Why Turn On The Clock
Back On Progress?

“All told, it is estimated that about 104,000 people would lose their jobs following the implementation of this rule. This would reduce national GDP by $14.0 billion, and would cost a total of $1.36 billion in lost revenues to the Federal, state and local governments.”

John Dunham and Associates, “The Impact of Proposed Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Proposed Rule,” August 24, 2010

“Total job losses as a result of the rule are expected to total just over 22,800. Job losses will be highest in the production sectors for beef and pork with cattle ranching expected to lose nearly 2900 jobs while pork production could lose over 1900 jobs.”

INFORMA ECONOMICS, “An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules,” November 8, 2010.

“The proposed rule changes are likely to slow the pace of innovation, increase the costs of raising live chickens, and result in costly litigation,” wrote Thomas E. Elam, president of FarmEcon. “Higher costs would put upward pressure on chicken prices, and economic theory strongly suggests that consumers would ultimately bear most of these costs.”

Dr. Tom Elam, FarmEcon.com, “Proposed GIPSA Rules Relating to the Chicken Industry,” November 16, 2010

“If marketing arrangements are greatly reduced, cattlemen are the losers because it takes away their ability and incentive to manage risks, finance production and compete with one another to negotiate premiums. With alternative marketing arrangements being utilized by nearly 60 percent of the beef market, this will result in a huge shift in the way cattle are marketed.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

“As an economist who makes his living studying and modeling the economic impact of government regulations on businesses and industries, I have seen firsthand the unintended consequences of misguided policy proposals like the one proposed by USDA,” noted John Dunham, president of John Dunham and Associates, who conducted the study. “It is noteworthy that USDA says this proposal will revitalize rural America, yet my analysis shows it will actually cause substantial job losses.”

John Dunham and Associates, “The Impact of Proposed Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Proposed Rule,” August 24, 2010

“As a result of the decline in economic activity, tax revenues are expected to decline by $359 million, with 46% of that reduction occurring at the state and local level.”

INFORMA ECONOMICS, “An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules,” November 8, 2010.

“As a scientist who has dedicated her life to improving livestock welfare, I am extremely alarmed that the department ultimately responsible for enforcing the Humane Slaughter Act apparently has paid so little attention to the animal welfare implications of this proposal. I urge Agriculture Secretary Vilsack to reconsider this rule in order to maintain good animal welfare and to foster development of important niche markets that create many marketing opportunities for producers. This will help animal welfare, rural development and family farms.”

Colorado State University Professor Temple Grandin, Ph.D

“I have recently been contacted by agricultural leaders that represent a majority of livestock producers in Indiana. … I agree with these producers that federal regulations should not impede the development of products, in this case those derived from raising poultry and livestock that may command a higher market price due to desirable characteristics. I also agree that the development of private contracts that facilitate these transactions, Alternative Marketing Agreements (AMA), have played an important role in efficient poultry and livestock production practices that respond to rapidly changing consumer choices.”

Rep. Richard Lugar (R-IN):

“To fail to fully grasp, or even contemplate, the long-term economic implications of the rule does a grave disservice to the very growers the agency aims to assist.”

National Turkey Federation

“The rule is expected to have a significant impact on livestock auction facilities and commission agents. We find that the rule may reduce buyer participation at auction barns to the point where 150-200 of the smallest barns in remote areas may go out of business.”

INFORMA ECONOMICS, “An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules,” November 8, 2010.

“If the rule becomes final as currently drafted, it would be difficult for producers to negotiate premiums from packers because premiums would need to be justified with documentation, including revenue and cost analyses. It also would be difficult for packers to accept livestock of lesser quality because discounts paid for such animals also would need to be justified.”

The National Pork Producers Council

“This represents a radical change with huge implications in the way we sell slaughter livestock in the United States. It also greatly affects the production contracts that we use for producing our livestock and poultry in the United States. And these proposed changes are not coming from court decisions, but from bureaucrats, who think this set of rules and regulations will provide answers in lieu of an economic study. This is not the way we envision that our democracy is supposed to work.”

Ron Plain, University of Missouri Agriculture Economist

“Indeed, many believe that these actions by GIPSA are an attempt to set the livestock industries back 30 or 40 years, to a time when marketing cattle and hogs were less complicated.”

Greg Henderson, Drovers Magazine, July 14, 2010

“Raising and marketing cattle should be left to people who love red meat, not red tape. But the proposed GIPSA rule would disrupt value-based marketing and become a bonanza for trial lawyers because the rule would make it easier to file lawsuits against meat companies that use contracts for the alternative marketing arrangements. That would be bad news for everyone who relies on a thriving meat and poultry industry: large and small,”

Certified Angus Beef Founder Mick Colvin

The new rule “appears to be one-sided, unrealistic and not in accordance with court rulings. The likely result will be years of litigation and uncertainty as companies, growers and the government try to sort out the impact on what has been an efficient system for producing an agricultural commodity.”

The National Chicken Council

“Ongoing and indirect costs will eventually be borne by consumers and producers, not packers.”

INFORMA ECONOMICS, “An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules,” November 8, 2010.

“Why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken? Anybody ought to be free to sell at any price that they want to whomever they want. If the U.S. government would just get out of the way, there’s nobody gonna out produce the quality or the quantity of what the Idaho farmer, rancher, producer can produce. There’s nobody that’s gonna add better quality to the value of a raw resource that comes out of the farm gate than the Idaho work force and manufacturers. Get out of our way and Idaho will be the number one leader out of this recession.”

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter:

“Total identifiable cost increases over the first 5 years of enforcement total almost $1.03 billion. Higher costs would put upward pressures on chicken prices, and economic theory strongly suggests that consumers would ultimately bear most of those costs.”

Dr. Tom Elam, FarmEcon.com, “Proposed GIPSA Rules Relating to the Chicken Industry,” November 16, 2010