We must stop foreigners from stealing our food supply–that is the claim of the co-sponsors of SB312 for wanting to pass this bad bill. SB312 would limit all alien and foreign ownership of agricultural acreage in Arkansas to one percent (1%) of the state’s total ag acres. SB312 defines ag land as tracts larger than five acres used for the production of ag crops, fruit, horticultural products, feeding or raising livestock, poultry and dairy. Timber and forest lands are arguably excluded. SB312 is not good for farmers, the owners of farmland, nor the Arkansas economy—It needs to fail!
This bill is set to be heard first-up this morning (March 2, 2021) at 9:30AM by the Senate Agriculture Committee. Please be sure to reach out to your senators and tell them to vote NO to this awful bill. The following senators make up the Ag Committee: Ron Caldwell, Chair; Ricky Hill, Vice-Chair; Bill Sample; Dave Wallace; Greg Leding; James Sturch; Charles Beckham; and Ben Gilmore. Call, text, or email each of them to vote “Against” SB312!!
****
When asked what problem prompted the filing of SB312, the main sponsor, Senator Blake Johnson (R-Corning), replied that he and co-sponsor, Senator Mat Pitsch (R-Ft Smith), are wanting “to protect the state’s and national food supply.”
He assured me that the bill does not get sideways of foreign investment for development in Arkansas (assumed referring to the likes of China or Walmart) but protects the American food production.
Let me give you a few facts that show compelling reasons the bill, as written, is NOT needed to “protect our state and national food supply.”
1-Foreign ownership of farmland in Arkansas is not a problem. We have never had laws prohibiting a specific group from owning farmland in Arkansas. Since the land patents (starting in 1812), foreign investment in Arkansas cropland over a period of more than 200 years, has only grown to 291,423 acres of the total 28,129,519 ag acres in the state according to USDA.
This same USDA report shows another 773,075 acres of forest/timber ag land is foreign owned as of the end of 2019. Apparently, the bill sponsors see that as “okay” as SB312 seems to exclude timber lands, since not “used” in food production.
2- Just because “other states” are doing it, that is not a reason for us to join them, especially considering the influence of China and Walmart in Arkansas? SB312’s sponsors may point to “example” states such as Missouri (183,471 foreign owned cropland acres), Iowa (276,438 foreign owned cropland acres), and North Dakota (foreign owned 196,619 cropland) which all have foreign farm ownership restrictions. Yet according to the USDA, their cropland acres owned by foreigners are similar in number to Arkansas’ (291,423 foreign owned cropland acres), a state that currently has a free marketplace (see Report 3 of USDA).
When questioned, Sen. Johnson stated that Missouri has had a similar law since the late 1970’s. However, Missouri passed an exception to the law in order for a Communist Chinese company to buy farmland in their state. (It was claimed that Communist China has exerted influence on the Missouri legislature to gain their exception.) Like Missouri, it is doubted the Arkansas legislature would resist pressure from the Communist Chinese when it wants to be the only exception to foreigners buying farmland in Arkansas—especially considering the influence of China’s business partner, Walmart.
3- Arkansas farmland does not really ‘feed’ Arkansas. It mostly feeds foreign countries, creates jobs, and supports the state economy. Arkansas farmers produce massive crops every year and overwhelmingly export those crops around the world…being the country’s 16th largest agricultural exporting state, shipping $3.2 billion in domestic ag exports abroad in 2017 (latest data). A single year’s agricultural production in Arkansas would “feed” the population of this state (and much of the nation) for years. When viewed objectively, without the lens of emotion, the facts simply do not support SB312’s sponsors’ claims that foreign ownership of the state’s farmland endangers our food supply.
4-This bill harms the Arkansas economy. It prevents new investment from coming to the state with ripple effects across the entire economy. Many acres of cropland in Arkansas have the potential (or need) to be improved. When done, this keeps Arkansas competitive with other ag states. Foreign investors often buy underdeveloped land and then invest resources into improving its efficiency and productivity. This puts Arkansans to work–contractors in the irrigation, land leveling, excavating, grain systems, and in many other areas all benefit from work provided by foreign investment funds flowing into Arkansas agriculture. These land improvements benefit the farmers who lease the land, as the farm produces greater crop yields. Additional buyers include foreign owned seed, chemical, and specialty food companies. These add to the GDP and create jobs. Under SB312, land acquisitions by companies willing to invest in Arkansas’ cropland for research or specialty food production will be stopped short.
5-This bill keeps land values lower. So again, we heard the stated purpose behind this bill? However, to some, with the foreign buyer out of the way, many in the state will have a better shot at buying farmland at a lower price. Often the foreign buyers may be willing to pay more for land than the local neighbor, simply to enter the market. This drives up the prices. And actually, without the competition of the foreign buyer, the likes of the big TECH billionaire, Bill Gates, has a better chance of buying farmland in Arkansas at lower prices. This bill certainly will keep land prices lower in our state, especially for the smaller landowner who needs to sell.
6-While we are passing laws to keep our own farmland in the family, why not also limit foreign ownership of timber/forest land and other stuff? In fact, why not limit all foreign ownership of any type of business in the state, if we’re going to limit who can own farmland? Currently, China is the state’s biggest foreign owner of forest/timber land. (See Clark County, Arkansas on Report 3 at page 117 of USDA – 0 acres of cropland owned by foreigners with a staggering 172,815 acres of forest/timber land owned by foreigners (mostly CHINESE)). Arkansas relies on the consumption of more of its own lumber than it consumes its own row crop products. So, while we are at it, why not protect our state’s timber from foreign ownership? Is it possible that the state legislature is not interested in resisting Communist Chinese investments in Arkansas?
7-Growing government while repressing competition would be the result of this bill. SB312 would cost money, expand government, and create more bureaucracy. The bill requires the Department of Ag to set the rules for who can own what, where, for how long, and under what terms. This approach is a slippery slope that GROWS GOVERNMENT AND LIMITS COMPETION, not to mention–invites lawsuits. How can “rules” be set that are fair to both sellers and buyers of Arkansas farmland? Who is going to decide which foreign buyer is approved or disapproved? What if ownership is .999% and there are multiple sellers who have potential foreign buyers? Who decides which transaction will be allowed under this arbitrary 1% ownership rule? To make ownership more difficult with laws, regulations, paperwork, and legal fees, this bill serves to favor the “shut down competition” mentality within the State at the expense of landowners who wish to sell their land in an open and free marketplace.
8-So who do we prefer to buy the farmland in Arkansas, our likeminded big tech billionaire, Bill Gates? Many legislative Republican votes and bill ideas seem to mimic those of the left this session. The bill’s sponsors may agree with former Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and her platform for a federal law which mirror’s this bill.
Big Tech, Bill Gates, now owns 47,927 cropland acres in Arkansas and a whopping 242,000 farmland acres across the US. Often conservatives disagree with him. What if he decides he needs more farmland in Arkansas and that the population needs to go on a big “diet.” What do we do then? Be relieved we kept out the Canadians and Argentines?
Regardless of the real reason for SB312, the stated purpose of “protecting our state’s food supply from foreign control” cannot be assumed to be a reasonable answer to a non-existent problem. Any threat to losing one’s land is always emotional. Add the thought of a food shortage to it, then it becomes unreasonable. This entire premise makes the skeptic think—this is nothing more than politician speak for “I’m going to create this big scary problem and then save my voters by passing a new law to prevent said scary problem from being a problem.”
Conclusion:
If we really wanted to eliminate our enemies from owning our food supply, we would pass a law that does not blanketly limit the sale of farmland to all aliens or foreigners but would prevent any sales to those foreign investors who are specifically declared our enemies, such as those listed under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (e.g. Cuba) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (e.g. Iran, Syria, Russia, and China, to name a few.)
SB312 should not make it out of the Arkansas Senate Ag Committee, as it is bad for business in Arkansas, and it is bad for the people of Arkansas. Call, text, or email your legislator and tell them to vote “Against” SB312!!
