Palmeros harvest medjool dates by hand by leaping into the crown of a tree “full of thorns sharp enough to puncture a tire—or, say, a human limb.” For Offrange, Ashley Stimpson introduces us to the workers who carry on a proud, 6,000-year-old farming tradition that’s in danger of dying out, just as date sales take off in the United States. (Photos by Siri Kaur.)
As far as harrowing job descriptions go, the palmero is up there with trapeze artist and surgeon. Must like heights, must work well in punishing heat, must feel comfortable yielding lethally sharp hand tools. In addition to brute labor, the job also requires an aptitude for botanical minutiae: the pungency of a ripening spadix, the dusky translucency of a perfectly ready date.
Palmeros spend most of their year in the top of the palm trees, which are dioecious plants, meaning male and female reproductive organs grow on separate trees. While the wind can carry pollen from tree to tree, it results in an unpredictable and uneven yield. Around 4000 BC in the Persian Gulf, our ancestors got wise and started cultivating the date palm by hand, kicking off a tradition Medina and Patino still carry out today.
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would "make $8 billion available for one-time payments to American farmers this harvest season to provide relief during temporary market disruptions and increased input costs."
Using a formula derived from the USDA's production, yield, and price estimates, the Harvest Fuel Relief program will "provide simple, proportional support to producers." It will only cover a "portion of modeled losses during the 2026 crop year." The Farm Service Agency—an office within the USDA that administers credit and loan programs—will administer the $8 billion in one-time payments using funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation, a federal entity authorized to draw up to $30 billion from the U.S. Treasury to fund agricultural initiatives. Payment rates won't be released until November, and the USDA's notice leaves open the possibility of additional payments for "non-Title I commodities, including specialty crop growers and fishermen."
A fiscally questionable decision, the program comes at a time when farmers are feeling a significant price pinch. The dyed diesel American farmers and ranchers use is exempt from state and federal highway taxes, but that has done little to offset skyrocketing fuel prices. In September, the American Farm Bureau Federation projected that fuel expenses would reach $22 billion this year, up 29 percent from 2025. The Farm Bureau estimates that total production expenses will reach nearly $500 billion in 2026. According to its own predictions, the USDA doesn't expect the situation to improve anytime soon.
In its latest Commodity Costs and Returns report, released in June, the USDA projects farmers and ranchers will face record production costs in 2027—higher than during the COVID-19 supply chain disruptions—driven by higher prices for necessary inputs such as fuel, fertilizer, seeds, machinery, and labor.
While the USDA has blamed "temporary market disruptions" for these cost hikes, the blame more accurately falls to President Donald Trump, thanks to his illegal war in Iran. As of Tuesday, Trump's war—and the subsequent shocks it has caused to the global diesel supply—have pushed the national average price in the U.S. up $2.70 per gallon from a year ago, a 74.6 percent increase, according to AAA data.
Unfortunately, the war in Iran is just one of several Trump administration policies making life more expensive for everyone, including the nation's farmers and ranchers. Tariffs on imported fertilizer, which began in 2020 during the first Trump administration, have made it difficult for American farmers to afford what they need. By the Farm Bureau's estimates, fertilizer costs for 2026 are projected to reach a record $40 billion, up 15 percent from the previous year.
The $8 billion program is part of a windfall of taxpayer money the Trump administration has sent to farmers as relief for harms caused by the president's actions. Last December, the USDA sent $11 billion in one-time bridge payments to more than half a million farmers nationwide. Earlier this month, the USDA announced it would provide a record $13.8 billion in gross payments to agricultural producers to cover revenue losses.
In a speech in Kansas touting the program, Trump claimed that the state's residents would see a "plunge" in prices once the war ends. That's likely an exaggeration, given the host of questionable economic policies he seems hell-bent on implementing.
Still, that shouldn't discredit the president's suggestion. Ending the war would benefit farmers, ranchers, and consumers, without doling out billions in another government bailout for a favored industry.
On Monday, a group of students from the University of Chicago stood outside the Chicago Mercantile Exchange—one of the world's largest and most diverse derivatives marketplaces—and called for the repeal of an obscure 1958 law that bans onions as futures products traded on U.S. exchanges.
Attracting an audience with a humorous jingle and amusing signs that included "Onions Deserve a Future," "Honk If You Want Free Onions," "Hot Girls Hedge Onions," and "Free Markets Feed Families," the student group, named For Our Futures, has a simple platform: a repeal of the 1958 Onion Futures Act, which prohibits anyone from trading in onion futures on commodity exchanges. (The law was amended in 2010 to ban motion picture box office receipts from being traded on commodity exchanges.) The viral campaign drew enough attention that Mike Selig—chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a proponent of expanding the list of commodities traded on futures markets—was asked about the law in a media appearance.
American farmers produce about 6.75 billion pounds of onions a year, according to the National Onion Association, an industry trade group. While peers who grow cotton, wheat, corn, and soybeans can hedge against price swings by trading futures contracts, onion farmers have no such recourse under federal law. But, as the Agriculture Department's daily National Potato and Onion Report shows, onion prices are highly volatile and subject to wild swings, making them an ideal market for futures trading.
In its latest report, released Monday, the agency shows that onion prices have roughly doubled since this time last year. If onion futures contracts were legal, farmers could rely on market expectations instead of planting crops based on last year's prices. It would also let buyers potentially cut costs by locking in lower prices to protect against spikes. Trading onion futures contracts would give the industry a useful price-discovery tool, one that the student group aptly notes is "crucial for price stability and for hedging risks associated with weather and market fluctuations."
It's not For Our Futures' first time trying this gambit. The student group staged similar protests at college campuses in April and May, armed with bags of raw onions to entice passersby into signing their petition to legalize onion futures. The students' crusade might be comical, but after a recent Gallup poll found that 57 percent of Americans age 18–34 have a positive image of socialism, it's encouraging to see college-age students stand up for free markets.
A protest over onions sounds absurd, but it's a viral reminder to others in that age cohort of how far governments can go when given the slightest leeway to regulate an industry.
Instead of relying on outdated price points when planning future harvests, American onion producers could use resources like futures contracts that offer real-time market signals. All that would require—as the college kids state—is for federal lawmakers to "let the free market reign supreme."
President Trump on Monday announced a program meant to give farmers one-time payments to help "offset diesel costs" this harvest season, but it likely won't have an immediate impact.
President Trump on Monday announced a program meant to give farmers one-time payments to help "offset diesel costs" this harvest season, but it likely won't have an immediate impact.
European Union governments have agreed a negotiating position on new agricultural market rules intended to take effect under the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget, advancing reforms to support arrangements for farmers while leaving the most contentious financial questions unresolved.
The Council approved its partial negotiating mandate on Monday, 19 October, covering changes to the Common Market Organisation regulation, which governs agricultural markets across the European Union.
The proposals include new arrangements for wine producers, protein crops and oilseeds, revised marketing standards, changes to the EU school food programme and provisions intended to improve preparedness for agricultural market disruptions.
However, the agreement does not settle future funding allocations or the broader structure of agricultural subsidies, which remain under negotiation as EU governments attempt to reconcile farming expenditure with competing demands for defence, industrial investment and regional development.
Agricultural markets under review
The Council’s negotiating position retains much of the European Commission’s original proposal while introducing amendments intended to accommodate national differences in agricultural production.
Under the proposed arrangements, sector-specific interventions would become mandatory in several areas, including beekeeping, fruit and vegetables and, under certain circumstances, wine production.
The Council has also proposed flexibility for countries where particular sectors are absent or relatively undeveloped.
For the wine industry, governments would be able to seek exemptions from certain obligations where national circumstances justify different arrangements.
This would allow the framework to retain common European rules while avoiding requirements that would be inappropriate for member states with little or no domestic wine production.
Sectoral interventions form part of the mechanisms through which the EU supports agricultural markets and producer organisations. They can cover measures intended to improve competitiveness, manage production and strengthen farmers’ commercial position.
New provisions for protein crops
The Council has endorsed the establishment of a separate sector for protein crops and oilseeds, replacing existing provisions covering dried fodder.
The objective is to encourage domestic production and reduce dependence on imported agricultural inputs, particularly crops used in animal feed and food production.
European livestock producers rely on protein-rich feed ingredients, including soyabeans, that are often sourced internationally.
Greater domestic production could reduce exposure to fluctuations in global commodity prices, transport costs and disruptions to international supply chains.
Under the Council’s proposal, member states would be encouraged to recognise producer organisations specialising in protein crops and oilseeds.
Such organisations can help farmers coordinate production, marketing and investment, although the effectiveness of the proposed measures will depend on how they are implemented nationally.
The proposals follow broader EU efforts to improve supply security in sectors extending from agricultural inputs to critical industrial materials.
School food and product labelling
The negotiating mandate also preserves the EU school scheme, which provides support for the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk to schoolchildren.
Under the proposed framework, the programme would move from a school-year financing cycle to a calendar-year system, with transitional provisions intended to prevent disruption during implementation.
The Council has maintained the Commission’s objective of encouraging healthier eating habits by limiting products containing high levels of free sugars and fats.
The proposal also opens the possibility of additional marketing standards for several agricultural products, including protein crops, beef, pork, sheepmeat, goatmeat and rice.
These standards could provide consumers with more detailed information about product origins, subject to the final legislation.
Such measures would also have implications for producers and food businesses, which would need to comply with any new requirements concerning classification, marketing and labelling.
The Council additionally supports the harmonisation of rules covering industrial hemp, while retaining safeguards concerning seed certification and the permitted level of tetrahydrocannabinol.
Farming subsidies remain contested
The agricultural market agreement forms part of negotiations over the next Common Agricultural Policy, which will operate within the EU’s new seven-year financial framework.
Under the Commission’s proposed budget structure, several funding streams, including agricultural and cohesion programmes, would be brought together within national and regional partnership plans.
The restructuring has encountered opposition from governments and agricultural interests concerned that farming could lose protected access to EU funding.
As EU Today previously reported, 17 member states have called for agricultural and regional development expenditure to be protected against further reductions.
The Council’s latest position addresses how agricultural markets should operate rather than determining the size of the financial support available to them.
A separate debate concerns the conditions for receiving direct farm payments, including the definition of an active farmer and the degree of discretion granted to national governments.
Those questions remain central to the continuing CAP negotiations, which are due to return to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26–27 October.
Negotiations move to Parliament
The Council’s partial mandate now provides a basis for negotiations with the European Parliament on the agricultural market provisions.
The legislation will still require agreement between the institutions, while its financing will depend on the eventual settlement of the 2028–2034 budget.
Governments must also complete negotiations on the wider CAP framework, including direct income support and the distribution of responsibility between Brussels and national administrations.
The market agreement reached on 19 October therefore establishes important elements of the proposed agricultural rules, but leaves unresolved the level of financial support available to European farmers after 2027.
As protests ripple through big cities across the continent, a quieter, more forgotten population at Europe’s edge sits through weeks of strikes and blockades, while largely ignored.
Italy’s southern regions of Puglia, Calabria, Sicily, Molise and Basilicata are facing empty supermarket shelves and plummeting fuel supplies since transport and agriculture workers have been protesting against climbing costs of living.
Entire sectors have been put on pause due to the excessive costs it now takes to run them, from delivering food goods to producing them, for unbalanced competition with foreign suppliers and sustained neglect from Rome.
While protestors in large cities like Milan and Bologna joined a European choir of protests fighting unaffordable housing last weekend, truck drivers from Bari to Palermo have joined in blocking roads to important ports and highways connecting isolated southern regions, and denouncing the outrageous costs of fertilisers, seeds, and fuel for tractors and transport for over two weeks.
“For us, and for the community, it’s become impossible to face the costs of fuel,” Luigi Di Benedetto, manager of an agriculture company in Caltagirone, Sicily, told EUobserver.
“Italy import products that do not meet legal specifications,” he said, echoing the worries of his colleagues and fellow protestors, since the market was flooded with cheaper foreign imports, which have left them unable to pay the bills.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
President Donald Trump is heading to Kansas on Monday and Iowa later in the week, the latest in a series of stops where he's trying to energize his base in the final weeks before the midterm elections. The economic strain is becoming a growing political concern for Republicans in states they have long dominated.
Chemical fertilizers and animal waste contain nitrates and phosphorus that can get washed with rain or snowmelt into the state's rivers. That affects Iowa's more liberal urban centers which rely on rivers and lakes for drinking water.
A backlash is building against an EU ‘omnibus’ bill that seeks to make it easier to authorise and use pesticides across the bloc.
MEPs are still yet to set a date to vote on the European Commission’s proposal to extend how long pesticide active substances can stay approved in the EU, amid a series of protest letters from scientists, UN health experts, and divisions among member states.
EI parliament’s environment and agriculture committees were originally expected to hold a joint vote on a compromise text on 5 October, but shelved that date without proposing another as this article went to publication.
Sustained criticism has come from the scientific community.
Last month, a group of more than 500 scientists signed an open letter to the commission on 16 September demanding a pause on the file pending “an independent assessment, whether carried out by parliament’s own research service or by an equivalent independent body.”
They warned that the commission’s plan to extend grace periods for products withdrawn on safety grounds, widen derogations for hazardous substances, and restrict the use of the latest independent scientific evidence “seem difficult to reconcile with the precautionary principle and with obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas”.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Portuguese farmers are demanding a €140 million support package from the government, warning that rising production costs are making it increasingly difficult to compete with neighbouring Spain. Around 150 leaders
Traditional Mexican agriculture follows the ancient traditions of the “milpa”, which is a system of small-scale family agriculture that pre-dates the Spaniards arrival in Mexico, and even pre-dates the Aztec Empire.
In this simple, time-honored method of small-scale family agriculture, the milpa consists of its main crop, corn (maiz), along with other native crops that co-exist and enhance the soil along with the corn, such as heritage beans and squash.
The beans grow on vines that wrap themselves around the corn stalks, while large leafy crops such as squash and pumpkins grow and spread along the bottom close to the soil, giving weeds and other undesirable plants no chance to grow, and require no chemicals whatsoever that need to be applied to the native, heirloom crops, or the soil that they grow upon.
After harvest, the corn stalks are burned down returning key nutrients to the soil through its ashes.
Here is a short video that describes the milpa system.
Here is another 5-minute documentary produced by the UN showing how Mexicans are reviving this ancient agricultural system, mainly with women. (Note: We do not support or fund the United Nations nor any of their agencies and programs, but this is a very well-produced short documentary that is very educational regarding the “milpa”.)
Today, we are announcing another ancient, heirloom product that is produced in these small-scale milpa agricultural systems, Ayocote beans!
These ancient “super beans” are heirloom beans that have been handed down from generation to generation through families living in Mesoamerica long before the Spaniards arrived, and even before the Aztec Empire, and date back to 6000 years!
Ayeócotl (Náhuatl)
Ayocote (Phaseolus coccineus leiosepalus), also known as ayeócotl in the native náhuatl language, is a climbing legume, with pre-Hispanic origins.
It is grown by all indigenous communities of the Mexican plateau, even at over 2,000 meters above sea level. Due to its widespread presence, even in very different climate conditions, Ayocotes have developed an ample genetic variety: Mexico’s genetic resource bank preserves over 800 different known varieties.
Ayocote beans have been highly valued since ancient times for their ability to endure extreme temperatures and various altitudes, as well as for the ease with which their seeds can be preserved for years, making them essential during food shortages. There are more than 150 species of beans worldwide, but only 31 are native to Mexico.
However, bean consumption in Mexico has been declining in recent years, and there is a movement now in Mexico to preserve these ancient bean varieties, as well as other heirloom seeds such as corn.
The Mexico Daily News published an article last year (2025), highlighting this move in Mexico to preserve their native agricultural heritage which is being threatened by Big Ag and mass production of agricultural products using GMO varieties and herbicides like glyphosate.
Taste of Mexico: Beans
by María Meléndez
It is often said that Mexican culture is built on corn, but beans were as important for the development of the pre-Columbian cultures of Mesoamerica.
Excerpts:
Beans have been highly valued since ancient times for their ability to endure extreme temperatures and various altitudes, as well as for the ease with which their seeds can be preserved for years, making them essential during food shortages.
Beans were a crucial component of the milpa, an agricultural system designed to provide the three staple ingredients of the Mesoamerican diet: corn, beans and squash. This system operated in perfect harmony: corn served as a structure for the beans to climb, beans enriched the soil with nitrogen, and squash helped retain moisture throughout the season.
Are we endangering our bean tradition?
Despite being essential to our ancestors, bean consumption in Mexico has declined significantly in recent decades. In the 1980s, the average Mexican ate 16 kilos of beans yearly, while average consumption in 2024 was only 7.7 kilos, according to a 2021 report by the Ministry of Agriculture (Sader).
Several factors contribute to this decline. Preparing beans requires more time, and our consumption of meat and processed foods has increased.
Culturally, beans are often viewed as food for the poor. I remember that whenever someone in my family faced economic challenges, my grandparents would dramatically say,
“Even if we can only afford to eat beans, we will remain honorable people.”
Today, various organizations and communities are working to preserve Mexico’s native beans through the milpa system.
Additionally, in late 2024, President Claudia Sheinbaum announced that the federal government would seek to increase bean and corn production by 30% and bring attention back to endemic varieties of corn and beans in order to achieve self-sufficiency in production.
I was recently able to purchase enough of these rare, heirloom super beans to offer them to the public through Healthy Traditions.
We now have available for ordering online, Mexican Heirloom Ayocote Mixed Beans, and Mexican Heirloom Ayocote Black Beans.
I bought up their entire remaining supply, so we only have enough to sell in 5 lb. and 15 lb. sizes while supplies last, as we will not have enough to sell in bulk 5-gallon pails until early 2027, when the next harvest comes in and where I have already put in my request to purchase as much as we can.
The ancient Mexican “milpa” traditional agricultural system is very similar to the ancient agricultural systems of the Philippines I observed firsthand while living on a farm in a rural community on Mt. Banahaw with my family in the late 1990s, and first couple of years of 2000.
When I told the poor, rural farmers living in that community, most of whom were trying to get out of their rural community and go to the big city in Manila or get visas to the Middle East or the U.S. where they thought life was better and they could earn more money, that they were in fact rich due to their native, natural agricultural system, they did not believe me.
So I had to show them that what I was saying was true, by marketing the coconut oil of the “poor people” that was made by hand in their kitchen from fresh coconuts, which we call today our “Gold Label Virgin Coconut Oil,” and kicked off the Coconut Oil revolution in the U.S. as I leveraged the emerging technology of the Internet back then, educating Americans on the truth about edible oils and saturated fats.
When you buy our Gold Label Virgin Coconut Oil today, you are supporting these poor, agricultural workers who still produce this coconut oil the same way by hand.
And the same is true when you purchase our Mexican products produced from community milpa agricultural small-scale producers, like our new Ayocote Super beans!
Products produced from these ancient agricultural small-scale producers are some of the most nutrient-dense products you can purchase on the planet, and we test them also to make sure there is no cross-contamination from GMO seeds and glyphosate-sprayed crops.
Technology and AI cannot replicate the human wisdom of these small-scale farmers! Faith in modern agriculture and their mass-production of contaminated crops is what could potentially produce starvation and malnutrition.
Sustainable and nutritious agricultural systems that require human labor are what is going to be able to provide food security and be able to feed people around the world going forward, and it requires a return to the past and agricultural systems that have nourished the earth’s populations for thousands of years, and NOT the false promises of the technologists and their false techno-prophecies of the future!
To Adam he said,
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
(Genesis 3:17-19)
Do you really believe that the Technocrats can overcome the curse of God on the earth??
I don’t, and that’s why Healthy Traditions exists, to support HUMAN LABOR and ancient agricultural systems which are the ONLY hope for the future and food security.
This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)
See Also:
Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through
Last week, EU member states reached a common position on the European Commission Omnibus X ‘Food and Feed’ proposal, in a bid to simplify regulation of pesticides. In reality, however, it will weaken protection against pesticides’ negative effects in Europe. The proposal pleases the chemical industry but goes against the wishes of a vast majority of citizens and many scientists who value people’s health, clean drinking water and biodiversity.
A hearing in the European Parliament on 3 September highlighted the real problem. Under the guise of a ‘discussion with experts’ in the field of health and environment, the parliament handed the megaphone to lobbyists representing a broken, toxic agricultural model.
Representatives of industrial agriculture – sugar beet, apple and cereal growers – parroted industry arguments, justifying their demands to stop banning pesticides that are toxic to public health, the environment and pollute our water resources.
Despite Europe witnessing massive droughts, extreme heatwaves leading to countless deaths, wildfires destroying biodiversity, and devastating crop losses, it seems that a significant share of MEPs are ready and willing to accelerate the degradation of European’s wellbeing and natural resources.
Listening to them raises a fundamental question: Do farmers truly want to rely on a cocktail of toxic chemicals to maximise yields at low market prices, destroying their own health and local ecosystems in the process? Or do they wish to make an honest living, producing quality food in balance with nature for a fair income?
CAP subsidies
To better grasp this contradiction, we must look at what is actually at stake here.
Agrochemical corporations seek their share of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) cake – a colossal €58bn budget, accounting for one third of the EU’s total budget.
Their own survival is reliant on keeping as many farmers as possible dependent on pesticides, fertilisers and industrial seeds. By diverting public CAP funds through farmers into the pockets of their shareholders, these companies ensure their long-term profitability.
Many farmers’ unions also represent agri-cooperatives that profit significantly from selling pesticides, which raises questions about whether they truly represent farmers’ long-term interests, or those of the pesticide industry.
Since the European Commission published its ‘simplification’ proposal in December 2025, proponents of pesticide-intensive farming have presented a series of flawed arguments that in fact reveal the dead-end to which intensive agriculture has led us.
Firstly, farmers’ organisations complain about a “lack of pesticide substances” on the market.
Currently around 450 different pesticide active substances are approved in the EU, from insecticides to fungicides, and herbicides. If 450 different options are insufficient, does this not signal an unhealthy addiction rather than a shortage?
Lobbyist groups, furthermore, claim that pest resistance to synthetic pesticides would inevitably lead to dramatic yield losses and hunger, arguing for even more pesticides with diverse modes of action.
And yet, according to scientific research, the multiple chemical strategy that has been applied for more than 40 years is the very cause of the appearance of resistance. This problem cannot be solved with the mindset that caused it. The only scientific solution is, therefore, not more chemistry but prevention, and the use of alternative methods.
Thousands of farmers across the EU and the rest of the world are already proving this by switching towards Integrated Pest Management (a strategy for low-pesticide-input pest management) or organic practices to reduce pesticide inputs.
Who bares the cost
The call to keep all pesticides on the market – and potentially even use some of the banned ones – serves only the short-term interests of the pesticide industry, not of the farmers.
Destroying soil life – the basis of soil fertility – with chemicals, and killing insect populations that naturally control pests and pollinate crops, jeopardises the very basis of farming and long-term food security.
The societal costs of this pesticide-dependent model are staggering. Citizens are the ones who bear the healthcare costs for chronic diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s, which impact not only farmers but also residents of agricultural areas.
We face water pollution that has become nearly impossible to remediate. Fewer pollinators means fewer healthy fruit and vegetables. These ‘externalities’ far outweigh any short-term benefits.
This is the reason why the Paris and Munich water companies financially support farmers in protecting the groundwater, because doing so is up to 45 times cheaper than depollution.
In the meantime, the agrochemical industry enjoys huge profits from pesticide sales, largely supported by CAP subsidies, while society foots the bill for the damage. It is indeed a perfect business model…for them.
Lobbyist circus
The spectacle witnessed in the alleged House of European Democracy is testament to the state of our political world; one that is dominated by corporate interests over citizens and farmers’ wellbeing.
We witnessed the desperate battle of a toxic agricultural model that struggles to survive, and resists being replaced by sustainable farming methods.
The lobbyist speakers in the European Parliament hearing more or less gave the diagnosis to the current pesticide-intensive agricultural system: it is simply broken.
Citizens have repeatedly expressed their concern on the impact of pesticides on their health and biodiversity. They have also expressed the need that public support for agriculture serves the common good.
The pesticide Omnibus X proposal is merely an attempt to maintain a detrimental status quo that favours the pesticides industry.
What is needed now is a new blueprint for a system which financially supports farmers to implement practices that improve soil and plant health, favour beneficial insects, accelerate the availability of alternatives to pesticides such as biocontrol products, and rapidly phase out toxic synthetic pesticides to protect our health, water resources and biodiversity.
Only then can we ensure a sustainable future for European agriculture and our children. Only then, will a greater share of the CAP remain in the hands of farmers who feed us and protect our nature.
Questionable Argentine beef is reportedly flooding the U.S. market in an effort to lower beef prices which are soaring right now.
It is being reported that beef prices have hit record highs in the U.S. due to a cattle shortage that is worsening. (Source.)
Fortunately, Healthy Traditions customers and Health Impact News readers now have a wonderful opportunity to purchase a half cow cut into USDA certified premium cuts from our famous Galloway beef herd in western Wisconsin as we begin our Fall processing!
We only process our famous Galloway beef during a short window of time each year starting in October when the herd is still grazing on green grass. They are not only “grass fed” but also “grass finished” as we never finish them off in feedlots.
In order to secure as many head of Galloway cows this year as possible from our small-scale family farmers, for a limited time we are offering bulk half cows sent directly to you with FREE shipping.
This will allow you to store some of the finest grass-fed beef in your own freezer for a fraction of the cost it would take to place multiple orders throughout the year, and to have some food security to the rising beef prices in the U.S. due to the cattle shortages this year.
Grass-fed Traditions is one of the major product lines in my online store, Healthy Traditions, which was started almost two decades ago, working with small-scale family farmers in Western Wisconsin, most of whom are Amish.
One of the Amish families we started working with back then had an amazing herd of beef cattle that was 100% grass-fed and grass-finished, but they could only sell their beef as “organic”, which meant they got the same price per pound as beef cows raised in feedlots on “organic” grains.
One of the breeds they worked with that was available in that area of Wisconsin was the very rare Galloway breed of beef cattle.
Galloway cattle are an ancient breed that originated in the rugged hill country of southwestern Scotland. They are related to the Angus which was developed in northeastern Scotland.
While the Angus was selected for rapid growth on better feed in feedlots, the Galloway was selected for its ability to thrive on poor forage in a cold wet climate.
They are a very ancient and rare breed, numbering only about 26,000 worldwide, with most herds located in Europe. They were first imported to the United States in the 1850s and are very rare in the U.S., and we are one of the few (and possibly only) retailers offering them to the public.
The Galloway, unrivaled as a grazing breed, utilizes coarse grasses frequently shunned by other breeds. They have the ability to produce a high quality beef product directly from grass.
Results of a multi-breed research project conducted by a Canadian Government Experiment Station, reveal that the Galloway ranks second only to the Buffalo in hair density tests.
The robust, hardy nature of the Galloway is especially suited for northern harsh climates. This makes them a perfect fit for the cold, harsh winters of Western Wisconsin.
The claim that Galloway beef is juicy, tender, and flavorful is substantiated in USDA tests of Galloway crossbreds, when compared with eleven other breeds.
During the winter months they still eat only grass, but as hay, stacked in tall Amish hay stacks.
Here is a video we produced over 15 years ago, and we have practiced these same standards every year since then.
Half Cows Now Available to the Public for Bulk Purchases to Fight Rising Beef Costs!
We only process our famous Galloway beef during a short window of time each year starting in October when the herd is still grazing on green grass.
As we now approach our Fall butchering schedule, this is the ONLY TIME all year that you can purchase a half cow, by pre-ordering it before we start butchering to reserve your own portion.
This will allow you to store some of the finest grass-fed American beef in your own freezer for a fraction of the cost it would take to place multiple orders throughout the year, if supplies even last through the whole year (2027), which will depend upon consumer demand and beef supplies available throughout the U.S.
For each of these options you will need to plan to have approximately 4.5 cu. ft. of chest freezer or a 5.5 cu. ft. upright freezer space to store your beef.
Each of these options represents approximately a half a cow portion from one of our prime Galloway steers that are roughly 2 years of age. Your half will include 150 pounds of beef and will be delivered cut and packaged.
We are offering an amazing price of only $17.99 lb. DELIVERED to you with FREE Shipping!
When you buy a half cow, your price per lb. is the same for all of the cuts.
So a $60 per lb. retail price on a premium steak like a filet, for example, is the same price per lb. as your ground beef, which in this package is your delivered price including shipping.
All 4 options come with 3-4 day shipping included for most locations within the lower 48 states. Our shipping boxes are made from non-Styrofoam insulation and can be composted, or it will breakdown in the trash very quickly. We pack each box with a large amount of dry ice to ensure it will make it to your door without getting above a safe temperature.
Our first processing date will be before the end of October, and this is a first-come first-serve offer whiles supplies last, as our farmers have a limited amount of cattle to be processed. So to reserve your bulk purchase, please order right away while these half cows are available.
If there are more cows available in November, we might be able to offer more of these packages by the end of November.
DISCLAIMER: Brian Shilhavy is the Editor of Health Impact News, and the founder and CEO of Healthy Traditions. Everything published on the Health Impact News network is available to the public free of charge, with a Creative Commons license offered to all who wish to republish my articles, with attribution, free of charge, as I earn my income from Healthy Traditions.
Healthy Traditions, originally Tropical Traditions, has served customers in the U.S. for over 24 years. Learn more here about the obstacles we have overcome for over 2 decades:
Santorini is much more than white houses, blue domes, and beautiful sunsets. The volcanic island holds treasures and stories known to few. One of these is a unique dwarf tomato that locals call “tomataki.” This is no ordinary vegetable; it is a true natural wonder. There is almost no fresh water on Santorini, and rainfall […]
Seventeen EU governments have joined forces to defend agricultural and regional funding in the bloc’s next seven-year budget, setting up a confrontation with Germany and five other countries demanding substantial reductions to the European Commission’s proposed €2 trillion spending plan.
Seventeen European Union countries have called for agriculture and cohesion funding to be protected from further cuts as negotiations over the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget enter a decisive phase.
In a letter dated 2 October to Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, whose government currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, the countries said the overall financing of Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy should be maintained in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The signatories are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
The initiative follows months of coordination by the so-called Friends of Cohesion. In an earlier joint position published by the Spanish government, members argued that cohesion, agriculture and fisheries remained central EU policies and called for new EU revenue sources to be “genuine, fair, simple and non-regressive”.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Romanian President Nicușor Dan have been coordinating the group at leaders’ level. They are expected to convene another informal meeting alongside the European Council on 15–16 October. The two leaders previously brought the group together ahead of the June European Council as governments sought to coordinate their positions on the budget.
The intervention places the group in direct opposition to Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden.
Those six governments have argued that the Commission’s near-€2 trillion proposal should be reduced by several hundred billion euros. In their joint statement on the 2028–2034 budget, they said national governments were already undertaking fiscal consolidation and that the EU budget could not be exempt from similar pressure. They called for reductions across all spending headings while giving greater weight to security, defence, competitiveness, migration and sovereignty.
The Commission’s original proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework amounts to almost €2 trillion in current prices, equivalent to 1.26 per cent of the EU’s average gross national income over the seven-year period. It substantially restructures the budget, bringing agriculture, cohesion, fisheries, migration and internal security into national and regional partnership plans while allocating more money to competitiveness, research, defence and other emerging priorities.
Agriculture and regional development have consequently become two of the most sensitive parts of the negotiations.
The Council has already backed the principle of the new national and regional plans, but financial allocations remain unresolved. Its negotiating position specifically leaves the money to be settled as part of the overall MFF talks.
EU Today has followed the dispute since the Cyprus presidency produced a negotiating framework in June that proposed reducing the Commission’s plan by about €32.8bn. The disagreement has since widened as governments attempt to reconcile traditional spending on farmers and poorer regions with growing demands for defence, industrial competitiveness and security.
Revenue is another source of disagreement.
The Commission has proposed five new EU own resources, including revenue connected to the Emissions Trading System and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a contribution based on uncollected electronic waste, a tobacco excise resource and a contribution from large companies operating in the EU. The proposals are intended partly to reduce reliance on national contributions and help finance repayment of pandemic-era borrowing.
EU Today previously examined the dispute over new sources of EU revenue after leaders asked the Irish presidency to develop financing options alongside negotiations over expenditure.
The Friends of Cohesion have also called for a more gradual repayment schedule for NextGenerationEU borrowing and oppose retaining contribution rebates for wealthier member states. Under the Commission proposal, repayments of principal and interest would amount to a fixed €24bn annually between 2028 and 2034, or €168bn across the seven-year budget period.
Ireland now faces the task of narrowing the gap.
The Council’s timetable for the negotiations envisages the Irish presidency advancing the next negotiating framework ahead of the October European Council, with governments seeking a political agreement before the end of 2026. That would leave 2027 for adoption of the legislation required before the new budget takes effect on 1 January 2028.
An agreement among governments will require unanimity. The European Parliament must then give its consent, while the separate decision governing the EU’s own resources also requires unanimous approval by member states and ratification according to their national constitutional procedures.
With 17 governments now explicitly defending agriculture and cohesion spending and six major contributors demanding substantial reductions, the October summit will bring the central budget dispute directly before EU leaders.
The European Union once prided itself on leading the world in protecting children. Today, policymakers backed by big polluters are betraying that promise in the name of “competitiveness”.
In June 2026, Florence, Franck, and Isabelle packed their bags and headed to Brussels. Why? Because their children have all suffered serious harm from pesticides.
These children have endured physical pain and heavy medical procedures, including repeated chemotherapy treatments. And their families have shouldered both the financial and emotional burdens alongside them.
As Isabelle puts it: “It destroys a family.” Her own daughter has been fighting leukaemia for the last seven years.
And they are not alone. In 2024, almost one in 20 children in the EU were exposed to dangerous levels of pesticides; that’s 380,000 kids. Now these parents have a clear message for policymakers: prioritise public health and stop dismantling the rules that protect children against harmful substances.
In 2024, around 316,000 tonnes of toxic pesticides were sold in the EU to be sprayed across our countryside, risking not only the health of farmers but also polluting our soil, air and water.
The European Environment Agency in Copenhagen has reported environmentally unsafe levels of pesticides in about a quarter of Europe’s rivers. In groundwater – which supplies 65 percent of the water we drink in Europe – unsafe levels were detected in 11-18 percent of water bodies.
In the same year, trifluoroacetic acid, a harmful “forever chemical” that forms when ‘PFAS’ pesticides and F-gases break down, showed up in 94 percent of drinking water samples tested across 11 EU countries.
We are surrounded by pesticide pollution. It’s even in our homes.
Source: US Geological Survey/Wikimedia
But what’s happening in Brussels?
In December 2025, the European Commission proposed a legislative package that would remove fundamental environmental and health protections against pesticides in the EU.
Among other changes, the proposal – ironically labelled the ‘Food and Feed Safety’ Omnibus – suggests extending pesticide approvals indefinitely and relaxing the rules to allow pesticides already identified as hazardous to remain on the EU market.
Let that sink in, no pun intended.
These proposals are a political choice to prioritise short-term profits for Big Polluters over children’s lives, people’s health, and the nature and ecosystems we need to survive.
Human health is at stake, and children are at particular risk – as they absorb substances more easily and are less able to excrete them.
Pesticide exposure is linked to the development of childhood cancers, hormone disruption, neurodevelopmental impairments and birth defects. And prenatal and early childhood exposure can permanently alter development, with consequences that can be irreversible – and deadly.
Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the UN-declared human right to a healthy environment, all EU countries must commit to protecting children from environmental harm and ensure the highest attainable standard of health.
These principles must guide the work of EU institutions.
Yet, instead of strengthening protections, the EU is moving backwards at a worrying speed. This is largely due to intense (and repeated) lobbying from multi-billion euro corporations, which includes the pesticides industry. Corporate chemical giants now spend €46m a year just to lobby the EU; that’s over 60 percent more than in 2020.
Make it make sense
The incoherence of current EU policy is troubling. On the one hand, the EU Commission is celebrating its new Intergenerational Fairness Strategy – a framework that is meant to ensure today’s policies do not disadvantage future generations. On the other, the same institution is actively seeking to relax controls of harmful substances.
Ripping up rules that protect people and the planet only benefits Big Polluters, industries that already make billions in profits at the expense of children’s health.
What’s more, an independent assessment found that the measures the EU institutions propose “will not accelerate innovations and authorisations”. In short, these proposals would actually make Europe less competitive.
Children’s rights and youth organisations have warned that deregulation exposes children to serious (and preventable) health risks. And the international scientific community recently stressed that robust environmental risk assessments cannot be optional.
Ultimately, Europe should widen and accelerate its access to pesticide-free alternatives. It must also support farmers in their efforts to transition away from pesticides, towards a more sustainable and resilient model.
So, what can be done? First, the EU must close the tap on pesticide use and production, and support farmers transitioning to safer alternatives. Second, it’s time for leaders to hold Big Polluters accountable for the damage they cause – not force the bill onto regular taxpayers and families harmed by these toxic substances.
Florence, Franck, and Isabelle’s children are among the hundreds of thousands already affected by pesticides. And they show that victims of pesticides are not just a statistic.
The ‘Food and Feed Safety Omnibus’ raises fundamental questions. Who exactly is the EU’s food policy supposed to protect? How many more children need to be harmed for politicians to act? And what kind of future do EU institutions want to build?
Should pesticide protections be treated as obstacles to short-term profits, or should children be able to grow up safely?
Politicians should reject this devastating Omnibus proposal and work instead to support the EU’s transition to safe, sustainable, and resilient farming.
Login
