Message to Obama: Bust-up the Agribusiness Trusts
Beyond the thirty-year experiment in free-market ideology having been judged a failure in financial markets, one thing is clear: as Kerry Trueman reminded us in a recent post, unfettered capitalism has also been bad for our health, and indeed the safety of our food.
Last week, The New York Times reported that this administration has said it will take a harder line on anti-trust legislation, in diverse sectors of the economy including agriculture. Perhaps its premature to tell what this will look like, but enforcing the laws that we already have on the books would be a great start to building a better food system.
This is because the largest sectors of the agribusiness world (grain, meatpacking, biotechnology, etc) are monopolizing food from seed to supermarket shelf and thereby deciding what we can (and can't) buy and eat across this country, and by extension, the world.
These are the companies that are trying to efficiently process tens of thousands of cows per day -- cows that have been lined up in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and fed grain (more efficient than using land to feed them their natural diet of grass), pumped with hormones and other antibiotics to keep them from dying, which means a glut on the market of cheap (anti-biotic-filled) beef. And these are the companies that are creating the seeds -- those seeds that the farmer can't even save for fear of litigation -- to grow the crops that require the use of their pesticides, and which produce a proliferation of fast food.
Yes, efficiency is the bottom line in our current agricultural system. Not safety, not health, or least of all taste; no, for a corporation that is beholden first to it's shareholders, its all about the quickest way to get to the bottom line. Besides exacerbating obesity, heart disease and diabetes cases, this kind of thinking can only be limited in its long term ability to maintain itself, because it refuses to take a holistic approach to creating goods for the common good. In other words, we know it can't be sustained, and therefore it is not sustainable.
But these mega-companies aren't fully to blame, because this is what our economic system has been set up to do for thirty years or more: build a conflagration of trusts.
Will Obama pull a Teddy Roosevelt and begin a new era of trust-busting? Here's hoping he will, and that he begins with Big Ag.
Last week on The Leonard Lopate Show, when he was asked how taking a harder line on anti-trust law could effect the food industry, Michael Pollan responded:
"It's very significant, actually, because you have more concentration in the food industry than in just about any other industry. Most anti-trust experts say that if 4 [or fewer] companies control 40% or more of a marketplace, it's not competitive. And in food we have that in meatpacking, [where] there are 4 companies that control 85% of the beef, [and in] seed production, fertilizer production... there is this tight little hourglass in the food industry, [which means] lots of farmers, very few buyers, which forces farmers to take prices, they have no control over prices at all. So if indeed we were to push an anti-trust agenda in the food industry, it would be the best thing for farmers and the best thing for consumers."
In other words, there are only a handful of people pulling the strings of our food system. And something as fundamental as food should not be so minimally represented, for food safety and health reasons, but because it also violates our human rights.
To this I ask, is this food system not an oligopoly, a market form most at risk for collusion? all the more reason to investigate the mega-firms that form through the process of mergers.
That "hourglass" concept Pollan mentioned comes from William Heffernan and Mary Hendrickson's report Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System (1999) [PDF], which revealed the "food chain clusters" forming through constant mergers within the food system, and also gave the first comprehensive data on concentration ratios of each firm in the food sector. (An updated version from 2007 is here [PDF].)
One of the biggest fall-outs of this phenomenon has been the price paid in rural America. From Heffernan and Hendrickson's report:
"In the past when family businesses were the predominant system in rural communities, researchers talked of multiplier effects of three or four. Newly generated dollars in the agricultural sector would circulate in the community, changing hands from one entrepreneurial family to another three or four times before leaving the rural community. This greatly enhanced the economic viability of the community.
Large non-local corporations... see labor as just another input cost to be purchased as cheaply as possible. The "profits" then are allocated to return on management and capital and are usually taken from the rural community. They go to the company's headquarters and are then sent to all corners of the globe to be reinvested in the food system. One can ask the question, why were agriculturally based rural communities, with an ample natural resource base, more economically viable than mining based rural communities which also had an ample natural resource base? The answer lies primarily with the economic structure of the major economic base. Increasingly, our agriculturally based communities, like regions with major poultry operations, are looking like mining communities."
Having an hourglass of production power also means the creation of giant facilities to produce our food as fast as possible. E coli bacteria present in a giant shared sink with thousands of servings of spinach has the potential to do more harm than a similar, isolated incident on a small farm would. In creating factory-like facilities to process and package our food, we are exponentially increasing the risks of food contamination. This is the single best argument for decentralizing the food system.
But yes, there is still yet another reason to bust up these trusts: agribusiness has had excessive influence on our government. Represented by a billion dollar lobby in Washington, agribusinesses have maintained a revolving door bringing lobbyists, lawyers and board members into powerful public positions. One of the other problems that arises when mega-companies begin to influence government in this way is that they then become "too big to fail," when we should be asking ourselves (to quote Mike Lux) if they were "too big to exist" in the first place.
However it happened, the facts are clear: Cargill, ADM, Monsanto, Tyson and Smithfield are probably breaking the law, and that law needs to be enforced. It may be that the government for too long has been complicit in creating predatory pricing via billions of dollars in subsidies handed out to the factory farmers of mostly genetically modified corn and soy, but I would like our new administration to take a good look at possible price fixing; aggressive marketing, especially to children; intimidation practices, including Monsanto's intimidation of farmers who have been found to have GMO contamination in their fields, also their intimidation of seed cleaners, and of previous governments; barriers to entry, for example, the assumption of massive amounts of debt on the part of the farmer to build CAFO facilities and thus getting trapped in a contractual agreement with Smithfield, Tyson, etc; and tying, for instance, Round-Up Ready seeds require the use of Round-Up pesticides, meaning that both markets are cornered by Monsanto.
It's time to admit that hyper-efficiency is not working. It may seem counter-intuitive, but being a little less efficient creates room for checks and balances. We need redundancy, and some fostered competition. It is the only way to assure the health of our nation and the safety of our food supply.
Originally published on Civil Eats
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, and I hope lots of people read your post. It is extremely important.
I wish not to always play the cynic,
but Illinois is a farm state.
Obama firmly supports agribusiness, always has.
Oh and Round-up Ready seeds do not REQUIRE the use of Roundup. The key ingredient in Round-up is available in generic, and much cheaper, form. Monsanto incentivises the farmer to use Round-Up but it is ultimately up to him.
Finally, nit picking a bit but I hate extreme critiques that are not detailed because it shows a lack of wanting to be fair, but Round-up is not a pesticide.
I would expect that if these companies are so dominant that they would have obscene margins but they don't. Well Monsanto does but it is a biotech company and its margins fund significant R&D and are in line with other biotech companies.
History shows that government tentacles in Agriculture almost always lead to market inefficiencies and dislocations. We need to be careful of unintented consequences of sticking our noses in ag once again.
Monsanto's net profit margin is around 20%, similar to Google and Cisco (two other large companies that are fairly dominant in their market).
If you are concerned about Agribusiness, we should stop subsidizing them. End all agriculture support money from the government immediately, that will help.
This is a vitally important issue, because it shows just how far we have already travelled down the road to socialism. Monsanto et al have done nothing more than be good at what they do. Oligarchies- a situation where very few control the market- are natural and healthy.
At some point, there are thousands of competitors in the marketplace. Eventually, people go out of business, can’t compete, etc. The cream rises to the top. There were at one point, hundreds of fizzy soda companies all on equal footing. Now there are two big players, and the other 10% filled by niche producers. That’s not monopoly, that’s natural market action.
If anyone finds these companies too distasteful to buy from- don’t buy from them. There is nothing stopping you from growing your own food, or patronizing a farmer that grows things the way you want them, or forming your own food collective, etc.
“The law is not a sword, but a shield.”
I don't understand what she's talking about. Everytime I go to the grocery store I find all the food I need for our family.
Excellent column!! Corporate "farming," ne agribusiness, also is responsible for horrific pollution and degradation of the environment - land, air, and water systems. The bigger picture: The "corporatization" of America - agriculture, food retailing, healthcare, banking, etc. - is rapidly leading to our demise. Ever wonder how we went from responsible citizens to "consumers"?
Would you also cut the billions they get in subsidies? But then, they are a good source of campaign contributions.
I find this whole concept very disturbing. I try to buy only organic and I try to buy from local farmers in season. What can be done other than that? I don't think contacting representatives would help since these four companies are deep in Washington's pockets.
Owls replace pesticides in Israel
Farmers are installing nest boxes to encourage the owls
Enlarge Image
Owls and kestrels are being employed as agricultural pest controllers in the Middle East.
Many farmers are installing nest boxes to encourage the birds, which hunt the crop-damaging rodents.
In Israel, where there is a drive to reduce the use of toxic chemical pesticides, this has been turned into a government-funded national programme.
Jordanian and Palestinian scientists and conservation charities have joined the scheme.
That is a great way to circumvent Monsanto and their pesticide.
MERCOLA.COM > IS AN EXCELLENT SOURCE FOR THE LOWDOWN ON MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY
The copyrighting of SEEDS was allowed for the first time in the history of the world by the first George Bush administration. And Monsanto Chemical Co. began buying up all the hundreds of varieties of corn, potatoes and soy and by genetic engineering, they were able to infuse their own identifiable DNA gene into the the seeds that would be transferred into future crops so that Monsanto could have a monopoly on all FUTURE corn, soy and potatoes grown all over the world; farmers can only LEGALLY grow these foods from seeds bought from Monsanto; Incredible but legal.
To insure their monopoly, Monsanto developed ROUND UP herbicide that kills all other plants that are not genetically Engineered by Monsanto. Round-Up herbicide is non-biodegradable and the land sprayed with Monsanto's Round-Up poisons the land and the very food that is grown on the poisoned land; any one walking bare foot through a field sprayed by Round-Up develops cancerous sores, and any live stoc k animals wandering in the field dies.
In other words any derivatives of Monsanto corn, soy, etc. has enough traces of Round-Up herbicide that is poisoning the consumer, a trace at a time.
Corn syrup is 20 times sweeter than cane suger and much cheaper, so all artificial sweetners for your coffee or lemonad or canned processed foods is sweetened with Monsanto Corn.
Rescinding the Bush Copyright for seeds is the only way to stop this deadly insidious poising of consumers.
Monsanto has also created seeds that don't germinate and farmers must buy new seeds every time they need them. Part of the reason India and Africa are starving is because the farmers cannot afford to buy seeds, some don't even know that seeds they have will not germinate. Monsanto is a monster ready to swallow us all up for the profit.
Monsanto is the only company in the whole world that sells seeds?
"Corn syrup is 20 times sweeter than cane suger and much cheaper"
Corn syrup is only cheaper because of government agriculture policy on sugar that include domestic subsidies and import restrictions:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8381
We should be importing cane sugar from Cuba (since they are near us) as well as the major producers: Brazil, and the PRC.
Great article.
I'm glad to see someone is focusing on a vitally important issue. Monopoly and restraint of trade are rampant in American agriculture. Bill Heffernan's hour-glass analogy is correct. The average farmer is in a perpetual squeeze.
Much of this is due to a 1980 Supreme Court case that is as important as Roe-v-Wade or Brown-v-Board of Education. It is Diamond-v-Chakrabarty. In that case the Supremes voted 5-4 to allow life forms to be patented. Another agriculture expert, Prof. Neil Harl has said: "In the long run it will be quite feasible for one company to have virtually total control of the world's germ plasm in respect to food."
It is the ability to patent life forms (seeds now, animals soon) that enables companies like Monsanto to financially strangle small farmers. The "foodies" of America who are so concerned about "Frankenfood" need to demand new legislation to eliminate patenting life forms. That's the best and perhaps only hope for saving independent farming in America. If we don't act, total genetic modification of our food supply with royalties paid to predatory corporations for everything we eat may be fait accompli.
Vince Wade
Huntington Beach, CA
Agreed. I've seen Monsanto's patent on the "creation of life forms."
It's so loosely written that people could be sued for procreating.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
