C. William Swank, Vice Chairman, Thermal Systems International, Inc., formerly President, Ohio Farm Bureau

Robert W. Teater, President, Teater & Associates, formerly Director, Ohio Department of Natural Resources

James Tobin, Associate Director, Catholic Conference of Ohio

Moderator:
Margaret Fenton, President, Everest Data Research, Inc.

The search for economic efficiency has led to the application of industrial models to farming. As a result of these developments in agriculture, Margaret Fenton, Moderator, observed that we are hearing or reading about issues surrounding what has come to be called "factory farming". Proponents of large scale farming say that, with today's limited workforce and the increasing population and demand for food, this is necessary if the U.S. is going to continue to feed its own population as well as part of the rest of the world. Critics of some industrial farms allege that the result has been health, nuisance, and environmental problems; the exploitation of workers; and the endangerment of the family-farm heritage. What are the ethics of this situation? Is there a middle ground? Are there constructive solutions to the current problems?

REMARKS BY DOUG DURLIAT
The Ohio Farmers Union deals primarily with family agriculture in rural communities. Regarding corporate mega-farms, our position is not size-oriented. Rather it's who owns and operates the facility. One thing we are concerned about the mega-farm issue is a trend whereby people are serving the economy rather than the economy serving people. It is ironic that several farm organizations and many farmers have clamored to "get the government out of agriculture", arguing that farmers should be free to make farm management decisions. However, these same parties either sup-port or condone an industrialized system for agricultural production.

In reality a farmer who raises livestock generally does not make many, if any, management decisions. He is locked into a contract with a corporate contractor. The contractor requires the producer (farmer) to have a building constructed in which to raise the animals-usually by a construction company that is contracted with the company. The building must meet the company's criteria. The farmer feeds the company's animals with the company's feed, supplements and medication. The farmer markets the animals when and where the company tells him to. This doesn't look like he is making many decisions as a farmer. The only areas in which the farmer makes management decisions are in two areas of greatest liability-disposal of wastes and disposal of the dead animals.

We are not saying that contracting with the corporate integrators is inherently bad. It is not. There is a time and place for it. Right now the poultry industry is vertically integrated totally from top to bot-tom under corporate contract setup. Other food industries are moving in that direction. For example, in pork, the industry was only 2% integrated in 1970, 21% in 1990. Today it is up to 30%.

I would like to talk about ownership in the agricultural system and choices. Countless studies have shown that corporate-controlled operations do not support local communities, and tend to extract wealth from communities. Labor is viewed as a commodity to be purchased as cheaply as possible. With an agricultural system dom-inated by family-owned and operated farm operations, each operation is a dynamo of economic activity, purchasing inputs, equipment and other materials locally, enhancing local economies.

I have found that there are many myths surrounding industrial farms.

Myth #1: Bigger is more efficient.
Much of this argument is tied to economies of scale. Many land grant universities have put out studies arguing that the big operations are more efficient. However, many of these studies are flawed. For example, a recent study from Iowa State University argues that production from 3,400 sows creates more economic benefit than production from only one 150-sow operation. The study fails to explain that twenty-two 150-sow operations (the animal equivalent of one 3,400-sow operation) create more jobs, more revenue for schools and local services and more property tax revenue than does a single large farm.

Proponents fail to realize that the large operations appear to be "more efficient" because, they often defer their social and environ-mental liabilities to the public sector, i.e, taxpayers in the form of subsidized waste handling, job training for its labor force, housing, increased welfare roles due to the class of underemployed it created, and other services.

Myth #2: The trend toward the industrial farm is consumer-driven.
The pork and other industries want you to believe that consumers demand uniform-sized livestock that create uniform-sized cuts of meat. This is actually an industry-driven phenomenon. The indus-try wants uniform-sized animals so it can automate the slaughtering and processing of the animals. It is not there yet but this is the big drive right now. Consumers want quality, taste and safety in their food-not uniformity in size.

Myth #3: The corporate industrial makes food cheaper.
Just look at the pork market where the consumer pays a high price even though the farmer is paid a cheap price for his production. At below fifteen cents a pound, hog prices for the farmer are at their lowest level in more than twenty-five years. Yet, the price for pork products for the consumer remain at the high, pre-plunge levels. The industry will try to argue that there's a lag and the price will go down for the consumer. However, if there is a drop in pork prices at the store, it won't be nearly as deep or as sustained as the drop the farmers are currently experiencing. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, hog prices dropped 30% during the year ending September 30, 1998, and have fallen substantially since then.

Two years ago, we saw a spike (a rise in prices) in the grain markets. At the same time, the major cereal manufacturers were engaged in price wars. In the past, any spike in prices resulted in higher cereal prices, which never came down when grain markets dropped.

Myth #4: Consumers demand cheap food.
Consumers will pay more if they are getting quality, or a tastier or safer product. Some people I know who produce organic, or labor-intensive, range or other foods tell me that they can't keep up with demand and their customers are often low to middle income people.

Myth #5: Leave the markets alone and they will deliver adequate products at fair prices for consumers and producers.
You would think that markets operate in a vacuum. Actually, markets by nature are predatory. Players in the market are constantly merging or buying out competition, leaving markets concentrated with little, if any, competition. Players in the markets are constantly buying farm policy. Some of the largest contributors in campaign funding are food companies.

REMARKS BY BILL SWANK
I have spent over forty years in state, national and international public policy work. Much of this time has been with the Ohio Farm Bureau. For years we have been involved with the argument concerning the family-owned farm versus the corporate-owned farm. It has never been settled and may never be settled because people see things differently and come from a different point of view. I have had trouble tying this to ethics when finally I found a definition of ethics that says it is the beliefs of people especially on moral issues at a given point in time. Today we see things differently than we did twenty years ago or forty years ago so maybe there is an ethical question here.

I grew up on a poultry farm and we were poor. I didn't know we were poor but we were. My parents lost a good farm in the depression and we started all over. We did everything by hand. We carried every pound of turkey feed seven times by hand before it ever reached the turkeys. Now we do a lot of these things with machinery so methods are different. Farmers dream about getting better and bigger. They do this because it solves a problem. It isn't just greed. It solves the economies of scale. In our system of capit-alism, or market economy, the only way we know how to remedy the situation of the small farm competing against the large corporate farm is a government system. However, farmers don't like a government system-sure they use it when it is to their advantage because they are in business, but they want to be left alone.

They have looked to me for forty years and say: Why can't you figure out a way to make more money? I said: I can but you won't do it. Farmers value their freedom more than they value making more money with government controls or some kind of controls. They don't want people telling them what to do even in contract pro-duction which we have with the livestock industry and partially with the crop industry. In this regard the decision is: Do you take the contract or don't you? Maybe you will go to town to get another job.

The only ethical problem I could see in this whole question is: Is it fair to pit the small farmer against the big farmer? The answer is: I don't know. Is it fair to have Wal-Mart come to town and a lot of small businesses close their doors? We have all kinds of evidence that this happens. Companies are getting bigger and no one is trying to preserve the corner grocery store. There are small convenience stores that have the value added now of being open and convenient, but we don't have the mom and pop grocery store anymore, and we don't say much abut it. We don't call it a moral or spiritual problem. When Kroger comes to town, we say: Great, now we have a new, big Kroger store. A mega-store is good in many places.

We do follow the trend of other businesses and find they are getting bigger and more scientific-they are able to adapt the research that universities and other places put out. Agriculture is following the trends of the nation. The large farm has many economies of scale and efficiencies in purchase of supplies and in marketing that bring about maximum production.

Food itself takes one and a half percent of disposable income and that's close to free. Food that is almost free is often thought of as an ethical good. However, farmers don't want cheap food. They want to raise their prices. I agree that the public doesn't demand cheap food. They pay whatever it takes before they buy bicycles and other things. But I tell our farmers: We are producing a commodity and we get commodity prices which means a price near the cost of production with enough profit in it to keep you farming. They think that's not fair and I point out that an economist will say that's the way it is.

The only way we know how to keep the small farm competing with bigger ones is to subsidize it one way or another. Farmers have joined together to do this but it has never worked-somebody cheats or takes advantage. We have had utopian societies-the Oneida Community and the Owens Community, just to name two of them-but they didn't work either. (See note) So we turned to government to make it work and I don't know of any better source. It would help if we could define with agreement what makes a small farm, family farm, large farm and industrial farm. Instead it is like art-we know it when we see it.

Here are a few facts about Ohio farms.

• One half of one percent are corporate farms.
• One is 10,000 units.
• 116 are 1,000 units or more.
• There is a total number of 72,000 farms.

REMARKS BY JAMES TOBIN
I speak today representing a faith perspective. I work for the Catholic church. We have a rural life board called the Ohio Catholic Rural Life Conference that has been studying and following rural life issues for a long time. Last year our Ohio Bishops issued a state-ment called Life on the Land. Its purpose is to educate and promote dialogue regarding issues of industrial farming and land use. We have church members highly supportive of industrial farming, as well as members concerned about such a trend.

As we analyze these issues and the varying positions of interest, it appears that there are different starting points and philosophies which make consensus difficult to achieve. One is the role of government. The Ohio Farm Bureau would probably say: If we could keep government out of farming, that would be great. The Ohio Farmers Union would probably say: We need appropriate government oversight in particular cases. We need to figure out when governmental regulation is appropriate and when it is overkill. At present there seems to be a tension over the role of government versus the role of voluntary associations to deal with this kind of problem.

When we go around to talk to groups, the question of terms always comes up. Indeed, today we have used at least three different terms-industrial farm, factory farm, mega-farm-but what are we talking about? How do we define each of these? Are we talking about something that gets to the size of the Buckeye Egg Farm or are we talking about a more typical one or two building production faci-lity. We have encouraged all parties to spend more time developing appropriate policy distinctions among farm operations, considering factors such as the number of non-family employees, the concen-tration of animal units, waste disposal needs and community accountability.

There is also some confusion and tension over regulatory authority. In other words, whose role is it to assure environmental safety and fair production practices. A lot of debate has gone back and forth between the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA), and Soil & Water Conservation. Is this some-thing that the livestock associations can handle in terms of accoun-tability? Hopefully with the new state administration, we can start talking about and clarifying roles, responsibilities and relationships. I don't profess to know which groups should be doing what, but I think this needs to be dealt with and figured out.

It is obvious there has been a trend towards bigger farms and more concentrated land ownership. From a principle standpoint we have contended that there is always a value and strength in terms of who owns the land and who controls food production. What has made our country very strong is diverse ownership of land held by many individuals who feel accountable and connected to their local communities. The question is: When farms get bigger and more concentrated, what do we lose in local accountability? Is there a way that we can truly foster small, medium and big farms in Ohio, especially the small and medium-sized farm operations locally owned and responsive to their rural communities?

The last observation is the vulnerability, particularly at the low end, of the farm producers, farm workers and even the family-owned farm processors. Much of this vulnerability is based upon price fluctuation. One response has been to promote "contract farming". When we went out to Mercer County, we visited many of the poultry operations. They are mostly "contract farmers" who contract in their local community with processors to assure a stable price. Their eggs are picked up every couple days providing in most cases a "three-day egg". It was like a wonderful Shangri-La in one sense. At the end of the visit, however, we discussed a possible trend toward large buyers wanting a "twenty-four hour egg"-an egg processed and shipped within twenty-four hours. If enough big buyers decide that what they want is a twenty-four hour egg, then Mercer County's contract system may fall apart. Some farmers may adapt, many others may lose their livelihood. So we want to stress the need to maintain local family farms with local accountability.

Twelve principles came out of a study that our church made that perhaps could be viewed as "common ground" concepts. They are concerned with economic life-five of these undergird the subject of our discussion.

1. The economy exists for the person, not the person for the economy.

2. All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages and benefits, to decent working conditions, as well as to organize and join unions or other associations.

3. In economic life, free markets have both clear advantages and limits; government has essential responsibilities and limitations; voluntary groups have irreplaceable roles, but cannot substitute for the proper working of the market and the just policies of the state.

4. All people have a right and responsibility to participate in society and in the institutions that make up our communities. We have a responsibility to exercise our right to participate in a fair and equitable way for the good of all.

5. A commitment to the common good and our concern for our neighbors and for generations yet to come require responsible stewardship of the earth. Agriculture and economic policies should support responsible care for the environment and not promote exhaustion of the earth's resources.

I think the solutions to our problems lie in continued dialogue, a continual building of trust relationships and getting parties to come to the table, dropping some of the hidden agendas so we can determine where we want to go. The discussion could be started with some or all of the following nine questions taken from the Ohio Catholic Bishops' 1998 Statement "Life on the Land: A Call to Reflection and Action on Agriculture in Ohio".

1. How does our current agricultural system affect the most vulnerable persons among us: children, the hungry. the undocumented, migrant workers, farm families and others who labor in industrialized farms and processing plants?

2. How does society best maintain, nurture and protect the diversity of peoples, cultures, natural resources and agricultural practices within a given community?

3. How does our society best reflect the principle that private land ownership carries a social responsibility?

4. How is the community at the most local level involved in land use decisions that affect lives and livelihood?

5. What measures of social and economic accountability should owners of industrial-scale agricultural facilities be required to offer to local communities? How should this accountability be enforced?

6. How can state and local policies better support widespread ownership and local control of farmland and productive resources, including support for first-time farmers and those using alternative food production methods?

7. What are appropriate practices and policies which will ensure safe working conditions and just treatment of all agricultural laborers, especially migrant and undocumented workers?

8. How do my lifestyle choices regarding consumption reflect gospel values?

9. What information will assist me in making purchasing choices that reflect a commitment to a just food system?

Like most controversial issues industrial farming is not a "stand-alone" issue. The size of farming operations is deeply rooted in economics, culture, tradition and yes, even perception. What is large today may have been huge yesterday, and commonplace tomorrow. If something is difficult to define, then most surely, it becomes suspicious-even threatening. We as a society cannot clearly define industrial farming much less collectively demonize or glorify it! The generic term "farms" may be characterized as industrial farms, factory farms, large farms, small farms or family farms.

I grew up on a family farm. In fact it was a twelve-acre tenant farm. It had all the features we frustrated urbanites tend to idolize-diverse crops and livestock, privacy, wildlife, beautiful sunsets, family togetherness, healthful work, growing crops and hopeful harvests. A two-room school, a little white church and a country store were nearby. There was one overriding problem.. We could not, in country terms, "make a living" much less help feed a hungry, starving world. And to be brutally frank, animals ate each other's manure, the cistern ran dry each summer, and long winters were not only private, they were miserably lonely. Idyllic family life was in fact a daily struggle for survival.

In spite of hardships, we were inspired by dreams and motivated by necessity. My first attempt at industrial farming arose from my 4-H Club chicken project. While mother hens and small chickens seemed to enjoy open range living, they too could hardly scratch out a living. The chicks often lived short lives as the result of hawks, foxes, weasels, dogs and a host of other predators. Sudden summer thunderstorms also took their toll.

There had to be a better way. My Dad and I designed and built a small chick brooder. It had a wire screen floor for droppings to fall through to a drawer beneath. It had sliding glass covers and a forty watt bulb for heat. Even today I can hear and see the happy, fuzzy chicks as they cavorted in the warmth, ate chicken mash, drank fresh water and were safe from predators. One 5' x 10' breeder took the place of some ten mother hens. Broiler chicks were sold off the farm. The goal was to increase productivity, reduce labor input, improve efficiency, make a living, survive, stay on the farm.

Here are some thoughts on farm size.

• Be honest about the values and the hardships of family farming.
• Hold agriculture (both large and small farms) to the same high standards of environmental quality that we require of other business.
• Be prepared for consumers to help bear the additional cost of smaller farm operations and high environmental standards.
• Accept the tenet that farmers have the right to profitable farming. They have no obligation to sacrifice so that others may thrive.
• Urban sprawl is as much a threat to family farms as it is to inner city decay.
• Do not let large scale vs. small scale bias color our views.
• Respect the market place economy.
• Farm living is not free living. Farm families shop too!

THE DISCUSSION
I own a crop producing farm in Iowa so I have been reading the Iowa Farmer and all the literature that goes with large farm producers in the state of Iowa. I find there are many complaints by the people who live near industrial farms. These relate to respiratory and smell problems. What have you discovered in relation to this specific environmental problem?

Response: In the Buckeye Egg Farm area people say that the local hospitals have noticed a marked increase in asthma cases. The farm has four and a half million chickens now and wants to go to eighteen and a half million. The nearby people are very concerned about the potential increase in dust, flies and beetles that are traced to the farm in addition to the drying up of wells. What will this mean if they are allowed to expand?

Several of the speakers said they were unsure what the ethical issue is for this panel to address. Let me try to identify one and then ask a question. One is the degree to which a farm operation is a responsible operation and responsive to its local environment-in other words its local community. Now one of the things that make a distinction between the family owned farm and the larger industrial farm is the behavior of some of these larger farms that seems to indicate they don't care about the local community. The media attention that Buckeye Egg Farm received for more than a year about its unwillingness to pay attention to its local community probably was not one of the more inflammatory reports in terms of generating conflict but one could argue that it is the foundation for some of the ethical debate. What do you see as the responsibility of these industrial farms to the community in which they operate?

Response: I believe they have a responsibility and I believe most of the larger farms will accept that if it is clearly defined in the laws we apply to them and would be equally applied to all farmers. We should require all size farms to adhere to the same environmental standards as we expect of businesses. It is unfair in a way to impose higher environmental standards on the factory farm than we do on the small farm. I would challenge any of you to tour Ohio today to see where the pollution is coming from. Many times it is coming from small farms with cattle standing in the streams and fertilizer being applied carelessly. The pollution is there but just not concentrated the way it is at Buckeye Egg Farm. Let me say that if the people who own these large farms are like any other business people, they are concerned about their neighbors because they can not stay in business if they do not accommodate the community.

Comment: I could add that I think many of the large industrial farms do try to be good stewards given the best available technology. The question is: Is the best available technology good enough when you are generating the amount of manure in these concentrated units? With the present number of chickens, Buckeye Farm is generating an amount of manure that is more than the city of Cleveland generates. Yet they are proposing to apply it over a number of acres. Are we going to identify the number of acres needed to do this right or are we going to do what we see out in Oklahoma and other states where they have had a concentration of poultry? They have put on so much manure that the soil can't break down the heavy metals and the soil becomes contaminated. Right now that is where Buckeye is headed unless they alter their plans.

Isn't the excess manure usable or saleable some other places? Why can't the people in Ohio sell it the way they do in California?

Response: If people in Ohio can get it started, then more power to them. So far I can not see a place to market it in Ohio.

Comment: You talked about comparing the large industrial farm to Walmart and the country grocery store. I was talking to Jack Fisher the other day about this and he said: Remember, the large farm does not displace the other farmers as Walmart displaces the local store, the market turns the grain farmers into equipment dealers and other infrastructures supporting farming. It seems to me the large farms are creating other markets for other agricultural products.

What is the effect of taxation on the family farm?

Response: Farm taxation is called CAUV (Current Agricultural Use Value) taxation where a farm is taxed on its agricultural value and not its developmental value. A farmer is not tempted to sell his farm because he can't pay the developmental value taxes. This is one tax that is very favorable to farmers particularly around the urban areas where there is so much urban development value.

Is the estate tax so high that it is not possible to pass the farm on to members of the family?

Response: Often the farm has to be sold because the inheritors are not able to pay the taxes.

Comment: It is my understanding that the estate tax exemption has been raised last year. It was $650,000 and it will be increased in increments of $150,000 until the year 2002 or around that time when it gets up to be $1,125,000. This amount would cover the value of most family size operations, small livestock and a few hundred acres of land. The farms with a couple thousand acres or many head of livestock or poultry would come under that exemption.

Looking towards local control of problems, is there any county in Ohio where a committee or commission has been formed to study these problems and work towards a solution whereby farmers who are directly affected can work on problems with people for whom the solution would be a benefit? Or is there a state committee doing this?

Response: My observation would be that the agricultural associations could handle this kind of effort better than a committee. In addition it would be a major mistake if we don't learn from what has happened at Buckeye Egg Farm in the sense of trying to deal with up-front discussions, good faith negotiations and assurances. We don't talk seriously enough or soon enough. Part of the problem is providing information where there is the least amount of resistance even with publication notices required by law. A notice is placed in a small or little known publication. It is then expected that you should have known and followed the information. Then all of a sudden it comes up and the community says: Why didn't we work through this and negotiate. We must begin to show some assurances, some plans and good faith. It is one thing not to want to hurt our neighbor and it is another to say I am willing to do this kind of compensation. Buckeye has had to put out a lot of money for neighbor problems they caused and didn't handle upfront in terms of good information.

Comment: Yesterday I was chairman of an industry task force representing twenty-one different organizations. We came up with a good neighbor policy for producers and are going to try to get it out to every producer. It will say: If you want to get along in the com-munity, here are some things you should do.

I can't help but look at the global map here. The United States is a unique place with unique solutions. I know we are talking primarily about Ohio but there are a lot of hungry people in a lot of places where they need food. Isn't it possible to manage the marketing side of agriculture and its products on a global basis-or is it impossible?

Response: On a global basis there are two lines of thought that keep this from happening. Some countries want to be able to feed themselves. Even if this means higher prices for inefficient agriculture, the goal of self-sufficiency overrides that. The second reason is the comparative export advantage of the countries that are able to produce the cheapest product and export it to those who can't produce it that cheaply. As long as you have different mind sets among different types of countries-we are going to feed our own as fast as we can regardless of the cost, and others saying, free up the market as much as you can-I don't see the kind of global marketing happening that you are talking about.

Comment: Much of this is an economic problem. The countries that are the hungriest have fewer resources to pay for the food. If we develop a United Nations Food Bank and we all contribute to it and ship our surplus food over there and someone is willing to pay for it, it could work. The problem is distribution and storage in these countries.

Comment: The problem is not distribution. It is finding a way to pay for the food. We can distribute it any place in the world. The real problem is money and political impediments.

ABOUT THE PANELISTS
Doug Durliat is Executive Director of the Ohio Farmers Union (OFU) headquartered in Ottawa, Ohio, with legislative offices in Columbus, Ohio, His primary responsibilities include maintaining the business and sales interests of the organization. He also works on legislative issues primarily on the federal level. Prior to taking his present position in 1997, Durliat was Communications Director for eight years. He retains the duties of this position. Durliat is a 1980 graduate of Bowling Green State University, where he earned his Bachelor's Degree in Journalism.

C. William Swank retired from the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. in May 1996 following 40 years with the organization. During his tenure he oversaw the growth of Ohio Farm Bureau from 52,000 member families to more than 180,00 statewide with a corresponding growth in program and service to members. Since his retirement Dr. Swank was named by Governor George Voinovich to serve as one of three chairmen of the Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. In addition Swank served as chief executive officer for Washington, D.C. based Cooperative Business International, a corporation which promotes global marketing among the world's cooperatives. Swank holds a Ph.D. degree in Agricultural Economics from The Ohio State University as well as his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees.

James W. Tobin has worked for the Catholic Conference of Ohio as Director of Social Concerns since 1987. The Catholic Conference represents the Ohio Bishops in public matters affecting the church. Tobin spends considerable time "lobbying" Ohio's government officials on various social justice issues. He also convenes the diocesan social service, social action and rural life directors throughout Ohio. He graduated from Xavier University in Cincinnati with a degree in Urban Studies.

Robert W. Teater is President of Teater & Associates. In this position he has directed and participated in a number of complex natural resource development projects. These include the International Center for the Preservation of Wild Animals and an International Center for Water Resource Management. Prior to forming his own business, Dr. Teater was Director of the Ohio De-partment of Natural Resources. In addition he owns and operates a 186 acre farm in Franklin County raising corn, soybeans and alfalfa. He has a Ph.D. degree from The Ohio State University.

NOTE
Oneida's evolution from utopian community to modern corporation was representative and symptomatic. Towards the end of the century, one after another of the utopian communities disappeared or were transformed... In 1932 Amana, like Oneida, abandoned communism and turned itself into a joint-stock cooperative society. Even the Shakers, the hardiest of the religious communities, went into decline in the late nineteenth century. . .

The secular utopian communities fared even less well. Owenite New Harmony, Transcendentalist Brook Farm, The Fourierist Phalanxes and Josiah Warren's anarchist communities were, of course, long gone. So too were the other experimental communities founded on educational or libertarian theories. . .

Socialism has been, to date, the last utopia. No other com-prehensive social vision has emerged as contender, no other utopia to substitute for it. . . The populations of the West may prefer to live under capitalism, and look with mistrust at socialist alternatives. But contemporary capitalism, whether in its buccaneering free-market form or its more humane welfare guise, has no more than contemporary socialism proved the stuff of utopia. The utopian fervor that accompanied its birth has, as with socialism, diminished to a pragmatic acceptance. It would prob-ably be true to say that, for the majority of people in the West, a suitably modified and 'reformed' capitalism is considered the 'least worst' system currently available, both in its economic and its political aspect. (Kumar, Krishan. Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times. Basil Blackwell Ltd., c1987, pp. 91-92, 421.)

REFERENCES (Current local news reporting)
"Conference Backers Hope to Expand Opportunities for Farmers". Columbus Dispatch, (Sunday, November 27, 1998), page 2F.
"New Buckeye Egg Chief Must Win Over a Skeptical Com-munity". Columbus Dispatch, (Sunday, December 6, 1998), page 2G.
"Hog Farmers Taking Action to Counter Falling Prices". Columbus Dispatch, (Sunday, December 27, 1998), page 2H.

LOCATION
Council for Ethics in Economics office.

Highlights is one of the benefits of membership in the Council for Ethics in Economics. The Council thanks Celianna Taylor for assembling and editing this and future editions of Highlights.

We acknowledge with gratitude the special support of Leadership Circle members Ashland Chemical Company, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, and Merrill Lynch

Council for Ethics in Economics
125 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3605 U.S.A.
(614) 221-8661
FAX: (614) 221-8707

Website designed and maintained by CINErgy Media Communication.
cinergy@cinecomm.com