Chiquita Banana Case Review

Despite the flushed predictions of prosperity that had lured new settlers to the plains, the reality was more difficult. The farmers claimed that they did not have enough land, money, and transportation (Doc C). The farmers went into in a never ending cycle if they did not have a good harvest. As Booker Washington explains the farmers had no money so they had to borrow money from the banks which charged 12 to 30 percent interest. The interest the farmers were hit with was nearly impossible to repay so they had to mortgage everything and if the mortgage wasn’t paid the land was foreclosure which led the yeomen to become tenant farmers (Doc B). With periods of drought growing good crops was hard. Leading Economic Sectors shows how the farmers predicament of not being able to make a very

In the late nineteenth century shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, farmers in the Midwestern United States found themselves in quite a predicament. During the second industrial revolution of the United States that contained mass introduction of: railroads, oil, steel, and electricity, the risk-taking entrepreneurs of this era took an adventure into the world of cutthroat capitalism. In just a little time, a handful of monopolies arose in all these industries which hurt both the consumer of the product and the producer of the material (Doc. F). Because of the corrupt politicians in Washington DC, the absence of regulation on the monopolies put into place by bribes and greed or moderation from them, and the devious ways of the

Sharecropping gave farmers a place to live. The lack of the initial upfront payment is a disadvantage to the landowner, who had to wait for payment until the crops are harvested and sold. They both make

In order to do this, the new Agricultural Adjustment Administration paid landowners to take property out of production. What ended up happening was

White farmers in the South and Midwest faced many problems after the Civil War, economically, politically, and socially. Many farmers had a system of cultivating unimproved land, and then selling it for a profit before moving farther West. However, after the Civil War, many states had no increase or barely an increase in land value. Thus, farmers using this process were no longer earning a profit. In other states, the land value did increase greatly. However, with the coming of income taxes and the raise in property taxes, these farmers still suffered. In addition, there was a lot of tension between railroad companies and farmers because railroad companies were overcharging farmers for the transportation of crops. However, because of a monopoly,

Pursuing this further, the rich soil of the West was becoming poor, and floods contributed to the problem, and, eventually caused erosion. Beginning in the summer of 1887, a series of droughts forced many people to abandon their farms and towns. As circumstances worsened, farmers were beginning to be controlled by corporations and processors. The farmers were at the mercy of many trusts, which, in turn, could control the productivity and raise prices to high levels. Furthermore, during the late 19th century, many farmers considered monopolies, trusts, railroads, and money shortages as evident threats to their lifestyle. The rise of these monopolies and trusts worried many farmers because they felt that the disappearance of competition would lead to erratic and unreasonable price rises that would harm consumers. Oftentimes, these “robber barons” would prevent competitors from reaching the markets by restricting their ability to transport their goods. In Document E, James B. Weaver wrote of the main weapons of the trust-organized commerce: threats, intimidation, bribery, fraud,

[…] If a farmer wanted to expand operations, he required the deep pockets of Northern banks to lend him the money to buy additional equipment, as well as additional labor. (13)

Bankers- High interest rates caused the farmers to pay even more when they didn't have the money to pay.

In 1890 clergyman Washington Gladden wrote an article called “The Embattled Farmers”. In it he blamed the ruin of the farmers on “protective tariffs, trusts…speculation in farm products, over-greedy middlemen, and exorbitant transportation rates.”

In the past farming was a way to provide food to the family, but in a growing market economy it was becoming more important in the 1860s and 1870s to have money in order to purchase food, clothing, and supplies for the family. That money could also be used to keep the farm running and producing more goods and making more money. However, farming was as competitive as ever. During the Civil War the demand for crops like cotton was high so farmers started producing even more cotton. After the war, the supply of cotton stayed the same but the demand for it lowered, dropping the prices and putting many farmers in debt. The invention of railroads connected many states together making bigger, interstate markets instead of simple local markets; making it even more difficult

When we mention about farm, most of us have this image of a vast green pasture where farmers spend most of their time herding livestock but that idyllic picture is just a thing from the past. Since the 1930s in America, small farms started to wither away, made way to bigger and highly mechanized factory farms. It all traced back to McDonalds and the booming of fast food restaurants (Food, Inc 2008). Fast food restaurants had become successful because they could produce tasty food with cheaper cost. Their franchises eventually made them a multi-million-dollars industry. Big business required big suppliers. Small rural farms cannot meet the demand for supply and they quickly fade away. Farmers were being replaced by corporations in

Chiquita, the oldest banana transnational in Latin America was the primary target of banana worker rights and environmental activists until 2001. The company has since teamed up with the Rainforest Alliance to roll out the Alliance’s standards to its banana farms in Latin America.6 Chiquita prides itself on its recent changes, which have involved revamping the company to promote “The Chiquita Difference”; this includes a philosophy of social responsibility, sustainability, community involvement and food safety.7 These changes arose from the use of political activism by consumers in response to poor workers rights, thus exemplifying the fact that people do realize where their food is coming from and are willing to fight for those who create it. This shows that the process of defetishization has begun for many. Production

In the book, Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World (2008), Dan Koeppel talks about the historical background of banana. He also talks about its’ importance to African farmers and its’ importance to Latin America and Asia in economic terms. He describes that a disease called blight has caused serious threats to banana crops, as it is rapidly destroying the banana crops around the world (Koeppel, 2008). In this book, the author describes the role of two mega companies; Dole and Chiquita. They are committing massacres in the name of producing cheap banana. In Latin, America Chiquita is exploiting the labor. It also supports

American farmers found themselves facing hard times after the Civil War. In the West, the railroad had opened up enormous opportunities. Farmers were now able to cultivate land that had previously been to far from the Eastern markets to make a profit. However, that opportunity came at a price. The farmers increasing dependence on the railroads and other commercial

Chiquita Brands International seems to have an autocratic leadership style locally but laissez-faire at headquarter level. In the 1960s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN) was founded and this cause guerrilla warfare. The FARC was against “the United States influences in Colombia, neoimperialism, monopolization of natural resources by multinational corporations, and paramilitary/government violence” (Schotter & Teagarden, 2010). They was aware of problems involving “farm workers labored long hours in dangerous conditions, agrochemical runoff contaminated water, and tropical forests were cleared for expansion” (Schotter & Teagarden, 2010). Furthermore, the drug cartels were within the country and providing illegal drug trades; which is when the United States backed the War on Drugs. Somewhere between late 1980’s and beginning of 1990’s, Chiquita paid “taxes” to the illegal drug trade while hoping to keep employees safe. No changes were made until 1992 when Dave McLaughlin, Managing Director and