EXAMINER                                                Issue # 82   July 27, 2000

Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

A.V. Krebs


Freedom of speech , the integrity of the news that is broadcast over the public airwaves, the safety of our food,, the ability of reporters to tell stories that are free from the dictates of corporate coercion  and a deliberate slanting of the news by those same corporations and media managers, are all issues vitally important to Americans and the future of democracy itself.

Yet, at the present time, in a Florida courtroom where those very same issues are being  decided in the trial of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson there has been a virtual national media blackout of the trial to date. Akre and Wilson are  two award-winning investigative reporters who formerly worked at the Fox-owned television station (WTVT-13) in Tampa, Florida.

The husband-and-wife investigative team blew the whistle on a story they say WTVT (Ch 13) and its corporate bosses preferred to coverup  rather than broadcast honestly and accurately. The story revealed the widespread use of the rBGH hormone Florida dairymen have been secretly injecting into their cows and how Florida supermarkets quietly reneged on promises not to sell milk from treated cows until the hormone gained widespread acceptance by consumers.

In their subsequent law suit the reporters charged in detail Fox television, owned by Rupert Murdoch's multi-national News Corp, strongly pressured by rBGH’s manufacturer Monsanto, with violating the state's whistleblower act by firing the journalists for refusing to broadcast false reports and threatening to report the station's conduct to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Their complaint also claims the station violated the reporters' contracts in dismissing them for those reasons and it seeks the court's determination as to what extent the reporters' contractual obligations limit their ability to speak freely about the rBGH issue. The journalists filed the suit after struggling with Fox executives for most of 1997 to get the story on the air, submitting over 83 drafts of scripts all found "unacceptable" by the station before they were ultimately dismissed on December 2, 1997.

Because the readers of this newsletter, as well as the public,  has a right to know about this case and the issues it addresses THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER  will be publishing a series of "Extra" editions in the days ahead with timely reports by both Akre and Wilson as their trial progresses.


Thousands of pounds of chicken with tumors, pus, sores and scabs have been passed onto unsuspecting consumers by the Gold Kist plant in Guntersville, Alabama in  a failed USDA experimental inspection program begun last fall, according to government records obtained by Elliot Jaspin of Cox Newspapers.

Despite Clinton administration officials and GoldKist, the nation's second largest poultry processor, claiming that poultry leaving the plant was safe and USDA's reassurance last week that its relatively new experimental inspection program was a huge success, inspection records show, according to Cox Newspapers, that the government tried to keep secret a picture of a plant unable to keep diseased poultry from reaching the consumer.

As Jaspin reports: "Under the experimental program, company workers instead of federal inspectors are supposed to find and remove substandard poultry. But on some days last winter, the records show, company workers failed to catch 25% of the diseased birds on one of the plant's two production lines."

Delmer Jones, head of the union that represents federal food safety inspectors, told Jaspin that he sees the experimental program as an attempt by the government and industry to brainwash consumers into believing it is OK to eat what he derisively termed "wholesome diseased product."

"It's unwholesome, adulterated product," Jones said, "and it is being allowed
to go out to the consumer."

While chickens are not considered a threat to human health because poultry diseases cannot be transmitted to human beings, federal inspectors point out that diseased birds are supposed to be condemned because they are not considered wholesome. Under the government's definition, these include chickens with airsacculitis a common respiratory disease that leaves pus inside the carcass or those with tumors, sores, scabs or infections.

Chicken from the Guntersville plant helps supply, among other customers, nuggets for school lunch programs in 31 states, including Texas and  Ohio.

Following the company inspection, federal employees take several samples of 10 birds every day to see how many defective carcasses slip by. In addition to diseased birds, inspectors look for other indications the birds are unwholesome, such as sores, bruises or parts of the digestive tract clinging to the carcass, Jaspin adds.

Copies of reports on such samples obtained by Cox Newspapers through the Freedom of Information Act showed that by the government's own accounting methods, 40% of the samples taken from October until the following February failed at least one of these tests. The most common cause of failure was that a bird was diseased.

Under the experimental program, it is up to the company to decide how it will improve its performance, but according to the Cox account the government inspectors at Guntersville said the company did little, if anything, to limit the number of diseased birds leaving the plant.

USDA officials initially refused to hand over the test reports, saying that they were "linked to the deliberative process" and if members of the public had access to the information they might "interpret the data and prejudge" what the government might do with its experimental program. After Cox Newspapers threatened to take USDA to court, the government reversed itself and handed over the data.

When problems at the Guntersville plant first came to light, John Bekkers, head of Gold Kist, said the public was being "misled by a few union-activist" USDA officials. However, company officials later acknowledged to federal investigators that they were having a problem with diseases ravaging the Gold Kist flocks, according to a report by the Agriculture Department's Office of Inspector General.

Describing recent criticism of the USDA's new meat and poultry inspection  program as "irresponsible," Thomas Billy, administrator of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said last week that he was speaking out "to stop a campaign of what I consider misinformation . . . the notion that we are now allowing products to bear the mark of inspection that were not permitted before is a misrepresentation of  fact."

The new program which relegates inspection authority into the hands of packing company employees has been attacked in the media as well as by a federal  court and the department's own inspector general.

A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D. C., recently declared that the new inspection system "provides the industry with complete control over production decisions and execution," and ruled it is illegal for the USDA to allow company workers to replace government employees in inspecting products at meat and poultry plants.

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents the department's inspectors, sued USDA in 1998 to stop the  project. But a federal judge allowed the department to go ahead last fall, agreeing  with USDA that its inspectors were not required to handle every carcass so long as they kept an eye on the meat. The appeals court decision sends the case back to the lower court.

While Billy expressed "disappointment" with the Court's ruling he stressed that under the new inspection system, "it is still our job to inspect, to verify, to decide what products have earned the (USDA) mark of inspection. We are not standing on the sidelines watching others play the game."

In its ruling the Appeals Court note that claiming to fulfill a legal requirement to inspect meat and poultry carcasses by watching others perform the task is like saying "umpires are pitchers because they carefully watch others throw baseballs."

As the Des Moines Register's George Anthan reports, "the new inspection program is designed to allow government inspectors to look for systemic  problems in packing plants while company employees carry out more routine inspection duties. The inspectors' union has said the system breaks a sacred trust with consumers."


In another proposed ruling that calls into question whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture is more concerned with currying the favor of the meat and poultry processing industry than it is protecting food consumers the USDA is proposing a rule that would permit the sale of diseased meat and poultry to the public.

Among the animal diseases that the USDA now says are safe for human consumption if they are found in slaughtered meat and poultry include: cancer; a pneumonia found in poultry called airsacculitis; glandular swellings or lymphomas; sores;  infectious arthritis, and diseases caused by intestinal worms.

The USDA is accepting comments on this proposed rule until August 29, 2000.

Federal meat inspectors and consumer groups are protesting the move to classify tumors and open sores as aesthetic problems, which permits the meat to get  the government's seal  of approval , as a wholesome food product.
"I don't want to eat pus from a chicken  that has pneumonia," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass  Energy Project.
Delmer Jones, a federal food inspector  for 41 years, told Scripps Howard News Service  he's so revolted by the lowering of food  wholesomeness standards  that he doesn't buy meat at the  supermarket anymore  because he doesn't trust that it is safe to eat.  "I eat very little to no meat, but sardines and fish," said Jones, president of the National Joint Council of Meat Inspection Locals. The union of some 7,000 meat  inspectors is affiliated  with the American Federation of Government Employees. He said he's trying to get his wife to stop eating meat.
The News Service reports that the union is battling related USDA plans to rely on scientific testing of samples of  butchered meats to determine the wholesomeness of meat, rather than traditional  item-by-item scrutiny by federal inspectors.

USDA began carrying out the new policy  as part of a pilot project in 24 slaughterhouses last October  and plans to expand the system nationwide. It will cover poultry, beef and pork. The agency has extended until Aug. 29 the time for the public to comment on the regulations and won't issue final rules until after the comments are received.

Jones and consumer groups say production lines are  moving so fast that they can't catch all the diseased  carcasses, and some are ending up on supermarket shelves. "When I started inspecting, inspectors were looking at 13 birds  a minute, then 40, and now it's 91 birds a minute with three inspectors," Jones said. "You cannot do your job with 91 birds a minute."

Public comments on this proposed rule should be addressed to:

FSIS Docket Clerk
Docket No. 97-036A
United States Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 102, Cotton Annex
300 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250-3700

RE:  Docket No. 97-036A

For more information, contact:

Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environmental Program
215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546-4996

For technical information about this rule, contact:

Daniel Engeljohn, Director
Regulation and Analysis Division
Food Safety and Inspection Service
(202) 720-5627

Last month on a voice vote by the Senate Agriculture Committee after no hearing and little advance notice, legislation was approved that would nullify state laws that require warnings on foods and dietary supplements or regulate the handling of eggs and other products.

The bill's 35 sponsors, including Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, according to the Associated Press's Philip Brasher, now are looking for must-pass legislation to which they can attach the food proposal and are not ruling out trying to put it on an agricultural appropriations bill pending on the Senate floor.

"If a product needs a warning label then it shouldn't just be in one state, it should be in all 50 states. . . . We're one country, we're not 50 countries," said Susan Stout, public affairs vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Critics of the proposal see the food industry's same strategy that it employed in the organic standards act and chemical poison legislation: supersede tough individual state legislation with watered down industry-crafted national regulations.

The Senate bill, known as the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2000, would bar states from imposing labeling and food safety standards that are tougher than the Food and Drug Administration's. States would have to petition the FDA for exemptions from the law. Opponents of the legislation say it would effectively block state efforts to act in areas where FDA  has been ineffective or to goad the agency to regulate products.

Meanwhile, in a report released July 11, the General Accounting Office (GAO) said consumers may be buying some potentially unsafe products because FDA has not set a clear safety standard for new ingredients in dietary supplements or issued regulations or guidance for safety-related information on labels.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, Brasher reports, has compiled a list of laws and regulations that could be affected by the Senate bill. In addition to California's Proposition 65, they include: Laws in at least 17 states, including California, Florida, Illinois and Texas, that allow them to set tolerances for food additives that are more stringent than FDA standards.

California's Proposition 65, requires a warning label on all products that contain cancer-causing agents or substances that are toxic to the reproductive system. After the law was imposed, the state used it to force manufacturers to reduce lead levels in calcium supplements.

The law "has been very good at catching loopholes in federal protection, and the feds have often responded by tightening their own standards once California showed the way," David Roe, a lawyer who helped craft the California law, told Brasher.


North Carolina's State Attorney General Mike Easley and officials with Smithfield Foods, the state's and world's largest hog processor,  announced an agreement Tuesday that will phase out the hog lagoons on company-owned farms and provide $65 million to research alternatives and to clean up the environment.

"The bottom line is, we don't have to choose between a strong economy and a clean environment," said Easley at a news conference."Not only can we have both, but we must have both. We all recognize that -- Smithfield recognizes it, we recognize it, and this agreement will ensure it." The Democratic candidate for governor, Easley said the legal agreement is the result of talks between his office and Smithfield Foods that began after
Hurricane Floyd caused hog-waste lagoons to overflow and foul waterways last September.

While the agreement is a voluntary one between the state and the company, Easley said all of the state's environmental laws and regulations will still apply to the company's operations. At the same time the company still faces possible sanctions from the state's environmental regulators in cases pending against its subsidiaries.

Richard Poulson, Smithfield's vice president and adviser to the chairman, said the company entered into the agreement because it would best serve its long-term interests. Although Smithfield officials still think the lagoons that it and other farms use now are the best way to handle hog waste, Poulson admitted that it is clear changes are coming.

"We read the papers," Poulson said. "We read the polls, and we believe that a number of well-meaning people truly believe that some changes are coming."

North Carolina's 2,500 hog farms have not only been under close scrutiny by state agencies, but also have been frequently attacked by neighbors and environmentalists.

Earlier this year, Easley sued farms in Jones County owned by Brown's of Carolina, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods. Brown's paid more than $98,000 in fines for violations at farms in Bladen and Jones counties. Murphy Family Farms Inc., another subsidiary of Smithfield, paid a $19,000 fine for problems at a Duplin County farm.

Four environmental groups -- the New River Foundation, the Neuse River Foundation, the Cape Fear River Riverkeeper, and the New York-based Water Keeper Alliance --- sued Smithfield and three of its North Carolina subsidiaries in June, demanding that they clean up three river basins contaminated by hog operations, stop using open cesspools and stop spraying waste on fields.

The pact between Smithfield and the Attorney General's Office could be a national model,  Daniel J. Whittle, senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, a national environmental group with a North Carolina office in Raleigh told the Raleigh News and Observer's Lynn Bonner.

"All eyes are on North Carolina," Whittle said. "Hopefully, this will trigger action all over the place."  But success, he said, depends on Smithfield Foods and the Attorney General's Office implementing the agreement, and the company holding its contract farmers to higher standards.

Terms of the agreement and key dates released by the North Carolina State's Attorney General’s Office included:

JULY 25, 2000: State Attorney General Mike Easley and Smithfield Foods announce a legal agreement that calls for the elimination and cleanup of hog-waste lagoons at all of the company-owned and contract hog farms in the state. Smithfield also agrees to provide $65 million to the state -- $50 million for to state environmental projects and $15 million to N.C. State University for research into alternative methods of hog-waste disposal. NCSU researchers are to select five alternative technologies for controlling waste and odor from hog farms to evaluate.

AUG. 25: First payment due from Smithfield to the state with payments going to organizations or funds designed by the attorney general. Smithfield agrees to pay $1 a hog up to $2 million. Payments will be made annually for the next 25 years.

OCT. 15: Smithfield must identify company-owned farms whose operations could adversely impact water quality and propose measures to correct deficiencies.

NOV. 15: Smithfield must submit a plan identifying company-owned farms with buildings or lagoons in the 100-year flood plain and proposed protective measures.

DEC. 15: Smithfield must identify abandoned lagoons on company-owned farms and measures to close them.

JAN. 15, 2001: Smithfield must identify wetlands and natural areas on company-owned farms that protect water quality.

JAN. 25, 2001: Deadline for NCSU researchers to select an additional five to six technologies for evaluation.

JAN. 18, 2002: Smithfield will rank company-owned farms to determine which will convert first to new, alternative waste- and odor-control processes.

MARCH 18, 2002: Attorney general will approve or disapprove Smithfield's priority list.

JULY 25, 2002: Deadline for NCSU researchers to report their findings on the best alternative waste- and odor-control methods for farms, depending on their size and location, if possible. Company-owned farms then have three years to convert to new methods.


A "Commentary" headlined "VOTING FOR RALPH NADER, INSURING A POPULIST ALLIANCE, REBIRTHING ECONOMIC & POLITICAL DEMOCRACY, SAVING FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE" which appeared in Issue #81 of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER has to date drawn a disappointing, but not surprising number of response from readers.

One interesting exchange between a person identifying themselves only as "purcell@vt.educ" and a New York dairy farmer is worth noting and appears below.

A few personal notes to the editor concerning the "wasting" of one's vote for Nader and thus allowing George W. to defeat Al Gore were received. In response to such reservations THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER recommends a recent commentary by Herschel Sternlieb, The Maine Dissident which also appears below.


"Lots of bias and opinion, very little based on fact and good science.

"If  you want to protect the small family farm, you need to recognize that the  American people need to be involved in a dialogue that deals with how much  more they are willing to pay for food and fiber to keep a structure of  family units at the producer level.  Many would agree that the social  `goods'coming from a rural community structure build around the family unit is worth saving.

"But if we agree on that, we need to get on with that  agenda and not spend time wailing about the corporate entities who are  basically bringing what the main street U. S. consumer wants --- cheap food and  fiber. The economies of size in production, processing and retailing are real and they will continue to drive investments in that direction unless we  have a dialogue about all this and decide we do not want to see our food and  fiber sectors go toward big corporate structures --- and decide we are
 willing to pay the difference in the form of subsidies to the family farm units or go back to a policy that subsidizes farm families when the commodity prices are low and below costs of production.

"As a people, we will  have to decide we are not willing to let the marketplace play this out,  because the marketplace will direct the investment dollar to the highest  payoff use and that is certainly not in a small family farm structure.
"Your coverage of price paid and prices received at the farm level ignores a  huge success story for the farm sector and for the typical consumer --- the  relentless pressure on the farmer to adopt new technology and producer ever  more efficiently and even cheaper in inflation adjusted terms.

"The acreage in crops is up this year, not down, in spite of your suggestion that farms  are all going broke. The facts suggest you are wrong and it is clear that it is economies of size and technology that is keeping our farm sector the envy of the world.  And they (the farmers) likely deserve support from the populace for what they do, but  let's not try to protect them by arguing  against the marketplace that is moving us toward large operations at each  level.
"And did you know that evey bushel of corn, soybeans and wheat could have been forward priced at a profit this year --- often exorbitant profits that  are not typical of a sector with no barriers to entry?  If those prices are  offered and producers do not take advantage of them because they are always  waiting for the record high prices, whose fault is that?

"If we have the institutions in place to allow them to protect themselves against the huge price risk in the global markets of today and they want instead to work  their hours and expect someone else to protect them against low prices, do  you expect a wide base of sympathy and support for them?  Did we insist that the small service station and the small corner store had a right to work and  be assured of a living wage or salary because of what they are or what size  they were?
"It would be really nice to see someone focus on the real agenda regarding the farming sector in this country and we might come up with policies that  clearly subsidize and keep the structure the way you want it and in the  process, we might all get better quality and service from our food and fiber  producing sectors. And we need to think about all this in a much more  rigorous way than most who are presenting themselves and are actually just  arguing their own agenda."



"'The economies of size in production, processing and retailing are  real ......',

"As a dairy farmer, I have heard variations of the above statement repeated for years.  However, like a modern version of a flat earth theory, it fails to gain truth through repetition.

"Large dairy farms are regarded as having economies of scale simply because they are often profitable.  A closer look demonstrates that large dairy farms are heavily dependent upon small family farms.

"A dairy cow must produce her own replacement within her lifetime or dairy cows will become extinct.  Large dairy farms, as a whole are unable to do that.  Nationally,  the average dairy cows productive life has ended before two complete lactations (46 mo.
avg. )  It is difficult to get one female offspring in that time.  The use of rbST (a GM hormone) is most common on large farms.  This has not only extended the calving interval by more than a month, it also has made possible lactaions of three years.  Many of those
cows will only have one calf,  which might be male.  An early lifetime calf mortality rate of 25% is now the national average.

"Increased land values in the Los Angeles, California have provided the capital for many
California dairies to both move North and expand dramatically.  Ten percent of the nation's dairy cows are in the Chino Valley of California. There according to California statistics, 39% of the cows are removed (usually dead or near dead) from the herd each year.

"This combination, together with increased herd size in other parts of the country, has created a shortage of dairy calves and replacements.  Calves and young stock are being trucked from family farms in the Northeast and Canada at unheard of rates.  Dealers in our area are driving the back roads in search of young stock.

"Practically every large dairy relies on Mexican aliens for the work force. Except for the low wages provided, they have no vested interest in the well being of the farm.  Here in New York State, there is a new class of worker on dairies of about 300 cows.  These dairies are too large to operate on family labor.  At the same time they are not large enough, with current milk price, to pay wages.  A mobile home is parked behind the barn.  In it illegal Mexican workers are provided with food.  They work for food and shelter until they can find a job which pays wages.  They are called `floaters’ in that they rarely stay more than a few months.

"Large dairies are totally dependent upon the inputs of capital, replacements and labor.  At any point any one of these inputs could disappear.  These conditions tend to go unmentioned in our Land Grant system.

Market Myth:

"`And they (the farmers) likely deserve support from the  populace for what they do, but  let's not try to protect them by arguing against the marketplace that is moving us toward large operations at each level.,'

"In January of 1996 the results of an in depth study by Bruce Marion and others at University of Wisconsin was released.  This study looked at cheese pricing on the Green Bay Cheese Exchange which was the main driver of farm milk price.  They had broad investigative power. The price of cheese slowly moved upward after the governor appointed a panel.  This panel's unmentioned mandate was to whitewash the study.

"On October 17, 1996, the panel announced they would do nothing about the Exchange.  On October 18, the price of cheese crashed led by Kraft selling. The price continued to fall until the spring of 1999 when the Exchange moved to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).  The reason given by farm publications and Land Grant experts was an unduly high inventory of cheese.  Since that time there has hardly been a month in which inventories did not exceed those of October 1996. Yet, there have been two record highs since that time with near record inventories.

"More unheeded than the original report was Working Paper #115 which followed in January of 1997.  This paper by the same investigators list the `plus factors' needed to prove collusion in a limited market.  Finally after two years of legal effort, the investigators gained access to internal documents.  After examination and analysis they produced Working Paper #116, which spelled out how much the lead traders gained through price manipulation.

"Today the price dairy farm receive for their milk is determined by a complex government formula which few understand.  Suffice to say that the starting point for this formula is a price which is `voluntarily' obtained from the processors.  It is a price dictated by corporate processors which by means of strings and mirrors looks like a `market' to the gullible only


"Asymmetry of price occurs at retail.  That means that when farm price rises this is passed on to the consumer.  When farm price falls immense profit is made because it stays high for the consumer.  It appears that much `market volatility' occurs for this reason.

"Concentration at the retail level has made many retailers dictate terms to suppliers.  `Slotting fees' are fees paid by suppliers simply to have their product on the retail shelves.  80% of branded dairy advertising cost is directed to the retailer in an effort to obtain better `position.'

"Wal Mart is so powerful that all milk is on consignment until it runs through the scanner.  Dated, spilled or damaged product is a cost borne initially by the supplier but, which gets passed back to the farmer in the form of low milk price.  And as everyone knows the farmer is a `price taker.'

"Artificially low price is the result of market failure. Farmers have no choice but to cut cost to the bone.  Even then there is little or no profit on the family farm. The scale of the crisis is masked by off farm income. Some have taken the advise of experts and become big. They learn soon enough that this is similar to a monkey biting its tail.  Expansion must be repeated in an attempt to avoid the pain.

"A full and complete examination of dairy farming reveals that it is `economies of scale' which is being subsidized by the family farm.  The load which must be carried by the family farm is wearing down and in many case breaking up the family.  The loss of the family farm is destroying rural communities which are the food source for urban America.  More importantly they are the glue which hold us all together.  So far, history has not given us one single example of a society which can be held together by means of low prices.  There is no reason to think that will soon change."

John Bunting, Dairy Farmer, Treadwell, NY


Herschel Sternlieb
The Maine Dissident

"A message to my Democratic friend who wants to vote for Ralph Nader but is afraid of wasting it by allowing Bush to beat Gore. If a losing vote is a wasted vote then the following holds true:

"You wasted your vote on Adlai Stevenson and got Eisenhower and you survived. But very little changed and you ended up with no voice and no power.

"You wasted your votes on Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern and you got Nixon and you survived. But very little changed and you ended up with no voice and no power.

"You wasted your votes on Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale and you got Ronald Reagan and you survived. But very little changed and you ended up with no voice and no power.

"You wasted your vote on Mike Dukakis and you got George Bush and you survived. But very little changed and you ended up with no voice and no power.

"You voted for Bill Clinton and he won but in a sense it was a wasted vote because he turned out to be the most successful Republican president of the 20th Century but you still survived. But very little changed and you ended up with no voice and no power.

"When will you wake up to the fact that it is time to have a voice in your own destiny? It is time for you to seek power for yourself. It is time to get the twin monkeys of the Democrats and the Republicans off your back.

"It is time to establish a new party. In doing so you will not be any the worse off than you were under Nixon or Reagan or Bush. You will survive. And you will survive with the possibility of eventually ending up with the power in your own hands.

"It is time to build the Green Party into a force that will free America from the shackles of big money that control the Republicans and Democrats and are poisoning our political system. The time to start is now. Don't be afraid to vote for Ralph Nader. It will be the best vote you ever cast."


The Corporate Agribusiness Research Project (CARP) web site now contains a
streamlined search engine which will not only allow viewers to  find needed information by simply using key words, but they will be able to also access Issues #1 through #77 of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER.

The CARP web site, which is now posted on the World Wide Web, features: THE AGBIZ

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 Democratic Party candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in New York State.

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

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
page of "Quoteable Quotes" periaing 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 design 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.