This week, John Deere agreed to a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation to abide by certain “right to repair” guarantees for farmers. Despite these concessions, many right to repair advocates see the memorandum as little more than a sleight of hand to quell the momentum behind state and federal legislation.

The right to repair movement has grown over the past decade by championing a clear-cut principle: People should be able to fix their consumer items on their own or through independent dealers. In the consumer electronics market, however, corporate giants such as Apple or John Deere effectively force customers to go to the company’s own dealers, where costs are often so high that it’s cheaper just to buy a new product. Such firms make outside repairs all but impossible by blocking consumers’ access to the necessary mechanical parts as well as to manuals or schematics.

In the case of agricultural equipment, companies like John Deere have even  legal action against farmers who try to fix their own tractors, on the grounds of copyright infringement. This arrangement essentially imposes a semipermanent leasing agreement onto farmers that not only adds another overhead cost but sometimes can have dire consequences. If a tractor malfunctions or the battery needs to be replaced, it can take up to two weeks for farmers to get a John Deere technician to attend to the repair. During the height of a harvest season, that could mean losing a significant amount of a farmer’s earnings for the year.

The right to repair movement has the ear of the White House. President Biden’s competition order in 2021 directed the Federal Trade Commission to take action on this practice. While the Commission hasn’t set rules yet, it issued a policy statement in 2021 and approved final orders in October against three firms for imposing unlawful obstacles on repairs.

Though light on details, Deere’s new memorandum would make it somewhat easier for farmers to get repair service independent from the company. It would ease restrictions on machine parts from manufacturers and open up other fix-it tools, such as the software or handbooks that Deere technicians rely on.

This olive branch, however, is predicated on a major concession from the Farm Bureau, one of the most powerful lobbying forces in agriculture that advocates on behalf of farmers. The Farm Bureau has agreed not to support any state-level legislation that enshrines the right to repair in law, or creates further protections that go beyond what’s outlined in the agreement.

“That provision shows the company’s cards and makes us wary of the agreement,” said Willie Cade, an organizer for Farm Action and a right to repair advocate. “It seems targeted at taking the wind out of our sails.”

It’s not uncommon for corporations to fall back on private-sector multiparty agreements in an attempt to stave off regulation. “John Deere is using the same playbook that we’ve seen from other companies with a monopolistic position,” said Daniel Hanley, a legal analyst at the Open Markets Institute whose work on the right to repair has been cited in federal legislation.

One major problem with private-sector accords is that there’s no enforcement mechanism. If John Deere doesn’t live up to the memorandum, farmers have no path for recourse.

Moreover, the Deere memorandum also contains loopholes. The core concession is to give customers access to a service adviser software tool for procuring mechanical parts from manufacturers similar to the one that company dealers get to use for repairs. But the company doesn’t provide other tools that right to repair advocates would like to see, such as dealer technical assistance service. The memo also permits Deere to maintain certain exceptions that would deny farmer repair requests. The company can refuse to distribute certain equipment to farmers if it deems the technology proprietary or when it falls under vague criteria such as “safety controls” or “emissions controls.”

“The slippery language gives the company enormous discretion to just set policy as it goes,” said Kevin O’Reilly, the director of the Right to Repair campaign at U.S. PIRG.

Beyond their discontent with these carve-outs, farmers and their advocates have little trust that Deere will actually follow through on its agreement—a skepticism rooted in the company’s track record. In 2018, Deere  a “statement of principles” that foreshadowed the provisions in the new memorandum. Despite that, farmers never received access to the machine parts or software they’d been promised.

Source:

 The proposal would require public companies to report on Scope 3 emissions, which are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by a publicly traded company but contribute to its value chain. While farmers and ranchers would not be required to report directly to the SEC, this regulation would impose additional burdens as they provide almost every raw product that goes into the food supply chain.

The comments were filed on behalf of AFBF and 10 other agriculture organizations. The organizations state, “Our organizations and our members are committed to transparency in climate-related matters to inform our stakeholders in a manner consistent with existing practices in the agriculture industry.

 However, without changes and clarifications, the Proposed Rules would be wildly burdensome and expensive if not altogether impossible for many small and mid-sized farmers to comply with.”

    AFBF President Zippy Duvall said, “Family farms don’t have teams of compliance officers and attorneys to respond to Wall Street. Higher costs could keep small farms from doing business with publicly traded companies, which could lead to more consolidation and fewer farmers at a time when the world is increasingly calling on rural America to meet the needs of hungry families.”

Recommendations to the SEC include:

• Removing the “value-chain” concept from the proposed rules;

• Removing or substantially revising the Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirement to include an explicit exemption for the agricultural industry;

• Removing the requirement that registrants provide disclosures pertaining to their climate-related targets and goals;

• Revising the proposed rules so that disclosures of GHG emissions operate in unison with existing federal emissions reporting programs;

• Ensuring the final rules do not include location data disclosures for GHG emissions, which may inadvertently disclose the private information of family farms.

“Farmers increasingly rely on the latest technology as they grow healthy, affordable food. Business purchases—from robotic milkers to high-tech combines—require a substantial investment, and when those tools break down farmers need to get back up and running quickly. Limiting who can work on a piece of machinery drives up costs and increases down-time. Ensuring farmers have the ability to perform cost-effective repairs on their own equipment will keep America’s farms running and financially sustainable.”

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall

“AFBF notes President Biden’s effort to address several pressing issues facing America’s farmers and ranchers comes at a time when many in the farm supply chain are frustrated. Growing concern about livestock market fairness is accelerated by the continued rise in grocery store meat prices while ranchers struggle to break even on the cattle they raise and poultry farmers being locked into agreements with very little recourse if they’re underpaid. It’s time to get to the bottom of what’s driving these imbalances. More opportunities for farmers and ranchers to sell their products will ensure they are paid fairly while providing more options for America’s families.

“We will closely examine the details of this executive order as we continue to work with the administration to ensure changes are consistent with our grassroots policy, and farmers and ranchers are provided greater flexibility to remain competitive in our growing economy.”

“As part of the next round of COVID-19 relief, we request that Congress reaffirm its intent and restore the tax benefits it intended to give distressed Main Street businesses as part of the CARES Act,” the groups wrote in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

Groups that signed the letter include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, and the National Retail Federation.

Under the PPP, small businesses can get loans that are forgivable if the proceeds are used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest and utilities. The CARES Act, the broad law that includes PPP, specified that forgiveness of PPP loans is not taxable income.

The IRS in April issued guidance stating that expenses are not deductible if their payment results in a PPP loan being forgiven. The guidance has been criticized by some key lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who argue it goes against congressional intent. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has defended the guidance, saying that businesses cannot “double dip.”

The groups pushed back against arguments supporting the guidance.
“Congress intended for the loan forgiveness under PPP to be tax-free. The IRS notice reverses that position and eliminates any benefit, let alone a double benefit,” the groups wrote.

The groups also said that denying tax deductions for expenses paid with PPP loans would be burdensome for businesses that have experienced financial hardship during the pandemic. They said the IRS’s position represents a tax increase of about $100 billion.

Source: The Hill

Representatives from the group introduced the program last week in the offices of the U.S. House of Representatives. It is based on a service designed by Michigan State University Extension.

“We really wanted to prepare our extension agents who sit down at the kitchen tables with farmers in Michigan, and really all over the country, to be able to read signs of stress and effectively use research-based tools and education to help farmers walk through challenging times,” said MSU’s Mark Skidmore.

Skidmore said participants will be able to identify symptoms of stress and employ effective techniques for managing it.

“The training provides guidance for communicating with stressed farmers, the use of effective verbal and nonverbal communication, active and empathetic listening skills, preparing for difficult conversations, and communicating through conflict,” he said. “It provides clear guidance on signs of suicidal thoughts and what to do.”

Select employees at the Farm Service Agency have received training through a pilot program. In 2020, that training will expand to all 10,000 FSA employees.

Dale Moore, executive vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said that in his experience, farmers and ranchers have no problem seeking help for physical issues, but when it comes to mental health, that’s not the case, and it’s time for that to change.

“We are excited to bring in the experts to help train our trainers,” he said. State representatives will be trained in an all-day seminar next month, then they will take that knowledge back to their states and conduct training there. “We very much appreciate the opportunity to be part of this process,” Moore said.

Source: Successful Farming