Why I’m not Cargill’s CEO

Mike Masterson


As you might imagine, I, too, receive lots of messages. So it was no surprise to see an email from someone signed only as “A Concerned Arkansas Legislator” arrive in the inbox.
This one told of “an interesting rumor” floating around the state Capitol. It claimed Cargill Inc., the multinational supplier of up to as many as 6,500 swine to the controversial C&H Hog Farms ensconced in the Buffalo National River watershed at Mount Judea, is against water-quality testing and monitoring proposed by the governor in concert with the University of Arkansas.
Opposed? How could that possibly be? Why wouldn’t the ultimate provider for this waste-producing hog factory that relies solely on consumer support want to know if its product might be polluting the Buffalo? I’d sure want to know if I was involved in anything so destructive to God’s Country. Wouldn’t you?
The unconfirmed Arkansas politician who addressed the message “to whom it may concern,” sure seemed informed enough to me.
“It’s my understanding that U of A, Farm Bureau and the farmers support the testing but Cargill isn’t on board,” the email read. The politician goes on to say at least two people from the Farm Bureau and UA say the University of Arkansas is continuing to work on a proposal. “I’m not sure why Cargill is opposed but I hear Farm Bureau and the farmers want to know if the farm is polluting. They don’t believe it is but want to fix it if something isn’t working. I hope you can find out more …”
Well, without hamming it up too badly, I went to rootin’ around in hopes of bringing home the bacon in terms of some kind of clear response from pork-providing Cargill.
Can’t believe I just wrote that sentence. Actually, it tickled me pink.
When a cloud of mental hickory smoke lingered after my email exchange with Michael Martin of Cargill’s communications division, I still felt shamefully ignorant of where exactly the mega-corporation stands on even having the water tested and monitored in the national river’s watershed.
See if you have any idea of the corporation’s position from the following messages. If so, feel free to share your insights.
Me: “Hi again Michael MartinundefinedCan you please tell me where Cargill stands with regard to the governor’s proposal to have the University of Arkansas perform water quality studies and monitoring in and around the C&H Hog Farms and the Buffalo River watershed to ensure there is no contamination escaping from the hog CAFO. I … hear … Cargill is opposed to such studies while the Farm Bureau and others support having them done. So to set (and keep) record straight, does Cargill oppose or support such studies funded by the state? My best, and yes, I did in fact have crispy bacon for breakfast this morning.”
Martin: “Mike: Until we see, and have a chance to evaluate, whatever the final plan is from the governor’s office and University of Arkansas, we really can’t comment. We will likely have some questions, and suspect there will be follow-up discussions involving a variety of stakeholders. As far as Cargill is concerned, nothing has been taken off the table. I hope this is helpful.”
Me: “MikeundefinedHmmm. So does that then mean you support the state conducting water quality analysis studies and monitoring in the watershed at all? I’m kind of slow, Mike, and sometimes need things spelled out real clearly.”
Martin: “As you might imagine, we can’t comment on a proposal we haven’t seen. We will be in a better position to comment once we’ve seen the proposal and have an opportunity to evaluate it to determine if it will involve monitoring in a way that accounts for all sources that currently, or potentially, impact the river.”
No comment? All sources that currently or potentially impact the river? How can any animal-waste pollution or its sources possibly be known unless the runoff and groundwater is analyzed first?
Now, if I ran Cargill (I considered applying as its CEO, but they don’t much care for pesky columnists leading their corporation), I’d be bending over backwards to make sure none of my consumersensitive product was polluting something as ecologically sensitive as the country’s first national river and its watershed.
Why would I be even remotely opposed to supporting such studies unless I was concerned about what they might reveal?
Since I don’t have a problem making political contributions, I’d be eager to cough up say, oh, 5 seconds of my corporation’s worldwide earnings (it is America’s largest privately held corporation) to pay for such analyses ourselves rather than depending on the beleaguered Arkansas taxpayers and their “rainy day fund” in a relatively poor state.
To socialize that responsibility (which ought to belong to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality anyway) rather than willingly being accountable for my own swines’ waste sounds downright hoggish to me.
But as I’ve already told you, I’d likely make one boorish CEO for an all-bidness Cargill.
 
Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.com.