Chiquita Peeled: Background on the Cinncinatti Enquirer’s Censored Scoop

Humans have been cultivating bananas since almost the beginning of civilization. Hundreds of banana varieties thrive in almost every tropical region of the world. But more than 90 percent of the bananas found at grocery stores in the US and Europe are one variety – the yellow Gran Cavendish. Most of these bananas are grown, shipped and sold by Chiquita Brands International.

In May, 300 banana producers, environmentalists, government representatives unions and labor rights activists from 44 countries are meeting in Brussels, Belgium to discuss banana-related issues such as pesticide use, market protections and corporate codes of conduct. (Chiquita, unlike some of its largest competitors, declined to send a representative to the meeting.)

On May 3, the Cincinnati Enquirer published a major 18-page expose of Chiquita Brands International (CBI), the Cincinnati-based banana giant. This important piece of investigative journalism was the result of a year- long research effort by Enquirer reporters Mike Gallagher and Cameron McWhirter.

The Enquirer exposé documented how Chiquita took steps to conceal its ownership of land in Central America in order to evade local laws limiting foreign ownership of land.

Another motivation for Chiquita’s shell game of land ownership is union busting. Enquirer reporters obtained confidential internal company memos and voicemail tapes in whichChiquita management repeatedly confide that they want to use the appearance of dispersed land ownership to thwart unions.

In an internal memo to company officials in 1992, Chiquita lawyer David Hills described how the company would undergo a sham break-up of its land holdings in Colombia. “To avoid affiliation for labor union purposes, no two companies will have the same majority (trust) shareholder,” Hills wrote.

In an October 1997 voicemail, Hills said to another Chiquita lawyer, Joel Raymer, “Joel, one of the issues that’s come up in this Enquirer story is they are asking for what Chiquita’s position is on the stalled labor negotiation in Guatemala at our company-owned subsidiary COBIGUA. Our strategy is to answer that, first of all, that COBIGUA is not our subsidiary, it’s just one of our (independent) associate producers – wink, wink – because we have to take that position publicly. We cannot possibly admit that COBIGUA is our subsidiary.”

A 1992 internal company report by Chiquita financial analyst Paul White explained the rationale for a restructuring which provides for sham independence to its suppliers. “CBI prefers that some of its Ecuadoran operations remain anonymous in order to facilitate relationships with unions, governments and suppliers. By giving the perception of Cartonera Andina being independent, for example, CBI is able to reduce costs, and maintain improved relationships with the above groups.... By having more companies, and thus more unions, CBI is able to reduce its exposure to strikes and increase its bargaining position.”

Amilcar Castejon, a Honduran lawyer who was in charge of a sham independent supplier to Chiquita told the Enquirer that Chiquita set up the farm companies and is hiding its control “to get rid of its Honduran labor union, which would save the company millions of dollars; hide its assets, because the country’s agrarian law limits foreign ownership of agricultural land; and shield itself from liability for such things as worker lawsuits and child labor violations.”

Reacting to revelations of Chiquita’s hidden ownership in Honduras, German Edgardo Zepeda, president of the national unions that represent Honduran banana workers, said, “This is a fraud on the Honduran people and cannot be tolerated.”

In order to eliminate unions, Chiquita has resorted to the use of armed soldiers to evict union supporters from their homes and to destroy their villages. — Campaign for Labor Rights

Return to Chiquita Unpeeled