EXAMINER                            Issue # 60      January 4, 2000

Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

A.V. Krebs


Six farmers --- from the U.S. and France --- named as representatives of farmers worldwide, under the aegis of the National Family Farm Coalition, in a suit formulated by Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll on behalf of a consortium of other firms, have launched a major anti-trust, price fixing law suit against the Monsanto Corp. and nine corporate co-conspirators (see below).

The farmers ---  Bruce Pickett, Atlanta, Indiana; George Higginbottom, Terre Haute, Indiana; C-K Farms, Clear Lake, Iowa; George and Peggy Naylor, Churdan, Iowa, and Patrick de Kochko,  Boussac, France --- in a "Class Action Complaint" filed last month in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia allege that Monsanto and others:

* Formed a cartel through which it attempted to monopolize the genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets;
* Conspired to unreasonably restrain trade in the genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets;
* Conspired to fix the prices of genetically engineered corn and soybean seeds;
* Rushed genetically engineered seeds to market without adequate testing for risks to human health and the environment from such seeds and crops;
* In 1996, Monsanto devised an anticompetitive scheme to control prices and restrain trade in the genetically corn and soybean seed markets by misusing its intellectual property rights over Yieldgard and Roundup Ready gene technologies;
At the same time Monsanto devised its licensing scheme, Monsanto and other major chemical companies commenced a swift series of mergers and acquisitions of competing seed and gene technology companies, which resulted in concentrating virtually all of the genetically engineered production for corn and soybean seeds into the hands of Monsanto and a handful of others, and
* Since that time, Monsanto and its co-conspirators entered into uniform or near-uniform licensing agreements for Monsanto's technology, with the knowledge and intent that the terms of those agreements were being imposed and effected by competitor-conspirators across the entire genetically engineered corn and soybean seed industry.

Charging that Monsanto's "unlawful conduct in aggregating the power to control all aspects of the production of corn and soy appear to be motivated by its desire to control the basic means of production of the global food supply" the suit also notes that:

* In support of its attempt to monopolize the genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets and conspiracy to restrain trade therein, Monsanto's cartel has also: 1) exerted influence over the non-genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets; 2) pursued legal actions, and engaged in other intimidating conduct, against farmers who are claimed to have violated the Technology User Agreement; 3) made deceptive statements to make genetically engineered seeds appear desirable to farmers making purchasing decisions; and 4) failed to carry out adequate human health and environmental safety testing pre- or post-marketing.

* In the international marketplace, Monsanto and its co-conspirators engaged in conduct paralleling their conduct in the United States markets, including, 1) attempting to monopolize the international genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets; 2) acting in unreasonable restraint of trade in the international genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets; 3) consolidating control of the international genetically engineered corn and soybean seed markets into the hands of the cartel through mergers and acquisitions for the purpose of restraining trade; and 4) engaging in the international imposition of excessive "technology fees" upon farmers.

The suit notes that "members of the cartel have even threatened to withhold non-genetically engineered seeds from farmers in countries where authorities that refuse to accept the cartel's genetic engineering technology, and have also promoted certain insect resistant genetically engineered seeds in farming regions where there is no need for that particular insect resistance."

In launching their suit the farmers are seeking treble damages, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the United States, the common law, and customary international law, and are demanding a jury trial.

Assisting Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, D.C., on a no-win, no-fee basis, are the law firms of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, San Francisco, California.;  Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, New York, New York.; Spector & Roseman, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania; Meredith, Cohen, Greenfogel & Skirnick, New York, New York.; Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, New York, New York; Heins, Mills & Olson, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Cohen & Malad, Kinston, North Carolina; White & Allen, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Law Offices of Liebenberg & White, Jenkinstown, Pennsylvania. Also assisting in the case is the Foundation on Economic Trends.


Those corporations named as co-conspirators in the recent law suit filed against the Monsanto Corp., for price fixing and engaging in anti-trust activities, by six farmers from the U.S and France include:

* DELTA AND PINE LAND COMPANY: A seed company that had agreed to merge with Monsanto, pending approval of the United States Department of Justice. Delta and Pine Land sells genetically engineered cotton and soybean seeds.

* E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS and CO.: A global chemical, materials, and energy company with total sales of approximately $46 billion in 1997.  DuPont's Agricultural Products segment sells herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, and is also active in the agricultural genetically engineered  seed market.

> PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.:  A wholly owned and controlled subsidiary or division of DuPont. In 1998, Pioneer alone controlled an estimated 42% of the corn seed market, and an estimated 16% of the soybean seed market, in the United States.  Pioneer also sells genetically engineered soybean and corn seeds.

* DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY: A  large, diversified worldwide producer and supplier of chemicals, plastics, and agricultural products.  Dow Chemical participates in the genetically engineered corn and soybean markets through its subsidiaries identified below.

> MYCOGEN CORPORATION and MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCES, INC.: A wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary or division of Dow ChemicalMycogen participates in the seed industry in part through its wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, AGRIGENETICS, INC.MYCOGEN SEEDS.  Mycogen estimates that Agrigenetics ranks fourth in the United States in the sale of seed corn.  Mycogen also sells genetically engineered soybean and corn seeds.

* NOVARTIS INTERNATIONAL, AG, together with its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary or division NOVARTIS SEEDS, INC.: Produces seeds for a variety of crops including corn, sugar beets, and oilseeds.  Novartis sells seeds in the United States through its "NK" division, which was formerly an independent seed company known as Northrup King Co. prior to its acquisition.  Novartis sells genetically engineered soybean and corn seeds.

* ASTRAZENECA, PLC : A food biotechnology company that specializes in corn, wheat, rice, and other crops.  ZENECA, INC., is the American arm of AstraZeneca.

> GARST SEED COMPANY: A 50%-owned and controlled subsidiary or division of AstraZeneca. Garst sells genetically engineered soybean and corn seeds.

> AGRIPRO SEEDS, INC.: A wholly owned and controlled subsidiary or division of AstraZenecaAgriPro sells genetically engineered soybean and corn seeds.


Characterizing six farmers and the National Family Farm Coalition's recently announced anti-trust lawsuit against Monsanto as "historic," NFFC President Bill Christison noted that "as a Missouri family farmer I can tell you that the farmers and consumers of the world have been sold a bill of goods because genetically engineered organisms do not perform as advertised.

"The truth is, genetically engineered crops cost more and yield less. There are four areas of concern farmers and consumers have about genetically engineered crops. They include the health, the environment, social and economic aspects," he added.

Christisen pointed out that while genetic engineering is a relatively new technology in the countryside, groups like the NFFC have been working on its issues for years. On November 30, over 30 family farm and rural organizations joined together to release a Farmer's Declaration on Genetic Engineering. In Seattle during the recent World Trade Organization ministerial meetings, the issue of genetic engineering was a major focus of discussion within the Via Campesina, an international network of family farm and peasant organizations of which the NFFC is a member.

In their suit the farmers and NFFC charge that Monsanto and other "life science" companies have rushed genetically engineered crops, like corn and soybeans, to market without proper testing to determine long-term effects of their new creations.

Corn and soybeans are two staple food crops which are essential to the United States and global food supply.  In 1998, the United States market for soybeans was estimated at $17.7 billion.  In 1999, the United States market for corn was estimated at $20 billion. Yet, in 1998 alone, the European Union reduced its import of U.S. corn from 70 million bushels to three million bushels, resulting in a loss of export income to U.S. farmers of an estimated $200 million.

"The efforts of Monsanto and their co-conspirators," Christison charges, "has been to flood the world with seeds that produce products consumers do not want to eat. In addition, there genetically engineered crops are contaminating the entire food chain. We demand USDA to stop funding terminator type technologies and instead urge them to allocate these funds to land grant universities to better fulfill their mandate to provide public variety seeds at no cost to the farming community."

"Contrary to the USDA’s position that genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world, today we have a world that is awash in surplus grain resulting in record low farm prices," he added.

"Today, Monsanto and its co-conspirators have a monopoly over our food system. Their operations threatens world food security. This litigation exposes their practices. A victory in this lawsuit will allow the family farmers of the world to retain ownership of their seeds, their farms, and produce a food supply that is safe, adequate, and reasonably priced for all consumers."

The NFFC, in announcing the lawsuit, also welcomes and urges other farmers and farm organizations to join in the complaint. Interested parties should contact the NFFC in Washington, D.C. at 1-800-639-3276.

The NFFC is a membership based organization comprised of 32 family farm and rural advocacy organizations in 30 states and was founded in 1986. NFFC works on issues to ensure the survival of family farmers and to promote the increased economic viability of our nation’s rural communities.


Long suspected and speculated over, Monsanto announced recently that it and the U.S.-Swedish drug group Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. have agreed to merge, forming a company with a market capitalization of more than $50 billion.

Yet-to-be-named, the new corporate entity would be the 11th largest pharmaceutical firm in the world, with $10 billion in prescription drug sales and with the inclusion of but despite the revenues from Monsanto's recently poorly performing agribusiness unit and other products, the combined company would have total sales of about $17 billion. Monsanto and Pharmacia said they expected to achieve annual cost savings of more than $600 million, a portion of which would be reinvested in the company.

The merged companies say that they plan to offer up to 19.9% of the agribusiness unit in an initial public offering (IPO), and would operate it as a separate legal entity with its own stock and board of directors.

In a telephone interview  with Reuters Emily Kaiser, Pharmacia's CEO Fred Hassan said the combined company was committed to the agribusiness unit despite moves by other drug firms to exit similar businesses.

"We have looked at this business," he said. "It is a technology-intensive business (with a) very good research pipeline. We want to run it as an autonomous subsidiary through this partial IPO because we believe that a lot of value can be unlocked in this great business."

Monsanto Chairman Robert Shapiro, will become chairman of the new company, however he plans to step aside in 18 months at which time Hassan would then assume the role of chairman. Pharmacia shareholders will be allowed to exchange each of their shares for 1.19 shares of the combined company, while each of Monsanto shares will be worth one share. Monsanto shareholders will own 51% of the combined company.

In Kaiser's telephone with Shapiro he expressed the thought that the merger will be a success.

"We have a management structure that is going to work," he said. "We have a CEO in Fred who has a proven record in the pharmaceutical industry and who is going to have a wonderful time taking advantage of the growth opportunities that both of these companies present together. Culturally and strategically and as a matter of business logic, these are two very compatible companies."

The new company will boast an array of top-selling drugs to treat ailments such as arthritis, glaucoma, colorectal cancer and insomnia. Monsanto's Celebrex arthritis treatment, introduced in 1999, has already topped $1.4 billion in sales, while Pharmacia's Xalatan is the world's best-selling prescription medication for glaucoma.

The new company would also own the leading herbicide, Roundup, and make genetically engineered corn, soybean and cotton seeds.
"I think Pharmacia & Upjohn is a decidedly better company with this deal," David Saks, an analyst with Gruntal & Co strategic growth funds told Kaiser.

"The merger will put it in the major, major leagues. It has been about a $28 billion company in market capitalization, far behind the other big U.S. players. Now it will get closer in size to Warner-Lambert, Schering-Plough and Eli Lilly, which are all big-name companies under $100 billion in size."

Shortly after the news of the proposed merger became public Monsanto Co. announced that it was withdrawing its application for a proposed merger with Delta & Pine Land Co. citing delays in  an antitrust review and demands by the U.S.Justice Department.

In a press release the St. Louis, Missouri-based company said it had been "unable to come to an understanding" with regulators and the Justice Department that would  have allowed the merger.

The Delta & Pine Land merger had become the subject of much controversy due to Monsanto's proposed acquisition of the Scott, Mississippi., company which
shares a 1998 patent on the terminator gene with the USDA. Delta & Pine Land sells
58% of all the seed bought by U.S. cotton farmers.

Steve M. Hawkins, president of Delta & Pine Land, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal's Scott Kilman that the company will continue its research in what he
preferred to call the "technology protection system."

"We think this technology is important," Hawkins said. "It could have applications we don't know about yet."

Delta & Pine Land now claims, Kilman reports, that Monsanto is obligated to pay it an $81 million merger termination fee, and there are signs Delta & Pine Land might want  more than that for being jilted.

"Under the terms of the merger agreement, Monsanto is obligated to pay Delta and Pine Land a termination fee of $81 million," the company said in a statement. "In addition, we are evaluating our legal rights and will take all appropriate actions to protect our shareholders."


"Bundling,"  the lynch pin in the U.S Department of Justice's current anti-trust action against  Bill Gates's Microsoft Corp. is now rearing its ugly head within corporate agribusiness.

Currently competing with traditional agricultural lenders, giant grain trading, input  and food companies are now offering the "opportunity" for farmers to use their upcoming crops as collateral to borrow money to pay their suppliers for seed, fertilizer and chemicals, but also to pay other farm expenses.

Critics of the new lending schemes see food companies using the loans to lure customers for their farm products and lock in grain contracts for harvest time.

The Omaha World Herald's Bill Hord reports that Rick McLellan, Cargill's retail crop inputs manager said his company is offering more financing programs to give farmers additional choices."We are not saying it's something they have to use," McLellan said. "It's an option that farm customers can take advantage of, if they want to."

Options under the Cargill plan include: traditional deferred-payment agreements for product purchases; broader loans of more than $150,000 that can be paid backat harvest time or before; and an agreement that links the loan with a contract to deliver grain after harvest.

McLellan briefed Cargill dealers in Nebraska recently, Hord reports, about the company's new alliance with John Deere Credit of West Des Moines, Iowa, a financing division of Deere & Co. Similarly, several years ago Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. of Des Moines formed an alliance with John Deere Credit to provide financing for farmers purchasing Pioneer seed, however, last year, the company launched a broader lending program that could be used for things other than purchases from Pioneer Hi-Bred.

"We would expect the farmer to purchase Pioneer-brand products," said  Ken Madden of Lincoln, area sales manager for Pioneer.

A spokeswoman with Omaha-based ConAgra Inc. declined to discuss what, if any, financing programs it offers to farm customers.

John Deere Credit expanded into operating loans in 1995, with the vast majority of their business being offered through partnerships with companies like Pioneer  and now Cargill.

Enabling ever large corporate agribusinesses to further consolidate these relatively new lending programs would give such corporations greater access to the large grower class that has been emerging in agriculture in recent years.

"Everyone wants to be aligned with the 20% of the producers who produce 80% of the product," Neil Olsen, executive vice president with Omaha-based Farm Credit Services of America told Hord

"It's part of a phenomenon called `bundling,'" Neil Harl, an Iowa State University ag economist and attorney warns. "There are very negative aspects to bundling. They are trying to bundle items they do not have monopoly power over with those things they do have monopoly power over."

"If producers become dependent on suppliers or grain companies for credit, they lose flexibility on how they produce their crops, who to produce them for and when to sell," Chuck Hassebrook, program director with the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, Nebraska adds, as lending by the likes of Cargill and ConAgra could further erode the control of farmers over their farming options.

Stressing that to date such lending programs are carefully structured to be options and not requirements, Farm Credit's Olsen does not see such a development as "ominous."

"This is not about changing ownership," he tells Hord. "It's a risk-management option. From the standpoint of managing risk, we are in favor of forward-contracting." Olsen said traditional lending companies and farm suppliers are experimenting to find out how the partnerships and alliances will work out. "Quite honestly, we don't know where it is going to sort out," Olsen said. "Nobody's hit the home run, yet."

Or, as the farmer once replied when asked if he a good cash flow? "hell yes, I've got a great cash flow, I’d just like to have the opportunity to stop some of it occasionally!!!"


IBP Inc., the nation's largest meatpacker and who has been called the nation's leading "corporate outlaw,"  has agreed to buy Corporate Brand Foods America for about $261
million in stock and the assumption of $323 million of debt.The acquisition, according to IBP continues its  strategy of expanding its presence in the growing market for  "value-added" prepared-food products, which generally have more "predictable earnings."

Corporate Brand Foods, of Houston, Dow Jones Newservice reports, sells a range of value-added meat and  poultry products to national and regional supermarket chains, club stores, delicatessens, foodservice distributors and food processors. It operates  11 plants in Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Maine and New Hampshire.

According to IBP, Corporate Brand Foods generated 1999 sales of about $800  million on an annualized basis. The combined company will have annual sales of about $15 billion.

In early 1999, IBP acquired Wilton Foods Inc., a closely held  prepared-food producer based in Goshen, New York, for an undisclosed sum and also purchased meat processor Thorn Apple Valley Inc. for $115 million, a sale that was part of Thorn Apple's bankruptcy plan, which was occasioned, in part, by the recall in January of 30 million pounds of meat.

Despite its recently announced purchases and expansion IBP's legal problems continue.

In Iowa. a former medical-care manager at IBP Inc.'s meatpacking plant in Perry has accused the company in a lawsuit of delaying or refusing proper medical care for workers injured on the job. Jeanne Shoeman alleges that the plant manager feared that the medical reports would lower the plant's safety record and shrink his annual bonus.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires companies to report injuries and accidents, but those reports aren't made public.The last general OSHA, inspection at the plant was in 1994, the Associated Press reports, when inspectors found 14 serious safety violations. In September, an inspection prompted by an employee's complaint resulted in a $2,125 fine for a serious safety violation said Mary Bryant of Iowa Workforce Development.

Shoeman's lawsuit against IBP says she was told to order injured workers back to work and she accused managers of waiting months before approving proper care for a worker who lost a hand in a machine. She says she was forced to quit her job in October 1997, after 10 months.

The former IBP worker said after she lost her job, she went to work for Heartland Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in Urbandale, but claims in her law suit  that an IBP
official called Heartland and told the firm that IBP would no longer do business with Heartland if Shoeman remained employed. Shoeman said she was fired in August 1998.  Derrick Luttrell, Heartland vice president, denied the details provided by Shoeman. He confirmed that she was fired but said it was a personnel matter.

The company "strongly denies the allegations," in Shoeman's lawsuit, said Gary Mickelson, spokesman for IBP at Dakota Dunes, South.Dakota. "We work very hard to make sure our employees receive immediate and appropriate treatment if they are hurt on the job."  Mickelson wouldn't reveal the plant's accident and injury rate.

Meanwhile,  John Taylor in the Omaha World Herald reports that in an effort to settle a three-year-old dispute stemming from its hiring of undocumented immigrants, IBP has agreed to provide the federal government with more information on all employees at three plants it operates in Iowa.

In addition, as part of the agreement, IBP will provide 26,400 pounds of beef and pork to the Food Bank of Iowa and to the Cedar Valley Food Bank of Waterloo, Iowa.

In a press release Stephen J. Rapp, the U.S. attorney for Iowa's northern district, said  that the agreement "will make it even more difficult for illegal aliens to become employed at these IBP plants." In addition, he said the agreement will "demagnetize meatpacking employment as an attraction for illegal immigration in our communities."

Later, in an interview with Taylor, Rapp said IBP will provide such information as how employees came to be hired, whether they were recruited and transported to the plants and, if so, whether they came from outside the United States and had to pay someone for their transportation.

The agreement stemmed  from a dispute growing out of sweeps by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1996 at IBP plants in Storm Lake and Waterloo. The Storm Lake pork plant was closed temporarily in May 1996, after the INS took an undisclosed number of employees into custody. They were suspected of being in the country illegally. Later that summer, at least three separate sweeps of the Waterloo plant resulted in 52 arrests of suspected undocumented immigrants.

Ken Kimbro, vice president for human resources with IBP told Taylor that the agreement is similar to suggestions made by the meatpacking industry in response to Operation Vanguard. He said that IBP, in working with the INS, will achieve the mutual objective of a stable, legal work force.


Frank Perdue, the man who has boasted that his company's chickens often live in better conditions than people do, is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as whether Perdue is cheating farmers who grow those chickens.

If such an investigation finds that Perdue,  based in Salisbury, Maryland., has violated federal law, the matter will be handed over to the U.S. Department of Justice  for possible prosecution.

Carole Morison, a Pocomoke City, Maryland, family farmer with a contract to raise chickens for Perdue, one of the nation's five largest chicken producers and processors, said the complaints involve whether Perdue has been misrepresenting the weight of company tractor-trailers hauling chickens grown under contract.

By claiming the trucks weigh more than they do, the company could cheat farmers when the chickens and trucks are weighed together, she told the Associated Press.She claims the weight of some Perdue trucks have been overestimated by as much as 3,500 pounds.

"The tractor-trailers go on their scales with the chickens, and that's 3,500 pounds of meat that's not going to be counted. It's going to be counted as the weight of the truck," she said. By that estimate, a farmer getting paid about 3.7 cents per pound of chicken would lose $129.50 per truck. "As a contract farmer, there's no way to verify anything they do," she said.

"We're looking at several issues," Dan VanAckeren, director of field operations for the USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, told AP.

Tita Cherrier, a spokeswoman for Perdue said she did not know about the investigation, but said she knows some growers under contract to raise broilers for Perdue are "unhappy."

"I'm sure the USDA is compelled to investigate complaints," she said. "We do know that there are some growers, they've formed groups, who are dissatisfied and may have made complaints."
In 1992, some 300 southern Alabama and northern Florida poultry growers were awarded by a federal court jury in Alabama nearly $17 million after being cheated by ConAgra on the weight of their birds. The company's poultry-processing plant at Enterprise, Alabama had deliberately made trucks seem heavier before they left the plant and then tinkered with the scales when they returned loaded to make the trucks appear lighter. Growers were paid on the basis of the weight difference.

Later, in the summer of 1995, ConAgra abruptly canceled poultry producing contracts with over 178 independent contract growers in the U.S. South. In offering new and what one producer described as "abusive"  contracts ConAgra demanded binding arbitration be included.

A typical poultry contract is a unilateral contract, often referred to as a contract of adhesion. An adhesion contract is simply a "take it or leave it"  contract. Frequently a farmer who has borrowed one-third to a half million dollars in order to secure a business contract with a processor like ConAgra has no option other than to sign, even if it means giving up his or her constitutional right to access their state and federal courts should  anything go amiss in terms of fraud or dispute.

Some 53 families, at the risk of losing their farms and their homes, refused to accept such terms, saying it was clearly a violation of their freedom of speech. ConAgra's cancellation of contracts, many of the producers believed, came in retaliation for the earlier court suit brought on and won by the aforementioned 300 poultry growers.


The Corporate Agribusiness Research Project (CARP) web site is now posted on the World Wide Web featuring: 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. Its initial essay concerns one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the almost declared candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in New York State.

In "HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON'S $99,537 MIRACLE: IT'S THE PITS!!!" now available through THE AGBIZ TILLER you'll learn some of the messy details behind her cattle futures "miracle." You will also find in this section the archives for past editions of the THE AGBIZ TILLER.

By popular reader demand THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER  section includes not only an issue-by-issue and verbose index of this weekly e-mail newsletter, but an archive of all the past issues.

In "Between the Furrows" 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 Sheet" on agriculture and corporate agribusiness; a "Fact Miners" page which is an effort to assist the reader in the necessary art of researching corporations; 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.

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

                                                        EDITORS NOTE
Although there is no subscription fee for THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, donations will, as always, be gladly  accepted.Checks made out to A.V. Krebs, P.O. Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201 [NOT to "Agribusiness  Examiner"] will continue to be received with much gratitude. A reminder also to those who might wish to receive a weekly  e-mail edition of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, please provide your NAME and E-MAIL ADDRESS. At this time THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER is not available in printed form. --------------1A838AD5D304F1527D0B7667--