Any reform of the current system of industrialized agriculture will have to address the needs of independent ranchers and farmers. They are more than just a sentimental link to America’s rural past. They are a unique source of innovation and long-term stewardship of the land. Throughout the Cold War, America’s decentralized system of agriculture, relying upon millions of independent producers, was depicted as the most productive system in the world, as proof of capitalism’s inherent superiority. The perennial crop failures in the Soviet Union were attributed to a highly centralized system run by distant bureaucrats. Today the handful of agribusiness firms that dominate American food production are championing another centralized system of production, one in which livestock and farmland are viewed purely as commodities, farmers are reduced to the status of employees, and crop decisions are made by executives far away from the fields. Although competition between the large processors has indeed led to lower costs for consumers, price fixing and collusion have devastated independent ranchers and farmers. The antitrust laws outlawing such behavior need to be vigorously enforced. More than a century ago, during the congressional debate on the Sherman Antitrust Act, Henry M. Teller, a Republican senator from Colorado, dismissed the argument that lower consumer prices justified the ruthless exercise of monopoly power. “I do not believe,” Teller argued, “that the great object in life is to make everything cheap.”
Having centralized American agriculture, the large agribusiness firms are now attempting, like Soviet commissars, to stifle criticism of their policies. Over the past decade, “veggie libel laws” backed by agribusiness have been passed in thirteen states. The laws make it illegal to criticize agricultural commodities in a manner inconsistent with “reasonable” scientific evidence. The whole concept of “veggie libel” is probably unconstitutional; nevertheless, these laws remain on the books. Oprah Winfrey, among others, has been sued for making disparaging remarks about food. In Texas, a man was sued by a sod company for criticizing the quality of its lawns. In Georgia and Alabama, the veggie libel laws have been framed in imitation of British libel law, placing the burden of proof upon the defendant. In Colorado, violating the veggie libel law is now a criminal, not a civil, offense. Criticizing the ground beef produced at the Greeley slaughterhouse could put you behind bars.
how to do it
CONGRESS SHOULD BAN ADVERTISING that preys upon children, it should stop subsidizing dead-end jobs, it should pass tougher food safety laws, it should protect American workers from serious harm, it should fight against dangerous concentrations of economic power. Congress should do all those things, but it isn’t likely to do any of them soon. The political influence of the fast food industry and its agribusiness suppliers makes a discussion of what Congress should do largely academic. The fast food industry spends millions of dollars every year on lobbying and billions on mass marketing. The wealth and power of the major chains make them seem impossible to defeat. And yet those companies must obey the demands of one group — consumers — whom they eagerly flatter and pursue. As the market for fast food in the United States becomes increasingly saturated, the chains have to compete fiercely with one another for customers. According to William P. Foley II, the chairman of the company that owns Carl’s Jr., the basic imperative of today’s fast food industry is “Grow or die.” The slightest drop in a chain’s market share can cause a large decline in the value of its stock. Even the McDonald’s Corporation is now vulnerable to the changing whims of consumers. It is opening fewer McDonald’s in the United States and expanding mainly through pizza, chicken, and Mexican food chains that do not bear the company name.
The right pressure applied to the fast food industry in the right way could produce change faster than any act of Congress. The United Students Against Sweatshops and other activist groups have brought widespread attention to the child labor, low wages, and hazardous working conditions in Asian factories that make sneakers for Nike. At first, the company disavowed responsibility for these plants, which it claimed were owned by independent suppliers. Nike later changed course, forcing its Asian suppliers to improve working conditions and pay higher wages. The same tactics employed by the antisweatshop groups can be used to help workers much closer to home — workers in the slaughterhouses and processing plants of the High Plains.
As the nation’s largest purchaser of beef, the McDonald’s Corporation must be held accountable for the behavior of its suppliers. When McDonald’s demanded ground beef free of lethal pathogens, the five companies that manufacture its hamburger patties increased their investment in new equipment and microbial testing. If McDonald’s were to demand higher wages and safer working conditions for meatpacking workers, its suppliers would provide them. As the nation’s largest purchaser of potatoes, McDonald’s could also use its clout on behalf of Idaho farmers. And as the second-largest purchaser of chicken, McDonald’s could demand changes in the way poultry growers are compensated by their processors. Small increases in the cost of beef, chicken, and potatoes would raise fast food menu prices by a few pennies, if at all. The fast food chains insist that suppliers follow strict specifications regarding the sugar content, fat content, size, shape, taste, and texture of their products. The chains could just as easily enforce a strict code of conduct governing the treatment of workers, ranchers, and farmers.
McDonald’s has already shown a willingness to act quickly when confronted with consumer protests. In the late 1960s, African-American groups attacked the McDonald’s Corporation for opening restaurants in minority neighborhoods without giving minority businessmen the opportunity to become franchisees. The company responded by actively recruiting African-American franchisees, a move that defused tensions and helped McDonald’s penetrate urban markets. A decade ago, environmentalists criticized the chain for the amount of polystyrene waste it generated. At the time, McDonald’s served hamburgers in little plastic boxes that were briefly used and then discarded, making it one of the nation’s largest purchasers of polystyrene. In order to counter the criticism, McDonald’s formed an unusual alliance with the Environmental Defense Fund in August of 1990 and later announced that the chain’s hamburgers would no longer be served in polystyrene boxes. The decision was portrayed in the media as the “greening” of McDonald’s and a great victory for the environmental movement. The switch from plastic boxes to paper ones did not, however, represent a sudden and profound change in corporate philosophy. It was a response to bad publicity. McDonald’s no longer uses polystyrene boxes in the United States — but it continues to use them overseas, where the environmental harms are no different.
Even the anticipation of consumer anger has prompted McDonald’s to demand changes from its suppliers. In the spring of 2000, McDonald’s informed Lamb Weston and the J. R. Simplot Company that it would no longer purchase frozen french fries made from genetically engineered potatoes. As a result, the two large processors told their growers to stop planting genetically engineered potatoes — and sales of Monsanto’s New Leaf, the nation’s only biotech potato, instantly plummeted. McDonald’s had stopped serving genetically engineered potatoes a year earlier in Western Europe, where the issue of “Frankenfoods” had generated enormous publicity. In the United States, there was relatively little consumer backlash against genetic engineering. Nevertheless, McDonald’s decided to act. Just the fear of controversy swiftly led to a purchasing change with important ramifications for American agriculture.