The North American Meat Institute has submitted comments criticizing the Biden Administration's proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA). The Meat Institute argues that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is attempting to bypass Congress and judicial precedent by altering the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate harm to competition under Sections 202(a) and (b) of the PSA.
Mark Dopp, chief operating officer and general counsel of the Meat Institute, stated, “This position was wrong before and is wrong now.” He added that the proposed rule violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing its vague standards and overreach.
Key Concerns from the Meat Institute:
Legal Precedent Ignored: The proposed rule reverses long-standing legal standards that require proof of harm to competition, which the Meat Institute claims can only be changed by Congress.
Vague Standards: The proposal’s vague language makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand compliance requirements.
Inadequate Economic Analysis: USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) failed to conduct a thorough economic analysis of the potential costs, despite having two years to do so.
Litigation and Increased Costs: Implementing the proposal would lead to inefficiencies, legal disputes and increased production costs for beef, pork and poultry, ultimately raising prices for American consumers.
Dopp emphasized that the USDA's failure to estimate the litigation costs was intentional, and he suggested that the administration aims to promote increased litigation as part of its broader strategy. He pointed to remarks from Assistant Attorney General Jonathon Kanter, who had expressed hope that plaintiffs would bring multiple PSA cases.
The Meat Institute concluded that the proposed changes would harm domestic producers, growers and packers, as well as decrease demand for American meat products both domestically and internationally.
