Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Unrigging the game

How to stop the agribiz giants from impeding the growth of local food.

Posted by Tom Philpott at 11:29 AM on 26 Apr 2007

In today's Victual Reality I discussed how a few companies dominate U.S. food production, and how their market girth weighs heavily on efforts to rebuild local-oriented, environmentally and socially responsible food networks.

Now I'd like to add a few words on what might be done to remedy the situation.

First of all, it's important to note that heavily consolidated food markets rig the game to favor large-scale, industrial-style farming. As companies like Cargill and Tyson have grabbed more and more control over food production in the past 30 years, they've systematically dismantled local infrastructure and concentrated their operations in a few regions.

The withering away of local processing and distribution facilities dramatically boosts the costs of small-scale farming. The celebrated meat farmer Joel Salatin, who runs Polyface Farm in Virginia, estimates that regulations that force him to ship his cows to a distant USDA-approved processor add a dollar per pound to the retail price of his beef. Huge feedlots concentrated in places like Kansas, a beef-processing center, don't face those costs.

I believe the local-agriculture movement -- which, despite its surging popularity, still only supplies a fraction of our food needs -- will be severely constrained by these factors going forward.

I can think of two policy ideas that might remedy the situation. First, we need a return to competitive markets in the food industry, and that means breaking up the food giants -- or at least regulating away the advantages conferred by their girth. One step in the right direction is the Competition Bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). There's a movement afoot to build the Harkin proposal into the farm bill by adding a "competition title." That move deserves support.

But curtailing the anti-competitive practices of the giants won't be enough rebuild local food infrastructure. Forty years of federal policy that favor their interests has given them an enormous competitive advantage that won't be easily legislated away. The infrastructure they tore down will not reappear as if by magic. Small farmers don't have the cash flow to finance the rebuilding of local slaughterhouses, canneries, milk processing plants, and the like. To redress the loss of such things, we need public investment, and that leads to a second policy proposal.

Henry Herrera and Katherine Mendenhall of the New York Sustainable Agriculture Working Group have come up with an elegant idea [PDF]: create a funding stream, within the farm bill, for regional and local food-infrastructure projects -- indexed directly to the commodity payments now flowing to large-scale farmers who produce corn and soy for the global food (and increasingly, energy) industry.

They propose committing a dollar to infrastructure projects for every $100 now going to commodity support. Between 1995 and 2005, the federal government doled out $129 billion to growers of corn, soy, cotton, and other commodity crops. If the Herrera/Mendenhall proposal had been in place, that would have meant $1.29 billion in investment funds for local infrastructure over that period -- which would have literally amounted to a rounding error compared to the commodity payments, but given a significant boost to sustainable food.

The proposal has a certain Machiavellian appeal: No one seriously thinks that commodity payments will dry up in the 2007 farm bill, so let's at least leverage their momentum to create funding that's actually constructive.

How would such a program be administered? Here are Herrera and Mendenhall:

Eligible organizations will include non-profit organizations and for-profit small businesses that would institute and uphold commitments to local and regional food distribution and promotion while also maintaining transparent fair trading for all parties involved.

So in addition to adding a "competition title," the time has come to add a "reinvestment title" into the farm bill, providing funding for infrastructure projects equal to 1 percent of commodity subsidies.

Unhappily, this idea remains on the fringes of the policy debate, and to my knowledge isn't part of the agenda being pushed by major environmental and sustainable-ag groups. But that doesn't mean you can't plant its seed in the minds of policy makers now.

Please harangue your representatives about these topics as soon as possible. You can reach them here.

Interesting proposal

The good news about this proposal (not that I imagine many people care) is that public investment in infrastructure projects is completely compatible with the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture [Annex 2, Paragraph 2(g)].

But we should be concerned about arbitrarily tying expenditure for one public purpose (infrastructure) to expenditure on another (commodity payments).

There are two problems.

First, investment in infrastructure should be driven by need (i.e., a determination that it will generate net social benefits). That need might be greater or lesser than 1/100th of the amount of money spent on commodity payments.

Second, tying a smaller, beneficial (or at worst innocuous) subsidy to a larger, more distorting one creates a new, unnatural constituency for maintaining the latter -- simply because, without the larger expenditure stream, there will be no money allocated to the smaller one.

By the way, isn't $129 billion divided by 100 = $1.29 billion (not $129 million)?

These are only my personal opinions.

It's What People Want


I would make an interesting analogy to my own industry of software.

Everyone says they want high quality robust software and software tools.   They want it intuitive, well built, secure stable.

But they don't want to pay for it.

Same with food.  People eat junk.   It's cheap and they like it.   Yes, you could offer them high quality organic food from local farms but they wouldn't want to pay for it and they don't want to cook it either.

Thank You

A competition title is of critical importance to the future of sustainable agriculture in this country. This is an issue the Center for Rural Affairs has long worked on and cared deeply about. In fact, Center staff member John Crabtree testified in Washington on these issues a week ago. Additionally, it is the topic of the letter Jim Knopik wrote to Senator Nelson a few days ago.

Thanks for bringing this issue to larger attention Tom.

Visit the Blog for Rural America: http://www.cfra.org/blog

Thanks, Ron

Right you are about the $1.29 billion--now corrected.

Indexing to commodity support is a powerful rhetorical tool, but as you write:

Second, tying a smaller, beneficial (or at worst innocuous) subsidy to a larger, more distorting one creates a new, unnatural constituency for maintaining the latter -- simply because, without the larger expenditure stream, there will be no money allocated to the smaller one.

Valid point. How about this: Create mechanisms in the competition title that punish the behemoths--and then tranfer that money to infrastructure investment. That manipulated policy in a way that allowed them to profitably obliterate local infrastructure; can they not be expected to foot some of the bill to rebuild it?

Victual Reality

Better ask a lawyer on that one, Tom

I don't think one can legislate fines on companies who have allegedly engaged in anti-competitive behavior. That has to be done through the courts. Some clarity on the enforcement of competition policies in the agri-food sector is nonetheless needed. I haven't studied the specific proposal you mention, but I would agree in principle that adding a "competition title" to the Farm Bill is probably a good idea.

There is plenty of precedent for legal action. According to a lengthy study published in January 2005 by ActionAid International, over the preceding several years 85% of all fines imposed on global price-fixing operations were paid by food and agriculture cartels. Some of the high-profile cases involved substantial fines and settlements:

  • The US trading giant ADM [Archer Daniels Midland Company] paid US$400 million in 2004 to settle an antitrust lawsuit that claimed the company conspired to fix the price of corn fructose.
  • ADM was also fined US$100 million in 1996 for its role in the lysine and citric acid cartels.
  • AE Staley, a US subsidiary of UK sugar TNC Tate & Lyle, was accused of colluding in the corn fructose price-fixing cartel and agreed to pay damages of US$100 million in an out-of-court settlement. Tate & Lyle deny any wrongdoing.
  • Cargill agreed to pay a US$24 million settlement for its alleged role in the fructose cartel, while denying the charges.


These are only my personal opinions.
Prompted me to act

. . . if only in a small way.

Very good article Tom. I wrote my two senators and my representative today and asked them to support both ideas.


"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks