DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Groups – Who Are They and How Do They Effect the Industry?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Groups – Who Are They and How Do They Effect the Industry? Environmental Groups – Who are they and how do they effect the industry? Richard S. Cornfeld Thompson Coburn One Firstar Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 552-6023 I. Introduction A. In the past several years environmental groups have been actively crusading against the livestock industry. B. Their efforts have included lobbying, public relations, political campaigns, litigation and health studies. II. Identification of Environmental Organizations A. The “Encyclopedia of Associations” lists more than 1,500 organizations under the categories Conservation, Ecology, Environment, Environmental Education, Environmental Health, Environmental Law, Environmental Quality and Natural Resources. B. More than 1000 separate organizations belong to the Clean Water Network, which endorses strong clean water safeguards. C. Environmental organizations are major forces in our society. In 1999 Americans gave $3.52 billion to environmental organizations. D. The hog industry is a major target of environmental groups. E. One internet directory of environmental organizations lists 610 groups under “farm” or “agriculture.” Prominent organizations include: 1. The Sierra Club. a) 700,000 members b) Staff of about 300 c) Budget of $56.5 million d) 460 affiliated state and local groups. 2. Natural Resources Defense Council. a) 500,000 members b) Staff of nearly 200. c) Budget of $34 million 3. Environmental Defense Fund. a) 300,000 members b) Staff of nearly 216 c) Budget of $32 million. 4. Center for Rural Affairs. a) Staff of 24 b) Budget of $1.6 million F. By contrast, the National Pork Board has 85,000 members and a budget of about $50 million. III. Activities of Major Organizations A. Sierra Club 1. Largest environmental group in the country. a) 700,000 members b) Its claimed membership has grown by 100,000 since President Bush was elected. 2. It has an annual budget of about $56.5 million, of which it spends 42% on fundraising. 3. The Sierra Club’s effort against CAFO’s is one of its “four national priority campaigns.” 4. It wants to stop the construction of new CAFO’s, phase out open-air lagoons and land application with spray guns, and increase government regulations. 5. Several times a year it issues reports critical of CAFO’s. In 2001, they include: a) A report on the use of antibiotics by CAFO’s that claims that it threatens the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans. b) A report claiming that large agricultural companies that sell to the federal food lunch program violate federal environmental and labor laws. - 2 - 6. It has supported the Water Keepers lawsuits. 7. Its desire is to eliminate large farms altogether and return to the days of the small family farmer. 8. Thus, it is safe to say that the Sierra Club will oppose whatever the large livestock industry does. B. Natural Resources Defense Council 1. Along with the Clean Water Network (an alliance of 1000 organizations), it published “Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health” in July 2001. 2. That report urged the phasing out of waste lagoons and the end to sprayfields. 3. The report acknowledges the assistance of several people involved in litigation against the pork industry. a) Environmental litigation in Missouri against Premium Standard Farms and Contigroup Companies, Inc. (1) Scott Dye, Agriculture Coordinator of the Sierra Club (2) Rolf Christen of the Citizens’ Legal Action Network b) Multi-state litigation against Smithfield (1) Nicollette Hahn, attorney with Water Keepers Alliance (2) Rick Dove of North Carolina Riverkeepers. C. Environmental Defense Fund 1. Sponsors Hog Watch, a web site that provides information for activists against the hog industry. IV. Litigation A. Water Keepers Lawsuits 1. In December 2000, a coalition of four activist groups, under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced the formation of a legal “dream team” of 15 plaintiffs’ firms to bring a nationwide series of lawsuits against the corporate hog industry. 2. Sponsoring organizations - 3 - a) Water Keeper Alliance b) Sierra Club c) Animal Welfare Institute d) National Farmers’ Union (300,000 members) 3. Law firms: 15 plaintiffs’ law firms with experience in such fields as asbestos and tobacco litigation. The lawyers include: a) Richard Middleton, former president of the American Trial Lawyers’ Association (the leading organization of the plaintiffs’ bar). b) Jan Schlichtmann, the subject of the book and movie “A Civil Action” about his efforts to pursue toxic-tort litigation over alleged groundwater pollution in Woburn, Massachusetts. 4. So far, the coalition has filed lawsuits only against Smithfield Foods and its subsidiaries: a) Two state common law actions in North Carolina b) Two federal environmental lawsuits in North Carolina. c) A Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) lawsuit in federal court in Tampa, Florida. 5. In April 2001, a state court judge dismissed the two state-court cases for lack of standing and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Those cases are now on appeal. 6. The Water Keepers have threatened to bring cases against other companies but so far they have not done so. B. Other lawsuits. 1. Hanes v. Continental Grain. a) 108 neighbors of Continental’s Northwest Missouri hog farms sued in St. Louis, claiming nuisance over odor, flies, water contamination, and health complaints. They also sought punitive damages. b) Verdict: 56 plaintiffs received nothing, 52 plaintiffs received $100,000, no one received punitive damages. - 4 - c) This was widely regarded as a major victory for Continental. The plaintiffs had sought $100,000,000, and their attorneys had invested $5 to $7 million in the case. d) These lawyers also brought the CLEAN litigation mentioned above. A year after the Hanes verdict, when it appeared that their prospects in these cases were no better, they withdrew from all “pig” litigation. The chief lawyer for CLEAN joined a small firm, where he has struggled ever since without adequate financial backing. 2. Buckeye Egg Farm case shows that the threat of a large verdict is still real.. a) 21 neighbors of an Ohio egg farm received a total of $19.2 million from a Licking County jury. b) The plaintiffs sued over odor, flies and water pollution. V. Nonlitigation Activities A. Health studies: There are three principal studies that are commonly cited, but each of these has significant flaws. 1. Susan Schiffman et al., “The Effect of Environmental Odors Emanating From Commercial Swine Operations on the Mood of Nearby Residents,” Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 37. No. 4, 369-375 (1995). a) This study reported on a comparison of responses to a mood survey of two groups of people, one consisting of 44 people living near an intensive North Carolina swine operation and one consisting of 44 matched controls. b) The subjects near the hog facility reported significantly more tension, more depressioin, more anger, less vigor, more fatigue, and more confusion than control subjects. c) Flaws: (1) The basis for the determination of mood changes was simply the answers the subjects gave to a subjective questionnaire called the Profile of Mood States. There was no objective confirmation of any of the findings. (2) The article does not indicate where specifically the study was conducted. However, North Carolina is an area of activism against swine confinement operations and the subjects were likely able to infer the purpose of the study. - 5 - (a) All subjects were given several copies of the questionnaire to take home. (b) The residents near the swine facility were asked to complete one questionnaire on four days when the hog odor could be smelled. (c) Controls were asked to complete one questionnaire per day for two days. (d) Because of the differences in the circumstances in which they completed the questionnaires, there is a potential for bias in this study. The individuals near the swine facility were provided enough information to infer the purpose of the study (since they were told to complete the questionnaire on a day they smelled odor). Thus, they were not blinded to the study’s purpose. 2. Kendall Thu, Kelley Donham et al, “A Control Study of the Physical and Mental Health of Residents Living Near a Large-Scale Swine Operation,” Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 3(1):13-26 (1997), p. 1-11, www.health/mentalhealththu.htm. a) This study reported on a comparison between 18 Iowans who live near a 4,000-sow swine facility with 18 controls who do not live near livestock. (1) Each individual was given a questionnaire regarding health symptoms. (2) The residents near the hog facility reported more respiratory and other physical symptoms than the controls. (3) There was no difference in psychological symptoms. Thus, the article failed to confirm Schiffman’s findings. b) Flaws (1) There were very few people involved in the study (18 in each group). (2) There was no objective confirmation of anyone’s symptoms because the authors neither conducted objective patient examinations nor reviewed medical records of any of the subjects. - 6 - (3) There was no random selection of subjects. In fact, the authors indicated that they selected subjects in an area where “certain neighbors had expressed environmental and health concerns.” (4) There was no attempt to measure exposure. (5) The authors in effect conceded that their study could not establish causation. This was a hypothesis-generating study. The authors state: “Further study is needed to test the hypothesis that neighbors of large-scale swine operations experience higher rates of physical symptoms ….” The authors have not reported a study testing that hypothesis. 3. Steve Wing and Susanne Wolf, “Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of Life Among Eastern North Carolina Residents,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 108, No. 3, (March 2000), p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nebraska Manufacturers
    NEBRASKA MANUFACTURERS CARGILL AG HORIZONS Employment: 10-19 Allen Hayes - Mgr 402-395-5045 ARRANGED BY COMMUNITY Location: South Hwy 39, Albion, NE 68620-0190 Mail: PO Box 190 Albion, NE 68620-0190 JANUARY 2004 Internet: http://www.cargill.com/ Parent: Cargill Inc., Minneapolis, MN 325314 Blended fertilizer COUNTRY LAMINATES Employment: 5-9 Adams Dan Krohn - Owner 402-395-6947 Village Board 402-988-3165 Location: 140 N 5th Street, Albion, NE 68620 Location: PO Box 41, Adams, NE 68301 FAX: 402-395-2740 Population 2000: 489 337110 Laminated custom pre-formed countertops ADAMS READY MIX CONCRETE Employment: 1-4 SENTINEL BUILDING SYSTEMS INC * Employment: 75-99 Bob Schoonover - Mgr 402-988-5945 Wayne Buller - Pres 402-395-5076 Location: 620 Birch Street, Adams, NE 68301 Location: 237 South 4th Street, Albion, NE 68620 Mail: PO Box 156 Adams, NE 68301-0156 Mail: PO Box 348 Albion, NE 68620-0348 NAT: 800-575-9760 FAX: 402-395-6369 NAT: 800-327-0790 Parent: Beatrice Concrete, Beatrice, NE E-Mail: [email protected] 327320 Ready-mix concrete Internet: http://www.sentinelbuildings.com Parent: Global Industries Inc., Grand Island, NE 332311 Prefabricated metal buildings Ainsworth Ainsworth Chamber of Commerce 402-387-2740 Location: PO Box 112, Ainsworth, NE 69210 Alda Population 2000: 1,862 308-384-6170 Location: PO Box 100, Alda, NE 68810 Population 2000: 652 AINSWORTH READY-MIX INC Employment: 1-4 Brett Fernau - Pres 402-387-2692 Location: 259 N Ulrich Street, Ainsworth, NE 69210 BULLET WEIGHTS INC * Employment: 35-49 327320 Ready-mix concrete,
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Sc93816 in the Supreme Court Of
    Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI April 29, 2014 01:56 PM SC93816 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________ LINDA S. LABRAYERE, et al., Appellants, vs. BOHR FARMS, LLC, et al., Respondents. On appeal from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri The Honorable Judge Jodie Asel Case No. 11BA-CV04755 CORRECTED APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Charles F. Speer, MO 40713 Anthony L. DeWitt, MO 41612 Peter B. Bieri, MO 58061 Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Goza, SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A. P.C. 104 W. Ninth Street, Suite 400 715 Swifts Highway Kansas City, MO 64105 Jefferson City, MO 65109 Phone: (816) 472-3560 Telephone: (573) 659-4454 Fax: (816) 421-2150 Facsimile: (573) 659-4460 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants 1 Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI April 29, 2014 01:56 PM TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................. 9 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................................................................................. 21 STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................... 22 POINTS RELIED UPON ..................................................................................................................... 31 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smithfield Foods 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
    CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT 2006/07 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Message 2 Senior Management Message 4 Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements 6 CSR CLOSE-UPS Smithfield-Luter Foundation Helps Students Further Their Education 9 Smithfield Beef Group Takes Worker Safety to the Next Level 11 Murphy-Brown to Phase Out Individual Sow Gestation Stalls 12 New Processing Plant in Kinston Leads the Way in Food Safety 15 Farmland Foods Water Saving Efforts Win Awards in Iowa and Illinois 16 Cancer Research in Virginia Gets a $5 Million Boost from Smithfield 18 North Carolina Wetlands Initiative Benefits from Smithfield Funding 21 Company Plants Capture Methane to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 22 Partnership with Food Banks Helps Feed the Nation’s Hungry 25 Romanian Subsidiary Supports Country’s Tree-Planting Program 27 CSR IN-DEPTH REPORTING Scope of Reporting 30 About Smithfield Foods 31 A Strategy for Continuous Improvement 33 Advancing Environmental Stewardship 34 Producing Our Products Responsibly 61 Building Stronger Communities 66 Enhancing Employee Relations, Health, and Safety 71 Human Rights Policy 80 OUR FAMILY OF COMPANIES The Smithfield Packing Company 84 John Morrell & Co. 85 Farmland Foods, Inc. 86 Patrick Cudahy, Inc. 87 North Side Foods 87 Stefano Foods 88 Smithfield/RMH Foods Group 88 Smithfield Beef Group 89 Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding LLC 90 Murphy-Brown, LLC 90 Butterball, LLC 91 Groupe Smithfield 92 Animex 93 Smithfield PROD 93 Smithfield Innovation Group 94 The Smithfield Specialty Foods Group 94 Management Board, Corporate Officers, Directors 95 Corporate Information 96 SMITHFIELD FOODS IS the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer, with revenues approaching $12 billion in fiscal 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Analysis for Agriculture Asia Pacific2020
    Journal of Food Microbiology and Safety Hygiene Awards 2020 Market Analysis for Agriculture Asia Pacific 2020 Dr Surinder Singh Kukal The size of the domestic market for smart agriculture between business, government and domain and victimization according to the estimation of a research company, in FY2015 was approximately 9.72 billion yen, in FY 2016, 11.05 billion yen and in FY2022 expands to 33.19 billion yen. Moving forward, until FY2017 it mainly focused on cultivation support solutions like farm products production control but after FY2018, an increase in sales and operational support solutions was expected. Around FY 2018 expand of precision farming is expected. existing technologies and components. Amidst more and more ageing of population engaged in agriculture and absence of labour, monumental time is needed by new farmers to master the knowhow, as agriculture is associate degree occupation that has several operations that need long expertise and instinct. Additionally, in agriculture there is lack of coordination between entities like production and distribution and compared to different fields, its several inefficiencies and the increase in productivity like yield is WHY JAPAN: sluggish. There is a serious shortage of labor in Japan in the fields of Agriculture Asia Pacific 2020 witnessed a merger of Supreme agriculture, forestry and fisheries and the food industry due to speakers United Nations agency enlightened the gang with decrease in farming population and progress of ageing but their data and confabulated on varied new-fangled topics going forward improvement is expected due to progress of associated with the sector of agriculture and Organic farming smart agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Update
    Agricultural Update Unversity of Missouri- Agricultural Update Columbia January 27, 2001 General The below information summarized for the year ending 1999. One important note, the return rates listed are a rate of return on capital, which includes both equity and debt financing. 1999 SALE REVENUES: TOP TEN CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS CORPORATIONS [Company, rank among all U.S. public corporations, sales revenues] 1. WAL-MART STORES (2) $ 165.0 BILLION 2. PHILIP MORRIS COS. (9) $ 61.7 BILLION 3. BANK OF AMERICA (11) $ 51.6 BILLION 4. KROGER (13) $ 45.3 BILLION 5. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP (16) $ 40.8 BILLION 6. PROCTER & GAMBLE (18) $ 39.1 BILLION 7. ALBERTSON'S (22) $ 37.4 BILLION 8. SAFEWAY (40) $ 28.8 BILLION 9. DU PONT DE NEMOURS (46) $ 26.9 BILLION 10. CONAGRA (54) $ 24.9 BILLION SOURCE: FORBES 500S - Ranking the Top U.S. Companies, FORBES, April 17, 2000 1999 FOOD DISTRIBUTOR LEADERS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF RETURN ON CAPITAL 5-YR. AVERAGE LATEST 12 MOS OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE 25.80% 24.40% JACK IN THE BOX 19.40% 22.10% SYSCO 16.40% 18.50% WAL-MART STORES 16.40% 15.90% MCDONALDS 12.70% 13.00% BRINKER INTERNATIONAL 11.50% 15.10% PERFORMANCE FOOD 11.40% 10.00% SUPERVALUE 10.90% 9.10% WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL 10.70% 12.00% CASEY'S GENERAL STORE 10.30% 10.00% ALBERTSON'S 9.70% 9.10% DARDEN RESTAURANTS 8.80% 14.70% SAFEWAY 8.40% 12.70% ROYAL AHOLD 8.30% 5.70% SOURCE: FORBES: America's 400 Best Big Companies FORBES, January 8, 2001 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/witzmans/Deskto...space%20pdf's%20in%20progress/012701_files/012701.htm (1 of 4) [1/30/2009 2:33:32 PM] Agricultural Update 1999 FOOD , DRINK & TOBACCO COMPANY LEADERS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF RETURN ON CAPITAL LATEST 12 5-YR.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT of MISSOURI St
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI St. Joseph Division CITIZENS LEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL ) ACTION NETWORK, INC. ) Plaintiff, ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Intervenor/Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. 97-6073-CV-SJ-6 ) PREMIUM STANDARD FARMS, INC. ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________________________________________ ______ CITIZENS LEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL ) ACTION NETWORK, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) Case No. 98-6099-CV-W-6 v. ) ) CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, ) INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________________________________________ ______ CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CITIZENS LEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK, INC. AND PREMIUM STANDARD FARMS, INC. AND CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 III. PARTIES BOUND 6 IV. DEFINITIONS 7 V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9 VI. TESTING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIESAND ACHIEVEMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 10 VII. ACCESS TO PROPERTY AND INFORMATION 13 VIII. REPORTS; SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF WORK 13 IX. CIVIL PENALTIES 16 X. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT 16 XI. STIPULATED PENALTIES 18 XII. PAYMENT OF PENALTIES AND RELATED MATTERS 22 XIII. DEFAULT 23 XIV. FORCE MAJEURE 23 XV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 25 XVI. NOT A PERMIT/COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER STATUTES/REGULATIONS 26 XVII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 27 XVIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND NON-WAIVER PROVISIONS 29 XIX. COSTS OF SUIT 30 XX. RETENTION OF RECORDS 30 XXI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS 30 XXII. EFFECT OF DECREE, RETENTION OF JURISDICTION, TERMINATION 32 I. BACKGROUND 1. Premium Standard Farms and Continental Grain Company: a) Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (PSF) is a pork producer with operations located in the northwest Missouri counties of Mercer, Putnam and Sullivan. PSF began its operations in 1988. In 1998, Continental Grain Company, now ContiGroup Companies (CGC), bought a controlling interest in PSF.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Lynn A. Hayes Before the Senate Ag Committee (April
    360 North Robert Street Suite 500 Phone: 651 223.5400 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Fax: 651 223.5335 Internet: [email protected] Web site: www.flaginc.org TESTIMONY OF LYNN A. HAYES FARMERS’ LEGAL ACTION GROUP, INC. (FLAG) BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY APRIL 18, 2007 360 North Robert Street Suite 500 Phone: 651 223.5400 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Fax: 651 223.5335 Internet: [email protected] Web site: www.flaginc.org My name is Lynn Hayes. I am an attorney and the Program Director at Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG), in St. Paul, Minnesota. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony regarding “Economic Challenges and Opportunities Facing American Agricultural Producers Today.” The concerns I raise have been developed through our work with the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform, Rural Advancement Foundation International–USA, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and other farm organizations, as well as FLAG’s work with individual farmers and ranchers. I. FLAG’s Work Related to Contracts, Competition, and Concentration in Agriculture Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc., is a nonprofit, public interest law center that provides legal education, training, and support to family farmers and ranchers and their lawyers and advocates across the country. Over the past two decades, FLAG has provided legal education or assistance to thousands of small- and mid-sized family farmers throughout the nation who produce agricultural commodities under contract. FLAG’s former executive
    [Show full text]
  • Smithfield Foods 2009 Annual Report Saved the Following by Printing on Papers with Recycled Content Compared with 100 Percent Virgin Paper
    2009 ANNUAL REPORT 2009 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHFIELD FOODS: A GLOBAL LEADER NORTH AMERICA UNITED STATES e Arkansas e Kentucky e Ohio e California e Maryland e Oklahoma e Colorado e Massachusetts e Pennsylvania e Georgia e Minnesota e South Carolina e Illinois e Missouri e South Dakota e Indiana e Nebraska e Texas e Iowa e New Jersey e Utah e Kansas e North Carolina e Virginia e Wisconsin MEXICO Through independent operating companies and joint ventures, as well as our stake in Europe’s largest packaged meats provider, Smithfield Foods’ operations extend to 13 countries. EUROPE BELGIUM FRANCE GERMANY ITALY THE NETHERLANDS POLAND PORTUGAL ROMANIA SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM ASIA CHINA Wholly owned Smithfield Foods operations as well as the Butterball, LLC, joint venture in the United States Campofrío Food Group, S.A., a publicly traded company in which Smithfield Foods owns 37 percent Joint ventures To Our Shareholders Fiscal 2009 was a year of unprecedented challenges.The combination of record input costs, an oversupply of hogs, a worldwide recession, and A(H1N1) influenza led to our first annual loss in more than three decades. We reported a net loss of $190.3 million, or $1.35 per diluted share. That compares with net income for the prior year of $128.9 million, or $.96 per diluted share. At the same time, sales rose by 10 percent to $12.5 billion, and I am proud to report that we produced record margins in Smithfield Foods’ packaged meats business. During the year, we shifted our strategic focus to several key areas that we expect to significantly improve results going forward.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Drackett Company's Work With
    THE DRACKETT COMPANY AND SOY (1937-2020) 1 HISTORY OF THE DRACKETT COMPANY’S WORK WITH SOYBEANS, SOY PROTEIN AND AZLON (1937-2020): EXTENSIVELY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCEBOOK Compiled by William Shurtleff & Akiko Aoyagi 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Soyinfo Center THE DRACKETT COMPANY AND SOY (1937-2020) 2 Copyright (c) 2020 by William Shurtleff & Akiko Aoyagi All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems - except for use in reviews, without written permission from the publisher. Published by: Soyinfo Center P.O. Box 234 Lafayette, CA 94549-0234 USA Phone: 925-283-2991 www.soyinfocenter.com ISBN 9781948436199 (new ISBN Drackett without hyphens) ISBN 978-1-948436-19-9 (new ISBN Drackett with hyphens) Printed 2020 June 8 Price: Available on the Web free of charge Search engine keywords: History of the The Drackett Co. History of the The Drackett Company History of Drackett History of Azlon Bibliography of the The Drackett Co. Bibliography of the The Drackett Company Bibliography of Drackett Bibliography of Azlon Cronology of the The Drackett Co. Cronology of the The Drackett Company Cronology of Drackett Cronology of Azlon Timeline of the The Drackett Co. Timeline of the The Drackett Company Timeline of Drackett Timeline of Azlon Copyright © 2020 by Soyinfo Center THE DRACKETT COMPANY AND SOY (1937-2020) 3 Contents Page Dedication and Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smithfield Foods 2012 Integrated Report
    2012 INTEGRATED REPORT We combine Leading Brands and a Commitment to Sustainability to produce Good Food. Responsibly.® OUR OPERATIONS Through independent operating companies and joint ventures, as well as our stake in Europe’s largest packaged meats provider, Smithfield Foods’ operations extend to 12 countries. UNITED STATES h Arkansas h Nebraska h California h New Jersey h Colorado h North Carolina h Georgia h Ohio h Illinois h Oklahoma h Indiana h Pennsylvania h Iowa h South Carolina h Kansas h South Dakota h Kentucky h Texas h Maryland h Utah h Massachusetts h Virginia h Minnesota h Wisconsin h Missouri MEXICO BELGIUM FRANCE GERMANY ITALY THE NETHERLANDS POLAND PORTUGAL ROMANIA SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM Joint ventures Wholly owned Campofrío Food Group, S.A., a Smithfield Foods operations publicly traded company of which Smithfield Foods owns 37 percent TABLE OF CONTENTS Chief Executive Officer Letter 1 Management 51 Ask the Chief Sustainability Officer 4 Corporate Information 52 Our Business Journey 10 Contact Us 53 Value Creation 12 MAPS, DIAGRAMS, AND MAJOR TABLES Governance & Management 16 Animal Care 20 Map of Operations Foldout Employees 24 Key Data Summary 6 Environment 27 Key Commitments 7 Food Safety & Quality 32 Value Creation & Risk Management 14 Helping Communities 34 10-Year Financial Summary 48 International Operations 36 Cumulative Total Return Comparisons 50 Our Family of Companies 40 Integrated Reporting Index 53 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Fiscal years ended April 29, 2012 May 1, 2011 May 2, 2010 (in millions, except per share
    [Show full text]
  • Lucifer's Network: Masters of the New World Order
    LUCIFER’S NETWORK: MASTERS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER Volume II The Grand Architects Of The New World Order Research By Dr. Michael Sunstar *Copyright Reserved For Websites & Their Authors* This Information is Not For Sale and Is For Research Purposes Only CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 OPEC (OIL PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES) AND NY TRADING PARTNERS WHO SHAKE HANDS CHAPTER 2 STOCKHOLDERS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE CHAPTER 3 THE CLUB OF ROME CHAPTER 4 THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION CHAPTER 5 THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CHAPTER 6 THE UNITED NATIONS CHAPTER 7 LUCIS (LUCIFER) TRUST – WORLD GOODWILL CHAPTER 8 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) CHAPTER 9 THE BILDERBERG GROUP CHAPTER 10 THE ROTHCHILDS CHAPTER 11 THE WORLD BANK & WTO CHAPTER 12 MASS CORPORATE LAYOFFS 1996-2002 LIST USA CHAPTER 13 THE ROCKEFELLERS CHAPTER 14 THE FORD FOUNDATION CHAPTER 15 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE CHAPTER 16 THE ACLU CHAPTER 17 THE CARNEGIES CHAPTER 18 JP MORGAN CHASE CHAPTER 19 THE BECHTEL CORPORATION CHAPTER 20 THE PLAYBOY FOUNDATION CHAPTER 22 THE ASPEN INSTITUTE CHAPTER 23 WHO OWNS THE JOB MARKET, TEMP AGENCIES, JOB SEARCH SITES, & CLASSIFIED JOB ADS? CHAPTER 14 FORD FOUNDATION The Ford Foundation is a resource for innovative people and institutions worldwide. Our goals are to: Strengthen democratic values, Reduce poverty and injustice, Promote international cooperation and Advance human achievement This has been our purpose for more than half a century. A fundamental challenge facing every society is to create political, economic and social systems that promote peace, human welfare and the sustainability of the environment on which life depends.
    [Show full text]
  • Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons And
    CESSPOOLS OF SHAME How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health Author Robbin Marks Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network July 2001 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network wish to thank The McKnight Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Wallace Genetic Foundation, Inc., and The Davis Family Trust for Clean Water for their support of our work on animal feedlot issues. NRDC gratefully acknowledges the support of its 500,000 members, whose generosity helped make this report possible. We wish to thank the reviewers of this report, Nancy Stoner, Melanie Shepherdson Flynn, and Emily Cousins. We also thank a number of individuals for their help with this report, including: Rolf Christen, Kathy Cochran, Rick Dove, Scott Dye, Pat Gallagher, Nicolette Hahn, Marlene Halverson, Suzette Hafield, Susan Heathcote, Karen Hudson, Julie Jansen, Jack Martin, and Neil Julian Savage. ABOUT NRDC NRDC is a nonprofit environmental organization with more than 500,000 members. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have been working to protect the worlds natural resources and improve the quality of the human environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco. ABOUT THE CLEAN WATER NETWORK The Clean Water Network is an alliance of over 1,000 organizations that endorse its platform paper, the National Agenda for Clean Water. The Agenda outlines the need for strong clean water safeguards in order to protect public health and the environment. The Clean Water Network includes a variety of organizations representing environmentalists, family farmers, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, surfers, boaters, faith communities, environmental justice advocates, tribes, labor unions, and civic associations.
    [Show full text]