Two years ago I wrote about the conflicts between packers and integrators and the growers they contract with: “[T]he complaints … have been bobbing back to the surface for decades now ... . And they will continue to reappear for the foreseeable future. Unless the industry steps up to address them.”

2019 is the foreseeable future, and yes, those same complaints about unfair treatment are still with us. If anything, they’ve gotten more strident.

To recap: Many of the farmers and ranchers raising food animals for processors believe they’re getting a raw deal. They take on the costs of revamping the facilities in order to meet the market’s demands for proper animal handling and biosecurity, the costs of raising the animals, the losses incurred with premature mortality, and have few options when it comes time to sell the mature animals. In the case of poultry, the growers typically don’t own the birds at all. Beef ranchers typically own the herd, but can count on one hand the number of prospective buyers.

In April, R-CALF USA sued the four largest U.S. meat packers on antitrust claims and alleged violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act, for unlawfully depressing the prices paid to American ranchers. The complaint was filed against Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill and National Beef Packing Co. (and certain of their affiliates), which collectively buy and process more than 80 percent of U.S. cattle raised for beef production.

Last month a coalition of groups, including the Organization for Competitive Markets and Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, launched a “Stand by Farm Families” campaign aimed at influencing the upcoming reboot of the GIPSA rules that are supposed to govern the relationship between the farmers and processors. And Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana, and Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat from Ohio, circulated a letter among their colleagues, seeking to drum up support for small farmers and influence the outcome of USDA’s final rules.

I believe the processors when they say they have good relations with most of their contractors. I also believe the ticked-off growers when they say they’ve suffered setbacks, or lost everything. And both camps are prone to the sort of aggressive posturing that leads to dug-in positions and little room for a peaceful settlement.

The upcoming revisions to the GIPSA rules, due to be introduced by the Trump administration, will likely disappoint the growers’ supporters. This anti-regulation administration wouldn’t introduce rules at all, if it weren’t mandated by the 2008 farm bill. However the regulation actually reads, it shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.

The system, as it exists, is ripe for abuse and if most relationships are mutually beneficial, some clearly are not. As with other issues in the meat industry (see also: animal handling), companies and leaders who could make changes are instead putting their energy behind protecting the status quo. But that won’t make the issues go away.

And eventually there will be a legislative or regulatory reboot that tries to set things right for the smaller players. And the processors will not win that round.

Are you leading, or protecting the status quo?

Join for free* to continue reading.