The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) recently submitted comments in opposition to the “Fair and Competitive Livestock and Poultry Markets” proposed rulemaking by the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) related to unfair practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA).
“Pork producers rely on, and NPPC supports, proper enforcement of the PSA to ensure competitive pricing opportunities and free and fair markets,” NPPC wrote in Capital Update. “NPPC appreciates that AMS intends for the proposal to promote fair and competitive markets, but it is more likely to negatively impact pork producers, including through an increase in frivolous and costly litigation.”
The organization said it is ready to work with USDA on regulations that help ensure full enforcement of the PSA in a way that does not unduly burden the pork industry and helps protect market innovation for everyone’s benefit.
The rule, NPPC noted, uses vague and overly broad language that will create substantial and unnecessary uncertainty for the pork industry, which could result in harmful and costly litigation, especially since the proposal covers independent hog farmers engaged in contract production and pork processors. The uncertainty and risk of litigation could limit market opportunities at a time when many producers are still beginning to emerge from the historic economic losses of the past two years.
NPPC also pointed out that the proposed rule exceeds USDA’s statutory authority by seeking to eliminate the need to prove “harm to competition,” an element of PSA claims that courts repeatedly have held is required. Additionally, Congress explicitly rejected an amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill that would have eliminated the requirement and has repeatedly chosen not to remove it.
Finally, the majority of safeguards in the proposed PSA rule already are covered by existing antitrust, anti-discrimination and other state and federal laws, NPPC added.
“The PSA was enacted to protect competition in the meat and poultry industries, ensuring fair markets and competitive pricing opportunities,” NPPC wrote. “Removing the requirement to show anticompetitive harm, combined with the proposal’s vague and broad language, may subject swine contractors, independent producers using production contracts, and packers to burdensome and costly litigation.”
Your Next Read: NPPC Works on Behalf of Producers to Present Arguments in CAFO Case
