Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
USDA seeking public comment on beef carcass grade update
Agronomy Farm’s inaugural field day showcased soybeans
Clay Target league provides team experience for rural youth
Farm equipment sales down but combine purchases up in June
Corteva consolidates four seed brands under Hoegemeyer label
Gorman Heritage Farm showcasing ag with Farm Day Camps
Excessive rain has caused some issues; crop report still favorable
Drought followed by wet spring may mean less hay this year
Family-owned farm to open grocery store in Columbus neighborhood
KSU soil erosion research plots offer foundation for future conservation
Heritage Tractor, Martin Brothers celebrate 100 years of dealership
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Reader disagrees with Guebert regarding new meatpacker rule
Dear Editor,

Alan Guebert’s column on USDA’s new meatpacker rule (Big Pork, Big Beef respond to USDA plan, page 4) in the July 21 Farm World, including his criticism of the request for an extension of the public comment period on it, was off base.

First, 60 days is hardly enough time for those affected by it to respond to a rule that would fundamentally change the way livestock and poultry are bought and sold in this country. Additionally, USDA is conducting “workshops” to solicit comments on competition in the livestock and poultry industries. The next one is four days after the rule’s comment period closes.

Second, and contrary to Guebert’s assertion, the rule will not “open” markets but will dictate the terms of contracts, restrict marketing arrangements, require reams of paperwork, create legal uncertainty and limit producers’ ability to negotiate better prices for the animals they sell.

That’s a recipe for stifling innovation, driving up costs, forcing simple contract disputes into court and – given those adverse consequences – compelling packers to own their animals rather than to contract with farmers to raise them.

The regulation goes well beyond the mandate of the 2008 Farm Bill and even includes provisions that were rejected by lawmakers during debate on that legislation. One provision, which eliminates the need to prove that an “unfair” action actually prevented competition, is contrary to the decisions of eight of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ 13 circuits.

USDA’s rule won’t open markets and create more competition; it will close them and lead to less competition, and that’s bad for producers and bad for consumers.
7/28/2010