Farm Progress is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Small farmers disappointed with Trump's GIPSA decision

zooner-RF/Thinkstock beef-trade-zooner-RF-ThinkstockPhotos-2000
'It leaves the cattle producer absolutely punchless.'

by Deena Shanker

After years of fighting for an Obama-era rule that would help farmers sue the mammoth companies they work for, advocacy groups for America’s small poultry, pork, and beef growers may have been dealt a final blow by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The fight was about whether small farmers can sue if they feel they’ve been mistreated by big companies. Poultry farmers, for example, often get their chicks and feed from big meat producers, which in turn pay the farmer for the full-grown product. If a farmer wants to sue a company for retaliating against him because he complained about his contract—say, by sending him sick chicks or bad feed—the farmer needs to show the company’s actions hurt not only him, but the entire industry. 

Under President Obama, that high bar would have been lowered. Under the interim final rule, a showing of harm to only one farmer would suffice to support a claim. The Trump administration last week threw out the Obama-era rule in a move hailed by lobbyists for the big agriculture companies.

“I can’t tell you how disappointed I am,” says Mike Weaver, a West Virginia poultry farmer and president of the Organization for Competitive Markets, who voted for Donald Trump. “Rural America came out and supported the president, and if it weren’t for us, he wouldn’t be where he is now. What they did was wrong, and it shouldn’t have happened that way.” 

“This gives the meatpacking industry the ability to do whatever they wish in terms of retaliation against an individual”

Farmer groups—including the National Farmers Union, Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, Farm Aid, R-CALF USA, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, and the Organization for Competitive Markets—supported the Obama-era rule. Many farmers and ranchers thought Trump would allow it to take effect, citing his support for small business and rural Americans. Industry lobbyists, such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and the North American Meat Institute, hoped the Republican president would undo the rule, citing fears over increased litigation from farmers. They also thought they’d found a champion for their cause in Trump, who had vowed to cut federal regulation. 

“When Trump was coming in with the mantra of reduced regulation,” says Jeremy Scott, a protein research analyst at Mizuho Securities USA LLC, “there was relief.” In the end it was industry, not farmers, that guessed correctly. National Chicken Council President Mike Brown publicly praised the USDA decision. 

Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers are left with few options to challenge huge companies over allegedly anti-competitive behavior. “This gives the meatpacking industry the ability to do whatever they wish in terms of retaliation against an individual,” says Jay Platt, a cow-calf rancher in Arizona, who also voted for Trump. “It leaves the cattle producer absolutely punchless.”

In addition to Democrats on Capitol Hill, at least one member of Trump’s own party sees it that way, too. “They’re just pandering to big corporations. They don’t care about family farms,” Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told reporters upon hearing the news of the USDA decision. “This is an example of a swamp being refilled.”

Although the Trump administration has faced litigation opposing other attempts to undo Obama-era regulations, lawsuits are unlikely to succeed in this case because the USDA took public comment on the possibility of withdrawing the rule, which itself was based on an interpretation of existing federal law, before doing so. 

“If there’s some ambiguity, the agency responsible for carrying out the rule is given deference,” says Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Penn Program on Regulation. “It may have been reasonable to interpret the statute the way the Obama administration did, but that doesn’t mean the Trump administration’s isn’t reasonable.” 

For now, farmer groups are looking at other avenues. Weaver has sent a letter asking Trump to issue an executive order reversing the USDA’s decision. He still lays part of the blame, however, with the Obama administration, whose rural agenda was largely stymied by Congress.

“Obama had the opportunity to do the right thing, and he didn’t,” says Weaver. “He made a lot of promises to the farmers about the things he was gonna do and never followed through on them.” 

To contact the author of this story: Deena Shanker in New York at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Rovella at [email protected]

© 2017 Bloomberg L.P

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.