GENET archive


6-Regulation: USDA regulatory policy has been 'hijacked' byagribusiness industry

-------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------

TITLE:  USDA Regulatory Policy Has Been 'Hijacked' by Agribusiness Industry
SOURCE: US Newswire /, both USA
DATE:   23 Jul 2004

------------------- archive: -------------------

USDA Regulatory Policy Has Been 'Hijacked' by Agribusiness Industry

OMAHA, Neb July 23, 2004 (U.S. Newswire via COMTEX) -- A new report
released today finds that regulatory policy at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has been "hijacked" by the agribusiness industry,
which has seen to it that many key policymaking positions at the agency
are now held by individuals who previously worked for the industry.

The report, titled USDA INC., was commissioned by the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative (AAI), a network of family-farm and public-
interest groups concerned about the growing power of the big agri-food
corporations. It is being released today at a conference in Omaha
sponsored by the Organization for Competitive Markets. The report can be
found online after 9 a.m. Eastern Time at

"In its early days, USDA was known as the People's Department," said Fred
Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets, which first proposed
the paper. "Today, it is, in effect, the Agribusiness Industry's
Department, since its policies on issues such as food safety and fair
market competition have been shaped to serve the interests of the giant
corporations that now dominate food production and distribution."

"It is not surprising that USDA is slavishly following the agenda of
agribusiness when you consider who holds many of the top jobs at the
Department," said Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research
Project of Good Jobs First and author of the report. "The upper ranks of
USDA are filled with industry veterans, while people formerly associated
with family-farm, consumer or public-interest groups are just about
nowhere to be found."

In addition to working directly for agribusiness companies such as
ConAgra and Campbell Soup, top USDA officials came to the Department from
industry trade associations (such as the Food Marketing Institute) and
producer groups (such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and
the National Pork Producers Council), which are closely aligned with big
processing companies and are partially funded by them. Even Secretary Ann
Veneman, who has spent most of her career as a public official, has a
past industry connection: she served on the board of directors of Calgene
Inc., a biotechnology company that was later taken over by Monsanto.

"It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that agribusiness has packed USDA
with its people," said Peter O'DriscollLarry Mitchell of the Center of
Concern, coordinator and co-sponsor ofAmerican Corn Growers Association,
another participant in AAI.

The report illustrates the hijacking of USDA policymaking through five
case studies:

-- USDA's refusal to adopt strict safety and testing measures for bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), despite the appearance of a case in
Washington State last year.

-- USDA's refusal to vigorously enforce rules against anti- competitive
practices in the cattle industry, despite the growing tendency of the big
meatpacking companies to force independent ranchers into so-called
captive supply arrangements.

-- USDA's promotion of weakened slaughterhouse inspection practices in
the face of a resurgence of health hazards such as E.coli bacteria and
listeria. The Department also continues to promote dubious "solutions"
such as irradiation.

-- USDA's continuing boosterism for agricultural biotechnology, despite a
lack of consumer acceptance and the plunge in exports due to
international resistance to genetically modified crops.

-- USDA's support for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
despite the growing evidence of serious public health effects of these
factory farms. The Department has also supported the misguided policy of
using conservation dollars to subsidize the futile attempts of CAFOs
solve their manure problems.

In each of these cases, the report notes the presence of industry
veterans among the chief officials responsible for adopting or
maintaining these questionable policies.

The report concludes with a set of recommendations on how to begin
loosening the grip of agribusiness on USDA's policies. These include:

-- Reappraisal of ethics rules to prevent government officials from
overseeing policies that directly affect the interest of their former

-- Enhancement of Congressional oversight over regulatory appointees;

-- Evaluation of whether USDA can continue to serve both as a promoter of
U.S. agricultural products and a regulator of food safety; and

-- Further research on revolving-door conflicts of interest at USDA.

Progress on these measures, the report argues, will begin to turn USDA
Inc. back into an arm of government that represents the public interest.

The report was commissioned by a working group of the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative. The following working group members helped
research and edit the paper:

Scotty Johnson, Defenders of Wildlife -

Ben Lilliston, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - http://

Patty Lovera, Public Citizen -

Larry Mitchell, American Corn Growers Association -

Peter O'Driscoll, Center of Concern -

Mark Smith, Farm Aid -

Fred Stokes, Organization for Competitive Markets - http://

CONTACT: Ben Lilliston, 202-223-3740; Mark Smith, 617-354-2922;
Philip Mattera, 202-626-3780 ext. 32;
or John Lockie, 406-698-3043 (in Omaha


European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering

Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
Kleine Wiese 6
D - 38116 Braunschweig

P: +49-531-5168746
F: +49-531-5168747
M: +49-162-1054755
E: coordination(*)
W: <>

   GENET-news mailing list