEAKER_01: It wouldn't be as strong as an incentive, too.
• 1:09:58
  SPEAKER_01: But let's just say you went along with the subsidy part.
• 1:10:01
  SPEAKER_01: Like so we didn't go with the the tax cut part and we're just talking about giving them the money, but we're doing it on this performance-based subsidies that um Joel has proposed.
• 1:10:11
  SPEAKER_01: Um, I'm curious, Joel, since we're both like libertarian constitutionalists, if the if the state was gonna offer that, you know, so they would still be getting the subsidies, but it was now through a state program instead of through a federal program.
• 1:10:25
  SPEAKER_01: Would you be in favor of that?
• 1:10:28
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 1:10:29
  unknown: Okay.
• 1:10:31
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 1:10:32
  SPEAKER_00: I look, I'm not interested in any subs.
• 1:10:34
  SPEAKER_00: I I, you know, uh in my perfect world, we would have no USDA.
• 1:10:39
  SPEAKER_00: Uh just period.
• 1:10:40
  SPEAKER_00: Uh that that would be my perfect world.
• 1:10:42
  SPEAKER_01: But no state or or no no federal or also no state?
• 1:10:47
  SPEAKER_00: No, no federal USDA.
• 1:10:48
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 1:10:49
  SPEAKER_00: State states can do whatever they want to.
• 1:10:51
  SPEAKER_00: Uh again, I'm I'm back, you know, education.
• 1:10:53
  SPEAKER_00: If if we should not have a federal education department, if if a state says education is an is a is an important thing for the government to do, then a state can do it.
• 1:11:04
  SPEAKER_00: Uh another state might say, you know, education is not any responsibility of a government at all.
• 1:11:08
  SPEAKER_00: We're gonna let parents pay for it and we're gonna cut their taxes, you know, to boot.
• 1:11:12
  SPEAKER_00: Um so so I I I do think I do think that the federal that at the federal level, the the problem with the federal level is, and John mentioned scale, we um there's a tension here.
• 1:11:25
  SPEAKER_00: Because the scale, we we want scale to be done, but the problem is as soon as you head down that pathway and you and you want a federal, a federal scale program, then it becomes it becomes too big to govern, you know.
• 1:11:43
  SPEAKER_00: Is it too big to govern?
• 1:11:44
  SPEAKER_00: And and and you start into this very rigid stuff, like where, you know, where you have a a cotton crop that didn't even grow, but they have to irrigate it in order to get their subsidy.
• 1:11:54
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that this is insanity.
• 1:11:56
  SPEAKER_00: But this is the kind of stuff that and and trust me, everybody in Oklahoma knows it's insanity, but they can't talk to the federal people because that's the federal program, you know.
• 1:12:07
  SPEAKER_00: Um, and so yes, I'm a huge believer in state, you know, state uh prerogative.
• 1:12:13
  SPEAKER_00: And I do think we would have more, you know, whatever, you know, customized, legitimate uh uh uh administration, uh, the more local the scale becomes.
• 1:12:25
  SPEAKER_00: But um, but you know, then you get into the you know the issue of of control, you know, and the federal education program, you know, this the schools can't make a decision because they might lose their, you know, might lose their funding.
• 1:12:42
  SPEAKER_01: But okay, but just so for clarification, because I know we're gonna get questions about this, and and John, I filter the questions.
• 1:12:49
  SPEAKER_01: So I'm really in a selfish way trying to save myself time here.
• 1:12:53
  SPEAKER_01: So, Joel, I just for clarification, so this performance-based subsidies.
• 1:12:58
  SPEAKER_01: I think both, I mean, John, you would agree with that.
• 1:13:00
  SPEAKER_01: This is what we've been talking about.
• 1:13:01
  SPEAKER_01: There's more like the the measuring the output from these farms and basing the subsidies on more of an output measure, right?
• 1:13:09
  SPEAKER_01: Like a performance-based measure.
• 1:13:11
  SPEAKER_01: Um, I think that's what you're saying, John.
• 1:13:13
  SPEAKER_01: Um, for as having markers of if they've they've earned the question.
• 1:13:18
  SPEAKER_02: To clarify what we're talking about a little bit, when we're talking about using tax incentives or tax breaks, it really would have to be done at the federal level because that's where the bulk of the taxes are really and then the state builds off your adjusted federal income.
• 1:13:34
  SPEAKER_02: So it would be really hard to be effective.
• 1:13:36
  SPEAKER_02: Having said that, I agree with everything Joel said.
• 1:13:40
  SPEAKER_02: I'm happy to, because I do, and the analogy with the Department of Education is very good, except you could almost go one better.
• 1:13:47
  SPEAKER_02: States are better equipped in agriculture uh than they are in education to regulate their own area.
• 1:13:53
  SPEAKER_02: There are huge differences between the states in their agriculture, in their cropping, in their in their geography, in their climate.
• 1:14:00
  SPEAKER_02: Okay, you don't even have those differences as much in education.
• 1:14:03
  SPEAKER_02: So that's more an area of subsidies.
• 1:14:05
  SPEAKER_02: Get rid of the USDA, give the subsidies to the states, and let them do what's best for their states because they have an incentive and want to tailor their programs to increase productivity in their own state, increase economics, to increase soil health and human health.
• 1:14:21
  SPEAKER_02: They're gonna be they're gonna be better at that.
• 1:14:23
  SPEAKER_02: The smaller you get, the more efficient it gets.
• 1:14:26
  SPEAKER_02: The bigger we get.
• 1:14:27
  SPEAKER_02: That's why the whole idea of globally solving the climate crisis, that's like a prescription for absolute bureaucratic disaster.
• 1:14:34
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 1:14:34
  SPEAKER_02: So so there's a so there's a difference between the subsidies, which is giving and and a uh a tax credit, which is letting people keep their own money.
• 1:14:44
  SPEAKER_02: And and one could be done better at the federal level and one could be done better at the state level.
• 1:14:49
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 1:14:50
  SPEAKER_02: And so does that explain it better?
• 1:14:52
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 1:14:53
  SPEAKER_01: So let me try to um ask each of you a question um and restructuring this to make sure that I'm understanding.
• 1:14:59
  SPEAKER_01: So I make sure that if I understand it, I think the listener will understand it.
• 1:15:02
  SPEAKER_01: Okay.
• 1:15:03
  SPEAKER_01: So, so John.
• 1:15:05
  SPEAKER_01: So when you're saying take take the subsidies from the federal level, so you have the federal subsidies, but you give the money to the states and you let the states allocate that subsidized money within the state, like to their farmers.
• 1:15:18
  SPEAKER_01: And your program would be designed, would be centered around transitioning those funds away from big ag to the small farmer, but eventually eliminating all of those subsidies, all those supports.
• 1:15:32
  SPEAKER_01: Is that correct?
• 1:15:33
  SPEAKER_01: Like you would eventually phase them out.
• 1:15:36
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, so then go ahead.
• 1:15:38
  SPEAKER_02: Another analogy would be the SNAP program, you know, and the and the WIC program.
• 1:15:42
  SPEAKER_02: They're administered at the state level because the states vary a lot in how best to reach people and and their food prices and their available crops.
• 1:15:50
  SPEAKER_02: Are you a citrus crop state, you know, and what you're going to subsidize?
• 1:15:54
  SPEAKER_02: But at any rate, so yes, the the idea, again, and actually I'm just building on what Joel was saying.
• 1:15:59
  SPEAKER_02: The tax credits would be done on your federal tax return to be effective.
• 1:16:04
  SPEAKER_02: And this is something that impacts individual farmers.
• 1:16:07
  SPEAKER_02: These are, you know, this this wouldn't necessarily be for huge corporations.
• 1:16:10
  SPEAKER_02: That would be a way to sort of escape them being able to usurp it.
• 1:16:15
  SPEAKER_02: Um how you measure increased pollinators, kind of like, you know, so that could be, those could be some hurdles.
• 1:16:21
  SPEAKER_02: But in general, as a policy idea, yes, you could do that by letting people keep their own money.
• 1:16:27
  SPEAKER_02: They will.
• 1:16:27
  SPEAKER_02: People will shift and invest.
• 1:16:29
  SPEAKER_02: That's why they end up buying farm equipment, because they get, you know, 179 credits for capital, capital expense credits, and they go out and buy machinery for a short-term tax benefit.
• 1:16:39
  SPEAKER_02: So you have a direct impact that way.
• 1:16:41
  SPEAKER_02: But then as far as subsidies, you you give the money at the local, the most local level.
• 1:16:46
  SPEAKER_02: Let them steward that money.
• 1:16:48
  SPEAKER_02: They're going to do a better job of it than the federal, the USDA.
• 1:16:52
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, okay, wonderful.
• 1:16:53
  SPEAKER_01: So now I understand that.
• 1:16:54
  SPEAKER_01: Now, Joel, I want to know your position on those, um, on those ideas.
• 1:16:59
  SPEAKER_01: So, number one, you said you're against subsidies at the federal level.
• 1:17:02
  SPEAKER_01: Is that correct?
• 1:17:03
  SPEAKER_01: You're against the farm subsidies at the federal level?
• 1:17:06
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:17:06
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, but you're in you're in favor of giving the farmers their money back at the federal level.
• 1:17:12
  SPEAKER_01: If if they um if they check the boxes for the performance-based outcomes, you're in favor of giving the individual farmers their money back on the federal level.
• 1:17:22
  SPEAKER_01: Is that correct?
• 1:17:24
  SPEAKER_02: Not taking it away.
• 1:17:26
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:17:27
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I'm I'm I I look, I I could live with I'm gonna say I'm a favor, I I could live with a um a tax uh incentive program that would reward empirical empirical um positive development.
• 1:17:52
  SPEAKER_00: Um yeah, I'm saying that very carefully.
• 1:17:56
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 1:17:57
  SPEAKER_00: It would reward that we reward uh a empirical means that it's it's fairly objective, it's not political, and um and it's it's measurable.
• 1:18:10
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, these objectives are are not the the the problem with these programs uh is that they they're very regimented and and so as a result what's what seems objective is not actually objective.
• 1:18:36
  SPEAKER_00: It's a it's a written in stone uh, for example, you know, out here if you get uh cost share money for for conservation reserve enhancement program, CREP, to protect your riparian area, um they never they never build crooked fences.
• 1:18:56
  SPEAKER_00: Well, streams and rivers don't go in straight lines, they they meander.
• 1:19:02
  SPEAKER_00: And so what you have is all these straight fences, and they won't let you build one electric.
• 1:19:09
  SPEAKER_00: Uh you've got it's gotta be physical.
• 1:19:12
  SPEAKER_00: And I mean, there are all these stipulations, as John says, you know, you go out and ask for a you know a thousand dollars for this, and by the time the NRCS engineers are done with it, you're at$20,000.
• 1:19:22
  SPEAKER_00: And that's why I say you'd do better just you know doing it yourself.
• 1:19:26
  SPEAKER_00: So so uh you know, I think I I think we're trying to, for me, I'm just a reluctant partner at coming to the table on this.
• 1:19:35
  SPEAKER_00: Um but I but I would I could be I I could be uh uh uh twisted to uh my arm could be twisted for sure to sign on to something that was really measurable and and um and non-political and and non-regimented.
• 1:19:55
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, when I said when I said that a farm uh produces more income, I'm not saying how.
• 1:20:02
  SPEAKER_00: It could be agritourism.
• 1:20:04
  SPEAKER_00: You know, our problem is that we've we've defined so many things, you know, that like in our county, for example, you uh it's illegal for me to make a chair from a tree that I've milled for my own property because that's manufacturing and it's prohibited in an agricultural zone.
• 1:20:22
  SPEAKER_00: You know, those kinds of things, those kinds of things make small farms unable to access their neighbors with you know with food and fiber.
• 1:20:31
  SPEAKER_00: And so um, so I really don't care how a farm generates more income on their place.
• 1:20:38
  SPEAKER_00: I don't care if they put on a uh a restaurant on their farm or figure out how to grow you know 30-foot high um garbanzo beans, okay?
• 1:20:48
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, but if they but if they increase income, um then they're obviously being very creative at trying to figure out additional income streams how to do it, as long as it doesn't but then it's got to be balanced with, for example, their infrared footprint.
• 1:21:07
  SPEAKER_00: You know, are you doing uh again, if you if you start building way too many buildings and putting asphalt parking lots, now your infrared footprints go up.
• 1:21:15
  SPEAKER_00: So you so you lose you lose on that.
• 1:21:17
  SPEAKER_00: Are you with me?
• 1:21:18
  SPEAKER_00: So this this is this is a a multi-objective empirical um performance goal that society says, here's what we want from our farms.
• 1:21:32
  SPEAKER_00: And and and if you if you can come to an agreement on that kind of uh that kind of objective, then if a farm hits them all, tax-free.
• 1:21:50
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, but to clarify, then it wouldn't the money would not be coming from the farm bill.
• 1:21:56
  SPEAKER_01: It would be it would be coming, you'd be getting money back that you already paid in to for taxes.
• 1:22:05
  SPEAKER_01: You wouldn't have to pay any taxes.
• 1:22:06
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, but so in terms of the whole the farm bill is on the federal level, and then it would give the money, the subsidies, the money to the state, for the state to do something with it, that are you still you're opposed to that, even if we had this transitional program that John's talking about.
• 1:22:24
  SPEAKER_00: I think I I think I think in general, in general, I just I just have never seen subsidies really work.
• 1:22:30
  SPEAKER_00: I I I I guess my sense there is not not that it's not that it's I'm I'm dead opposed to it.
• 1:22:37
  SPEAKER_00: I don't have any energy to put into that.
• 1:22:39
  SPEAKER_00: I would rather my energy put into freeing up the market so I can sell a pound of sausage to my neighbor.
• 1:22:46
  SPEAKER_00: And and I think that that would cure by by with liberty and freedom and competitiveness, it would cure many of the stranglehold issues that the subsidies have created.
• 1:22:57
  SPEAKER_01: I okay, I love that.
• 1:22:58
  SPEAKER_01: And I and I have kept you guys over, but John, I don't want to leave without asking just one last question.
• 1:23:05
  SPEAKER_01: Um, and and then of course letting listeners know where they can find you and learn more from you because you're an amazing wealth of information and with great humor, which is what we need today in our world is more humor.
• 1:23:18
  SPEAKER_01: But so, John, some people will say that these subsidies, these farm subsidies will inflate land prices, uh, you know, of farm prices.
• 1:23:28
  SPEAKER_01: And that could be an impediment from young farmers getting into farming because it makes it harder for them to buy land.
• 1:23:35
  SPEAKER_01: Do you see that happening with like this transitional program that you're that you're proposing?
• 1:23:41
  SPEAKER_01: Could it possibly inflate the cost of these smaller farmlands and thereby thereby preventing younger farms from starting um starting their own farms?
• 1:23:54
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I think if we're careful, they won't.
• 1:23:56
  SPEAKER_02: And um, you know, in closing, I'd like to say that I have uh I've conquered Joel Salison here.
• 1:24:02
  SPEAKER_02: He's agreed with me on transitional subsidies.
• 1:24:06
  SPEAKER_02: Uh no, yeah, no, I've just asked my humor again.
• 1:24:09
  SPEAKER_02: Um no, I think just the opposite.
• 1:24:11
  SPEAKER_02: Now, one of the things, again, now we're back in the state and federal again here, and I I don't want to uh make things more complex, but uh property taxes are done at the local level.
• 1:24:21
  SPEAKER_02: So we could give a federal tax deduction, for instance, for local property taxes, right?
• 1:24:28
  SPEAKER_02: Uh which we historically have had on Schedule A if you itemize.
• 1:24:34
  SPEAKER_02: But let's say that the federal system gave a 50 cent on the dollar tax credit to people for every dollar they made selling grass-fed meat, certified grass-fed meat.
• 1:24:47
  SPEAKER_02: Imagine how many people might move their own capital into those ventures.
• 1:24:52
  SPEAKER_02: Think about what the real spending is now.
• 1:24:54
  SPEAKER_02: It's not just, it's this is going to push me over there.
• 1:24:57
  SPEAKER_02: This is gonna make this profitable for me now.
• 1:24:59
  SPEAKER_02: That's the difference between me getting into growing grass-fed or not.
• 1:25:03
  SPEAKER_02: This could be large-scale as well.
• 1:25:04
  SPEAKER_02: This could be those farms that have uh land that they're putting into conservation that they now can actually get more dollars on top of.
• 1:25:15
  SPEAKER_02: Farming is usually about not just one central than the modern farming, but historically farming is about, oh, I sell a little some logs here, I make some maple syrup there, I have a few hogs.
• 1:25:26
  SPEAKER_02: It's diversifying.
• 1:25:28
  SPEAKER_02: What we have going on now in Vermont is people get uh tax benefits and property tax relief for buying farmland and not developing it.
• 1:25:38
  SPEAKER_02: Well, that attracts hedge funds.
• 1:25:40
  SPEAKER_02: That attracts so they can rewild and let trees grow there and actually grow back farmland that could be used in production and then what?
• 1:25:48
  SPEAKER_02: Import food from China or California to Vermont to make up for our lost production.
• 1:25:53
  SPEAKER_02: So it has to be sensible.
• 1:25:55
  SPEAKER_02: And so, no, it wouldn't attract hedge funds.
• 1:25:58
  SPEAKER_02: It would make it unattractive for hedge funds, it would make it attractive for young people or others who want to actually grow food.
• 1:26:05
  SPEAKER_02: And just to clarify again, when we talk about subsidies, and this is in fairness to poor Joel here because I've I pound on him all the time.
• 1:26:13
  SPEAKER_02: Um I'm talking about subsidies, I am talking about tax credits.
• 1:26:17
  SPEAKER_02: They're not that different.
• 1:26:19
  SPEAKER_02: Both of them, uh, when you look at the balance sheet of the government, have a cost.
• 1:26:23
  SPEAKER_02: So when we give a tax credit, you know, we are taking money out of tax revenue.
• 1:26:28
  SPEAKER_02: But that is a subsidy in that term, as opposed to an actual subsidy.
• 1:26:32
  SPEAKER_02: Here, I'll give you$10,000 to put in your fences.
• 1:26:36
  SPEAKER_02: So um, and there are nuances between income taxes and property taxes.
• 1:26:41
  SPEAKER_02: And so in answer, I I think hopefully I've answered your question there to explain it a little bit more.
• 1:26:47
  SPEAKER_02: But it is a complex, but it is doable.
• 1:26:50
  SPEAKER_02: And along the lines that Joel is talking about, it needs to be measurable so it's not abused.
• 1:26:55
  SPEAKER_02: And that's fair to those that are going to invest their you know their inheritance money or when they flee the city realizing they want a different kind of life, that that and they take their million dollars and invest it, that that they can have some reliance that you know that there's integrity in that system.
• 1:27:11
  SPEAKER_02: It can be done.
• 1:27:12
  SPEAKER_02: And and we we I think we can do it, but first we have to unravel the system right now that is incentivizing the wrong things, incentivizing destructive practices.
• 1:27:24
  SPEAKER_02: And and that's where I think we could all agree.
• 1:27:26
  SPEAKER_02: I think we can all agree uh whether or not we're you know full-blooded libertarians, whatever that is, when the libertarians can figure out what they are, they can tell the rest of us.
• 1:27:36
  SPEAKER_02: Um But Democrats and Republicans, old and young, black and white, you know, wealthy and poor, we could all come together on these policies if we could fashion them.
• 1:27:46
  SPEAKER_02: And I I I'm excited that that conversation is happening.
• 1:27:50
  SPEAKER_02: Uh Bobby Kennedy is bringing it in there.
• 1:27:53
  SPEAKER_02: He's challenging a lot of things uh that we never thought we would see challenged in these what our captured regulator.
• 1:28:00
  SPEAKER_02: Agencies.
• 1:28:01
  SPEAKER_02: And we're capturing them back for farmers and consumers alike.
• 1:28:05
  SPEAKER_02: And we need to, and just in the 25 years I've been farming, people have become more ignorant about where their food comes from.
• 1:28:12
  SPEAKER_02: So that all of these conversations are helping turn that tide.
• 1:28:15
  SPEAKER_02: It's it's daunting at times, but you know, thanks to what you're doing here, I I I see hope.
• 1:28:22
  SPEAKER_02: And I see more and more people there they're lending their ears to these conversations.
• 1:28:26
  SPEAKER_02: And that is where it begins.
• 1:28:28
  SPEAKER_02: So I'm so grateful that you had me on.
• 1:28:31
  SPEAKER_02: And I wanted to be funnier, but I'm I'm actually not really funny.
• 1:28:34
  SPEAKER_02: So I'm just pretend to be funny.
• 1:28:38
  SPEAKER_02: And if I fake it long enough, maybe it will become true.
• 1:28:41
  SPEAKER_01: Oh no.
• 1:28:42
  SPEAKER_01: To the listeners, if you ever get a chance to talk with John one-on-one, he is hilarious.
• 1:28:47
  SPEAKER_01: We talked on the phone the other day, and my ab muscles were aching from laughing so much.
• 1:28:54
  SPEAKER_01: So he's he's fantastic.
• 1:28:56
  SPEAKER_01: And John, I um, you know, like taxes and stuff are not really my area.
• 1:29:00
  SPEAKER_01: So to hear you say how the the tax cuts and the subsidies are pretty much the same, that's what I was thinking.
• 1:29:06
  SPEAKER_01: I was gonna say that.
• 1:29:07
  SPEAKER_01: I'm like, aren't these pretty much the same?
• 1:29:09
  SPEAKER_01: It's still, you know, but whatever.
• 1:29:11
  SPEAKER_01: I I'm glad to hear you say it.
• 1:29:12
  SPEAKER_01: And I am glad to know I wasn't that far off based um in my thinking there.
• 1:29:16
  SPEAKER_01: Um, but Joel, I want to hand it over to you.
• 1:29:19
  SPEAKER_01: Any last words?
• 1:29:19
  SPEAKER_01: And then John, you too.
• 1:29:21
  SPEAKER_01: And um, John, after Joel, if you could tell people where they could find you specifically, and you know, and tell them the name of your book again.
• 1:29:28
  SPEAKER_01: Okay, Joel, you go first.
• 1:29:30
  SPEAKER_00: No, I'm I'm I'm really happy.
• 1:29:31
  SPEAKER_00: It's been a been a great, it's always an honor to to have a chat with uh John.
• 1:29:35
  SPEAKER_00: I always learn something, and and we we um we're we actually agree on most things, and uh, but he he maybe is a little more uh diplomatic and a little less iconoclastic than I am, and that's where that's where the rub comes.
• 1:29:51
  SPEAKER_00: But uh that helps us both.
• 1:29:53
  SPEAKER_00: So, John, it's always an honor to have you on, and thank you for taking the time with us.
• 1:29:59
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I'm I'm grateful and and uh you know I'm very fond of you and come looking forward to visiting Polyface again in July uh with my family.
• 1:30:09
  SPEAKER_02: Um yes, thank you, Cena.
• 1:30:11
  SPEAKER_02: I I really uh enjoy you as well, and you make it easy for me to be funny.
• 1:30:17
  SPEAKER_02: Um has a receptive audience.
• 1:30:20
  SPEAKER_02: Um I I live in Vermont, where you can find me is on my Substack, is the easiest place.
• 1:30:26
  SPEAKER_02: I I republish a lot of stuff there.
• 1:30:28
  SPEAKER_02: I just did a piece actually on the US-UK tariffs, uh, came out yesterday.
• 1:30:33
  SPEAKER_02: I have a piece out today on the Kennedy Beacon about some things that are going on there uh regarding the Great Barrington Declaration and its vindication.
• 1:30:42
  SPEAKER_02: And so um I welcome people to join me at my Substack.
• 1:30:45
  SPEAKER_02: It's free.
• 1:30:46
  SPEAKER_02: Um, you can pay if you want, it helps keep me going.
• 1:30:49
  SPEAKER_02: But that's where I collect all my different writings.
• 1:30:52
  SPEAKER_02: And uh I do, and my book is called Small Farm Republic, and it advocates something interesting, which is for conservatives to lead on the environment by supporting regenerative agriculture.
• 1:31:04
  SPEAKER_02: And I must give credit to that book in part to a conversation with my friend Joel Salatin, in which he said, John, somebody should write a book to get conservatives to stop eating at Chick-fil-A.
• 1:31:16
  SPEAKER_02: You'll remember, Joel.
• 1:31:18
  SPEAKER_02: And um, you know, and that wasn't a stab at Chick-fil-A.
• 1:31:21
  SPEAKER_02: I actually tried Chick-fil-A when I was down in Georgia and it was terrible.
• 1:31:25
  SPEAKER_02: I was like, this is just Wendy's with a different aid, you know, and uh I'm glad they're Christian, but I wish they would switch to beef tallow.
• 1:31:34
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 1:31:34
  SPEAKER_02: And uh I see that conversation happening.
• 1:31:38
  SPEAKER_02: So, and now here we have Maha.
• 1:31:39
  SPEAKER_02: We they're proving it.
• 1:31:41
  SPEAKER_02: And, you know, you the what is wrong with Maha?
• 1:31:44
  SPEAKER_02: Who who could ever be against make America healthy again, except people who would rather breathe out of a tailpipe than breathe oxygen if Donald Trump said so.
• 1:31:53
  SPEAKER_02: And so I think we're winning that battle, and people are starting to see that you know Bobby Kennedy is genuine and he really is devoted to making your food healthier.
• 1:32:03
  SPEAKER_02: Stop fighting him over it and stop listening to the big corporate interests that have been lying to you, told you that eating eggs were bad for you and to eat margarine instead of butter.
• 1:32:13
  SPEAKER_02: People are waking up.
• 1:32:14
  SPEAKER_02: And at any rate, so that's why I'm really honored and humbled to be here with both of you.
• 1:32:19
  SPEAKER_02: I'm I'm grateful for all the work you do.
• 1:32:20
  SPEAKER_02: And let me plug beyond labels again, because you know, we don't need to reinvent that wheel.
• 1:32:26
  SPEAKER_02: That book is still very relevant.
• 1:32:27
  SPEAKER_02: People get intimidated by the complexity of the decision making at the supermarket and they give up and just start feasting on Doritos again.
• 1:32:35
  SPEAKER_02: And then they wonder why they don't feel well.
• 1:32:37
  SPEAKER_02: So rather than look for a pharmaceutical solution, they need to look at what's in their food.
• 1:32:42
  SPEAKER_02: And you guys have done a great job at helping educate people and and encouraging more people to get into it.
• 1:32:48
  SPEAKER_02: To, you know, once that's the other thing that leads them into start farming.
• 1:32:51
  SPEAKER_02: And you don't have to be a farmer to support your farmers.
• 1:32:56
  SPEAKER_02: And I think people are realizing that.
• 1:32:58
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, thank you so much, John.
• 1:33:00
  SPEAKER_01: And we're gonna put links to where they can find you as well in the show description.
• 1:33:04
  SPEAKER_01: So look there, everybody, for the links.
• 1:33:06
  SPEAKER_01: Hey, everybody, this has been a great show.
• 1:33:08
  SPEAKER_01: And here's my conclusion: whether you think subsidies are lifesavers or trainee wheels that just never come off, one thing is very clear: your dinner plate is political.
• 1:33:20
  SPEAKER_01: So, as always, we encourage you to chew on what you heard, let us know what you think.
• 1:33:24
  SPEAKER_01: And this week's community question is should small farms get government support?
• 1:33:31
  SPEAKER_01: Let us know on our Discord channel or um underneath this episode.
• 1:33:36
  SPEAKER_01: And we will see you all next week.
• 1:33:38
  SPEAKER_01: Thank you, Joel, and thank you, John, for really much making my job really easy and providing me with an hour of entertainment.
• 1:33:45
  SPEAKER_01: I appreciate you both.
• 1:33:47
  SPEAKER_02: Thank you.
• 1:33:48
  SPEAKER_02: God bless you, bro.
• 1:33:49
  SPEAKER_02: Thank you.