• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Agman, Answer: Robinson Patman Act, the PSA & Beef

Help Support Ranchers.net:

What do you think about the law?

  • Econ101 makes sense.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Agman makes sense.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman,

I have been trying to bait you for a long time on this one. You stated in one of your posts that the Robinson Patman Act (RPA) allows for discrimination. Are you prepared to elaborate on your statement and support it? Are you contending that the "discrimination" embodied in the act supports the discrimination alleged in the price manipulation of the Pickett case?

Let us go into the economics of your answer and see how little the appellate courts know about economics, market power, and their OWN (incorrect, I allege) interpretation of the economic principles behind the RPA and the PSA (Packers and Stockyards Act).

May we find all of the biases and the truth. Please keep all name calling out of this thread. This is not personal, it is trying to understand the concepts behind the two acts and how they apply to the markets. Agree to disagree if you want, but keep it nice.

The RPA, the PSA, the Clayton and Sherman Anti-trust Acts all have to do with competition and the exercise of market power. The exercise of market power creates deadweight losses to an economy and shifts costs and rewards due to market power instead of supply/demand and competitive markets.


These acts are readily available on the net. Agman, Are you willing to back up your claim on the RPA and discrimination or are you just a scared packer backer?

Please vote after we discuss it on this thread.

I had another option that I could not get on the poll:

I don't know enough to make a decision, lets rodeo!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman mentioned Glickman vs. IBP. Here is an article on part of that story. Yes, it was from an "organic" source, fedup2. This details USDA in the Hudson buyout.

Do politicians say one thing and do another?

back to Organic Consumers Assn. Irradiation page
The President's Favors to Tyson and IBP:
Consolidation, Perks and Cheap Labor

From The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER #101
Montioring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective
A.V. Krebs Editor\Publisher
January 11, 2001
TYSON FOODS VICTORIOUS IN IBP BIDDING WAR
NOW NATION’S NO. 1 BEEF, POULTRY PROCESSOR


Frustrating efforts by Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer, Tyson Foods Inc., the nation’s largest poultry producer, has agreed to buy IBP Inc., the nation’s largest beef processor for $4.7 billion in cash, stock and debt.

Tyson will pay $30 for each IBP share, approximately half in cash and half in stock and also will assume about $1.5 billion in IBP debt and other obligations.

"The acquisition will make Tyson the biggest meat producer in the U.S. by far.
SETUP ROLE OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
IN TYSON FOOD-IBP PURCHASE SUGGESTED


As the size and scope of Arkansas' Tyson Foods, plans to buy IBP, the nation’s largest red meat producer for $3.2 billion dollars was being analyzed by the nation’s media and business press last week News Max’s Carl Limbacher was reporting on a curious history between the two corporate giants that might be worth further exploration by federal investigators.

He notes that the most recent purchase by Tyson of IBP consummated a relationship that began with another Tyson takeover in 1997.

It was at that time that Tyson’s Arkansas neighbor Hudson Foods, a rival chicken processor with its own beef division, was the object of attention by Tyson. However, Hudson wasn't interested --- until the Clinton Agriculture Department stepped in to police an E. coli outbreak at one of Hudson's plants.

On August 12, 1997, Hudson issued a recall for 20,000 pounds of frozen hamburger when 16 people were sickened --- none fatally --- after eating undercooked burgers. Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman later determined the meat was contaminated by a potentially deadly strain of E. coli. (Issue #8)

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette described what happened to Hudson Foods next:

"Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman used strong terms to characterize the Hudson investigation, which started with five investigators dubbed a SWAT team. It culminated in a 'non-negotiable' gauntlet for Hudson to recall that product and close the Columbus plant --- an action that the USDA had no power to enforce.

"The agency can only withdraw its inspectors,” the Democrat-Gazette added, “but that has the same hostage holding results for companies who can't sell their products without a government inspection seal."

By the time Glickman's crew was finished, Limbacher notes, Hudson had to recall a crippling 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King.

The Wall Street Journal also took note of the Clinton administration's heavy-handed tactics.

"Hudson's rapid tailspin has stunned some meat industry executives, who blame the record beef recall pushed by the Agriculture Department for breaking the back of Hudson. `What happened to Hudson Foods doesn't make sense,' said Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, a meatpacking trade group. ..."

The Journal also noted that Hudson's brush with Glickman's inspectors made Tyson's buyout bid an offer the company couldn't refuse.

"Hudson and Tyson, which are neighbors in Northwest Arkansas, had spoken casually about a merger 'for about ten years,' but the decision to sell out now was prompted by the beef recall . . . The move by Tyson of Springdale, Arkansas would enlarge its position as the nation's largest poultry producer . . The acquisition 'adds beautifully to Tyson's distribution and production system,' said Leonard Teitlebaum, analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co."

The only problem was that Tyson didn't want to absorb Hudson's beef-processing division --- the now-shuttered operation that made it necessary for Hudson to sell in the first place.

IBP, which had been a major supplier to the Hudson plant, took the now defunct beef plant off Hudson's hands for what the Journal described as "an undisclosed amount."

But the story continues, Limbacher notes, for in the intervening years, IBP's "good deed" seems to have been rewarded, often through the good graces of the Clinton administration's Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

One way the beef giant had become dominant in its field was by recruiting low-skilled non-union foreign workers to staff its slaughterhouses, where the work is always arduous and often dangerous. IBP had been actively recruiting laborers from all over the world for years.

A little more than a year after IBP helped facilitate Tyson's takeover of Hudson, the Journal explored the company's practice of hiring foreign workers under the headline: "With Help from INS, U.S. Meatpacker Taps Mexican Work Force."

"So why isn't the INS turning its searchlights on IBP's Mexico campaign?," the Journal asked. "Why, instead, is the federal agency hailing IBP as a model of cooperation? The answer reflects the complex interplay between public policy, a company's economic needs and a government agency's political interests," reported the paper.

“Complex interplay?” Limbacher scoffs, “basically, in 1996 the Clinton INS offered the beef giant a program called Basic Pilot, which was designed to help big employers of foreign labor avoid undocumented workers and comply with immigration laws.”

But in practice, he adds, Basic Pilot often meant that immigration laws were ignored altogether. The meatpacking giant, which was hit by INS raids six times between 1994 and 1997 (the year of the Hudson buyout), hasn't had a single INS raid since. John Nathan, the INS official overseeing the program, told the Journal that "the INS assumes a high degree of compliance" with Basic Pilot.

“And IBP's good fortune didn't end there,” Limbacher continues, “turns out the Clinton administration's Bosnian refugee resettlement efforts also helped to keep labor costs down. Since 1995, for instance, the town of Waterloo, Iowa --- population 65,000 - has been swamped with 6,000 Bosnian refugees, many of whom wound up working for the No. 1 local employer, IBP.”

Until recently, IBP's 2,000-strong Waterloo workforce was one-third Bosnian. Most refugee families that settle there have a family member who at one time or another worked for the meatpacking giant. In fact, the meatpacking industry has a history of recruiting on the ground in Yugoslavia. But during the Clinton years, companies like IBP haven't had to travel that far.

Since 1995, the Clinton INS has resettled over 80,000 Balkan refugees, mainly Bosnian Muslims, primarily in America's Midwest. The immigrant deluge has earned Iowa the distinction of being the only state in the union with its own refugee bureau.

So, as Limbacher concludes his intriquing story, “perhaps it's fitting that IBP should finally be absorbed by Tyson Foods, with its long history of financial backing of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, especially since it was the Clinton Agriculture Department's heavy hand that brought the two meat processing giants together in the first place.”


CONVICTED TYSON FOOD EXECUTIVE
PARDONED BY DEPARTING BILL CLINTON

Archie Schaffer III, the chief spokesman for Tyson Foods, the nation’s largest poultry producer, was convicted by a jury under a 1907 law of trying to influence agricultural policy by arranging for former USDA Secretary Mike Espy to attend a Tyson birthday party in Arkansas in 1993. The sentencing of Schaffer was one of the final items in Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's six-year, $23 million investigation of Espy. Another jury acquitted Espy in December 1998.

Last week Bill Clinton in the waning days of his presidency and who throughout his personal and political life has numbered Don Tyson and his Arkansas company as a key supporter and contributor, granted a pardon to Schaffer.

Arkansas Republicans and Democrats had urged Clinton to pardon Schaffer, arguing the spokesman was convicted under an obscure law by an independent counsel seeking to build a case against Espy. While the federal judge who oversaw the case said he believed Schaffer was innocent and twice tried to acquit him, he was reversed by an appeals court.

Thus, U.S. District Judge James Robertson reluctantly sentenced Schaffer to a year and one day in prison and a $5,000 fine, the minimum that he said was allowed under the Meat Inspection Act. The extra prison day would have made Schaffer eligible for good-behavior credits that could free him nearly two months early, the judge said.

Besides the pardon pleas, Schaffer supporters wrote nearly 100 letters to
Robertson asking that he show leniency. Schaffer, the nephew of the former
Arkansas governor and U.S. Sen. Dale Bumpers, Dem.-Arkansas, served in Bumpers' administrations and led a business group studying educational reforms during Clinton's tenure as governor.

Pleading guilty to giving Espy $12,000 in illegal gratuities, Tyson Foods, consented to pay the federal government $4 million in fines and $2 million in costs. Tyson chairman Don Tyson and his son John Tyson were also granted immunity from further prosecution.

While the media was reporting simply that independent counsel Donald Smaltz’s investigation centered on “favors from large companies with important interests before the government,” court papers stated that at the time it was bestowing gifts on Espy, Tyson Foods was urging USDA to go slow on imposing new meat and poultry handling instructions.

Smaltz's office said prompt imposition of the new rule would have cost Tyson Foods $30 million, although ultimately a court order blocked enforcement of the rule. It was also believed that Espy’s coziness with Tyson was the reason he hesitated to remove holdover appointees who were helping to block stricter regulation of meat and poultry.
FOR OTHER ARTICLES ON RELATED TOPICS:
SEE THE CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS RESEARCH PROJECT WEB SITE

Readers of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER are reminded that past issues of the newsletter can be found at the Corporate Agribusiness Research Project’s web site on the Internet. The CARP web site features: THE AGBIZ TILLER, THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER and "Between the Furrows."

THE AGBIZ TILLER, the progeny of the one-time printed newsletter, now becomes an on-line news feature of the Project. In-depth essays dealing with corporate agribusiness activities are posted here periodically.

In "Between the Furrows," besides a modern search engine, there is a wide range of pages designed to inform and educate readers on the inner workings of corporate agribusiness. In addition to CARP's "Mission Statement," "Overview" and the Project director's "Publication Background," the viewer will find a helpful "Fact Miners" page which is an effort to assist the reader in the necessary art of researching corporations; a page of "Quotable Quotes" pertaining to agribusiness and corporate power; a "Links" page which allow the reader to survey various useful public interest, government and corporate web sites; a "Feedback" page for reader input, and a page where readers can order directly the editor's The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness.

The CARP web site was designed and produced by ElectricArrow of Seattle, Washington.
http://www.electricarrow.com

Simply by clicking on either of the addresses below all the aforementioned features and information are yours to enjoy, study, absorb and sow.

http://www.ea1.com/CARP/
http://www.ea1.com/tiller/

News | Campaigns | GE Food | Organics | Irradiation | Find Organics | Events
Mad Cow | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH | Food Safety | Newsletter | Search
Volunteer | Donate | About | Home | Recommend Site | Email This Page | Site Map

Organic Consumers Association
6101 Cliff Estate Rd, Little Marais, MN 55614
E-mail:Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Here is another article from a "Christian" source. It is much more concise in telling the story.

Home Britain in Sin Police The Bible Hymns Resources About Us

Boy Pianist Plays for Globalisers

One World Trust

United Nations

July 2004: Kerry Veep is Bilderberger

April 2003: Bilderberg 2003 set for Versailles

Mar 2003: Chechens for chickens

Nov 2002: Queen has no knowledge

July 2002: Bilderberg '02

June 2002: World Summit

June 2002: Ditchley Conference

June 2002: Private Leaders Summit in Dublin

June 1999: Bilderberg goes ballistic

May 1998: Senate ties UN in Prolife Compromise

Oct 1996: Tory Grandees conceal One-World intentions

Nov 1995: It's those Bilderbergers again!

July 1995: Daniel, Judas or Pilate?

July 1995: UN Briefing Paper (CV)

Jan 1995: Un-conventional rights of the child



March 2003: CHECHENS FOR CHICKENS

Microsoft Word Format:

By Steve Ransom
"For the King of Babylon has plotted against you. He has devised a plan against you. Rise up against a nation at ease, that dwells securely, says the Lord. A nation that has no gates or bars, that dwells alone. Their camels shall become booty; their herds of cattle a spoil." Jeremiah 49:30-32

History contains many accounts where nations at ease became easy prey for marauding external powers through lack of vigilance. At one time, Babylon was the largest and most powerful city on earth. In its relentless pursuit for global domination, it swallowed everything and everybody in its path. Nations that fared better were those who posted watchmen on the walls of their cities.

Today, in our globalised, 'take-over here, take-over there' market-place, we are witnessing multi-national corporations amass incredible power, then using the most devious tactics to secure that power, while swallowing everything and everybody in their path. And were Jeremiah alive today, no doubt he would be discerning the times in which we live. He would be fully comprehending the Machiavellian moves of Big Business and Big Government as they engulf nation after nation, very few with watchmen on the walls. Marauders always come into the camp when the watchmen have fallen asleep. Take Tyson Foods, for example:

A MARAUDER
Based in Springdale, Arkansas, Tyson Foods is the single largest poultry supplier in the world. Its annual turnover exceeds $7.4 billion, and the company 'processes' 42 million chickens a week. The Tyson corporate webpage describes the company as a 68,000-strong team, with 7,400 contract growers in 100 communities, with operations in 18 US states and 15 countries, and exporting to 73 countries worldwide.

In their food safety education program literature, we read: "We've always been at the forefront of food safety practices." And "Consumers around the world have come to depend on the Tyson Brand for trusted quality chicken." [1]Forbes Magazine once described Tyson Foods as one of those “undeniably formidable business juggernauts, whose mind-boggling concentrations of wealth and influence have everything to do with a no-holds-barred unfettered approach to free enterprise." [2]

POULTRY GIANT
Tyson Foods are indeed the single largest poultry product supplier in the world, and they have every intention of becoming the largest beef supplier in the world too. At the time of writing, they are vying to buy what is currently the world's largest beef supplier, IBP Corporation. But where does the Tyson Foods ‘no-holds barred' approach to business affairs position them in the 'morality and ethics' league? Journalist Norman Sullivan describes Tyson Foods in a slightly different manner to the corporate brochure: "The organisation keeps its farmers in near-indentured servitude... works its underpaid, frequently injured workers at an extraordinary pace... and discharges half a million tons of chicken manure [3] into Arkansas rivers every year." [4]

INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE
In 1997, Tyson Foods expressed interest in buying beef giant Hudson Foods. Hudson declined the Tyson offer. Very soon after the rejection of Tyson's bid, a government inspectorate task force under the control of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman 'visited' Hudson Foods, where they very conveniently 'found' evidence of e.coli bacteria contamination. By the time Glickman's task force had finished with Hudson Foods, the story had taken on national and international proportions, with the 'beleaguered' company having to recall 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King. The resultant fallout devalued Hudson corporate stock by 35%. [5] The Wall Street Journal said at the time: "Hudson's rapid tailspin has stunned some meat industry executives, who blame the record beef recall pushed by the Agriculture Department for breaking the back of Hudson. "What happened to Hudson Foods doesn't make sense," said Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute." [6]

PERFECT SENSE
The presence of e.coli at the Hudson plant was never proven, but the damage had been done. In 1998, Tyson Foods managed to acquire Hudson Foods at a rock bottom price, in a deal described by Leonard Teitlebaum of Merrill Lynch and Coas "adding beautifully to Tyson's distribution and production system." [7] The Wall Street Journal commented, "Hudson's brush with Glickman's gang meant the Tyson's buyout bid was an offer the company couldn't refuse." [8] It is not difficult to see that contrary to Patrick Boyle's comment, the E.coli raid made perfect sense.

BUNDLES OF CASH
Tyson Foods' financial records show that they had been funding former US president Bill Clinton in many of his political campaigns, beginning back at the time when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Don Tyson was one of Bill Clinton's closest friends and biggest supporters, according to grand jury testimony concerning Tyson's political misconduct. And Don Tyson was Bill Clinton's top fundraiser during his governorship and presidential elections. [9]

Joe Henrickson, a former Tyson airplane pilot, recently admitted to transporting endless envelopes of cash from Tyson corporate offices to Governor Clinton, money that doesn't of course feature in the annual accounting system. [10] And recently, Tyson Foods were fined $6m as a result of confessing their donation of at least $12,000 in cash and gifts to former US Agricultural Secretary, Mike Espy, up until his swift departure in early 1994. [11]

A March 1994 Wall Street Journal article noted that, "Espy had been "feted" by Don Tyson at a football game and had outlined several regulatory decisions that seemed to benefit Tyson Foods." In another instance, inside information supplied by Tyson Foods chief counsellor James Blair to Hilary Clinton on a swine futures market deal enabled the First Lady to make an overnight profit of approximately $100,000. [12]

CHECHENS FOR CHICKENS
In return for favours such as these, Clinton's influence at internal affairs level was able successfully to head off various poultry food manufacturer practice investigations. Externally, at a 1995 summit meeting in Egypt, Bill Clinton furthered Tyson business interests in a most extraordinary manner. He agreed to make clear his public support for the re-election of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who at the time was becoming increasingly unpopular for his war against Chechnya.

In what became known as the 'Chechens for Chickens' affair, leaked notes of the Clinton / Yeltsin meeting revealed that Clinton's support would be offered in return for Yeltsin agreeing to lift Russia 's embargo against American chicken. Up until that point, US chicken had been judged too polluted to meet Russia’s environmental laws. Ninety percent of US poultry exported to Russia comes from Tyson Foods.

As City Pages columnist Doug Ireland states, "In other words, Clinton gave Yeltsin a blank cheque to kill as many Chechens as he wanted, provided the Russians bought Don Tyson's dirty chickens." [13] Does this help to bring a fresh perspective to the myriad 'ground-breaking' peace summits beamed out to us almost daily?

(Excerpted by kind permission from the book "What are we swallowing" by Steve Ransom (Website: www.laleva.cc/food/withoutbars.html)

References
[1] University of Arkansas press release, 24th May 2000 http://pigtrail.uark.edu/news/2000/may00/tyson.html

[2] Doug Ireland's City Pages report. http://www.citypages.com/databank/19/892/article4074.asp

[3] Missouri Department of Natural Resources report, 20th August 1999, "In response to recent concerns raised by local residents and environmental groups, MDNR has increased compliance monitoring of the wastewater treatment system at Tyson Foods in Noelh" Full story at: http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/newsrel/nr00_079.htm

[4] Doug Ireland's City Pages report, ibid.

[5] Limbacher, Carl, Another Rense Report. "Arkansas Tyson Foods To Buy Biggest US Beef Producer For $3.2 Billion". http://www.rense.com/general6/arkTyson.htm

[6] Wall Street Journal, 5th September 1997

[7] Limbacher, Carl, ibid.

[8] Wall Street Journal, ibid.

[9] Press Release from Dr Leonard Horowitz: No.01-HMD/1. Tetrahedron Press 20th March 2001

[10] Young, Rick & Jim Mokhiber "Secrets of an Independent Council", Frontline Magazine at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/inreespy.html

[11] "Secrets of an Independent Council", ibid. Mike Espy was indicted on 39 counts of corruption in August 1997. He pleaded guilty to one count, and the District Court judge threw out eight others. On 2nd December 1998, a federal jury acquitted Espy of the remaining 30 charges. Espy himself did not take the stand, and his lawyers presented no witnesses to testify in his defence. In closing, they argued to the jury that the gifts he had received were not illegal, in that they stemmed from longstanding friendships with members of the industries he regulated, and that there was no proof that the gifts influenced him in any official decision-making. In a statement issued by the White House after Espy's acquittal, President Clinton said: "I am heartened that he has, as he said, emerged from this ordeal stronger. I hope that, as he moves forward, he will continue his notable record of service to the country."

[12] Doug Ireland's City Pages report: http://www.citypages.com/databank/19/892/article4074.asp

[13] City Pages, ibid.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman mentioned Glickman vs. IBP. Here is an article on part of that story. Yes, it was from an "organic" source, fedup2. This details USDA in the Hudson buyout.

Do politicians say one thing and do another?

back to Organic Consumers Assn. Irradiation page
The President's Favors to Tyson and IBP:
Consolidation, Perks and Cheap Labor

From The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER #101
Montioring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective
A.V. Krebs Editor\Publisher
January 11, 2001
TYSON FOODS VICTORIOUS IN IBP BIDDING WAR
NOW NATION’S NO. 1 BEEF, POULTRY PROCESSOR


Frustrating efforts by Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer, Tyson Foods Inc., the nation’s largest poultry producer, has agreed to buy IBP Inc., the nation’s largest beef processor for $4.7 billion in cash, stock and debt.

Tyson will pay $30 for each IBP share, approximately half in cash and half in stock and also will assume about $1.5 billion in IBP debt and other obligations.

"The acquisition will make Tyson the biggest meat producer in the U.S. by far.
SETUP ROLE OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
IN TYSON FOOD-IBP PURCHASE SUGGESTED


As the size and scope of Arkansas' Tyson Foods, plans to buy IBP, the nation’s largest red meat producer for $3.2 billion dollars was being analyzed by the nation’s media and business press last week News Max’s Carl Limbacher was reporting on a curious history between the two corporate giants that might be worth further exploration by federal investigators.

He notes that the most recent purchase by Tyson of IBP consummated a relationship that began with another Tyson takeover in 1997.

It was at that time that Tyson’s Arkansas neighbor Hudson Foods, a rival chicken processor with its own beef division, was the object of attention by Tyson. However, Hudson wasn't interested --- until the Clinton Agriculture Department stepped in to police an E. coli outbreak at one of Hudson's plants.

On August 12, 1997, Hudson issued a recall for 20,000 pounds of frozen hamburger when 16 people were sickened --- none fatally --- after eating undercooked burgers. Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman later determined the meat was contaminated by a potentially deadly strain of E. coli. (Issue #8)

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette described what happened to Hudson Foods next:

"Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman used strong terms to characterize the Hudson investigation, which started with five investigators dubbed a SWAT team. It culminated in a 'non-negotiable' gauntlet for Hudson to recall that product and close the Columbus plant --- an action that the USDA had no power to enforce.

"The agency can only withdraw its inspectors,” the Democrat-Gazette added, “but that has the same hostage holding results for companies who can't sell their products without a government inspection seal."

By the time Glickman's crew was finished, Limbacher notes, Hudson had to recall a crippling 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King.

The Wall Street Journal also took note of the Clinton administration's heavy-handed tactics.

"Hudson's rapid tailspin has stunned some meat industry executives, who blame the record beef recall pushed by the Agriculture Department for breaking the back of Hudson. `What happened to Hudson Foods doesn't make sense,' said Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, a meatpacking trade group. ..."

The Journal also noted that Hudson's brush with Glickman's inspectors made Tyson's buyout bid an offer the company couldn't refuse.

"Hudson and Tyson, which are neighbors in Northwest Arkansas, had spoken casually about a merger 'for about ten years,' but the decision to sell out now was prompted by the beef recall . . . The move by Tyson of Springdale, Arkansas would enlarge its position as the nation's largest poultry producer . . The acquisition 'adds beautifully to Tyson's distribution and production system,' said Leonard Teitlebaum, analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co."

The only problem was that Tyson didn't want to absorb Hudson's beef-processing division --- the now-shuttered operation that made it necessary for Hudson to sell in the first place.

IBP, which had been a major supplier to the Hudson plant, took the now defunct beef plant off Hudson's hands for what the Journal described as "an undisclosed amount."

But the story continues, Limbacher notes, for in the intervening years, IBP's "good deed" seems to have been rewarded, often through the good graces of the Clinton administration's Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

One way the beef giant had become dominant in its field was by recruiting low-skilled non-union foreign workers to staff its slaughterhouses, where the work is always arduous and often dangerous. IBP had been actively recruiting laborers from all over the world for years.

A little more than a year after IBP helped facilitate Tyson's takeover of Hudson, the Journal explored the company's practice of hiring foreign workers under the headline: "With Help from INS, U.S. Meatpacker Taps Mexican Work Force."

"So why isn't the INS turning its searchlights on IBP's Mexico campaign?," the Journal asked. "Why, instead, is the federal agency hailing IBP as a model of cooperation? The answer reflects the complex interplay between public policy, a company's economic needs and a government agency's political interests," reported the paper.

“Complex interplay?” Limbacher scoffs, “basically, in 1996 the Clinton INS offered the beef giant a program called Basic Pilot, which was designed to help big employers of foreign labor avoid undocumented workers and comply with immigration laws.”

But in practice, he adds, Basic Pilot often meant that immigration laws were ignored altogether. The meatpacking giant, which was hit by INS raids six times between 1994 and 1997 (the year of the Hudson buyout), hasn't had a single INS raid since. John Nathan, the INS official overseeing the program, told the Journal that "the INS assumes a high degree of compliance" with Basic Pilot.

“And IBP's good fortune didn't end there,” Limbacher continues, “turns out the Clinton administration's Bosnian refugee resettlement efforts also helped to keep labor costs down. Since 1995, for instance, the town of Waterloo, Iowa --- population 65,000 - has been swamped with 6,000 Bosnian refugees, many of whom wound up working for the No. 1 local employer, IBP.”

Until recently, IBP's 2,000-strong Waterloo workforce was one-third Bosnian. Most refugee families that settle there have a family member who at one time or another worked for the meatpacking giant. In fact, the meatpacking industry has a history of recruiting on the ground in Yugoslavia. But during the Clinton years, companies like IBP haven't had to travel that far.

Since 1995, the Clinton INS has resettled over 80,000 Balkan refugees, mainly Bosnian Muslims, primarily in America's Midwest. The immigrant deluge has earned Iowa the distinction of being the only state in the union with its own refugee bureau.

So, as Limbacher concludes his intriquing story, “perhaps it's fitting that IBP should finally be absorbed by Tyson Foods, with its long history of financial backing of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, especially since it was the Clinton Agriculture Department's heavy hand that brought the two meat processing giants together in the first place.”


CONVICTED TYSON FOOD EXECUTIVE
PARDONED BY DEPARTING BILL CLINTON

Archie Schaffer III, the chief spokesman for Tyson Foods, the nation’s largest poultry producer, was convicted by a jury under a 1907 law of trying to influence agricultural policy by arranging for former USDA Secretary Mike Espy to attend a Tyson birthday party in Arkansas in 1993. The sentencing of Schaffer was one of the final items in Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's six-year, $23 million investigation of Espy. Another jury acquitted Espy in December 1998.

Last week Bill Clinton in the waning days of his presidency and who throughout his personal and political life has numbered Don Tyson and his Arkansas company as a key supporter and contributor, granted a pardon to Schaffer.

Arkansas Republicans and Democrats had urged Clinton to pardon Schaffer, arguing the spokesman was convicted under an obscure law by an independent counsel seeking to build a case against Espy. While the federal judge who oversaw the case said he believed Schaffer was innocent and twice tried to acquit him, he was reversed by an appeals court.

Thus, U.S. District Judge James Robertson reluctantly sentenced Schaffer to a year and one day in prison and a $5,000 fine, the minimum that he said was allowed under the Meat Inspection Act. The extra prison day would have made Schaffer eligible for good-behavior credits that could free him nearly two months early, the judge said.

Besides the pardon pleas, Schaffer supporters wrote nearly 100 letters to
Robertson asking that he show leniency. Schaffer, the nephew of the former
Arkansas governor and U.S. Sen. Dale Bumpers, Dem.-Arkansas, served in Bumpers' administrations and led a business group studying educational reforms during Clinton's tenure as governor.

Pleading guilty to giving Espy $12,000 in illegal gratuities, Tyson Foods, consented to pay the federal government $4 million in fines and $2 million in costs. Tyson chairman Don Tyson and his son John Tyson were also granted immunity from further prosecution.

While the media was reporting simply that independent counsel Donald Smaltz’s investigation centered on “favors from large companies with important interests before the government,” court papers stated that at the time it was bestowing gifts on Espy, Tyson Foods was urging USDA to go slow on imposing new meat and poultry handling instructions.

Smaltz's office said prompt imposition of the new rule would have cost Tyson Foods $30 million, although ultimately a court order blocked enforcement of the rule. It was also believed that Espy’s coziness with Tyson was the reason he hesitated to remove holdover appointees who were helping to block stricter regulation of meat and poultry.
FOR OTHER ARTICLES ON RELATED TOPICS:
SEE THE CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS RESEARCH PROJECT WEB SITE

Readers of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER are reminded that past issues of the newsletter can be found at the Corporate Agribusiness Research Project’s web site on the Internet. The CARP web site features: THE AGBIZ TILLER, THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER and "Between the Furrows."

THE AGBIZ TILLER, the progeny of the one-time printed newsletter, now becomes an on-line news feature of the Project. In-depth essays dealing with corporate agribusiness activities are posted here periodically.

In "Between the Furrows," besides a modern search engine, there is a wide range of pages designed to inform and educate readers on the inner workings of corporate agribusiness. In addition to CARP's "Mission Statement," "Overview" and the Project director's "Publication Background," the viewer will find a helpful "Fact Miners" page which is an effort to assist the reader in the necessary art of researching corporations; a page of "Quotable Quotes" pertaining to agribusiness and corporate power; a "Links" page which allow the reader to survey various useful public interest, government and corporate web sites; a "Feedback" page for reader input, and a page where readers can order directly the editor's The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness.

The CARP web site was designed and produced by ElectricArrow of Seattle, Washington.
http://www.electricarrow.com

Simply by clicking on either of the addresses below all the aforementioned features and information are yours to enjoy, study, absorb and sow.

http://www.ea1.com/CARP/
http://www.ea1.com/tiller/

News | Campaigns | GE Food | Organics | Irradiation | Find Organics | Events
Mad Cow | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH | Food Safety | Newsletter | Search
Volunteer | Donate | About | Home | Recommend Site | Email This Page | Site Map

Organic Consumers Association
6101 Cliff Estate Rd, Little Marais, MN 55614
E-mail:Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

You are totally misinformed. Glickman vs IBP was a case brought against IBP's market arrangement with some producers in Kansas. For a self- proclaimed legal wiz you cannot even get case law correct. Now, who baited who so that world could see how little you truly know!!!
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
Econ, you write:" Yes, it was from an "organic" source, fedup2"

One of the great things about this country Econ, is that we have the ability to choose. We can still make many of our own decisions. You can choose whatever site you want to, to provide whatever information you want to pass on. It is sure none of my business. I also have the freedom to choose. I do glance at what some of these sites are saying occasionally but I give them O credibility. I do want to thank you for posting the sources though. Many here fail to do that.

Now you have the choice to read this post or pass on by. The choice to judge if it is good, bad, indifferent, or just plain stupid and wasted your time! LOL! It is ‘your’ choice. That’s a wonderful thing to have isn’t it!

We also have a choice in how we react or respond to people who choose differently than we do. It is that response that tells me when the conversation is over. I read most all of the posts here and & received a lot of information. Some from every poster here. When the belittling & name calling starts, I know neither side has anything more to add. That is when the same topic and points are rehashed over and over. That is when it is time to ‘let go’ and move on to the next topic.

Thanks for your contributions Econ, I agree with some of your points and disagree with some. The more I read, the more I realize how little I really know. I’ll try to keep my eyes and mind open for any ‘new’ thoughts that you share here. (or post from credible sources) LOL!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
fedup2 said:
Econ, you write:" Yes, it was from an "organic" source, fedup2"

One of the great things about this country Econ, is that we have the ability to choose. We can still make many of our own decisions. You can choose whatever site you want to, to provide whatever information you want to pass on. It is sure none of my business. I also have the freedom to choose. I do glance at what some of these sites are saying occasionally but I give them O credibility. I do want to thank you for posting the sources though. Many here fail to do that.

Now you have the choice to read this post or pass on by. The choice to judge if it good, bad, indifferent, or just plain stupid and wasted your time! LOL! It is ‘your’ choice. That’s a wonderful thing to have isn’t it!

We also have a choice in how we react or respond to people who choose differently than we do. It is that response that tells me when the conversation is over. I read most all of the posts here and & received a lot of information. Some from every poster here. When the belittling & name calling starts, I know neither side has anything more to add. That is when the same topic and points are rehashed over and over. That is when it is time to ‘let go’ and move on to the next topic.

Thanks for your contributions Econ, I agree with some of your points and disagree with some. The more I read, the more I realize how little I really know. I’ll try to keep my eyes and mind open for any ‘new’ thoughts that you share here. (or post from credible sources) LOL!

fedup2, I am waiting for Agman's posts on the issues. I did not write those articles, neither do I wholeheartedly support them in every detail. This is just background info, not the real argument. If you find pertinent articles, post them. I just recognized that these sources are possibly biased and with your input on this issue, brought that out front. Thanks for your input. Hope you post something good on this issue.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman,

I posted those articles for background information only. I never said they were the Glickman vs. IBP case. That was your take. Post what you want for the discussion. Bring up articles or cases and post them here if you want to use them in your arguments. I was just getting it started.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman,

I posted those articles for background information only. I never said they were the Glickman vs. IBP case. That was your take. Post what you want for the discussion. Bring up articles or cases and post them here if you want to use them in your arguments. I was just getting it started.

You can take the fish hook out of you lips now. Ouch, I bet that hurts. You can tell some else your fish stories; perhaps a students will still listen. BTW, the Glickman vs IBP case goes right to the Robinson - Patman Act which you often reference.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, cite it and post it if you are so certain of its worth in the argument.
 

Latest posts

Top