How do I get a seat at the table? When negotiations affect my family or our way of life, that’s always the first question I ask. Oil and gas leases, pipelines, wind farms, eminent domain issues, farm policy rules and Texas Department of Agriculture issues—the list goes on. How do I inject myself and the interests I represent into the negotiating process? Participation is at the core of our democracy, and in this country, we have the great privilege of being able to exercise the right to be heard by those in power.

As a farmer and rancher from Beeville, Texas, I am particularly passionate about speaking up about the policies, laws and regulations that impact the American agriculture producer. With each passing election, rural and agricultural representation diminishes and policies are increasingly designed by those with limited exposure to the real issues facing folks like me.

It is on us and our trade associations to educate lawmakers and explain to folks who all too often have little or no idea how things actually work in commercial production agriculture. Fortunately, our democracy affords us that opportunity. My advocacy for the American farmer has taken this plain country boy to the state legislature in Austin, to Capitol Hill and the White House. When policy and politics collide, it is our job to do our best with the cards we are dealt and help craft the best rules and regulations we can.

As many farmers and ranchers across the country know, there is one arena that is increasingly dictating farm policies in which we currently have no voice. Courts across the country have issued rulings that overturn existing agricultural rules and regulations or have rewritten them entirely.

This country’s judicial system was designed to be insulated from political influence, yet many single-issue interest groups have begun to identify sympathetic courts where judges or juries can affect agricultural policies without hearing a farmer’s perspective.

Take, for instance, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. In 2015, this court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency’s registration of the insecticide sulfoxaflor (the active ingredient in Transform) was invalid due to insufficient studies on its impact on bee populations. This ruling came amid a crisis for Texas grain sorghum producers; the sugarcane aphid was decimating sorghum crops across my region in South Texas and sulfoxaflor was one of the only products capable of safely treating it.

Even though bees do not pollinate grain sorghum, this court moved to craft policies that precluded my ability to protect my own operation. Fortunately for sorghum producers, Dow, assisted by National Sorghum Producers, was able to successfully navigate the problem and Transform has become a staple product for both sorghum and cotton.

Unfortunately, not everything has or will end this well. Everyone has seen the recent cases against Roundup, and Bayer stock has dropped precipitously after the results of civil jury trials awarding millions despite the science being clear that glyphosate is safe. Will glyphosate be pulled from the market because of these cases?

Similar cases are being talked about against the triazine class. When the court system is used to circumvent the regulatory process, what is our recourse? Back to our question; how do we get a seat at the table to affect policy that is being dictated by individuals and small interest groups through the court system?

At a meeting of the Southwest Council of Agribusiness (SWCA)—of which I currently serve as past president—I had discussions with representatives of the Texas Grain Sorghum Association about these questions and the dangerous precedent these cases set. SWCA is a diverse alliance of agricultural organizations comprised of major commodity groups, financial institutions and other businesses across the greater southwestern United States.

While Texas Sorghum started this conversation, the board of directors quickly recognized this was a concern that stood to impact all producers. In 2017, we established a small committee made up of various member organizations to explore ways for the producer’s voice to be heard in this emerging arena.

After months of research and deliberation, our committee arrived at the concept of a Producers’ Defense Initiative. In essence, this is a legal defense fund—an entity organized to collect money to cover attorneys’ fees, amicus brief filing costs and other legal expenses. The core of the Producers’ Defense Initiative is right there in its name—this is a mechanism financed by producers for the sole purpose of defending producers.

The registrants for many of the products at risk in the 9th Circuit Court already established legal resources to ensure their participation in the judicial process. Activist groups certainly have the legal resources available to make their case in court. It is the voice of the American producer, the purchaser and user of these products and the operator of the land being regulated who are absent from the courtroom.

Once established, this legal defense fund could aggregate funding for a variety of means of legal participation. The first option is the drafting of amicus briefs, which are supporting documents contributed by entities who are not party to the case but have a strong interest in its outcome.

Some legal defense funds use resources to conduct workshops where they educate lawyers and the public on certain emerging legal issues. Another option would be to retain legal counsel and actually bring litigation against parties who have recklessly targeted American agriculture.

All of these methods and more are on the table with our Producers’ Defense Initiative, but because this is a producer-oriented venture, we are still focused on building up from the grassroots level to flesh out its structure.

This concept was well-received by the SWCA and was given the green light to explore its construction. Since then, we have met with many other organizations—comparable legal defense funds, potential partners in revenue collections and experts in the field of environmental and agricultural law—to discern a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities on this path. While there are challenges, we have yet to meet with anyone who did not wholeheartedly agree this is a great idea for the American farmer and rancher.

We have a lot of work left to do before you can see the name “Producers’ Defense Initiative” on a case citation. If you have read this far with interest, it does not take a lot of imagination to create complicated questions and have grave concerns over unintended consequences and pitfalls.

We’re still taking meetings with interested allies and are always ready to listen to other producers with ideas on how to make it better. I believe, though, the reason we have received this much support and enthusiasm is because we all recognize the importance of speaking up for ourselves. Whether it is in Austin, Washington, D.C., or a courthouse in San Francisco, we need a seat at the table.

Matt and his wife Shambryn grow grain sorghum, cotton and corn on their farm in South Texas. He is the past president of the Southwest Council of Agribusiness and is an active member of the South Texas Cotton and Grain Association and the National Cotton Council, advocating often on behalf of the agriculture industry.

###

This story originally appeared in the Fall 2019 Issue of Sorghum Grower magazine as a Feature story.