Our farmers face a new gilded age

Roger Allbee served as secretary of agriculture, farms, and markets for Vermont in the administration of former Governor Jim Douglas. This piece is adapted from a post on his blog, "What Ceres Might Say," where you can also find an extensive bibliography.

TOWNSHEND-Much has been written about the Gilded Age, which spanned from the 1870s to about 1900. Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner, in their 1873 novel The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, coined the term during a time were the rise of massive monopolies, or trusts, exemplified by the likes of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie and U.S. Steel, Cornelius Vanderbilt and railroad/shipping holdings, and J.P. Morgan and his self-named financial institution.

These so-called "robber barons" used anti-competitive practices in their businesses. They were accused of manipulating markets and controlling government policies with their significant influence.

As a result, a substantial disparity in wealth emerged, with many workers laboring under harsh conditions and earning low wages. (In the 1890s, the top 1% of the population owned 51% of all wealth, and the bottom 44% owned just 1.2% of all wealth.)

In my recently published book, Turning the Soil: 250 Years of Vermont Agriculture, I write about this period and the actions that led to the passage of antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which broke up Standard Oil and other monopolies; the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which authorized labor unions and collective bargaining and sanctioned the establishment of cooperatives; and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which prevented unfair business practices.

Farmers during this period felt exploited by railroad rates and intermediaries and quickly became organized, with the likes of the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, the Farmers' Alliance, and later, the Populist Party.

In 1890, the farm population in the U.S. comprised about 43.5% of the total U.S. population, and in Vermont, approximately 45% to 50% of the state's population lived on farms. In 1916, dairy marketing organizations whose leaders felt they were being singled out for antitrust enforcement formed the National Cooperative Milk Producers Association to solidify their strength and protect their general interests.

Shortly thereafter, the Milk Producers joined with the National Grange, the National Farmers Union, and other farm organizations to form the National Board of Farm Organizations, headquartered in Washington, D.C. For the first time, cooperative supporters had a unified voice in the nation's capital.

The Capper-Volstead Act was passed in 1922 as a result of this coordinated national approach. This law was aimed at protecting small farmers from the overwhelming power of large agricultural corporations, such as meatpacking and seed companies, that were starting to dominate the market.

By allowing farmers to bargain and negotiate better prices for their goods collectively, the act - considered by many to be the gold standard of farmer cooperative law - aimed to level the playing field in the United States agricultural sector.

Farmers and their cooperatives still faced significant pressure from large corporations that continued to consolidate their power as corporate interests in food and agricultural industries grew.

Many reforms are said to have emerged from the Progressive Era, after the Gilded Age, in the U.S., which reshaped the economy, politics, and society in response to the excesses, including monopolies, corruption, poor working conditions, income inequality, and a lack of political accountability.

While there was no debt crisis during this Gilded Age, real tensions emerged over monetary policy, income inequality, industrial instability, worker issues, and their well-being, but not federal financial insolvency.

* * *

The "New Gilded Age" is a term often used today to describe the current era due to striking similarities to the Gilded Age of the late 1800s. Today, according to the Federal Reserve, the top 1% of households own roughly one-third of all wealth in the country, which is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90%.

While no single number defines exactly how many corporations control the U.S. economy, the analysis points to 200 to 300 large corporations that exert influence over the economy.

For example:

• Just six corporations control the most U.S. media.

• The top five U.S. banks hold over $11 trillion in assets.

• Just three companies dominate digital advertising.

• The top five food companies control most U.S. grocery brands.

• Amazon and Walmart dominate U.S. retail, as they account for more than 40% of U.S. e-commerce sales.

Mergers and acquisitions over the past few decades have reduced competition in most industries, and studies indicate that two-thirds of U.S. industries are more concentrated today than they were in 2000.

Of particular interest in corporate consolidation. It is evident today in the food system, where a handful of large corporations control nearly every aspect of production, distribution, and retail. The degree of consolidation is exceptionally high, with just a few companies controlling large shares of key markets, ranging from seeds to supermarkets.

For example:

• In meat and livestock processing, the top four firms control 70% to 85% of beef and pork processing.

• In seeds and agrochemicals, the four top firms control 75% to 85% of corn seed, soybean seed, and agrochemicals.

• Four firms handle 90% of grain exports.

• In dairy processing, three or four firms hold 60% of milk sales and 70% of cheese sales.

• On the food retail side, the top five firms control approximately 60% of the market, and a few giant conglomerates own the majority of consumer food brands.

This consolidation has far-reaching impacts on farmers, consumers, and rural communities. The concentration of power in seed and agrochemical companies results in few choices for farmers and consumers. In the meatpacking industry, a few companies dominate the market, leading to higher consumer prices and limited product diversity, which makes it more challenging for smaller producers to survive.

On the retail side, supermarkets and grocery chains have a significant influence over the food supply chain, as they negotiate prices with producers, determine product availability, and shape consumer choices through effective marketing.

The U.S. is, it is argued, once again confronting the challenges of monopolistic dominance and wealth inequality. Some have suggested that renewed antitrust efforts and innovative solutions are needed, such as promoting cooperative business models.

* * *

On the federal-government-policy level, the influence of large corporations and vested interests is enormous today. In 2023, large agribusiness and food-industry corporations spent a record-breaking $177 million to $178 million on federal lobbying - surpassing even the fossil fuels and defense sectors in lobbying expenses - and spending far more than any coalition of small farmers and cooperatives.

The Farm Bill, passed every five years, heavily subsidizes commodity crops (corn, soy, wheat, etc.) dominated by large farms and agribusiness supply chains. Smaller or more-diversified operations, such as fruit and vegetable growers, co-ops, and organic farms, receive a fraction of the support. For example, over 70% of farm subsidy dollars go to just 10% of farms.

Our U.S. farm policies tend to favor the efficiency in the scale or size of operations and export markets. Even in dairy production, farms with more than 1,000 cows provide 65%-68% of milk output in the U.S., and mega-farms with 2,500 or more animals provide 40%–46% of milk production in the U.S.

Consolidation and reduction in dairy farms have been large, too, with a loss of nearly 15,000 farms across the U.S. or a 40% decline in the last five years. (Vermont has seen a 50% decline in the 10 years since 2015.) Agricultural and food exports have averaged about 20% of total U.S. production.

Even dairy export markets are essential, with about 17%–18% of total U.S. milk production exported each year, meaning roughly 1 in 5 tanker trucks of milk are exported (after first being converted into products). This export market also impacts domestic milk pricing for non-organic dairy, as it is based on a federal order system with four classes.

These classes are heavily export-oriented, so when exports are strong, it increases the "blend prices," thereby increasing farmers' mailbox milk price, defined by the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture as the net price received by producers for milk, including all payments received for milk sold, and deducting costs associated with marketing the milk.

* * *

Unlike the Gilded Age, when the U.S. had little to no public debt, the absolute debt today is 14,000 to 18,000 times larger than it was in the early 1870s. In 2025, the U.S. debt has soared to $36 trillion, more than the entire U.S. economy in any given year - and it accounts for nearly 130% of the gross domestic product.

This federal debt can impact the agricultural economy in several ways, including higher interest rates for a capital-intensive agricultural sector, fewer funds for farm programs and subsidies due to budget cuts and constraints, inflationary pressures on prices, a weakened dollar that can make U.S. agricultural products more expensive, and incentive for lenders and agribusinesses to be more cautious about refinancing large projects, slowing innovation and growth in the farm sector.

The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projects the recently passed Federal Budget Reconciliation Act to increase the federal debt by $3 trillion by 2034, putting pressure on interest rates.

As my book discusses, farmers and their cooperatives have continued to adapt to changing conditions and describes a renaissance of the past that is evident today, as reflected in the products produced from the land and the animals raised there.

This renaissance manifests itself in many forms, including the growth of community-supported agriculture farms (CSAs), farmers markets, food hubs, new products, and new farmers. Small farms in small states like Vermont can survive and even thrive economically today, but only by adapting strategically to market conditions, using policy tools (including financial support), and responding to consumer trends that favor local, sustainable, and high-value products.

Vermont supports its dairy and broader farming community through a mix of state-run initiatives, federal grants, nongovernmental-organization partnerships, and innovative programs.

* * *

The U.S. is once again at a crossroads, facing a modern-day gilded age characterized by extreme wealth inequality, corporate monopolies, and a consolidation of power - including in the food system - that threatens competition, sustainability, and fairness.

Just as the original Gilded Age saw a small group of corporations amass enormous power at the expense of farmers, workers, and consumers, a handful of multinational agribusiness giants have similarly reshaped today's food system.

While historical antitrust actions such as the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts sought to dismantle monopolistic control, modern-day consolidation has proven to be a challenging issue to address.

The food industry, in particular, has seen dramatic concentration across every stage of the supply chain, from seed production and agrochemicals to meatpacking and retail. As a result, farmers, especially those who are small-scale, are left with little bargaining power, consumers face higher prices and limited choices, and workers continue to be exploited under poor working conditions in specific industries and job classes.

This new gilded age mirrors many of the same problems that plagued the United States over a century ago, from the exploitation of labor to the concentration of wealth. Yet, unlike the early 1900s, today's system is far more complex, global, and resistant to traditional antitrust action.

Large corporations not only dominate national markets, but their global reach complicates efforts to regulate them. The political influence wielded by these companies, coupled with weak antitrust enforcement, has created an environment where competition is stifled and where smaller, more ethical producers are unable to thrive.

However, there is hope for reform.

By revitalizing antitrust laws and holding corporations accountable for anti-competitive practices, the U.S. can begin to reinstate the kind of competition that the original antitrust laws sought to protect.

A number of nonprofits and coalitions are still actively pushing for stronger federal policies that support local and regional food systems, including many in our state of Vermont.

Supporting cooperative and worker-owned models, fostering sustainable food systems, and encouraging local agricultural initiatives can help disrupt the monopolistic control of the food industry and empower farmers, workers, and consumers alike.

Furthermore, international cooperation on antitrust and environmental standards will be essential in addressing the global nature of modern food systems.

Many have advocated for a new era of food-systems reform, not only as necessary but also as possible. By learning from history and taking decisive action, we can build a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system - one that values fairness, innovation, and the well-being of all stakeholders.

In doing so, we can avoid the pitfalls of another gilded age and chart a path toward a more-just and sustainable local food system for generations to come.

Let us all get behind this movement today - one that protects the environment, promotes soil health, and supports local communities and their economies.

This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.

This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].