Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporations Control Your Dinner

By Debra Eschmeyer, National Family Farm Coalition. Posted December 5, 2006.


When the food industry becomes a monopoly marketplace, it doesn't just affect the local farmer. It affects you. Lack of competition drives prices up and consumer choices down.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Debra Eschmeyer

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This story first appeared in the East Texas Review

Most everyone has been told to not play with his or her food, yet somehow agribusiness is playing Monopoly with the nation's food supply.

When pouring your next glass of milk, consider who decided what the cow ate and who controls the distribution of profits. One would think the farmer and consumer take the lead roles in managing the supply of safe and healthy food. The farmer should control his or her business while mainly battling unpredictable weather -- expecting the price they receive for a quality product to be set by a fair and honest marketplace.

However, in today's market, the lack of competition is wielding just as much force as Mother Nature as witnessed by the recent proposed acquisition of the Chicago Board of Trade by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) to become the CME Group Inc. -- combining the two largest U.S. futures exchanges.

If you think this and similar mergers do not affect your freedom of choice and the quality of food you eat, think again. Food is not simply a commodity to produce at a larger and larger scale, squeezing the family farmer out along with the value of safe and healthy food.

The CME is already the world's largest commodity broker determining futures and cash prices for products such as cheese, butter, live cattle, timber, and fertilizer as they set the benchmark prices for farm country. Within seconds the coarse yelling on the trade floor is translated around the world, affecting farm gate prices and grocery bills of billions of people.

If this merger goes through, the newly formed CME Group will enjoy unprecedented power over global food markets to the detriment of producers and consumers and the glee of large agribusiness and traders -- lining their own pockets with money generated by destroying family farmers and the consumer value that exists in having diversity in the market.

The new CME Group could still end up with the Go to Jail card, as the U.S. Department of Justice must decide whether this merger violates federal anti-trust laws. The CME does not have a clean slate either. Last July six U.S. Senators including Clinton, Specter, and Feingold sent a letter calling on the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether cheese trading on the CME is susceptible to price manipulation. The study was requested to fully evaluate the CME in light of the upcoming farm bill. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is also currently investigating the nation's largest dairy cooperative, Dairy Farmers of America, for alleged racketeering and insider trading on the CME.

Family farmers already know from previous paychecks that this is not a good forecast. Because the CME is a privately owned corporation, it does not have to follow normal transparency and accountability rules. The CME is subject to nominal oversight by the CFTC over the trading of futures, but there is no external oversight for cash trading.

With market consolidation and little to no oversight, competition and economic fairplay are almost defunct in the U.S. food system. Consumers will pay more for fewer choices; farmers will get paid less -- don't pass go, and don't collect $200 -- that will go to the commodity trader living down on Park Place.

Lack of competition is not new to modern agriculture. The largest producer and processor of hogs in the U.S., Smithfield Foods, Inc., recently announced plans to purchase Premium Standard Farms, the second largest hog producer. On top of owning 20 percent of the nation's hogs, Smithfield would then envelope the ContiGroup, the largest cattle feeding entity in the world, and they control 40 percent interest in Premium Standard Farms. Pork or corporate profit for dinner?

In 2002 the late Senator Wellstone joined with Senators Daschle, Harkin, Feingold and Grassley to reinstate some degree of competition into agriculture and to reign in the excessive control of a few giants in the livestock sector. Unfortunately, the measures to benefit farmers and consumers that were won in the Senate were negotiated away in the conference with the House. Let's hope following the 2006 election that Congress will listen to the public and restore democratic fairness to the markets that are critical to our nation's economy and diet.

The CME Group merger is yet another win for corporate agribusiness players and a loss for consumers and farmers in the game of food system Monopoly.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: farmers, agribusiness, farms, monopoly, corporation, food industry, profit

Debra Eschmeyer is the project director of the National Family Farm Coalition, a non-profit that provides a voice for grassroots groups on farm, food, trade and rural economic issues to ensure fair prices for family farmers, safe and healthy food, and vibrant, environmentally sound rural communities here and around the world.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Spelling!!!
Posted by: mazur on Dec 5, 2006 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and to reign in the excessive control

Should have been 'rein in'. Different words, different meanings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spelling!!! Posted by: bichomau
» RE: Spelling!!! Posted by: anothername
tools!
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 5, 2006 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations also control your sex, your brains, your votes and your stools because many of them are run by fools who monopolize our economic tools!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support small farmers
Posted by: hotar on Dec 5, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to the farmers' market and BUY LOCAL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WE are the solution Posted by: Beck
» RE: WE are the solution Posted by: goeswithness
I Thought Attorneys Determine Everything
Posted by: hole11 on Dec 5, 2006 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone tell me how the Clintons made so much money on cattle? Must of had some prize heifers.

Oh wait, public service is a get rich scheme. Nevermind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ths site is unbelieveable
Posted by: CB in MN on Dec 5, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ignorance of this author and the contributors to this site is unbelievable. The author cites several examples of fraud that were committed via the boards of trade but concludes that the boards of trade are what caused the problems. The problems were caused by several individuals in companies that decided to make money for themselves via manipulation of fair markets. The coporations do not determine what the market consumes...they supply what is demanded by a large segment of the populace who is willing to pay for the product. I am sorry if kelp burgers and pachouli cologne are not widely available, but it is not because the corporations don't want you to have them, it is because not enough people want them. The co-ops do a nice job of bringing niche products to those consumers who are willing to pay for them. Even they have been hurt by the large companies who now offer "organic" products because enough people finally gave a crap about what was on / in their food (not because the corporations felt benelovent enough to "provide" the organics).

Stop blaming corporations for every problem in the world. If you don't like what they do, avoid them. Stop buying at grocery stores, ride your bike (but build it from trash, don't buy it from a corporation), get your news by word of mouth, grow and make your own hemp clothing and get your medicine from the tree bark in your neighborhood. Oh, and turn off your computer as it was built and run by large corporations.

Corporations have their flaws (I work for one) but I assure you that they are not the dens of evil proposed on this site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free Market Alternative
Posted by: edhowes on Dec 5, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point is well taken it is not the form business or governments take but the natural drive for growth. With growth, economic power also grows, which fuels more rapid growth. We have all heard how power (often or usually) corrupts and how absolute power corrupts absolutely. The very spirit of competition in any field supports this tendency and anti trust laws also rule out cooperation within an industry which performs best with diverse competition.

But the cooperative model can and does offer an alternative, as pointed out in another post. Mohammed Yanus was awarded a Nobel Prize this year for personally capitalizing what has yet to become a third world micro credit revolution. Through more than 10 years, the system is corrupt and in the hands of corporate control, yet the opportunity to do something similar and better remains. That is local control using a variation of Islamic banking which does not require immediate repayment from borrowed capital.

The fact is we have all become lazy creatures of habit who see little harm in our utter dependence on the corporate, cancerous governments and markets. I read a financial newsletter though I am not an investor and the primary interest of the reader is naturally assumed to be profitable investment for good reason. I can see things from the investors viewpoint as well. If I study and learn about markets beyond supermarkets, I can invest wisely and profit more than enough to offset the rising costs of an economy of monopoly money.

If I do not want to profit from or support the corruption and fraud within the marketplace, I can withdraw from it. I can become more independent in my lifestyle and do it in a slow and careful manner, taking what I want from the corporate world to further my personal independence. I can go beyond that to competition by convincing others to begin changing their corporate dependencies to free market ones. I can become a dependable alternative and in fact, while this move toward corporate independence was promoted heavily in the early seventies, it is now coming to pass. If I want range fed beef, chicken or eggs, I can buy them in multiple locations or invest directly with the producers in some cases. Local production will take a while to become competitive with agribusiness but with increasing transportation costs, local production and marketing will create the new global models.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Free Market Alternative Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Are you full yet? Here, have some seconds
Posted by: AdamG on Dec 5, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More and more our food is being produced by institutions and industries, instead of by living, breathing, caring people as it should be. Our food system, run by corporations in collusion with our own government, is what keeps serving us up fresh cases of e.coli, BSE, pentachlorate in our salads, rBGH in our milk, irradiation of meat, and genetic manipulaion of our food crops.

Being a small farmer, I see two major challenges to locally based, appropriately scaled producers; access to capital and access to markets.

Access to capital means access to land, water, equipment, training/education, labour, and eventually money. The most common way to secure financing is the bank or the government. Banks and the government, generally will only lend to you if you a) put everything you own up in hock and b) raise what they tell you to raise. They are part of the industrial system and so they only want you to contribute to that same system. Land is a hard one to procur as well unless you are born into it uness you get a lease from land owner looking for property tax breaks. Even then, you are at their mercy, or actually the mercy of the housing market , as once the opportunity arises to develop and turn a hefty profit, you loose your lease.

Access to markets is a whole other beast. Depending on what you produce, government regulation meets you at every turn. If you produce meat or dairy, you will come up against the most regulation. For meat, you must send your animals through a USDA inspected slaughterhouse which coincedentally, are mostly corporate owned. They will only buy your animals, they won't let you use the facilities otherwise. Dairy, you have another slew of regulations from price controls, health regulations, pasteurisation, and production quotas. Even if you produce grains, 80% of all elevator capacity is owned by 2 companies- Cargill and ADM- and so you only have two places to sell to. Fruits and veggies even, because they are so perishable, need to go to market fast. Even in the organic sector, the distribution channels have been heavily consolidated so you end up competing with fairly large growers. On top of all of this, advertising is definitely controlled and manipulated. What people buy is largely dictated by what's on the shelf and what they hear about on TV, radio, in magazines, etc.

Every one of us has a personal stake in this. Food security is as much, if not more, an issue of "national security" as is the "war on terrorism". You're worried about somebody coming to the US and attacking us? There are already people attacking our food by making it vulnerable to disease causing microbes and intentionally added adulterants in the way of antibiotics, irradiation, hormones, pesticide residues, and synthetic used in processing. It's high time we turn off the TV, put down the Whopper, go outside and take our heritage back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Substities kill farmers and '3rd World' countries
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 5, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we need to stop the excessive 'health' regulations, the unfair monopolies on feed and certain commodities, and the government subsitities. Farmers, small farmers especially, get screwed over by government policies-->by design. These practices, 'cheap' loans, etc kill the small farmer by getting him into insurmountable debt, growing the wrong crop, etc. They also make it nigh on impossible for a farmer in South America or Africa to compete with Europe, the USA, Canada, or Australia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

monsanto
Posted by: mister-wilson on Dec 5, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Monsantopoly in The Nation magazine...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, does this article fall under the province of the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act"?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 5, 2006 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This act, ostensibly aimed at violent assaults, has very bizzare language that targets 'economic damage" - see a legal analysis of the bill.

Corporate agribusiness is a threat to everything from democracy to the environment to basic labor laws - recall United Fruit in Central America? Now you've got Cargill (the world's largest privately held corporation) destroying the rainforest in South America (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0717-01.htm).

No sane person should trust such concentrations of corporate power - recall that I.G. Farben, Hitler's primary backer in the 1930's, was also the largest privately held corporation of its day.

There really are three approaches that will help the situation - the first and most obvious is not to buy their products - learn to cook and eat unprocessed food grown by local farmers. If you eat fish, only buy it off a locally owned fishing boat (or don't eat fish). If you eat meat and dairy, support local meat/dairy farmers (or go vegetarian).

The second is to make sure that politicians enforce anti-trust regulations that limit the power of corporate conglomerates. This is highly unlikely, but at least make some noise. Overturning the 'corporation is a person' notion and making holding companies illegal would also be great. Well.. don't hold your breath - although there is an obvious legal contradiction there - if a corporation is a 'person', and corporations are also allowed to 'own' other corporations (that's what a holding company is) - isn't that slavery, which is unconstitutional?

Corporate types claim they are being 'demonized' - but people who live their lives inside corporate arcologies are highly brainwashed by in-house PR and internalization of values - poor saps. Then they get sold down the river by the upper management and shareholders - the Enron example is very telling.

The third is to overturn the government subsidies and unfair-trade agreements that the agribusiness concerns rely on - for example, American companies dumping corn in Mexico under NAFTA rules, or destroying the rainforest in Central America under CAFTA rules. There is widespread support for overturning these agreements - first because they are a perversion of basic economic rules, second because they've impoverished American blue-collar workers (i.e unions will support this), third because they've resulted in massive illegal immigration into the US by ex-farmers desperate for work.

Great article, by the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More on estrogen
Posted by: Jarmadi on Dec 5, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I run annually about 400 calves, mostly steers, which are usually, but not always, injected with a Ralgro type estrogen implant. The literature states that this will result in up to 25 lb extra gain for each calf, meaning up to $20 or so in extra money at the sale of each animal. The following site presents information consistent with most other research that I have done into the use of such implants.

Maverick Ranch

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like, what r u gonna do about it?
Posted by: Landbaron on Dec 5, 2006 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rich will tell us what's good 4 us... Our job is to spend our money to "keep up with the Jones' and stay forever in debt!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporations own America
Posted by: Reader11722 on Dec 5, 2006 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In America, corporations and gov't are merely quid-pro-quo whorehouses sold to the highest bidder. When the gov't needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon and Sprint allow them secret rooms to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue, the gov't hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov't dislikes literature, Amazon and Wikipedia ban the book "America Deceived". America Deceived (book) When corporate agriculture wants a monopoly, the gov't forces out competition. We The People had our gov't (and food supply) sold out from beneath us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ellie on Dec 6, 2006 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank you for your truth! now, where can we find you so that we can all shop at your farm, seriously!

buy local, end dependence on corporate farms!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are functions of commodity trading overlooked by this writer.
Posted by: Jarmadi on Dec 6, 2006 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure how much, if any, these commodity markets have to do with establishing what the actual market prices are, or will be. I have generally looked at them as having two basic functions. One is to provide another form of gambling. In purchasing or selling futures contracts, one can bet that the future price of cattle, orange juice or pork bellies will go up or will go down. If you are right, you can make good money. Be wrong, and you lose. The exchange that connects these betters charges a commission on each contract, as do commodity traders at different brokerages. Thus it is like a giant poker game, and the people that I have known that play as gamblers eventually lose and eventually quit. For every better that wagers that the price will go up, there must be another who wagers that the price will go down. One may also gamble by the purchase or sale of options contracts. These can pay off well if one guesses right, and one's risks are some what more limited.

The second function is as a hedging tool for both the large agricultural producer, or the small. It helps one to manage risks by scaling back a bit on profits. I have done this when buying sets of stocker steers, that would have to be resold at a certain time, regardless of the price at that time. It is an alternate to forward contracting of cattle, with the advantage of allowing one to profit from an unexpected upswing in prices.

Regardless, I would agree that any monopoly of such exchanges would be unfortunate. One expected outcome would be that commissions for trading would only increase both for the gamblers and those using them properly for risk-management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stick it to them!
Posted by: CyberBrook on Dec 7, 2006 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best way, as individuals, we can stick it to them is to engage in Eco-Eating.

Eco-Eating is best for our health, best for the environment, best for agro-efficiency, and the best way to stick it to the mega-corps.

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
www.brook.com/veg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement