How does the USDA destroy small businesses?

How the USDA¹ destroyed family farms

ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS

Earl Butz served as Secretary of Agriculture under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and in the late 1950s he was Deputy Secretary in the Eisenhower administration. His nearly nine-year tenure ensured that radical policies favoring large-scale agricultural practices became deeply entrenched in the federal government. The radical economic and regulatory changes that took place during Butz's term as USDA secretary led to the rapid decline of American family farms in favor of large agribusinesses. The catastrophic effects were felt economically, environmentally, and socially, and continue to shape agriculture and rural life in the United States today.

As a result of this agricultural policy, small towns declined as people left family farms in search of better opportunities. Those who remained faced numerous economic hardships. A dependency on the welfare state emerged, and poverty became a common feature of American rural areas. Those who could leave, including entire generations of young adults, abandoned their families and extended relatives to seek a better life in rapidly growing suburbs and cities across the country. As Butz himself said:

“Fewer farmers meant more factory workers. More factory workers meant more televisions, washing machines, bathtubs, cars, and, most importantly, profits.”

Secretary, Earl Butz

The shift to a centralized food system, along with subsidies for commodity crops such as corn, oats, wheat, and soybeans, as well as the rise of large poultry and livestock operations, primarily benefited large industrial farms and agribusiness (and Wall Street financiers), leaving small, diversified farmers without a chance to compete.

The causes of these radical changes were complex. Butz believed that modernizing agriculture meant adopting industrial methods and scaling up production. By encouraging "go big or go home," his vision was to increase efficiency, lower costs, and maximize yields. One common justification was that the United States had a moral obligation to feed the world.

The policy aimed to produce more food at lower prices, making basic food staples widely available to consumers. By forcing farmers to produce "from fence to fence," Butz intended to flood the market with inexpensive food. That indeed happened. But at what cost?

Butz viewed supply controls and price supports from the New Deal era as outdated "socialism." He argued that eliminating these programs and allowing prices to be determined by market forces would make agriculture more self-sufficient and less reliant on government subsidies. However, this did not occur. Government subsidies were not eliminated; on the contrary, they continued and were even increased, but often took the form of direct payments tied to production, farm loans, and crop insurance, rather than price guarantees and production limits. Over time, these changes encouraged even greater production, favoring large-scale, high-yield agriculture, particularly in the case of industrial grain crops.

The government believed that food overproduction could increase exports and turn food into a geopolitical tool, and some might say, a geopolitical weapon. Top officials viewed America's agricultural wealth as a way to boost exports and strengthen the geopolitical influence of the United States. This strategy included sending large food aid donations to less developed countries, disrupting local agricultural practices. As a result, rural populations in less developed countries often ceased producing their own food and became dependent on low-quality food mass-produced by the U.S. government. Instead of feeding the world, as Butz envisioned, these food supplies were used as political tools by local elites. Countries remained just as vulnerable to food insecurity as before, with periodic famines exacerbating displacements and conflicts. Furthermore, the collapse of small traditional farms meant these countries were no longer independent but had to rely on U.S. aid to survive. From the perspective of the geopolitical power structure, this was a victory for the State Department and intelligence agencies – what we now call the "deep state."

Today, the situation is no better.

According to the agricultural census conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture in 2022, over 141,000 farms were eliminated from 2017 to 2022. This represents a decrease of about 7% during this period. Thus, the increasing regulatory burdens initiated by Butz continue to this day and further deepen the decline of farming communities across the country.

Butz and other policymakers viewed the migration of people from small farms to cities in the United States as part of the necessary economic modernization (and mobilization) needed for continued economic growth. They believed that the consolidation of farms would free up labor for industry, which in turn would lead to broader economic growth. USDA Secretary Butz and the then-current White House administration he served in condemned New Deal-era agricultural policy as socialist. However, they then proceeded to implement policies that would drive people off land owned by their families for generations. They did this to control agricultural markets and ensure a labor force for industry in urban areas. They did not realize that they were essentially creating a form of command economy, as the government forced people to leave their land in a process of dispossession. By controlling who could farm the land, their covert "command economy" policy was no better than the policies of the socialist or communist regimes they supposedly despised.

Agriculture requires diverse skills and significant capital investments to start a business. Once people left their family farms, there was no turning back. As a result, wealth became concentrated in the hands of large agribusinesses and highly efficient farms. Meanwhile, smaller farmers faced poverty and loss of family land. This forced rural residents to take low-paying jobs elsewhere. The anticipated economic growth primarily benefited the wealthy, not the middle class or poor workers. The oldest story in history.

Soil depletion – causes and effects

Finally, after decades of harmful federal policy, an opportunity arose to rethink agriculture in the United States and move away from the USDA's Nixon-era dictate of "get big or get out." Dubious agricultural practices such as the use of petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, as well as automation, gained prominence at the expense of overall soil fertility and micronutrient availability. All of this was sacrificed at the altar of progress to achieve greater efficiency and profitability for larger farms.

Farmers in the United States still use several highly toxic pesticides and herbicides, some of which have been banned or severely restricted in other countries. These substances pose a threat to human health, agricultural workers, consumers, and the environment.

Furthermore, farmers no longer rely on soil regeneration through the use of manure and cover crops in a crop rotation system; instead, they use synthetic fertilizers. One of the most commonly used fertilizers is urea, produced from ammonia, which is usually derived from natural gas.

Ammonia used in fertilizer production is primarily produced through the Haber-Bosch process, where nitrogen from the air combines with hydrogen. The main industrial source of hydrogen is natural gas (methane). In this process, natural gas reacts with steam to produce hydrogen, which then combines with nitrogen to form ammonia. It is then used as a liquid or granular fertilizer for crops. Thus, this fertilizer appears today, and tomorrow it is gone, as it quickly leaches into streams, lakes, and ultimately the ocean.

The runoff of these nutrients causes a dramatic increase in algae, leading to "algal blooms" that can cover large areas of water. The decomposition of these blooms results in oxygen depletion in the water, creating hypoxic "dead zones" where most aquatic organisms cannot survive. An example is the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, which is a hypoxic area covering thousands of square miles, primarily caused by fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi River watershed.

Nutritional consequences

About fifty large beef packing plants handle 98% of all cattle in the United States, with the top 11 processing 46%. This trend is largely a result of USDA policies dating back to Secretary Earl Butz. Therefore, a change in federal regulations is necessary to support local slaughterhouses, as these facilities are essential for ensuring access to meat products from producer to consumer.

USDA agricultural regulations have created serious obstacles for local slaughterhouses. Uniform standards, high compliance costs, a shortage of inspectors, and inflexible rules have led to industry consolidation, making it difficult for small, local, and niche producers to access nearby slaughter and processing services.

When people continuously consume non-nutritive, highly processed food products made primarily of chemicals, imported preserved meats, seed oils, grains, sugar, simple carbohydrates, and legumes, the result is a chronic obesity epidemic. Whole food products in the form of vegetables, fruits, nuts, high-quality dairy, and meats can change the health status of Americans. These are precisely the products that USDA largely overlooks. These small farms are mostly outside the USDA's reach. They can and must operate independently of the enormous regulatory burdens imposed on large farms. This is a niche where the resurgence of family farms can have a significant impact, as they utilize traditional, organic, and regenerative agricultural practices to produce healthier food. Small farms are an ideal setting for creating a healthy American diet.

Before the current Trump administration, the last presidential administration that aggressively supported small farms was President John F. Kennedy's administration. Kennedy supported initiatives aimed at improving the rural economy, which indirectly benefited small farmers. The Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 aimed to stimulate economic growth in rural areas by creating infrastructure and jobs, helping small farmers in regions affected by economic crises. The Rural Electrification Administration (REA), expanded under previous administrations, continued to provide loans for electric and telephone services in rural areas, assisting small farmers with modernization. The Kennedy administration promoted environmental protection programs, such as the Soil Conservation Service, which provided farmers with technical and financial assistance for sustainable practices. Small farmers could utilize these resources to improve land management, although participation in programs required overcoming bureaucratic procedures. Kennedy actively used his position to emphasize the importance of small farms to the culture and economy of the United States. In his speeches, such as his address at the National Rural Life Conference in 1962, he highlighted the significance of rural community development and family farms, suggesting a rhetorical commitment to small farmers.

Recently, during the second term of the Trump administration, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins launched the Farmers First: Small Family Farms Policy Agenda, aimed at removing barriers and increasing support for small family farms. Rollins' policy was presented as a response to the economic pressures and regulatory obstacles that led to the loss of over 141,000 farms in the last five years. She focused on removing obstacles rather than introducing new regulations and on creating an environment where small farms are not at a disadvantage compared to larger agricultural enterprises. Whether this policy is too modest, too late, or will eventually be tainted by regulations remains an open question.

Over the past fifty years, we have learned that the United States cannot and should not "feed the world." Because these cheap grain and soybean-based food products, of which we have a surplus, are the same products that cause diseases for all of us. Ultimately, these regulations primarily served the interests of Wall Street and large corporations investing in agriculture. They certainly did not serve the interests of American farmers or American consumers. Furthermore, we are not doing any great service to other nations either. Nation-states must determine their own fate and not rely on the soft power of the United States government to survive.

Now we need a push for decentralized, local production. We should enable, but not necessarily mandate, the withdrawal of food production from large farms by supporting small farmers' efforts to sell their products directly to local consumers.

With minor changes to USDA regulations, we can expect a revival of small farms. This will revitalize small towns. In turn, this will invigorate the "neglected" states and their "lamentable" residents.

These minor regulatory changes include the removal of government barriers that hinder the operation of small farms. With the reorganization of the USDA and the overall FDA policy becoming more farmer-friendly, adopting a more decentralized approach that allows for innovation, the situation may change. Instead of promoting large-scale agriculture, the government should enable the growth of more small farms and their suppliers by easing regulatory controls. Let consumers decide if the meat they buy at the market or directly from a farmer or butcher is of good quality. In this model, the USDA and FDA could be compared to a label that would give consumers some assurance that certain standards have been met while simultaneously easing control over farmers.

Why do we have so many regulations? Who benefits from a heavily regulated industry? The answer is simple: a heavily regulated environment favors large businesses. The reason is obvious. The more expensive it is for something to enter the market, the less competition there is. A clear example of this type of regulation is the pharmaceutical industry.

Similarly, many other industries restrict competition mainly through government regulations and regulatory barriers that make it difficult to enter the market. Heavily regulated industries are often created by lobbyists representing those very industries that are being regulated. These barriers often include licensing requirements, safety standards, patent or trademark protections, exclusive rights, or complex compliance frameworks that discourage or outright block new competitors. Some of the industries that have used regulations to eliminate small businesses include banking, insurance, telecommunications, and healthcare.

Within the strictly regulated frameworks, the "big players" win. Only they can afford to comply with the regulations. Thus, they have the motivation to lobby for more and more regulations, as only they can bear the associated costs. This is an anti-competitive strategy that gives them an unfair advantage. Government regulations become a weapon used to eliminate small competitors. This is absolutely part of the dynamics at play in big agriculture.

Big agriculture, through its surrogate agencies, the USDA, FDA, and CDC, has encompassed almost all aspects of American agriculture. Take, for example, the egg industry. This industry has been subjected to strict regulation, and the FDA, USDA, and CDC require poultry producers to adhere to specific regulations.

The FDA regulates the production of chicken eggs to ensure food safety, focusing primarily on preventing contamination by pathogens such as Salmonella enteritidis. The FDA's egg safety rule, in effect since 2009, requires egg-laying farms with more than 3,000 hens to follow specific practices during the storage and transportation of eggs. These practices include biosecurity measures, cleaning and disinfecting facilities, pest control, and disease testing. Additionally, this rule requires eggs to be stored in refrigeration on the farm within 36 hours of being laid.

The FDA also provides guidelines for "egg producers" who allow hens access to outdoor areas, ensuring compliance with standards that prevent salmonella contamination. Furthermore, the FDA has introduced new allergen labeling regulations that require more detailed identification of eggs from other bird species, such as ducks, geese, quail, or other birds. In contrast, chicken eggs will continue to be labeled simply as "eggs."

The USDA has established regulations for chicken eggs to ensure safety, quality, and proper labeling. These regulations cover various aspects, including animal welfare, handling of eggs, and labeling requirements. For example, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service oversees the safety and inspection of egg products, ensuring their compliance with federal standards. Additionally, the final egg safety rule aims to prevent salmonella contamination by requiring egg producers to implement specific safety measures.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues guidelines for the safety of chicken eggs, particularly regarding potential contamination by pathogens such as salmonella and avian influenza.

"Technically speaking, all these regulations stem from the constitutional powers of the federal government regarding interstate commerce. Therefore, if a farmer is not engaged in interstate commerce, the legal powers of the USDA, FDA, and CDC are minimal. In theory, this sounds good, but very few family farmers have the means to hire a lawyer specializing in constitutional law to put these federal agencies in their place if they come knocking at their door."

"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) emphasized that the USDA is the lead agency in the event of an avian flu outbreak, but even the Department of Homeland Security has a role in the regulatory processes concerning poultry. DHS would take the lead in coordinating federal actions in the event of a declared emergency due to avian flu. GAO also recommended that the USDA fully utilize DHS's expertise and resources in planning for preventive and response actions."

"Thus, there is no single government institution regulating egg production - there are many. We haven't even started to address the new regulations imposed on poultry producers regarding new strains of avian flu."

"However, data shows that even in 1986, the United States reported almost no serious disease outbreaks related to eggs and salmonella. In fact, larger salmonella outbreaks occurred long after most of these regulatory measures were implemented. Even then, at most 130 cases were reported - likely due to new poultry and livestock surveillance techniques, as well as COVID-19 and H5N1. Large-scale testing of poultry and livestock for these infectious diseases is currently the latest trend in public health."

"Large producers incur annual compliance costs exceeding six figures. These costs are directly passed on to consumers."

"Ironically, despite numerous environmental and food safety regulations that have imposed significant financial burdens on American farmers, actual data does not support the claim that our food is indeed safer."

"Compared to official data from the 1960s, the United States currently reports significantly fewer cases of foodborne illnesses per capita than before all these regulations were implemented. The number of reported cases seems to be similar or even higher now! However, the agribusiness complex and the U.S. government claim this is an artifact. The U.S. government argues that the increase in per capita foodborne illness cases is due to much better detection and documentation of these cases. However, there is no solid evidence to support this promoted version explaining why the number of foodborne illness cases has remained relatively stable since the 1960s, despite a dramatic increase in regulations, compliance costs, and oversight. These regulations have led to the growth of a massive agribusiness complex, while the number of small farms has declined."

"Analyzing the causes of the decline of small farms raises the question of whether it was an organized conspiracy aimed at destroying rural America by successive White House administrations from the 1950s to the present (broken only by JFK), or if it was simply a natural phenomenon that would have occurred regardless of Earl Butz's and the USDA's intervention. A review of historical public statements makes it clear that this was a deliberate action. It is evident that Earl Butz and Richard Nixon conspired to eliminate family farms across America. They did this because they realized that family farms are the link between generations that hinders industrialization. This is not a "conspiracy theory," but rather a thesis supported by historical political statements from that era."

"Under Earl Butz's leadership, the USDA developed a government strategy aimed at separating families and family members. The relocation of men from rural areas of America was intentional. Industrialized societies rely on a workforce that is willing and able to relocate, both geographically and socially, to adapt to the ever-changing demands of technology, markets, and the economy."

The mobility of the workforce is considered crucial for economic resilience, innovation, and sustainable growth. In industrial societies, an increasing number of functions, such as childcare, elder care, and education, are shifting from the multigenerational family to the state, while the nuclear family is becoming more isolated from the multigenerational family. In the case of small family farms and rural communities, Secretary Butz and his co-conspirators in the White House planned and led to the downfall of family farms to create a highly mobile workforce in cities.

This is one of the reasons why contemporary Western nation-states place such a strong emphasis on 'higher education.' Studies during which children leave the family home sever family ties. This creates a workforce ready to relocate in search of career opportunities, permanently breaking ties with both the nuclear and extended family.

Research on youth migration patterns²with higher education in the United States shows that a significant portion of them do not return to the regions where they grew up after graduation. This is especially true for rural areas of America. Many small towns in the Midwest have nearly turned into ghost towns. Let’s consider what this means for family and traditional values.

Taking all this into account, the truth is that the government has not fulfilled its plan to destroy family farms. Many of these families have simply gone underground. Since the USDA had nothing more to offer them, they began selling agricultural products, eggs, raw milk, niche livestock, and meat at local markets. They became dependent on creating local markets for their agricultural products, which regulation is not in the interest of the USDA.

Many such farmers rely on a single source of income, often coming from women in the family, to pay off loans, cover health and life insurance, and maintain bank accounts through off-farm work—most often in lower-paying jobs, as those are available in the area. The second partner in such arrangements tends to manage the farm and is responsible for providing energy in the form of firewood, eggs, agricultural products, raising and selling niche livestock, as well as meat, often sourced from hunting. Either the man works off the farm in skilled trades while the woman manages the farm on weekdays. Often, children are homeschooled, emphasizing vocational training and traditional family values. This is what a modern farmer looks like, and this movement is rapidly growing.

The annual USDA agricultural census is the most comprehensive survey of agriculture in the United States. However, it does not fully encompass small farms with low sales and farms that do not participate in programs. The number of farms that are not accounted for changes each year and varies by region, but for the smallest farms, the USDA estimates that the percentage of undercounted farms is nearly 30%. Frankly, we believe this number is much higher. No small farm has an interest in reporting its activities to the U.S. government.

Take, for example, the sale of eggs from small farms or backyard chickens raised for personal use. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA supports, and sometimes requires, random or risk-based inspections of both commercial and backyard poultry in all 50 states. By declaring that backyard chickens are being raised, the government may knock on doors, take samples, and then, if any birds test positive, the entire flock will be culled. Some states even require registration of poultry raised in backyard farms. In some states, even when purchasing a few chicks at a retail store, the names and addresses of buyers are recorded. A quick look into nearly any poultry group on social media will show that virtually no one wants to be part of this system.

What are the results of the billions spent over the last two years to combat avian influenza? From 2024 to July 2025 (the last case reported in February 2025), a total of 70 confirmed and probable cases of H5N1 avian flu in humans were reported in the United States, including one fatality—a person with multiple comorbidities who died from H5N1, but most likely not due to H5N1. A massive number of chickens were culled, negatively impacting small farmers producing poultry and eggs for American consumers.

The right to privacy must be protected by avoiding government interference in our lands, our affairs, and our livestock. That is why many small farmers avoid excessive government intervention by not reporting their agricultural activities. In this way, the household has become a bastion of resistance against government tyranny.

We must believe in the free market and American values. We can trust small farmers to monitor the health of their animals and other agricultural products. Let us have faith in Americans’ ability to make informed choices about their health if they have access to real food and reliable information about proper nutrition.

Dr. Robert W. Malone

contact@healthwithoutdrugs.com
publishing@menger.com

+48 600 745 945