international small farmer solidarity

HackettShark at aol.com HackettShark at aol.com
Sun May 5 18:25:10 EDT 2002


In a message dated 5/5/02 1:49:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lh at pressroom.com 
writes:


> What was/is a bad move was/is allowing large transnational corporations  get 
> control of the food system here and abroad.  We should be actively opposing 
> treaties (NAFTA) and organizations (WTO, World Bank, IMF) that promote 
> transnational corporate globalization at the expense of small farmers. 
> These organizations do not operate in the interest of small farmers here or 
> abroad.
> 
> 
> 

I agree 100%, I do know that  my congressman and senator is vrey sick of 
hearing this very subject for me.  As far as I can see it still boils down to 
who is pushing the money and where it is going, in who's pocket,.  This 
country has industrialized agriculture to the point that many of the farmers 
here at home are being pushed off this farms because of the economic factor, 
you can't feed your familys with cheap commodity prices.  But the new farm 
program has a lot more strings attached to it than the old bill did, so we 
will loss a lot of farmers in the middle size, and all the rest of the small 
family farms that was still trying to stay in business.  The new program will 
really promote the mega farms,with multi Corporations in one farm unit.   

I will give you the example, we have an operation in our community that has 4 
family menbers in it, each family menber has 3 corporation, which gives the 
the total of 12 corporations for the whole family, all legal.   Each 
corporation is limited to $500,000 amount they can recieve in farm 
payments,so this adds up to 6 million before they have to worry of going over 
the limit.  At present they are farming around 25,000 acres and adding to 
that figure every year.  This outfit is so greedy that they took out some 
fences that didn't even belong to them and planted the headlands.  Authur 
Andersen Co could probably get s few Ideas form this group.   Their father 
sold a local business to a person, but omitted to included the land in the 
sale, when he finally paid off the land contract, the previous owner said 
well good, now you can start paying for the land that this business sits on.

 
Watch your back side

Phil From Iowa


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/market-farming/attachments/20020505/e16cd5e8/attachment.html 


More information about the Market-farming mailing list