By Rich Bindell

This week we focus on our campaign for fair food by calling on President Obama to enact a rule on livestock marketing that would let USDA finally use authority given to them back when Woodrow Wilson was President. The “GIPSA rule” (named for the USDA branch that governs livestock marketing) would even out the playing field in the meat industry and allow small-to-medium-sized independent farmers to fairly compete with large-scale factory farms. Of course, industry is pushing back, using delay tactics to put off implementing the rule. Which is why Sunday’s Washington Post article was so timely.

The article, “With executive pay, rich pull away from rest of America,” could be the answer to the question: when industrial food giants squeeze out farmers and small processing plants and consolidate the industry, where do their savings go? It sounds like a good deal of it may go to upper echelon executives.

The article is mostly about the abuses that result from decades of deregulation and unchecked corporate consolidation as it relates to the salaries of American business executives in the last five or six decades, but it focuses on one company in particular: Dean Foods. It describes two chief executives who led the company at different times: Kenneth J. Douglas, who held the reigns during the 1970s and Gregg L. Engels, who is the current CEO. The article claims that Engels makes the equivalent of about 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did. If you’re familiar with the consolidation of power that exists in the food industry, this should come as no surprise.

In the past two decades, the dairy industry has changed dramatically, morphing from a regional network of dairy farms and processors to industrial mega-dairies. They sell their products to a small number of corporate-style milk cooperatives and processing companies. There are now fewer, more powerful companies in every segment of the supply chain within the dairy industry. In 1980, when Douglas was CEO, 435 dairy cooperatives marketed 77 percent of fluid milk. By 2002 — well into Engels time — there were only 196 cooperatives, but they marketed a whopping 86 percent of fluid milk.

When I was growing up in Allentown, Pa., my family bought milk in the supermarket from a local dairy called Lehigh Valley Farms. The processing facility was located in the heart of downtown. Several years later, I noticed that I could suddenly get Lehigh Valley Farms milk in places that were far away from eastern Pennsylvania. But, on a visit home, I had noticed that the plant had been closed down. The next time I saw a carton of Lehigh Valley Farms milk in a store, I investigated further and learned that Lehigh Valley Farms is now part of Dean Foods. Dean bought the label. I wonder if their milk comes from any cows in Lehigh County anymore.

Massive power grabs like this from the big players in dairy has a major effect on the price of milk at the store. Consumer prices have gone up, but farmer earnings have actually decreased. They have fewer options for selling their milk and the prices they are paid for their product are subject to marketing rules determined by traders, not according to a price determined in an open market or that reflects what the milk cost to produce.

The author of the article asked a few employees at Dean Foods for their opinions about how much their CEO earns, but it would have been interesting to ask a few of the farmers who supply the milk. Many dairy farmers struggle to keep their businesses going because the price they receive for the milk they produce is unfairly low. Anyone who buys milk can attest to the fact that milk prices have gone up quite a bit, so we know the money saved by low-balling farmers isn’t being passed along to consumers. How many homes did they say Engels has? Is it just one private jet?

This is what we mean when we call it, “fair food.” Those who labor to provide us with our food should be given equal opportunity to make a fair living. The changes we want to make to the Farm Bill would help even out the playing field and give food producers a real chance to fairly compete with big agribusiness.

By Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

I almost gagged on my coffee when I finally got around to reading the corporate sponsored pro-fracking propaganda by MIT on natural gas, entitled, “The Future of Natural Gas.” Isn’t this academic institution embarrassed to sell its reputation to corporations?

I guess not, because right on its website, MIT advertises its enormous corporate funding for research and its proud affiliation with the oil and gas industry. Read its philosophy for yourself:

“Since its founding, MIT has actively sought industry partnerships and brought its students into real-world projects with corporations. In FY 2010, MIT’s industry-sponsored research totaled $111 million. More than 800 firms now work with MIT, both in Institute-wide programs such as the Industrial Liaison Program and the MIT Energy Initiative and in smaller collaborations…More than 180 companies partner with the program to improve their access to MIT and advance their research agendas. Launched in 2006 to pursue innovative technologies for sustainable energy, the MIT Energy Initiative fosters collaboration between industry and MIT researchers from across the campus. More than 50 corporate members support multidisciplinary research programs, contribute seed money, and provide support and research opportunities for MIT students.”

Now really, do you trust the objectivity on natural gas of the “founding members” of MIT’s Energy Initiative: BP, Shell and ENI (the Italian energy giant)? All three multinational corporations have an economic interest in expanding the use of fracking to extract hard to reach deposits of natural gas across the country. Here in the United States, BP — not known for their corporate responsibility — is the fourth largest natural gas producer. Shell is the 9th largest U.S. Producer, and activists in South Africa are fighting Shell’s attempt to frack in one of the driest places on earth. ENI is attempting to frack 760 square miles of Poland.

Most of the “sustaining members” of the MIT energy initiative have an economic interest in drilling for natural gas too. ABB is a leader in supplying electrical system solutions for drilling rigs, drilling ships, jack-ups and semi-submersible drilling rigs. A division of Bosch provides equipment for oil and gas fields. Siemens provides systems to treat fracking wastewater. We could go on and on.

“The Future of Natural Gas” proudly acknowledged that the American Clean Skies Foundation was a funder, along with other fossil fuel oriented companies (Hess Corporation, Gas Technology Institute, and Exelon). This foundation was formed by Aubrey McClendon, the billionaire CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the second largest producer of natural gas in the United States in 2010. He has been a slick promoter of fracked gas, using a combination of tried and true influence pedaling tactics — from campaign contributions to truth-challenged PR campaigns.

Anthony Meggs one of three co-chairs of the study, was formerly the Head of Technology for BP. While there, he worked to rebuild the technical capacity of the company by creating a Technology Advisory Council that included Ernest Moniz, a second co-chair of MIT’s study. It would take pages to disclose the study participant’s ties to the oil and gas industry.

Needless to say, the recommendations of this report appear to bolster the interests of the multinational energy companies who stand to benefit from natural gas drilling over the well being of public health, air and water quality and the future of the planet. It’s time to challenge industry sponsored reports like this and not let them get away with manipulating the truth or pedaling industry PR as sound science.