Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sick of Corporate Control Over Your Food?
Have you ever played Monopoly? You know how it goes. It’s pretty fun for a while, until one player puts hotels and Boardwalk and Park Place and then amasses crazy amounts of money while the other play goes broke. Often in our house this would end with one player walking away from the game (or worse, turning the game board upside down in anger). This is no coincidence.
When a market is competitive, everyone wins. Businesses that can innovate or grow more efficient rise to the top while consumers get the best products for the best price. However, when one (or a few) corporations gain too much power over the market, those benefits go away. Think about it – if there was only one company out there selling something essential for life (for example, seeds for all of our major food crops) – they could charge whatever they wanted and we’d have to pay it. Especially if they figured out a clever way to keep new companies from emerging and gaining any share of the market.
This post is first about that exact example and the company, Monsanto, who is under investigation by the Obama DOJ (Dept of Justice) for anticompetitive behavior. But this post is even more about the larger picture – how corporate consolidation affects MANY areas of our food supply, what that means for us, and how you can send in your comments to the Obama administration in the next few days (they are due by December 31).
Monsanto
I’d like to make clear first that Monsanto is NOT a bogeyman responsible for all evils in our food supply. They are responsible for an awful lot, it’s true, but often I hear people cursing Monsanto over problems that should be blamed on other companies. For example, if you hate all of the high fructose corn syrup in our food, then you should be mad at Archer Daniels Midland, not Monsanto. That said, Monsanto’s been highly effective at exploiting just about every possible legal method of growing their company’s influence, expanding their market share, and making money. For example, they spend big bucks on lobbying and they get their people into top jobs in the government. But perhaps they’ve engaged in some illegal ways of doing this too – that remains to be seen.
With the seed industry, it isn’t just about what size market share you have (even though Monsanto IS the Coca-Cola of the seed industry). Even more important are what traits you control. If another company wants to engineer Roundup Readiness (a trait controlled by Monsanto) into their seeds, they need to come to Monsanto begging in order to do so. As Monsanto’s spent the past decade or so gobbling up smaller seed companies (see a diagram of it here) – and the traits they own – Monsanto controls an awful lot of traits, and thus an awful lot of the seed industry.
A recent AP article explains their control over the seed industry, saying:
With Monsanto’s patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family’s dinner table. That’s because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto’s patented genes.
Note that they say that Monsanto’s traits are in 80 percent of corn. Monsanto doesn’t actually sell all of that corn. I would assume that much of it is Pioneer corn (owned by DuPont), with Monsanto’s traits engineered into it. The AP explains how that works:
Monsanto’s methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP…
The company has used the agreements to spread its technology – giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto’s genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto’s genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.
While Monsanto does not sell 90% of all seeds, the article quotes an agricultural economist who believes Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of all seed genetics. He continues, saying that with so much control Monsanto can increase their prices in the long term because they have no competition. Then the AP reports on seed price increases over the past few years:
The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.
They go on to explain the specific methods Monsanto used and uses to get control of the market. For example:
One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto’s products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory…
Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn’t yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.
And how about this?
The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.
Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.
And then there’s the deal they make with smaller seed companies: You can use our traits but if you are bought by another seed company, you must destroy all of the seeds you have with our traits in them. As a result, Monsanto’s had a cheap and easy time buying up smaller seed companies:
Monsanto’s provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto’s traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.
Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.
So when people talk about "anticompetitive" behavior, now you have a taste of what they mean. It’s not just that a company is really big and successful. It’s that their practices make it impossible for other companies to compete fairly.
Food and Ag Corporate Consolidation in General
An awful lot of problems are traceable to consolidation in agriculture/food. High prices, lack of availability of local food (particularly meat), and food safety problems are just three of them. Fortunately, the U.S. government is actually DOING SOMETHING about this. They will first take public comments on the subject, and then hold a number of workshops around the country.
In addition to the Monsanto investigation, the DOJ is also doing a number of workshops ("to explore competition issues affecting the agricultural sector in the 21st century and the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in that industry") and taking public comments on the subject. (Email your comments to agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov BY DECEMBER 31. Details on this are below.)
From a sustainable food & food justice perspective, the problems in our food system are a bit like a chicken and egg dilemma. Huge, powerful corporations are producing unhealthy, unsustainable food (which is distributed in an unjust way) – often treating the workers who make the food very unfairly as well – and yet it’s all legal. Or their practices are illegal but the law is not adequately enforced. So the solution is to change the laws or have the laws enforced – except the same powerful interests control quite a bit of government via lobbying and campaign donations, etc. So where do you start?
Well, one answer is to reduce the power of these corporations. And fortunately, we DO have laws on the books saying that companies cannot engage in anti-competitive practices. And we have an Obama DOJ that is interested in looking into this. Better yet, Congress need not be involved.
There are two types of consolidation – horizontal and vertical. Horizontal consolidation means you have tons and tons of market share selling the same product. For example, Monsanto buys up many smaller seed companies to expand horizontally. Vertical consolidation means you expand into different stages of a product’s development. For example, Tyson breeds baby chicks and owns them all the way until they go to the grocery store. From the breeder, the chicks go to farmers who have contracts with Tyson (the farmers never officially own the chicks, even while raising them). Tyson picks up the chickens from farmers when they are full grown, slaughters them, and sells them. I believe they also provide the farmers with the feed and medications for the chickens.
Each type of consolidation – horizontal and vertical – reduces the amount of competition in an industry. While it is a GOOD thing for innovative companies to prosper, once a company because so powerful, it no longer needs to innovate to stay in charge. Furthermore, without much competition (or even the possibility of future competition), the corporation can jack up the prices.
Sometimes large, powerful corporations use their size to unfairly oust competition from smaller companies. A great example is when Wal-Mart comes into a town and builds three SuperCenters even though the town really only can support two. Then, after all of the Mom n Pop businesses close because they can’t compete with Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart shuts down one of the SuperCenters. Another example (and this IS illegal) is when a company sells their products below the cost of production. A large company may have deep pockets and the ability to do this long enough to put their smaller competition out of business.
Obviously, a monopoly has the ability to jack up prices because there are no other companies around to compete with lower prices. However, when a market is consolidated (the largest 4 companies control over 40% of the market), they can raise prices without officially colluding. You can find out how consolidated various U.S. agricultural industries are from the Heffernan report. Note that the most recent report is quite out of date because we’ve had some very significant mergers in the past 2 years (JBS Swift merged with Smithfield, and then went after Pilgrim’s Pride).
Here are some ways that you might be noticing the effects of consolidation in your life:
• It’s harder and harder to find healthy, locally produced foods in your community — especially if you live in a low-income area, there might not be a supermarket for miles.
• Prices are rising at the supermarket, but you’ve heard that farmers are struggling — and big food companies have made record profits this year.
• You feel like you don’t have much choice about the food you eat — maybe the produce selection is bad, or you don’t like that everything seems to be made with corn products.
• It’s hard for small food producers and processors to find markets for their products — and it’s hard for consumers to find products made by small producers.
• Food seems less safe. You’ve read that the outbreak and spread of bacteria like E. coli happens much faster when meat and vegetables are processed in big centralized locations.
• Local farms are going out of business, because small farmers can’t compete with prices set by industrial farms and consolidated buyers.
• There aren’t many decent jobs in food and farming anymore — there’s a real lack of opportunities for both urban and rural youth who are interested in growing and preparing food.
• What’s in your food, anyway? And why aren’t there decent labels telling you where it grew, what chemicals are on it, and if it’s genetically modified?
• There is a "revolving door" of personnel between corporate lobbyists and government regulators. No wonder corporations aren’t held to strict standards.
• Many rural communities have become ghost towns. The farmers that have survived often find themselves entirely at the mercy of corporations who own all parts of the supply chain (called "vertical integration") and can set prices in such a way to drive competitors out of business.
• Just one company controls the majority of seeds in the US, and regularly threatens farmers who don’t buy its seeds.
• Cows, chickens, and pigs are being raised in squalid conditions on huge industrial feedlots and pumped full of unnecessary antibiotics, which is unhealthy for them and potentially unsafe for the people eating them.
• The food you can afford is bad for you; healthy food is expensive.
• Food is grown and raised in ways that are terrible for the environment, with methods that pollute the water, poison the soil, and threaten our long-term food security.
• A lot of food from the store just doesn’t taste very good, which raises questions about where it’s come from and how it’s been treated.
Taking Action
Slow Food USA just put up an action alert that says:
Maybe you’ve noticed prices rising at the supermarket even while most big food companies made record profits this year;
Maybe you are a farmer who has trouble getting your meat to market because there are no small-scale processing facilities in your region;
Maybe you’re concerned about food safety and the spread of bacteria like E. coli—which happens much faster when meat and vegetables are processed in big centralized locations;
Maybe your local farm has gone out of business because it couldn’t compete with the prices set by industrial farms and consolidated buyers.
And you probably know consumers having trouble finding good food at affordable prices, as well as farmers having trouble getting good food into mainstream markets. Please reach out to them today: the Department of Justice needs to hear their stories.
Email your comments to agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov BY DECEMBER 31.
So, what do you say in your comments to the DOJ? You can see sample letters if you’d like, or you can use this template:
State who you are — parent, teacher, farmer, cook, gardener, community leader, eater… whatever feels relevant.
State that you are concerned about the consolidation of corporate power in the food and agriculture sector.
State your primary reasons why. Some examples to get you started (you can find more food for thought at www.usfoodcrisisgroup.org):
* you’ve noticed prices rising at the supermarket and don’t feel like you can do anything about it (a lot of big food companies have made record profits this year — even as consumers are paying more for food.);
* you’re concerned about your family’s safety (outbreak and spread of bacteria like E. coli happens much faster when meat and vegetables are processed in big centralized locations.);
* local farms are going out of business (many small farmers can’t compete with prices set by industrial farms and consolidated buyers.).
This section can be short and informal; don’t worry about spelling out the connections too precisely. The important thing is to express from your own experience what most concerns you or how you’ve been affected by the effects of corporate consolidation in the food industry. Be honest and speak from your heart.
Thank them for the opportunity to submit comments.
Sign your name and address
For an absolute plethora of information on the subject of antitrust work and market consolidation, check out the U.S. Food Crisis Working Group’s antitrust documents.
Here’s a list of the Dept of Justice’s workshops:
Dates, Locations, and Topics
March 12, 2010 – Ankeny, Iowa
Issues of Concern to Farmers
Introduction to the workshops series with a focus on the issues facing crop farmers. Discussion topics may include seed technology, vertical integration, market transparency and buyer power.
May 21, 2010 – Normal, Alabama
Poultry Industry
Discussion topics may include production contracts in the poultry industry, concentration and buyer power.
June 7, 2010 – Madison, Wisconsin
Dairy Industry
Discussion topics may include concentration, marketplace transparency and vertical integration in the dairy industry.
August 26, 2010 – Fort Collins, Colorado
Livestock Industry
This workshop will focus on beef, hog and other animal sectors. Topics may include enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and concentration.
December 8, 2010 – Washington, D.C.
Margins
This workshop will look at the discrepancies between the prices received by farmers and the prices paid by consumers. As a concluding event, discussions from previous workshops will be incorporated into the analysis of agriculture markets nationally.
For full details on the workshops, see the DOJ’s website.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
34 Comments so far
Show AllWe are sick of "Corporate Control" over EVERYTHING they control!
While 3 presidents out of 44 challenged corporate power, the other 41 pandered to corporate power. Teddy Roosevelt broke up the corporate trusts and monopolies a century ago. Franklin Roosevelt regulated the corporations 75 years ago. John Kennedy sought to preserve FDR's regulated environment in the face of a newly empowered miltary industrial complex fifty years ago.
Today's electeds are too corrupt to challenge corporate power.
yes we are...sick of "Corporate control" of my tiny pond.
"Sick of Corporate Control Over Your Food?" I am sick of Corporate Control over anything and especially the rat bastards that invest in corporations.
I recall one summer when a bunch of teenagers got on a Monopoly kick. One of the players seemed to generally have very good luck with the dice, and quickly bought up all the properties while avoiding landing on those the rest of us managed to get -- and soon was way ahed of everyone else.
Then we found the solution: we made interest-free loans to each other when we needed money pay off a debt or buy up a street we landed on, and soon the wealth was fairly distributed -- except according to the player who had been raking it all in for himself and accused us of 'cheating'. Yes: we discovered fair trade and socialism long before we ever heard those terms. We also discovered the power of organizing -- and the real lesson behind the game of Monopoly.
Let's hope small businesses and customers today discover what our crew of teenage game players discovered all those years ago.
The number one problem for small farmers according to Joel Salatin from the movie, Food Inc.:
"The emotional, economic and energy drain caused by government bureaucrats."
The government has created the monopolies and the factory farms and the corn syrup-based products. How is more government legislation which created the problem in the first place going to help? Government control over food production has been putting small food producers out of business since the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873. It is the government that subsidized corn which has led to animals stuffed into pens and not grazing as well as the spread of E.coli. It is the government that passed laws to patent genes so that Monsanto can go after small farmers and put them out of business.
In the stories from the movie, Food Inc., it is clear that the government control of food is as big a problem, maybe bigger, than the corporate control. The government's interventions and legislation created the corporations. Earlier this year the government was going to pass a food safety law that would have put small farmers and organic farmers out of business. People from both the left and right opposed it. Now the solution is more government control!!! Are you nuts? Government control over our food is ruining small farmers and has been for over 100 years. We need less of it not more!!!! Just like the federal banking system ruins small banks and supports TBTF banks.
Joel Salatin is the main farmer featured in Food Inc. He is rightly portrayed as the hero who is fighting for an alternative to big corporations. But he doesn't fear the big corporations because he knows he can create a better product and people will drive hundreds of miles to get it. He believes the government is the biggest threat. And he knows better than anyone because he's actually out there doing the farming not just theorizing about it like this writer probably. Here's a quote from Joel on his website at http://www.polyfacefarms.com/books.aspx:
"Although Polyface farm has been glowingly featured in countless national print and video media, it would not exist if the USDA and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services had their way."
And here from an interview at Mother Earth News:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Joel-Salatin-Interview.aspx
"Anyone familiar with me would have to smile at this question, knowing that my answer would be and continues to be the food police. The on-farm hurdles we’ve faced, from drought to predators to flood to cash flow, are nothing compared to the emotional, economic and energy drain caused by government bureaucrats. Even in the early 1970s when, as a young teen, I operated a farm stand at the curb market, precursor of today’s farmers markets, the government said I couldn’t sell milk. The first business plan I came up with to become a full-time farmer centered around milking 10 cows and selling the milk to neighbors at regular retail supermarket prices. It would have been a nice living. But it’s illegal. In fact, in 2007 I finally wrote Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, documenting my run-ins with government officials."
You make the mistake of assuming that because this is the outcome of Governmnet intervention and Regulation in the USA, it therefore must be true of all Government interventions and regulations.
Again you have to look outside the borders of the USA to see how it works elsewhere. Japan seems to have a very different system. They had as example "farmland laws" where a Japanese farmer could only sell farmland to another farmer who would use it to grow food.
This worked very well. Japan also had high duties on imported food and ensured farmers got a base price for their own food. Again it went well. This was using government regulation with the INTENT to support the small farmer.
Then comes the Uraguay round of free trade talks. By entering into that agreement Japan starts to lower tariffs on imported food. They also start lessning restrictions on Corporations owning farm land.
Again this Government regulation with the INTENT of promoting trade and the Corporations competiveness.
It is not that Government regulations are harmful. It is who or what those regulations are intended to help that is harmful.
In the Case of the USA , the regulations by design are for the Corporate farms. The US Governmnet acts on the behalf of the Corporations.
It seems this is hair-splitting. The rules come from the government. The fact that people in gov't have been bought out and act in the interest of corporations does not negate the fact that the gov't is causing the problem. And, the Congress could always exempt businesses with less than $10 million in gross income or some other cut off if they cared one fig about we the people.
And, bureaucracies act independent of sanity. Their goal is controlling the process, they could care less about outcomes. Why are small farms that sell/process their own meat or dairy included in these regulatory monstrosities? The Japanese gov't stopped protecting its citizens. Why they did it was, no doubt, at the urging of our gov't.
The bottom line is that until the fascist state is broken, giving more power to the gov't is counterproductive, no matter how "good" the goal is.
It is not hair splitting at all. ALL Rules come from someplace. The very notion of Government BY The people is that those rules come about by the will of the people.
If you want no rules and no regulations you have anarchy.
The Government is acting on the BEHALF of another entity. In the case of the USA it is for the most part the Corporations.
If there no regulations at all there would be no recalls of beef for e coli . This hardly means that the supply of food is thus safe. Corporations would like to see nothing better then NO REGULATIONS on what they can sell.
The notion that the food industry can self regulate is libertarian nonsense.
"The notion that the food industry can self regulate is libertarian nonsense"
No one said the food industry should self regulate. What I've said is that small businesses and small farmers are being put out of business by gov't regulations. Small businesses and small farms do well with minimal regulation..
I also think ATLAW makes a good point that we would all like to strengthen local communities. We have to finds ways to work this out or we are doomed.
Why I think it's hair splitting is that we have what we have and, increasingly appears we have no way to fix this. The sane regulatory structure is gone. Civil war won't fix it. For better or worse, we have to learn to reduce gov't power where we can and work around it. Focus on a corporate personhood amendment or electoral reform. If that's not possible we the people will have no chance to write the regulations.
Sioux Rose
CASSANDRA: I hear your frustration, and part of it is being directed at this world of polarity to which we've been culturally placed and programmed. Its worldview is always linear based on team A versus team B. Let's say team A are the capitalists whose life-glorifying logos is profit. Theoretically pitted against their insidious homage to greed, or profits-first, would be a representative government there to use its muscle to effect those checks and balances that would serve as counterbalances to the profit motive gone unchecked, run amok. That is what we have today. Because big corporations have so much capital, it's not hard to pay the vast majority of "representatives" who must earn enormous sums to gain their positions of power. A dark catch 22 that's been exposed for what it is by many thinkers in this forum.
As an astrologer, I can easily relate the teachings of the Old Testament with the planet Saturn. This planet, said to rule Capricorn, is all about fear, that of hell and eternal damnation being the singular ubiquitous one used on persons of many cultures to get them to keep in line, to follow the rules. This is why Saturn, Capricorn and its traditions work so well for naturally authoritarian types, not to mention dictators.
The New Testatment brings forth the teachings of Jupiter, a more hopeful document that speaks of the powers of faith, how the positively directed mind can attract outcomes that prove a liberation from the punitive karmic imprint of the Old Testament.
Mankind, or certainly the vast majority of those exposed to Western culture (its legal and academic systems emerging from the church which WAS the source of politics, legal theory, and education down the ages) see life through this either-or prism. The conservative tends to analogize to the Old Testament ethos, while the liberal to the New. However, the planet that was first discovered beyond the butressing karmic rings of Saturn, thought by the ancients to be the LAST planet was Uranus. Interestingly enough, its discovery in the l850s (or thereabouts) corresponded with a phase of revolutions, when a new form of enlightenment based on the LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL arose... this as a threat to the power held by the heads of state.
Uranus rules the sign of Aquarius, the sign of friendship, akin to Speilberg's film title, "Amistad." Friendship means we don't demand that others embrace our views and values. We are often more detached from our friends than towards partners or family members. To friends we extend the freedom to let them be who they are. Friendship is sacred to the sign of Aquarius, an egalitarian sign that invites all to sit round the great table. It is the sign that comes after Capricorn, after the fears are put to rest, usually within the visible distance of all that was taken as blood sacrifice or burned as effigy in fear's name.
Aquarius/Uranus in its power was depicted ingeniously by George Lucas when LUKE and his TWIN SISTER (a yin-yang balancing of the force), led by a spiritual warrior (all about tuning beginning on the inside) to summon an odd group of independent (eccentrics) beings... who together find the power and focus to take down the death/make war empire. Is this not the story line for our times?
Sioux Rose--Yes, it is all very frustrating. Never saw Star Wars but I hope the odd group of independent (eccentric) beings of our times can rise up to take down the Empire before we are all devoured. If we don't all focus on reigning in the power of the Hamiltonians, aka Mars, we will fail on all fronts.
I nominate Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich to start the ball rolling. Sort of the Mighty Mouse alliance.
This is always the argument for increasing government power. The power is somehow corrupted or misguided. But centralized power is by its very nature supportive of other totalarian powers such as corporate monopolies and at the expense of communities and small business and individuals. If you consider what is common in everyone's perspective whether right or left, progressive or libertarian, tea party or war protestor, it is that we need more focus on community, on the small businessperson, on civil liberties. No one except those truly supportive of either Dems or Repubs, will deny these goals as important. None of these goals can be met with increased centralized federal government power. And that is not because of the wrong policies or because it is corrupt, it is because of its very nature. Limited government power is as important as limited corporate control and in many ways they are the same thing.
Of course you can find examples of nice government programs. These are like a corporation's bluewashing PR. Just because a company that uses slave labor also donates some profits to the local poor doesn't mean they are the good guys. Similarly, just because a state has a few nice programs while still dropping bombs on kids doesn't mean it is a good thing. I wouldn't buy sneakers made in a sweatshop, no matter how many nice little bluewashing PR campaigns the sneaker company has. Similarly, I'm not going to trust a government that would kill and torture children to increase its power with power over my food.
By the way, in response to your other comment, what's wrong with anarchy? It's just another word for freedom.
It is not a matter of either/or. It is a matter of proper balance and the goals one is trying to achieve with a Government.
Show me any example of a Country or organization running without some sort of rules and limitations and structure.
There is no doubt that some parents of Children are Authoritarian. There is no doubt that some can set so many rules and structure that the household and family becomes dysfunctional. It is equally true that without any rules or authority the family will be equally dysfunctional.
If the Child could decide when to go to bed, where to pee, whether or not he wants to scribble on the floor, where to throw his food, whether or not to take the garbage out. If the Mother or Father decide they are not going to bother to cook at all and that the Children can help themselves and do as they please setting their own rules, the family will BE dysfunctional.
Anarchy as freedom is absolute crap. There is anarchy in Somalia . They go hungry. Children sleep in the streets, women are raped and murdered. People are enslaved at the point of a gun, children or seized and impressed into Militias, little girls used as sex slaves. They are FREE of Government authority but they are hardly FREE to live in peace and security.
THAT is the result of anarchy.
I would rather live in a Finland with its Government and yes RULES then in a Somalia where you are free to do whatever you like.
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: Wonderfully stated, I tip my hat to your wisdom, one of the Obi-wan-Knobi of our forum.
In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote 'The Jungle', which spoke of the deporable conditions of the meat industry in America. TR did something about it.
There have been dozens of books that talk about the fat, salt, sugar addictions thrust upon the American citizen by our current food and fast food corporate murderers.
There are many things wrong with America, but the food industry in general kill more people than all the wars in history, and thousands times more than all the 'terrorists' attacks combined.
What should be done? What can be done? The author has many good suggestions. Me, I would not flinch an eye if Mickey D's started going up in flames.
What can be done? Do not buy any food advertised on T.V. as it is mostly junk food. Buy locally from co ops and farmers markets. Do not patronize fast food franchises such as Mickey D's. Become a vegan or a vegatarian.
I agree. Don't buy into the corporate food system. It's crap and it's one thing we have control of. Just don't buy it!
'Government' is a strange word which means two different and opposite things, like 'lucked out' can mean having good luck or bad luck.
Government run by the people is like 'good luck', while when run by the corporate fascists it's 'bad luck'. It depends on whether we are in a democracy or a fascist state -- and that's not looking too good right now. Unlike luck, however, the people can do something about government if they really want to: the people can take control and re-form government to make it 'derive its just powers from the consent of the governed'.
...If they really want to, and organize, like Howard Zinn says...
Sioux Rose
I plan to write an email on this one. What troubles me even more than the monopolizing of seeds (and that is VERY troubing), is that companies like Dow and Monsanto have been made rich from designing chemical polymers used in illegal wars of aggression.
A company that makes Agent Orange proves to me it lacks the conscience to give a shit about what's in my cereal dish. Allowing a company with this kind of amoral track record to own the "copyright" to a majority of seeds, while the natural equivalents are being wiped out through wind and water facilitated cross-breeding, is like having Nazis design school lunch programs for your children. Plus they get subsidized.
ATLAW: Your knee-jerk libertarian view that government is always in the wrong suggests that you presume industries enamored foremost by the profit motive require no checks or balances. BOTH can be evil, particularly when each is motivated by a lust for power and/or profit over the remotest call to public service or the preservation of the greater good. These either-or, with us or against us linear arguments skew dialog away from the larger truths at play.
I'm a left-libertarian, probably more of an anarchist, my ideas come from other left-libertarians like Rothbard and Chomsky. The kind of libertarian you are probably accusing me of being is the sort that reads Kochtopus corporatist rubbish. Well, those are not my politics and nothing in my comment implied that.
I disagree that pursuit of wealth or any other form of achievement and betterment is inherently wrong. I believe it can be a motivator. And the main thing that could ruin all these companies tomorrow in a day is if people just stopped buying their products. It really is that simple and it really would be that effective. We wouldn't even need to talk about looking to the government for help. We can help ourselves by using the free market to put an end to them. It has happened many times before and it works much better than the government solutions. It would put an end to the companies immediately. Just like we almost put an end to a lot of sleazy bankers except, guess what, they are still here because the liberal politicians in Washington bailed them out. The number one way we could stop the corporations is to convince everyone to stop buying from them. Start a blog, put up flyers, make a film and show people why they want to stop buying these companies' products and if you succeed the companies will be ruined. And they will be ruined by some people providing alternatives like Joel Salatin by trying to make a living or a profit.
My point is that the laws always support the corporations and that the small farmers out there are being victimized by the government regulations or by corporations exploiting government regulation. Before we pass new legislation, we should get rid of the bad legislation. Doesn't that make sense? We should not be able to patent genes. That is an insanity and that kind of power could never come from the free market. It comes from the government.
Sioux Rose
ATLAW: I agree with your final paragraph, and am too tired to seriously review or respond to the previous two. As to the premise, if I read it correctly, that people could divest themselves of the Monsantos of this world, let's go back to the FACT that this company has a monopoly on seed stuffs. Perhaps I'll offer a more nuanced response tomorrow. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
ATLAW: I totally agree that if we just stopped buying their stuff we could bring them down. I do this whenever possible so I know, sometimes, how hard it is. I live where I can get all my naturally raised animal foods from small local farms and there's a peach orchard a few miles down the road. But far too many cannot afford to boycott transnationals and far too many are zombied out from work or tv or drugs, both prescription and non to even think about it.
The problem, from my perspective, is that Hamilton has won. Joel Salatin and millions like him across the globe are the Jeffersonian world. Monsanto represents the Hamiltonian world. The game has been rigged. Today, the corporations control the gov't.
Non-neocon libertarians like yourself, Progressives like those here and principled pragmatic independents have got to get together to support coops and local businesses as much as possible and to try to elect people who will get rid of the bad legislation.
I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries because of his focus on civil liberties, decommissioning the Empire and cutting Wall St off at the knees. I had also read enough to believe his integrity was genuine. But even left-libertarians seem to want to deny the basic fact of human social organization, that we are hard-wired to be tribal. And the basic rule here is the tribe takes care of its own. In our society that means protecting people from flim-flam bankers and poisons in air and water as well as caring for the sick and the weak. There are certainly many ways to do that but when the nation state replaced the tribe, I believe certain responsibilites were inherited. We need a serious conversation about how to accomplish these goals.
Sioux Rose
CASSANDRA: A very enlightened post.
ATLAW: Should you return to this thread, I think that Cassandra and GW North related the best possible arguments/responses to your post. I agree with them. The entire emphasis on self, what I term the "Mars rules" culture ends up celebrating conflict and championing war. The society that learns to share, which is to say embrace the ethos of Venus (the kinder, gentler, Divinely designed cosmic complement to Mars) has the resources and inner intuitive gifts to survive.
I truly believe the paradigm that's stood for the past several thousand years, and it rests first upon ideology, is collapsing. The very premise of hierarchy or person against person is the dis-eased mindset that MUST be transcended. Some want immediate solutions, what can we do... the answer IS the process, and since momentum has incurred from a lot of conflict-oriented karma, we cannot suddenly absolve ourselves of the inevitable boomerang to come. The preparations have taken place in who we are, how we have designed our lives based on our values... all of us may need to work harder towards personal enlightenment, the understanding that life's values come from the proverbial "inside job," not as a result of what we own. Goodbye to the ownership society that made every dream available for a price, the collective price being so high now that the very integrity of the ecosystems we rely upon is at risk.
Anyone remember the cartoon where the scientist would draw a sketch on the board that would come to life. Then due to its disastrous implications when taken OFF the design table to be implemented, he's say with a sigh to his pet dog, "Back to the drawing board, Leonardo"? Well, modern western society, at least in the USA, is exactly at that point in "the movie."
I'm sick from being poisoned for corporate profit.
Take this a step further and mention the sorry state of our food supply when writing your letter about the health care overhaul. I work in medicine and a huge portion of the diseases we see are a result of eating food that is available to us from a typical grocery store. Most "food" in a chain grocery store should be labled as poison. Not only is preventive medicine not being mentioned frequently in the health care debate, but I haven't heard one thing about our food supply and it's relationship to our cancer, diabetic, and heart disease epidemics in this country.
Watch "The world according to Monsanto". If it is still online. Very interesting take on Monsanto's practices. Not exactly good neighbors.
Those DOJ workshops seem to be the Obama administration and Monsanto's (they are hard to distinguish at this point) means of diverting attention from what is coming up in January - S 510 which is an all out assault on our food supply by Monsanto and the pharmaceutical industry.
Strange Richardson doesn't mention that in her seeming concern about agriculture. She was equally strange in what she wrote about the National Animal Identification System, which is detested by farmers because it will destroy them.
If people want to see that Michael Taylor, VP at Monsanto and the man who gave us unlabeled rBGH and unregulated GMOs, is behind S 510 and other food safety bills, read "The 2009 Food ‘Safety’ Bills Harmonize Agribusiness Practices in Service of Corporate Global Governance"
http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/12/monsantos-baby-s-510.html
And if anyone wants to understand how Clinton's push for more scientific "food safety" was used to undo food safety altogether and centralize our food supply, read
"History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job"
http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2009/12/history-haccp-and-food-safety-con-job.html
Obama's DOJ has done nothing but stand up for torture, and previous Bush policies. Does anyone expect them to be sincere about "looking into" antitrust issues in agriculture LATER THIS SPRING, when the damage would have been done in January by S 510, which is a total take over of our food supply, and one that will MANDATE pesticides, GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, and irradiation of all food (all those things Monsanto and big Pharma make their money on)?
A real DOJ should be tearing into anti-trust issues in agriculture but this DOJ is still part Bush's and the rest were put in by Obama who put Monsanto's Taylor over the FDA already and other Monsanto cronies in at the USDA. So, this workshop push is a shell game - "look here because we are promising "change" (workshops), not there (Monsanto's S 510) where you should be because everyone's life depends on it."
Thanks to Ms. Richardson for the excellent information about the industry, but I find the usage of "competition" here dangerously inadequate.
A competition is a process, and a fairly teleological process at that: it has something like a beginning, a middle, and an end.
At the beginning of a competition, things may - or may not! - be more or less fair in any of various ways we might understand that.
At the end of the competition, someone wins.
If what is won involves something besides Monopoly money and the losers have no way to stomp off and turn over the board, further action will not be "fair" in most of the ways we might conceive of that term: those that involve equality.
Now, I would gladly see Monsanto disemboweled, the parts burnt, and the ashes scattered over already polluted ground (not the execs, just the corporate person itself). However, Monsanto won or is winning this little Monopoly game. It is building away at its Boardwalk and Park Place, and there's no constructive way for you or I to walk away from the table.
Note:
This is not "lack of competition" in any usual sense; this is what results from competition: this is called winning.
So, what's in a word?
You or I might accomplish something by knocking over the pieces and setting up a new game, could we do that, but not if we let Monsanto keep its properties, houses, hotels, and what it has banked. That would hardly be a new game, right?
So one option is to violently or (let's hope) nonviolently take what Caesar thinks is Caesar's.
On the other hand, every time you set that Monopoly game up and played long enough, someone won, right? The fact that it is not likely to be this particular Monsanto again will likely make very little difference to make up for what will happen if you and I try to take Monsanto's winnings from them, spill their hotels, and leave the table.
There is another option. One could quit playing with the means of production and use it to produce what people need, having taken Monsanto's winnings from them or not.
This mostly involves at least refusing to do business with them or otherwise regulating them, whether top-down or bottom-up.
Would that be competitive?
Monsanto just bought PBS, people... Just so you know.
Only the billionaires will be eating truly organic foods and meats, because it's what they all ready insist upon.
The rest of us can settle for Mosanto, Con-Agra whatever - soylant-green, and you will love it.
You'll eat what the boss tells you to eat.
You'll take what's shoved down your throat.
Then get back to the fields and pick cotton, slaves.
is
is the u.s. a fiefdom ruled by fuedal lords under parlimentary law ? what would you get if "the milagro beanfield war", and, "the book(by alan watts)" had a baby ?