Keep large meatpackers from owning and processing cattle

 
LOADING
Feb 11, 2008 - 04:05:30 CST
An intense conflict is being waged in Congress. At stake is the security of U.S. consumers' meat supply. Security is dependent on the structure of our production system. A system where control is distributed among hundreds of thousands of independent livestock producers, geographically dispersed, is more secure than a system concentrated in a few geographic locations and controlled by only a few large multinational meatpackers.

Our meat supply, secured by a widely dispersed production structure, is now in jeopardy. By the 1990s, our poultry industry, once characterized by tens of thousands of independent businesses, was reduced to about 50 integrated firms. U.S. hog operations, which numbered 667,000 just 25 years ago, were reduced 90 percent to only 67,000 operations by 2005.

Livestock production is now nearly completely controlled by only a handful of meatpackers that have virtually decimated the widely dispersed, family-farm structure of U.S. livestock production - with one notable exception. While the number of cattle operations shrank nearly 40 percent from 1980 to 2005, the cattle industry remains the last frontier that large meatpackers hope to dominate - it is the only major livestock sector not already corporately controlled from birth to plate. With about 900,000 cattle operations remaining, independent cattle producers still have the critical mass necessary to maintain a viable industry - provided Congress takes steps to restore their industry's competitiveness.

Farmers and ranchers, who raise and feed cattle, are reaching out to consumers and Congress for help to overcome the large meatpackers' efforts to capture control over the entire cattle industry. Meatpackers are employing the same anti-competitive practices to take control of the cattle industry as they used to decimate the independent structure of the other livestock industries: restrictions on market access that lead to price control and manipulation - anti-competitive practices that disrupt the free-market system.

Congress now realizes that America has been harmed by the alarming contraction of its livestock industries, causing the security of our meat supply to be more vulnerable than ever. In the 2007 farm bill, Congress is attempting to prohibit the largest meatpackers from owning and feeding cattle prior to slaughter.

The largest meatpackers are the only buyer for cattle producers' slaughter-ready cattle. Anti-competitive practice enables meatpackers to manipulate prices paid to all independent cattle producers. They restrict producer access to their plants by refusing to buy cattle from cattle producers and fill their plants' needs with millions of their own cattle. This drives producers' cattle prices downward, making independent businesses unprofitable.

The large meatpackers are formidable adversaries highly skilled at pulling the wool over consumers' eyes. They erroneously suggest that Congress' measure would eliminate beneficial marketing agreements, despite the measure's protection of such agreements when producers maintain ownership of, and participate in, the production of livestock. The multinational meatpackers are attempting to enlist consumers' help to derail congressional efforts to prohibit their anti-competitive practices by waving an altruistic banner, claiming that such control is justified by the consumers' desire for a consistent quality product. Empirical evidence, however, shows just how disingenuous they are.

Although poll after poll shows that consumers overwhelmingly want a label informing them of the country-of-origin of their meat purchases, these meatpackers are fighting to prevent consumers from having this information. Although polls show that consumers support voluntary testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, these meatpackers are fighting voluntary testing. Although both cattle groups and consumer groups requested that the Canadian border remain closed to older Canadian cattle and beef that are at higher risk for BSE, these meatpackers are fighting the request.

Congress and consumers must not fall for the multinational meatpackers' attempts at deception. The meatpackers are not fighting for the best interests of consumers. Instead, they are fighting for their own self-interests: more power, more control, and more money. Working together, cattle producers and consumers can protect the security of our meat supply by supporting Congress' efforts to prohibit meatpacker ownership of livestock, helping restore the competitiveness of the U.S. cattle industry.

(Bill Bullard, of Billings, is the CEO of R-CALF USA., representing the interests of thousands of U.S. farmers and ranchers who raise and feed cattle. - Editor)
   Printer friendly version
Keep large meatpackers from owning and processing cattle
Comments

Big Ed wrote on Feb 11, 2008 6:57 PM:

" What Mr. Bullard failed to mention is that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and their state affiliate lackeys are on the side of the giant meat packers on this issue. If you think they are representing you as cattle producers, think again. "

Burger Time wrote on Feb 11, 2008 12:37 PM:

" How would this restriction benefit anyone but the ranchers? I haven't seen a problem with pork or chicken. Is the product effected adversely? Seems like a more efficient and cost effective way to produce beef to me. "

Meatless Society! wrote on Feb 11, 2008 10:58 AM:

" Organically grown meat producers will ultimately be the beneficiaries of the meat industry. I for one, will never buy any beef, pork, lamb, turkey or chicken unless it is certified as "Organically Grown." Everyone should read "Slaughterhouse Five" to get a good perspective on how our cattle is processed and fed to the meat eating public. You will change your mind on eating meat and its products. The Meat Packing Industry is lying and deceiving the public and had been doing so for decades.
"

Cooter Pie wrote on Feb 11, 2008 6:51 AM:

" While it is good to see the Tribune displaying opposing letters in the opinion section, there often are more than two diametrically opposed viewpoints. The large meat packers and the small cattle producers can both take a running leap off a cliff with their $10/lb beef for all I care. There is no better time to have a few acres of land with a big garden, a dozen chickens, a sow, and a couple cows. A small family can easily provide for themselves in as little as an hour a day, if they are setup right, and reap the benefits of much healthier food with plenty of exercise. Of course, being self-sufficient is the next thing that is outlawed along with landowner rights to natural water supplies. If you think it is too crowded in the US these days, guess again. Census data proves that the entire population of the USA could fit within the borders of Texas, so there is still plenty of room for everyone to have a chunk of land if they desire it. Tune in next week when I explain how small communities can save millions of dollars by employing witch doctors, instead of relying on corporate medicine. "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY