Industrial agriculture has been defined, even by its proponents, as a system where the farm owner, the farm manager and the farm worker are different people. That's a dramatic change from the historic structure of agriculture, where the people who labor in farming also make the decisions and reap the profits of their work.

Corporate farming leads to closed markets where prices are fixed not by open, competitive bidding, but by negotiated contracts, and where producers who don't produce in large volumes are discriminated against in price or other terms of trade.

A healthy and stable community depends not on the number of livestock being produced, but on the number of livestock producers living and working there. The Center works to create genuine opportunity for family farms and ranches.

We educate the public about the consequences of industrialization and corporate farming through our monthly newsletter. The last 12 months of Corporate Farming Notes are presented below.

May 2012

Chickens in industrial operations are fed caffeine, arsenic, banned antibiotics, and the active ingredients in Tylenol and Benadryl. That’s what researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University found when they tested feather meal made from chicken feathers.

Many antibiotics and other drugs used in poultry production accumulate in feathers, making the research possible. The first study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, reports a class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones – such as Ciprofloxacin – were found routinely in tested samples.

This class of antibiotics was banned from use in poultry production in 2005 by the Food and Drug Administration to slow development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains. The same study also found the antihistamine in Benadryl in one-third of samples. It found acetaminophen (Tylenol) and caffeine in a large majority of samples.

The second study, published in Science of the Total Environment, found arsenic in every sample of feather meal tested. Antibiotics and arsenic are fed to chickens to prevent infection and promote growth. Caffeine, Benadryl, and acetaminophen are fed to keep chickens more awake and relaxed to promote weight gain and bet¬ter meat texture.

In case you’re worried, the FDA announced on April 11 they are proposing a voluntary initiative. It’s designed to reduce the use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry production to curb antimicrobial resistance. I’m sure that will do the trick.

The culprit for the decline in honeybee colonies worldwide is likely imidacloprid, a widely used agricultural pesticide. Research was conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the Bulletin of Insectology. It provides what author Chenshen Lu calls “convincing evidence” of the link between the pesticide and Colony Collapse Disorder.

Massive honeybee losses could result in billions of dollars in damages. They are prime pollinators of approximately one-third of fruits, vegetables, nuts, alfalfa, and clover produced in the U.S.

Question or comments? Send them my way, John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2100.

 

April 2012

I highly recommend you take a ghost tour if you visit New Orleans. You’ll have ample opportunity to learn about ghosts, zombies, and all manner of horrors. Dead Zones in the Gulf, however, are less entertaining and made the news again recently.

The Iowa Environmental Council and other environmental organizations filed suit in federal court in New Orleans arguing that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasn’t done enough to keep nitrogen and phosphorus out of the Mississippi River and the Gulf.

Nutrient runoff from crop and livestock production in the Midwest as well as sewage-treatment plants throughout the Mississippi River watershed pollute Midwest lakes, rivers, and streams. This causes algal blooms, severely depleting oxygen levels in massive “dead zones” in the Gulf. Oxygen-depleted, or hypoxic, zones are unable to sustain a broad range of aquatic life, threatening gulf fisheries and one of the nation’s best shrimping areas. And that’s where the horror story arrives at your doorstep or favorite seafood restaurant.

The lawsuit alleges that EPA is required to set numerical limits on the pollutants under the Clean Water Act. EPA has acknowledged the serious nature of the environmental threat. However, the agency also indicated that states should be largely responsible for resolving the problem.

The states haven’t done enough to address nutrient runoff, but this is a multistate problem. EPA has neither accepted responsibility nor provided leadership. We appreciate the Iowa Environmental Council and other plaintiffs for holding their feet to the fire.

Last month, Senators Grassley (R-IA), Conrad (D-ND), Harkin (D-IA), and Johnson (D-SD) introduced legislation to prohibit packers from owning livestock more than seven days prior to slaughter, thereby increasing market access and fairness for independent, family farmers and ranchers.

Senators Grassley, Johnson, Enzi (R-WY), and Tester (D-MT) also introduced the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. It would end anticompetitive contracting practices packers use to manipulate livestock markets. Both bills would help end the nightmare of vertically integrated, industrial livestock production, and we urge their passage.

Send your questions or comments to me, John Crabtree, at 402.687.2100 or johnc@cfra.org.

 

March 2012

In O’Neill, Nebraska, on Feb. 7, 2012, J. Dudley Butler made his first public appearance since leaving his post as head of USDA’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). He faced a standing room only audience of 250 farmers and ranchers, a great crowd for this North Central Nebraska community.

I have written extensively about the rise and fall of USDA’s livestock market reform rule, commonly known as the GIPSA rule. Though not perfect, we believe the rule was the strongest step forward in ensuring family farmers and ranchers fair access to competitive livestock markets since the Packers and Stockyards Act passed in 1921.

Butler criticized opponents of the rule for their personal attacks on him. “They called me an activist, anti-corporate lawyer,” said Butler. “I can’t deny I’m an activist. I love farmers and ranchers. I happen to be one of them. I believe that rural America is the backbone of America. I can’t deny I’m a lawyer. But I’m not anti-corporate. I’m anti-unfair.”

He then gave a detailed explanation of the legislative rider, added by the House Appropriations Committee. It disallowed use of any and all funding for moving the livestock market reforms forward as a final rule. Butler described what he called “vicious lies” opponents used to undermine support for the rule in both Congress and the administration.

“What they did was cowardly,” added Butler.

“And I’ve heard ranchers say, we can’t be vertically integrated because they don’t want our land,” Butler continued. “Vertical integration zeroes in on where the assets are concentrated. Where are assets concentrated in the beef business? Well, if they control the feedlots, they control you.”

I asked Butler what’s next for challenging the concentration, vertical integration, and anticompetitive behaviors in our livestock markets. He replied that the rider undoing the GIPSA rule came from the House of Representatives. Until enough farmers, ranchers and other rural Americans burn up the phone lines to Congress on the other side of this issue, nothing will change. We concur.

Questions or Comments? Send them to John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2100.

 

February 2012

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has conducted a plant pest risk assessment and an environmental assessment on 2,4-D-resistant corn engineered by Dow. APHIS has proposed to deregulate the genetically modified, herbicide resistant crop. They will accept public comment through Feb. 27, 2012.

Increasingly, weeds resistant to glyphosate have created a perverse incentive for chemical companies to design new herbicide-resistant crops. Ironic, in that decreasing the use of 2,4-D and other herbicides was a common rationale for widespread use of glyphosate-resistant crops.

U.S. District Court Judge Lonny Suko has ruled that Nelson Faria Dairy based in Royal City, Washington, has caused extensive soil and groundwater pollution. The judge ordered the company to begin monitoring its groundwater, tile drains and soil.

Helen Reddout, Yakima Valley resident and president of the Community Association for Restoration of the Environment (CARE), said, “We have wells that are polluted with nitrates and organic matter from the dairies … but we can’t prove that. What’s important about this decision is that it does prove that.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), proposed a rule last fall that would require certain Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to provide information about livestock waste handling, storage and disposal. According to EPA, the rule will help ensure that CAFOs comply with requirements of the Clean Water Act, including provisions requiring operations to obtain an NPDES permit if they discharge pollution in the waters of the United States.

In support of the rulemaking, EPA referenced 68 studies that demonstrate that waste from industrial livestock operations are important contributors to surface water pollution. Fifteen of those studies directly link CAFOs to air and water pollutants with specific health or environmental impacts.

Of course, industrial livestock proponents like the National Pork Producers Council oppose the rule because, just as they believe meatpacking companies cannot be held responsible for their manipulation of livestock markets, they also seem to think that industrial livestock operations should not be held responsible for what happens to their manure.

Questions? Comments? Send them my way – John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2100.

 

January 2012

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning recently announced an allocation of $100,000 from the Supplemental Environmental Project Fund to a new coalition of farm and commodity groups. Nebraska Farm Bureau, Cattlemen, Pork Producers, and the Nebraska State Dairy Association formed the coalition to oppose efforts of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The $100,000 comes from fines, restitution for clean-up, and other legal settlements in natural resource and environmental protection cases. The allocation was made despite the fact that HSUS announced earlier this year they will work in partnership with Nebraska Farmers Union to seek market-oriented solutions to humane livestock treatment concerns, forestalling the possibility of a ballot initiative in the state.

“I’m proud to support efforts to protect the cornerstone of our state economy from the actions of extremist groups,” said Bruning. I wonder how the defenders of Initiative 300 – Nebraska’s constitutional provision prohibiting corporate farming in the state, overturned in federal court in 2005 – could have benefited from a similar allocation.

In November the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources announced final approval of a proposal by Richfield Dairy, a subsidiary of Milk Source Holdings, to build a 4,300-cow dairy in Adams County. The controversial project has considerable opposition locally over environmental concerns.

Richfield Dairy will increase Milk Source Holdings ownership to 26,500 cows and a 9,200 calf operation near De Pere. The new permit will impose conditions on the operation that will protect groundwater and local waterways from manure and heavy water use.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear a lawsuit against four international marketers of potash, a fertilizer component. Plaintiffs accused potash producers in Canada, Russia, Belarus and the United States of operating a cartel to fix prices in Brazil, China and India.

A three-judge panel held that the anti-competitive conduct did not involve U.S. imports and did not directly affect the price of U.S. imports. The plaintiffs argued that inflated prices in overseas markets directly influence the domestic price of potash and appealed the initial decision, asking for a hearing before the full 7th Circuit, which was granted.

Contact John Crabtree for more information or to comment. Call 402.687.2103, ext. 1010 or email johnc@cfra.org.

 

 

December 2011

In recent weeks, issues surrounding the so-called GIPSA rule have become so complex that I think we need a timeline of sorts to keep everything straight.

• For as long as anyone can remember, and certainly for the last 40 years, meatpacking companies have offered sweetheart deals to the largest livestock producers, and deep, volume discounts for family farmers’ and ranchers’ hogs and cattle, in violation of the Packers and Stockyards (P&S) Act.
• For the last 15 years the Center for Rural Affairs has called on USDA and Congress to end the price discrimination that has driven so many independent family farm and ranch livestock producers out of business.
• In 2008, the Center for Rural Affairs and a handful of allied organizations helped secure the inclusion of language in the Farm Bill that required the Secretary of Agriculture to define an undue preference and make other reforms under the P&S Act.
• On June 22, 2010, USDA published a proposed rule defining an undue preference and reforming several other elements of the P&S Act. While not perfect, the rule was the most aggressive livestock market reform to come out of Washington since the passage of the P&S Act itself. USDA accepted comments until November 22, 2010, and then the rule languished for over a year.
• In November, USDA announced that some elements of the proposed rule would be finalized, but others, including language dealing with price discrimination (undue preferences) and other related livestock market reforms would not become final, meaning they likely will be withdrawn or simply never resubmitted or finalized.
• A week later the House and Senate Appropriation Conference Committee effectively gutted all the portions of the proposed livestock market reform rule that had not already been advanced by USDA by disallowing the use of any appropriated funds for advancing any additional portions of the proposed GIPSA rule.

At the Center for Rural Affairs, we don’t always win, but we fight the battles worth fighting, and we never give up. Recent events regarding the GIPSA rule were major setbacks for reforming livestock markets. However, we have the facts on our side, we have the law on our side and we have rural America on our side. Persistence and perseverance got us this far, and the same thing will lead us home again.

Contact me, John Crabtree, at johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2103, ext. 1010 with comments and questions.

 

November 2011

Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest producer and packer of hogs, has agreed to pay $44,079 to settle a federal lawsuit over dozens of Clean Water Act violations at the company’s John Morrell hog packing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Since May 2008, the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources cited the Sioux Falls hog plant for 58 toxic discharge violations and reported Morrell as noncompliant with federal environmental statutes for nine quarters out of the last three years. Morrell processes 17,000 hogs per day at the facility and discharges 2.4 million gallons of wastewater per day into the Big Sioux River.

In addition, Morrell (Smithfield) will pay a federal civil penalty of $206,000 for ammonia discharges related to problems with the plant’s refrigeration system. In 2004 a pipe at the plant ruptured, venting 20,000 pounds of ammonia vapor and hospitalizing dozens of workers.

The settlement requires Morrell to conduct a comprehensive review of the plant’s wastewater treatment system and have any necessary improvements underway by October 2012. Surely $250,000 in fines is enough to make the Smithfield pork division, with $753.4 million in operating profit for 2011, stay on the straight and narrow.

On September 15, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller announced the District Court approval of a consent decree submitted by the State of Iowa and AgFeed Industries, Inc. AgFeed is a Colorado-based hog production, packing and feed milling corporation with hog facilities and feed mills in multiple states, including Iowa.

AgFeed intends to increase its pork packing capacity by acquiring Pine Ridge, LLC while simultaneously expanding its hog contracting business. However, Iowa law prohibits a processor from directly or indirectly operating, financing, or controlling a swine operation within the state or contracting with Iowa producers for the care and feeding of swine.

In exchange for Iowa agreeing not to pursue enforcement of the state’s ban on packer involvement in swine production, AgFeed agrees to comply with a number of contract grower protections. The decree expires on September 16, 2015.

For more information, contact me, John Crabtree, at 402.687.2103, ext. 1010 or johnc@cfra.org.

 

October 2011

On Sept. 2, 2011, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency denied the Water Quality Certification application submitted by California Dairy Magnate A. J. Boss. The permit was originally applied for in July 2008 with subsequent supplements submitted in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

The Army Corps of Engineers will not allow Bos to construct the manure pond without the certification, and the facility can’t receive an Illinois Department of Agriculture operating license without the proposed manure pond.

In the end, these developments appear to have finally shelved Bos’ plans for building a mega-dairy that would have eventually exceeded 11,000 cows near Nora, Illinois. We applaud the efforts of the Jo Daviess grassroots group HOMES (Helping Others Maintain Envi¬ronmental Standards) and their long-awaited and hard-fought victory.

Unfortunately, HOMES members report that disassembled barns from Bos’ Nora mega-dairy site are being trucked to the site of another mega-dairy under development in Rock County, Wisconsin.

Rock Prairie Dairy, a facility that would eventually house between four and five thousand cows, making it Wisconsin’s fourth largest dairy, originally requested up to $25 million in federal bonds through the Bradford Township Council. However, state law allows local residents to petition for a referendum, and a group of locals got organized and did just that.

But Todd Tuls of Nebraska, the principal investor in the project, decided he’d avoid a pesky vote of the local citizenry. Instead, he requested $15.6 million in Midwest Disaster Area bonds be issued from the Public Finance Authority, a governmental entity authorized to issue bonds to public and private projects without any provision for a referendum.

A bank would buy the bonds, issue a loan to Tuls, earn interest on the bonds, and thereby reduce the interest the project would be charged. Stay tuned for more about this deal.

Contact me, John Crabtree, with questions or comments. Call 410.687.2103 ext. 1010 or email johnc@cfra.org.

 

September 2011

In July, Bayer Crop Science agreed to pay up to $750 million to farmers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas to settle lawsuits over the 2006 contamination of the U.S. rice supply by genetically modified rice.

According to plaintiff’s attorney Don Downing, the contamination was devastating to a lot of rice farmers. “In this settlement, Bayer, for the first time, has offered to make it right for these farmers,” Downing continued.

The suit and subsequent settlement sends a signal that those who develop genetically modified seeds “need to keep those seeds very carefully contained until they’re approved for human consumption,” Downing added.

Approximately 11,000 farmers in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas filed lawsuits against the German company, claiming that their crops of long-grain rice had been tainted by the release of rice genetically modified to incorporate the herbicide resistance trait LibertyLink, which contaminated the rice supply in 2006.

Barry Estabrook, a freelance food writer published in The Atlantic, New York Times and Washington Post, has written a book called Tomatoland, which examines the industrialization of tomato production in the United States. The book joins a growing list of books that critically examines industrial agriculture in America. Estabrook’s offering is a worthwhile read.

The most critical element of Estabrook’s premise is that mass-produced tomatoes in American supermarkets lack flavor because they were raised to endure traveling hundreds or thousands of miles to the supermarket shelf and not for taste.

According to Estabrook, one large Florida tomato farmer told him, “I don’t get paid a single cent for flavor, I get paid for weight. It’s not worth commercial plant breeders’ while to breed for taste because their customers, namely large farmers, don’t get paid for it.” Such attitudes are not unique to industrial tomato farming. More’s the pity.

JBS, the world’s largest cattle feeder and beef packer, agreed to a settlement with the Brazilian government that eliminates a civil action and the potential for any fines for the packer’s illegal procurement of cattle from illegally deforested areas. So much for JBS’s self-promoted sustainability program.

For more information or to comment, contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 ext. 1010.

 

July 2011

On June 22, 2010, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack published a draft livestock market reform rule, commonly known as the GIPSA rule. He was following language in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Secretary Vilsack wrote a strong set of livestock market reforms, perhaps the boldest since the Packers and Stockyards Act first passed in 1921, legislation that was also a product of good, old-fashioned rural organizing in 1920-1921.

He did so because you urged him to do so. Congress put that language in the last farm bill because of the countless times family farmers, ranchers, and other concerned citizens, both rural and urban, called upon them to level the playing field and make livestock markets accessible and fair to all livestock producers, regardless of size.

I first heard about this issue on my birthday back in 1997 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, when I listened to Center for Rural Affairs board member Keith Mahaney call for this rulemaking in his testimony to the National Commission on Small Farms. Since then I’ve heard thousands of family farmers and ranchers make the same call.

Eleven years later, together, all of us were able to finally get that provision in the farm bill. Two years after that, USDA’s livestock market reforms were issued. Another year later and we’re still waiting, still urging Secretary Vilsack and President Obama to move the rule forward, still urging Congress not to hamstring them.

Ninety years after the P&S Act was written, one year after the GIPSA rule was written, and grassroots action and advocacy continue to be the most important aspect of getting this job done.

Contact John Crabtree if you want to advocate for livestock market reforms, 402.687.2103 ext. 1010 or johnc@cfra.org.

 

June 2011

One year ago, on June 22, 2010, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack unveiled USDA’s new rule, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, which will reform livestock markets and restore some competition among meatpackers and poultry processors. It has been an interesting year.

Over 60,000 comments were received by November 22, after the deadline was extended to five months. USDA is currently reviewing the comments and performing a variety of economic and other analyses.

Of course, opponents of reform have not sat idly by these many months. The nearly constant whining of the American Meat Institute – the trade association that represents meatpacking interests – coupled with the squawking and squealing coming from the National Chicken Council and National Pork Producers Council while they shill for the packers has been almost deafening at times. And they’ve never bothered to worry about accuracy or analysis in their attacks, resorting instead to hyperbole and alarmist rhetoric.

They’ve gained some allies in Congress, however. But the choice is simple. Stand with family farmers and ranchers or stand with meatpackers and their industrial, corporate livestock allies. Now is a good time to call your representatives and senators, express your support for USDA’s livestock market reform rule, and urge them to publicly communicate their support to Secretary Vilsack.

While you’re at it, call USDA and encourage them to hold the line and move the rule forward. It’s time to draw a line in the sand and count out who is standing with family farmers, ranchers and rural communities, and who is not.

The Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in May challenging the acquisition of Tyson Foods’ Harrisonburg, Virginia, chicken processing complex. Justice department officials said the acquisition “eliminates substantial competition between the two companies for the procurement of chickens in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, area.

“Our lawsuit alleges that George’s acquisition of Tyson’s Harrisonburg processing facility would reduce growers’ ability to receive competitive prices for their services,” said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. “America’s farmers deserve competitive prices and terms for the sale of their services.”

For more information or to comment, contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 ext. 1010.

 

May 2011

On March 31, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied a request by Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards (HOMES) to review an appellate court decision rendered in December 2010, which denied HOMES’ petition to stop construction of California dairy Magnate A.J. Bos’ mega-dairy near Nora, Illinois.

Bos’ intention to continue with construction of the mega-dairy was recently reiterated by his legal counsel. However, HOMES spokesperson Matthew Alschuler pointed out that Bos has yet to obtain permission from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the US EPA to proceed with construction.

Both the Florida and Iowa state legislatures are debating bills that would forbid animal rights activists from surreptitiously photographing or filming conditions at large, industrial livestock facilities. In Iowa, the legislation would make such photography or videography a felony. Kansas and Montana already have laws that ban taking secret photos of livestock facilities if the intent is to damage the owner.

Linus Solberg, a longtime Center for Rural Affairs friend who has raised hogs, cattle and sheep on his family farm near Cylinder, Iowa, for 57 years points out that thousands of pictures have been taken on their farm. “Visitors from all over the world have filmed artificial breeding; the births of lambs, pigs and calves; and the euthanasia of young animals if they were starving or suffering, because that’s part of animal husbandry,” said Solberg.

In a guest opinion submitted to the Des Moines Register Solberg wrote, “Nobody is sabotaging the livestock industry. The corporate clan is distorting the facts and instead of trying to correct the problems, is trying to kill the messenger … . Maybe the corporate clan should spend all that time and energy cleaning up their act, educating their workforce and firing people who abuse animals.”

I’ve learned to avoid disagreeing with Linus, especially when he’s right.

Contact John Crabtree for more information, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1010.