CISSNA PARK, Ill. – According to Ed Dubrick, a specialty farmer and policy organizer for the Illinois Stewardship Alliance, there are several key factors contributing to the economic crisis facing agricultural producers. One of them is market consolidation. Four companies – Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS and National Beef – own 85 percent of the U.S. beef market share, according to the USDA. In addition, the three largest meatpacking firms control 63 percent of pork packing, 46 percent of beef packing and 38 percent of poultry, PoliticalReview.org revealed.

The USDA also notes that three seed companies – Bayer, Corteva Agriscience and Syngenta – control 80 percent of the genetics market. In addition, four food companies – Walmart, Kroger, Costco and Albertsons – own one-third of all U.S. grocery stores, while Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever and Mars dominate global food and beverage production.

“All of these factors are in play while we have failed to meaningfully enforce anti-trust laws for a long time. This (non-enforcement) has allowed consolidation to occur and create unfair marketplaces for both farmers and consumers, with people struggling all across our food and farm system,” according to Dubrick, a north-central Illinois producer of chickens, turkeys, laying hens, sheep and fresh produce. Dubrick is concerned that when you factor lower international demand for many farm commodities into the mix, non-compliance with federal antitrust laws exhibited by major food companies adds to the already-stacked deck producers face when trying to turn an economic profit.

“We need meaningful enforcement; whether it’s the Sherman Act that dates back to 1890, or the Packers and Stockyards Act, which dates to 1921, we have the laws on the books but we’ve neglected to enforce or uphold them,” he said. “When Standard Oil was broken up, their market share wasn’t as large as some of these companies we are talking about today. We’ve allowed this to perpetuate, and we need anti-monopoly busting to restore fair marketplaces and break up both price-fixing and price-gouging.”

Opinions vary as to why the U.S. has eschewed enforcement of the violation of anti-trust laws in recent years, with one school of thought assigning a shift in legal and economic philosophy toward an approach that recognizes economic efficiency over fairness as a cause. Lobbying by large food companies, limited resources of regulatory and enforcement agencies and the difficulty in proving harm to the consumer are also all cited as contributing to the shift in anti-trust law thinking. In addition, weakening of laws such as the Robinson-Pittman Act, which prohibits price discrimination, due to court actions could also be a factor, according to the National Grocers Association.

While he and his colleagues with the Alliance are fighting against powerful monopolies controlling the food system, Dubrick is also concerned about President Donald Trump’s suggestion the U.S. purchase Argentinian beef to manipulate the value of the U.S. beef market in favor of the consumer. He also believes that any beef product imported into the U.S. should carry a country of origin label (COOL).

“When the consumer doesn’t even know what they are buying, it removes their option to say, ‘I want to support the American farmer, I want to support my neighbor,’” said Dubrick, whose Iroquois County farm is around 50 minutes northeast of Champaign-Urbana. “We don’t currently have mandatory COO labeling on beef and pork, so why would a large packer tell you if they’re selling Argentinian beef? They would hide it in secrecy because they wouldn’t want you to know.”

The Alliance policy activist and small farmer said that after poring over the USDA’s emergency plan for the livestock industry, issued by Secretary Brooke Rollins on Oct. 20, he found “a lot of good” on behalf of livestock producers within the 13-page white paper. “I think it’s a step in the right direction, but I don’t think it goes far enough. I’m glad that USDA has been receptive to the constructive criticism they’ve received from farmers, but I would like to see the voluntary COOL loophole (closed) that allows meat from other countries that gets ground or packaged in the U.S. to put ‘product of the USA’ on the label,” said Dubrick, adding that USDA should move to require mandatory COOL requirements on all imported beef products coming into the country.  

As a producer and consumer, Dubrick said he can’t reconcile Trump’s thinking when it comes to suggesting the U.S. beef market should be enhanced with imported products. If beef prices are too high, he wonders, why hasn’t demand for pork and chicken surged? Why haven’t Americans shifted to alternate proteins if prices are too high for beef?

“Consumers still want beef. To say that beef prices are too high is really missing the boat. We need to bust up these monopolies. We need to find levers and policies that we can pull that allow for open and fair and honest marketplaces, ones that allow the little meat processor to get started and grow and challenge the marketplace,” he said.

On Oct. 24, Reps. Harriett Hageman (R-Wyo.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the COOL Enforcement Act. It would reinstate mandatory COOL requirements, which were lifted for beef and pork in 2016 under a World Trade Organization ruling, for beef. COOL food laws require retailers to inform customers about the source of their food. Agricultural commodities were once exempted from mandatory COOL laws. In 2002, Congress passed a series of laws implementing COOL requirements for select commodities, including beef. The law stood until the WTO ruled that mandatory COOL laws were in violation of WTO rules, prompting Congress to remove the requirement for beef.

Hageman and Khanna’s bill also raises potential fines for those falsely labeling their beef as made in the U.S., including multinational packers. The bill further dictates that no ruling from an international body, such as the WTO, impacts our country’s ability to implement COOL requirements, according to a Hageman news release.

“I’m hopeful that (bill) can move either as a standalone bill or as part of a farm bill, if we ever get to one,” Dubrick said. In the meantime, “we need to be investing in more local food systems, so farmers have a fair marketplace, consumers have a choice and we have resilience the next time a pandemic happens, or the next thing that upsets the apple cart.”

Returning to the subject of the U.S. importing beef, Dubrick noted that according to many economists, the food system is so consolidated and rigged against both the farmer and the eater that imports are likely to decrease the prices farmers receive. It’s also unlikely to impact the price consumers pay at the grocery store.

The Alliance is asking lawmakers to look at long term agricultural reforms, in addition to emergency assistance for farmers “before food security, and in turn national security, are further jeopardized. Washington needs to reprioritize fair markets and diversified domestic production for the viability of farmers, the vibrancy of our communities, and the health and security of our nation.”