Bills necessary to hel)
SAM MCKEWON is a junior
news-editorial and political sci
ence major and the Daily
Nebraskan sports editor:
In looking at the four bills in front of the
Nebraska Legislature right now, one question
stands out among all else.
What are meat packers trying to hide?
The four bills, LB832,833,834 and 835,
are designed to curb the power of corporate
livestock producers, at least the power that
they have over the independent farmer who
has to fend for himself.
Not surprisingly, the producers are against
these bills. Why wouldn’t they be? It lessens
their amount of profit And it increases the
amount of responsibility toward the consumer.
Most Republicans, as they usually are, are
against any regulations that might hold back
big business. But in looking at the bills, there
isn’t much to support that these bills will
destroy the comfy market that corporate pro
ducers have set up.
Let’s go through it bill by bill.
LB832 forces packers to report all of its
selling practices to the Department of
Agriculture. This includes numbers, prices
paid and where the animals were sent They
must also have a specific date for delivery of
this livestock.
What s wrong with this? The Department
of Agriculture serves the role of watchdog; a
role that most big business proponents have
always hated. Don’t fight the market, they say.
Allow it to foster and grow. Leave business
alone; they say. Allow for the invisible hand of
competition.
If that practice continues here, corruption
may ensue. It usually does. Don’t hold packers
responsible for a specific date, delivery is
delayed. This is the consumer’s time. And our
time is money. To be sure, the cost gets trans
lated to the consumer in the end.
LB833 basically prevents packers from
owning livestock that they intend to slaughter.
It would disallow the packers from custom
feeding the livestock that they slaughter, which
in a sense, reduces cost for the producers.
Again, nothing wrong here. Packers sim
ply can’t feed their own livestock. They can
not own and control the entire means of pro
duction. If they did, the quality of the entire
product goes down, because and individual is
not held accountable.
It’s different with small-time producers and
farmers. They are held accountable because
they feel a financial and moral responsibility
to produce good meat. Which would you think
is more accountable, a corporate suit in a pack
ing plant or a farmer putting food on the table?
That’s what is so ironic to me — these
packers, and those who support them
(Republicans), preach responsibility when
they’re kicking the most responsible folks out
of die business. Some people equate wealth to
responsibility. 1 ve been taught otherwise.
LB834 requires labeling of imported meat
into the United States or produced from ani
mals shipped into the country.
Of course, this is a big hindrance to the big
business. It disallows than from buying cheap,
less worthy meat abroad and passing it off as
American meat here. That isn’t to say that
good meat isn’t produced abroad. It is, but the
opportunity to defraud the system still exists.
Finally, LB835 prohibits price discrimina
tion based on quantity. This is a big one.
Packers can’t simply flood the market with a
bunch of meat, good or bad, and have it get
sold because it’s cheaper at a higher quantity.
That’s not what the blessed market should be •
about.
It ought to be about giving the best quality
product for the lowest cost. Packers can’t pro
i independent farmers
vide that Small-time producers can. Why?
Because it’s their livelihood. And I’ll bet on
someone like that over the corporation every
time.
So what does the corporation have to hide?
In a word, money. Money’s the key here, the
driving force behind resistance to any bill that
levels the playing field. Sure, you’ll hear pro
ducers and packers bemoan their situation,
saying that they’re suffering through the hard
times of low prices, too. But then again, the
ability to survive those prices ought to be what
it all about, right? If the farmers can’t make it,
forget them.
Wrong. These farmers represent the con
science of Nebraska, the conscience of
America. They work every day,.for them
selves. They produce a good product. They’re
like most other Americans, trying to do their
job the best way they can because they have to.
And the market shouldn’t rid itself of these
people. We need independent competition.
Without it, one corporation would just buy
another until eventually, there was one live
stock producer. One. See that’s how
Shawn Drapal/DN
the market works if you don’t touch it Social
Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. But, in the
end, only corporations would be fit enough for
victory.
Our economy isn’t about that. Never has
been. We’ve never wanted to create a real
world “Metropolis,” where one man owned
everything. The producer situation is no differ
ent.
And don’t tell me we’re delaying the
inevitable with these bills. That, eventually,
farmers will vanish no matter what. That is a
fallacy, because there is no substitute the inde
pendent businessman or businesswoman. They
continue to be the lifeblood of our economy;
without them we’d have no corporations to
speak of.
These bills represent a step in the right
direction for Nebraska. A smart step. The kind
of step that understands that by allowing the
packers to take over means a devalued product.
A step that understands that turning our back
on those who made this state what it is would
be wrong.
A step that redeems our spirit of agricul
ture as opposed to corporate greed.
Maybe, best of all, die bills might force big
corporations to develop a conscience of their
own. It reiterates that the bottom line isn’t the
only line. It reaffirms that, in the end, we are
the market, not some name with liquid assets.
Not only should we fight it, but realize that we.
have the power to do so. LB 832-835 gives us
that power.
Farmers fighting los
J.J. HARDER u a senior political
science and broadcasting major
and a Daily Nebraskan colum
nist
I’d like you to meet Daryl Mitchell.
He’s been raising hogs near Hickman for
more than 30 years. Every day he puts on his
worn denim jeans and old jacket to feed his
pigs and do his chores. His soft voice and hum
ble attitude contrast his tall frame and rugged
demeanor. He’s a farmer through and through -
a family fanner.
He and other hometown farmers from
across the state recently traveled to Lincoln to
.V >: >:«V .
attend the Legislature’s
Agricultural Committee meeting. They came to
talk about the plight of the family farm, due to
the increase in corporate, factory farms.
“People don’t want to go broke and the
family farm is in jeopardy,” Mitchell said.
So he and other farm activists packed into a
crowded hearing room at the capital to talk
about ways to save the good ol’ Nebraska fami
ly farm. They wanted to figure out how to bring
down the large farms. In other words, they
want government to step in and save a type of
farm that is much less efficient than another.
Large and in charge
The fact is, large operations can produce
quality hogs cheaper and more efficiently than
most family farm operations.
Of course, small farm activists groups like
the Center For Rural Affairs disputed findings
in support of that statement and mounted an
opposition saying, “We see too many govern
ment officials and too many farm organizations
blindly putting too much faith into scientific
research that deserves more critical analysis.”
So the numbers need more crunching in
order to abolish the family farms. But even
without specific findings from analysis of
swine confinement, does it really take a genius
to see that large operations can do it better?
If the small farms were so much more effi
cient and beneficial to die economy, would
they be fighting so hard to stay alive? I don’t
think so. Any intelligent human being can easi
ly observe the prowess of the factory farms.
ing inevitable battle
Don’t fight the market
Bottom line, the farmers know that the cor
porations are punishing them in the market
place. Most wouldn’t even argue that the small
operations can produce more hogs. But they
will say that factory farms are winning in the
market is because of unfair advantages.
“A Time To Act,” a USDA report card on
the status of small farms admits that “the farm
share of the retail price for pork declined from
30 percent in November 1997 tq 12 percent in
November 1998,” while the retailers make
huge profits, because “packers offered sweet
heart contracts to mega-producers,” and
“smaller producers were left to perish in cash
markets.” It also claims the government isn’t
enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act,
which set out to curb unfair marketing prac
tices.
But are these even unfair? When it comes
down to it, the mega-producers get better deals
because they can produce more quantity for the
packers than the small-time farmers can.
Trying to stop the corporations because they
can produce more is just like trying to stop
Wal-Mart from coming into a small town.
If someone can produce a product with
equal quality at a cheaper price, then let them.
We cannot fight the market. Every time we try
to get involved with it, we screw it up.
Minimum wage, price controls, trade
restrictions and competition regulations all do
the same thing - inhibit the market from work
ing its magic. We may not be able to fully
understand the market, but we know enough
that it’s going to do what it wants in the end, no
matter what we do.
So this trip to the capital is just the latest
scheme by the small farmers to bolster then
own financial situations and try to fight the
market. One bill would require country-of-ori
gin labeling for meat (inhibiting world trade
and comparative advantage), another would
prevent packers from custom feeding livestock
(trying to stop them from growing their own),
and then another would stop packers from
offering better prices for quantity (fundamen
tally contradicting capitalism).
You can’t blame the farmers from trying to
save their jobs and their way of life, but in the
end, all of the government regulation is going
to catch up with them.
Take this job and...
Now this is the part that is really going to
hurt a lot of farmers: If you can’t make money
at what you’re doing, then get a new job. I real
ize it sounds a lot easier on paper, and that
some of these farms have been in the family for
hundreds of years, but you can’t keep asking
government to bail you out when you lose
money to the big farms.
Just look at the farm subsidy payments
from the feds. Each year, Daddy Government
gives farmers two checks, one in the winter,
and an equal payment in September. But 69.3
percent of the federal subsidy money has
already been cashed by Nebraska farmers.
They’re hoping to take next season’s funds to
try to save this year’s horrible farm year. The
fanners can’t get by on their own and they need
help. But instead of running for federal assis
tance, the market may need some thinning.
Daryl Mitchell said it himself: “We have
too much supply, maybe not enough demand.”
And if the average family fanner can admit
to an oversupply, then the average family
farmer should understand a new field of
employment may need to be on the horizon..
The family farm has given Americaintegri
ty, strength, hard work and stability. But today
the family farm is on its way out, and if corpo
rate farms are destined to take over, they will,
one way or the other.
I’m sure a lot of you probably come from
farm families or know people who live on the
farm, and you’re frustrated with the decline of
the entire institution. But if you really want to
save the family farm, then save them one by
one, privately, with the help of the market.
And Daryl Mitchell puts the future in per
fect perspective: “I don’t know if the govern
ment can help us - it’s all up to the farmer him
self.”