Environmental Initiatives

Media Inquiries

If you are a journalist and would like additional information, please visit the Media Contacts page.

Media Contacts

Subscribe to News Feeds

Pew offers news delivered to your desktop via RSS feed. Subscribing is easy. To learn more or get started, follow the link below.

Subscribe to News Feeds

For The Record

When Pew’s work is questioned or criticized we respond through letters to the editor or op-eds.

Read Pew's Responses

Proposed Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Rules

Other Resource

Background

Related Resources

For many years, small and mid-sized farmers have complained of unfair and anti-competitive practices (PDF) by large meatpackers and poultry processors. Farmers have argued in many venues that smaller operators were being squeezed out by discriminatory pricing, the decline of open markets, unfair contract stipulations, collusion among large meat packers to distort prices, and retaliatory actions against individual growers and ranchers.

In raising these concerns, farmers point to the decline of small and mid-scale livestock operations and the loss of over a million cattle and hog operations since 1980.  They also note that U.S. meat production is now dominated by a handful of large meat processors: In 2008, just four firms slaughtered 79% of cattle in the U.S., up from a concentration level of 55% in 1986. This “four-firm” concentration level is likewise up for hogs, which jumped from 33% in 1986 to 65% in 2008, and for poultry, with a rise from 34 to 57% over the same period. 

As this consolidation in processing has occurred, cash markets for sale of livestock have also declined and more and more livestock is raised, not by independent entrepreneurs competing in an open marketplace, but under contracts controlled by large packers and processors. In 2009, less than 1% of broilers, less than 10% of hogs and less than half of steers and heifers were sold in open cash markets.

Congressional Call for Action

In response to these concerns, the 2008 Farm Bill directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue new regulations to restore fairness and level the playing field in livestock and poultry markets. In June 2010, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) within USDA proposed new rules (PDF) to meet this mandate and to clarify important terms already in the Packers and Stockyards Act, the 1921 law aimed at assuring open competition in livestock markets (PDF).

cafo-chickens-400-lwUSDA provided a 5-month public comment period and received more than 60,000 comments. The Department is completing review of those comments and is in the process of finalizing an economic analysis of the proposal. The proposed rules have drawn strong support from the National Farmers Union and other organizations (PDF) across the country representing small and mid-sized farmers and consumers. The rules have been opposed by the meatpacking and poultry processing industry.

While some members of Congress are pressing USDA to finalize these rules, others have supported riders to appropriations measures that will stop or delay completion of this long-awaited rulemaking.

What the GIPSA Rules Do

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA) makes it unlawful for packers and meat processors to use “unfair,” “unjustly discriminatory” or “deceptive” practices in livestock markets, but over the years, the ambiguity of those terms has limited the practical effect of the law. The new rules would help to clarify the types of actions that would fall into these categories, and in so doing, would promote open, competitive livestock markets and allow for improved enforcement of the PSA.

Protections for Small Businesses

Because the organization of livestock markets varies by animal type, portions of the rules are specific to certain sectors, such as poultry. Overall, however, the proposal makes it clear that processors and meatpackers, while free to pay premium prices for special grades or quality of meat, may not discriminate against farmers and ranchers without an objective rationale. In other words, they cannot use their market power simply to drive small operators or other competitors out of business or retaliate against an individual who has complained about processor practices.

Smaller farmers will be able to compete with larger operations, because the rules make it clear that if a single producer or a group of producers that can meet the same contract terms as a large producer, including providing a certain volume of livestock, the packer or processor would not be allowed to undercut the prices and contract terms offered to the smaller entities.

Reasonable Enforcement of PSA

The rules also make it clear that USDA, in its efforts to protect farmers and ranchers from unfair or discriminatory practices, need not prove that a particular practice has had the effect of raising prices across the entire market. Many practices, such as not allowing a poultry grower to watch birds being weighed, giving a grower sickly birds or canceling a contract in retaliation for complaints, are, on their face, unfair but would not necessarily alter the price of meat. Some PSA court decisions, however, have reasoned that because USDA regulations have not provided any criteria for determining what is unfair, the proof of harm that must be shown is a detrimental impact to market prices across the board. As USDA has noted, this is an extremely high standard, akin to requiring an individual to prove harm to an entire neighborhood before the police could act to recover his stolen car. The proposed rules attempt to bring clarity to measures of unfairness in livestock markets, thereby allowing PSA to have a practical effect in assuring open markets for producers of all sizes.

Greater Transparency

In response to concerns that the current system allows for large businesses to coordinate their sales and purchases of livestock with one another in order to depress prices paid to independent ranchers and farmers, the new rules put restrictions on packer-to-packer sales and require more transparency in market transactions and in contract offerings. The rules also compel packers and processors to maintain written records to provide justification for differential pricing offered to livestock producers.

Fairness for Poultry Growers

The proposed GIPSA rules also offer new protections to poultry growers, a business almost exclusively dominated by a form of contracting in which the processor “places” birds in houses owned by growers, dictates the type of housing and equipment to be used, and makes payments based on a grower’s “ranking” compared with other growers. The rule would help growers protect their housing investments by requiring contract terms long enough to recoup at least 80 percent of their investment costs. It keeps integrators from demanding upgrades to facilities that are in good working order—unless the integrator chooses to offer compensation to the grower—and disallows contract demands for new facilities made at the same time an integrator is planning to substantially reduce or even end operations at a processing plant—something that has happened to numerous growers. The draft rule also brings needed reforms to the “tournament” pay system, requiring growers to be ranked only with others using the same type of poultry houses and requiring the same base pay rate for all growers raising the same type and kind of poultry.

Pew Support for the GIPSA Rules

The Pew Environment Group believes that the proposed rules benefit farmers and consumers, allowing the Department of Agriculture to guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade practices in the livestock and poultry markets and allowing small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers to compete fairly. We filed formal comments on rules in November of 2010, and we urge USDA to finalize these long-over protections.

 

Related News and Resources

  • The Business of Broilers: Hidden Costs of Putting a Chicken on Every Grill

    • Report
    • Dec 20, 2013
    From chicken breeding to grocery store packaging, the 21st-century broiler chicken business is possibly the most industrialized sector in livestock agriculture. The industry is dominated by a handful of large corporations that own the birds, feed mills, cooking operations, and transportation networks.

    More

  • Pew Report Highlights Hidden Costs of Industrialized Poultry Production

    • Press Release
    • Dec 20, 2013
    Industrialized poultry production in the United States delivers considerable efficiencies, but the same system carries significant, hidden costs for the environment, for many communities where chickens are raised for industrial production, and sometimes for the chicken growers themselves, according to a report released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

    More

  • Organizations Urge President Obama to Protect our Nation's Waterways

    • Other Resource
    • Oct 28, 2013
    More than 350 organizations and more than 150 small businesses have urged President Obama to protect our nation's waterways from animal waste produced by industrial livestock operations.

    More

  • Pew Disappointed in EPA Plan to Study Impact of Industrial Livestock Operations on Chesapeake Bay

    • Press Release
    • Jun 05, 2013
    The Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it will assess the effectiveness of state efforts to keep livestock waste out of the Chesapeake Bay. In response, The Pew Charitable Trusts is urging President Barack Obama to fulfill his 2008 commitment to “strictly regulate pollution from large factory livestock farms.”

    More

  • EPA Delays Action on Regulations for Animal Agriculture

    • Other Resource
    • May 21, 2013
    Pollution from animal agriculture is threatening our nation’s waterways. Each year, livestock operations in the United States generate up to a billion tons of manure, much of it from concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

    More

  • Pew Responds to Op-Ed in the the Rapid City Journal

    • Opinion
    • Apr 24, 2013
    Josh Reichert responds to an op-ed published April 8, 2013 in the Rapid City Journal which was critical of Pew's animal agriculture work.

    More

  • Pew Urges Maryland Lawmakers to Reject Chesapeake Bay Pollution Exemption Bill

    • Press Release
    • Apr 02, 2013
    The Maryland House of Delegates’ Environmental Matters Committee today will hold a hearing on Senate Bill 1029, establishing the Maryland Agricultural Certainty Program. In anticipation of the hearing, Pew has released the following statement.

    More

  • Pew Testimony in Opposition to SB 1029

    • Other Resource
    • Mar 19, 2013
    Velma Smith of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ campaign to reform animal agriculture testified before the Maryland State Senate on the Maryland Agriculture Certainty Program.

    More

  • Lack of Information on Livestock Facilities Spells Trouble in Illinois and Beyond

    • Opinion
    • Oct 16, 2012
    The Chesapeake Bay is not the only area affected by pollution from CAFOs. In Illinois, for example, water quality problems have caused real concern about that state’s regulation of the rapidly growing hog industry.

    More

  • Fair Share for Clean Water

    • Opinion
    • Oct 14, 2012
    An editorial by The Frederick News-Post ("Cost of the bay," Sept. 7) raised a good point regarding the need for all neighboring states to share the responsibility of controlling pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay.

    More

  • Remarks from Karen Steuer on CAFO Pollution and the Public Outcry for Stronger Regulation

    • Other Resource
    • Oct 11, 2012
    Karen Steuer, who directs the Pew Environment Group’s campaign to reform animal agriculture, made the following remarks today on the strong public support, and the critical need, for a new rule to limit pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations.

    More

  • The Chesapeake's Manure Problem

    • Opinion
    • Sep 04, 2012

    2012-09-04 What do 2,700 plant species, 525 species of fin and shell-fish, and more than 17 million people have in common? They are all residents of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The bay provides economic benefits of more than $33 billion a year from recreational and commercial activities, including the ha

    More

  • Infographic: Cleaning Up CAFO Permit Rules

    • Other Resource
    • Aug 27, 2012

    Some of our Nation’s most prized waterways—such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River—as well as streams, estuaries and wells, are at risk from pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

    More

  • Cleaning Up Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Permit Rules

    • Data Visualization
    • Aug 27, 2012

    Additional Resources Pollution Coming to a Waterway Near You? Action Alert Animal Agriculture Must Do Its Share to Protect Our Waterways Cleaning Up the Chesapeake Bay Some of our nation’s most prized waterways—such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake

    More

  • Pollution: Coming to a Waterway Near You?

    • Other Resource
    • Aug 20, 2012
    The health of many waterways, from the Chesapeake Bay to the Great Lakes—and the livelihoods, flora, and fauna they support— are in jeopardy.

    More

See more...

X
Sign In

Member Sign In

Forgot Password?
Submit Not a Member? Join!
X

Forgot Password?

Send Password Not a Member? Join!
X

Change Password

X
(All Fields are required)
Send Message
Share this on: