| Friday, some 2000 farmers, ranchers, and people who are otherwise involved in agriculture showed up in Colorado at a hearing held by the Department of Justice. The Obama administration sent its bigwigs (Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Eric Holder), and many who attended were able to give public comments. At the core of the hearing was the so-called "GIPSA rule" - a proposed rule from the USDA that would ensure more fair competition in the livestock industry. (A lot of the details here are very "inside baseball" to the industry, but it seems that the basic gist of the GIPSA rule is that many anti-competitive practices that are now legal will no longer be.) Obviously those who are benefiting from the system as is do not WANT the system to be more fair. (I wrote about some of the dirty tactics used by beefpackers to screw individual producers at the link.)
Predictably, the American Meat Institute (AMI) came out with a statement after the hearing, claiming that economies of scale calls for larger (and thus, fewer) slaughterhouses and that the concentration in the beef industry has not increased since 1995 (which is patently false... the top 4 firms had 76% of the market in '95 compared ton 83.5% in 2005, and there have been more mergers and consolidation since then.).
On the other side of the spectrum, R-CALF USA came out with a statement today saying "independent beef producers who want some refereeing in the marketing game... No one in my circles wants a handout - just a chance to market their cattle in an open and transparent market." and "That is all these many hard-working people, the foundation of Rural America, desire: Enforce the rules."
I watched some of the hearing, when attendees were given 2 minutes apiece to make public comments. There was some support for the GIPSA rule, and some were opposed. Many seemed to come from Republican backgrounds and they just wanted the government to keep its hands out of their business, whether or not that is in their own best interest. It seems like, while some have pragmatic business reasons for opposing the GIPSA rule, others are ideologues who want the government uninvolved on principle, even if that means the big beefpackers can swindle them until they lose their family farms. Some said the solution is more free trade agreements (Colombia and Panama) and rigging up the Food Pyramid to tell Americans to eat more red meat.
I enjoyed the title used by the Center for Rural Affairs in their write-up of the event: "Cowboys vs. Packers in Colorado... But Not Football."
You can see a few more articles here:
Greeley Tribune: Ranchers differ on proposed meat industry regulations
The Coloradoan: Farmers seek fairness at ag workshop
Denver Post: Polar-opposite views on cattle rules rounded up at ag meeting at CSU
I think an important part of the workshop to review will be what was said by the panels, and that will be available online at some point. Also, I hope someone kept a tally on the comments - how many were for the GIPSA rule, how many opposed, and was the split down the line between Cowboys vs. Packers, or not?
Transcripts and video of Friday's hearing will be available at the link, although they are not up yet. |
