In the Spring issue of our No-Till Farmer Conservation Tillage Guide, I wrote my “Frankly Speaking” column about Jon Lundgren and his tour of duty as a USDA scientist.

The founder of Blue Dasher Farms and the Ecdysis Foundation at Esteline, S. Dak. Lundgren gave up a career path as a USDA scientist due to political pressure. Now free of government and congressional interference, he and his team do independent on-farm regenerative farming studies and analyze data from over 1,000 farmers already using this practice. These operations also serve as a training ground for future scientists and farmers interested in the regenerative movement.

To read my original column entitled, “USDA Fought Regenerative Agriculture … Now There’s a $700 Million Turn-Around,” click here.

Other Research Didn’t See Daylight Either

After this column was published, long-time Minnesota-based ag journalist Jim Ruen sent me a note that documented several of his personal experiences on how unfortunate pressure can be applied not only to scientists, but also to ag journalists.

Ruen, who had interviewed Lundgren both while he was at USDA and after he became an independent researcher, shared some of the criticism he faced that was similar to my column’s description of “promoting ideas that were flying in the face of accepted farming practices,” 

Ruen wrote that my “Frankly Speaking” column reminded him of a time from over four decades ago that he spent as an associate editors at The Farmer magazine, which was the go-to magazine for Minnesota farmers. 

In 1981, Ruen wrote an article based on interviews with two very successful farmers, each of whom had good data to back up their successful organic farming methods. One was Fred Kirschenmann who was farming in North Dakota at the time and later became the head of the Leopold Center in Ames. Iowa.

Soon after Ruen completed his organic farming article, he was summoned to meet with the magazine’s editor, managing editor, publisher and sales manager The purpose of the meeting was to counsel Ruen on his choice of topics. 

They told him, “We can’t tell our readers to farm this way. That’s how our fathers farmed!”

These higher ups told Ruen the only way they would run this article was if he included comments from a University of Minnesota soils researcher disputing each point about organic that the two farmers had made. And there were not to be any rebuttals from the two farmers featured in the article.

Not from Kirschenmann and not from the southern Minnesota organic grower. When agreeing to the interview, that farmer had told Ruen, “If you can’t tell the story the way I told it to you, I don’t want it to run.”

As a result, Ruen withdrew the story. And a few months later he left the magazine’s staff.

A few years later Ruen ran into the retired editor who said with some chagrin, “Remember your organic story? Guess what? I’m now working with organic farmers in Michigan on a project for Bill Norris (the founder of the Control Data Corporation.”

After that conversation, Ruen assumed the retired ag journalist apparently now believed getting paid to endorse the organic concept made it okay. 

Years later, Ruen shared the story with Kirschenmann who included mention of the incidence in his book, Essays of a Farmer Philosopher. So at least part of Ruen’s story ended up being told.

Scared to Comment

During his extensive writing career, Ruen ran into several other examples of science losing out to political and other kinds of pressure. 

One example dealt with now deceased USDA scientist Bob Kremer. Ruen recalls Kremer had done extensive research into the impact of glyphosate on soybean exudate, but was unable to get USDA clearance to publish the results. 

“When I contacted Kremer for a story, he told me I had to get clearance from USDA and also would have to have the resulting story cleared,” says Ruen. “They had put a wall around him. This was the only time in my career I had to get clearance before doing an interview.”

Ruen also recalls a three-part magazine series he wrote dealing with industry restraints on GMO research. Among the sources was a Michigan State University entomologist who had an agronomy colleague tell her how great the article was. She asked that person to share the comments with Ruen.

“I can’t,” she said. “I would be cut off from access to do research on new products by the companies.” The agronomist was just starting her young career and didn’t feel she could take the risk that the long-term entomologist had taken.

A similar situation happened with Purdue University researcher Don Huber, a speaker at several of our annual National No-Tillage Conferences. 

“Don took a stance against glyphosate tolerant alfalfa and was blackballed by Purdue,” recalls Ruen.

Along with the Lundgren experience, these situations demonstrate the power government agencies, elected members of Congress, ag industry organizations and private companies sometimes have on scientific research.

Sadly, I’m sure it’s still a problem for many ag researchers today.

Related Content: USDA Fought Regenerative Agriculture… Now There’s a $700 Million Turn-Around