CONAGRA

An Unhealthy Choice For Farmers, Workers, Consumers and Environment?

By A.V. KREBS

Everett, Wash.


In the summer of 1995, ConAgra abruptly canceled poultry producing contracts with over 178 independent contract growers in the southern United States. In offering new and what one producer described as "abusive" contracts, ConAgra demanded binding arbitration be included.

A typical poultry contract is a unilateral contract, often referred to as a contract of adhesion. An adhesion contract is simply a "take it or leave it" contract. Frequently a farmer who has borrowed one-third to a half million dollars in order to secure a business contract with a processor like ConAgra has no option other than to sign, even if it means giving up his or her constitutional right to access their state and federal courts should anything go amiss in terms of fraud or dispute.

Some 53 families, at the risk of losing their farms and their homes, refused to accept such terms, saying it was clearly a violation of their freedom of speech. ConAgra's cancellation of contracts, many of the producers believed, came in retaliation for an earlier court suit brought on behalf of some 300 poultry growers in the region where a federal court jury awarded the producers some $17 million after they presented evidence of being cheated by ConAgra on the weight of their birds.