EXAMINER                                                 Issue # 91  October 19, 2000

Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

A.V. Krebs


While THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER is a subscription free e-mail newsletter it still welcomes contributions. However, such contributions in recent months have been few and far between. Thus, plans to purchase new computer equipment in an effort to improve  the production and distribution of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER  have been unfortunately postponed due to said lack of such  contributions. Nevertheless, it is hoped that readers still value THE
AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER to such an extent that they will willingly  and generously financially support its continued circulation as it enters its third year. Checks should be made out to A.V. Krebs and  sent to P.O. Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201


An article appearing on October 14 in the New York Times --- “New Concerns Rise on Keeping Track of Modified Corn” ---  by Kurt Eichenwald raises new questions not only about Eichenwald’s association with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), but also the possibility of a new chapter in that company’s continuing model of a corporate culture of corruption and manipulation, a story which James B. Lieber, has described so vividly in his authoritative book “Rats in the Grain.”

Kurt Eichenwald has written a number of stories in recent years in The Times concerning the scandal at ADM where the “Supermarkup to the World” pled guilty to price fixing in the world lysine feed additive market and paid $100 million fine and had three of its executives convicted of price fixing, fined and sent to jail.

Eichenwald critics point out that they believe he wrote stories on the ADM scandal for the Times rather than reported on the scandal because as his latest book, “The Informant,” published by Doubleday, illustrates his role as a reporter for the “paper of record” leaves a lot to be desired.

Those who have closely covered the ADM scandal over recent years have been voicing serious questions about Eichenwald’s reporting skills as opposed to his story telling. The fact that many details in his book are erroneous, that he makes no mention, either in his Times stories or the  book, of many aspects of the coverup of the scandal by the Department of Justice. Nor does he discuss the influence peddling role of Williams & Connelly, the high-powered law firm in Washington which not only represented ADM in the price fixing scandal and argued Bill Clinton’s defense against impeachment on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but also is now representing FOX television in its legal battle with Florida reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson after they were fired for refusing to lie, distort and slant an on-the-air report on the use and dangers of rBGH. (see below)

Eichenwald’s continued coziness with the Department of Justice and Williams & Connelly is troubling  to critics when one considers the fact that while he was writing about the ADM scandal he reportedly told David Hoech of the ADM Stockholders Watch Committee that he controlled what was printed in the Times concerning Archer Daniels Midland.

Now comes his latest article in the Times on genetically engineered corn.

ADM is currently the nation’s leading corn processor with elevators scattered all over the nation and the world. It boasts of numerous food products which we buy every day which contain its ingredients.

Eichenwald in his story relates certain details concerning the growing scandal of the genetically engineered corn seed StarLink, which is not fit for nor has it been approved for human consumption.  He writes: “Millions of bushels of the unapproved corn, known as StarLink, have been found in flour delivered to more than 350 grain elevators around the country.”

He goes on to tell that “StarLink corn was first found last month in store-bought taco shells distributed under the Taco Bell brand by Kraft Foods, which issued a nationwide recall. On Wednesday, a similar finding was made in house-brand taco shells sold by the Safeway supermarket chain. The two products were made of yellow corn from the same mill, run by Azteca Milling in Plainview, Tex.

“Yesterday, Mission Foods, which produced the Safeway shells, announced a recall of all its tortilla products made with yellow corn on the  chance that some might contain StarLink corn. The company, a subsidiary of the Gruma Group of Mexico, which is based in Irving, Tex., sells products under the Mission name as well as numerous private-label brands. . . . . . .

“Azteca Milling, also a Gruma subsidiary based in Irving, announced its own voluntary recall of all yellow corn flour yesterday. Dan Lynn, the company's president, said it would mill only white corn because that was the "surest way to bolster confidence" that no corn unapproved for human consumption had entered the food chain.”

What Eichenwald does NOT report in his story is that the company Gruma Group of Mexico is a joint venture with Archer Daniels Midland whose mills located in Texas ground the corn used to produce the taco shells.

Curiously, Eichenwald also infers in his story that it is the responsibility of the farmer and Adventis, the seed’s manufacturer, to guarantee the quality and safety of foods ingredients rather than the responsibility of the food processor to test all ingredients used in preparation of its product to insure its quality and insure food security. 

The fact that suddenly a story on serious questions surrounding the contamination of genetically engineered corn products appears in the New York Times (“All the news that’s fit to print.”) under Eichenwald’s byline raises some troubling questions. Troubling because Eichenwald has claimed that he controls  what is printed in the Times concerning ADM, the nation’s number one corn processor and a party to a joint venture where such contaminated corn has already been found, and yet no mention of ADM is made in his story.

But the StarLink contamination has also raised other questions relative to ADM’s role in this latest scandal. One long-time ADM critic Nick Hollis of the Agribusiness Council poses a rather thoughtful question in that regard.

Could ADM, as the nation’s largest corn processor, Hollis asks, “be using its `inside info’ on which food processors are receiving the tainted flour (from their milling operations) to `plant problems’ and sabotage the food from certain companies which had stood up to them several years ago during the civil phase of the pricefixing case on lysine?”

Hollis notes that Kraft Foods was one of the biggest "holdouts" in the civil case, requesting more damages from ADM as a result of pricefixing. Kraft had led a group of dissenting companies, including Hudson Foods and others in the "holdouts" column and, as a result, they did receive more settlement money.

“While this was underway,” he adds, “a story broke in November 1997 in the Chicago Tribune, by Nancy Milman which pointed out Kraft's efforts to get the U.S. Department of Justice action surrounding allegations that Dwayne Andreas himself had used coercion and bribes to derail a cooperative from building a high fructose corn syrup facility in North Dakota (which would have supplied Kraft).

“This story dried up as key witnesses suddenly refused to talk about their meeting with Dwayne. If you look carefully at Aventis, a key focus of the corn shell recall, you may find a similar disturbing pattern since just a few days ago, this company was mentioned within a larger group of firms settling a civil suit on pricefixing of vitamins.

“Many observers believe that ADM and its partner Rhone Poulenc were provided a "pass" from prosecution in the vitamin price-fixing scandal which rocked European firms, because the Decatur-based firm had been caught on tape and agreed to cooperate with the DOJ --- the same tapes which incriminated them on lysine may also have yielded additional information on other criminal cartels they were involved in,” Hollis speculates.

For additional details on the Agribusiness Council, its activities and commentary on the ADM scandal see


"Minority shareholders are coming to the conclusion that this is a rip-off," Paul Korngiebel, a  Brandes Investment Partners L.P. of San Diego portfolio manager declared last week. Noting that Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) will be able to sell some of its shares back to IBP and at the same time increase its stake in the company if it goes private, Korngiebel said such "special treatment lends a pungent odor to the transaction."

Brandes Investment Partners with 9% of IBP stock, is its second-largest holder after ADM which is part of a buyout group headed by Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. (DLJ) merchant-banking fund that recently announced it has offered  a bid of $22.25 a share, or $3.8 billion including $1.4 billion of debt to buy the nation’s largest meat packing company.

"I haven't found anyone who likes this price from a shareholder point of view," Tim Drake, an analyst for Banc One Investment Management, which holds about 1.4 million IBP shares, told Dow Jones Newswires’ Richard Gibson. "At a minimum the mid-20s is what we'd be looking for," he said.

"I've spoken on an individual basis to 35%-plus of the equity, excluding ADM, and there seems to be not just faint grumblings of disapproval but some pretty strong statements that $22 is not just light, but that the process at which it was arrived at is patently unfair," added Korngiebel.

Given the apparent breadth of shareholder unhappiness, Korngiebel said, "It's far from a slam-dunk that they can get the deal done at $22.25," promising that "we at Brandes will certainly vote 'No'."

Concern by employees with IBP has also been apparent to such a degree that they may join institutional investors in rejecting the buyup plan."There are a lot of guys who have been there for a long time, saved the stock, and will get hit very hard," one Sioux City stockbroker said. A number acquired options priced above $22.25, so would be "out of the money" and the options worthless, he said.

Acknowledging those concerns, IBP recently issued employees a special
edition of its in-house newspaper, Communicator, a copy of which was
obtained by Dow Jones. The publication offers "responses to some of the many questions employees have been asking" about the pending acquisition, including those about stock options.

"Unfortunately, there will be no equity or value in options with a grant price higher than the $22.25 acquisition price. They will be canceled as of the effective date of the merger," which it says is likely to be sometime next January.

"You will not be able to carry your options over into the new company," the
publication advised its readers, promising that after the merger there will be a compensation plan to replace the stock option plan, but added, "the details have not yet been defined."
Numerous employees at IBP, including those at the foreman level, are eligible for stock options, according to people familiar with the company's
compensation structure.

The newsletter also states part of management's reasoning behind accepting the DLJ-led bid. "Our company is changing. We are becoming a much more diversified company and we believe the transition from meatpacker to food company can be accomplished more easily as a privately held operation," it  says..

"Private companies do not have to deal with the pressure of making business decisions based upon Wall Street analysts expectations. Instead, they can focus more intently on working for the long-term growth of the company," the publication continued.

In recent months, IBP which has been branded the “nation’s number one corporate outlaw,” has been investing heavily in the ability to produce what
are known as case-ready meats under its new label Thomas E. Wilson meats, cuts which go directly from packing house to meat counter and don't require a supermarket butcher to modify and wrap.

IBP has said shareholders will be asked to vote on the DLJ offer sometime in the next 60-90 days, however, some analysts speculate that the deal has a 50-50 chance of being rejected, if DLJ does not raise the bid.

Meanwhile , even though IBP Inc. was reporting  record export sales had helped third-quarter earnings easily beat expectations the company disappointed some on Wall Street by refusing to comment on its controversial pending buyout.  In a post-earnings conference call, IBP Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Peterson said, "We would like very much to discuss the sale of IBP but have been advised we should not do it due to legal reasons."


Florida state court judge Ralph Steinberg, who presided over the five-week-long Jane Akre-Steve Wilson and FOX/BGH trial, has refused again to grant FOX Television's motion to direct a verdict in favor of FOX despite the jury's verdict against the broadcaster last August.

Judge Steinberg, however, did agree to read still additional briefs defense lawyers said they will submit in the next couple of weeks.

In a October 12 hearing that lasted more than an hour, Steinberg listened patiently as FOX attorney William McDaniels of the Washington, D.C.-based Williams and Connelly law firm repeated many of the same arguments he has made both before and during the trial and Akre's lawyer John Chamblee rebutted each claim and argued they have all been heard --- and denied --- before.

While remarking at one point that FOX lawyers may have some persuasive arguments, Judge Steinberg said that based on the case law provided by the plaintiffs as well as by the judge's own clerk who also did considerable research on the issues, he decided to let the jury decide since both sides agreed no new evidence or case law had surfaced since the August 18 decision.

Co-Plaintiff Steve Wilson has adamantly opposed the further delay, telling the judge, "Your Honor, I would like to remind you again that the Plaintiffs in this case are not a big corporation with bottomless pockets.  We are a family," he pleaded, "and we have exhausted much of our personal resources over the last three years just to get to trial so that a jury could make a decision in this case.  Further delay only increases the chances that soon we will not have the resources to continue and no matter what the jury found, we will end up losing by default."

Akre attorney Thomas Johnson informed the judge that his partner John Chamblee moved to Texas following the verdict and more hearings on the same issues poses a hardship for the firm, as well.

 "I spent my summer on this case, Your Honor," Johnson said.  He told the judge he and his family sacrificed their summer vacation for this case and as it drags on with more hearings on issues which have already been raised and decided, he is concerned about being able to meet the firm's payroll.

Judge Steinberg said another hearing would be necessary in any event to take up co-Plaintiff Wilson's motion for a new trial (on his case alone) due to what he claims is an erroneous jury instruction.  The court, however, ran out of time before that issue could be addressed. FOX also is now claiming that Wilson’s motion must be dismissed because it was not properly filed in a timely manner.

Wilson's motion says the jury was not able to find in his favor because they were wrongly instructed that in order to do so they must find the sole reason for his termination was his protected whistleblower activity.  According to recent case law, Wilson argues that FOX's retaliation for his standing up for the BGH story need only be a "prevailing" or "substantive" reason for his dismissal, not the sole reason.

Wilson reports that “lacking the animated passion and spirit that has marked some of previous appeals to the court, McDaniels calmly and quietly reviewed what he claimed were three basic reasons the judge should set aside the jury's unanimous verdict and the $425,000 awarded to whistleblower journalist Jane Akre.”

First, he claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that FOX acted deliberately to slant and distort news reports about Monsanto's artificial Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

Second, the defense lawyer argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the damage award.  He claimed the only adverse personnel action which occurred after the journalists written complaint to FOX officials was a suspension period for which the reporters were ultimately paid.

And, finally, McDaniels argued yet again that the Plaintiffs should never have been able to prevail in any event because technically there is no law, rule, or regulation against deliberate news distortion by a television station licensed to use the public airwaves.

Acknowledging for the first time that the "no-law-against-lying" argument poses a public relations nightmare for a news organization, McDaniels said, "WTVT is not saying a licensee is free to falsify the news.  That's not the issue," he claimed.  He said no FOX station would ever do such a thing.

Plaintiff attorney Chamblee reviewed the litany of previous arguments and motions for dismissal, summary judgments and directed verdicts in the case --- none of which were granted by any of the three judges that have heard the arguments --- and pleaded that "enough is enough," repeatedly encouraging the judge to affirm the decision of the three-man, three-woman jury.

No new date was set for the hearing pending the filing of yet an additional brief  by the defense lawyers which the judge limited to 15 pages this time at the request of Akre attorney Johnson.


Novartis, the Swiss agribusiness giant, has revealed that it has developed and patented a method for 'switching off' the immune systems of plants and  its scientists expect to be able to use the radical biotechnology for almost every crop on Earth.

As reported by the London Observer’s Public Affairs editor Antony Barnett “Novartis claims that the new use of genetic modification will give farmers greater control over disease and boost production." A spokeswoman for Novartis said: 'We are trying to help farmers, not hinder them. We are looking at ways to improve the way plants fight disease.'

While she agreed that the company had discovered a way of genetically
modifying crops so that their immune systems were disabled, she also
stressed that this was for “research purposes” only.

The process, Barnett explains, involves transferring a single DNA molecule, described by the firm as the “NIM gene,” to the plant. This gene then reacts
with the plant's immune system, allowing it to be switched on selectively by the use of chemicals when disease threatens. In patents filed by Novartis it describes plants where the entire immune system has been switched off, making them highly prone to disease.

Environmentalists immediately expressed alarm over this new use of genetic engineering pointing out that the new technology could have a disastrous ecological impact if crops with their immune systems suppressed are allowed to cross-pollinate with surrounding plant life.

The use of genetic engineered technology, which uses chemicals to activate genetic traits, was specifically condemned by the United Nations earlier this year. It recommended that the technology should not be field-tested and called for a moratorium on its development until the impact had been fully assessed.

The patent documents seen by The Observer suggest that Novartis intends to use the new GE technology on “barley, cucumber, tobacco, rice, chili, wheat, banana and tomato.”The company also cites an extensive list of more than 80 crops, including several cereals, dozens of fruit such as apples, pears and strawberries, vegetables like beans and lentils, and cash crops like cotton and tea.

“We find it extremely frightening that such a powerful multinational is working on this type of technology, which seems aimed at protecting their profits by threatening the rights of poor farmers,” Alex Wijeratna of Action Aid, a development charity that works with farmers in developing countries, exclaimed, while Dr. Sue Mayer, director of Gene Watch, told Barnett: “These companies should halt development of these potentially dangerous products until there has been a proper assessment of whether they are good for agriculture.”


Despite a Harris polling showing 79% public opposition from the U.S. public to granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China corporate interests spent more than $113 million in an unprecedented campaign to persuade Congress to vote against the public’s will, according to a study released recently by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.

The study, "Purchasing Power: the Corporate-White House Alliance to Pass the China Trade Bill Over the Will of the American People," documents how key business players in the China PNTR effort spent $113.1 million on lobbying, political donations and advertising.

Past corporate cash-fueled lobbying crusades dim in comparison. For example, proponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) spent $22.8 million on campaign contributions and $8 million on advertising.

"Globalization and U.S.-China relations are both incredibly important issues, yet instead of a policy debate, many in Congress tuned out and cashed in," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "Congress was marinated in corporate cash, swarmed by corporate lobbyists, stupefied by endless paid PR and advertising repeating the PNTR Big Lie message, and seduced by 'astro-turf' fake grassroots campaigns."

The study examined records of expenditures made public recently in lobbying disclosure forms and Federal Election Commission (FEC) data. It found that corporations spent many multiples fighting for PNTR than for NAFTA or
against the president's health care plan --- two of the decade's largest corporate priorities.

"The corrosive impact this torrent of money has on the democratic process warps policy debates on the merits into deals by the dollar," Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said. "This is a case study for the desperate need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. Corporate cash just purchased a bad policy that will hurt us all."

As opponents of PNTR had warned, Congress' headlong rush into PNTR has eliminated U.S. policy leverage with the Chinese government. Indeed, the planned PNTR bill signing was delayed to avoid embarrassing press inquiries about recent difficulties during China's WTO accession talks in Geneva.

Among the issues drowned out by the corporate cash deluge was the fact that many details of China WTO's accession issues were never agreed upon. The study's findings include:

A dozen pro-PNTR corporate interests spent $31.2 million lobbying Congress during the first half of 2000.

For example, more than half of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 45 registered lobbyists worked on PNTR in the first half of 2000. In addition, nearly every significant Washington D.C. K Street lobbying shop was hired by the corporations and trade associations aiming their sizable in-house capacity on PNTR. At least $13.75 million was spent on pro-PNTR advertising.

The Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent at
least $12 million on television, radio and print ads. Motorola alone spent $1 million on advertising. Companies and trade associations such as Boeing,
Exxon\Mobil, Microsoft, the Agriculture Trade Coalition and Lucent spent at least another $750,000 on print and radio ads.

The China business lobby  made $68.2 million in PAC, individual and soft money contributions to members of Congress and the political parties between January 1999 and June 2000. Corporations in the pro-PNTR Business Roundtable donated heavily during the current election cycle to candidates, party PACs and even the party conventions, outspending labor unions by two to one, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The volume of cash rose as the vote neared. In May, members of the Business Roundtable outspent labor 11 to one, giving $805,000 in soft money to the major parties.

Corporate interests also joined the White House in engaging in highly questionable tactics. According to news reports, corporate lobbyists and CEOs threatened to cut off campaign cash to lawmakers who opposed PNTR and lavished soft money on the two main parties (and millions on their conventions) to fuel active pro-PNTR leadership.

Rep. Merrill Cook (Rep.-Utah) reported being offered $200,000 to change his "no" PNTR vote to "yes." Corporations created fronts to funnel more cash to
Congress. For instance, a corporate-funded PAC called the New Democratic Network handed out $250,000 to Democrats supporting the pro-corporate managed trade agenda. Companies such as Motorola, Boeing, AOL and Citigroup actively plied undecided or wavering members by organizing or promising special PNTR fund-raisers for pro-PNTR voters. Even the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that the White House's coordination with corporate interests violated federal law forbidding the use of tax dollars for certain lobbying activities.

"While corporate money can purchase power over the short term, in the longer term the actual outcomes of these bad trade policies, person-to-person education about the results and local political accountability cannot be overcome," said Wallach. "As with the fallout after NAFTA, following PNTR, a new set of Representatives will learn about the perils of pursuing corporate managed trade policy the hard way."


Ralph Nader has again been denied entry into a site hosting a Campaign 2000 presidential debate.

The latest denied entry came on the campus of Washington University by the Commission on Presidential  Debates (CPD), despite the fact that Nader had a valid pass and was scheduled be interviewed by WUTV, the campus television station.  This marks the second time in two weeks that the CPD, in association with local law enforcement, has unlawfully denied Nader access to a university campus hosting a presidential debate.

“Once again the crooked debate commission run by Al Gore and George W.
Bush violated my civil rights and the rights of the student television station by politically excluding me from entering the campus of Washington University in order to give WUTV an interview, which had been previously scheduled,” Nader said.

“I had the necessary perimeter pass to enter the campus, which I showed
to the police, and I was excluded even though others in my group with the exact same badges were allowed at the same time into the campus by the same police.  Once again the CPD has sowed the seeds of its own future political destruction.”

One veteran journalist remarked of the Nader exclusion: “It is an old fascist tactic. While the political leaders glorify the just rights of the people inside a protected public arena their storm troopers are forcibly, often violently, out in the streets depriving the citizens of those very same rights.”

On October 17 Nader filed suit against the CPD in United States District Court in Massachusetts for unlawfully preventing him from entering a viewing room and conducting an invited television interview by FOX News on the premises of University of Massachusetts Boston during the first presidential debate on October 3.

“I urge an apology from Gore and Bush for the violation of my civil rights by commissioners who are under their influence and direction,” Nader stated tonight. “In addition to being excluded from an interview with the campus television station under the direction of Gabriel Roth, I was deprived of the opportunity to be interviewed on the premises of Washington University by other members of the media.”

Nader was denied entrance to the Washington University campus at the
intersection of Skinker and Forsyth at approximately 6:45 PM by a CPD official who would not identify himself.

“The entire sordid episode, which adds an even greater stigma to the arrogance of power displayed by the Republican and Democratic parties, was recorded by two dozen radio, TV and print reporters who observed the entire interaction with the police, the campus police director, and the cowardly representative of the debate commission who refused to identify himself as he slithered through the crowd to tell me that I had been excluded and quickly slithered back into his lair without having identified himself,” Nader said.

Gabriel Roth, a cameraman with WUTV, who was to conduct the interview with Nader, confirmed the unique treatment given to Nader by the CPD and law enforcement.  “Throughout the day, people with the green host pass (that Mr. Nader had) were able to get into the perimeter area in which the interview was to be conducted.  Two of Mr. Nader’s staff had the same green host pass and they walked right past the security checkpoint.”

“What was even more stupid,” Nader stated, “is that the CPD instructed the law enforcement officers to give no reason for my exclusion, no legal grounds for my exclusion --- a clear demonstration of arbitrary and unlawful authority.  I informed the police that they were being given an unlawful political order by the debate commission and that they would likely find themselves in court along with CPD officials.  The head of Washington University security did not seem comfortable fulfilling the unlawful task that he was given, or the manner in which he was politically manipulated for partisan reasons by the Gore/Bush commission.

“After the election we will help establish a people’s debate commission which will destroy the monopoly of access to tens of millions of American voters that is now held by this corrupt, corporate-funded private company, the Commission on Presidential Debates.”


"I said earlier that one aspect of the Protestant ethic . . . is a belief that each individual's value is established by his accomplishment, and that for that reason each person should be allowed to grow as wealthy and powerful as he can. But this unfettered growth of wealth and power threatens the very social framework out of which it has emerged. It is not an easy dilemma to solve, for it confronts freedom with equality --- an age-old issue . . .

"How much freedom? How much equality? Very much is at stake, not only for the farm communities, but for the whole of the American polity. If, as I have suggested, the growth of corporate control of agriculture is not a product of efficiency, intelligence and hard work --- of virtue according to the Protestant Ethic --- but a consequence of policies and manipulations, the matter takes on a different character. The task, is to reformulate policies respecting agriculture so that the competitive advantage of  large scale operations are removed, so that the ordinary working farmer has an equal chance. If this is done, it may not be necessary to resolve the dilemma between freedom and equality."

--- Dr. Walter Goldschmidt, "The Rural Foundation of American Culture," Gregory Foundation Memorial Lecture, University of Missouri on January 26, 1976.


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 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.

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 designed 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.