[A-List] The Unsafe Politics of Big Food

[Bill Totten <shimogamo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agriculture's Bullied Market

By Jim French

Counterpunch (April 24 2004)

The dominant myth about democracy in the United States is that all sides
may air points of view, and that through debate truth and justice will
win out over power.  But under the present regime, it seems the might of
capital makes right.

Take the example of Creekstone Farms, a small meat processor that
markets high-quality beef here and abroad.

In a move to restore beef sales to Japan that were lost after a US
animal with mad cow disease was identified last December, Creekstone
requested the right to test all its cattle before slaughter.  But after
an outcry from US Premium Beef, one of the four major beef packers, and
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Agriculture Department
announced it would continue to ban the comprehensive testing proposed by
Creekstone.

The major packers argue that testing every animal would be unreasonably
expensive and could give too many false-positive results, hurting the
market for US beef.  The Agriculture Department asserts that the
international scientific consensus is that "100 percent testing is not
justified".

The decision is hypocrisy for an agency that claims to promote sales of
US farm products. Creekstone is not demanding 100 percent testing of all
US beef.  It only wants the right to test its own beef so it can sell to
an established market in Japan using a standard higher than the minimum.

All it takes is some muscle flexing by the major packers, and
independent producers are pushed out of a lucrative market.

The story echoes a previous experience.  Europe does not allow meat from
cattle given growth hormones, which are widely used in US feedlots.
When several states, including Texas and Minnesota, sought in the late
1980s to sell hormone-free beef to Europe, the Agriculture Department
stopped them, saying this would call into question the safety and
quality of American beef grown with hormones.

In both cases the effect for producers is the same.  US beef sales have
not suffered from embargoes as much as they have from domestic
prohibitions that serve the convenience and profits of the large
corporations that market commodities and sell supplies to producers.

Beef producers aren't the only ones pushed around by corporate might.
Consider the case of genetically engineered wheat being developed by
Monsanto.  In survey after survey of both Canadian and US producers,
there is significant resistance to release of this herbicide-resistant
crop.  Europe and other export markets have said they will shun its
import, just as they have restricted genetically modified corn and
soybeans.  And yet Monsanto, which earlier had sought both US and
Canadian approval, plows ahead to release the seed in America regardless
of whether Canada approves.

In all of these cases we must question how the mantra of "sound science"
is used to quash objections.  Opponents of genetic manipulation,
antibiotics in feed, hormones to boost milk production or cattle growth,
and synthetic pesticides are often accused of being anti-science.  But
more often it seems money and corporate power dictate the technologies
that dominate our food system, not impartial science.

In the past year, Americans have witnessed a massive campaign against
country-of-origin labeling to protect large packers who indiscriminately
blend imported and domestic ground beef.  Now we behold rejection of the
kind of cattle testing done in Japan and Europe because we don't want to
risk false-positive results or raise production costs.  Japan tests all
cattle, and Europe tests all animals older than 30 months.

It is time to recognize that the worship of profits over public safety
and the common good should not dominate policy.  Our nation insists on
strict separation of church and state.  We should likewise demand a
clear separation between Big Food and the government, which is supposed
to protect our health and environment - and our free marketplace.

http://www.counterpunch.com/french04242004.html

Jim French, communications specialist for the Kansas Rural Center, farms
and ranches in south-central Kansas.  He wrote this essay for the Land
Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kansas.


Please also see these essays:

"Hiding the Mad Cow Problem" by Nick Nyhart, Topeka Capital-Journal
(April 26 2004) http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0427-01.htm

"US Bullies Europeans on Chemical Testing" by Russell Mokhiber and
Robert Weissman, CommonDreams (October 15 2003)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1015-02.htm

"Senator Harkin Slams USDA, FDA on Mad Cow" by Steve Mitchell, UPI
(February 24 2004) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0224-09.htm