Tuesday, September 09, 2003

A seat at the table One of the reasons for forming an oligopoly is the ability to be in the room when the big decisions are being made. One way of doing this is by having your company's representative on a standards-setting body. Despite protestations of abhorring government control, oligopolies love government control when they have a major hand in dictating it. Strong oligopolies have the money to get the ears of government, and that access puts them in a different category from any newcomers. The big companies regularly get to participate in writing the rules, something consumer and employee groups rarely get. The new rules are often built to inhibit small competitors and release barriers to big companies, warding off the threat of disruption. Take genetically modified (GM) foods. I have mixed feeling about GM foods: much of me is certain they will turn into Frankenfoods, poisoning the food supply; the other (small) part believes that, if done in moderation, they might help to alleviate some hunger and cut down on the use of pesticides, Certainly, we hope for our government to make wise decisions. But when the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a U.N. group that sets standard for labeling GM foods, met in Ottawa in 1999, guess who was sitting the table? That group, which runs under the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is supposed to protect consumers. But according to an  article in the Toronto Star ("Giant Food Companies Control Standards", 4/28/99), the U.S. and Canadian delegations were chock-a-block with representatives from big food. The Canadian delegation includes six government representatives and 13 non-governmental delegates. Industry representatives fill nine of those 13 non-governmental spots. The companies include Nestle Canada, Procter & Gamble, Bestfoods Canada, Monsanto Canada and trade organizations representing food companies. The U.S. delegation includes 14 non-government advisers, 10 of whom represent multinational food companies or their trade organizations and consultants who help get the products to market. The companies include Nestle USA, Bestfoods, Procter & Gamble and Mead Johnson and Co., maker of infant formula. There are four representatives of organic food producers and farmers on the U.S. advisory group and the same number on the Canadian delegation. And guess what the position of the two delegations was. Canada and the United States both oppose mandatory labelling that would tell consumers whether the products they are buying have been genetically modified or are so-called novel foods created by biotechnology. For example, both countries would object to ordinary tomatoes being labelled of any genetic modification. Instead, Canada supports voluntary labelling as long as it does not imply that a product free of genetic modification is safer than another product. By dominating the North American delegation, the big food companies made sure that there's no world consensus on labeling GM foods as such, even though, for example, irradiated foods, and foods with additives are so labeled. They have more than a voice in the market; they have a voice in how consumers and workers are to be protected in the market. In countless other ways, oligopolies and their trade groups write legislations, help set standards, determine minimum wage, set tax policies, and persuade governments to modify health and safety standards, all in the interest of encouraging business. In return, politicians get campaign contributions, speakers' fees, and other benefits, things that the small businesses that compete with the oligopolies can't afford. 6:05:33 PM

comment []