Anyone who farms in Missouri knows that timing is everything. Whether it’s planting before the weather turns, getting grain to market at the right moment or making sure fertilizer arrives when it’s needed, agriculture runs on tight schedules. And for much of our state, those schedules depend on rail service that is consistent, competitive and responsive to the people who rely on it.
That balance is now at risk. The proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger would reshape a system Missouri producers count on — and not for the better.
Missouri agriculture may look different across different parts of our state, but all of it relies on rail in one way or another. When trains don’t show up on time or when costs jump without warning, the disruption doesn’t stay on the rail line. It hits farm budgets, it hits rural businesses and it hits the communities that depend on a steady flow of goods in and out.
If this proposed merger moves forward, many Missouri shippers would face fewer options than they have today. When a co-op loses the ability to compare rates or push for better service, it loses the ability to plan efficiently. A bottleneck on the rail side can quickly become a bottleneck at the grain elevator, backing up harvest season. Those delays ultimately translate into higher costs for producers and, eventually, higher prices for American families.
The consequences wouldn’t stop there. Missouri agriculture is deeply linked to national and global supply chains. Our soybeans feed livestock abroad. Our grain supports food and fuel markets. Rural towns across the state depend on the steady movement of goods to keep businesses open and people employed. When rail service becomes less reliable, those markets become less dependable and our competitive edge crumbles.
And when supply chains start to wobble at home, our global buyers who depend on them begin to take notice. The expectation is that American agriculture will deliver on time. If our global partners can’t count on consistent shipments because rail congestion or reduced capacity slows movement through the Heartland, they won’t hesitate to source from countries that can. That shift doesn’t just hurt Missouri farmers but also weakens America’s global position.
Concerns about this merger aren’t coming out of nowhere. Several state attorneys general have already urged federal regulators to take a hard look at the proposal, warning of slower turnaround times, fewer service alternatives and higher transportation costs. Those outcomes will hit the Heartland the hardest, where agriculture depends on predictable shipping and narrow margins leave little room for unexpected expenses.
The STB has the responsibility to look beyond corporate assurances and examine whether this merger would actually leave shippers better off. At its core, the question is simple: would Missouri producers end up with more competitive options, or fewer? The changes point in the opposite direction — toward more consolidation and less leverage for the people who rely on rail the most.
Large deals like this must clear a high bar. Missouri agriculture depends on a rail network that is open, reliable and competitive, not one where a smaller number of carriers carry more control. If a merger can’t clearly demonstrate benefits for the shippers who keep our food system running, then it hasn’t earned approval.
Missouri agriculture plays a central role in feeding America and supplying global markets. But we can only do that when the systems we rely on — including freight rail — remain competitive and accountable. The Heartland’s strength comes from hard work, reliability and resilience. Our rail network should reflect those same values.
The future of Missouri agriculture doesn’t hinge on any one harvest. It hinges on whether the systems that support us stay fair, open and competitive. A merger that undermines those conditions would set the Heartland back — and that’s a cost Missouri shouldn’t be asked to bear.
Farmer in Platte County
