The Agribusiness Council (ABC) is a nonprofit/tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1967 following a White House meeting between President Lyndon Johnson and Henry Heinz II, chairman of Heinz Foods Company. ABC's primary purpose is to promote more effective U.S. agribusiness engagement in global agricultural markets through trade and investment. ABC provides a range of start-up services to groups interested in organizing agribusiness associations - briefings, association business plans, mailing list development, staff training, access to national and international databases, and links to ongoing specialized ABC committees and other state councils.

In 1989, The Agribusiness Council initiated the state agribusiness council formation project (S/ABC) as part of a broad effort to strengthen ties between grassroots agricultural interests and their allies in the "food system." Bipartisan support from thirty senators and representatives in the U.S. Congress helped launch the project. The S/ABC aims at forming new agribusiness associations at the state/local levels and linking them to the wider network of existing counterpart associations modeled after the Council. The network includes several overseas agribusiness associations and thus provides unique marketing and contact development potentials for participating companies, universities and associations.

Summary
The Agribusiness Council (ABC) seeks funding to expand and refine its management/training programs which assist in the formation of local/state voluntary membership associations for the advancement of private sector-led solutions on issues affecting the agro-food system. These nonprofit associations would be designed around more successful state councils and ABC. Committees and programs, particularly on international trade/development, will take advantage of ABC’s global network and database. ABC support services and guidance will enable the nascent associations to achieve independence and sustainability, while forging new links for global food security.

1. Agriculture in general, and U.S. agriculture in particular, are in transition, undergoing a revolution and radical down-sizing at the same time.
2. New kinds of issues/challenges cutting across agriculture and the food system will require new types of solutions and coalitions working for agriculture’s interests.
3. Agriculture and its traditional organizations are increasingly on the defensive and not well understood as urban populations grow and influence shifts from the countryside to the cities.
4. Traditional ag groups – organized along producer, sector and geographic lines – are often unable to grapple with modern challenges effectively; and they resort to ad hoc coalition-building which is costly, slow and lacks continuity after crises abate.
5. As agribusiness becomes more specialized and sector groups splinter into smaller units, "critical mass" is lost and difficulties arise in developing cohesive positions even around issues where broad common interests can be found.
6. Effective coalition-building requires more framework, more "association discipline" to provide agricultural interests with "critical mass" and continuity. This favors a loose, but more formalized underpinning for success.
7. Traditional ag groups are shrinking in number as their respective bases thin out, resulting in reduced political influence, and access to global market development opportunities.
8. Traditional ag groups will resist supporting proposed "umbrella" efforts, and may attempt to sabotage, until it is clear that (a) their own policies and membership will be strengthened, (b) "umbrella" will not supercede or interfere with their lobbying activities, (c) "Umbrella" will provide incremental benefits justifying support. Thus, traditional ag is inclined to "fence-sit" in early development stages which can allow "fresh ideas/people" to flow into the formation of "the umbrella."
9. Individual managers of traditional ag associations (as distinct from their "practitioner" members) and other "ag elites" usually feel threatened by the emergence of a new ag "umbrella" association, and their concerns should be recognized.
10. Major ag producers and agribusiness companies may also adopt a "wait and see" posture since they rely upon #9 for advice and are often quite bureaucratic, with individual executives practicing "risk aversion." Their early avoidance of commitment/participation offers the emerging "umbrella" leadership a unique chance to attract new people/ideas. If the statutes are created with a sensitivity to the inevitable power dynamics of "big agribusiness," the new organization can emerge as a truly balanced one with a grassroots constituency linked to urban, agro/food-allied interests which can forge new links for the state’s food system as a whole.
11. Modern telecommunications and transport technology allows the emergence of these type of ag organizations – with private sector, nonprofit foundation – for the first time. Networks without the component of association trust are already becoming dysfunctional, but properly managed association association-based networks, with counterpart groups domestically and abroad, have a great future since they can provide business benefits and share problem-solving ideas among members.
12. Associations in agriculture have specialized requirements and governance mechanisms based upon character and trust which can serve them well in the competition for resources and ideas. Associations have comparative advantage over certain public sector activities and could supplement government in a era of downsizing.
13. Agricultural advisory groups, often staffed by state and federal agencies do not provide a level playing field, or channels for constructive criticism or change, which could benefit the food system as a whole and/or inspire general public confidence.
14. Private enterprise is willing to finance nonprofit organizational "umbrella" programs to supplement state and federal functions IF they are able to participate and influence activities of associations in a meaningful way.
15. Agribusiness councils are well-positioned, with a growing national network, to introduce programs to enhance the image oaf agriculture and the professionalism of all links in the "food system" working together – above the age-worn frictions and suspicions which will continue at the various economic pressure points in the value-added, distribution and retail end of the chain.
16. Agribusiness councils are well-positioned, with links to a growing international network of counterpart groups, to introduce cost-effective market development and information programs, which build upon human nature/desire within association channels to meet and build ongoing activities based upon presence, mutual respect and shared interests in the globalization of agriculture and the parallel search for world food security.
17. Agribusiness councils are well-suited, with a broader scope of activities, to attract support from non-agricultural industries which depend upon the agro-food system. For example, banks, transportation, natural resource, power companies, food retailers and restaurants – all have important links to the producer community – and appreciate a chance to improve communications. They also value the opportunity to help reduce infighting within ag groups and thus, "help ag to help itself."
18. As signaled in the Freedom of Farm Act, recently signed into law, government is phasing out of agriculture. Increasingly, private enterprise will be making its own decisions regarding what to plant and process for a world market. The private sector will need to strengthen its own marketing and info-gathering networks to perform in the 21^st century.