|
|  |
How the Agribusiness industry shapes public policy
It is no accident that American domestic policy has facilitated the consolidation and concentration of the food industry over the past quarter of a century. Thanks to the United States' dominant role in multilateral bodies, international trade and investment agreements have also served to accelerate the trend toward oligopoly power. Agribusiness firms enjoy privileged access to decision-makers, and their vast financial and political resources ensure that the legal framework will continue to favor their interests over those of more dispersed interest groups. Food companies and industry associations employ several mechanisms to shape relevant policies: - Electoral Campaign Contributions: There has been much debate about the need to reform the influence of political contributions on the democratic process, and it must be noted that labor unions as well as industry associations have been the largest political donors over the past decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of the ten most generous campaign donors over that span, only one is a company -- Philip Morris, the food and tobacco giant. Reviewing contribution data for U.S. election cycles from1990-2002, the agribusiness industry as a whole gave a staggering $298 million, more than two thirds of which went to Republicans. Journalist Alan Guebert cites CRP data showing that "in the 2001-02 House election cycle, agribusiness showered the eight Republican and five Democratic members of the ag appropriations subcommittee with $1,072,242 in PAC contributions. Eighty-eight percent of the cash, or $840,211, went to the subcommittee's GOP members; 22%, or $232,031, went to Democratic members." That level of largesse certainly buys a lot of access to grateful candidates.
- Lobbying for Corporate Welfare: Like all other major industry groups, food companies and trade associations complement their campaign contributions with payments to skilled lobbyists who know how to influence policy makers, especially in advance of key votes on subsidies or regulatory issues. Again, the Center for Responsive Politics calculates that agribusiness firms spent nearly $78 million on lobbying in 2000, down from over $118 million in 1998. While over a quarter of that money came from tobacco groups, the balance still guarantees that industry voices will be heard at the appropriate time. For example, the libertarian Cato Institute has documented how Archer Daniels Midland enriches itself at the expense of taxpayers.
- The "Revolving Door:" Every new election cycle creates an exodus of government and regulatory officials who are offered high positions in the private sector, only to be replaced by new appointees fresh from their similarly attractive industry jobs. This pattern guarantees that companies seeking special influence on policy matters can be virtually assured of the friendly ear of a former employee now well-placed to protect their interests. As an illustration of this phenomenon, consider The Organic Consumers Association's efforts to document the movement of Monsanto employees in and out of key government posts under administrations of both parties.
- Advisory Committees: Major U.S. government institutions often constitute advisory committees of industry experts and leaders to help guide and shape policy. Some such bodies, like the Department of Agriculture's Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, actually include some balance in the representation of both industry and consumer interests. Others, like the U.S. Trade Representative's Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade, are the exclusive domain of leaders from the agribusiness industry. Until meaningful balance is achieved on all such "public" advisory groups, the privileged access of major food companies to the formulation of policy will continue.
Read more about how food companies shape key policies regarding international trade, domestic regulation and the application of anti-trust laws.
Related Articles & Books:
|
|
"With regard to food and agriculture, the multinational corporations’ strategy has been to establish the unchallengeable right to their control over the food system. They have done this through monopolization by strategic underpricing of smaller-scale competition and by developing a revolving door of corruption between corporate management and the very government agencies charged with enforcing regulations." Dave Henson, "The End of Agribusiness," in Fatal Harvest.
| |
