Farm Aid Calls For GIPSA Rules

[Tex]

http://farmaid.blogspot.com/2011/06/make-call-for-fairness-for-family.html

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Make a call for fairness for family farmers and ranchers
AliciaTHREE YEARS AGO, Candidate Barack Obama promised to stand up for open and fair markets for family farm livestock producers.

TWO YEARS AGO, Congress passed a farm bill directing USDA to write rules to end price discrimination against small and mid-sized farmers by corporate meatpackers and processors and to ensure fair production contracts for poultry and hog producers.

ONE YEAR AGO, USDA issued a proposed rule that would reign in some of the worst abuses of giant meat packers and poultry companies.

ONE WEEK AGO, at the bidding of corporate meatpackers, the House of Representatives passed a measure to halt the rulemaking process.

Tell the President that we have waited long enough.

Tell him to stand firm against corporate greed and bullying.

Call the White House comment line between
Monday, June 20th and Friday, June 24th.
202-456-1111

Keep trying until you reach an operator, and share the following message:

"I am a (farmer, grower, consumer) from ________ (city and state) calling in support of USDA's proposed livestock and poultry rule, also called the "GIPSA" rule. Fair, open and transparent markets are essential to rural economic recovery. We need strong rules to curb corporate control over livestock and poultry markets and to foster a livestock industry in which small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers can thrive. Please issue a final GIPSA rule without delay."

Learn More:

Packers and integrators use their market power to manipulate prices paid to livestock producers and contract terms to poultry producers and increasingly to livestock producers.

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 makes it unlawful for meat and poultry packers and processors and companies that contract with farmers to raise hogs and poultry from engaging in any "unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device," or to "make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect."

But until now, USDA has never issued the regulations necessary to define these broad prohibitions in order to adequately enforce the protections for livestock and poultry farmers. That changed because in the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress voted to include directives to USDA to issue the regulations to define these prohibitions. In addition, Congress told USDA to clarify how the Act should be applied to give individual farmers and ranchers a fair shake when dealing with the large corporate entities that control our nation's meat and poultry processing. The proposed rule does exactly what the Farm Bill directed USDA to do.

In addition, for both livestock and poultry farmers and ranchers, the proposed rule would clarify that when a farmer or rancher shows individual harm because of unfair or deceptive practices by livestock and poultry processors, the farmer and rancher does not also need to a show harm to competition throughout the livestock or poultry market. USDA has the authority under the Packer & Stockyards Act to clarify for the courts that farmers and ranchers do not need to show this "competitive injury" to the market as a whole, in order have the legal protections for fair play provided under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

GIPSA stands for the Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration.

For more information on the how the GIPSA rules help poultry producers, go to the Rural Advancement Foundation International USA (RAFI) website.

For more information on how the GIPSA rules help independent livestock producers, go to the Center for Rural Affairs website.
at 10:43 AM 1 Comment
Labels: action, fairness, farmers, GIPSA, ranchers

Disqus

Like
Dislike
5 people liked this.




minnierosegray 06/22/2011 05:05 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
www.farmaid.org

 

[Anonymous]

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!

SOCIALIZE THE CATTLE MARKETS AND REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR HIGHER QUALITY CATTLE.

REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR LOAD LOTS AND FOR FILLING PROCESSING VOIDS.

TAKE CATTLE MARKETING BACK TO THE STONE AGE.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!

SOCIALIZE THE CATTLE MARKETS AND REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR HIGHER QUALITY CATTLE.

REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR LOAD LOTS AND FOR FILLING PROCESSING VOIDS.

TAKE CATTLE MARKETING BACK TO THE STONE AGE.


~SH~

Are you back talking packer nonsense again, sh? No one wants to remove incentives for higher quality cattle and in fact, the GIPSA rules do the exact opposite (despite what meat packers say). Higher quality cattle will have to get the higher prices and not be hammered just to manipulate the cash market.

No one is asking load lot incentives to be lost---just that everyone who has a load gets them.

Take cattle marketing back to the stone age? You mean the age when the guy who drug the animal in could hit the people slicing it up for the rest on the head for not giving him his value for bringing in the animal?

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "Higher quality cattle will have to get the higher prices and not be hammered just to manipulate the cash market."

Still repeating the same rhetoric. I told you there is no way to compare cattle sold though grid pricing to cattle sold in the cash market because the value of the cash cattle is not determined until after they are graded which was after they were purchased.

If you can't even grasp this basic concept of fat cattle marketing, how can you expect anyone to believe anything you say?

Any market works best free of government intervention. Cattle feeders do not need packer blamers from the cow/calf segment of the industry to save them from themselves with government cattle pricing.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "Higher quality cattle will have to get the higher prices and not be hammered just to manipulate the cash market."

Still repeating the same rhetoric. I told you there is no way to compare cattle sold though grid pricing to cattle sold in the cash market because the value of the cash cattle is not determined until after they are graded which was after they were purchased.

If you can't even grasp this basic concept of fat cattle marketing, how can you expect anyone to believe anything you say?

Any market works best free of government intervention. Cattle feeders do not need packer blamers from the cow/calf segment of the industry to save them from themselves with government cattle pricing.


~SH~

I do grasp this concept, sh, but it was proven in court to a jury that this was not the case based on the facts presented.

Did you get the meat packers to make the evidence in the trial public?

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "I do grasp this concept, sh, but it was proven in court to a jury that this was not the case based on the facts presented."

No, you don't grasp the concept. If the court's claim is that the cash cattle were discriminated against because they were of equal value to the grid cattle, the equal value point is irrelevant because there is no way to know whether the cash cattle were of equal value at the time they were purchased. That makes the discrimination point irrelevant.

Tex: "Did you get the meat packers to make the evidence in the trial public?"

Why is that my responsibility? If you want the court transcripts you can get them yourself.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "I do grasp this concept, sh, but it was proven in court to a jury that this was not the case based on the facts presented."

No, you don't grasp the concept. If the court's claim is that the cash cattle were discriminated against because they were of equal value to the grid cattle, the equal value point is irrelevant because there is no way to know whether the cash cattle were of equal value at the time they were purchased. That makes the discrimination point irrelevant.

Tex: "Did you get the meat packers to make the evidence in the trial public?"

Why is that my responsibility? If you want the court transcripts you can get them yourself.


~SH~

sh, you are obviously making up stuff again.

And, no, the meat packers have not allowed the Pickett case information to become public because they and the judge don't want proof out there that you are not representing what the arguments were in the case.

The meat packers are hiding it all so you can just blab blab blab about it.

If they weren't scared of the facts, they and the judge wouldn't care about them being out there. They just don't want anyone to see the evidence the jury saw.



Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "sh, you are obviously making up stuff again."

As always, those who can't debate discredit.

Prove it. Talk is no cheaper than from you.

Tex: "And, no, the meat packers have not allowed the Pickett case information to become public because they and the judge don't want proof out there that you are not representing what the arguments were in the case."

Oh, I see. Since you don't have the court documents, you can't believe the Pickett plaintiffs in regards to their arguments?

I have never seen anyone chase their tail as bad as you do. You are the one who is constantly saying the packers discriminated against the cash market with cattle of the same quality from their purchases through grid pricing. I simply point out the fact that you can't compare the two because you don't know the true value of the cash cattle until they are slaughtered and you claim that I'm making that up and you call McDonnell an idiot.

Does anyone still wonder why you R-CALFers can't win a court case?

It's because you don't have the facts to back your views.

Tex: "The meat packers are hiding it all so you can just blab blab blab about it."

Ahhhhh...ok? Whatever you say chief.

Tex: "If they weren't scared of the facts, they and the judge wouldn't care about them being out there. They just don't want anyone to see the evidence the jury saw."

Of course, one conspiracy theory leads to another. Funny how the Pickett plaintiffs forgot what their arguments were or don't you correspond with them?


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "sh, you are obviously making up stuff again."

As always, those who can't debate discredit.

Prove it. Talk is no cheaper than from you.

Tex: "And, no, the meat packers have not allowed the Pickett case information to become public because they and the judge don't want proof out there that you are not representing what the arguments were in the case."

Oh, I see. Since you don't have the court documents, you can't believe the Pickett plaintiffs in regards to their arguments?

I have never seen anyone chase their tail as bad as you do. You are the one who is constantly saying the packers discriminated against the cash market with cattle of the same quality from their purchases through grid pricing. I simply point out the fact that you can't compare the two because you don't know the true value of the cash cattle until they are slaughtered and you claim that I'm making that up and you call McDonnell an idiot.

Does anyone still wonder why you R-CALFers can't win a court case?

It's because you don't have the facts to back your views.

Tex: "The meat packers are hiding it all so you can just blab blab blab about it."

Ahhhhh...ok? Whatever you say chief.

Tex: "If they weren't scared of the facts, they and the judge wouldn't care about them being out there. They just don't want anyone to see the evidence the jury saw."

Of course, one conspiracy theory leads to another. Funny how the Pickett plaintiffs forgot what their arguments were or don't you correspond with them?


~SH~

sh, the litigants did win in the Pickett case. Their victory was just bought from them.

Tex

 

[js1234]

Any market works best free of government intervention.


~SH~

Always.

 

[Tex]

Any market works best free of government intervention.


~SH~

Always.

I guess that energy deregulation really worked out in California, didn't it?

Tex

 

[js1234]

Okay, Do you want me to say "almost always"?
Never mind that alot of the deregulation problems were due to the issues that arose getting rid of an antiquated and not competitive system implemented by.....the government. (Sound familiar?)
Still, I'm willing to grant that whole situation was a mess.
Obviously, now that I have amended my statement, GIPSA makes perfect sense. :roll:

 

[Tex]

Okay, Do you want me to say "almost always"?
Never mind that alot of the deregulation problems were due to the issues that arose getting rid of an antiquated and not competitive system implemented by.....the government. (Sound familiar?)
Still, I'm willing to grant that whole situation was a mess.
Obviously, now that I have amended my statement, GIPSA makes perfect sense. :roll:

Free markets are the best when there is a set of rules there that are enforced that actually protect the functions of the market.

It is just like traffic laws. Red lights, stop signs, speed limits, and all the rest are laws that are meant to allow traffic to flow the best in the safest manner.

The Packers and Stockyards Act has those economic laws in it. It gives great freedom to market participants--unless those participants are bad actors and actually end up hurting the market.

The repeal of the Glass Steagal Act was another post depression law that was intended to get the economics of correct in the banking system. It corrected the banking system's continual and massively destructive policies that allowed a few to scam the many who used the banking system. It was repealed and we once again allowed investment banking to use the deposits of the banking system in another scam on the economy.

The free market is the best system in the world but it requires rules that are enforced and no one can enforce them but government. Politicians have been selling that responsibility to the highest bidder and we have had massive failures.

The end all isn't to get rid of government, but to get rid of incompetent government and to make those selling out the system pay a higher price, not just the chance of losing one election and then going to work for those who they sold the public interest to.

Government is a necessary evil but the corruption in it is not. Politicians are opportunists and they should be held accountable---not just by losing an election, but for the damages they cause while given the public trust. We are missing that in our system.

The various frauds in the market place like Bernie Madoff and the countless others you don't hear about are the responsibility of the federal government to control. Only they can. Only they have the power.

That power is being misused.

The solution isn't to have no government, it is to fix the one we have and hold accountable the people who are selling its functions out to the highest bidder for their own benefit.

The solution to a bad police force is not to get rid of the police force, but to clean it up. It may require getting rid of those in the police force who are corrupt or allowing the corruption to thrive. They must get more punishment than the free pass we have been giving them as a society.

Tex