EXAMINER                                                                   Issue # 88   September 25, 2000

Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

A.V. Krebs

                                                                 EDITORS NOTE

As THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER begins it’s third year of publication its editor\publisher is deeply indebted to that small handful of readers who have so generously supported the work of the publication since its inception. In the coming year it is hoped that not only will THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER’s over 1000 readers find it and its accompanying website useful in their work, but that they will see fit to financially contribute whatever they can comfortably afford to its continued existence.  Checks should be payable and sent to A.V. Krebs, P.O. Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201. To those not already receiving THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER just your name and e-mail address sent to will put you on the list to receive each and every publication.


September 19, 2000

The Honorable Al Gore Jr.
Vice President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Gore,

On September 17, Farm Aid had its annual gathering on behalf of America’s small farmers and rural life.  This is the largest regular farm activist rally in the U.S.  Presidential candidates were invited, but you and Mr. Bush did not appear there.  Schedules do conflict of course, but a candidate who has time to go on the Letterman show should have time for a major meeting addressing the economic distress and depression in many parts of farm country, USA.

But what was disturbing was the way you chose the members of Congress to represent your interests.  Senator Byron Dorgan and Rep. David Obey were there.  Both opposed the administration on the global trade agreements and the notorious “Freedom to Farm Act” of 1996 that President Clinton signed.  And there they were defending your administration’s record before a vocally skeptical gathering of farmers --- a record they vigorously opposed.

What you should have done was send a loyalist, Secretary of Agriculture to Farm Aid to speak for you.  To hide behind those two good men was an act of cowardliness.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader


A recent report released by The Associated Press highlights the stance the Republicrat presidential candidates have on farm aid. The question put to the candidates was: "The Freedom to Farm Act cut price supports to farmers while giving them more freedom to plant what they want. Do you support this law?"

Republican George W. Bush: "Yes. The best way to ensure a strong and growing agricultural sector is through a more market-driven approach that allows our farmers to fully participate in the world economy. As farming moves towards market-driven production, I believe the government should help farmers adapt to a global marketplace by providing a strong safety net and the means to manage the cyclical downturns in the farm economy. I will reinforce the important role farmers and ranchers play in the U.S. economy by increasing trade opportunities, reducing regulatory burdens, and reducing the overall tax burden. My administration will also renew our commitment to investments in new and innovative technologies for rural America."

Democrat Al Gore: "I believe we must maintain America's food security and protect our vital agricultural lands. As president, I will work to maintain flexibility and freedom in what farmers choose to plant while providing our independent family farmers the support they need during hard times. The fact that prices and farm income have remained so low for so long, and that
billions of dollars in emergency farm aid was needed over the past two years, shows that the 'Freedom to Farm' Act is misguided and wholly inadequate in a climate of declining crop prices and turmoil in overseas markets. I believe that we must restore the farm income safety net for
family farmers with a system that increases support when crop prices or yields fall unexpectedly. That doesn't mean going back to an outdated system where government tells farmers what crops to produce."


Two days after the Farm Aid concert the Associated Press released a report on the candidates stance on the Freedom to Farm Act and price supports; some of the candidates that is. Prior to the concert there was a political forum at which all the presidential candidates were invited
to remark on this and several other questions before the greatest annual assembly of farmers and farm leaders. Was Bush there? Nope, he didn't even bother to send a representative. Was Gore there? Nope, he sent Senator Byron Dorgan (who has routinely opposed the Clinton/Gore administration ag policy) to speak for him. Ralph Nader (and Pat Buchanan too) was there and made his criticism of the '96 farm bill emphatically clear.

What is the lesson here? In my humble and outraged opinion it is that if we are to bring a critical analysis of the current status quo of farm and food policies/priorities to the people in this election we must demand --- at each and every opportunity --- that third party candidates (and Ralph Nader in particular) be allowed into the "big three" debates. This truly goes beyond political allegiances --- this is a fundamental failure of our political system to function in a manner even remotely democratic. I put it to you that we cannot sit by silently and let this outrage continue.

If you would like information about how you can actively campaign for opening the debates, visit:
There is a wealth of links to various formats where you can make your voice heard --- including an online petition to the Commission of Presidential Debates, sample letters to the editor, and the address and phone number for the Commission of Presidential Debates.

Mail should be sent  to:
Frank J. Fahrenkopf and Paul G. Kirk
\Commission on Presidential Debates
\1200 New Hampshire, NW Box 445
\Washington, DC 20036

Even if you do not support the Nader campaign, I urge you to consider arguing for his inclusion in the debates.

--- KEVIN WEBB, VoteNaderAg and Food Issue Coordinator


A recent report by the Worldwatch's Lester Brown points out that while the U.S pays for its oil imports in part with grain exports, exports of grain and oil are each concentrated in a handful of countries with grain coming largely from NorthAmerica and oil mostly from the Middle East.

"The United States, which dominates grain exports even more than Saudi Arabia does oil, is both the world's leading grain exporter and its biggest oil importer. Ironically, all 11 members of OPEC are grain importers.

"Using the price of wheat as a surrogate for grain prices, shifts in the grain\oil exchange rate can be easily monitored. From 1950 through 1972, both wheat and oil prices were remarkably stable. In 1950, when wheat was priced at $1.89 a bushel and oil at $1.71 a barrel, a bushel of wheat could be exchanged for 1.1 barrels of oil. At any time during the 22-year span, a bushel of wheat could be traded for a barrel of oil on the world market.

"With the 1973 oil price hike, this began to change. By 1979, the year of the second oil price increase, OPEC's strength had pushed the exchange rate to roughly four to one. By 1982, when the price of oil had climbed past $33 a barrel, the wheat\oil ratio had climbed to eight to one. This steep rise in the purchasing power of oil led to one of the greatest international transfers of wealth ever recorded.

"Today, 27 years after the first oil price hike, the terms of trade are again shifting in favor of OPEC. With grain prices at their lowest level in two decades and oil prices at the highest level, in a decade, the wheat\oil ratio has  shifted to an estimated ten to one this year."


Family farmers in the U.S. for the past two decades have been propagandized that so-called "free trade" is going to make them profitable, if not rich. However, in recent years the combined total export tonnage of corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, barley, oats and rice have only averaged roughly 25% of the total U.S. production of these grains.

Yet, through such misnamed and disastrous legislation as Freedom to Farm --- passed by a Republicrat Congress and signed by a Republicrat President --- we have seen a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

While giant multinational grain companies like Cargill, ADM (“Supermarkup to the World”) and ConAgra use the self-serving argument that our grain exports have to be priced cheap to compete in the world export grain market, we are letting the cheap price for 25% of our grain production set the price for the other 75% of our grain production that is bought for domestic use.

Thus, as we now have near historic record low prices for corn and wheat we see more and more of our family farmers go out of business unable to meet their increasing production costs while receiving only a fraction of the price to which they are entitled.


Trade liberalization would enable China to devastate the labor markets of western countries, according to a top business executive from Hong Kong.

Addressing the recent World Economic Forum in Melbourne, Australia Shanghai Tang’s chairman David Tang, after listening to fellow speakers in a WEF discussion on marketing to Asians, said the world should be more concerned about coping with the impact of lower trade barriers to China in their own markets.

"I wouldn't concentrate on the rest of the world's companies selling to Asia. I would watch out if I were you about the World Trade Organization (WTO)," he said.

Earlier, the WEF delegates heard China's minister for foreign trade and economic co-operation Shi Guangsheng say it would not be long before China was a full member of the WTO and once it became a full member, China would speed up the opening of trade in goods and services and strengthen its links with other members.

Tang, however, warned that such trade liberalization would come at enormous risk to China's trading partners.

"I've never understood why you want to engage us --- we've got fantastically low labor (costs)," he told the forum.  "China's going to completely devastate your whole labor force. They have labor costs 15 times, 30 times lower than America . . .  I couldn't give a toss about how your economy is trying to sell your  things to us."

Tang said the growing middle class of Asia were certainly a ripe market for western consumer goods, "But what I want to consider is how we're going to sell to you. All the stuff you're going to make, we're going to completely destroy in terms of costs," he said.  "We can make things so much more cheaply than you. I would watch out for your markets being infiltrated by us."


Former Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) executive Michael D. Andreas will spend an additional 12 months in prison, and Terrance Wilson, another former ADM executive, will serve an additional nine months, on top of each of their two-year terms imposed in July 1999.

Following the order of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago which found that U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning erred in not handing down stiffer sentences originally imposed, Judge Manning  resentenced the two former ADM senior executives last Friday.

Convicted in a historic lysine price-fixing conspiracy the three-judge appeals court panel affirmed the convictions and ordered more prison time for the pair, calling Andreas, an ex-vice chairman of ADM and son of former CEO and board chairman Dwayne Andreas, "the ultimate leader of the price-fixing cabal."

In July 1999, Andreas and  Wilson, in addition to receiving their prison sentences were each fined $350,000, and began serving their sentences in October 1999.

Both Andreas and Wilson waived their rights to attend the resentencing hearing, but instead listened to the proceedings via speaker phone from federal prison in Greenville, Illinois. An attorney for Wilson, who is suffering from a heart condition, suggested during the hearing that his client might die in prison. Judge Manning did not reduce his sentence.

While Jack Bray, an attorney for Andreas, indicated that the attorneys for the two “knew what was coming today," they still plan to appeal the convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Joel Klein, assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's antitrust division, who announced last week that he will be resigning from that post at the end of the month, said that the increased sentences "should strengthen the message that executives who engage  in price fixing will pay a heavy price: significant jail time."

ADM, “Supermarkup to the World,” pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing charges of lysine and citric acid, which is used in soft drinks and other products in 1996 and paid a then-record $100 million fine. In September 1998, a federal jury convicted Andreas and Wilson, along with ex-FBI informant and one-time ADM executive Mark Whitacre, on charges stemming from the global scheme to rig the price of the livestock feed additive lysine.


“Imagine there were only three stockbrokerage firms in the country, and each of them held significant holdings in all American corporations. They would completely control the price of all securities. That is essentially what is happening here, only it's livestock instead of corporate stock.”                                                                      --- Attorney David Domina

Operating on that premise a group of independent cattle producers in the first class action lawsuit ever certified under the Packers & Stockyards Act (P &SA) have asked U.S. District Judge Lyle Strom to recertify their class action suit against IBP, Inc., claiming that the nation’s largest  meat packing firm has unfairly fixed the price of cattle ready for market.

If the cattlemen prevail, damages could reach as high as $1.5 billion.

As the cattlemen’s attorney Domina points out, they assert the P&SA was designed to insure that meat packers would not unduly and arbitrarily lower prices to producers. It specifically forbids ``unjust or deceptive practice (which have the effect of) manipulating or controlling prices.'' Cattlemen maintain IBP, through a practice known as ``captive supply," has deliberately depressed the price of cattle on the open market, violating both the spirit and letter of the law.

When cattle are ready for market, they must be shipped within a few days. If they become over fat, their value goes down precipitously.

In early 1994, Iowa Beef Packers (IBP) began contracting directly with producers many weeks before delivery, at set prices. The company also owns feed lots in Canada and ships fattened cattle into the U.S. for slaughter. These sources are known as “captive supply.”

Cattlemen claim IBP locks-in huge parts of its supply in this manner, and buys the rest on the cash or “spot” market. Since they process nearly 12 million cattle each year, even a five percent downward price movement is the equivalent of taking 600,000 head without payment.

Producers who do not contract with the meat packer sell their cattle on the spot market. Since IBP accumulates controlling portions of the total product need through captive supply, the company can easily enter the spot market and offer the lowest possible prices, or as some cattlemen put it, “they pretty much steal the rest.”  The cattlemen argue that over time, IBP's “take it or leave it” attitude has a pernicious effect on the price of all cattle.

If the current market were not extraordinarily concentrated, the cattlemen contend, none of this “mischief” would be possible

Meat packing in the United States is essentially controlled by three companies: IBP is the largest -- in this country and worldwide -- followed by the Monfort subsidiary of ConAgra Foods, and Excel, a division of Cargill International. A fourth company, Farmland, is a producers' co-op partly owned by a group of feeders. Together, the four companies account for nearly 90% of all beef --- hamburgers, steaks, roast, deli beef --- processed in the United States.

When the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed in 1921, the government was concerned because five meat packers controlled 45% of the market, and the top twenty packers controlled 60%.

Kathleen Kelley Sullivan, a fourth-generation cattle producer from Colorado and former female vice co-chair of the USDA’s National Commission on Small Farms and an expert on market concentration, points out that, “the market for fed cattle is.more concentrated that it has ever been in history. No producer can sell to more than a very few packers.''

The cattlemen are prepared to call nearly 80 witnesses to testify on their behalf. USDA officials, commodities dealers and traders, and agricultural economists will join cattlemen on the witness stand at trial.

Most involved are likely to be two agricultural economists, Dr. Robert Taylor of Auburn University and Dr. Catherine Durham of Oregon State University. Each has independently run extensive econometric models on the effect of IBP's use of captive supply and the price it pays on the open market. Their results --- verified by Dr. Bernard Siskin, who heads up the Center for Forensic Economic Studies in Philadelphia --- show a significantly negative connection between IBP's practices and the overall price of fed cattle since 1994.

The cattlemen first filed their lawsuit in 1996, and the Court certified their case for trial in April, 1999. IBP successfully delayed the proceedings when an appeals court signaled that the original class was too broadly defined. Cattlemen believe that has now been corrected. Domina is confident the action will go forward, and feels the cattlemen have an excellent chance of success.


Once again USDA Secretary Dan Glickman has avoided confronting U.S. cattle producers.

At a USDA sponsored forum in Denver, Colorado on September 21, held to examine the use of captive supplies by the meatpacking industry, Glickman failed to appear despite the fact that a number of his department’s own economists testified that increased bidding in livestock markets would improve competition.

USDA sponsored the forum to examine the use of captive supplies by the meatpacking industry, a practice the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) and other farm groups say allows the big three packers to manipulate market prices.

"We've been at this issue for over a decade," said Shane Kolb, a rancher from Meadow, South Dakota and Chair of WORC's  Agriculture Issue Team.  "Finally USDA has, in effect, recognized that monopoly control of the livestock industry limits competition and hurts independent family ranchers. Now, the question is, will Secretary Glickman stand up to the packer monopoly and enforce USDA anti-trust laws."

Ranchers, livestock feeders, and consumers attended the forum, representing groups from across the nation, including Dakota Rural Action, the National Farmers' Union, the Rocky Mountain Farmers' Union, R-CALF, Cattlemen's Legal Fund, the Organization for Competitive Markets, the Livestock Marketing Association, Center for Rural Affairs, Colorado
Cattlemen's Association, WORC and its member groups in Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Idaho, and Colorado.

In the past decade, the big three packers --- Cargill, ConAgra and IBP --- have increased the use of cattle they either own or control through contracts with feedlots.  These cattle are called captive supplies because packers control them (see above story).

In 1996, WORC submitted two rules in a petition for rulemaking to USDA that would require that the packers bid for captive supplies on open, public markets, and that contracts have a fixed base price.  Since submitting the rules, over 170 organizations across the nation representing hundreds of thousands of Americans have endorsed the petition.  Secretary Glickman
announced the forum after postponing, yet again, a decision on the WORC rules.

"During the past four years, we have presented Secretary Glickman on several occasions with the legal, economic, and public policy arguments he needs to advance this proposal," said Kolb.  "While Glickman has sat on our decision, packers have catapulted the use of captive supplies from 19% to 50%, giving them more power to manipulate market prices.

“Secretary Glickman has the power to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act, and his failure to do so constitutes approval and endorsement of the increasing monopolization, price manipulation and discrimination in the livestock industry.  If he doesn't act after the evidence presented today, then I think we should rename USDA the United States Department of Apathy."

During the forum, economists selected by USDA agreed that increased bidding in livestock markets would increase competition, and that the major types of formula-based contracts where the base price is determined by markets in which the packers participate should be eliminated.

"Ranchers are becoming contract hired employees of the meat processors,"  David Carter, president of the Rocky Mountain  Farmers Union, told the USDA  panel.

Michael Dunn, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the  USDA, said he he did not know when Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman would  decide on the proposal, but said the meeting produced important information.  "I think it will help him a great deal to have had his top staff here," Dunn  said after the meeting, "and to be talking about this issue here --- it does  allow a perspective outside the beltway."

Ranchers said Glickman should not be taking four years to rule on their request while a few companies, namely ConAgra, Cargill and IBP, gain control of the market.

"It's kind of late to be gathering information," Chuck Hassebrook, program director at the Center for Rural Affairs in Nebraska, noting there were only  several months left in the current administration.

"This is not about saving a relic of the past. These small producers are efficient." Neil Harl, economics professor at Iowa State University, said it may be  too close to the election for Glickman to make a decision on such a controversial issue. "If this had happened two, three years ago I do think there would have been a great possibility of something happening," Harl said.

Ted Schroeder, a professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University said steady declines in agricultural prices over the years account for cattlemen’s smaller profits. "So please don't anybody in this room take that farmer's share and  misinterpret it again," he said.


Charging that the USDA’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is incapable of halting anti-competitive practices among huge agribusinesses, leaving independent cattle and hog producers financially vulnerable to unfair market prices, Congress’s General Accounting Office (GAO) has called for the USDA to “improve its capability to investigate allegations of anti-competitive practices by having integrated teams of attorneys and economists perform GIPSA's investigative work.”

GIPSA has been criticized repeatedly in recent years by family farm groups for failing to ensure that small farmers get fair prices for their cattle and hogs.  "GIPSA is better positioned for performing economic analyses than to prove that anti-competitive practices have occurred," the GAO report said.

For example, from October 1, 1997, through December 31, 1999, the grain                                    administration investigated a total of 74 allegations of anti-competitive activity involving cattle and hogs. The study said it identified only five alleged violations of antitrust laws.

The GAO blamed the USDA for not having its attorneys more involved in the investigative process, and leaving most of the work to its economists.

“This report is very strong in speaking about the great amount of power the USDA has," said Sen. Charles Grassley, Rep.-Iowa., who requested the report from the GAO, the investigatory arm of Congress. Grassley has introduced a bill that would require USDA to implement the study's recommendations within one year. However, the bill has virtually no chance of becoming law soon because less than two weeks remain in the current  congressional work session.

"While USDA has acknowledged the need to make changes in the past, the agency has never gotten the job done," adds Sen. Grassley, who last year requested that the study be conducted.

While the Packers & Stockyards Act gives the USDA authority to combat fraudulent, discriminatory and monopolistic practices, it is the Sherman Antitrust Act which gives similar general powers to the Justice Department and although the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have the primary authority to determine if mergers will damage competition, they depend on the USDA to develop the cases.

Earlier this year  lawmakers, led by Sen. Paul Wellstone (Dem-Minnesota) tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation that would expand USDA authority to take tougher action when anti-competitive practices in the agriculture industry are found.


In 1996 Greenpeace and fishing communities worked hard to get a  moratorium on the privatization and corporate take over scheme  known as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs/IFQs).  ITQs are bad  for the fish and the fishermen.  They will do to the fishing communities and the oceans what corporate agribusiness did for family  farms and the land.

This moratorium is about to expire on September 30.

Senator Olympia Snowe (Rep.-Maine) and Rep. Delahunt (Dem.-Massachusetts) are currently supporting  language that would extend the moratorium by at least one year or until some standards are established.  While Greenpeace indicates that it would rather not see ITQs at all, they are supporting Senator Snowe and Rep. Delahunt's efforts.

Opposition to the moratorium is coming from corporate America’s tireless friend Senator Slade Gorton (Rep.-Washington) and his pals. Thanks to the rhetoric of "ownership equals stewardship" other senators and representatives --- such as Senator John Kerry  (Dem.-Massachusetts) and Senator Ted Stevens (Rep.-Alaska) - are sitting on the fence  endangering the legislation.

Just as the fundamental nature of American agriculture has been changed by corporate agribusiness, factory-type farms, vertical integration, and forward contracting  so to has the world fishing industry been transformed by transnational corporate control, factory travelers, value-added commercialism, and Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs).

While corporate agribusiness has managed to successfully eliminate “excess human resources,” i.e., family farmers from agriculture through a series of policies and price manipulations so to are the large corporations that today dominate seafood production destroying this nation’s fishing industry through promoting the privatization of the marine commons through the use of ITQs.

Under such a system participants, usually large corporate interests and in many cases the very same corporations that dominate corporate agribusiness, are allocated and own quota shares in the total annual catch of a given fishery. Quota holders can also “transfer” --- buy, sell, lease --- shares on the open market, as with private property or futures contracts.

As Greenpeace, has noted companies such as American Seafoods, Tyson’s,  and ConAgra have transformed the fishing trade into a “global extraction industry dominated by multinational corporations and industrial economies of scale.” In June, 1999 in a major move that further increased the growing concentration in the fishing industry Seattle, Washington-based Trident Seafoods announced that it was purchasing Tyson Seafood Group and thus would become one of the largest seafood companies in North America.

It is these companies which have thus made  fishing “not about a way of life,” about feeding people and providing economic sustenance for local coastal fishing communities, but rather about “making a good rate of return on their global investment capital.”

It was in 1994 in Congressional testimony that Rolland Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, was asked the question “Do ITQs promote `big business’ as large companies have resources to buy or lease a significant amount of shares?” He replied:  “This could happen, as experienced with grocery stores, agriculture and other enterprises . . . To the extent that larger firms are relatively better capitalized, they may be able to obtain more shares relative to their needs for efficient operation than could smaller firms.”

Despite such public rationalization, the corporate seafood industry’s own spokespersons admit to the fact that the major problem facing an area such as the Alaskan groundfish fisheries is over capitalization, abetted by heavy bank financing from abroad, principally Norway, and also by subsidies from the U.S. government.

As Vince Curry, President of the Pacific Seafood Processors Association noted in 1994: “The problem with factory travelers is they’ve built twice as many boats as have been justified, and they’ve created a very severe problem for this industry. They’re driving ITQs because its was one way to take a public resource and use it to get them out of their bad investments.”

Indeed at the 21st Session of the Committee on Fisheries, Rome, in 1995 the United Nations’ Food Agricultural Organization (FAO) Ministerial Conference in adopting the Rome Consensus on World Fisheries noted that  the problem of overfishing in general, and over capacity of industrial fishing fleets in particular, threatened the sustainability of the world’s fisheries resources for present and future generations. They urged that governments and international organizations take prompt action to review the capacity of fishing fleets in relation to sustainable yields of fishery resources and where necessary reduce these fleets.

Support for the moratorium legislation can be registered with Senators and Representatives by asking them to sign on to the letters being circulated by Senator Snowe and Representative Delahunt.

For more information contact the Greenpeace website:
and to send letters of support to Senator  Snowe & Rep. Delahunt.


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  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 Democratic Party 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.

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,

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