Page 91 - Fall2020

tion in the cattle industry. The senators’ letter Republican on the committee, Jim Jordan, urged Agriculture Secretary
2
expressed concern about ongoing “market Sonny Perdue to “revisit burdensome regulations that create barriers to
manipulation and coordinated behavior” by entry and lessen competition in the nation’s meat processing industry.”
meatpackers during the Covid-19 national The lawmakers requested that Perdue consider giving smaller proces-
emergency. They noted that live cattle prices sors “more flexibility” in handling Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
had dropped nearly 20 percent since February, Point (HACCP) Plans to address food safety issues and to clarify and
while wholesale beef prices had increased as streamline the approval process for meat labels. They also asked Perdue
much as 115 percent in the same period. to reduce the regulatory burden keeping smaller meat processors from
The senators also asked the attorney general participating in a program that allows them to sell across state lines and
to consider the fact that corporate consolidation to find a way to reduce the expense of inspections, which falls on meat
has created “an untenable power imbalance,” processors if an inspector works overtime. In addition to Jordan, the
leaving the nation’s four largest beef packing letter was signed by Representatives James Sensenbrenner, Ken Buck,
companies in control of more than 80 percent Matt Gaetz, Kelly Armstrong and W. Gregory Steube.
of the cattle industry. “We remain concerned Unfortunately, while more members of Congress are expressing
about the heightened allegations of suppressed concern about the control wielded by large meatpackers, they have yet to
prices for cattle, especially considering how take legislative action either to rein in the meatpackers or support small
coordinated conduct is facilitated more easily by farms and processors. For example, while the PRIME Act has gained
high market concentrations,” the senators noted. many sponsors through the spring and summer, and now boasts an im-
(Note that economic research indicates that pressive list of fifty-five bipartisan House sponsors and nine senators, it
when four firms control more than forty percent appears to have stalled for the moment.
of a market, that market becomes oligopolistic Support for the PRIME Act has slowed not only due to open oppo-
and is not competitive.) sition to the bill from agribusiness and so-called consumer advocates,
3
Then in June, six Republicans on the House but because opponents have redirected the focus to another bill, called
of Representatives Judiciary Committee urged the RAMP UP Act. That bill would provide grants to help small-scale
the USDA to ease regulations on meat proces- processors become USDA-inspected—yet it does nothing to address the
sors that make it harder for smaller companies scale-inappropriate USDA regulations, the bias of many USDA inspectors
to compete. The six lawmakers, led by the top against small-scale operations or the shortage of inspectors. And so while
4
A LITTLE HISTORY ON ANIMAL ID
Just how did we get here? In 2005, USDA announced a plan to require the owners of every single livestock and
poultry animal in the country to register their property with the government, tag each animal with an internationally
unique ID number (in most cases, with electronic forms of ID) and report their movements to a corporate-government
shared database. This was the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Organic farmers, conventional ranchers, homesteaders, local food consumers and property rights advocates joined
forces to fight USDA. After five years of coordinated grassroots opposition, then-Secretary Vilsack withdrew the plans for
NAIS. In its place, USDA proposed a far more limited and rational system that requires “official identification” on cattle
over the age of eighteen months (and dairy cattle at any age) that cross state lines. The regulation explicitly allows for a
variety of official identification methods, including the standard metal ear tag. This program has worked well for the last
seven years.
But we knew that the big meatpackers and their allies at USDA would not simply go away. . . and unfortunately we
were right. Last summer, USDA released a “fact sheet” on electronic ID for cattle and announced that it would stop ap-
proving any non-electronic form of identification. This document effectively mandated use of electronic ID by amending
existing regulations without going through the legally required process. The agency withdrew the document after the
Trump Administration issued an executive order that directed federal agencies to halt the use of “guidance documents”
to impose regulatory requirements.
But then this summer, USDA came back with the exact same proposal. It published it in the Federal Register and
requested public comment, but still is not going through the appropriate formal rulemaking process. This allows the
agency to avoid doing a cost-benefit analysis or identifying the impacts of its proposals on small businesses.
The USDA announced it would take public comments through October 5. But given USDA’s close relationship with
the meatpackers and technology companies, getting the agency to change its mind will be difficult. So we are likely to
have to take the fight to Congress or the courts or both.

FALL 2020 Wise Traditions 89