KUOW73%

Washington farmers feel the pain of Iran war 7%

By Ruby de Luna0% Kim Malcolm39% John O'Brien36%

3/27/2026, 10:47:22 PM

Keywords: Food

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Anecdotal, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 19.5% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 1,016 faulty-reasoning hits from 570 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.8% and a BS Rank of 7% (20,510 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

The ongoing Iran War is affecting consumers at the gas pump. 
But for farmers, it’s not just the price of fuel, but fertilizer, too. 
And that could affect what we all pay at the grocery store. 
They’re very worried and they’re paying close attention to what’s happening in the Middle East. 
I spoke with Andrew Albert, a third- generation farmer in Arlington, Washington. 
He grows hay, wheat, corn and cabbage on his 1,400 acre farm. 
At the moment, there’s not much activity in the fields. 
But as he gets ready for the planting season, he’s keeping track of fuel prices. 
He notes that diesel already costs $2 per gallon more than before the war, an all-time record. 
But in a month or two when the farm work starts, that’s when he’ll start to feel it. 
“On average, to most people a large tractor would burn 10 to 15 gallons an hour,” Albert said. 
“We’re running 15 to 20 tractors at a time at our busiest times, and then with trucks running at the same time, it’s easily several thousand gallons a week.” 
It does. 
And it’s not just fuel. 
He worries the war will raise the cost of farm supplies like twine, the plastic to wrap bale, and fertilizer. 
"The people that we deal with, they pre-buy so they have already filled their barns with fertilizer that will hopefully get us most of the way through the year," Albert told me. 
"I met with one of them yesterday and they said they have contracts that might even go through the full year after that. 
If we don’t see a reduction in the price of oil, then it’s going to get real, real ugly on the fertilizer side." 
Fertilizer, in particular is a big concern. 
About a third of the world’s fertilizer trade is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route. 
As you know, that waterway has been disrupted since the war began. 
That’s right. 
Farmers have complained they’ve been operating under a tough economic environment that includes pressures like rising labor costs, and, even before the Iran conflict, high fuel prices stemming from the Washington Climate Commitment Act. 
It’s been so tough that some have quit. 
And it’s not just farms that have shuttered  food processing plants and other businesses that support the industry have closed, too. 
According to the USDA, Washington lost more than $1 billion in farm revenue, between 2023-2024. 
It means higher food prices. 
But farmers are just at the front end of the supply chain. 
“In general, farmers can’t control prices, influence prices  they’re price takers,” said Joe Phillips, professor of economics at Seattle University. 
“If you think of the way the food supply chain works a very small proportion of the cost of the final item that you purchase is actually due to the ingredients.” 
That’s right. 
Depending on how many stops those items will make on its way to grocery shelves, each stop adds up. 
“You have to think about the different production costs, the transportation costs, the selling costs that just add up and are, in many ways, a much bigger part of the price that consumers pay,” Phillips said. 
Phillips adds the costs may vary depending on the product. 
The general sentiment is that the extent of the price increase will also depend on how long the conflict lasts. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.7%Ruby de Luna: 0.9%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias6.7%This article: 8.1%Ruby de Luna: 1.5%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias8.1%This article: 9.6%Ruby de Luna: 2.9%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 6.0%Ruby de Luna: 1.2%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Ruby de Luna: 0.9%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 10.9%Ruby de Luna: 5.1%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect10.9%This article: 2.1%Ruby de Luna: 0.3%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion2.1%This article: 2.1%Ruby de Luna: 0.3%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Ruby de Luna: 2.4%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 10.7%Ruby de Luna: 4.5%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias10.7%This article: 15.1%Ruby de Luna: 4.7%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 6.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.8%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.4%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 2.3%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.7%Ruby de Luna: 1.2%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority3.7%This article: 4.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.6%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma4.0%This article: 7.2%Ruby de Luna: 1.8%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope7.2%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%Ruby de Luna: 1.5%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.9%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Ruby de Luna: 4.7%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 5.6%Ruby de Luna: 0.8%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 13.7%Ruby de Luna: 4.1%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.7%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.9%Ruby de Luna: 0.1%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.9%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.2%Ruby de Luna: 1.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division7.2%This article: 11.8%Ruby de Luna: 3.9%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal11.8%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.5%Ruby de Luna: 2.7%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.5%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Ruby de Luna: 1.1%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.4%Ruby de Luna: 1.9%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice1.4%This article: 2.6%Ruby de Luna: 0.7%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 1.1%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 1.6%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ruby de Luna: 0.0%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

570 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers49%attributed speech293writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 18 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 32 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Albert • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageUSDA • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Phillips • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Phillips • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Phillips • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrew Albert

93%flagged-word coverage
174 attributed words63% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote+10.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Albert: 10.3%10.3%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Andrew Albert: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Andrew Albert: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.