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

Who Is Running the USDA?

Tex

Well-known member
Bitter Greens Journal

This blog will serve as a running critique of industrial agriculture, a clearinghouse for info on sustainable farming, and a working manifesto for a liberation politics based on food.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Archer-Daniels Midland's man at USDA

"Charles Conner served as President of the Corn Refiners Association from 1997 through 2001. During his tenure, he expertly guided the industry through several challenging trade and biotech issues. His term coincided with significant growth in the industry and the development of several new uses of corn."
--From a Corn Refiners Association press release, dated April 28, 2005, praising Chuck Conners confirmation as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture



In his blistering polemic against industrial agriculture, Against the Grain, Richard Manning quotes The New York Times on Archer Daniels Midland's political influence: "Archer-Daniels does not have a lobbyist in Washington; it does not need one."

The Paper of Record meant that ADM has skillfully and quietly created a niche for itself within the US political economy, without need of a noisy team of lobbyists. ADM buys 12 percent of the nation's corn at a heavily subsidized price from farmers, and converts it into two main products: high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol. As I'll show below, both of those products owe their markets completely to government intervention. And in both cases, govermnent action benefits ADM without resulting in direct payments that the company's opponents can easily attack on the Hill.

Thus, no need for a lobbyist. However, despite ADM's lack of a lobbyist in Washington, it does boast a man in Washington, specifically in the Department of Agriculture.

Chuck Conner, recently confirmed as deputy secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, made his Bitter Greens Journal debut in this post, stroking his chin and declaring "intriguing" a mind-bendingly dumb idea involving ethanol, the fuel made from corn.

From 1997 to 2001, Conner served as president of the Corn Refiners Association. ADM is the dominant corn refiner: As stated above, it buys 12 percent of all field corn grown in the US, the country's largest crop. And it controls a third of the high-fructose corn syrup market, and about a third of the market for ethanol. The corn-refining industry is so highly concentrated that the association has only seven member companies, among them ADM and another shadowy agri-giant, privately held Cargill.

A 'perfect vehicle'
In 1996, the Corn Refiners Association became embroiled in a scandal involving ADM's scheme to fix the price of high-fructose corn syrup and other processed corn products. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Nov. 3, 1997, that an FBI agent testified to a grand jury that ADM had used the association between 1992 and 1995 as cover to hold secret meetings with competitors for price-fixing purposes. (Article unavailable online; I pulled it from Nexis.)

The Sun-Times article states: "The trade group provided what the alleged conspirators called 'an easy cover-up' and 'perfect' vehicle for carrying out their plans, the agent said in an affidavit."

ADM eventually copped a plea, pleading guilty to fixing the price for lysine and citric acid (corn-processing byproducts) in exchange for immunity from charges involving high-fructose corn syrup. The company paid a then-record fine of $100 million, and executive Michael Andreas, son of legendary CEO Dwayne Andreas, did time in jail.

The Corn Refiners Association, however, walked away clean, although it might not be a coincidence that it needed a new president in 1997, the year Conner signed on.

And, indeed, ADM walked away clean, too. In 2004 alone, the company turned a profit of $318 million from its sweetener business. (Source: company financial report linked here.)

Conner's only notable activity that I can dig up as leader of that august group has been his attempt to bully Mexico into letting heavily subsidized high-fructose corn syrup from the US overwhelm its domestic sugar industry.

Sweetness and power
Now an aside. Why does high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) exist? Richard Manning shows in Against the Grain that ADM financed the lobbying effort that led to the blatantly protectionist sugar-quota system that went into effect in 1982 and has held sway ever since. (Signed into law by one zealously pro-free trade president, Reagan, it now has the full support of another, GW Bush. Clinton, too, paraded his free-trade credentials while accepting the sugar quotas).

What does this have to do with HFCS? The world price of processed sugar has long been below that of HFCS, meaning industrial users such soft-drink bottlers have no real reason to buy it. That's where the sugar quota comes in. It props up the price of sugar in the US to twice the world level. With the sugar price artifiically inflated, ADM has a ready market for its HFCS. Here is Manning: "The cost of corn syrup hovers about halfway between world sugar and protected domestic sugar, a price designed to 'overcome [soft-drink] bottler resistence, a reluctance, it turns out, solely based on price.' " (He is quoting a Barron's article.)

Today, HFCS is the dominant sweetener in the US; 42 percent of the corn grown here goes into making it. If it weren't for ADM's efforts, no market for it woud exist.

This information puts an interesting spin on the sugar industry's opposition to CAFTA, and Conner's involvement in trying to rig up a sugar exception to that trade pact, discussed here.

A well-fed senator
Before taking the helm of the tainted trade group, Conner served as an aide to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., starting in 1980. During that long tenure, Conner attained the position of minority and majority staff director of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.

Luger is a long-time proponent of government subsidies for ethanol, a stance I've critiqued here, among other places. Even ethanol's staunchest supporters acknowledge it would collapse if the government pulled the plug; here'sa Cal-Berkeley scientist who claims that, accounting for "the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs," ethanol burns more energy in its production phase than it delivers as fuel.

In the January/February 1999 issue of Foreign Affairs, Luger published a long essay hailing ethanol as just the thing to save the US from dependence on foreign oil. His co-author: James Woolsey, director of the CIA from 1993 to 1995. At the time, Woolsey served on the board of directors of BCI International, an ethanol start-up company. I'm not making this up.

Throughout his long career and tenure on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Lugar has been a magnet for agribusiness cash. This link shows the goodies he received in 1996, Conner's last full year as his assistant; click around that site for more info.

Before becoming ADM's man in the USDA, Conner served from 2001 until just a few weeks ago as ADM's man in the White House, bearing the title of "special assistant to the president for agriculture, trade and food assistance."

It's not far-fetched to say that ADM does have a lobbyist in Washington, only the company doesn't pay his wages. You do. Salary:: $134,000.

When future historians gasp in horror at how Pax Americana ran the world's food system, obscure figures like Conner may become objects of derision. On the other hand, the way these guys are running the world, we may be lucky to have future historians at all.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
World is too large for honor system on product safety
Today's Topic: Watchdogs on the hot seat


Our View-Robertson County Times - TN,USA

There are areas of Americans' lives in which they can get by with minimal, even mediocre, government involvement. Consumer safety is not one of those areas.

In the past year, Americans have been rattled by deaths from tainted spinach; hundreds have been sickened by peanut butter, frozen pizza, even pot pies with high levels of salmonella bacteria; thousands have lost beloved dogs and cats to tainted pet food; and millions feared for their children's safety as a wide range of toys, cribs and other products were found to contain toxic lead paint.

And through it all, the federal government has done the least it could do. The Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture effectively threw up their hands over the numerous food problems, and the public found that those agencies inspect a tiny fraction of the food that makes it onto store shelves in this country. The two agencies are not even clear on which foods each is responsible for.

Meanwhile, the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been slashed repeatedly over the past decade, as conservative lawmakers and President Bush have assigned it a finger-wagging role. In very few cases will the CPSC seek more than a voluntary recall.

In fact, when the Democratic-led Senate proposed doubling the commission's $450 million annual budget recently, agency head and Bush appointee Nancy Nord first tried to turn down the funding. After appearing before a House committee and being placed on the hot seat for accepting free trips from industries she is supposed to monitor, she said she supported the funding increase.For some time, our government has been dismantling its watchdog powers, allowing private industries to "self-regulate." It is no coincidence that problems with food and other products are on the rise.

Certainly, many companies see it as good for business, even a duty to their customers, to do their own inspections and set high standards. But there are plenty of companies with no such scruples, both in the U.S. and abroad, and without strong governmental oversight, the public cannot possibly know what they are buying is safe.

This crisis has been intensified by globalization of world markets, a trend that has brought average American consumers the ability to own more for less — but the hidden cost is now emerging.

Even the president has now begun to concede that there is a real concern. Last week, he accepted the findings of an independent panel and called for more government-ordered recalls, tighter safety rules for manufacturers and steeper fines for those who violate them.

Though the president's words appeared more to reveal his concern over the economy — "we need to do more to ensure that American families have confidence in what they find on our store shelves" — the new measures could go a long way toward ensuring product safety; that is, if the administration follows through. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, who headed up the panel, acknowledged that "we haven't gotten to the point of putting a price tag" on the proposals.

Since the president has already said he opposed Democrats' plans to boost FDA and CPSC funding, there is reason to worry that the panel's recommendations could get shelved in a tumultuous election year.

Meanwhile, industry analysts say that retailers, eager for a strong holiday shopping season, are stocking up on Chinese goods despite concerns over product safety.

Industry self-regulation will not get it done. And safety is not a matter that can wait until a new president is in office. Congress should assert its authority, as it did in overriding Bush's veto of water projects, and move expediently to give fangs to our consumer watchdogs.
 

Tex

Well-known member
It is obvious to see that the republicans are trying to stop all attempts to allow our regulatory agencies to do their jobs. They give top posts to former industry leaders to make sure we have a policy that reflects the interests of the bribe givers in industry. They want to make sure we have the best government money can buy.

Right now, Saxby Chamblis is trying to stop the Farm Bill by the republican strategy of dumping everything on the Farm Bill in the form of amendments so it will kill it. When republican sponsored or co sponsored bills come up, Saxby is not allowing them to be debated and voted upon. These are amendments that his party is supporting! Then he turns around and tells everybody the democrats can't get anything done.

Saxby epitomizes what is wrong with Congress. Sen. greg (R) from NH is doing the same.

Act like you support legislation and then kill it. Then you can say you supported the legislation by voting it out of committee but killing it on the floor and blaming it on others. Keep taking the corporate money and bribes. Keep sending you and your staff through the revolving door.

Get real, Saxby.

You are the worst of our society, not the best.

This republican/corporate leadership is doing the same thing that lost them the last election.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Press At USDA;REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, farm bill contains the country of origin labeling. Is that going to calm some of these fears about food safety, particularly when it comes from a different nation of course, but there seems to be some confidence has been shaken in terms of our food safety.

SEC. CONNER: I don't think we have ever associated country of origin labeling with any kind of safety issues. I just don't see those evidenced out there linking the two in any way. We have historically been opposed to mandatory country of origin labeling,( WHO IS WE????) and I will just say we felt the cost that adds to our system, will be extremely difficult for us.

Having said that, we've also been clear that it is the law of the land, and we're going to administer it by next fall according to the law of the land if that's the direction Congress gives us. My understanding from both the House and the Senate bill they have made some changes to mandatory COOL, but do make it more administratively workable for us. This is a very, very difficult law to administer as I don't need – beef would be a good example of this in terms of animals and product going back and forth across our Mexican/Canadian border and at what point is it U.S., at what point is it Mexican, what point is it Canadian? Just tracking this can be an administrative nightmare in effect. They have made some changes in both versions of the bill to improve the administration of it, and certainly it's going to continue to be a very strong challenge for us to keep track of these products as they go forward and move about. But nevertheless, it will be better, and we've said that this remains the law of the land. We will do our best to administer it in a way that is the best for our producers and consumers. That is the commitment I'll make as well. Yes, sir
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sec. Connor needs to be booted from the USDA and go back to his corporate position with ADM.

This is the problem with the USDA. IT IS PACKED WITH GIANT INDUSTRY ADVOCATES!!!!
 
Top