Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.
As China Retaliates Against Tariffs, U.S. Soybean Farmers Face Losses
China’s decision to suspend U.S. soybean purchases in response to the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese goods is having severe consequences for American farmers—especially in North Dakota, where more than 70 percent of soybean exports previously went to China, the New York Times reports.
With harvest season fast approaching, the absence of Chinese demand is triggering financial distress across the state. Jordan Gackle, a local farmer, estimates a US$400,000 loss for his 2,300-acre farm this year. “If this continues, foreclosures could follow,” Gackle says, worrying the situation could rival the 1980s farm crisis.
According to John Newton, agricultural economist at Terrain, export commitments for the upcoming soybean harvest are at their lowest since 2018–19. Meanwhile, production costs are rising. According to the American Soybean Association, expenses for fertilizer, chemicals, land, and equipment are increasing—while commodity prices decline.
Farmers are also struggling with uncertainty. Christie Jaeger says she’s never before had to worry about whether her crops would find a market. Since the tariffs came into effect, Jaeger has been concerned about loan payments and income.
In August, President Trump urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to increase U.S. soybean purchases on social media, but no agreements have followed. “If there’s no deal in the next few weeks, this turns from a one-year issue into a multiyear problem,” says Just Sherlock, President of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association.
Some groups are still working to preserve trade ties. The North Dakota Soybean Council hosted a Chinese trade delegation in August. “The lines of communication are open,” said Scott German, a farmer and director for the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association, urging leaders to “get the politics out of it.”
Meanwhile, China is meeting its soybean needs elsewhere. According to traders, Chinese importers have booked 7.4 million metric tons of mostly South American soybeans for October—nearly all of the country’s projected demand for the month.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a case concerning the legality of Trump’s tariffs, and will begin hearing arguments on November 5.
EPA Proposes Rollback of Emissions Reporting Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed eliminating a program requiring over 8,000 major emitters—including power plants, refineries, and industrial manufacturers—to publicly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The EPA announced plans to reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), a 15-year-old program, earlier this year. The recently released proposed rule aims to remove all GHG reporting requirements, except those subject to the Waste Emissions Charge (WEC).
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says the program is “nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality.” According to Zeldin, the EPA is not legally required under the Clean Air Act to collect greenhouse gas data from industry. The EPA estimates the proposed rollback would save US$303 million annually from 2025 through 2033.
The proposed rule would end reporting requirements across more than 40 sectors and delay reporting for oil and gas facilities until 2034. The remaining WEC disclosures are a methane fee created by the Inflation Reduction Act. But a recent amendment in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act limits the WEC’s scope to data reported for 2034 and later.
Critics argue the rollback could significantly undermine transparency and climate progress. “The proposal gives polluters the secrecy they want in violation of the law,” says David Doniger, a senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Since its launch in 2009, the GHGRP has helped track a 20 percent reduction in industrial carbon emissions. In a letter calling on the EPA to reverse course on its GHGRP plans, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) emphasized the data’s value for investors, scientists, and regulators. “These data inform our national GHG inventory, support international emissions reporting obligations, and serve as the de facto standard for many companies’ climate disclosures in the absence of industry-wide methodologies,” Whitehouse says.
Carbon Capture Coalition Executive Director Jessie Stolark warns the rule could also threaten investments linked to the Section 45Q carbon capture tax credit, which relies on GHGRP data.
A virtual public hearing will be held on October 1, 2025 and the EPA will accept public comments until November 3, 2025.
Unsustainable Practices Pose Major Financial Risks, Report Finds
Environmental degradation could carry a price tag of up to US$430 billion per year for eight major global industries, according to a new report from Ceres. The analysis, Nature’s Price Tag, identifies the five leading drivers of nature loss—land-use change, resource exploitation, pollution, climate change, and invasive species—and quantifies how these forces are already impacting the private sector.
The report estimates that unsustainable practices and the resulting ecosystem disruptions could cost food-related businesses US$253 billion annually. These costs stem from pollinator decline, drought, soil erosion, pollution, and more. Meryl Richards, Program Director for Food and Forests at Ceres, describes the risks from inaction as “staggering.”
Ceres points to recent examples to illustrate how these risks are already materializing. Droughts in major coffee-producing countries like Brazil and Vietnam have reduced yields, driving arabica prices to record highs earlier this year. In retail, Walmart reported that 14 percent of its global facilities are exposed to hurricanes and 16 percent to flooding—hazards that have already caused tens of millions of dollars in damages to storefronts and supply chains. Darden Restaurants, which owns Olive Garden and other chains, experienced a US$4–5 million increase in operating costs due to a spike in lettuce prices caused by crop disease and poor weather.
According to the report, these examples underscore a broader trend: natural systems are deteriorating, and businesses that fail to respond may face growing financial volatility. Ceres calls on investors and corporations to proactively assess and disclose nature-related risks in financial decision-making, suggesting that ignoring ecological pressures may ultimately undermine long-term profitability.
“Nature loss is not just an ecological issue—it’s an economic one,” the report concludes.
Malawi Government Supports Generative AI to Assist Farmers Amid Climate Pressures
The government of Malawi is backing a new generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) pilot program designed to help smallholder farmers adapt to intensifying climate challenges, Associated Press reports. Led by the international nonprofit TechnoBrain, the project aims to improve farmer decision-making by providing locally tailored information via generative AI tools that do not require internet access.
Malawi’s agriculture-dependent economy has suffered repeated setbacks from droughts, floods, and erratic rainfall. In 2024, the country’s GDP growth fell to 1.8 percent due to a severe El Niño-induced drought, and poverty rates rose to over 71 percent, according to the World Bank. Meanwhile, over 80 percent of Malawians rely on agriculture for their livelihoods.
The AI initiative enables farmers to ask questions about planting schedules, pest control, soil health, and other topics through mobile phones. The system responds in local languages using information generated from expert sources and validated by agricultural researchers. Farmers can access the system offline through locally installed servers, making it usable in remote areas without stable internet.
In one pilot community, farmers say the tool has helped them adapt crop schedules to climate forecasts and make more informed decisions. “Before, we planted crops based on how things have always been done,” one farmer explains. “Now, we plant based on what we know will work this season.”
WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement Enters Into Force
The first part of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) treaty prohibiting harmful fisheries subsidies entered into force on September 15, 2025, following its ratification by more than two-thirds of member countries. The agreement, adopted in June 2022 after over 20 years of negotiations, is WTO’s first binding multilateral accord focused on environmental sustainability.
The agreement establishes a set of binding prohibitions and rules that seek to ensure that the support provided by governments to their fishing sector does not undermine the sustainability of marine resources. Specifically, it prohibits government subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, the exploitation of overfished stocks, and unregulated high seas fishing. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, certain subsidies can incentivize unsustainable levels of fishing and contribute to the depletion of fish stocks.
Fishing provides livelihoods and food security to an estimated 600 million people. Yet the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 35 percent of fishery stocks are exploited beyond sustainable levels. The agreement aims to help reverse this trend by curbing harmful incentives and enhancing transparency in fisheries management.
Manuel Barange, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s Assistant Director-General and head of its Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, calls the agreement “very positive for the sustainability of fisheries resources, which we all depend on.” UNCTAD Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan calls it “a reminder of what becomes possible when multilateralism meets political will.” The Pew Charitable Trusts praised the agreement’s ratification, calling it a landmark deal.
However, some organizations are concerned about loopholes. Countries are not obligated to investigate IUU fishing or to penalize violations, and governments can continue subsidizing unassessed or “managed” overfished stocks. And part one of the agreement, known as “Fish One,” will expire in four years unless WTO members reach consensus on broader reforms.
“There are weaknesses and gaps, and there’s still work to be done, but this is the start of the WTO trying to have a positive impact on environmental sustainability,” says Daniel Skerritt, a senior analyst at U.S.-based conservation NGO Oceana.
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Paul Einerhand, Unsplash
