Article
43 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 345 (2017)

An Expansive Leap: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s Unjustified Attempt to Grow the Packers and Stockyards Act

By
Matthew Berger & Christopher Bowler

Throughout American history, farmers have played a vital role in American society and the construction of its economy. This fundamental fact remains true today. In 2013, the meat and poultry packing industry in the United States employed more than 482,100 workers (with combined salaries of more than $19 billion) and produced approximately 93.5 billion pounds of meat for consumers around the world. Sales of this meat totaled $198 billion, and, when taking into account the meat and poultry packing industry’s suppliers, distributors, retailers, and ancillary industries, “[t]he meat and poultry industry’s economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire [gross domestic product].” Moreover, the contributions of American livestock and poultry farmers and the meat packing industry in the United States extend far beyond mere economic considerations. The estimated global population has increased from approximately 3.5 billion in 1967 to approximately 7.5 billion today. This population increase is expected to continue exponentially, with the global population expected to reach 8.5 billion people by the year 2030 and 11.2 billion people by the year 2100. Although America’s livestock and poultry farmers and the meat packing industry have achieved amazing production efficiencies, even greater advances in efficiency and production will be necessary in order to continue to feed the ever-increasing global population.

However, despite the tremendous innovations and successes of American agriculture over the past several years, farmers are now under siege on multiple fronts. In order to raise funds to advance their political agenda, environmental and animal rights activists use isolated incidents and edited videos to falsely accuse livestock and poultry farmers of destroying the quality of air and water and of abusing animals. These attacks have led to unprecedented increases in the scope of governmental regulation of agricultural practices, including, perhaps most prominently in the eyes of the general public, various types of environmental regulations.

This article focuses on one particular piece of federal legislation and its accompanying regulations that may be less prominent in the public realm but have been a significant part of the meat packing industry for nearly one hundred years: the Packers and Stockyards Act (the “PSA” or the “Act”). The PSA was enacted on August 15, 1921, and, as discussed in greater detail throughout this article, exists “to insure effective competition and integrity in livestock, meat, and poultry markets.” This purpose is currently pursued by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (“GIPSA”), which assumed responsibility for administering the Act in 1994. In 2010, however, GIPSA proposed various rules and regulations that quickly became the source of great controversy within the meat and poultry industry. While many of these rules did not ultimately take effect at the time, GIPSA recently revived several of these regulations through new interim and proposed regulations.

More specifically, this article analyzes some of GIPSA’s more controversial rules in light of the PSA as it has existed, been altered, and been interpreted over the past ninety-five years. Part II provides the necessary background for this analysis, discussing both the history of the PSA as originally enacted and portions of the Act that are invoked on a regular basis. Part III then focuses on a more recent piece of legislation—the 2008 Farm Bill—and GIPSA’s attempt to exercise its rulemaking authority under that legislation to dramatically change the landscape of the PSA. Next, Part IV argues that GIPSA goes too far in these attempts, thereby effectively rewriting the PSA to increase the scope of its regulatory authority. In particular, this article asserts that GIPSA’s efforts are inconsistent with the purpose of the PSA, both as originally enacted and as interpreted over the past ninety-five years.