WASHINGTON, D.C, – USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced a newly proposed rule under the Packers and Stockyards Act he said would better protect farmers, ranchers, and other market participants.

“Entrenched market power and the abuses that flow from it remain an obstacle to achieving lower prices for consumers and fairer practices for producers,” he said. “Today’s proposed rule stands for clear, transparent standards so that markets function fairly and competitively for consumers and producers alike.”

According to the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, the proposed rule will better protect farmers, ranchers, and other covered market participants by making clearer how prohibitions on unfair practices will be enforced under the act.

“Specifically, the rule provides clearer tests and frameworks around unfair practices that harm market participants individually and unfair practices that harm markets overall,” the USDA said in a June 25 statement.

The USDA said the purpose of the Packers and Stockyards Act is to assure fair competition and fair trade practices, to safeguard farmers and ranchers, to protect consumers, and to protect members of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices.

“If finalized, this rule would better enable the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to carry out its legal obligation to ensure fair and competitive national livestock, meat, and poultry markets, and ensure livestock producers and poultry growers can secure the full value for their products and services,” the EPA said.

Andy Green, USDA senior advisor for fair and competitive markets, said, “Farmers, ranchers, consumers, and smaller processors all depend upon the Packers and Stockyards Act to protect them from bad actors in the marketplace. It’s time to provide the regulatory clarity and simplicity needed to put an end to unfair conduct that harms the market or that harms market participants.”

Andrew P. Griffith, University of Tennessee professor of agricultural and resource economics, told Farm World, however, “The Packers and Stockyards Act is a rather involved act, and ensuring a new rule does not violate current legislation or have unintended consequences is difficult.

“In other words, it is difficult not to harm one entity when attempting to protect another entity,” he said. “In direct response to why they are proposing this rule, I am not sure. It sure seems as if they are drudging up old thoughts that have been proposed previously and putting them in a newly decorated box.”

Ethan Lane, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association vice president of government affairs, told Farm World, the proposed rule “is a direct attack on producer profitability because it targets perfectly legitimate marketing methods which financially reward more highly desired cattle traits.”

What’s more, he said, “This new rule, if finalized, would threaten to take away premiums for producers enrolled in branded programs, adhering to special production methods, making origin claims, or otherwise differentiating their livestock from others in the marketplace.

“We strongly believe in the free market, and if you put in the work to raise higher quality cattle, you should be rewarded with a better price,” he added.

Julie Anna Potts, the Meat Institute president and CEO, said the proposed rule is “a blatant attempt to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Under these proposed rules, everyone loses: the livestock producer, the packer, and ultimately, the consumer.”

When asked how this proposed rule will ultimately affect producers, Griffith said, “I have no clue. I doubt any producers will ever know if they are affected by this rule or not. It will likely have a larger impact on certain producers and not others, but attempting to say what the specifics are is difficult on the front end.”

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register for public comment for 60 days.