Latest news with #ArcherDanielsMidland
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Stock Sinks As Market Gains: What You Should Know
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) ended the recent trading session at $47.24, demonstrating a -0.08% swing from the preceding day's closing price. The stock's change was less than the S&P 500's daily gain of 0.01%. Elsewhere, the Dow lost 0.22%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq added 0.32%. Coming into today, shares of the agribusiness giant had lost 2.15% in the past month. In that same time, the Consumer Staples sector gained 1.73%, while the S&P 500 gained 5.2%. The upcoming earnings release of Archer Daniels Midland will be of great interest to investors. The company's earnings per share (EPS) are projected to be $0.95, reflecting a 7.77% decrease from the same quarter last year. Simultaneously, our latest consensus estimate expects the revenue to be $22.1 billion, showing a 0.68% drop compared to the year-ago quarter. In terms of the entire fiscal year, the Zacks Consensus Estimates predict earnings of $4.07 per share and a revenue of $85.03 billion, indicating changes of -14.14% and -0.58%, respectively, from the former year. Investors should also take note of any recent adjustments to analyst estimates for Archer Daniels Midland. These revisions typically reflect the latest short-term business trends, which can change frequently. As a result, we can interpret positive estimate revisions as a good sign for the company's business outlook. Our research demonstrates that these adjustments in estimates directly associate with imminent stock price performance. We developed the Zacks Rank to capitalize on this phenomenon. Our system takes these estimate changes into account and delivers a clear, actionable rating model. The Zacks Rank system, stretching from #1 (Strong Buy) to #5 (Strong Sell), has a noteworthy track record of outperforming, validated by third-party audits, with stocks rated #1 producing an average annual return of +25% since the year 1988. Over the past month, the Zacks Consensus EPS estimate has shifted 1.26% downward. Right now, Archer Daniels Midland possesses a Zacks Rank of #4 (Sell). Valuation is also important, so investors should note that Archer Daniels Midland has a Forward P/E ratio of 11.63 right now. This expresses a discount compared to the average Forward P/E of 14.5 of its industry. Also, we should mention that ADM has a PEG ratio of 2.62. The PEG ratio bears resemblance to the frequently used P/E ratio, but this parameter also includes the company's expected earnings growth trajectory. Agriculture - Operations stocks are, on average, holding a PEG ratio of 1.63 based on yesterday's closing prices. The Agriculture - Operations industry is part of the Consumer Staples sector. This group has a Zacks Industry Rank of 184, putting it in the bottom 26% of all 250+ industries. The Zacks Industry Rank gauges the strength of our industry groups by measuring the average Zacks Rank of the individual stocks within the groups. Our research shows that the top 50% rated industries outperform the bottom half by a factor of 2 to 1. Make sure to utilize to follow all of these stock-moving metrics, and more, in the coming trading sessions. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Biden's climate-smart ag program was better than nothing. Trump killed it.
The "Eating the Earth' column explores the connections between the food we eat and the climate we live in. Farms are a huge climate problem, so it was great that the Biden administration made a huge commitment to 'climate-smart agriculture.' But some details of its first $3 billion initiative to make agriculture climate-smarter were not so great. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, launched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early 2022, provided generous grants to America's least cash-strapped agribusinesses, including Archer Daniels Midland, JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and PepsiCo, as well as America's most influential farm groups, representing corn, soybeans, cotton, pork, and dairy. A few of its 135 projects actually looked climate-harmful, financing emissions-boosting pseudo-solutions like biofuels, manure digesters, and grass-fed beef. Far too many grants went to scientifically controversial efforts to sequester carbon in farm soils through trendy 'regenerative' practices like planting cover crops and reducing tillage, and not enough flowed to simpler, evidence-backed strategies to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. And the Biden USDA's well-intentioned efforts to make sure a large portion of the grants went to smaller farms, specialty crops, sympathetic nonprofits, and traditionally underserved communities often seemed to take precedence over reducing emissions. I wrote a skeptical column about then-President Joe Biden's climate-smart approach back in 2022, so I had mixed feelings when the Trump administration cancelled the climate-smart commodities program this April. It was clearly a flawed program. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had a point when she mocked it as slow and bureaucratic. While her primary complaint that it didn't send enough money directly to farmers wasn't my primary complaint — USDA sends plenty of money directly to farmers! — even some Trump-hating advocates of sustainable farming agreed with her critique of its 'sky-high administration fees.' But no one truly believes the program's cancellation had much to do with flaws in its design or execution. Its fatal flaw, from the Trump perspective, was obviously its climate-smart premise; Rollins slagged it as 'largely built to advance the green new scam,' in violation of 'Trump administration priorities.' Those priorities are not a secret: This administration doesn't believe agriculture policy should have anything to do with the climate, which is why it scrubbed the word 'climate' from USDA's website. It doesn't care that agriculture generates one-fourth of all greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody who's concerned about the planet should be happy that an imperfect agricultural program was cancelled for the sin of trying to reduce agricultural emissions. As University of Iowa economist Silvia Secchi, one of the program's harshest critics, puts it, 'Regardless of my opinion of these grants, it makes no sense to kill them before we learn anything.' The Environmental Working Group published an analysis last year attacking Biden's climate-smart approach, but vastly prefers it to Trump's screw-the-climate approach. 'Even if we didn't love where all the money was going, it was better than just giving farmers subsidies,' says the group's Midwest director, Anne Schechinger. When President Donald Trump commits egregious transgressions — deporting a Venezuelan hairdresser to El Salvador or investigating the mayor of Chicago for bragging about his diverse staff — pundits often try to look balanced by criticizing the suboptimal behaviors he uses as excuses: Biden neglected the border; DEI went too far. There's a reluctance to simply say: This is egregious. Well, I spent the last six years reporting a book on how to feed the world without frying it, and I'll say this: Trump's belief that we shouldn't even try is egregious. Biden and his team deserve credit for making climate-smart a priority. Trump's USDA agreed to keep funding some of the climate-smart grants after farm groups protested their cancellation, but it's not calling them climate-smart anymore, and it won't pursue climate-smart investments in the future. It's defiantly climate-dumb. But I've also pointed out that it's boring to harp on the badness of a climate-denial administration doing climate-denial things. And there are lessons we can learn from the politics and substance of the climate-smart partnerships — about mistakes that shouldn't be repeated, and at least one remarkable success story that should be expanded worldwide. In my book, I tell the tale of a big internal Biden administration fight over climate-smart agriculture that never made it into the public eye. On one side was then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who wanted to pay farmers to adopt regenerative practices — like keeping soils covered and minimizing soil disturbance — that he believed would sequester carbon in their soils and help reverse climate change. He loved the idea of fifth-generation Republican dirt farmers who wore John Deere hats and drove Ford F-150s embracing kinder and gentler approaches to their land that would help them earn a premium for sustainably grown commodities and sell soil-carbon credits as an extra crop. On the other side was White House climate aide David Hayes, who thought soil carbon was wildly overhyped — by the United Nations, environmentalists, foundations who seemed to cough up cash whenever they heard the word 'regenerative,' celebrity-studded documentaries like 'Kiss the Ground,' and even Big Ag and Big Food conglomerates eager to claim climate benefits for regenerative practices in their supply chains. Hayes pushed for at least half the climate-smart grants to go to less scientifically controversial efforts to reduce methane and nitrous oxide, which make up more than half of direct farm emissions. Hayes was right about the science. It's extraordinarily difficult to measure soil carbon accurately or ensure it remains underground. It's also extraordinarily difficult to build more soil carbon without adding more nitrogen in the form of fertilizer or manure, which have negative climate impacts of their own. Indigo Ag, a carbon-market leader that announced a plan in 2019 to help regenerative farmers sequester a trillion tons of soil carbon, has gotten less than one one-millionth of the way to that goal. Regenerative agriculture also tends to produce less food per acre, which means it requires more acres to produce the same amount of food, which means it accelerates the global march of farmland into carbon-rich forests and wetlands. 'There's just too much excitement about soil carbon,' Hayes told me. But Vilsack won on the politics. Most of the climate-smart grants promoted regenerative practices designed to move atmospheric carbon underground and help build new markets where farmers could sell soil-carbon credits — and the same was true for another $20 billion steered toward climate-smart agriculture by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Cover crops and no-till were by far the best-funded practices, even though there's at best mixed evidence that they can sequester much carbon. Biden even dropped a prime-time plug for cover crops into his first address to Congress. If USDA's soil-carbon obsession started the program on the wrong track, it strayed even further from its climate-smart mission by insisting that 40% of its grants go to underserved communities, and by promoting regenerative hemp, regenerative sorghum, and dozens of other alternatives to big row-crop commodities. Some of the resulting projects were just weird. One $20 million regenerative grant was divided among small farmers in New York, minority farmers in North Carolina, wine growers in California, and a nonprofit called Nature for Justice, as well as traditional big corn and soy producers in the Midwest and the giant agribusiness Corteva. It was hard to see a coherent strategy behind the grant, beyond spreading money across the country and checking all the Biden team's priority boxes. In any case, the Trump team has cancelled it, along with dozens of other grants that explicitly prioritized equity and diversity. Hayes did pressure USDA to make a serious commitment to verifying actual soil-carbon results, and to his credit, Vilsack agreed, creating a $300 million monitoring fund and steering a variety of grants toward data collection and measurement. Vilsack was excited to document the climate benefits underground, while Hayes suspected the department would learn that soil carbon was mostly a mirage; either way, it would gather valuable information. But the Trump administration is cancelling those data-focused grants, too, part of its push to scrap grants that proposed to send less than 65% of their cash directly to farmers, or had not yet sent any cash to farmers. The measurement grants generally sent more cash to scientists, universities, and companies like Indigo. The Trump team also axed most of the grants focused on large numbers of small farms growing unconventional crops, because they required much more administration. For example, the Pennsylvania group Pasa Sustainable Agriculture lost a $59 million grant because it planned to buy supplies like cover crops and tree seedlings in bulk for 2,000 farms as small as a quarter-acre rather than giving the cash to the farmers and making them buy supplies themselves. The association's director, Hannah Smith-Brubaker, says it was finally ready to ramp up in the field after spending just $2 million of its grant over the first two years, mostly on administration and preparation — and now it won't be spending anything. 'This was supposed to be an experiment,' Smith-Brubaker says. 'We'd spend five years tackling these problems on different types of farms with different practices, and we'd start to get some comprehensive answers about what works. It's such a shame that we won't.' Robert Bonnie, Vilsack's deputy who oversaw the grants, says there was a political strategy behind the grant program: By offering farmers carrots rather than sticks, and helping them develop markets for climate-smart commodities regardless of their personal climate views, USDA could build lasting support for evidence-based innovations in farm country. But he says he underestimated the Trump team's enthusiasm for policy vandalism, for trashing anything it could fit into its culture war against anything Biden-related or climate-related. 'It turns out there are no rules, and nothing matters,' Bonnie told me. Again, it's not the Biden team's fault that the Trump team hates the climate. But just as many climate hawks now wish the Inflation Reduction Act's clean-energy provisions had focused more on getting green stuff built quickly, and less on requiring union labor, American-made components, and other conditions unrelated to the climate, it's tempting to wonder what the climate-smart grants could have achieved before Trump ransacked them if they had focused on delivering quick emissions-reducing results. Actually, we don't have to wonder, because a single grant amounting to just 0.25% of the $3 billion climate-smart commodities program did exactly that. Four years ago, when a 23-year-old finance whiz named Tyler Hull was working for a farmland asset manager in Nashville, Tennessee, he spun off a subsidiary called AgriCapture to exploit the fledgling carbon markets that were starting to reward businesses for reducing emissions. Soil carbon was all the rage, and Hull figured that if he could persuade his firm's tenant cotton and corn farmers to plant cover crops, stop tilling, and adopt other regenerative practices that would sequester carbon underground, they could sell carbon credits and the company's land would get healthier. But once he dug into the science and mechanics of soil carbon capture, Hull concluded it was mostly bogus. He calculated that farmers could at best sequester one-fifth of a ton of carbon underground per acre, so they would earn less selling credits than they would spend on seeds for cover crops — and since tilling the soil in the future would release the sequestered carbon, the carbon-credit agreements would prohibit any tillage on the land for decades. 'It just didn't work,' Hull recalls. 'We had to pivot.' Hull soon stumbled across an emissions-reduction opportunity that wasn't bogus at all: reducing methane from rice fields through better water management. Methane-producing microbes that thrive in flooded rice fields are responsible for 10% of the world's agricultural emissions, but reducing the duration of flooding through practices like 'alternative wetting and drying' and 'furrow irrigation' can cut those emissions in half — the equivalent of up to two tons per acre, with no drag on yield and no restrictions on future land management. AgriCapture received a $7.5 million climate-smart grant in 2022, and it was the only project to start sending money to farmers that first year. It used remote sensing to document 30,000 tons of methane reductions on 25,000 acres, then sold the credits to an international bank. It also saved 9 billion gallons of fresh water without any loss of yield. This year, it's enrolling 150,000 acres, about 5% of U.S. rice production. The Trump administration is allowing the project to continue because it's already used most of its grant, and Hull says it will be able to keep expanding without additional federal subsidies. If rice farmers worldwide all adopted these practices, they could eliminate enough emissions to offset half the aviation industry. 'This can become the new normal,' Hull says. 'It's practical and profitable, and even if you don't care about global warming, it's saving water and creating a new export market for American farmers: carbon credits you can trust.' Regenerative agriculture is sexy and popular, with support from Al Gore, Joe Rogan, Rosario Dawson, the Indian mystic Sadhguru, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but its ability to move a lot of carbon from sky to soil remains speculative at best. By contrast, AgriCapture's effort to reduce methane by reducing flooding on rice fields is simple, effective, and potentially lucrative. There are also proven strategies to reduce methane from cow burps with feed additives, reduce nitrous oxide emissions by using fertilizer more efficiently, and store carbon above ground by planting trees and shrubs in pastures and fields — with climate benefits that are relatively easy to measure and monetize. The Biden team could have made an international splash by bringing those strategies to scale, if it hadn't been so excited about its soil-carbon experiment. Now that experiment is over, and that's Trump's fault. But in the future, if policymakers who do care about climate progress want to make climate action more popular with the public, they might want to focus on actions they know will help the climate. And if those actions can create measurable environmental benefits that farmers can get paid for, they might even be popular in farm country.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sugar Market Growth Trends and Forecast Report 2025-2033: Volatile Prices and Health Concerns Present Challenges
The global sugar market is projected to grow from US$ 68.23 billion in 2024 to US$ 121.08 billion by 2033, with a 6.58% CAGR. Drivers include increased processed food demand in Brazil, sugar's role in personal care products, and rising beverage consumption. However, challenges such as volatile raw material prices and health concerns over sugar intake may impede growth. Key markets: Brazil, India, and the US. Leading industry players include Archer Daniels Midland and Südzucker AG. Sugar Market Dublin, May 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Sugar Market Size and Share Analysis - Growth Trends and Forecast Report 2025-2033" has been added to offering. The global sugar market is poised to expand significantly, with its value projected to reach USD 121.08 billion by 2033, climbing from USD 68.23 billion in 2024 at a CAGR of 6.58% from 2025 to 2033. The market's growth in Brazil is fueled by increased availability of processed food products, the expanding role of sugar in pharmaceuticals, and rising consumer demand. Sugar, a key ingredient in various foods and beverages, is seeing increased demand due to changing dietary preferences and urbanization. This is especially true in emerging markets where processed foods and beverages are growing in popularity. These trends contribute to the expanding food service industry, further bolstering sugar demand. Market Growth Drivers Personal care products featuring sugar are gaining traction, driven by consumer interest in natural ingredients. Sugar's properties in skincare and haircare, such as moisturizing and exfoliating, boost its demand. Accessibility through multiple distribution channels also supports market expansion, with online sales increasingly contributing to growth. The beverage industry's reliance on sugar, especially in energy drinks and flavored beverages, is another major growth driver. Despite health concerns, the appeal of sweet beverages sustains sugar demand, particularly in emerging markets. Challenges and Constraints The sugar market faces challenges from volatile raw material prices, influenced by environmental factors and global supply chain disruptions. Rising health awareness regarding diseases linked to high sugar consumption, like diabetes and obesity, also restrains market growth. The presence of sugar substitutes, deemed healthier alternatives, poses additional challenges. Regional Insights The Asia-Pacific region, led by China and India, dominates sugar consumption. North America and Europe show stable demand but face health-driven consumption shifts. Africa and Latin America, particularly Brazil, see growth due to rising demand and significant production and export activities. The United States maintains a robust sugar market despite health concerns, with influence from imports, domestic production, and government policies. Germany's market is shaped by EU regulations and a move towards low-sugar alternatives. In India, sugar's significance is underscored by local demand and government initiatives promoting sustainable practices. The Saudi Arabian market, oriented toward processed foods and beverages, remains strong, albeit challenged by a shift towards healthier consumption. Government policies targeting reduced sugar intake impact market dynamics, reflecting global trends towards wellness and sustainability. Key Attributes: Report Attribute Details No. of Pages 200 Forecast Period 2024 - 2033 Estimated Market Value (USD) in 2024 $68.23 Billion Forecasted Market Value (USD) by 2033 $121.08 Billion Compound Annual Growth Rate 6.5% Regions Covered Global Key Topics Covered: 1. Introduction2. Research Methodology3. Executive Summary4. Market Dynamics4.1 Growth Drivers4.2 Challenges5. Global Sugar Market6. Market Share Analysis6.1 Product Type6.2 Form6.3 Source6.4 End User6.5 Countries7. Product Type7.1 White7.2 Brown7.3 Liquid8. Form8.1 Granulated8.2 Powdered8.3 Syrup9. Source9.1 Sugarcane9.2 Sugar Beet10. End User10.1 Food and Beverages10.2 Pharma and Personal Care10.3 Household11. Countries11.1 North America11.2 Europe11.3 Asia-Pacific11.4 Latin America11.5 Middle East & Africa12. Porter's Five Forces Analysis12.1 Bargaining Power of Buyers12.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers12.3 Degree of Rivalry12.4 Threat of New Entrants12.5 Threat of Substitutes13. SWOT Analysis13.1 Strength13.2 Weakness13.3 Opportunity13.4 Threat14. Key Players Analysis14.1 Archer Daniels Midland14.2 Tate and Lyle14.3 General Mills, Inc.14.4 MGP Ingredients Inc.14.5 Kerry Group14.6 Sudzucker AG14.7 Tereos14.8 Cosan SAFor more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Attachment Sugar Market CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sugar Market Growth Trends and Forecast Report 2025-2033: Volatile Prices and Health Concerns Present Challenges
The global sugar market is projected to grow from US$ 68.23 billion in 2024 to US$ 121.08 billion by 2033, with a 6.58% CAGR. Drivers include increased processed food demand in Brazil, sugar's role in personal care products, and rising beverage consumption. However, challenges such as volatile raw material prices and health concerns over sugar intake may impede growth. Key markets: Brazil, India, and the US. Leading industry players include Archer Daniels Midland and Südzucker AG. Sugar Market Dublin, May 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Sugar Market Size and Share Analysis - Growth Trends and Forecast Report 2025-2033" has been added to offering. The global sugar market is poised to expand significantly, with its value projected to reach USD 121.08 billion by 2033, climbing from USD 68.23 billion in 2024 at a CAGR of 6.58% from 2025 to 2033. The market's growth in Brazil is fueled by increased availability of processed food products, the expanding role of sugar in pharmaceuticals, and rising consumer demand. Sugar, a key ingredient in various foods and beverages, is seeing increased demand due to changing dietary preferences and urbanization. This is especially true in emerging markets where processed foods and beverages are growing in popularity. These trends contribute to the expanding food service industry, further bolstering sugar demand. Market Growth Drivers Personal care products featuring sugar are gaining traction, driven by consumer interest in natural ingredients. Sugar's properties in skincare and haircare, such as moisturizing and exfoliating, boost its demand. Accessibility through multiple distribution channels also supports market expansion, with online sales increasingly contributing to growth. The beverage industry's reliance on sugar, especially in energy drinks and flavored beverages, is another major growth driver. Despite health concerns, the appeal of sweet beverages sustains sugar demand, particularly in emerging markets. Challenges and Constraints The sugar market faces challenges from volatile raw material prices, influenced by environmental factors and global supply chain disruptions. Rising health awareness regarding diseases linked to high sugar consumption, like diabetes and obesity, also restrains market growth. The presence of sugar substitutes, deemed healthier alternatives, poses additional challenges. Regional Insights The Asia-Pacific region, led by China and India, dominates sugar consumption. North America and Europe show stable demand but face health-driven consumption shifts. Africa and Latin America, particularly Brazil, see growth due to rising demand and significant production and export activities. The United States maintains a robust sugar market despite health concerns, with influence from imports, domestic production, and government policies. Germany's market is shaped by EU regulations and a move towards low-sugar alternatives. In India, sugar's significance is underscored by local demand and government initiatives promoting sustainable practices. The Saudi Arabian market, oriented toward processed foods and beverages, remains strong, albeit challenged by a shift towards healthier consumption. Government policies targeting reduced sugar intake impact market dynamics, reflecting global trends towards wellness and sustainability. Key Attributes: Report Attribute Details No. of Pages 200 Forecast Period 2024 - 2033 Estimated Market Value (USD) in 2024 $68.23 Billion Forecasted Market Value (USD) by 2033 $121.08 Billion Compound Annual Growth Rate 6.5% Regions Covered Global Key Topics Covered: 1. Introduction2. Research Methodology3. Executive Summary4. Market Dynamics4.1 Growth Drivers4.2 Challenges5. Global Sugar Market6. Market Share Analysis6.1 Product Type6.2 Form6.3 Source6.4 End User6.5 Countries7. Product Type7.1 White7.2 Brown7.3 Liquid8. Form8.1 Granulated8.2 Powdered8.3 Syrup9. Source9.1 Sugarcane9.2 Sugar Beet10. End User10.1 Food and Beverages10.2 Pharma and Personal Care10.3 Household11. Countries11.1 North America11.2 Europe11.3 Asia-Pacific11.4 Latin America11.5 Middle East & Africa12. Porter's Five Forces Analysis12.1 Bargaining Power of Buyers12.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers12.3 Degree of Rivalry12.4 Threat of New Entrants12.5 Threat of Substitutes13. SWOT Analysis13.1 Strength13.2 Weakness13.3 Opportunity13.4 Threat14. Key Players Analysis14.1 Archer Daniels Midland14.2 Tate and Lyle14.3 General Mills, Inc.14.4 MGP Ingredients Inc.14.5 Kerry Group14.6 Sudzucker AG14.7 Tereos14.8 Cosan SAFor more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Attachment Sugar Market CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
ADM repeatedly failed to prevent potentially deadly grain explosions
(Illustration by Lauren Cross/Investigate Midwest) Around 6:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve in 2022, flames ripped through the bowels of an industrial facility in Fremont, Nebraska. Elevators were scorched. Conveyor belts collapsed. Metal doors melted. As smoke filled the sky, employees scrambled to escape. One dialed 911. 'The plant's on fire,' he hurriedly breathed. 'Is everybody out of there?' The dispatcher asked. 'Working on it.' Local fire crews extinguished the blaze at the Archer Daniels Midland plant about three hours later. Equipment failure likely created a spark. But the product upon which ADM built an empire was most responsible for the destruction: grain. Processing grain generates a highly explosive byproduct, dust. Industry guidelines recommend, and experts encourage, that companies install machines to capture airborne dust and routinely clean dusty areas. A few days after the explosion, ADM assured the community it was qualified to handle the emergency. 'Safety is always our top priority,' a spokesperson told the Fremont Tribune. 'ADM has extensive processes and procedures in place.' A federal safety inspector found a different story. About two weeks after the explosion, the inspector arrived and immediately spotted the problem: Dust-coated walls and pipes. As the inspector collected samples, the plant manager grew irate. 'I know I have a dust problem,' the plant manager confided. Near the top of the Fortune 500, with annual profits exceeding several billion dollars each year, ADM has long dominated American grain processing. It underpins the agriculture and food industries, producing feed for livestock and artificial sweeteners for Coca-Cola. It has touted its safety record, and it recently highlighted that it was named 'one of America's most responsible companies.' However, despite its vast resources and awareness of the risks, ADM has failed to prevent a series of recent grain explosions, according to interviews with experts and a review of federal, state, and local records obtained by Investigate Midwest. Disregarding industry best practices and government warnings, the company has allowed dust to accumulate to unsafe levels, has failed to maintain equipment designed to prevent explosions properly, and has not developed procedures for safely removing dust. In total, one person has died and 15 employees and first-responders have suffered life-changing injuries. The death occurred in Iowa in 2019. After a fire had started in a grain silo, ADM allowed fire crews to blast the product with water. Research going back decades showed the best way to handle a silo fire was to close all openings so it could burn out. Pressurized water only generates grain dust, creating fuel for the fire. ADM employees had no idea. As firefighters hosed the fire from the silo's roof, it blew. Two government investigations concluded ADM's mismanagement was at least partly responsible for the death. ADM has denied this. The same year, a section of ADM's North American headquarters in Decatur, Illinois, exploded. Again, mismanagement contributed, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found. ADM had not studied how destructive dust could be. Contractors had flagged incorrectly installed parts and parts needing replacement on the facility's dust collectors, but no maintenance was performed. Two more explosions rocked the facility in 2023. OSHA found the same problems: poor maintenance. Eleven workers suffered third-degree burns across their faces and bodies. ADM is contesting the government fines. Between 2018 and 2024, ADM has had eight grain explosions, or about 13% of all such incidents in the agriculture industry, according to Purdue University research. Only two other companies have had more than one during that time period. Investigate Midwest also identified a handful of other grain fires at ADM facilities. John Newquist, a former OSHA administrator who now trains companies on dust explosion prevention, said there's little doubt ADM had policies in place addressing the problem. 'The real, million-dollar question is, Why didn't they follow their own program? This is one of the 500 largest companies in the United States,' he said. 'They have everything to do it right. They have the money. They have the resources. There is no excuse for a big, billion-dollar company to have any dust explosions.' Over the past six months, Investigate Midwest has repeatedly sought comment from ADM, first contacting spokeswoman Jackie Anderson in early November. She declined an interview request but asked for specific questions. Despite two rounds of detailed, written inquiries and repeated follow-ups since then, she has not responded. In corporate documents, ADM has said safety is a top concern. Most years, about 80% of its locations, including about 200 North American processing facilities, have recorded no worker safety incidents, the company reported. After the 2023 explosions, ADM admitted in corporate records its 'safety performance did not meet our expectations,' though it did not mention the incidents specifically. 'Our people are our lifeblood,' ADM has said. 'We are refocusing our efforts in both occupational and process safety in support of our vision of Safe or We Don't Do it. We remain committed to fostering a safe working environment for all of our employees and contractors. ADM added it was 'enhancing efforts' related to maintenance activities, risk management and employee health. Preventing dust buildup can be challenging, said Kingsly Ambrose, a Purdue University professor and authority on grain dust explosions. Facilities process large volumes of grain, which is jostled around as it's transported up and around the building. This flings grain dust into the air. 'When it gets suspended in air, that's the major challenge,' Ambrose said. In that scenario, even a small fire can lead to a massive conflagration. 'If anyone sees dust,' he said, 'better to clean it up immediately.' ADM has, at times, been slow to address maintenance issues. A stark example is the aftermath of the Christmas Eve explosion in Nebraska, which has not been previously reported. Newquist said the discussions detailed in the OSHA investigation are 'rare' — company managers and executives are generally more tight-lipped. After getting upset, the plant's manager, Eric Stanley, took the safety inspector to his office. Stanley, who told the inspector he was 'under intense pressure' from his bosses, unburdened himself. He had not stopped working in the week since the fire, he said, and he knew the facility was behind on dust maintenance. Eventually, Stanley told the inspector he was 'happy' OSHA was now investigating. When asked why, the inspector later wrote, 'Stanley stated that (ADM) is finally doing things that needed to be done. (He) indicated that he has brought things to their attention in the past and no action was being taken.' After OSHA's visit, the plant was shut down for about a week. Soon after, ADM fired the facility's maintenance contractor, A-Lert Construction Services, a Kansas-based company that installs and maintains dust collection systems. When the inspector interviewed an A-Lert manager, he seemed salty at the dismissal. ADM did not fix anything 'until it was broken,' the manager said. A-Lert did not respond to requests for comment. ADM did not comment on A-Lert's responsibilities. A-Lert's performance later became a central issue at a meeting — it's unclear where, based on reports — between OSHA and ADM. The inspector, Stanley and an ADM corporate lawyer were present. Also attending was a longtime safety executive, David Frazelle. His tenure at ADM began in 1979. Over the years, he traveled the country to hand out safety awards, and he defended ADM against OSHA oversight. In one case, OSHA fined the company $7,000 for exposing workers to an unsafe manlift. Before an administrative law judge, Frazelle successfully argued the manlift was exempt from OSHA protections. At the time of the meeting, he was the executive in charge of safety for all of ADM's milling operations, the places most at risk for dust explosions. Frazelle said A-Lert employees lacked strong mechanical skills and were unqualified to work at the Fremont facility. Then, he acknowledged Stanley had told the truth: The plant manager had been raising the alarm for a while. 'I'm going to say something that our attorney isn't going to like,' Frazzelle said, according to the inspector's notes. 'Eric has been trying to get rid of the maintenance company for quite some time.' Frazzelle retired in February. Asked for comment, he replied to an Investigate Midwest email with a screenshot of ADM's media relations webpage. Dust explosions have plagued the industry for at least a century, almost as long as ADM has existed. In 1919, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, starch factory blew, killing 43. Five years later, 42 died at a corn processor in Pekin, Illinois. In 1927, ADM formed its grain division. Deadly incidents continued throughout the 20th century. In the late 1980s, a rash of explosions prompted OSHA to act. A new rule forced companies to practice preventative maintenance, write housekeeping policies and create escape plans. The agency also defined how much dust was considered safe, an 1/8 of an inch. 'If you can write dust on the floor, that's too much dust,' said Newquist, the former OSHA administrator. Since the rule, the number of dust explosions, and the number of deaths, has decreased dramatically, according to OSHA. Still, dangers exist. In 2008, at the Imperial Sugar Company in Savannah, Georgia, managers had allowed 'massive accumulations' of sugar dust to build up. The explosion killed 14 and injured dozens. OSHA fined the company more than $6 million. Experts said, overall, facilities that generate dust have made strides in preventing incidents. In the past decade, the agriculture industry has averaged about eight explosions per year, according to Purdue University figures. It's a good sign the average isn't changing, Ambrose said. At times, though, he's surprised at the lack of knowledge of some of the industry insiders he trains. 'They never knew that dust could explode,' he said. ADM has its own history of incidents. In 1998, five men were injured at its Decatur facility. They were investigating a smoldering fire inside a piece of equipment, and, when they opened it, the full blast hit them. Explosions also occurred in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2011. Few injuries were reported, but one man died. In 2013, ADM aimed to improve its overall safety management, which included a 'focus on serious and potentially serious events,' according to corporate documents. In June 2016, it announced it had just had its safest year in company history. Adding to the good news, a press release proclaimed ADM had reduced all workplace incidents by two-thirds in the past decade. In the press release, ADM's president and CEO, Juan Luciano, said workplace safety had become a 'cornerstone of our culture, but our work won't be complete until we have eliminated 100 percent of the incidents and injuries companywide. We have an ongoing journey to zero.' It was important to take time, he continued, 'to reflect on what we've done well and also what we can do better in the future.' While ADM was trumpeting its safety culture, its negligence, OSHA found, was laying the groundwork for a devastating dust explosion. Months after Luciano's statement, a maintenance contractor inspected a chemical suppression system at the Decatur facility. The system was critical to preventing explosions. It was linked to an indoor bucket elevator, which shot grain upward and flung dust into the air. If the suppression system sensed an ignition, it would suffocate the fire, preventing destruction. The National Fire Protection Association, which sets industry standards, requires the system to be inspected every three months. But no one else would inspect the system for years, with life-altering consequences. Two hours before sunrise on Saturday, Jan. 5, 2019, at ADM's Clinton, Iowa, facility, a group of contractors arrived at a row of six concrete silos along the Mississippi River. Each silo was about 100 feet tall, 24 feet wide and more than a foot thick. Typically, about a thousand workers bustled around the facility, but on weekends, there was a skeleton crew, including contractors. What they found that morning would prove deadly. Inside one of the silos, wet, processed corn had crusted into a hardened bridge. The contractors had been blasting the blockage with water for months, trying to break it apart. The night before, they'd opened the silo's hatches, allowing air to flow through. As they began again that morning, they noticed the corn material tumbling out — it was black, burnt. The product had self-ignited. When stored, organic material can produce its own heat. Any exposure to oxygen can start a fire. Silo fires have been a known risk for decades, and a growing body of research prior to 2019 showed what factors caused them and how to prevent smoldering burns from turning into destructive explosions. In 1988, Pennsylvania researchers published a study with a succinct conclusion: 'Do nothing to increase the level of oxygen or air inside the silo,' the authors wrote. 'Opening the top hatch cover to dump water or foam inside can create an explosive mixture.' Simply, the best way to handle a silo fire is to close any openings and let it burn itself out. No one at the ADM facility that day knew that. ADM did not answer questions about what its corporate safety team understand about silo fires or whether any plant personnel were trained on how to handle them safely. Small fires had occurred in the silos before, but ADM did not answer questions about what lessons were learned. Alerted to the fire, ADM plant managers quickly gathered to determine how to proceed. They asked the contractors to douse the fire, but the contractors refused, citing lack of training. Around the same time, managers announced the emergency over the radio and called the Clinton Fire Department. At 5:52 a.m., fire trucks arrived, and first-responders huddled with plant management about 500 feet north of the smoking silo. ADM has hotly contested what happened next. Two independent investigations, by a state office and a federal agency, concluded firefighters were given inaccurate information that determined their response. They were not told the silo contained potentially explosive corn material. Instead, they understood it housed a less flammable product. An explosion was also unlikely, they were told, because contractors had been soaking the material for months. ADM has denied the findings. In a later court case, company lawyers deposed a firefighter who said ADM staff told him the silo could blow because of 'corn dust.' The company claims the firefighter did not tell his supervisors. ADM has not disputed what happened after, as detailed by the two government investigations. As smoke filtered from the silo, the fire department and plant management continued to debate the best approach. Firefighters noticed a hatch about 13 feet off the ground, large enough for a person to squeeze through. Could they pump water through it? An ADM manager cautioned against it, arguing the burning product could spill onto those who opened the hatch. Then, it was decided water would be pumped from the roof of the silo, through a top hatch. The fire department's ladders could not reach the roof. Two men would have to summit the silo, shouldering 50 feet of hose, and connect the nozzles. Eric Hosette, 33, and Adam Cain, 23, prepared themselves. An ADM employee guided the firefighters along a catwalk that led to the silo's roof. With no respirator, the smoke overcame him. He was forced to turn back several feet from their destination. He pointed to the roof and rushed away. Hosette and Cain walked through a gray haze of smoke and dust to reach the opening. They began pumping. On the ground, a new ADM manager arrived. He told the assembled crew the burning bridge was likely below the hatch, the one firefighters had originally wanted to open. Firefighters could likely extinguish the fire in relative safety. As the manager spoke, around 8:45 a.m., gray smoke turned white. Then, a roar. Hosette was hurled toward the ground and landed near the river. His colleagues rushed to revive him as a helicopter was called. At the hospital, he died from his injuries. Attention then turned to Cain. ADM employees and firefighters searched the area but were unable to find him. After about 30 minutes of searching, a contractor told firefighters the hatch had a viewport. No one had volunteered this information before. When firefighters peered through, they saw Cain sitting semiconscious on the bridge, among chunks of the roof. Cain was hospitalized for three weeks. He declined an interview request, saying he wanted to move on. Hosette's widow could not be reached. The Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Administration completed its investigation in early 2019. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's worker safety arm, released its report in January. (The pandemic delayed its release, a spokesperson said.) Iowa OSHA found ADM had failed to prepare its plant personnel to handle the emergency. Managers who assumed responsibility during the incident were 'not properly trained.' They did not effectively organize the company's response, including assigning staffers to roles they were not qualified for, such as guiding firefighters to the silo's roof. Because of poor training, 'vital information' — such as the silo's destructive contents or the presence of a viewport — was not communicated to first-responders. ADM commissioned its own third-party investigation from Exponent, which specializes in workplace safety reviews. The report, obtained by Investigate Midwest, did not examine the company's role in the explosion. Instead, it examined the explosion's root cause: Water pumped through the silo's top hatch. (Its author, Sean Dee, who spoke at two ADM-sponsored events before his investigation, did not respond to requests for comment.) The report concluded the buildup of combustible gas in the silo was the explosion's likely cause, but the presence of dust 'could not be ruled out.' In this scenario, the water stirred up the grain dust. Side hatches left open overnight likely fanned the flames, but the water generated ample fuel. In April 2019, Iowa safety inspectors explained their findings to plant management and lawyers. During the meeting, ADM 'expressed concern regarding the penalty size,' inspectors noted. The company was fined about $56,000, less than many plant workers' yearly wages. As Iowa's investigation concluded, ADM faced questions about its actions at another facility, about 200 miles south. Two days after the April meeting in Iowa, federal safety inspectors visited ADM in Decatur. The campus, on the Sangamon River's banks, is almost two square miles and provides the city's only skyline. A few thousand employees and contractors work there. The inspectors were investigating a series of failures that had led to a fireball blowing a hole in a grain elevator. Missed opportunities to prevent the destruction stretched back to the previous summer. During an inspection, a technician noted that parts on a dust collector needed replacing. On another dust collector, parts were incorrectly installed. Six months later, a technician inspected the same collectors, and discovered the same problems. Yet another dust collector was also likely malfunctioning, but, the technician told the feds, he was 'allowed very little time to investigate' the problem. Also, ADM had not analyzed the risk dust posed to its facility, which is considered an industry best practice. The company didn't even have guidelines written down for how to analyze such a risk, inspectors found. Without a policy, ADM was missing a 'critical step' in determining how to prevent dust explosions. ADM's response to the explosion was haphazard as well, safety inspectors discovered during their April visit. After the blast, the company installed two chemical suppression systems, which could snuff out flames. However, it was unclear if the systems were 'operational and effective.' Nothing documented their proper installation. Despite the litany of issues, accountability proved elusive. In a July 2019 letter, federal officials informed ADM that 'no OSHA standards generally apply to the majority of the concerns.' In cases where specific violations aren't on the books but an unsafe environment exists, OSHA can wield what's called the 'general duty clause.' Essentially, it ensures employers provide an overall safe workplace. The standard is rarely invoked. In this case, OSHA officials decided it was 'not considered appropriate at this time' to use the general duty clause. There would be no citations, no fines. 'In the interest of workplace safety and health,' an official told ADM at the time, 'I recommend that you voluntarily take the necessary steps to eliminate or materially reduce any employee exposure' to dust explosions. ADM did not answer Investigate Midwest's questions about what new safety measures it implemented following OSHA's admonishment. In 2022, ADM's corporate leadership unveiled a new slogan for its facilities: 'Safe or We Don't Do it.' The company announced, 'We have improved our investigation work processes with a goal to prevent repeat incidents.' The new focus was almost immediately put to the test. Around 2:50 p.m. on April 20, 2023, Antonio McElrath clocked into work on the western half of the Decatur campus. His job was in an area where grain flew through conveyor belts and bucket elevators, stirring up dust. By the time he entered, dust littered the interior. For ADM workers, nothing about the situation seemed amiss, according to a lawsuit McElrath later filed. The outgoing shift did not indicate anything was unusual. But unknown to McElrath, the dust had already reached dangerous levels. Later in the workday, employees discovered a bucket elevator was smoking. It was outfitted with a chemical suppression system, which theoretically could suffocate any nascent fire. But the system had not been inspected since late 2016. If it had been, inspectors would have found it was inoperable. As smoke filled the area, McElrath was directed where to stand by his immediate supervisor, according to his lawsuit. The bucket elevator was opened. An influx of oxygen hit the smoldering grain. He heard a deafening pop. He suffered third-degree burns across his face, torso and legs. Doctors placed him in a coma for three weeks. 'He has lifelong injuries,' his lawyer said. Two other men were hospitalized with severe burns. One suffered permanent damage to his arms, hands and fingers. Another's entire body was torched. (The men could not be reached for comment through their workers compensation attorneys.) While their coworkers recovered, plant employees had a short reprieve. Around 7 p.m. on Sept. 10, 2023, a building processing soybeans was torn open. The explosion was one of the worst in the agriculture industry in recent years. Eight employees were injured. Helicopters rushed at least four to trauma centers. One man was transported 150 miles east to Indianapolis for specialized burn treatment, according to the Decatur Herald & Review. Another man's lungs were burned. A single mother of two suffered burns on her back. (None of the workers could be reached for comment.) A month later, OSHA fined ADM $325,000 for the April explosion. The company's failure to inspect the chemical suppression system for several years was a major reason for the hefty fine. Also, OSHA mandated the company develop a 'written housekeeping plan' — which it first suggested the company do after its 2019 explosion — to ensure dust does not reach dangerous levels. ADM is contesting the fine, which is currently at about $200,000. While the fine amount is debated, OSHA's investigation into the April 2023 explosion remains open. The agency fined ADM about $50,000 for the September 2023 explosion, and that investigation also remains open, as ADM contests the fine. (Detailed accounts about how the explosions started are not available until the investigations are administratively closed.) David Horn, a Decatur city council member, said, if 'systemic issues' plague ADM's operations, the company must address them. But assessing the quality of ADM's safety oversight will be challenging if the company is not sharing information publicly, Horn said. The only communication between the company and the city about the explosions appears to be a single email exchange. Gregory Webb, an ADM lobbyist, forwarded the company's public statement about the September explosion to Decatur Mayor Julie Moore-Wolf. She replied, in full, 'Thank you!' When asked about her communication with ADM, Moore-Wolf said, 'My initial concerns were about the injured workers, and their progress toward recovery. I do not recall specific dates or details of communications regarding the accident.' Without a full accounting of the changes ADM is pursuing, it can be difficult to trust the company's actions, Horn said. 'I think it would create greater confidence among our city residents to hear from ADM: This is what happened, these are the steps that we have taken since then and this is why these types of incidents won't happen again.'
