Country of Origin
By Trent LoosIf you will remember after the June 7, 2004 Paul Harvey radio broadcast, I and a handful of others in agriculture called for an end to ADM’s sponsorship of this closet animal rights zealot. Today, I have great news. ADM no longer sponsors Paul Harvey. As much as I would love to tell you that their decision was in response to the “Drop Paul Harvey” campaign that we initiated, I can’t. ADM simply decided that their money could be better spent, particularly communicating with the grass roots producers of this country.
This week I had a meeting with key ADM officials in Decatur, IL. The meeting was a direct result of my efforts regarding Paul Harvey. I did pass on to ADM some of the concerns I received from my newsletter subscribers. When I asked readers if they thought ADM cared about the American Farmer, I received 20 emails and not one thought that any multi-national company cared at all about the United States Farmer. This poses an interesting and challenging question. How does a company of any size balance its dedication to producers in the homeland and still achieve the best return on their investment?
I think, at some level, each one of us knows that bushel by bushel, pound by pound, agriculture is leaving our soil. The weekend before I met with ADM, I attended my own 20 high school class reunion. Of the 21 classmates that showed up, two had recently lost their jobs because their companies had moved production out of the US. Although not directly related to agriculture, aren’t we in the same trend?
I shared my concern, whether justified or not, about any multi-national company and their commitment to maintaining food production on home soil. I have heard in the past few months that three of the worlds largest soybean crushing plants have been built in South America. We continue to hear about infrastructures being developed in South America, Russia and South Africa.
You will notice I said “heard”? Word of mouth is still the best marketing tool of the information age. These comments also elicited a passionate response from the folks at ADM. They said sure you heard about that but what our July press releases:
Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) has announced the expansion of production capacity at four of its key processing plants in its North American Oilseed division including: Mankato, Minnesota; Des Moines, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebraska and Enderlin, North Dakota.
Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) will expand its NovaLipid™ line of zero/low trans-fat oils and margarines at its Quincy, Illinois enzyme interesterification facility over the next year. This facility is the first commercial enzyme interesterification facility in North America.
ADM officials were quick to point out to me that they have spent millions on United States grain handling and processing facilities in the past year. We don’t hear that at the coffee shop do we? The information is out there but it is the type of information you have to go looking for rather than the kind that comes to you.
The bottom line is this: Can a company that is attempting to do it’s best for share holders CARE about United States farmers? I do believe that if U.S. farmers do well, the companies that buy their products will also be successful. What sets apart the farmers who have experienced success from those who sit back whining about companies like ADM? The successful producers have implemented contemporary marketing strategies.
In my opinion, the greatest challenge facing the survival of the American farmer, regardless of the product they produce, is not so much the prices they get for farm products but rather the cost of producing them. Inputs such as seed, land costs, permitting requirements and legal fees continue to sky rocket. For the same reason that Maytags will no longer be made in the US, production costs are more of a factor in profitability than market price. A good way for companies like ADM to rise up and exhibit their commitment to American Agriculture is through their involvement in compliance issues, regulations and legislation that affect the farmers that supply their raw materials.
