Corporate influence

[grassfarmer]

I posted on another thread the great comment by Stewart Wells that what we need is a separation of corporation and state. To put some figures to that might highlight the scale of difficulty we face as producers in changing the status quo.
In the US presidential election of 2004 agribusiness companies gave $53 million to the candidates. Between 1998 and 2005 big agribusiness companies spent $800 million on direct lobbying efforts in Washington!In 2006 alone Syngenta spent $4.2 million and Monsanto $3.6 million.
This is in the US but obviously it happens in similar fashion in Canada too. Brian Mulroney is on the board of directors of ADM (Archer Daniels Midland)and this highlights the other part of the corporate equation. Apart from the direct corporate sponsorship of politicians through election donations there is the revolving door effect that sees retiring politicians becoming directors of the large corporations as pay off for their "good service" over their years in politics.
I think this issue is the largest threat to global food security, and to ag producers ability to sc**** a living. When you understand this it is easy to see why the decisions always appear to come down on the side of big business.

[PureCountry]

We discussed this today at the Bull Congress in Camrose Iain. There are something like 20 PC MLA's retiring in the next 12 months, all at reasonably young ages. Do you think they're going to retire conventionally - take the wife on a 'round-the-world-cruise', or golf 6 days a week? No, they'll become the technical advisor, mechanical consultant, or Hon. CEO of some corp, and take in 200,000/yr, after receiving their severance package of 5-600,000 from us, John and Jane Taxpayer. Hah!

But, sad part is, how do we say who can and can't be employed in a "free" country?

[per]

Not to mention the DM's and ADM's that also retire young and become "Consultants" to theses new CEO's and directly back to the Government at ten times the cost of their previous employment. Maybe there are few among them that could serve our industry in the round tables third way.

[farmers_son]

I guess I am missing the point Stewart Wells, President of Canada’s Farmers Union, means by separation of corporation and state. I tend to prefer our government leaders to have business experience rather than be professors or lawyers although perhaps we need some of those in the mix too. There have been notable examples of great leaders whose background included Church as well as further education.

The structure of government in Canada is different than in the United States and is not subject to the same level of direct lobbying by corporations or anyone else.

I am not sure Mulroney is typical. Brian Mulroney always was pro American and was Executive Vice President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a joint subsidiary of three major U.S. steel corporations before being Canada’s Prime Minister. Whether his policies or influence made a difference with the later sale of Stelco to U.S. steel would only be conjecture on my part.

I think at least some of our federal politicians are proud Canadians. And some of them are very capable business people. We need the very best people running our government and if they are business men and women all the better in my view. Right now the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal and New Democrats are academics not business people. I guess that is a separation of corporation and state if that is what Stewart Wells is getting at. Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois is a former Marxist who earned a living as a labour union activist. To me, that represents a separation of state and common sense.

I guess your point is our government leaders are making decisions while in government with an eye to gaining a seat on a prestigious board after they no longer serve the public. That might be the case, I do not know. Not every politician is motivated by the highest ideals. The largest threat to global food security…that is a bit of a stretch. Many would say that global warming is the largest threat to global food security and I have serious doubts that global warming is even reality (although I have enjoyed the winter up to now).

No matter who our government leaders are and no matter what their views are, cows will be grazing the grass in Alberta for a very, very long time.

[grassfarmer]

So I'm imagining the connection between corporation and state? Is it just coincidence that the two large packers in Alberta were the only net beneficiaries of the BSE aid packages, the fact that they refused to open their books for inspection and got away with it? No, it was all bought and paid for, makes me wonder if the ABP/CCA is too. Only they happily back the corporate pirates at the expense of their producer members interests, every time, every way.

[northfarmer]

We are not going to stop large corporations with a clear strategy from lobbying public policy in a way as to benefit their shareholders. As a farmer who has capital quity invested in the stock market I would only hoped that this wouild be the case.

On the flip side we need to have concerted, well funded, national and provincial organizations that represent our industry and the various commodity groups.

The NFU, the CFA and some of these so called national groups do not necessarily repsent my opinion and do not have broad support from all farmers. Nonetheless I respect them for their opinions, thoug i often do not totally agree with them.

While I am a cattle and grain producers I am involved in the lobby efforts of the crops sector and I am directly involved in provincial and national activities. In this area there are concerted efforts we are making at the provincial level and national level to change policy to directly support the business objectives of primary producers.

Not suprisingly, when policy changes are dicussed at the table with the representatives of the corporate interests beyond the farm gate in the value chains of grain, they have a much different view than from my farm. It is at that level we need to negotiate and debate for policy that mitigates our risks and derives financial gains for producers.

Producers in the grian inndustry might have a handfull of full time staff at most of working on producers efforts (lobbying federally and provincially), while the dairy industry and the sm groups have large numbers. This should be no suprise.

I personally beleive that the there is a unbalance concentration at the higher value chains in the beef sector that lead to oligopolistic type of industry behaviou beyond the producer. This does not favor the finaical interests of the primary beef producer.

If our prodcuer groups are unduly influenced by the oligopolistic interests that is a problem that needs to be undone. It can only be undone by producers. I know there are producers trying to get this done. They will get my political capital when they need it.

[farmers_son]

We tend to forget that every single corporation is owned by people. And even people who work for corporations may have shares in that corporation and if not in some other corporation. Corporations are not some inherently evil force, they are just a means of people coming together to facilitate commerce. There are other means used to facilitate commerce such as single proprietors, partnerships etc. Given that corporations are simply a means whereby people can work together to achieve a goal, how do you separate those people from government in a democracy? I have owned a corporation, does that mean I should not be allowed to run for government? Or that someone who has served our country on government cannot later be a part of a corporation. What utter nonsense.

What you are suggesting, to separate corporations and government, cannot be achieved within a democracy. Winston Churchill “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

While I agree the packers benefited from the BSE aid packages and their actions during the BSE crises was reprehensible the best way to deal with the actions of the packers during the BSE crisis would be some effective competition laws, not throw away our democratic principles.

Do corporations exert influence on government, of course. Good democratic government should be influenced by a wide range of stakeholders, of which business would be just one. I think the better question is whether corporations exert undue influence on government. Ultimately, in a democracy, the responsibility for ensuring that does not happen rests with the electorate.

[Willowcreek]

Just for your guys info-- here is the Talking Points and some packer ownership info that we're using trying to get the Packer Ownership Ban thru...
This law is in the current Farm Bill-which I'm uncertain if it will remain as the Packers, AMI, and ABP's/CCA's kissing cousin NCBA are pulling out all costs to try to kill this bill- saying it will put all the little packing plants that butcher rancher contracted Brand name beef out of business- Which is a huge lie...It only effects 11 of those huge multi-plant and conglomerates like Tyson with 24 and Cargil with 16 (not sure if that includes Canadian and foreign plants)....


------------------------------------
Date: January 18, 2008



Subject: New Fact Sheet on Packer Ownership Prohibition: Please Distribute



Below is a short Fact Sheet on the Packer Ownership Prohibition contained in the Senate version of the 2007 Farm Bill. We need your help to distribute this as widely as possible.



We researched the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) directory of all federally inspected U.S. meatpackers and processors (the list is over 900 pages) to determine how many plants would be excluded from the Packer Ownership Prohibition. From this research we found there are only 11 meatpackers from among the 800 or so that slaughter cattle, hogs, or sheep that would not be excluded from the Packer Ownership Prohibition under the exemption for slaughter plants that operate only one plant. A summary of those 11 packers is contained further below.



We worked with Dr. C. Robert Taylor, Distinguished University Professor, Auburn University, to calculate the financial harm to producers arising from the packers’ use of packer-owned livestock. This calculation is contained in the Fact Sheet. For a printable version, go to our website at www.r-calfusa.com, or call the office at 406-252-2516.



Please use this fact sheet to inform your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative(s) about the need to keep the Packer Ownership Prohibition in the 2007 Farm Bill. Also, please share this fact sheet with any group lists you might have as well as to use it to write letters to the editors of your local paper in support of the Packer Ownership Prohibition.



Our opponents are going to great lengths to misrepresent what the Packer Ownership Prohibition will do and it is up to us to make sure everyone knows the facts. Thanks and Good Luck!



Here’s the Fact Sheet:



Support the Senate’s Packer Ownership Prohibition



The Senate version of the 2007 Farm Bill contains a prohibition on packers owning, feeding, or controlling livestock. This “Packer Ownership Prohibition” would affect only the largest U.S. packing plants that, because of their size and dominant market power, are positioned to use packer-owned livestock to control producers’ access to the market and depress livestock prices.



The Packer Ownership Prohibition would increase marketing opportunities for livestock producers by eliminating the anti-competitive practice of using packer-owned livestock to artificially create over-supply, thus limiting producers’ access to the market and depressing prices. The prohibition would increase market transparency and reduce market distortion, creating more competition.



Marketing options for producers are preserved by prohibiting the largest packers from having legal title to (owning) and day-to-day management control over (ownership-like control) livestock for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Producers who own, and materially participate in the management of their livestock, will continue to enjoy forward-contracting options.



All but the largest packers are excluded from the Packer Ownership Prohibition. Packers that own only one livestock processing plant are excluded. About 11 of the approximately 800 meat-slaughter packers registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) own more than one plant.[1] These 11 packers own about 85 slaughter plants.[2] Approximately 92% of cattle and hog plants are excluded also because they are not subject to price reporting[3]– there are only 52 cattle and 53 hog plants that would not meet this exemption,[4] most of which would be owned by the 11 packers with multiple plants. The effect of these exemptions is that only the largest packers, representing a very small number of packers, would be subject to the prohibition. Thus, the prohibition is carefully crafted to eliminate the specific harm at its specific source.



The harm to U.S. livestock producers due to packer-owned livestock is significant – amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The comprehensive econometric analysis documented in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., which covered the period 1994-2004, showed that for each 1% increase in captive supply cattle (of which packer-owned cattle is a subset), cattle prices decreased 0.155%.[5] Assuming that 5% of cattle are packer-owned,[6] cattle prices are lowered by $0.70 per cwt., or $8.72 per animal. A USDA-funded study found that each 1% increase in packer-owned hogs causes a 0.24% decline in price.[7] Assuming 20% of hogs marketed are packer-owned,[8] the negative price impact is $2.16 per cwt., or $6.05 per hog.



The Packer Ownership Prohibition is needed to reverse the unfavorable trends from 1980 to 2005 identified by the USDA regarding the erosion of the U.S. livestock industry:



U.S. sheep and lamb operations declined from 120,000 to 68,000.
U.S. hog and pig operations declined from 667,000 to 67,000.
U.S. cattle operations declined from 1.6 million to 983,000.[9]


The Packer Ownership Prohibition would help restore market integrity for livestock producers by preventing the largest packers from controlling market access and depressing market prices.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Inspection Directory, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service, December 7, 2007, available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Meat_Poultry_Egg_Inspection_Directory/index.asp (R-CALF USA has condensed the directory to include only packing firms that slaughter meat (as opposed to poultry), and that slaughter animals (as opposed to only processing animals). The condensed list contains approximately 800 firms and is available by contacting R-CALF USA at 406-252-2515 or e-mail: r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com, also available is a summary of the 11 U.S. meat-slaughter packers that own more than one packing plant.).

[2] Ibid.

[3] See 72 Federal Register, August 8, 2007, at 44,688.

[4] See Livestock Slaughter 2006 Summary, U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, March 2007, at 56 (Numbers cited are for cattle slaughtering plants that slaughter over 125,000 cattle and hog slaughtering plants that slaughter over 100,000 hogs.).

[5] See Trial Transcript in Pickett et al. v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (IBP, Inc.) Civil No. 96-A-1103 N, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

[6] See GIPSA Livestock and Meat Marketing Study, January 2007, Volume 3, at ES-4.

[7] See GIPSA Livestock and Meat Marketing Study, January 2007, Volume 4, at 2-41.

[8] See id., at 2-13.

[9] See 72 Federal Register, August 8, 2007, at 44,681.





Here is the list of the 11 packers that could be subject to the Packer Ownership Prohibition because they own more than one processing plant:



U.S. Meat Slaughter Plants that Own More than One Packing Plant



Firm Name (No. of Plants) Number of Plants

1. Tyson 24

Tyson Foods (1)

Tyson Foods Inc. (9)

Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (14)

2. Cargill 16

Cargill Beef Packers, Inc (1)

Cargill Meat Solutions, Corp. (11)

Hormel Foods Corp. (1)

Jennie-O Turkey Store Sales (2)

Cargill Regional Beef (1)

3. Smithfield 13

Smithfield Beef Group – Souderton (1)

Smithfield Beef Group – Tolleson (1)

Smithfield Beef Plainwell, Inc. (1)

Smithfield Beef Group – Greenbay (1)

Smithfield Packing (1)

Smithfield Packing Co. Inc., - Tar Heel (1)

Smithfield Packing Co. Inc., - Smithfield (1)

Farmland Foods, Inc, (4)

John Morrell & Co. (2)

4. Swift 12

Swift & Company (1)

Butterball, LLC (3)

Foster Poultry Farms (1)

Swift Beef Company (5)

Swift Pork Company (2)

5. American Foods Group 4

Cimpl’s Inc. (1)

Dakota Premium Foods, LLC (1)

Green Bay Dressed Beef, LLC (1)

Long Prairie Packing Co., Inc. (1)

6. Bob Evans Farms 4

7. National Beef 3

National Beef (1)

National Beef Packing Co. LLC (2)

8. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation 3

9. XL Four Star Beef Inc. 2

10. Fernandez Packing Co., Inc. 2

11. Hampton Meat Processing 2



Total: 85



Source: Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Inspection Directory, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service, December 7, 2007, available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Meat_Poultry_Egg_Inspection_Directory/index.asp (R-CALF USA has condensed the directory to include only packing firms that slaughter meat (as opposed to poultry), and that slaughter animals (as opposed to only processing animals). The condensed list contains approximately 800 firms and is available by contacting R-CALF USA at 406-252-2515 or e-mail: r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com.).

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son your quote: "While I agree the packers benefited from the BSE aid packages and their actions during the BSE crises was reprehensible the best way to deal with the actions of the packers during the BSE crisis would be some effective competition laws, not throw away our democratic principles."

Why then do you support the ABP/CCA that refuses to back producer resolutions calling for more effective competition laws or a ban on packer ownership of fed cattle similar to what willowcreek posted?
Northfarmer, "if our prodcuer groups are unduly influenced by the oligopolistic interests that is a problem that needs to be undone..... They will get my political capital when they need it." I would suggest that now is the time to act - we must tackle this issue.

[Willowcreek]

Farmers_son- Doesn't sound like these eastern folks are satisfied with they type status quo promoted by the ABP/CCA...LOL

Ole Cam and the kaiser need to head east and get a united front going now to rid Canada of those old Packer bought out fogies in ABP/CCA while we work on their kissing cousins in the states, NCBA...

Another thing I found interesting in this article- is that these guys not only promote COUNTRY of Origin Labeling- but PROVINCE of Origin Labeling...

Two old ABPers probably just keeled over with a heart attack reading that...LOL God forbid- for producers to support giving the consumers info about where their beef/food comes from...


--------------------------
{Local Cattle Groups Talk Crisis - Perth Group Changes Name



cknx am920 canada

1/18/2008



This regions cattle industry say they are tired of being in crisis, and want some solutions now.



The Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth, and Wellington cattle groups all held their annual meetings this week - with no shortage of ideas in how to fix the mess.



Bruce - for example - passed 22 resolutions - all with different ideas.



Brian Dudgeon is the new President of the Bruce Cattlemen and says their group thinks marketing is one of the ways out of this.



He says consumers want to buy Ontario product - so it's about time that every single grocery store had clearly marked Ontario beef.



Now fixing this crisis wasn't the only thing discussed at some of these meetings.



In Perth for example - they have changed their name - and instead of the Perth County Cattlemen -- are now known as the Perth County Beef Farmers Association.



President Bill Jeffray says its all about getting the consumer to better understand the group.



Now all of these resolutions and discussions will go up to the provincial level to be discussed at the OCA annual meeting next month.



But ahead of that -- Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth and Middlesex cattle groups all want to get together to talk strategy.



There is interest in going to the OCA meeting with a united front from the top beef producing areas of the province.



A meeting to talk about that is expected once they can get a hand on all the resolutions that are expected to be brought up at the provincial level.



am920.ca}