DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation
By Tom Philpott
EXCERPT:
Este es un blog bilingüe fundado en mayo de 2004, dedicado a proveer perspectivas críticas sobre biotecnología y bioseguridad … This is a bilingual blog, founded in May 2004, dedicated to providing critical perspectives on biotechnology and biosafety. Contact: ruiz@tutanota.com.
Organizations and Businesses Ask Departments of Justice and Agriculture to Take Hard Look at Monsanto’s Comments Regarding Health of Seed Industry
Etiquetas: Antitrust, Monsanto, Organic Seed Alliance, Seeds
By Annie Shattuck
Agribusiness has become the new class of robber barons, but these monopolists have suddenly found themselves under some uncomfortable public scrutiny.
Friday the Department of Justice began its series of listening sessions on concentration in agribusiness. The DOJ is investigating corporations like Dean Foods for gouging dairy farmers and manipulating prices. They are looking into companies like the Brazilian meatpacking giant JBS for dominating the notoriously concentrated and increasingly dirty meatpacking industry. They are even taking on the ultimate agricultural Goliath: Monsanto.
The U.S. created anti-trust laws at the turn of the last century to ensure competitive markets and protect consumers from price gouging. This legislation was most famously used to break up the control of the robber barons – the industry fat cats who owned monopolies on America’s railroads, oil and steel, including the chokehold Rockefeller’s Standard Oil wielded on America’s energy supplies.
Fast forward 80 years and we are in a similar situation: a handful of companies keep a stranglehold on our food supply. Over 80% of US beef is packed by just four companies. Monsanto’s patented traits are on some 80% of US corn acres. One company controls 40% of US milk supply, and five companies sell about half of US groceries, which ensures that the low prices paid to farmers aren’t necessarily passed onto consumers.
At a town hall meeting Thursday night in Iowa, Southern Iowa family dairy farmer Jerry Harvey summed up the situation of many of America’s family farmers “What was the American dream turned out to be the American nightmare the last 15 months…We haven’t even made enough money to pay our feed costs the last 15 months. We’ve borrowed $5-6,000 a month. My kids that work with me – they are going to be gone too because we just can’t keep going like this.”
The price of paid to farmers for milk has dropped by nearly 50% in the past 15 months, while retail milk prices have not come down nearly so far.
Action by the Department of Justice would have an immediate impact on farmers. Arkansas farmer Harvey Howington summed up the situation, “We have the same problems with the seed companies…they want to squeeze us on our inputs, they want to squeeze us for every dollar they can get out of us.”
But while gouging farmers is bad enough, these monopolies have found another way to gouge consumers: by using their sheer size and political weight to get at government handouts.
The teeth in America’s nearly century old anti-trust laws are about protecting consumers at the cash register. But corporations have figured out how to increase costs to consumers indirectly. Take WalMart for example. The retail grocery chain controls some 10% of the US grocery market. The top five firms control nearly half the market – not exactly the capitalist ideal of free and competitive. Where do we see the effects of this concentration? Not at the checkout line, but in other, more subtle ways. The State of California shells out $86 million yearly in public benefits like Medicare and Food Stamps to active WalMart employees making sub-poverty wages. Management routinely encourages employees to seek public assistance to beef up their wages.
Where else might we see it? In the broken immigration system, in shifting environmental costs (From 2003-2007, US taxpayers shelled out nearly $200 million to clean up after industrial dairy and hog operations), in the ability of firms to secure subsides (ADM, one of the top three global grain traders has been called the “biggest recipient of corporate welfare in US history” by the conservative Cato Institute), and in the lost opportunities for real entrepreneurs to ever get ahead.
The Obama administration’s choice to investigate the barons of agribusiness is historic. But it cannot stop there. The Justice Department is holding listening sessions all over the country to hear about how people are affected, and what they are about to hear is yes, farmers are being gouged, along with everyone else.
To find out more or learn how to request a hearing where you live, visit bustthetrust.org.
March 16th, 2010
David Murphy
ANKENY, IA — There are moments in a nation’s history that define it. For America’s remaining 2 million farmers (less than 1% of the population) and the more than 300 million eaters, the recent joint Department of Justice and Department of Agriculture workshop on lack of competition in the food and agricultural sectors held in Ankeny, Iowa is potentially one of those moments.
With concentration at record levels in agriculture today, well past levels that encourage or even allow fair prices or competition, the Obama administration’s call for public workshops is an historic event. While agribusiness continues to deny any problem, a simple look at the facts shows that the playing field for family farmers and American consumers is distorted beyond anything resembling a free or competitive market.
Even though these statistics have been widely published lately, I will include them here again just to illustrate the point: 1 company (Monsanto) controls the genetics of 93% of soybeans and 80% of the corn grown in the U.S; 4 companies (Tyson, Cargill, Swift & National Beef Packing Co.) control 85% of the beef packing industry; 4 companies (Smithfield, Tyson, Swift & Cargill) control 66% of the pork packing industry.
For farmers trying to get a fair price for seeds or livestock, such concentration places a crushing burden on their bottom line.
This past Friday nearly 800 individuals from across the country gathered in a small community college auditorium to hear top officials in the Obama administration, including cabinet members Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (former governor of Iowa) and Attorney General Eric Holder, address the issue of how such excessive market concentration and food monopolies have negatively impacted the lives and livelihoods of family farmers, consumers and rural America. Over the course of eight hours, the audience, made up mostly of farmers, labor workers and farm advocates, some of whom traveled from as far as Montana, Texas, Arkansas and North Carolina, listened as academics, economists, agribusiness representatives, commodity groups and a few farmers detailed specific areas of concern regarding the lack of competition in agricultural markets or, in the case of a several industry reps, denied outright the existence of any problem.
The gravity of this meeting and its outcome could be felt by all attendees as Vilsack, Holder, DOJ antitrust chief Christine Varney, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and others took the stage for the first panel. A sense of anticipation and restlessness filled the crowd as the panel was announced, which included Iowa’s attorney general, Tom Miller, Congressman Leonard Boswell, Lt. Governor Patty Judge and Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey. The inclusion of the last three panelists, while expected, caused some dismay by longtime Iowa farm activists. Having two Democrats (Boswell and Judge) and a Republican (Northey) at the podium with a long history of supporting industrial agriculture was not what many had hoped for when the workshops were first announced.Editorial. Seeds of Antitrust Destruction.
Anonymous. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 29, 2010. pg. A.22
Full Text
(643 words)
When you can't beat 'em, scream monopoly. That's the vintage gambit now playing out in the farm business, with the encouragement of the Department of Justice.
At the first of a series of workshops this month, Attorney General Eric Holder, antitrust chief Christine Varney and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack presided over a "forum" for farmers, activists and others to discuss competition in the agriculture industry. The occasion looked more like the Obama Administration's latest dunk tank for business. "Recessions and long periods of reckless deregulation can foster practices that are anti-competitive and even illegal," Mr. Holder warned in his speech.
Held in Ankeny, Iowa, the gathering occurred in the backyard of DuPont's seed company, Pioneer Hi-Bred. DuPont/Pioneer has become an ally of the Justice Department's resurrected antitrust posse. DuPont has filed an antitrust suit against Monsanto over its dominance of a sliver of the soybean market, and the company hopes Mr. Holder's trustbusters will grant it success where the market has not.
The controversy involves a soybean-seed technology created and patented by Monsanto in 1996. Called Roundup Ready, the product became a favorite among farmers because the soybean it produces is resistant to weed killer. At first, DuPont aimed to challenge Monsanto directly, developing a product called Optimum GAT. When that failed as a stand-alone product, DuPont came up with plans to use it as a so-called stacked product -- a seed that included both Monsanto and DuPont technologies.
Monsanto took DuPont to U.S. District Court in St. Louis on grounds that combining these products violated the two companies' licensing contract. In January, Judge Richard Webber agreed, ruling that DuPont didn't have the right to combine, or "stack," its product on Monsanto's blockbuster. DuPont meanwhile called in the monopoly lawyers. It counter-sued on antitrust grounds, with DuPont General Counsel Thomas Sager vowing that "this litigation is just the beginning."
On cue, the Justice Department antitrust posse saddled up. It opened a formal investigation into Monsanto's alleged monopoly behavior. But any "monopoly" depends on whose definition of competition gets used. If the relevant "market" is herbicide-resistant soybeans, then Monsanto has been a colossus since its first unit was sold. (Round-up Ready is literally the only product that's been developed for this purpose.)
In fact, DuPont holds a slight edge in soybean seed sales, and each company represents about one-quarter of the soybean seed market. Competition is strong in the seed industry, where Monsanto lost market share as a result of its decision to license its soybean technology to other seed producers.
But Ms. Varney, the Justice antitrust chief, has her eye on bigger things. She once worked to organize farm workers and she has said that Justice's Iowa workshops were inspired by her concern that the Bush Administration had allowed too many mergers across the farm industry, creating a culture of Big Agriculture that is bad for America. Besides this litigation, the Justice Department recently filed suit in Wisconsin to prevent further "consolidation" in dairy processing. The livestock industry, which is dominated by a handful of major producers and was another hot topic at the Iowa workshops, could be next.
Monsanto and farm conglomerates represent evil to the same demographic that believes we should go back to growing our own food. While the increase in organic produce and "buying local" is gospel to urban foodies and those rich enough to afford high prices, large-scale farming has succeeded in the marketplace because its economies of scale make food more affordable and have helped feed the hungry around the world.
An antitrust assault against Monsanto and the broader farm industry will do nothing to advance the competition that Mr. Holder claims to protect. Federal interventions against market leaders typically target companies most likely to innovate and create products that drive progress. Those who invest in research and development have a right to reap what they sow.
Etiquetas: Antitrust, Monsanto, Wall Street Journal