By MEGGIE. I. FOSTER
Assistant Editor INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Despite calls from more than 115 U.S. representatives and senators, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, denied recent requests for an in-depth economic analysis of the controversial proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing under the Packers and Stockyards Act of the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
The GIPSA rule, proposed in June of 2010, would provide new protections for livestock producers against unfair, fraudulent or retaliatory practices. Vilsack said that “concerns about a lack of fairness and commonsense treatment for livestock and poultry producers have gone unaddressed far too long. This proposed rule will help ensure a level playing field for producers by providing additional protections against unfair practices and addressing new market conditions not covered by existing rules.
The National Beef Cattlemen’s Assn. and the National Pork Producers’ Council, amongst many other farm groups, are not onboard with Vilsack’s plan and the proposed rule.
While NCBA agree that the proposed GIPSA rule was written in response to a directive made by Congress in the 2008 farm bill, as the 115 legislators cited in their request to Vilsack, “GIPSA also included additional proposed regulations that greatly exceed the mandate of the farm bill.”
The members stated that “the analysis contained in the proposed rule fails to demonstrate the need for the rule, assess the impact of its implementation on the marketplace, or establish how the implementation of the rule would address the demonstrated need.”
According to a study conducted by John Dunham and Associates and commissioned by the American Meat Institute, the proposed GIPSA rule would have far-reaching negative economic impacts on U.S. livestock producers and consumers.
The study estimates that 104,000 Americans would lose their jobs as a result of the rule. In addition, 21,274 jobs within the livestock industry itself would also be lost.
“The estimated rate of producer job loss in rural America would be high. When folks are forced out of the livestock industry, they don’t come back,” said NPPC President Sam Carney, a pork producer from Adair, Iowa.
“Given this study, it is now more important than ever for the USDA to conduct a thorough economic analysis so that producers understand the true cost of the Administration’s proposed regulation.”
In a released statement, Vilsack responded to the calls by stating, “Beyond the cost-benefit analysis we have conducted for the proposed rule, we look forward to reviewing the public comments to inform the Department if all factors have been properly considered, if or how changes should be incorporated, and to aid more rigorous cost-benefit and related analyses pursuant to the rulemaking process.”
Steve Foglesong, president of the NCBA recently claimed both Vilsack and the Obama Administration are ignoring the needs of rural America.
“Secretary Vilsack’s response may work for the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., but for those of us out in the countryside, he has done nothing more than ignore the pleas of thousands of cattle producers. His refusal leaves my fellow cattle producers and me asking, ‘What are they trying to hide?’” questioned Foglesong. “The GIPSA rule will further inject the federal government into the market and could very likely result in financial devastation to a critical part of our country’s economy and in thousands of lost jobs at the time when economic growth and job creation are what we need the most.”
Foglesong believes it is irresponsible governing on the part of the Administration to move forward with the GIPSA rule without support from stakeholders and a comprehensive analysis defining how the rule would affect the marketplace.
“There is bipartisian concern for the proposed GIPSA rule, and rather than ignoring reality, it’s time for Secretary Vilsack and the entire Administration to put partisan ideology aside and listen to the calls of cattle producers and lawmaker across the country,” he said.
R-CALF in favor of GIPSA rule
On the other hand, R-CALF USA, a national cattle producer organization, fully supports the Secretary’s decision to deny requests for further analysis of the proposed rule.
“The call for a new economic analysis by less than a third of the House and NCBA was pure and simple, an effort to delay, if not completely derail the long-awaited GIPSA rule,” said R-CALF USA President/Region 6 Director Max Thornsberry. “NCBA could not be more deceptive in its attack on the Secretary given the Secretary had already granted NCBA an additional 90-day comment period in response to NCBA’s July 8, 2010 letter to USDA that asked for an extension of the comment period to NCBA could perform its own economic analysis.”
R-CALF USA believe NCBA’s allegations that the GIPSA rule would harm the livestock economy are “baseless and irresponsible.”
“NCBA claims outright that the GIPSA rule will hurt producers because it could result in packers’ deciding to stop participating in marketing agreements with producers, which NCBA claims, would result in all cattle being valued at an average price, regardless of quality,” explained Thornsberry.
Thornsberry and R-CALF USA claim that “there is absolutely no language in the GIPSA rule that would prohibit value-added or other legitimate marketing agreements between producers and packers.”
“We want producers to take a critical look at the rule itself and to formulate thoughtful comments that they can submit to the USDA, which is how we can ensure that the rule will do what needs to be done to prevent the highly concentrated meatpackers from abusing their inherent market power,” he added.
Whether for or against the much-debated GIPSA rule, the comment period has officially been extended 90 days from the original date (Aug. 23) to Nov. 22.
Comments may be sent via e-mail to comments.gipsa.@usda.gov or sent by mail to Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 1643-S, Washington, D.C., 20250. For a full description of the proposed rule, visit www.gipsa.usda.gov |
