Attacking Price Manipulation
By Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, for the
Throughout Joe Biden’s time in office, critics have complained he has not done enough to address high grocery prices. Now that his replacement as the Democratic presidential nominee has come forth with a plan to deal with the problem, many of those same critics are accusing Kamala Harris of going too far.
A
wide range of pundits are particularly scandalized at Harris’s critique of
price-gouging. It is perfectly valid to question whether her policies would be
effective, but many commentators are trotting out simplistic and outdated
economic principles to claim that corporate price manipulation is non-existent.
These
believers in the supremacy of market forces are apparently unaware that the
food sector is a hotbed of anti-competitive practices. This is especially true
in the meat industry, where a small number of dominant corporations have had to
pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and settlements to resolve
allegations that they collude to keep prices high.
Take
the case of JBS, the giant Brazilian corporation that owns U.S. companies such
as the poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride and the beef producer Swift. As shown
in Violation
Tracker, JBS and its subsidiaries have paid out over $200 million in
class action antitrust lawsuits since 2021. Pilgrim’s Pride was also sentenced
to pay $107
million in criminal penalties after pleading guilty to federal
charges of participating in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler
chicken products.
Tyson
Foods, another poultry goliath, has paid out over $120 million in class action
settlements over the past three years, including one case in which it had to
hand over $99
million. In the pork industry, Smithfield Foods, owned by the Chinese
corporation WH Group, has paid around $200 million in price-fixing settlements.
Price-fixing conspiracies have also been alleged in the tuna industry, in which StarKist paid a criminal penalty of $100 million, as well as in milk processing, peanut processing and other food sectors. In 2020 the National Milk Producers Federation agreed to pay $220 million to settle litigation alleging it sought to boost prices through a program to reduce the number of dairy cows. There was even a $28 million settlement involving a mushroom marketing cooperative.
Aside
from their illegal collusion on prices, food companies have been accused of
entering into illegal agreements designed to suppress wages. A federal court in
Oklahoma recently gave preliminary approval to a settlement in which Pilgrim’s
Pride will pay $100
million. Other poultry processors such as Tyson and Perdue previously
agreed to pay a total of tens of millions of dollars more.
Price-fixing
is not exactly the same thing as price-gouging. The first involves illegal
agreements among purported competitors, while the other may be committed by a
powerful company acting on its own. Price-gouging can be illegal in certain
circumstances under state law, especially if it happens during an emergency.
Yet it is not, alas, illegal for companies to jack up prices in most
circumstances.
That’s why all chief executives of food companies are not being led away in handcuffs. Yet it is all the more reason for the federal government to devise innovative ways to get corporations to bring down prices that escalated through market manipulation of one form or another.