People always hate companies providing capital (monetary or technological) for agriculture. For example, banks that charge interest on farm loans have been vilified through history.
Farmers are sympathetic figures deeply tied into national culture. They use this to their advantage. That's how we have tens of billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies and any company that tries to hold farmers to contracts become the target of populist rage.
The populist notion of the noble yeoman suggests that most people don't know any actual farmers. The contemporary farmer isn't a very sympathetic character.
Well I wouldn't go that far. My wife grew up in rural Iowa, in farm country. They're perfectly pleasant people. But politically, there is no winning against them. And that's been the case since forever. Stuff like this: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/ has tremendous appeal.
"Real" farmers are giant conglomerates like Conagra. What people think of as farmers though are usually just employees or contractors. And those people are fine. The big agricultural corporations like it when people conflate the two.
I dunno. Where I live, most farms are run by small family-owned corporations. I know many farmers. I also think that giving a corporation essentially market power over growing crops is deeply misguided.
Farmers are sympathetic figures deeply tied into national culture. They use this to their advantage. That's how we have tens of billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies and any company that tries to hold farmers to contracts become the target of populist rage.