Ag Panel Concerned With What They Heard


Members of a House Agriculture subcommittee expressed deep concern with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule on livestock and poultry contracts and marketing arrangements, a regulation that would limit pork producers’ options in selling pigs to processors, according to the National Pork Producers Council.
The chairman and ranking member, of the Agriculture Committee’s Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee, in a hearing said they are troubled that the  proposed rule amending the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) goes beyond the congressional intent of the 2008 Farm Bill. The legislation authorized USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to issue rules clarifying certain provisions of the PSA and implementing new ones related to capital investments, arbitration and poultry contracts.
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who attended the hearing, and other subcommittee members also voiced concerns with the broad scope of the rule and its likely adverse effects on the livestock and poultry industries. 
The 2008 Farm Bill pointed out that Congress chose not to act on some proposals now included in the GIPSA rule  because
it would disrupt and destroy the U.S. livestock industry.

Panel members also expressed concern that GIPSA – so far – has refused to extend for the “most significant regulation on livestock markets in nearly 100 years” the 60-day period for submitting comments on the rule. The current deadline is Aug. 23.

Check Also

Farmland losses far outpace preservation

By Matt Reese Ohio farmland is a long taken-for-granted resource providing the very basis for …


  1. It would be nice to hear what the problem is. I have read the rules and don’t see any problems for honest businessmen but plenty for dishonest ones.

    What problems does the NCBA, which includes packers like Tyson who have lost jury trials over their market manipulation and who have huge plays in other meats like pork and chicken, have?

    It seems they are arguing that there will be no premiums for premium product but that is not in the rules. I think they have set up a straw man with which to beat.


    • This is an interesting take. I would agree that the specifics are somewhat non-specific. I do think, however, that there is some legitimacy to the broader concerns with this. – Matt Reese

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *