Farmers Losing Trust in USDA Surveys

The Denver Post, carrying reporting from Bloomberg News, reports that American farmers are increasingly ignoring USDA surveys, a troubling sign that trust in government agricultural data is eroding. Reply rates for the USDA’s annual prospective planting report hit a record low in March, with just over a third of 73,800 surveyed farm operations responding, down from about 60% in 2018.

That matters because USDA reports influence global crop prices, futures markets, planting decisions, and ultimately what consumers pay for food. But farmers quoted in the story say they do not trust the data, the process, or the people behind it. And once farmers stop participating, the data gets weaker, which makes farmers trust it even less. That is not just a bureaucratic problem. That is a trust spiral with corn futures attached.

The Bullet Point Brief

• Farmers are responding to USDA surveys at record-low rates. When even farmers do not trust the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the institutional warning light is no longer blinking. It is screaming.
• One Iowa farmer put it bluntly: “I don’t trust the data, I don’t trust the process, I don’t trust their people.” That line should be printed, framed, and hung in every government office in America.
• USDA reports can move markets, meaning bad data or distrusted data can affect what farmers get paid and what consumers pay for food. Translation: this is not some clipboard problem. This can hit your grocery cart.
• Farmers say surveys are burdensome, time-consuming, and sometimes filled out from memory while they are busy doing actual farm things. Imagine that. People who feed the country may not have all afternoon for federal paperwork aerobics.
• Former USDA officials warn low participation creates a vicious cycle: fewer farmers respond, reports get less accurate, trust falls further, and participation drops again. That is how institutional credibility turns into a slow-motion barn fire.

My Bottom Line

This article is just so telling. So revealing. Farmers. Farmers. Do not trust the USDA.

And I get it. I am skeptical too. When I see “data,” the first thing I want to know is the source of the data. Who collected it? Why? How? Who paid for it? What assumptions were baked into it? What outcome did someone want before the spreadsheet ever opened? Because facts are no longer treated like facts, and data can be bent, shaped, massaged, polished, tortured, and dressed up for whatever story someone wants to tell.

That farmer’s quote says it all: “I don’t trust the data, I don’t trust the process, I don’t trust their people.” That is not just about the USDA. That is where we are as a country. We have lost faith in people, systems, and institutions. Government. Media. Experts. Universities. Agencies. Courts. Elections. Reports. Polls. Even weather maps, apparently. It is all viewed through suspicion now, and plenty of that suspicion has been earned the hard way.

So how is faith regained? How is trust rebuilt? It starts with elected folks, people like me, constantly communicating, being open and accessible, explaining decisions before people have to pry them loose, and readily admitting when we are wrong.

But politics punishes that kind of candor. Admit uncertainty, and someone calls you weak. Admit a mistake, and someone cuts it into a campaign ad. Change your mind after listening, and someone calls you a flip-flopper. So politicians learn to posture, institutions learn to hide, and citizens learn to assume the worst. Then everyone wonders why trust is dead.

Jefferson was right: the people get the government they deserve. And if we want better government, we may need to become better citizens too. A little more forgiving. A little more curious. A little more willing to hear someone out, even if they wear the wrong party jersey.

Trust will not be rebuilt by another glossy report or federal dashboard. It will be rebuilt person by person, conversation by conversation, mistake by admitted mistake. That is slower than a press release and harder than a slogan. Which probably means it is the only thing that might actually work.

Source: The Denver Post