This story was originally published through Investigate Midwest.
Amid growing fears about Chinese investment in U. S. agriculture, China’s agriculture is being feared. In the U. S. , there has been renewed pressure to further restrict and control foreign ownership of farmland across the country.
At least eight states have considered implementing a new cap on foreign farmland, and one, Indiana, passed a new law restricting new investments through foreign corporations, notably citing China as the reason the law was passed.
In addition, due to data considerations, more than 125 House Republicans sent a letter urging the Government Accountability Office, one of the U. S. government’s most sensible watchdogs, to be held in the U. S. government. The U. S. Department of Homeland Security is seeking to investigate foreign ownership of agricultural land.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, has proposed legislation that would ban corporations from China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from buying U. S. farmland. The law is one of many proposals that would federally oversee foreign ownership.
Currently, the U. S. Department of Agriculture is working on the agenda. The U. S. Department of State intends to monitor foreign investment in farmland under the Foreign Investment in Agriculture Disclosure Act. This law, passed in 1978, requires all foreign owners of agricultural land (long-term owners or tenants) to report such assets. to USDA.
However, the USDA relies heavily on voluntary reporting, an FSA-153 report. Each year, the USDA Farm Service Agency publishes this data in an annual report.
Investigate Midwest received a database through the Freedom of Information Act detailing all the reasons in the annual report. There are significant gaps in the database. There are more than 3. 1 million acres with no indexed owner. Random checks show that many indexed parcels are no longer controlled through the owner in the database. It is not transparent if land is removed from the database after a lease is sold or terminated.
Although the database contains significant errors and incomplete information, it is the only comprehensive indicator of the amount of land sold or leased to foreign interests.
In addition, 14 states impose property limits.
Micah Brown, an attorney with the National Farm Law Center who studies state and federal legislation on foreign ownership of agricultural land, said AFIDA is known for being unreliable and, despite state legislation, it remains very complicated to trace ownership. Those States
“Almost every state has an enforcement provision in the law, but there doesn’t seem to be much compliance,” Brown said.
Brown said he sees existing considerations as a “political flashpoint” similar to when existing legislation was passed in the past. He said that 4 different high points passed: the era of the declaration of independence; the past due to 1800 (westward expansion); from the early to mid-twentieth century; and the 1970s.
According to experts, there are a number of reasons for this increased surveillance, and China is at the center of many of them. Increase foreign investment in agriculture. Rising land prices. Increased investment in farmland. An industry war with China. A pandemic, where food shortages have affected many Americans and raised concerns about food security.
Joe Maxwell, president and co-founder of Farm Action, an advocacy organization for the farming kinship circle, has lobbied for years for stricter state and federal regulations for foreign investment. Maxwell said it’s clear that there has been more concentration on foreign ownership of farmland in recent years.
“More people on Capitol Hill are focused on what China is doing,” said Maxwell, a Democrat who was Missouri’s former lieutenant governor.
The factor has been bipartisan, with advocates for stricter Senate oversight ranging from Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. , Jon Tester, D-Montana, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. , and Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, in Chuck Grassley. , R-Iowa.
The eight states that thought about enforcing a new overseas farmland restriction included Alabama, Arkansas, California, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. California’s was passed, but the measure was vetoed.
In their letter to the GAO, House Republicans expressed considerations about foreign investment in farmland in national security. The organization also expressed doubts about the functioning of AFIDA.
“Concerns have also been expressed that foreign investment in U. S. farmland will be such asU. S. farmland can only result in foreign farmland available in the U. S. “The U. S. agricultural land, i. e. , prime agricultural land, and potentially lead to overproduction of food and foreign food prices,” the House Republican letter said.
Many of those same officials sent a letter in July to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, raising fears about the effect of foreign ownership on food prices. The organization expressed fears about China’s investment point.
Republicans have cited China as lawless.
This summer, Indiana is the fifteenth state to pass a law restricting foreign ownership after the state legislature passed a law this year that prohibited foreign corporations from buying farmland. In Indiana, 401,747 acres are foreign-owned.
In doing so, the particular invoice sponsor cited China as a concern.
“It’s vital that farmland is used to supply food, our nation’s food security first,” Sen. Mark Messmer, R-Jasper, told the Indiana House Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, according to The Indiana Lawyer. “With an adversary of our country buying and controlling more farmland every year, this will eventually be a national security issue. “
What is unclear, however, is how justified the China issue is.
Chinese corporations own 352,140 acres, or just 1% of all foreign-owned farmland. It has nothing to do with countries like Canada (which has 12. 4 million acres) and the Netherlands (which owns 4. 9 million acres).
However, there have been considerations about the scale of investment through Chinese corporations, such as the acquisition of Smithfield Foods (the world’s first red meat producer) by a Chinese company and the acquisition of Syngenta (a seed and chemicals company) by ChemChina.
Brown said the lack of reliable knowledge under AFIDA and state disclosure legislation may mean China’s investment point goes unreported. Brown also said the USDA’s existing reporting rules don’t make it transparent, based on the number of title deeds and percentage of ownership, who reports.
A 2017 investigation through Investigate Midwest found that the USDA does very little to determine whether foreign farmland owners are reporting correctly under AFIDA, and that the highest fine was due to a company that self-reported a failed transaction. This raises questions about whether the USDA investigates homeownership in limited liability corporations. The USDA fined two Chinese corporations in 2021 for failing to report their transactions, according to Agri-Pulse.
The largest farmland owner on behalf of China is WH Group, which bought Smithfield Foods in 2013, gaining 146,000 acres of farmland. Smithfield is the largest red meat company in the United States.
Smithfield came under fire early in the coronavirus pandemic, when the company exported record levels of red meat to China, despite meat shortages in the United States. At the time, Smithfield said meat was ordered and processed earlier in the year, and much of the food he shipped to China is food not sought in the United States.
A report released earlier this year by China’s Economic and Security Review Commission of China. The U. S. government raised concerns about Chinese investment in U. S. agriculture. The U. S. government added foreign investment in farmland.
An investigation of the Foreign Investment in Agriculture Disclosure Act disclosures shows that China owns 1% of all land held by foreign entities.
These disclosures come with land that is owned, in whole or in part, or leased on a long-term basis to foreign companies.
Overall, foreign entities own or lease approximately 37. 6 million acres of agricultural land, in addition to forests and grasslands. That’s a domain larger than the state of Illinois and represents 2. 9% of all personal farmland in the United States. 24. 2 million acres in 2010, according to the USDA.
The largest landowners are forestry corporations, largely owned by Canadian and Dutch investment corporations. In addition, many European renewable energy corporations have long-term rentals for wind turbines.
Research through Investigate Midwest comparing the amount of farmland in each county to the amount of foreign-owned farmland shows that more than 190 counties are 10% or more owned or controlled by foreign entities. These have giant logging operations or giant renewable energy developments. This figure excludes Hawaii.
The most heavily owned county is Keweenaw County, Michigan, which includes Isle Royale (a national park away from Lake Superior) and lands on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Overall, the county, which has a population of about 2,000, has 345,600 acres of land.
Over 262,000 acres (75. 8 of the county’s land) are owned by 3 foreign entities in the county. Two are limited liability logging corporations that list Netherlands homeowners, and one is called Lake Superior Land Company, which lists U. S. Virgin Islands homeowners. UU.
While this is an incredibly high percentage, 18 of Florida’s 67 counties are controlled in more than 10%. Four of Maine’s 16 counties are controlled in more than 10 percent, while 15 of Alabama’s 65 counties are controlled in more than 10 percent. Arkansas and Texas, which have giant investments in forest land, also have more than 10 counties controlled by at least 10 percent foreign interests.
“We have to be careful not to give away the farms,” said Bruce Shultz, vice president of the National Farmers’ Organization, a cooperative in the circle of farming relatives. Shultz is a farm animal rancher in rural Montana and said the NFO is not a “political supergroup,” however, it is a challenge that affects farmers around the world.
“We are involved in the fact that farmland is leaving the circle of family farms,” he said. “We are involved in where the next generation of farmers will live and where this food will come from. “
Scott Chadde of Investigate Midwest contributed knowledge analysis.
Investigate Midwest is an independent, not-for-profit newsroom. Their project is to serve the public interest by exposing unsafe and costly practices of influential businesses and farms.
by Johnathan Hettinger, Missouri Independent November 11, 2022
This story was originally published through Investigate Midwest.
Amid growing fears about Chinese investment in U. S. agriculture, China’s agriculture is being feared. In the U. S. , there has been renewed pressure to further restrict and control foreign ownership of farmland across the country.
At least eight states have considered implementing a new cap on foreign farmland, and one, Indiana, passed a new law restricting new investments through foreign corporations, notably citing China as the reason the law was passed.
In addition, due to data considerations, more than 125 House Republicans sent a letter urging the Government Accountability Office, one of the U. S. government’s most sensible watchdogs, to be held in the U. S. government. The U. S. Department of Homeland Security is seeking to investigate foreign ownership of agricultural land.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, has proposed legislation that would ban corporations from China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from buying U. S. farmland. The law is one of many proposals that would federally oversee foreign ownership.
Currently, the U. S. Department of Agriculture is working on the agenda. The U. S. Department of State intends to monitor foreign investment in farmland under the Foreign Investment in Agriculture Disclosure Act. This law, passed in 1978, requires all foreign owners of agricultural land (long-term owners or tenants) to report such assets. to USDA.
However, the USDA relies heavily on voluntary reporting, an FSA-153 report. Each year, the USDA Farm Service Agency publishes this data in an annual report.
Investigate Midwest received a database through the Freedom of Information Act detailing all the reasons in the annual report. There are significant gaps in the database. There are more than 3. 1 million acres with no indexed owner. Random checks show that many indexed parcels are no longer controlled through the owner in the database. It is not transparent if land is removed from the database after a lease is sold or terminated.
Although the database contains significant errors and incomplete information, it is the only comprehensive indicator of the amount of land sold or leased to foreign interests.
In addition, 14 states impose property limits.
Micah Brown, an attorney with the National Farm Law Center who studies state and federal legislation on foreign ownership of agricultural land, said AFIDA is known for being unreliable and, despite state legislation, it remains very complicated to trace ownership. Those States
“Almost every state has an enforcement provision in the law, but there doesn’t seem to be much compliance,” Brown said.
Brown said he sees existing considerations as a “political flashpoint” similar to when existing legislation was passed in the past. He said that 4 different high points passed: the era of the declaration of independence; the past due to 1800 (westward expansion); from the early to mid-twentieth century; and the 1970s.
According to experts, there are a number of reasons for this increased surveillance, and China is at the center of many of them. Increase foreign investment in agriculture. Rising land prices. Increased investment in farmland. An industry war with China. A pandemic, where food shortages have affected many Americans and raised concerns about food security.
Joe Maxwell, president and co-founder of Farm Action, an advocacy organization for the farming kinship circle, has lobbied for years for stricter state and federal regulations for foreign investment. Maxwell said it’s clear that there has been more concentration on foreign ownership of farmland in recent years.
“More people on Capitol Hill are focused on what China is doing,” said Maxwell, a Democrat who was Missouri’s former lieutenant governor.
The factor has been bipartisan, with advocates for stricter oversight in the Senate ranging from Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. , Jon Tester, D-Montana, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. , and Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, to Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
The eight states that thought about enforcing a new overseas farmland restriction included Alabama, Arkansas, California, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. California’s was passed, but the measure was vetoed.
In their letter to the GAO, House Republicans expressed considerations about foreign investment in farmland in national security. The organization also expressed doubts about the functioning of AFIDA.
“Concerns have also been expressed that foreign investment in U. S. farmland will be such asU. S. farmland can only result in foreign farmland available in the U. S. “The U. S. agricultural land, i. e. , prime agricultural land, and potentially lead to overproduction of food and foreign food prices,” the House Republican letter said.
Many of those same officials sent a letter in July to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, raising fears about the effect of foreign ownership on food prices. The organization expressed fears about China’s investment point.
Republicans have cited China as lawless.
This summer, Indiana is the fifteenth state to pass a law restricting foreign ownership after the state legislature passed a law this year that prohibited foreign corporations from buying farmland. In Indiana, 401,747 acres are foreign-owned.
In doing so, the particular invoice sponsor cited China as a concern.
“It’s vital that farmland is used to supply food, our nation’s food security first,” Sen. Mark Messmer, R-Jasper, told the Indiana House Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, according to The Indiana Lawyer. “With an adversary of our country buying and controlling more farmland every year, this will eventually be a national security issue. “
What is unclear, however, is how justified the China issue is.
Chinese corporations own 352,140 acres, or just 1% of all foreign-owned farmland. It has nothing to do with countries like Canada (which has 12. 4 million acres) and the Netherlands (which owns 4. 9 million acres).
However, there have been considerations about the scale of investment through Chinese corporations, such as the acquisition of Smithfield Foods (the world’s first red meat producer) by a Chinese company and the acquisition of Syngenta (a seed and chemicals company) by ChemChina.
Brown said the lack of reliable knowledge under AFIDA and state disclosure legislation may mean China’s investment point goes unreported. Brown also said the USDA’s existing reporting rules don’t make it transparent, based on the number of title deeds and percentage of ownership, who reports.
A 2017 investigation through Investigate Midwest found that the USDA does very little to determine whether foreign farmland owners are reporting correctly under AFIDA, and that the highest fine was due to a company that self-reported a failed transaction. This raises questions about whether the USDA investigates homeownership in limited liability corporations. The USDA fined two Chinese corporations in 2021 for failing to report their transactions, according to Agri-Pulse.
The largest farmland owner on behalf of China is WH Group, which bought Smithfield Foods in 2013, gaining 146,000 acres of farmland. Smithfield is the largest red meat company in the United States.
Smithfield came under fire early in the coronavirus pandemic, when the company exported record levels of red meat to China, despite meat shortages in the United States. At the time, Smithfield said meat was ordered and processed earlier in the year, and much of the food he shipped to China is food not sought in the United States.
A report released earlier this year by China’s Economic and Security Review Commission of China. The U. S. government raised concerns about Chinese investment in U. S. agriculture. The U. S. government added foreign investment in farmland.
An investigation of the Foreign Investment in Agriculture Disclosure Act disclosures shows that China owns 1% of all land held by foreign entities.
These disclosures come with land that is owned, in whole or in part, or leased on a long-term basis to foreign companies.
Overall, foreign entities own or lease approximately 37. 6 million acres of agricultural land, in addition to forests and grasslands. That’s a larger domain than the state of Illinois and accounts for 2. 9% of all personal farmland in the United States. 24. 2 million acres in 2010, according to the USDA.
The largest landowners are forestry corporations, largely owned by Canadian and Dutch investment corporations. In addition, many European renewable energy corporations have long-term rentals for wind turbines.
Research through Investigate Midwest comparing the amount of farmland in each county to the amount of foreign-owned farmland shows that more than 190 counties are 10% or more owned or controlled by foreign entities. These have giant logging operations or giant renewable energy developments. This figure excludes Hawaii.
The most heavily owned county is Keweenaw County, Michigan, which includes Isle Royale (a national park away from Lake Superior) and lands on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Overall, the county, which has a population of about 2,000, has 345,600 acres of land.
Over 262,000 acres (75. 8 of the county’s land) are owned by 3 foreign entities in the county. Two are limited liability logging corporations that list Netherlands homeowners, and one is called Lake Superior Land Company, which lists U. S. Virgin Islands homeowners. UU.
While this is an incredibly high percentage, 18 of Florida’s 67 counties are controlled in more than 10%. Four of Maine’s 16 counties are controlled in more than 10 percent, while 15 of Alabama’s 65 counties are controlled in more than 10 percent. Arkansas and Texas, which have giant investments in forest land, also have more than 10 counties controlled by at least 10 percent foreign interests.
“We have to be careful not to give away farms,” said Bruce Shultz, vice president of the National Farmers Organization, a kinship farmer circle cooperative. Shultz is a farm animal rancher in rural Montana and said the NFO is not a “political supergroup,” yet it is a challenge that affects farmers around the world.
“We are involved in the fact that farmland is leaving the circle of family farms,” he said. “We are involved in where the next generation of farmers will live and where this food will come from. “
Scott Chadde of Investigate Midwest contributed knowledge analysis.
Investigate Midwest is an independent, not-for-profit newsroom. Their project is to serve the public interest by exposing unsafe and costly practices of influential businesses and farms.
Missouri Independent is owned by States Newsroom, a network of grant-supported news offices and a donor coalition as a 501c(3) public charity. The Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Please contact Editor-in-Chief Jason Hancock if you have any questions: info@missouriindependent. com. Follow the Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter.
Johnathan Hettinger is a reporter for Investigate Midwest and focuses on weather updates in Illinois.
DEMOCRACY TOOLKIT
The Missouri Independent is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization committed to relentless investigative journalism and daily reporting that sheds light on state government and impacts the lives of Missourians. This service is available to readers and other media.
Our stories may be republished online or published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0 license. We ask that you edit them according to your liking or reduce them, provide appropriate attribution and a link to our website.