Papers presented by Ashton Merck since 2019

2024 Providence, Rhode Island

"“We Have a Responsibility to Feed Our Country”: Essential Work, Critical Infrastructure, and Food Inspection"

Abstract:

On Sunday, April 26, 2020, Tyson Foods took out a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post to publish an open letter in defense of their business practices. At the time, Tyson and other meat and poultry processors had recently been shuttered due to the unusually high number of worker deaths from COVID-19. The plants had previously been allowed to continue operating through initial shutdowns in March and April because the meat and poultry industry had been designated as “critical infrastructure,” or, to use the watchword of that spring and summer, “essential work.” However, even that designation did not override the safety of federal inspectors stationed within the plant, which ultimately led to the mandatory shutdowns. Food safety has long been designated as a matter of the public interest, but as food producers and retailers are quick to note, food security is also in the public interest as well. Just as Tyson predicted in the letter, the decision to briefly close down plants led to enormous supply chain disruptions that had long-term ripple effects on meat prices and meat supply that extended well into the summer and fall. This paper raises questions about how the risks associated with food safety intersect with the parallel risks of securing a stable food supply, and how workers too often get caught in the middle. More broadly, this paper offers an early reflection on what the meat and poultry industries’ response to the dangers and disruptions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic means for the prospects of co-regulation in food safety.

2023 Detroit, MI, United States

"Hope in Trusts: National Broiler Marketing Association v. United States and the Limits of Countervailing Power"

Abstract:

This paper examines an antitrust suit and subsequent class-action suits against a short-lived agricultural cooperative, the National Broiler Marketing Association (NBMA), in the early 1970s. The NBMA was formed by a group of poultry “integrators” (including several who have since become part of multinational enterprises, including Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Ralston-Purina) who tried to counter the rising power of “consumerism.” The NBMA’s leadership sought to control production and bolster the price of chicken by utilizing an antitrust exemption reserved for agricultural cooperatives. In so doing, they drew on the logic of “self-help” and “self-control” rather than rely on government price and production controls. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down their cooperative as an illegal combination, primarily on the grounds that the integrators were not entitled to a legal exemption from antitrust laws afforded only to “farmers.” Yet the integrators expressed far greater concerns about a parallel class-action suit brought by institutional and wholesale purchasers, which promised to further narrow their opportunity to marshal collective power against the retailers and buyers. When the leaders of the NBMA encountered Galbraith’s notion of “countervailing power,” they (inexplicably) imagined themselves as the small players – the farmers, the workers – rather than the middlemen or the oligopolists. Their failure in the courts paved the way for uncontrolled competition on price and quantity (“economies of speed” in the words of Al Chandler), paving the way for a global market for cheap chicken that we know today. Meanwhile, grocery retailers and fast-food chains received the bulk of the settlement money – and the future bargaining power.

Keywords:

2020 Charlotte, North Carolina

"Towards 'One Smithfield': Smithfield Foods, WH Group, and the Politics of Pork from North Carolina to China"

Abstract:

This paper examines a 2013 merger between Virginia-based Smithfield Foods and China’s largest pork processor, WH Group, which this paper considers in terms of foreign direct investment. By the early 2010s, it seemed like a partnership between the “world’s largest pork producer” and “China’s no. 1 butcher,” could offer benefits for both firms while strengthening US-Chinese political ties. Shuanghui was eager to gain from Smithfield’s managerial expertise, positive brand reputation, and their advanced processing technologies. Smithfield was looking for a way to pay off its debts and gain access to the Chinese market. With the purchase of Smithfield, WH Group now owns 1 in 4 pigs “grown” in America; because of prior mergers and acquisitions, many of these pigs are located in the state of North Carolina. However, subsequent political developments and trade tensions have put enormous strain on this relationship; many indicators suggest that the merger is not going exactly as planned for either party. From 2016-2019, Smithfield conducted a major reorganization effort known as “One Smithfield” to consolidate their holdings and centralize management, and Smithfield was delisted from U.S. stock exchanges in 2016. Meanwhile, WH Group’s stock plummeted in 2018 as the trade war dragged on, and Smithfield products turned out to be “too salty” for Chinese consumers’ palates. By focusing on the connections between foreign direct investment and nationalism, this paper grapples directly with the consequences of nationalist rhetoric and xenophobic actions. More importantly, however, this paper considers the gulf between the national political conversation about the risks and benefits of FDI and the local impacts, in which pork interests comprise a politically powerful bloc – not to mention big business – whether one is in North Carolina or Henan Province.

Keywords: