PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[PEN-L:238] [Fwd: The Agribusiness Examiner #4]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9899F104A2815202FC5F2D0F
Albert V. Krebs wrote:
> The
> AGRIBUSINESS
> EXAMINER Issue #4 September 24, 1998
>
> Montioring Corporate Agribusiness From A Public Interest Perspective
>
>
> A.V. Krebs
> Editor\Publisher
>
>
> THE FARMER'S WIFE
>
> While goodly numbers of Americans were mucking around with Bill Clinton and Ken Starr in TV land earlier this week PBS viewers were given the opportunity to eavesdrop for six and one-half hours on the lives of Nebraska family farmers Juanita and Darrel Buschkoetter's marriage in "The Farmer's Wife," a documentary produced for the network's "Frontline" series.
>
> As a human drama and an artistic film it was superb, cinematically beautiful with a haunting musical score. As a vehicle to inform and educate the public regarding the true nature of this nation's "permanent agricultural crisis," however, the series was deeply flawed and a major disappointment.
>
> Prior to each of the three night's segments a narrator's voice cued the audience that the Buschkoetter's story was not only a film about their marriage. but "their battle with the bureaucrats and their creditors." Unfortunately, that commentary was emblematic of the film and how badly it missed its mark.
>
> Except for one brief mention in the second segment by Juanita Buschkoetter about the poor price they had received for their crop there is barely a mention throughout the entire film about the fact the reason the Buschkoetter's and their neighbors are so tethered to their creditors and FmHA. One doesn't have to be a land-grant college agricultural economist to understand that when producers fail to realize a cost-of-production price for what they produce that are going to be eternally in debt.
>
> When the Buschkoetter's finally, after drought and economic hardships, harvest a bountiful crop the emphasis in the film is on the quantity of the crop they have been blessed with and nothing is said about what kind of price they got for that crop. In short, "The Farmer's Wife" sadly lacked the proper economic and political perspective that most consumers of food need to comprehend if they are to understand the true nature of this nation's "farm problem."
>
> Curiously, some of the most egregious omissions in the film are fortunately touched upon in some of the PBS's web site commentary on the film, particularly in Juanita and Darrel's own testimonials.
>
> "Today, more and more people look at farming as only a business; a way to make money. In corporate farming, greed takes the place of many qualities found in family farming.' --- Darrel Buschkoetter
>
> "We are losing literally thousands of farms a year to corporations who look to farming as a business only. We only have to go as far as a few miles from our farm to see the effects of corporate farming. Land had been purchased by corporations, who brought in huge bulldozers to clear the land of trees and shrubs and native grasses and ponds, that make it the beauty that God intended." --- Juanita Buschkoetter
>
> "This year, the price I will get for my grain will be less than what a farmer received 30 years ago. I challenge anyone in the city to make a living today on a salary they would have earned 30 years ago." --- Darrel Buschkoetter
>
> Reading such remarks one arrives at the conclusion that the major fault in the film was Producer\Director David Sutherland's inability to understand or ability to communicate that message in the film itself.
>
> Thus, in viewing the film, one could not help but wonder watching the scenes of Darrel Buschkoetter, unloading his corn harvest at a nearby grain elevator, whether the film showing the corporate owner of that elevator, might be laying on Sutherland's cutting room floor.
>
> P.S. When it comes to corn, the nation's largest corporation is Archer Daniels Midland, "Supermarkup to the World," with the largest storage facilities, in addition to being its top corn miller and processor and certainly no stranger to PBS.
>
> For additional material on "The Farmer's Wife" film and its making see:
> http://www.pbs.org
>
> LISTEN UP AMERICA, FAIR WARNING!!!!
>
> "The peaceful ways, the talking ways, the diplomatic ways, have basically been exhausted," observes Larry Neubauer of Sweetgrass, Montana.
>
> One has to read through 23 paragraphs of an Associated Press story which appeared in the September 23 edition of The New York Times to find Neubauer's dire warning. It came as hundreds of farmers and ranchers in a series of demonstrations blockaded Canadian border crossings this week, including stopping a Canadian Pacific train for about 20 minutes near Portal, N.D., by putting a tractor on the tracks.
>
> Hank Zell of Shelby, Montana said: "These little towns are drying up. Farmers don't have any money."
>
> Frustration with trade policies has intensified so much that North and South Dakota officials began pulling over Canadian trucks last week under tougher inspection programs for wheat and livestock.
>
> Canadian farmers also participated in the border actions. "When the Canadian Wheat Board dumps grain down here, it suppresses your market and we get less for it too," said Ron Duffy of Red Deer, Alberta.
>
> "Our market just keeps slipping away from us," said the blockade organizer, Ron Jensen of Sweetgrass. "We just can't afford to produce a bushel of grain for $2. The Federal Government says it costs us $5.54 to produce it."
>
> In 1997 a North Dakota State University study reported that durum and barley producers in the upper Midwest had lost nearly $270 million in income in three years because of Canadian grain dumping. Processors claim they were forced to buy Canadian grain because of disease-plagued domestic crops. American farmers, however, dispute this, saying there is plenty of good grain south of the border. Currently high-yield harvests in the U.S., have resulted in overflowing grain elevators, particularly in the Northwest driving domestic prices for wheat to record lows.
>
> The price of wheat last week, for example, was $2.15 a bushel, compared with $3.20 a bushel this time last year. Corn was getting $1.56 a bushel, compared with $2.28 a year ago, and soybeans $4.80 a bushel compared with $5.85. Hog prices were at a 24-year low, and beef cattle were selling at $50 per hundredweight, compared with $60 a year ago.
>
> MONSANTO'S MILK
>
> For several years Robert Cohen, with years of experience in biological research, has been working with the Canadians to prevent the bovine growth hormone (rBGH) from being used in cows to increase their milk supply in that country.
>
> Cohen has now written a book titled MILK: THE DEADLY POISON. A review by Jane Heimlich, wife of Dr. Henry Heimlich, inventor of the Heimlich Maneuver, notes:
>
> "I suspected that milk was a health disaster in the Spring of 94 and was one of the few health writers taking a critical view of the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH. What was needed to bring the deleterious effects to the fore was an intrepid scientist who could confront scientists from these prestigious organizations (FDA, AMA, WHO),speak their language, interpret scientific data and reveal the facts about the true nature of the milk hormone.
>
> "Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research. A call shortly after my July '94 article appeared (Health & Healing, a newsletter, with one-half million subscribers) from Mr. Cohen divulged his suspicions that the FDA's approval of the bovine growth hormone represented not only collusion between Monsanto and the FDA but a cover-up of epic proportions by the scientific establishment. His three-year fact finding journey proved him chillingly right.
>
> ". . . Cohen takes you by the hand as he uncovers layers of scientific fraud perpetuated by the FDA, with assistance from JAMA, Science News and even the Cadillac of scientific publications, Science. In digging for scientific facts, he found that the web of deception concerning the bovine growth hormone involved not only key players - FDA and Monsanto, but reached members of Congress as well as a respected medical authority turned Monsanto lobbyist.
>
> "At times this book reads like a detective story. Eventually our indefatigable scientific sleuth uncovered the smoking gun --incontrovertible evidence showing that laboratory animals treated with rBGH developed cancer, but he could not induce the FDA to reconsider their approval of the hormone. . ."
>
> MILK: THE DEADLY POISON, by Robert Cohen is 317 pages containing 336 references ), ISBN #0-9659-196-0-9 Copyright @ l997 Argus Publishing, 301 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07032
> http://www.notmilk.com
>
> WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING
>
> As we speak there is the possibility that the House of Representatives is debating and undertaking a vote on extending "fast track" legislation to allow the President to negotiate so-called "free trade" treaties subject simply to an up or down vote by the Congress with no amendments or revisions.
>
> House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. and other GOP leaders have been arguing that with the country's farmers hurting from low crop prices and the world's ailing economies, the proposal should draw extra votes now from lawmakers representing agricultural districts. Republicans say privately that a defeat would help the GOP by forcing farm-state Democrats to support the treaty or vote no and face retribution from angry agrarian voters.
>
> The GOP's strategy of rationalizing an affirmative vote on "fast track" on behalf of the country's farmers "angry agrarian voters" is for all practical purposes a smoke screen for promoting the self serving interests of corporate agribusiness, not the nation's family farmers. Unfortunately, many Democrats, liberals, progressives and the media have been all too quick to claim that the nation's farming community traditionally are the major supporters of "free trade" legislation, when in fact it has been the nation's family farmers who have suffered the most from just such legislation, as manifested this past week by the aforementioned demonstrations at the Canadian border.
>
> To be clear the so-called "farming interests" that have in the past and are currently supporting "fast track" legislation are embodied and emboldened in a lobbying effort called "Agriculture Coalition For Fast Track." It is composed of farm organizations which purport to serve the interests of their constituent members, i.e. farmers who are taxed to fund them all with their checkoff money.
>
> A look at the membership list of the "Agriculture Coalition for Fast Track," of which the National Pork Producers Council is co-chair. shows the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Turkey Federation a list that goes on and on, and that also includes such "family farmers" as Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill Incorporated, Central Soya Company, ConAgra, Continental Grain Company, Farmland Industries, General Mills, IMC Global, Independent Bankers Association of America, Louis Dreyfus Corporation, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Nestle USA, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Union Pacific and other corporate agribusiness giants.
>
> To put current "fast track" legislation into some kind of historical perspective one has to reflect on the 1995 Farm Bill, or as it was euphemistically called the "Freedom to Farm" bill. As the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Steve Suppan rightfully points out:
>
> "The process to pass Freedom to Farm (FTF) was essentially `fast track.' There were few hearings or open legislative drafting sessions and alternative legislative proposals were shut out of FTF. Count the parliamentary maneuvers to avoid debate and hearings -- FTF is the bastard of `fast track.'
>
> ?Furthermore exports benefit agribusiness speculators in futures and options, because they are are the major beneficiaries of the changes in U.S. prices that are emulated in marketing boards worldwide. Because of the electronic globalization of price signals -- absent crop failures, financial or trade policy changes, currency devaluations and/or infrastructural failures (among other factors -- market shares remain unchanged). The idea that farmers will be free to respond to price signals is bogus," Suppan adds.
>
> "The idea that `fast track' will increase U.S. market share in bulk commodities is bogus, and a fraud that would have been readily exposed if House and Senate leaders had allowed debate and amendment. Only speculators in ag futures and options have the capital liquidity and insider information to benefit from the price and volume volatility that has been exacerbated under FTF. Trimming FTF with higher loan rates will not expose the fast tracked rot at the heart of FTF. The only future for farmers under FTF is share cropping on the agribusiness plantation."
>
> Additional information on NAFTA, trade and pending "fast track" legislation see:
> NAFTA & Inter-American Trade Monitor produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Mark Ritchie, President. Edited by Mary C. Turck. Electronic mail versions are available free of charge for subscribers. For information about fax subscriptions contact: IATP, 2105 1st Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55404. Phone: 612-870-0453; fax: 612-870-4846; e-mail: iatp@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.iatp.org
>
> In addition if you want to find out what jobs have been destroyed by NAFTA check out the NAFTA-TAA page on the Global Trade Watch web site
> http://www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html
>
> To join the Global Trade Watch list server and keep up to date on trade policy and politics subscribe to and send this message: "SUBSCRIBE TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the state in which you live] to LISTPROC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> CORPORATE JUSTICE; AIN'T IT WONDERFUL?
>
> Despite the fact that a jury found two Tyson Food executives guilty of providing illegal gifts to former Agriculture secretary Mike Espy, despite the fact that the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods has already been fined $6 million after pleading guilty to giving Espy more than $12,000 in gifts a federal judge has thrown out the conviction of one of the Tyson executives.
>
> U.S. District Judge James Robertson overturned Archie Schaffer III's June 26 conviction but denied the motion for acquittal or a new trial of another Tyson executive, lobbyist Jack Williams. Tried with Schaffer in Robertson's court, Williams was convicted at the same time of lying to investigators.
>
> In Robertson's ruling, he noted that Schaffer was indicted for trying to influence two proposed rules under the Meat Inspection Act. But the judge found "no evidence that Schaffer or anybody in Tyson Foods knew of or anticipated anything about" the proposed policy changes at the time of the events.He also noted that once the policy changes were announced, there was no evidence that "Mr. Schaffer or Tyson Foods had any objection or opposition."
>
> It was soon after jurors returned guilty verdicts against Schaffer, 50, and Williams, 58, that Robertson indicated he might toss out the convictions and told Schaffer and Williams they could make arguments requesting such.
>
> Meanwhile, in Washington on September 24 jury selection began in the trial of former Secretary Espy, charged with taking $35,000 in illegal gifts from companies regulated by his agency. Espy, who has pleaded innocent to all 35 counts against him, resigned in 1994 because of the investigation.
>
> The former Mississippi congressman is accused of accepting illegal gifts that included travel, sports tickets and luggage. He is also accused of repeatedly lying to investigators about acceptance of gifts. Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's investigation, which started in September 1994, has led to a number of guilty pleas both among Espy's former staff and within the agricultural industry.
>
> Other convictions include Espy's former chief of staff, Ronald H. Blackley, who was sentenced to more than two years in prison in March for failing to disclose $22,000 he received from Mississippi associates dealing with the Agriculture Department and later trying to cover it up. He is free on bail pending appeal.
>
> Also, former Espy friend and lobbyist Richard Douglas was fined $3,100 in July after admitting he gave Espy more than $17,000 worth of illegal gratuities, including money to help pay off the campaign debt of Espy's brother Henry, who made an unsuccessful bid for Mike Espy's former congressional seat.
>
> For a PBS interview with Smaltz see:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html
>
> Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's web site can be found at:
> http://www.oic.gov/
>
> SNAP, POP AND CRACKLE
>
> In the last two weeks Kellogg Co., the nation's largest cereal manufacturer, has lost two of its top executives. First, it was Donald Fritz, president of Kellogg Europe and then the president of its flagship North America division, Thomas Knowlton, resigned.
>
> The shake-up, according to the Bloomberg News Service, at Battle Creek, Michigan is the latest fallout from the company's struggle to reignite its sales and earnings and to halt a decade-old slide in its share of the U.S. cereal market.
>
> "They're at the point where something has to be done," said Patrick Schumann, an analyst at the brokerage firm Edward D. Jones & Co. in St. Louis.
>
> Currently Kellogg is still the nation's biggest producer of ready-to-eat cereal, however, its share of the U.S. cereal market has dropped to 32% from 41.4% a decade ago, according to Information Resources Inc. (IRI), a research firm in Chicago, with General Mills closing in on Kellogg's lead.
>
> At the present time four firms control 88.5% of the U.S. cereal market. The U.S. market share is Kellogg: 32.0%; General Mills: 31.3%; General Foods (Post): 16.4%; Quaker Oats: 8.8%; Store brands: 7.8%, and Other: 3.7%.
>
> Under the Department of Justice guidelines, any market with a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ("HHI") above 1,800 is considered highly concentrated.
>
> The HHI is a way to measure concentration.It has more or less replaced the four firm concentration ratio. It is calculated by taking the sum of the square of market shares. A monopoly is 100 squared, or 10,000. Ten firms, each with 10 percent, would be 10 times 10 = 1,000. A duopoly with equal shares would be 50 times 50 = 5,000. Because small shares don't add up to much, even when squared, it is pretty safe to ignore them.
>
> The Department of Justice Antitrust guidelines consider an industry with an HHI of 1,000 or less to be competitive, and an HHI of 1,800 or more to be pretty concentrated. An increase in the HHI of 100 is considered important enough to trigger a merger review.
>
> The concentration index for the cereal industry, based on the HHI formula, in 1996 was 2084. Today it is 2350.09.
>
> The cereal business in the U.S. is an $7 billion annual market. Every one percentage point in market shares is equal to $80 million in annual revenues. .
>
> The U.S. cereal market is also probably THE most profitable sector of corporate agribusiness. The average annual return on equity (profitability) from 1993-1997 for the four largest cereal manufacturers was: Quaker Oats 28.9%, Kellogg?s 24%, General Mills 25.2%, and Philip Morris 22%.
>
> The 1993-1997 average median for the food, beverage and tobacco processing industry was 10.1%, for all U.S. industry it was 10.5%, while for U.S. agriculture a similar period's annual average was 1.98%.
>
> IRI also reports that the overall market is rapidly shrinking, and now stands at $7 billion in annual sales, down $1 billion from five years ago.. Analysts give two main reasons: Sharply rising cereal prices earlier this decade turned off many shoppers to branded cereals, and breakfast alternatives such as nutrition bars and bagel shops are cutting into cereal sales.
>
> "ONE OBEYS A COURT RULING AND DOESN'T DISCUSS IT"
>
> A Sao Paulo, Brazil court has barred the planting of genetically modified soybeans in that country. The decision will directly affect Monsanto do Brasil Ltda., the Brazilian arm of U.S.'s Monsanto Co., which had plans to start production of these beans in Brazil in 1999-2000.
>
> "One obeys a court ruling and doesn't discuss it," Rodrigo Almeida, corporate relations for Monsanto, told Dow Jones Newswires.
>
> He added that the ruling wasn't against Monsanto, which wasn't cited in the proceeding filed by the Brazilian Consumers Association, a consumer watchdog group.
>
> Two days after the court's decision Brazil's National Technical Commission for Biological Safety, known as CTNBio, approved a request by Monsanto do Brasil Ltda. (MTC) to produce genetically modified soybeans.The CTNBio's approval means production of these soybeans on a commercial scale awaits the approval of the Agriculture ministry, and probably that of the Environment ministry as well, said an CTNBio official.
>
> Monsanto had placed a request with National Technical Commission for Biological Security for authorization to plant, multiply, and market genetically altered soybeans in Brazil. "Since 1997, Monsanto has been planting genetically modified beans in Brazilian soil to collect samples and data," Almeida said. "We are absolutely confident that the product is safe and doesn't bring any risks to human health or the environment." He noted that almost a year ago, the association allowed imports
> of 1.6 million metric tons of soybeans, including genetically altered beans.
>
> For additional information on developments within agriculture biotechnology see:
> Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)
> http://www.rafi.ca
>
> * * * * * *
>
> If you have friends or colleagues who would like to receive The Agribusiness Examiner on a regular basis please send their name and e-mail address to avkrebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
--------------9899F104A2815202FC5F2D0F
Return-Path: <avkrebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:01:23 -0700
From: "Albert V. Krebs" <avkrebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: avkrebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: one@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: The Agribusiness Examiner #4
--------------D02CCF7183A0820513745180
The
AGRIBUSINESS
EXAMINER Issue #4 September 24, 1998
Montioring Corporate Agribusiness From A Public Interest Perspective
A.V. Krebs
Editor\Publisher
THE FARMER'S WIFE
While goodly numbers of Americans were mucking around with Bill Clinton
and Ken Starr in TV land earlier this week PBS viewers were given the
opportunity to eavesdrop for six and one-half hours on the lives of
Nebraska family farmers Juanita and Darrel Buschkoetter's marriage in
"The Farmer's Wife," a documentary produced for the network's
"Frontline" series.
As a human drama and an artistic film it was superb, cinematically
beautiful with a haunting musical score. As a vehicle to inform and
educate the public regarding the true nature of this nation's
"permanent agricultural crisis," however, the series was deeply flawed
and a major disappointment.
Prior to each of the three night's segments a narrator's voice cued the
audience that the Buschkoetter's story was not only a film about their
marriage. but "their battle with the bureaucrats and their creditors."
Unfortunately, that commentary was emblematic of the film and how badly
it missed its mark.
Except for one brief mention in the second segment by Juanita
Buschkoetter about the poor price they had received for their crop there
is barely a mention throughout the entire film about the fact the reason
the Buschkoetter's and their neighbors are so tethered to their
creditors and FmHA. One doesn't have to be a land-grant college
agricultural economist to understand that when producers fail to
realize a cost-of-production price for what they produce that are going
to be eternally in debt.
When the Buschkoetter's finally, after drought and economic hardships,
harvest a bountiful crop the emphasis in the film is on the quantity of
the crop they have been blessed with and nothing is said about what kind
of price they got for that crop. In short, "The Farmer's Wife" sadly
lacked the proper economic and political perspective that most consumers
of food need to comprehend if they are to understand the true nature of
this nation's "farm problem."
Curiously, some of the most egregious omissions in the film are
fortunately touched upon in some of the PBS's web site commentary on the
film, particularly in Juanita and Darrel's own testimonials.
"Today, more and more people look at farming as only a business; a way
to make money. In corporate farming, greed takes the place of many
qualities found in family farming.' --- Darrel Buschkoetter
"We are losing literally thousands of farms a year to corporations who
look to farming as a business only. We only have to go as far as a few
miles from our farm to see the effects of corporate farming. Land had
been purchased by corporations, who brought in huge bulldozers to clear
the land of trees and shrubs and native grasses and ponds, that make it
the beauty that God intended." --- Juanita Buschkoetter
"This year, the price I will get for my grain will be less than what a
farmer received 30 years ago. I challenge anyone in the city to make a
living today on a salary they would have earned 30 years
ago." --- Darrel Buschkoetter
Reading such remarks one arrives at the conclusion that the major fault
in the film was Producer\Director David Sutherland's inability to
understand or ability to communicate that message in the film itself.
Thus, in viewing the film, one could not help but wonder watching the
scenes of Darrel Buschkoetter, unloading his corn harvest at a nearby
grain elevator, whether the film showing the corporate owner of that
elevator, might be laying on Sutherland's cutting room floor.
P.S. When it comes to corn, the nation's largest corporation is Archer
Daniels Midland, "Supermarkup to the World," with the largest storage
facilities, in addition to being its top corn miller and processor and
certainly no stranger to PBS.
For additional material on "The Farmer's Wife" film and its making see:
http://www.pbs.org
LISTEN UP AMERICA, FAIR WARNING!!!!
"The peaceful ways, the talking ways, the diplomatic ways, have
basically been exhausted," observes Larry Neubauer of Sweetgrass,
Montana.
One has to read through 23 paragraphs of an Associated Press story which
appeared in the September 23 edition of The New York Times to find
Neubauer's dire warning. It came as hundreds of farmers and ranchers in
a series of demonstrations blockaded Canadian border crossings this
week, including stopping a Canadian Pacific train for about 20 minutes
near Portal, N.D., by putting a tractor on the tracks.
Hank Zell of Shelby, Montana said: "These little towns are drying up.
Farmers don't have any money."
Frustration with trade policies has intensified so much that North and
South Dakota officials began pulling over Canadian trucks last week
under tougher inspection programs for wheat and livestock.
Canadian farmers also participated in the border actions. "When the
Canadian Wheat Board dumps grain down here, it suppresses your market
and we get less for it too," said Ron Duffy of Red Deer, Alberta.
"Our market just keeps slipping away from us," said the blockade
organizer, Ron Jensen of Sweetgrass. "We just can't afford to produce a
bushel of grain for $2. The Federal Government says it costs us $5.54 to
produce it."
In 1997 a North Dakota State University study reported that durum and
barley producers in the upper Midwest had lost nearly $270 million in
income in three years because of Canadian grain dumping. Processors
claim they were forced to buy Canadian grain because of disease-plagued
domestic crops. American farmers, however, dispute this, saying there is
plenty of good grain south of the border. Currently high-yield harvests
in the U.S., have resulted in overflowing grain elevators, particularly
in the Northwest driving domestic prices for wheat to record lows.
The price of wheat last week, for example, was $2.15 a bushel, compared
with $3.20 a bushel this time last year. Corn was getting $1.56 a
bushel, compared with $2.28 a year ago, and soybeans $4.80 a bushel
compared with $5.85. Hog prices were at a 24-year low, and beef cattle
were selling at $50 per hundredweight, compared with $60 a year ago.
MONSANTO'S MILK
For several years Robert Cohen, with years of experience in biological
research, has been working with the Canadians to prevent the bovine
growth hormone (rBGH) from being used in cows to increase their milk
supply in that country.
Cohen has now written a book titled MILK: THE DEADLY POISON. A review by
Jane Heimlich, wife of Dr. Henry Heimlich, inventor of the Heimlich
Maneuver, notes:
"I suspected that milk was a health disaster in the Spring of 94 and was
one of the few health writers taking a critical view of the genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH. What was needed to bring the
deleterious effects to the fore was an intrepid scientist who could
confront scientists from these prestigious organizations (FDA, AMA,
WHO),speak their language, interpret scientific data and reveal the
facts about the true nature of the milk hormone.
"Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research. A
call shortly after my July '94 article appeared (Health & Healing, a
newsletter, with one-half million subscribers) from Mr. Cohen divulged
his suspicions that the FDA's approval of the bovine growth hormone
represented not only collusion between Monsanto and the FDA but a
cover-up of epic proportions by the scientific establishment. His
three-year fact finding journey proved him chillingly right.
". . . Cohen takes you by the hand as he uncovers layers of scientific
fraud perpetuated by the FDA, with assistance from JAMA, Science News
and even the Cadillac of scientific publications, Science. In digging
for scientific facts, he found that the web of deception concerning the
bovine growth hormone involved not only key players - FDA and Monsanto,
but reached members of Congress as well as a respected medical authority
turned Monsanto lobbyist.
"At times this book reads like a detective story. Eventually our
indefatigable scientific sleuth uncovered the smoking gun
--incontrovertible evidence showing that laboratory animals treated with
rBGH developed cancer, but he could not induce the FDA to reconsider
their approval of the hormone. . ."
MILK: THE DEADLY POISON, by Robert Cohen is 317 pages containing 336
references ), ISBN #0-9659-196-0-9 Copyright @ l997 Argus Publishing,
301 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07032
http://www.notmilk.com
WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING
As we speak there is the possibility that the House of Representatives
is debating and undertaking a vote on extending "fast track" legislation
to allow the President to negotiate so-called "free trade" treaties
subject simply to an up or down vote by the Congress with no amendments
or revisions.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. and other GOP leaders have been
arguing that with the country's farmers hurting from low crop prices and
the world's ailing economies, the proposal should draw extra votes now
from lawmakers representing agricultural districts. Republicans say
privately that a defeat would help the GOP by forcing farm-state
Democrats to support the treaty or vote no and face retribution from
angry agrarian voters.
The GOP's strategy of rationalizing an affirmative vote on "fast track"
on behalf of the country's farmers "angry agrarian voters" is for all
practical purposes a smoke screen for promoting the self serving
interests of corporate agribusiness, not the nation's family farmers.
Unfortunately, many Democrats, liberals, progressives and the media have
been all too quick to claim that the nation's farming community
traditionally are the major supporters of "free trade" legislation, when
in fact it has been the nation's family farmers who have suffered the
most from just such legislation, as manifested this past week by the
aforementioned demonstrations at the Canadian border.
To be clear the so-called "farming interests" that have in the past and
are currently supporting "fast track" legislation are embodied and
emboldened in a lobbying effort called "Agriculture Coalition For Fast
Track." It is composed of farm organizations which purport to serve the
interests of their constituent members, i.e. farmers who are taxed to
fund them all with their checkoff money.
A look at the membership list of the "Agriculture Coalition for Fast
Track," of which the National Pork Producers Council is co-chair. shows
the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association,
National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Turkey
Federation a list that goes on and on, and that also includes such
"family farmers" as Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill
Incorporated, Central Soya Company, ConAgra, Continental Grain Company,
Farmland Industries, General Mills, IMC Global, Independent Bankers
Association of America, Louis Dreyfus Corporation, National Association
of State Departments of Agriculture, Nestle USA, Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Union Pacific and other corporate agribusiness giants.
To put current "fast track" legislation into some kind of historical
perspective one has to reflect on the 1995 Farm Bill, or as it was
euphemistically called the "Freedom to Farm" bill. As the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy's Steve Suppan rightfully points out:
"The process to pass Freedom to Farm (FTF) was essentially `fast track.'
There were few hearings or open legislative drafting sessions and
alternative legislative proposals were shut out of FTF. Count the
parliamentary maneuvers to avoid debate and hearings -- FTF is the
bastard of `fast track.'
ìFurthermore exports benefit agribusiness speculators in futures and
options, because they are are the major beneficiaries of the changes in
U.S. prices that are emulated in marketing boards worldwide. Because
of the electronic globalization of price signals -- absent crop
failures, financial or trade policy changes, currency devaluations
and/or infrastructural failures (among other factors -- market shares
remain unchanged). The idea that farmers will be free to respond to
price signals is bogus," Suppan adds.
"The idea that `fast track' will increase U.S. market share in bulk
commodities is bogus, and a fraud that would have been readily exposed
if House and Senate leaders had allowed debate and amendment. Only
speculators in ag futures and options have the capital liquidity and
insider information to benefit from the price and volume volatility that
has been exacerbated under FTF. Trimming FTF with higher loan rates
will not expose the fast tracked rot at the heart of FTF. The only
future for farmers under FTF is share cropping on the agribusiness
plantation."
Additional information on NAFTA, trade and pending "fast track"
legislation see:
NAFTA & Inter-American Trade Monitor produced by the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, Mark Ritchie, President. Edited by Mary C.
Turck. Electronic mail versions are available free of charge for
subscribers. For information about fax subscriptions contact: IATP,
2105 1st Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55404. Phone: 612-870-0453; fax:
612-870-4846; e-mail: iatp@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.iatp.org
In addition if you want to find out what jobs have been destroyed by
NAFTA check out the NAFTA-TAA page on the Global Trade Watch web site
http://www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html
To join the Global Trade Watch list server and keep up to date on trade
policy and politics subscribe to and send this message: "SUBSCRIBE
TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the
state in which you live] to LISTPROC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CORPORATE JUSTICE; AIN'T IT WONDERFUL?
Despite the fact that a jury found two Tyson Food executives guilty of
providing illegal gifts to former Agriculture secretary Mike Espy,
despite the fact that the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods has already been
fined $6 million after pleading guilty to giving Espy more than $12,000
in gifts a federal judge has thrown out the conviction of one of the
Tyson executives.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson overturned Archie Schaffer III's
June 26 conviction but denied the motion for acquittal or a new trial of
another Tyson executive, lobbyist Jack Williams. Tried with Schaffer in
Robertson's court, Williams was convicted at the same time of lying to
investigators.
In Robertson's ruling, he noted that Schaffer was indicted for trying to
influence two proposed rules under the Meat Inspection Act. But the
judge found "no evidence that Schaffer or anybody in Tyson Foods knew of
or anticipated anything about" the proposed policy changes at the time
of the events.He also noted that once the policy changes were announced,
there was no evidence that "Mr. Schaffer or Tyson Foods had any
objection or opposition."
It was soon after jurors returned guilty verdicts against Schaffer, 50,
and Williams, 58, that Robertson indicated he might toss out the
convictions and told Schaffer and Williams they could make arguments
requesting such.
Meanwhile, in Washington on September 24 jury selection began in the
trial of former Secretary Espy, charged with taking $35,000 in illegal
gifts from companies regulated by his agency. Espy, who has pleaded
innocent to all 35 counts against him, resigned in 1994 because of the
investigation.
The former Mississippi congressman is accused of accepting illegal gifts
that included travel, sports tickets and luggage. He is also accused of
repeatedly lying to investigators about acceptance of gifts. Independent
Counsel Donald Smaltz's investigation, which started in September 1994,
has led to a number of guilty pleas both among Espy's former staff and
within the agricultural industry.
Other convictions include Espy's former chief of staff, Ronald H.
Blackley, who was sentenced to more than two years in prison in March
for failing to disclose $22,000 he received from Mississippi associates
dealing with the Agriculture Department and later trying to cover it up.
He is free on bail pending appeal.
Also, former Espy friend and lobbyist Richard Douglas was fined $3,100
in July after admitting he gave Espy more than $17,000 worth of illegal
gratuities, including money to help pay off the campaign debt of Espy's
brother Henry, who made an unsuccessful bid for Mike Espy's former
congressional seat.
For a PBS interview with Smaltz see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html
Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's web site can be found at:
http://www.oic.gov/
SNAP, POP AND CRACKLE
In the last two weeks Kellogg Co., the nation's largest cereal
manufacturer, has lost two of its top executives. First, it was Donald
Fritz, president of Kellogg Europe and then the president of its
flagship North America division, Thomas Knowlton, resigned.
The shake-up, according to the Bloomberg News Service, at Battle Creek,
Michigan is the latest fallout from the company's struggle to reignite
its sales and earnings and to halt a decade-old slide in its share of
the U.S. cereal market.
"They're at the point where something has to be done," said Patrick
Schumann, an analyst at the brokerage firm Edward D. Jones & Co. in St.
Louis.
Currently Kellogg is still the nation's biggest producer of ready-to-eat
cereal, however, its share of the U.S. cereal market has dropped to 32%
from 41.4% a decade ago, according to Information Resources Inc. (IRI),
a research firm in Chicago, with General Mills closing in on Kellogg's
lead.
At the present time four firms control 88.5% of the U.S. cereal market.
The U.S. market share is Kellogg: 32.0%; General Mills: 31.3%; General
Foods (Post): 16.4%; Quaker Oats: 8.8%; Store brands: 7.8%, and Other:
3.7%.
Under the Department of Justice guidelines, any market with a
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ("HHI") above 1,800 is considered highly
concentrated.
The HHI is a way to measure concentration.It has more or less replaced
the four firm concentration ratio. It is calculated by taking the sum of
the square of market shares. A monopoly is 100 squared, or 10,000. Ten
firms, each with 10 percent, would be 10 times 10 = 1,000. A duopoly
with equal shares would be 50 times 50 = 5,000. Because small shares
don't add up to much, even when squared, it is pretty safe to ignore
them.
The Department of Justice Antitrust guidelines consider an industry with
an HHI of 1,000 or less to be competitive, and an HHI of 1,800 or more
to be pretty concentrated. An increase in the HHI of 100 is considered
important enough to trigger a merger review.
The concentration index for the cereal industry, based on the HHI
formula, in 1996 was 2084. Today it is 2350.09.
The cereal business in the U.S. is an $7 billion annual market. Every
one percentage point in market shares is equal to $80 million in annual
revenues. .
The U.S. cereal market is also probably THE most profitable sector of
corporate agribusiness. The average annual return on equity
(profitability) from 1993-1997 for the four largest cereal manufacturers
was: Quaker Oats 28.9%, Kelloggís 24%, General Mills 25.2%, and Philip
Morris 22%.
The 1993-1997 average median for the food, beverage and tobacco
processing industry was 10.1%, for all U.S. industry it was 10.5%,
while for U.S. agriculture a similar period's annual average was 1.98%.
IRI also reports that the overall market is rapidly shrinking, and now
stands at $7 billion in annual sales, down $1 billion from five years
ago.. Analysts give two main reasons: Sharply rising cereal prices
earlier this decade turned off many shoppers to branded cereals, and
breakfast alternatives such as nutrition bars and bagel shops are
cutting into cereal sales.
"ONE OBEYS A COURT RULING AND DOESN'T DISCUSS IT"
A Sao Paulo, Brazil court has barred the planting of genetically
modified soybeans in that country. The decision will directly affect
Monsanto do Brasil Ltda., the Brazilian arm of U.S.'s Monsanto Co.,
which had plans to start production of these beans in Brazil in
1999-2000.
"One obeys a court ruling and doesn't discuss it," Rodrigo Almeida,
corporate relations for Monsanto, told Dow Jones Newswires.
He added that the ruling wasn't against Monsanto, which wasn't cited in
the proceeding filed by the Brazilian Consumers Association, a consumer
watchdog group.
Two days after the court's decision Brazil's National Technical
Commission for Biological Safety, known as CTNBio, approved a request
by Monsanto do Brasil Ltda. (MTC) to produce genetically modified
soybeans.The CTNBio's approval means production of these soybeans on a
commercial scale awaits the approval of the Agriculture ministry, and
probably that of the Environment ministry as well, said an CTNBio
official.
Monsanto had placed a request with National Technical Commission for
Biological Security for authorization to plant, multiply, and market
genetically altered soybeans in Brazil. "Since 1997, Monsanto has been
planting genetically modified beans in Brazilian soil to collect samples
and data," Almeida said. "We are absolutely confident that the product
is safe and doesn't bring any risks to human health or the
environment." He noted that almost a year ago, the association allowed
imports
of 1.6 million metric tons of soybeans, including genetically altered
beans.
For additional information on developments within agriculture
biotechnology see:
Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)
http://www.rafi.ca
* * *
* * *
If you have friends or colleagues who would like to receive The
Agribusiness Examiner on a regular basis please send their name and
e-mail address to avkrebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--------------D02CCF7183A0820513745180
<HTML>
<B><FONT SIZE=+1>The</FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=+2>AGRIBUSINESS</FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=+2>EXAMINER
</FONT></B>Issue #4 September 24, 1998
<P><I>Montioring Corporate Agribusiness From A Public Interest Perspective</I>
<BR>
<P>A.V. Krebs
<BR><I>Editor\Publisher</I>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=+1></FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>THE FARMER'S WIFE</FONT>
<P>While goodly numbers of Americans were mucking around with Bill Clinton
and Ken Starr in TV land earlier this week PBS viewers were given the opportunity
to eavesdrop for six and one-half hours on the lives of Nebraska family
farmers Juanita and Darrel Buschkoetter's marriage in "The Farmer's Wife,"
a documentary produced for the network's "Frontline" series.
<P>As a human drama and an artistic film it was superb, cinematically beautiful
with a haunting musical score. As a vehicle to inform and educate the public
regarding the true nature of this nation's "permanent agricultural
crisis," however, the series was deeply flawed and a major disappointment.
<P>Prior to each of the three night's segments a narrator's voice cued
the audience that the Buschkoetter's story was not only a film about their
marriage. but "their battle with the bureaucrats and their creditors."
Unfortunately, that commentary was emblematic of the film and how badly
it missed its mark.
<P>Except for one brief mention in the second segment by Juanita Buschkoetter
about the poor price they had received for their crop there is barely a
mention throughout the entire film about the fact the reason the Buschkoetter's
and their neighbors are so tethered to their creditors and FmHA.
One doesn't have to be a land-grant college agricultural economist to understand
that when producers fail to realize a cost-of-production price for
what they produce that are going to be eternally in debt.
<P>When the Buschkoetter's finally, after drought and economic hardships,
harvest a bountiful crop the emphasis in the film is on the quantity of
the crop they have been blessed with and nothing is said about what kind
of price they got for that crop. In short, "The Farmer's Wife" sadly
lacked the proper economic and political perspective that most consumers
of food need to comprehend if they are to understand the true nature of
this nation's "farm problem."
<P>Curiously, some of the most egregious omissions in the film are fortunately
touched upon in some of the PBS's web site commentary on the film, particularly
in Juanita and Darrel's own testimonials.
<P>"Today, more and more people look at farming as only a business; a way
to make money. In corporate farming, greed takes the place of many qualities
found in family farming.' --- Darrel Buschkoetter
<P>"We are losing literally thousands of farms a year to corporations who
look to farming as a business only. We only have to go as far as a few
miles from our farm to see the effects of corporate farming. Land had been
purchased by corporations, who brought in huge bulldozers to clear the
land of trees and shrubs and native grasses and ponds, that make it the
beauty that God intended." --- Juanita Buschkoetter
<P>"This year, the price I will get for my grain will be less than what
a farmer received 30 years ago. I challenge anyone in the city to make
a living today on a salary they would have earned 30 years ago."
--- Darrel Buschkoetter
<P>Reading such remarks one arrives at the conclusion that the major fault
in the film was Producer\Director David Sutherland's inability to understand
or ability to communicate that message in the film itself.
<P>Thus, in viewing the film, one could not help but wonder watching the
scenes of Darrel Buschkoetter, unloading his corn harvest at a nearby grain
elevator, whether the film showing the corporate owner of that elevator,
might be laying on Sutherland's cutting room floor.
<P>P.S. When it comes to corn, the nation's largest corporation is Archer
Daniels Midland, "Supermarkup to the World," with the largest storage facilities,
in addition to being its top corn miller and processor and certainly no
stranger to PBS.
<P>For additional material on "The Farmer's Wife" film and its making see:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.pbs.org";>http://www.pbs.org</A>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>LISTEN UP AMERICA, FAIR WARNING!!!!</FONT>
<P>"The peaceful ways, the talking ways, the diplomatic ways, have basically
been exhausted," observes Larry Neubauer of Sweetgrass, Montana.
<P>One has to read through 23 paragraphs of an Associated Press story which
appeared in the September 23 edition of <U>The New York Times</U> to find
Neubauer's dire warning. It came as hundreds of farmers and ranchers in
a series of demonstrations blockaded Canadian border crossings this week,
including stopping a Canadian Pacific train for about 20 minutes near Portal,
N.D., by putting a tractor on the tracks.
<P>Hank Zell of Shelby, Montana said: "These little towns are drying up.
Farmers don't have any money."
<P>Frustration with trade policies has intensified so much that North and
South Dakota officials began pulling over Canadian trucks last week under
tougher inspection programs for wheat and livestock.
<P>Canadian farmers also participated in the border actions. "When the
Canadian Wheat Board dumps grain down here, it suppresses your market and
we get less for it too," said Ron Duffy of Red Deer, Alberta.
<P>"Our market just keeps slipping away from us," said the blockade organizer,
Ron Jensen of Sweetgrass. "We just can't afford to produce a bushel of
grain for $2. The Federal Government says it costs us $5.54 to produce
it."
<P>In 1997 a North Dakota State University study reported that durum and
barley producers in the upper Midwest had lost nearly $270 million in income
in three years because of Canadian grain dumping. Processors claim they
were forced to buy Canadian grain because of disease-plagued domestic crops.
American farmers, however, dispute this, saying there is plenty of good
grain south of the border. Currently high-yield harvests in the U.S.,
have resulted in overflowing grain elevators, particularly in the Northwest
driving domestic prices for wheat to record lows.
<P>The price of wheat last week, for example, was $2.15 a bushel, compared
with $3.20 a bushel this time last year. Corn was getting $1.56 a bushel,
compared with $2.28 a year ago, and soybeans $4.80 a bushel compared with
$5.85. Hog prices were at a 24-year low, and beef cattle were selling at
$50 per hundredweight, compared with $60 a year ago.
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>MONSANTO'S MILK</FONT>
<P>For several years Robert Cohen, with years of experience in biological
research, has been working with the Canadians to prevent the bovine growth
hormone (rBGH) from being used in cows to increase their milk supply in
that country.
<P>Cohen has now written a book titled MILK: THE DEADLY POISON. A review
by Jane Heimlich, wife of Dr. Henry Heimlich, inventor of the Heimlich
Maneuver, notes:
<BR>
<BR>"I suspected that milk was a health disaster in the Spring of 94 and
was one of the few health writers taking a critical view of the genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH. What was needed to bring
the deleterious effects to the fore was an intrepid scientist who could
confront scientists from these prestigious organizations (FDA, AMA, WHO),speak
their language, interpret scientific data and reveal the facts about the
true nature of the milk hormone.
<P>"Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research.
A call shortly after my July '94 article appeared (Health & Healing,
a newsletter, with one-half million subscribers) from Mr. Cohen divulged
his suspicions that the FDA's approval of the bovine growth hormone represented
not only collusion between Monsanto and the FDA but a cover-up of epic
proportions by the scientific establishment. His three-year fact
finding journey proved him chillingly right.
<P>". . . Cohen takes you by the hand as he uncovers layers of scientific
fraud perpetuated by the FDA, with assistance from <U>JAMA</U>, <U>Science
News</U> and even the Cadillac of scientific publications, <U>Science</U>.
In digging for scientific facts, he found that the web of deception concerning
the bovine growth hormone involved not only key players - FDA and Monsanto,
but reached members of Congress as well as a respected medical authority
turned Monsanto lobbyist.
<P>"At times this book reads like a detective story. Eventually our
indefatigable scientific sleuth uncovered the smoking gun --incontrovertible
evidence showing that laboratory animals treated with rBGH developed cancer,
but he could not induce the FDA to reconsider their approval of the hormone.
.. ."
<P>MILK: THE DEADLY POISON, by Robert Cohen is 317 pages containing
336 references ), ISBN #0-9659-196-0-9 Copyright @ l997 Argus Publishing,
301 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07032
<BR><A HREF="http://www.notmilk.com";>http://www.notmilk.com</A>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING</FONT>
<P>As we speak there is the possibility that the House of Representatives
is debating and undertaking a vote on extending "fast track" legislation
to allow the President to negotiate so-called "free trade" treaties subject
simply to an up or down vote by the Congress with no amendments or revisions.
<P>House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. and other GOP leaders have been arguing
that with the country's farmers hurting from low crop prices and the world's
ailing economies, the proposal should draw extra votes now from lawmakers
representing agricultural districts. Republicans say privately that a defeat
would help the GOP by forcing farm-state Democrats to support the
treaty or vote no and face retribution from angry agrarian voters.
<P>The GOP's strategy of rationalizing an affirmative vote on "fast track"
on behalf of the country's farmers "angry agrarian voters" is for all practical
purposes a smoke screen for promoting the self serving interests of corporate
agribusiness, not the nation's family farmers. Unfortunately, many Democrats,
liberals, progressives and the media have been all too quick to claim that
the nation's farming community traditionally are the major supporters of
"free trade" legislation, when in fact it has been the nation's family
farmers who have suffered the most from just such legislation, as manifested
this past week by the aforementioned demonstrations at the Canadian border.
<P>To be clear the so-called "farming interests" that have in the past
and are currently supporting "fast track" legislation are embodied and
emboldened in a lobbying effort called "Agriculture Coalition For Fast
Track." It is composed of farm organizations which purport to serve the
interests of their constituent members, i.e. farmers who are taxed to fund
them all with their checkoff money.
<P>A look at the membership list of the "Agriculture Coalition for Fast
Track," of which the National Pork Producers Council is co-chair. shows
the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National
Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National
Corn Growers Association, National Turkey Federation a list that
goes on and on, and that also includes such "family farmers" as Archer
Daniels Midland Company, Cargill Incorporated, Central Soya Company, ConAgra,
Continental Grain Company, Farmland Industries, General Mills, IMC Global,
Independent Bankers Association of America, Louis Dreyfus Corporation,
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Nestle USA, Pioneer
Hi-Bred International, Union Pacific and other corporate agribusiness giants.
<P>To put current "fast track" legislation into some kind of historical
perspective one has to reflect on the 1995 Farm Bill, or as it was euphemistically
called the "Freedom to Farm" bill. As the Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy's Steve Suppan rightfully points out:
<P>"The process to pass Freedom to Farm (FTF) was essentially `fast track.'
There were few hearings or open legislative drafting sessions and alternative
legislative proposals were shut out of FTF. Count the parliamentary maneuvers
to avoid debate and hearings -- FTF is the bastard of `fast track.'
<P>?Furthermore exports benefit agribusiness speculators in futures and
options, because they are are the major beneficiaries of the changes in
U.S. prices that are emulated in marketing boards worldwide.
Because of the electronic globalization of price signals -- absent crop
failures, financial or trade policy changes, currency devaluations and/or
infrastructural failures (among other factors -- market shares remain unchanged).
The idea that farmers will be free to respond to price signals is bogus,"
Suppan adds.
<P>"The idea that `fast track' will increase U.S. market share in bulk
commodities is bogus, and a fraud that would have been readily exposed
if House and Senate leaders had allowed debate and amendment. Only
speculators in ag futures and options have the capital liquidity and insider
information to benefit from the price and volume volatility that has been
exacerbated under FTF. Trimming FTF with higher loan rates will not
expose the fast tracked rot at the heart of FTF. The only future
for farmers under FTF is share cropping on the agribusiness plantation."
<P>Additional information on NAFTA, trade and pending "fast track" legislation
see:
<BR>NAFTA & Inter-American Trade Monitor produced by the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Mark Ritchie, President.
Edited by Mary C. Turck. Electronic mail versions are available
free of charge for subscribers. For information about fax subscriptions
contact: IATP, 2105 1st Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55404.
Phone: 612-870-0453; fax: 612-870-4846; e-mail: iatp@xxxxxxxxx
<BR><A HREF="http://www.iatp.org";>http://www.iatp.org</A>
<P>In addition if you want to find out what jobs have been destroyed by
NAFTA check out the NAFTA-TAA page on the Global Trade Watch web site
<BR><A HREF="http://www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html";>http://www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html</A>
<P>To join the Global Trade Watch list server and keep up to date on trade
policy and politics subscribe to and send this message: "SUBSCRIBE TW-LIST"
[followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the state in
which you live] to LISTPROC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>CORPORATE JUSTICE; AIN'T IT WONDERFUL?</FONT>
<P>Despite the fact that a jury found two Tyson Food executives guilty
of providing illegal gifts to former Agriculture secretary Mike Espy, despite
the fact that the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods has already been fined $6
million after pleading guilty to giving Espy more than $12,000 in gifts
a federal judge has thrown out the conviction of one of the Tyson executives.
<P>U.S. District Judge James Robertson overturned Archie Schaffer III's
June 26 conviction but denied the motion for acquittal or a new trial of
another Tyson executive, lobbyist Jack Williams. Tried with Schaffer in
Robertson's court, Williams was convicted at the same time of lying
to investigators.
<P>In Robertson's ruling, he noted that Schaffer was indicted for trying
to influence two proposed rules under the Meat Inspection Act. But the
judge found "no evidence that Schaffer or anybody in Tyson Foods knew of
or anticipated anything about" the proposed policy changes at the time
of the events.He also noted that once the policy changes were announced,
there was no evidence that "Mr. Schaffer or Tyson Foods had any objection
or opposition."
<P>It was soon after jurors returned guilty verdicts against Schaffer,
50, and Williams, 58, that Robertson indicated he might toss out
the convictions and told Schaffer and Williams they could make
arguments requesting such.
<P>Meanwhile, in Washington on September 24 jury selection began in the
trial of former Secretary Espy, charged with taking $35,000 in illegal
gifts from companies regulated by his agency. Espy, who has pleaded innocent
to all 35 counts against him, resigned in 1994 because of the investigation.
<P>The former Mississippi congressman is accused of accepting illegal gifts
that included travel, sports tickets and luggage. He is also accused of
repeatedly lying to investigators about acceptance of gifts. Independent
Counsel Donald Smaltz's investigation, which started in September 1994,
has led to a number of guilty pleas both among Espy's former staff and
within the agricultural industry.
<P>Other convictions include Espy's former chief of staff, Ronald H. Blackley,
who was sentenced to more than two years in prison in March for failing
to disclose $22,000 he received from Mississippi associates dealing with
the Agriculture Department and later trying to cover it up. He is free
on bail pending appeal.
<P>Also, former Espy friend and lobbyist Richard Douglas was fined $3,100
in July after admitting he gave Espy more than $17,000 worth of illegal
gratuities, including money to help pay off the campaign debt of Espy's
brother Henry, who made an unsuccessful bid for Mike Espy's former congressional
seat.
<P>For a PBS interview with Smaltz see:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html";>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html</A>
<P>Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's web site can be found at:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.oic.gov/";>http://www.oic.gov/</A>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>SNAP, POP AND CRACKLE</FONT>
<P>In the last two weeks Kellogg Co., the nation's largest cereal manufacturer,
has lost two of its top executives. First, it was Donald Fritz,
president of Kellogg Europe and then the president of its flagship North
America division, Thomas Knowlton, resigned.
<P>The shake-up, according to the Bloomberg News Service, at Battle Creek,
Michigan is the latest fallout from the company's struggle to reignite
its sales and earnings and to halt a decade-old slide in its share of the
U.S. cereal market.
<P>"They're at the point where something has to be done," said Patrick
Schumann, an analyst at the brokerage firm Edward D. Jones & Co. in
St. Louis.
<P>Currently Kellogg is still the nation's biggest producer of ready-to-eat
cereal, however, its share of the U.S. cereal market has dropped to 32%
from 41.4% a decade ago, according to Information Resources Inc. (IRI),
a research firm in Chicago, with General Mills closing in on Kellogg's
lead.
<P>At the present time four firms control 88.5% of the U.S. cereal market.
The U.S. market share is Kellogg: 32.0%; General Mills: 31.3%; General
Foods (Post): 16.4%; Quaker Oats: 8.8%; Store brands: 7.8%, and Other:
3.7%.
<P>Under the Department of Justice guidelines, any market with a Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index ("HHI") above 1,800 is considered highly concentrated.
<P>The HHI is a way to measure concentration.It has more or less replaced
the four firm concentration ratio. It is calculated by taking the sum of
the square of market shares. A monopoly is 100 squared, or 10,000.
Ten firms, each with 10 percent, would be 10 times 10 = 1,000. A duopoly
with equal shares would be 50 times 50 = 5,000. Because small shares
don't add up to much, even when squared, it is pretty safe to ignore them.
<P>The Department of Justice Antitrust guidelines consider an industry
with an HHI of 1,000 or less to be competitive, and an HHI of 1,800 or
more to be pretty concentrated. An increase in the HHI of 100 is
considered important enough to trigger a merger review.
<P>The concentration index for the cereal industry, based on the HHI formula,
in 1996 was 2084. Today it is 2350.09.
<BR>
<BR>The cereal business in the U.S. is an $7 billion annual market. Every
one percentage point in market shares is equal to $80 million in
annual revenues. .
<P>The U.S. cereal market is also probably THE most profitable sector of
corporate agribusiness. The average annual return on equity (profitability)
from 1993-1997 for the four largest cereal manufacturers was: Quaker
Oats 28.9%, Kellogg?s 24%, General Mills 25.2%, and Philip Morris 22%.
<P>The 1993-1997 average median for the food, beverage and tobacco processing
industry was 10.1%, for all U.S. industry it was 10.5%, while for
U.S. agriculture a similar period's annual average was 1.98%.
<P>IRI also reports that the overall market is rapidly shrinking, and now
stands at $7 billion in annual sales, down $1 billion from five years ago..
Analysts give two main reasons: Sharply rising cereal prices earlier this
decade turned off many shoppers to branded cereals, and breakfast alternatives
such as nutrition bars and bagel shops are cutting into cereal sales.
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>"ONE OBEYS A COURT RULING AND DOESN'T DISCUSS IT"</FONT>
<P>A Sao Paulo, Brazil court has barred the planting of genetically
modified soybeans in that country. The decision will directly affect Monsanto
do Brasil Ltda., the Brazilian arm of U.S.'s Monsanto Co., which had plans
to start production of these beans in Brazil in 1999-2000.
<P>"One obeys a court ruling and doesn't discuss it," Rodrigo Almeida,
corporate relations for Monsanto, told Dow Jones Newswires.
<P>He added that the ruling wasn't against Monsanto, which wasn't cited
in the proceeding filed by the Brazilian Consumers Association, a consumer
watchdog group.
<P>Two days after the court's decision Brazil's National Technical Commission
for Biological Safety, known as CTNBio, approved a request by Monsanto
do Brasil Ltda. (MTC) to produce genetically modified soybeans.The CTNBio's
approval means production of these soybeans on a commercial scale awaits
the approval of the Agriculture ministry, and probably that of the Environment
ministry as well, said an CTNBio official.
<P>Monsanto had placed a request with National Technical Commission for
Biological Security for authorization to plant, multiply, and market genetically
altered soybeans in Brazil. "Since 1997, Monsanto has been planting genetically
modified beans in Brazilian soil to collect samples and data," Almeida
said. "We are absolutely confident that the product is safe and doesn't
bring any risks to human health or the environment." He noted that almost
a year ago, the association allowed imports
<BR> of 1.6 million metric tons of soybeans, including genetically
altered beans.
<P>For additional information on developments within agriculture biotechnology
see:
<BR>Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)
<BR><A HREF="http://www.rafi.ca";>http://www.rafi.ca</A>
<P>
* * * * * *
<P>If you have friends or colleagues who would like to receive <U>The Agribusiness
Examiner</U> on a regular basis please send their name and e-mail address
to avkrebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</HTML>
--------------D02CCF7183A0820513745180--
--------------9899F104A2815202FC5F2D0F--
- Thread context:
- [PEN-L:243] re PEN-L:238] [Fwd: The Agribusiness Examiner #4],
Frank Durgin Fri 25 Sep 1998, 19:55 GMT
- [PEN-L:240] RCPT: Re: Disgruntled,
ECUSERS Fri 25 Sep 1998, 17:35 GMT
- [PEN-L:239] Re: Disgruntled,
AK Sinha Fri 25 Sep 1998, 17:30 GMT
- [PEN-L:241] Re: chicken hawk mutual funds,
James Devine Fri 25 Sep 1998, 17:17 GMT
- [PEN-L:238] [Fwd: The Agribusiness Examiner #4],
Michael Perelman Fri 25 Sep 1998, 16:25 GMT
- [PEN-L:236] chicken hawk mutual funds,
Tom Walker Fri 25 Sep 1998, 15:43 GMT
- [PEN-L:237] Re: more on work and family values,
Michael Eisenscher Fri 25 Sep 1998, 15:43 GMT
- [PEN-L:235] Bring back the buffalo,
Louis Proyect Fri 25 Sep 1998, 15:12 GMT
- [PEN-L:234] Disgruntled,
Louis Proyect Fri 25 Sep 1998, 14:56 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]