Business

Federal regulators take a bite out of meat monopolies on November 10, 2023 at 10:30 am Business News | The Hill

Published

1 year ago

November 10, 2023

Big meatpackers must warn chicken growers about the risks of the deals they’re entering into, according to a new federal rule enacted Wednesday.

The rule is part of a package of reforms the Biden administration has framed as steps to bring transparency and competition back to the meat industry, Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday.

The reforms, he said, take “critical steps in USDA’s competition and farmer fairness agenda.”

Other pieces in the package would direct the federal government to buy meat produced in the U.S. and create a new office to fight monopolies in agriculture.

A final part of the rule directs seed companies to display common varietal names alongside brand names — a reform akin to the way buyers of pain relievers know that they can get the chemical “acetaminophen” in the form of Tylenol or cheaper generic alternatives.

But for decades, independent farmers have complained about the effects of the rapid consolidation of the meat industry — something that the new USDA chicken rule aims to reverse.

In particular, that rule breathes new life into an old enforcement measure set up in the early 1900s to fight meatpacker monopolies: the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Since a wave of government-backed consolidation in the 1990s, poultry purchasing and processing have been primarily controlled by a handful of enormous meatpackers including Tyson and Pilgrims.

Farmers’ groups have long argued that the rise in this industry’s concentrated — and in many regions monopolistic — power has gone alongside corruption, market manipulation and retaliation against farmers that push back.

On Wednesday, the USDA released a new rule targeting what it sees as the worst abuses of the chicken sector.

The chicken industry is a fitting first target for what the agency has framed as a broader push to roll back anticompetitive farming practices.

For more than two decades, the agency has received complaints from chicken farmers who say that big meatpackers deceive them about the amount of money they would receive from deals — and then punish them with lower payments when they complain.

The opaque contracts left many growers in an impossible situation, according to the rule released Wednesday.

Since a wave of government-approved consolidations began in the 1990s, farmers have generally not owned the chickens they raise. Instead, the meatpacking companies do, along with the feed and medicine that turns them from chicks into market-ready “broilers.”

To get these contracts, farmers often must go heavily into debt to build the massive, state-of-the-art “chicken houses” the industry requires — an expense that makes it impossible to walk away if the deal turns out to be worse than they had expected.

These growers face a “gap between expected earnings” and what the company is actually willing to pay, the new rule argued.

For decades, chicken farmers have complained that a wave of government-backed mergers in the 1990s tipped the balance of power in the industry decisively to the side of the meatpackers — leaving them in a position some have compared to that of medieval serfs, in a process that growers of other meat have called “chickenization.”

In the dry language of the rule, the USDA calls out this dynamic: Packers, it said, “exert high degrees of discretion that can and do adversely affect growers.”

In particular, these companies tend to present a rosy picture of future earnings just long enough to get farmers locked into big, expensive upgrades that leave them trapped, the USDA wrote.

When farmers are debating whether to take on loans to expand their chicken houses, for example, poultry dealers “repeatedly and consistently omit vital information or make misleading statements, preventing growers from understanding the risks they are taking on,” the USDA wrote.

The leading poultry trade group attacked the rule, which it said aimed to create a flood of frivolous litigation.

“Make no mistake, this isn’t about transparency,” said Mike Brown, president of the National Chicken Council (NCC).

“This rule was specifically designed to chum the water for lawsuits,” he said, adding that it would “dismantle a successful industry structure that has benefited farmers, chicken companies and ultimately consumers all around the world.”

The NCC added that the timeline in the rule was too fast: Poultry packers “could have to retroactively amend 25,000 contracts in two months over three major federal holidays.”

But farmers’ groups praised the measure, though many said it didn’t go far enough.

“For far too long, monopolies across agriculture have put the squeeze on farmers and consumers,” said Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union.

“Today’s finalized rule will require poultry companies to be more honest in their dealings with growers.”

But a coalition of environmental groups argued that by restricting the rule to just the broiler chicken industry — leaving out eggs, milk, beef and pork — the USDA had caved to Big Meat.

“USDA must do more to actually protect farmers from corporate abuse, beyond merely informing producers how exploitative the system is,” said Emily Miller, an attorney at Food and Water Watch.

To be sure, the USDA is doing more — and large meatpackers aren’t happy about it.

Other rules would require federal buyers to procure only pork and beef raised in the U.S. — a potential value of about a billion dollars to U.S. farmers.

That is a measured step in a direction that American independent ranchers have agitated for since the Obama administration.

In the mid-2010s, the federal government dropped rules that had required that beef come with a label declaring where cows had been raised, butchered and processed — a step that ranchers had seen as essential to keep multinational meat corporations from undercutting with cheaper, imported beef.

When that rule changed, market prices and income for U.S. ranchers crashed, Bill Bullard of the independent ranchers organization R-CALF told The Hill.

Sarah Little, a spokesperson for the North American Meat Institute, said that the added profits ranchers might expect would come out of taxpayers’ pockets.

“Segregation of cattle and hogs to those born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. will increase costs and will place the burden on school systems and the taxpayer at a time of great need,” she said.

The agency will also set up a chief competition officer to fight monopoly in the meat industry.

These steps are just the beginning: The USDA has proposed four new additions to Packers and Stockyards, including one that would make it easier for farmers to sue over discriminatory treatment.

But time is running out, said Angela Huffman of the progressive farmers trade group Farm Action, a timeline that she said Vilsack has fumbled before.

If those rules aren’t finalized by May — the deadline outlined in the Congress Review Act — a future Republican president or majority could easily overturn them.

“This is the same travesty against competition that happened during the Obama administration on Secretary Vilsack’s watch,” Huffman said.

“The Biden administration should take heed: In the absence of swift action, history could easily repeat itself,” she added.

Administration, Business, Equilibrium & Sustainability, News, Agriculture Department, usda Big meatpackers must warn chicken growers about the risks of the deals they’re entering into, according to a new federal rule enacted Wednesday. The rule is part of a package of reforms the Biden administration has framed as steps to bring transparency and competition back to the meat industry, Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom…

Business

The Cities Bracing for Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

Published

2 weeks ago

November 8, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent election victory and his promise of “the largest deportation operation in American history,” several major U.S. cities are bracing for potentially seismic shifts in their economic and social landscapes. As the nation grapples with the implications of this proposed policy, urban centers that have long been havens for immigrant communities find themselves at the epicenter of a looming storm.

Los Angeles, often dubbed the “City of Angels,” stands to lose more than its celestial nickname suggests. As a primary gateway for immigrants, the city’s vibrant tapestry of cultures and its economic engine could face significant disruption. From the bustling streets of Koreatown to the sun-drenched orchards of the Central Valley, the absence of undocumented workers could leave gaping holes in the city’s workforce and cultural identity.

Across the country, New York City, with its iconic skyline and melting pot reputation, faces its own reckoning. The Big Apple’s 5.9 million immigrants, many of whom are undocumented, form the backbone of industries ranging from construction to healthcare. The potential exodus could transform neighborhoods like Jackson Heights and Flushing, altering the very essence of what makes New York a global city.In the Sunshine State, Miami’s tropical allure belies the turbulent times ahead. Home to 2.5 million immigrants, the city’s economy relies heavily on sectors like tourism and hospitality – industries where undocumented workers often fill crucial roles. The potential deportation of these workers could send shockwaves through Miami’s economic ecosystem, from South Beach’s glitzy hotels to the agricultural heartlands of South Florida.

Chicago, the “City of Big Shoulders,” may find those shoulders significantly weakened. With 1.7 million immigrants in its metropolitan area, the Windy City’s diverse neighborhoods and industries face an uncertain future. From the meatpacking plants to the tech startups, Chicago’s economic resilience could be tested like never before.

In the Lone Star State, Houston and Dallas stand as twin testaments to the complexities of immigration policy. These Texas titans, each home to large immigrant populations, could see their booming economies stumble. The construction sites that dot their ever-expanding skylines and the service industries that keep these cities humming could face unprecedented labor shortages.

Out West, the San Francisco Bay Area’s reputation as a bastion of innovation and progress could be challenged. The region’s tech industry, often reliant on immigrant talent, might find itself grappling with a new reality. From Silicon Valley’s coding campuses to the agricultural expanses of the Central Valley, California’s economic powerhouse could face a reckoning. Phoenix, rising from the Sonoran Desert, could see its growth trajectory altered. As Arizona’s urban center, it stands at the forefront of the immigration debate, potentially facing not just economic impacts but social and political upheaval as well.

These cities, along with others like San Diego and Las Vegas, are not just facing potential economic disruptions. They are staring down the barrel of profound social change. Family separations, community fragmentation, and the erosion of cultural enclaves built over generations are all possible consequences of mass deportations. Moreover, the fiscal implications are staggering. Undocumented immigrants contribute billions in taxes annually, often without receiving the full benefits of their contributions. Their sudden absence could leave gaping holes in city budgets, potentially affecting public services and infrastructure projects.

As these urban centers brace for impact, the debate rages on. Supporters of stricter immigration policies argue for the need to enforce laws and protect American jobs. Critics warn of economic devastation and the unraveling of America’s urban fabric. What’s clear is that America’s cities stand at a crossroads. The coming months and years will likely reshape urban landscapes in ways both visible and invisible. From the foods we eat to the services we rely on, from the neighborhoods we call home to the very character of our cities, the impacts of this proposed immigration crackdown could be far-reaching and long-lasting. As the nation watches and waits, these cities – vibrant, diverse, and economically vital – find themselves on the front lines of a policy that could redefine what it means to be an American city in the 21st century.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring filmmakers. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

Business

How Trump’s Deportation Plans Could Reshape Major Cities

Published

2 weeks ago

November 8, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent election victory, his ambitious plans for mass deportations have thrust America’s urban centers into the spotlight. As the nation grapples with the potential implications of what Trump calls “the largest deportation operation in American history,” cities across the country are bracing for significant changes that could reshape their economic, social, and cultural landscapes.

The stakes are particularly high for metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, which host the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants. These cities, along with other major urban hubs such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco, stand at the forefront of a looming transformation that could reverberate throughout the nation.

Economic Tremors

Economists warn that the proposed deportations could send shockwaves through urban economies. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, cautions that businesses would face “significant challenges” if a substantial number of immigrants were removed. Industries such as construction, hospitality, and healthcare—pillars of urban economies—could face severe labor shortages.

Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, emphasizes the potential ripple effects: “The native-born workforce cannot meet current labor demands.” This labor gap could lead to increased wages, potentially rekindling inflation—a concern that looms large over city planners and policymakers alike.

Community Fabric Under Strain

Beyond economic considerations, the social fabric of cities hangs in the balance. Elena, a Nicaraguan immigrant in Houston, voices a fear echoed in immigrant communities across the nation: “I’m scared… This is my home.” The threat of family separations, particularly in mixed-status households, casts a long shadow over urban neighborhoods.

Immigrant advocacy groups like FIEL are mobilizing, advising clients to prepare for “anything that can happen.” This atmosphere of uncertainty could lead to decreased community engagement and cooperation with local authorities, potentially impacting public safety and community cohesion.

Cities at a Crossroads

As the debate intensifies, cities find themselves at a crossroads. Some, like New York and Los Angeles, have historically positioned themselves as “sanctuary cities,” often at odds with federal immigration enforcement. The impending clash between federal policy and local governance promises to be a defining feature of this new political landscape.

Meanwhile, the logistical challenges of implementing such a massive deportation operation remain daunting. Questions abound regarding detention facilities, transportation networks, and the sheer manpower required to carry out Trump’s vision.

Looking Ahead

As America’s urban centers brace for potential change, the full impact of Trump’s deportation plans remains to be seen. Legal challenges are all but certain, and the resilience of America’s cities will be put to the test.

What is clear is that the coming months and years will be pivotal for urban America. As Jason Miller, a senior Trump adviser, puts it, the plan is to “immediately reinstate” immigration policies from Trump’s first term. For America’s cities, this could mean a period of unprecedented change, challenge, and, potentially, transformation.

As the nation watches and waits, the story of America’s cities in the face of this ambitious deportation plan is just beginning to unfold. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of urban life in America for years to come.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring screenwriters. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

Business

Donald Trump Wins 2024 USA Election

Published

3 weeks ago

November 6, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

Based on the election results, Donald Trump has indeed won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. Here’s an analysis of the key statistics and implications:

Electoral College Victory

Donald Trump has secured the presidency by winning crucial battleground states and flipping some key states that were previously held by Democrats. The final Electoral College tally is still being determined, but Trump has surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Battleground State Performance

Trump’s victory was largely secured by winning several critical swing states:

Wisconsin: Trump’s win here was pivotal in securing his path to victory.
Pennsylvania: This state flipped back to Republican control.
Georgia: Another key state that Trump managed to win back.
Michigan: Trump successfully flipped this traditionally Democratic stronghold.

Popular Vote and Voter Priorities

While the final popular vote tally is still being calculated, exit polls provide insight into voter priorities:

Economy and democracy were top concerns for voters.
Abortion and immigration also played significant roles in voter decision-making.

Congressional Control

The election results extend beyond the presidency:

Republicans are set to take back the Senate majority, securing at least 51 seats.
Control of the House of Representatives remains undetermined.

Media Implications

The outcome of this election could be seen as a challenge to mainstream media narratives for several reasons:

Polling Discrepancies: Many pre-election polls suggested a tight race or even a slight Harris advantage in key states. Trump’s victory, particularly in battleground states, may indicate that polls underestimated his support.
Narrative Shifts: Throughout the campaign, much of the mainstream media focused on Trump’s legal challenges and controversies. His victory suggests that these issues may not have resonated with voters as much as economic and policy concerns.
Voter Priorities: The emphasis on issues like the economy and immigration in voter decision-making may indicate a disconnect between media focus and voter concerns.
Electoral Predictions: Many mainstream outlets were cautious about predicting a Trump victory, even as results began to favor him. This hesitancy could be seen as a reflection of broader media skepticism about Trump’s chances.
Underestimation of Trump’s Base: The results suggest that Trump’s core support remained strong and potentially grew, despite negative coverage in much of the mainstream media.

It’s important to note that while the election outcome may challenge some media narratives, it doesn’t necessarily invalidate all mainstream reporting. The complex factors influencing voter behavior and the challenges of accurate political forecasting remain subjects of ongoing analysis and debate.

As the dust settles on this historic election, both the media and political analysts will likely engage in extensive reflection on the factors that led to Trump’s victory and the implications for future political coverage and analysis.