Sioux Falls, SD - Meat packers
should be permitted to use the same types of
vertical integration and strategic alliances as
other American industries, according to the
American Meat Institute (AMI). Efforts to ban
the ability to own livestock are an unfair
intrusion into business practices. AMI Senior
Vice President of Legislative and Public
Affairs Sara J. Lilygren said the Institute
would fight efforts to ban packers’ ability to
own and control livestock when she delivered
testimony today at a field hearing of the
Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Lilygren
told the Committee that the business practices
of meat packers are governed nationally not
only by the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the
Robinson-Patman Act and the Uniform Commercial
Code, but also by the Packers and Stockyards
Act, a statute unique to the meat industry that
prohibits meat packers from engaging in unfair
or deceptive business practices that
disadvantage their livestock suppliers.
“To my knowledge, there is no other
sector of the U.S. manufacturing or service
economy in which the federal government plays
such a watchdog role with respect to raw
material suppliers. Yet, ironically, as the
meat and poultry industry operates with this
additional, daily, government oversight of our
business transactions with livestock producers,
we are here today to discuss whether meat
packers should receive additional scrutiny,
enforcement or business restrictions in order
to protect or benefit livestock producers,”
Lilygren said. “While some suggest our laws and
enforcement of them are inadequate, I would
suggest another theory: perhaps we haven't done
a good job of pinpointing some of the real
problems and coming up with constructive
solutions that benefit everyone.”
Lilygren described how livestock
producers have raised and spent hundreds of
millions of dollars over the past decade
through check off programs designed to build
consumer demand for beef and pork. A large part
of these efforts has been to send clear signals
from the consuming public back to producers, so
that producers can deliver the type of
livestock that will yield the meat products
most in demand.
“These efforts have had
many benefits, including improved
communications throughout the meat chain among
retailers, packers and producers. This, too,
has led to vertical integration,” she said.
In order to create the foods people
want to buy, meat companies have increased
their coordination with livestock producers,
retail and foodservice customers. This
increased coordination has led to increased
vertical integration, which has sometimes
included complete or partial ownership of some
of each packer’s livestock supply. Two
significant positive outcomes of this
integration include increased coordination
include leaner beef and pork for consumers and
improved risk management options for producers.
Working together, meat packers and
livestock producers have achieved a an average
27 percent fat reduction in a serving of beef
and a 31 percent fat reduction in a serving of
pork since the 1980s, she said. Coordination
through contracting also has reduced the
volatility inherent to farming and ranching,
according to Lilygren.
“The benefits to
farmers were perhaps most vivid during the hog
market crash of 1998, when spot market prices
for an unanticipated over-supply of hogs
dropped to as low as $9 per cwt. Those hog
farmers with contracts had locked into much
higher prices for their hogs - generally $35
and more per cwt. - and were protected from the
low market prices,” Lilygren said. “Packers
with contracts, on the other hand, were
obviously paying far over the market value for
their hogs at the time. Both parties to the
contract, however, benefited from the certainty
provided by a steady, consistently priced,
contracted supply of hogs.”
Finally,
Lilygren noted that vertical integration and
coordination throughout the supply, production
and distribution chain is a trend throughout
many industries and that successful companies
like Wal-Mart, Iowa-based Maytag and Winnebago,
Home Depot and McDonald’s have proven that the
models work. She also noted that the proposed
ban on packers’ ability to own livestock would
not affect the vertically integrated poultry
industry, which will make it more difficult for
the meat industry to compete with poultry
companies for a share of the consumer’s
dollar.
“I hope you can understand why
the American Meat Institute strongly opposes
efforts that would make it illegal for meat
manufacturers to do what the rest of the global
business community is doing, which is to form
relationships with suppliers of raw materials
in order to produce consistent quality, lowest
priced products that consumers will buy,” she
concluded.
A complete copy of the
testimony is available at
http:://www.meatami.com.
AMI represents
the interests of packers and processors of
beef, pork, lamb, veal and turkey products and
their suppliers throughout North America.
Together, AMI's members produce 95 percent of
the beef, pork, lamb and veal products and 70
percent of the turkey products in the U.S.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, the Institute
provides legislative, regulatory, public
relations, technical, scientific and
educational services to the industry. Its
affiliate, the AMI Foundation, is a separate
501(c)3 organization that conducts research,
education and information projects for the
industry.
MEAT INDUSTRY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE LIKE OTHER U.S. BUSINESSES
Friday, August 23, 2002
For more information
contact:
| Janet Riley Vice President, Public Affairs 703-841-3635 jriley@meatami.com |
Josee Daoust Manager, Public Affairs 703-841-3641 jdaoust@meatami.com |
