The term “fascist” is often used as a pejorative, to brand those who oppose seemingly progressive agendas as extremists.

But it’s actually a particular political system, characterized by three components: dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, all in the name of new-found nationalism.

There has been a huge amount of debate in both the mainstream and social media about the first two components, but much less attention to the third one. So I’d like to focus mostly on that last item, the control of industry and commerce, because that is where we are beginning to see real-life decisions from the current administration—most specifically in the area of  agriculture—and it has all the makings of a fascist approach. From the newspaper headlines, it seems as if the new administration is confused and falling all over itself in terms of policy. But behind the headlines, important decisions are being taken and policies implemented. If you examine three important areas of agriculture, you see serious signs of intrusive government control, to favor large corporations.

1. New moves to restrict raw milk. Now, I know raw milk is a tiny part of the $27 billion dairy industry, but it’s long been viewed as a potential threat by Big Dairy because it’s been one of the only types of fluid milk showing significant expansion over the last decade (along with organic milk; more about organics in the next section). Big Dairy doesn’t like to see small dairy farms discover economically viable products, because this symbolizes competition.  Raw-dairy rejuvenation has occurred in line with a pullback by both states and federal authorities beginning a little over ten years ago, when the state of Michigan, the first state in the country to ban raw milk in the late 1940s, reversed course after its 2006 raid on Michigan farmer Richard Hebron, and moved to allow herdshares. That was followed by similar relaxations of enforcement in Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, and even “the dairy state” of Wisconsin (following the court victory by farmer Vernon Hershberger).

Over the last year, though, we’ve seen a reversal of the decade-long expansion of raw milk availability. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration seems to have been given a green light to aggressively go after raw milk once again, and it has moved most notably to clamp down on soaring sales of raw camel milk, by taking legal action against a Missouri dairy that supplied the bulk of raw camel milk around the country via the distributor, Desert Farms. Now, if you go to the Desert Farms web site, all you’ll find among the fresh camel milk options is “pasteurized” or “lightly pasteurized.”

We know as well that New Jersey regulators have gone after raw milk consumers in that state with threats of legal action, most likely with the encouragement of the FDA. In Virginia, which allows herdshares, legislation has been introduced requiring farmers who run them to notify state health authorities if any herdshare owners possibly become ill from their milk, and to allow state authorities access to their farms without a search warrant. Violations are punishable as Class 1 misdemeanors, which allows up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.  According to the Virginia Consumers and Farmers Association, this proposed legislation comprises “the first steps in destroying the very farm operations that allow people to access cream line raw milk ( farm fresh, unpasteurized, unhomogenized).” Once again, you have to think the FDA had a hand in this, as it often does with raw dairy at the state level.

 

—New moves to undermine organic standards and food sovereignty initiatives. Big Ag hates organic food because it’s become a huge source of competition over the past 30 years, growing to something well in excess of $40 billion annually in the U.S., according to various estimates. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it was abandoning one of the major organic initiatives of the last decade— the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule. This established humane treatment standards for chickens, pigs, and cows raised organically. According to the Humane Society of the U.S., “The USDA finalized the rule in January 2017, after a decade of input from thousands of organic producers and consumers, and in doing so, it put the nation on a path to have rigorous and comprehensive standards for cows, pigs, chickens, and other farm animals raised under the organic seal.”

The USDA threw it all out, just like that, as an apparent sop to Big Ag. The Organic Trade Association is suing to have the rule implemented.

The USDA has also gone after Maine’s first-in-the-nation Food Sovereignty Act, threatening to withdraw approval of that state’s slaughterhouses unless the law was changed, which would have shuttered five slaughterhouses. The Maine legislature eventually watered the law down, requiring towns and cities that adopt new ordinances to “comply with state and federal laws” for meat and poultry sales.

—New moves to undermine marijuana. Finally, just as marijuana has become legalized to at least some degree in more than half the states, and spawned a new agricultural opportunity for farmers and other entrepreneurs, the federal government has threatened to pull the rug out on the whole trend.  Why? Apparently pot is a threat to the alcohol industry, not to mention to Big Pharma, as more health benefits are associated with it.

The new orders and threats against various segments of agriculture have been billed mostly as “deregulation.” But when you come down to it, all these actions are designed to destabilize one area of business for the benefit of another. You water down organic standards to encourage producers of non-organic food. You threaten producers of marijuana in states where it is legal, in order to reduce investment in that business segment.

In just the last few days, we’ve seen tariffs imposed on imported solar panels, following on deregulation associated with coal production. Once again, the goal is to penalize one segment of the economy (a non-polluting energy source) in favor of a domestic polluting one.

The tax cut, as well, is designed to provide a huge financial windfall to big business—on the order of $1.5 trillion, according to the estimates tossed around when it was being debated in Congress in December. You can be sure that the next step will be to go after entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, with the argument that the deficit has become so large that programs benefiting ordinary people can no longer be afforded and must be slashed.

I know some here will argue that favoritism of big business has been ongoing for many years. But the reality is that in dairy, organic standards, and marijuana, at least, the trend had shifted in important respects over the last decade. Now it is shifting again, and not in favor of small farms and their supporters.