The American Meat Institute (AMI) today filed comments urging the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to withdraw its livestock and poultry marketing proposed rule because it:
--Exceeds the congressional mandate in the 2008 farm bill;
--Eliminates more than 100,000 jobs;
--Destroys partnerships between livestock producers and meat companies that have improved product quality; and
--Raises meat and poultry prices paid by consumers.
“In addition to exceeding the direction it received from Congress and containing numerous provisions that are legally infirm, GIPSA’s proposed rule, if finalized, will cost the meat and poultry industry dearly in jobs, revenue and productivity,” says AMI Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel Mark Dopp. “Unfortunately, GIPSA is hurtling down a path based on anecdote and innuendo, but with no regard to the truly significant adverse economic and social consequences this rule would have on livestock producers, consumers and the meat and poultry industry,” he adds.
There are five flawed areas that AMI has outlined in its comments:

  1. The proposed rule conflicts with long-standing judicial precedent that affirms the need to demonstrate harm to competition.
  2. Many provisions would cause severe economic harm to producers, consumers, packers and live poultry dealers.
  3. Many elements of the proposal are unconstitutionally vague and patently unworkable.
  4. The proposal would adversely affect the meat and poultry industry’s ability to compete internationally.
  5. The agency failed to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 that requires a more comprehensive assessment than the simplistic cost-benefit analysis conducted as part of the proposed rule.

To read AMI’s complete comments, go to