How USDA Policy Shifts Under the Packers and Stockyard Act Could Raise Food Prices and Favor Big Corporations

Explore how the USDA's proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyard Act could unintentionally raise food prices, burden small processors, and consolidate power within the largest meatpacking corporations. Learn more about the potential impact on consumer costs and market competition.

image 6
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5128492/vp-harris-lowering-food-prices-costs-living

At a recent campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, Kamala Harris made bold promises to address the rising cost of food, putting it at the heart of her campaign for the presidency. However, as Harris speaks of lowering food costs, the Biden/Harris administration is advancing a set of regulatory changes through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that may produce unintended results.

This article follows Breeauna Sagdal’s in-depth analysis on this topic. As Breeauna pointed out, “While the administration’s rhetoric focuses on consumer relief, the reality is that these policies may pave the way for further consolidation and higher prices—precisely the opposite of what’s being promised”. With the USDA’s updates to the Packers and Stockyard Act, these concerns are becoming more pressing.

Background on the Packers and Stockyard Act

image 3
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2022/05/on-agriculture-antitrust-a-brief-summary-of-legislative-history.html

The Packers and Stockyard Act was first enacted in 1921 to curb the overwhelming control five major meatpacking companies had over the U.S. livestock market. At that time, these companies controlled 81% of the market, forcing Congress to act to protect competition.

image 4
Image courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration

Fast forward to today, four corporations—JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef—control 85% of the U.S. meatpacking industry. Despite the Act’s original purpose of breaking up monopolies, consolidation in the industry has only intensified, raising questions about how effectively current regulations serve the public interest.

big4 1
The Big 4 Meat Packers

Overview of the Proposed USDA Changes

The Biden/Harris administration’s changes to the Packers and Stockyard Act represent a significant shift from its original anti-trust purpose. Historically, the Act focused on preventing monopolistic practices and safeguarding competition. The USDA’s proposed updates would transform the Act into a broader consumer protection law.

The Redefinition of Harm: The USDA plans to expand the definition of “harm” under the Packers and Stockyard Act. Rather than focusing solely on direct harm to the market, the new rules would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to take preemptive action based on perceived future risks, even if no actual harm has occurred. This approach could create significant uncertainties for businesses operating within the meat industry.

Implications for the Industry: By broadening the criteria for regulatory action, the USDA could create an environment where routine business decisions come under scrutiny. Smaller and independent meat processors, in particular, would likely bear the brunt of increased compliance costs, as they lack the resources of larger corporations to absorb regulatory burdens.

Potential Consequences of the USDA’s Policy Shifts

Impact on Competition: While the USDA claims that these changes will foster competition and protect smaller processors, there is a real risk that the opposite will occur. As Breeauna Sagdal aptly observed, “The USDA’s track record shows that increased regulation often benefits the very corporations it claims to regulate, leaving smaller businesses to bear the brunt of the costs“. Larger corporations are better equipped to absorb regulatory costs, giving them a competitive edge over smaller players, potentially leading to further consolidation in the meatpacking industry.

Consumer Prices: One of the administration’s key objectives is to reduce food prices. However, the proposed regulations may have the opposite effect. As businesses incur additional compliance costs, those expenses are likely to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the grocery store. At a time when inflation is already driving up the cost of living, these regulations could exacerbate the situation rather than alleviate it.

Industry Reactions: The response from the industry has been predominantly negative, particularly from small to mid-sized processors. They argue that the proposed changes are overly burdensome and could stifle innovation. Some have also expressed concern that the regulations are too vague, making it difficult to know which practices might be deemed illegal under the new rules. As a result, the industry could see fewer new entrants and an even tighter grip on market control by the largest corporations.


Conclusion

The USDA’s proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyard Act are intended to address the issue of concentration in the meatpacking industry. However, the unintended consequences could be far-reaching, including increased costs for small businesses, reduced competition, and higher prices for consumers. As the Biden/Harris administration moves forward with these regulatory updates, it is critical for both industry stakeholders and consumers to remain informed about the potential impact on food prices and market dynamics.

While campaign promises may focus on lowering costs, the reality of policy implementation often proves more complex. Unless the USDA reconsiders its approach, Americans may find themselves paying more at the grocery store and seeing fewer choices on the shelves.

Shake Your Rancher’s Hand

Support local ranchers and take a stand against the consolidation of our food supply with The Beef Initiative’s Feeding Forward Collection. Each purchase directly contributes to sustainable practices, ensuring that independent farmers remain at the heart of the meat industry while offering you the highest quality beef. Make your impact felt—shop the Feeding Forward Collection and help preserve our agricultural heritage.

image 12
image 14
image 13

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Advertisements

Advertise here!

Read more

America The Titanic – Managing After Impact with the Disastrous Biden/Harris Iceberg

America The Titanic – Managing After Impact with the Disastrous Biden/Harris Iceberg

America stands at a critical tipping point. This policy paper warns that recent federal resilience initiatives, advanced under the banner of equity, have centralized control across nearly all aspects of American life—from local governance to individual choices. To protect the foundational freedoms of America’s farmers and ranchers, the I Am Texas Slim Foundation calls for immediate executive actions to dismantle these mandates and restore power to communities, pushing back against what they describe as a coordinated agenda of control disguised as resilience.

Video: Bird Flu, Beef Imports, and the Future of Food

Video: Bird Flu, Beef Imports, and the Future of Food

Bird flu mandates are wiping out herds and driving up food prices, but is there more to the story? In this must-hear discussion with Texas Slim and medical experts from VSRF, we expose how government overreach, mRNA vaccines in livestock, and imported beef threaten your dinner plate—and what you can do to fight back.

The Case for Buying Rancher-Direct Bulk Beef

The Case for Buying Rancher-Direct Bulk Beef

Skip the supermarket and go straight to the source. Buying beef direct from ranchers means superior flavor, trusted sourcing, and real value—no middlemen, no compromises. Discover why premium, ranch-direct beef is the smart choice for your family and how Salt & Sear Craft Beef delivers the best straight to your door.