The
trend is for fewer but bigger firms increasing their power to control
what we eat; four European firms control the global beer market; six
firms control the global seed market; two firms control food
distribution in the U.S.
Monopolies
benefit corporations, not the public, reinforcing the company’s power
and political clout. Many corporate executives even serve on federal
advisory committees and global trade agreement working groups
Two-thirds
of the farm commodities sold in the U.S. come from just 100,000 farms,
and these middle-to-large-scale farms just keep getting bigger, in part
by the way government subsidies are doled out
By Dr. Mercola
Most of us have little to no idea how behind-the-scenes forces
control the food we buy, and the depth of the corruption involved.
Philip Howard, Ph.D., author of "Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat?," studies food system changes, with an emphasis on visualizing these trends.1
"My motivation [for writing the book] was to uncover what's going
on, to help people understand who owns what and all the strategies
these dominant firms use to further increase their power," he says.
His work has been featured by many prominent media outlets, including
The New York Times, The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. He's an
associate professor in the department of community sustainability at
Michigan State University and holds a Ph.D. in rural sociology.
Endgame: Global Monopolization
One fact that many don't realize is just how few firms control the
global food system, from seeds to supermarkets. As noted by Howard:
"The trend in most industries is for fewer and fewer firms to
increase their power. One really dramatic example is the beer industry.
Four firms headquartered in Europe brew about half the world's beer.
That's going to go down to three very soon, because Anheuser-Busch InBev
is acquiring SABMiller.
Even if you're a very dominant firm, you're caught up in this
system where you have to get bigger or become acquired by your big
competitors. But it's resulting in less and less people making decisions
about the food we eat. There's even speculation that InBev is not
increasing its sales enough, even with this acquisition, so they're
going to have to acquire a big soft drink firm, perhaps even Coke or
Pepsi."
With its $103 billion acquisition of SABMiller, InBev is now one of
the three largest food firms in the world. InBev also owns
Anheuser-Busch, which produces Budweiser, one of the most well-known
beer brands in the world. In some parts of the world, such as in Africa
and Latin America, InBev has already established a monopoly.
Antitrust rules and regulations enacted by the federal government are
meant to prevent these types of monopolies. In fact, when large
corporations want to buy other large corporations, a rigorous evaluation
process is required before they're authorized to merge. So how is it
that this kind of monopoly-building is still happening? Howard explains:
"In the early 1900s, there were a number of laws passed to
prevent these trusts, these combinations that resulted in monopolies in
these markets. That changed dramatically beginning in the 1980s. Reagan
was elected. He directed the heads of federal agencies to take a very
different view towardtowards mergers and acquisitions.
At the same time, federal judges were being indoctrinated into
the Chicago School of Economics. They got paid to go on these junkets to
Arizona, Florida, places like that. They played golf. Then they
attended these seminars where they were taught mergers and acquisitions
that, unless they immediately raised prices for consumers, were good for
everyone.
As a result of just one of those programs, by the early '90s,
two-thirds of federal judges had participated. It's essentially
impossible to win an antitrust case in the federal courts now."
The truth is, monopolies really only benefit the corporations in
question, not the population at large. It merely reinforces the
company's power, including their political clout. Many multinational
corporate executives even serve on federal advisory committees and
global trade agreement working groups.
Some of these international trade deals are kept secret even from the
U.S. Congress, yet executives from large multinational firms are
present during the negotiations. When large companies are able to
influence the very regulatory agencies that are chartered to regulate
them, they're able to circumvent the regulatory process, forming what is
essentially a cartel.
"A good example is the seed industry. It was taken over by big
chemical companies beginning in the 1980s. We got down to just six
firms. Previously, there were over 30 firms. These big six chemical
companies, which are also seed companies, have cross-licensing
agreements for genetically engineered (GE) technologies.
The commodity farmers that want these GE traits, like herbicide
resistance — the independent seed companies cannot access those
technologies. They either become acquired by these firms or end up going
out of business. Right now, it's possible that those big six will be
reduced to just three.
BASF … has gotten out of the seed sales. Bayer's trying to
acquire Monsanto, Dow and DuPont are planning to merge … [and]
ChemChina, a Chinese-owned chemical company, is acquiring Syngenta."
Seed Monopolies Created By Chemical Companies
Monsanto
is the classic example of the revolving door between government and
industry. "There are people who just go back and forth between Monsanto
and the agencies that are supposed to be regulating that firm," Howard
notes. Without a doubt, this influence is part of Monsanto's success.
The patenting of seeds and the subsequent restrictions on seed have
led to what is essentially a takeover of the farming industry by
chemical companies. The patenting of seeds benefits these companies in
multiple ways. Not only do farmers have to purchase new seed each year,
since the patents do not allow for saving or sharing of seeds, these GE crops also demand certain chemicals to be used with them, which of course these companies also make and sell.
"Monsanto is using very strong intellectual property protections
on seeds in the U.S. and trying to extend that model all over the world.
With the trade agreements, they're forcing other countries to change
their laws to protect companies like Monsanto, rather than allowing
farmers to save and replant seeds. In the U.S., some farmers have even
gone to prison for saving seeds, not to mention the millions of dollars
in fines," Howard says.
There are many reasons to suspect GE seeds were developed to increase
chemical sales, as most of the stated benefits of GE seeds have
actually turned out to be false. As just one example, Monsanto insisted
it was biologically impossible for weeds to develop resistance against
glyphosate, yet resistant superweeds have now taken over more than 60
million acres of U.S. croplands.2
The chemical biotechnology industry's answer is to develop crops
resistant to more toxic herbicides, but anyone with half a brain should
realize that this "solution" will only aggravate the problem, creating
weeds resistant to these more potent toxins as well. Sooner or later, we
have to get off the chemical treadmill or foods will be too toxic to
eat even in the short term.
Despite Grave Concerns, Beneficial Changes Are Also Afoot
In his book, Howard explores the entire supply chain, from seed to
farm, to processing and distribution to the retail market, looking at
how things have changed over the years. For example, in 1937, there were
nearly 6.8 million farmers in the U.S., which at that time had a
population of about 100 million. Today, we have fewer than 2 million
farmers, with a population of more than 325 million.3
What's worse, an estimated two-thirds of the farm commodities sold in
the U.S. come from just 100,000 farms, and these middle-to-large-scale
farms just keep getting bigger. The reasons for this trend are manifold,
but government subsidies play a significant role. About 85 percent of
federal subsidies go to the top 10 percent of farms, which reinforces their advantages, allowing them to expand and buy out neighboring farms.
There are some very clear and real concerns about our food
distribution system. But while the situation can seem depressing,
beneficial changes are also occurring. As noted by Howard:
"There are a lot of efforts to resist these trends … [B]ig firms
are getting bigger … because they have no other way to grow. Beer sales
in the U.S., for example, are really leveled off, except for the craft
brew segment. We've had this dramatic increase in the number of
breweries in the U.S., thousands and thousands now.
Their percentage in sales is well over 10 percent. If you just
look at the beer aisle in your supermarket, there's a lot more choice
than there was 10 or definitely 20 years ago. One response the big
brewers have tried, just in the last few years, is buying up some of
those craft breweries.
But the genie is out of the bottle. People have moved away from
those macrobrews. They're not increasing their sales at all — that's why
they're having to look at other parts of the world for growth.
There are many [other] examples like [that] in other parts of the
food system. Heritage breed turkeys, for example. The numbers have gone
way up even though in the 2000s, there were less than 2,000 turkeys in
the entire U.S. that weren't broad-breasted white. People are creating
more and more of these alternatives. It's just hard to find them and
support them."
Needless to say, one alternative is to grow some of your own food. We
cannot all grow all kinds of food or raise all of our own livestock,
but most people can grow something. At present, I grow about half of all
the food I eat in any given week. As noted by Howard:
"Even if you have no space, you can grow some sprouts,
for example. You just become a little bit self-sufficient in that way.
If you don't have any space at all to even have a container garden, then
you can make connections with local farmers.
There are more and more community-supported agriculture farms and
cooperatives where farmers come together at a drop-off point once a
month, and buy-ing clubs. It's really encouraging to see that people are
really fed up with the industrial food system and are finding all these
alternatives and we're creating more spaces for them to thrive."
How Corporate Takeovers and Mergers Impact Food Quality
Howard discusses many interesting case samples in his book, including
that of Silk Soymilk, which is a powerful illustration of how food
quality is impacted when a small, integrity-based brand is acquired by a
large conventional entity. Personally, I do not recommend drinking soymilk. It's unhealthy for a number of very good reasons, its lectin content being a major detriment.
Nevertheless, Steve Demos, who started the Silk brand sincerely
believed soymilk was a healthy product. One of the limitations he faced
was breaking into conventional supermarkets, because they charge
slotting fees to the tune of billions of dollars per year. To get a
single product into a regional supermarket chain can cost tens of
thousands of dollars. The way Demos was able to implement his vision was
by approaching big firms like Coca-Cola.
One of the companies he secured funding from was Dean Foods. They
paid the slotting fees to get Silk soymilk into the supermarkets. The
brand grew exponentially, and at one point, Silk had over three-quarters
of all soymilk sales, which is more or less a monopoly. The price Demos
paid was losing control of his company to his investors. Dean Foods
eventually acquired 100 percent of the company, and Demos was unable to
block the takeover.
"Not surprisingly, Dean Foods reduced its commitment to organic
ingredients. They reduced the commitment to sourcing North American
soybeans. They started sourcing soybeans from China and Brazil. They
went from a 100 percent organic firm to maybe 6 percent organic today," Howard says.
Stonyfield is another example of a company whose founder was an
idealistic and altruistic person dedicated to providing the best product
possible, but who eventually lost control of the company in his effort
to grow. In the process, the quality of the product was lowered as well.
"Stonyfield was an interesting case because Gary Hirshberg, the
founder, had to pay off all his investors, his friends and family that
helped him create this firm. He also wanted to make those products
available to more consumers.
He spent a long time negotiating a buyout with Danone, the French
yogurt company. But its contention was on increasing sales, so they had
to water down some of their ideals, like their commitment to organic,
to increase sales. Now, they're very vulnerable. They could end up
becoming a part of a foreign firm."
Examples of Companies That Refused to Sell Out
On a more positive note, some firms have resisted tremendous buyout
offers, refusing to sacrifice their ideals. One example is Clif Bar. At
the last minute, Gary Erickson walked away from a $60 million offer by
Quaker Oats, a division of Pepsi, because he saw that many of the
promises made early on in the negotiations were being reneged. He didn't
feel confident they would maintain the commitment to his ideals. So,
Clif Bar is still independent, and the company is giving money to a
number of environmental causes.
Another intriguing example is Eden Foods, which has held very high
organic standards right from the start — so high, in fact, they refused
to put the USDA organic label on their food, even though it was organic,
because they thought the organic label had been compromised. According
to Howard:
"They're a firm that's had a commitment to sourcing from local
suppliers and not [using] a lot of synthetic processing aids. They were
opposed to the watering down of organic processing standards to allow
synthetics. They still don't put the USDA organic label on their
products. They were pretty fortunate.
They've been around so long — since the '70s — that their
integrity is well-known to a certain number of consumers. They were able
to get into a distribution system. It's very likely if they were trying
to start out today, they would never make it. It's unfortunate more
people don't know which companies are independent, companies like
Nature's Path and Bob's Red Mill.
Bob actually hired someone specifically to fend off buyout
offers. They would just tell people who inquired 'no.' They never even
told Bob the amounts he was being offered. Bob's Red Mill and Clif Bar
have both gone into an employee stock ownership program rather than to
just sell out to the highest bidder."
Distribution Monopolies
The manufacturing and distribution parts of the supply chain are
somewhat mysterious behind-the-scenes components of the food system that
few people fully understand. First, the base ingredients have to be
made, and then someone has to combine them and put them in a box.
Oftentimes, different companies are hired to do certain steps of the
process.
When you delegate these responsibilities to other companies, you can
easily run into problems, even if they're well-intentioned, as everyone
is looking for ways to cut costs. Some ethically challenged companies
may sell you subpar ingredients, for example. But even when the
ingredients are high quality, the food is still processed, which affects
the food's nutritional value. Part of the solution is preparing your
foods from scratch. Then you can bypass these hidden pitfalls.
Next, the food has to be distributed from the manufacturing facility
to storage facilities and, ultimately, to stores. Howard explains some
of the complexities involved, and the problem with monopolization in
this area:
"You're getting things from point A to point B, sometimes with
refrigeration. We had a cooperative distribution system in the 1980s. We
had dozens of cooperatively owned distributors across the U.S. that
distributed organic and natural foods. But as the industry grew, they
couldn't keep up. They didn't have the capital to buy more trucks and
warehouses and so on.
A company called United Natural Foods swooped in and acquired the
two largest remaining cooperative distributors back in 2002. They're
now publicly traded. Their main customer is Whole Foods. For the broader
national distribution of foods, there's Sysco. At just about any
restaurant you go to, you will see a Sysco truck.
They have one major competitor — U.S. Foods. At the time I wrote
the book, Sysco was planning to acquire U.S. Foods. Meaning, all of
these people who pitted them against each other to get better deals
weren't going to have that option.
This is one of those things I wasn't expecting, but it was so
clear that there were only two firms at that scale that the U.S.
government actually undid that acquisition. So, there are still two,
although they both continue to acquire a number of other smaller
distributors."
Helpful Resources
Even though the facts are quite disheartening, there is something
you, your family and friends can do to change this sad state of affairs.
Remember, you have a very powerful resource — you can vote with your
pocketbook, which is the ultimate arbiter of corporate behavior. Howard
ends his book with resources you can use to help you make more educated
choices, including the following:
GoodGuide.com, which is
also available as an app, has a database covering 75,000 products. You
can take a picture of a barcode or type in the product name and get a
score for the company's environmental, social and health impact,
compared to other products in that category. It'll also provide
ownership information, so you can see which parent company you're
actually supporting with your purchase
Buycott.com has both a website and
an app that allow you to vote with your wallet by learning a product's
history and ownership, and avoid companies that are being boycotted for
various reasons, such as those using chocolate produced by child slaves,
or those using genetically modified ingredients
More Information
To learn more, pick up a copy of Howard's book, "Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat?"
If you're interested in more details, they're all there. The take-home
message is that you need to vote with your pocketbook and really make
the commitment to eating real, unprocessed food. Ultimately, that's how
we change this corrupt and distorted food system.
As noted by Howard, it's up to each and every one of us to find out
who we are supporting with our hard-earned money. In a best-case,
ideal-world scenario, everyone would start cutting down on processed
foods. That's really key, because if you do that, you're not likely
going to support a large corporation, particularly if you buy locally.
"We need to really start avoiding those big firms, these 10 firms
that control one-third of food and beverage sales in the U.S. and be
willing to spend more in some cases, if it means getting a
higher-quality product, or using less of it, and supporting smaller and
local and independent firms," Howard says.
It's important to realize we CAN shift the behavior of these
corporations. They're investor-controlled and investors want profit. If
their profits go down, they have to respond to public pressure. This is
how we can get many of the toxic additives out of our food supply, and
how we will get GE ingredients out. All you have to do is don't buy
those kinds of products. They can have all these elaborate systems set
up and control all of the federal regulatory agencies, but if people
aren't buying, none of that matters. In addition to that:
"Many of these big firms receive enormous subsidies, direct and
indirect. One of the ways we can change things, not only by seeking out
and supporting alternatives, is by putting pressure on the government to
end these big subsidies and level the playing field," Howard says.
No comments:
Post a Comment