Across the world, family farms—long the backbone of agricultural independence and community resilience—are under siege. In the United States, grain prices have been suppressed for years, pushing small farmers to the brink of financial ruin. In the United Kingdom, punitive “tractor taxes” and regulatory burdens are squeezing rural livelihoods. In the European Union, draconian “green” policies, while cloaked in environmental virtue, are rendering profitable farming nearly impossible. The pattern is unmistakable: independent farmers are being systematically driven out, their land snapped up by massive agribusinesses that can weather the economic storm. This consolidation of food production into fewer hands threatens not only the livelihoods of farmers but the autonomy of entire populations. History offers a grim warning: centralized control of agriculture, as seen in the Soviet Union’s Holodomor, can lead to famine—whether by design or neglect. Is this a coordinated international effort to control food, and thus people, by dismantling the independence of small-scale farming?
The American Agricultural Crisis: A Slow-Motion Collapse
In the U.S., family farms are disappearing at an alarming rate. Since the 1980s, the number of farms has plummeted from over 2.2 million to just under 2 million, with small and mid-sized operations hit hardest. Grain prices, a critical lifeline for many farmers, have remained stubbornly low—often below the cost of production. For example, corn prices hovered around $3.50-$4.50 per bushel in recent years, while production costs frequently exceed $5 per bushel. Soybeans and wheat tell a similar story. Meanwhile, input costs—fertilizer, fuel, and equipment—have skyrocketed, with fertilizer prices alone surging over 100% in some cases since 2020.
This economic vise is no accident. Subsidies and trade policies disproportionately favor large agribusinesses, which can absorb losses through scale, vertical integration, and access to capital. The 2018 Farm Bill, for instance, funneled nearly 70% of subsidy payments to the top 10% of farms, leaving smaller operations to scrape by. As family farms fold, their land is gobbled up by corporate giants like Cargill, ADM, and Bayer-Monsanto, which now dominate seed, fertilizer, and grain markets. The result? A handful of corporations control an ever-larger share of the food supply, reducing competition and farmer autonomy.
Could this be intentional? Suppressed prices and skewed policies seem designed to force small farmers out, consolidating land and power into fewer hands. A less independent farming class means a population more reliant on corporate-controlled food systems—easier to manipulate, easier to control.
A Global Pattern: UK and EU Farmers Under Attack
The assault on family farms isn’t confined to the U.S. In the UK, farmers face a so-called “tractor tax,” part of inheritance tax reforms introduced in 2024 that remove agricultural property relief for estates over £1 million. For family farms, where land and equipment easily exceed this threshold, passing the farm to the next generation now incurs crippling tax bills—often forcing sales. The National Farmers’ Union estimates this could affect 70% of UK farms, many of which operate on thin margins. Combined with post-Brexit trade disruptions and rising energy costs, UK farmers are being pushed toward extinction.
In the EU, “green” policies under the European Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy impose stringent regulations on fertilizer use, pesticide application, and emissions. While lauded by green politicians feigning concern for the environment, these mandates ignore the realities of farming. Dutch farmers, for example, face nitrogen reduction targets that could shutter up to 30% of livestock farms. In Ireland, similar rules threaten the dairy sector. Compliance costs are crushing, and smaller farms—lacking the capital to adapt—bear the brunt. Meanwhile, large agribusinesses, with legal teams and economies of scale, navigate these regulations with ease, snapping up distressed farms in the process.
The parallels are striking: policies framed as progressive or necessary are disproportionately harming small farmers, paving the way for corporate consolidation. Whether by design or incompetence, the outcome is the same—fewer independent farmers, more centralized control.
The Historical Precedent: Soviet Consolidation and the Holodomor
Centralized control of agriculture is not a new strategy, and its consequences are catastrophic. In the Soviet Union, the collectivization of agriculture in the 1920s and 1930s aimed to consolidate food production under state control. Independent farmers, or kulaks, were vilified, stripped of their land, and often executed or exiled. The result was inefficiency, mismanagement, and the Holodomor—a man-made famine in Ukraine from 1932-1933 that killed up to 7 million people. Centralized planning prioritized political goals over practical realities, leading to crop failures, supply chain breakdowns, and mass starvation. Many historians assert this was a deliberate, planned genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Today’s consolidation, while less overtly violent, echoes this pattern. As family farms vanish, food production concentrates in the hands of a few corporations or state-aligned entities. This creates vulnerabilities: a single supply chain disruption, policy misstep, or natural disaster could cascade into food shortages. Even without intentional malice, the loss of diversified, local farming increases the risk of famine-like outcomes. If intentional, the implications are chilling—a food system controlled by a handful of players could be weaponized to enforce compliance, as food becomes a lever of power.
An International Plan for Control?
The synchronized nature of these agricultural crises raises questions. Why are family farmers in the U.S., UK, and EU facing similar pressures at the same time? Is it coincidence, or part of a broader agenda? Global institutions like the World Economic Forum and UN agencies have pushed for “sustainable” agriculture that often aligns with corporate interests. Initiatives like the UN’s 2030 Agenda emphasize centralized solutions, large-scale systems, and technological fixes—domains where agribusiness giants thrive. Small farmers, with their localized knowledge and resistance to top-down control, are obstacles to this vision.
Consolidation offers clear benefits for those seeking control. A population dependent on a few food producers is less resilient, less rebellious. Historical regimes, from feudal lords to Soviet commissars, understood that controlling food means controlling people. Today, the tools are subtler—taxes, regulations, and market manipulation—but the goal appears unchanged. By dismantling independent farming, governments and corporations could create a world where dissent is stifled by the threat of hunger.
The Path Forward: Resistance Through Resilience
If this theory holds, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Family farms are more than economic units; they’re bastions of independence, local knowledge, and food security. To resist consolidation, farmers and consumers must act. Farmers can form cooperatives to share resources and bypass corporate middlemen. Consumers can support local agriculture through farmers’ markets and direct purchasing. Policy changes—like reforming subsidies to prioritize small farms or easing regulatory burdens—could level the playing field.
The alternative is grim: a world where food production is monopolized, and independence is a relic. History shows that centralized control of agriculture invites disaster, whether through famine or oppression. The erosion of family farms isn’t just an economic tragedy—it’s a step toward a future where control, not sustenance, defines the food system. The time to act is now, before the last independent farmer is forced to sell.
