January 13, 2010

US meat industry rejects regulation attempts

Efforts to regulate the meat industry are ill conceived and should not be implemented, according to the American Meat Institute (AMI).

Existing antitrust and competition statutes are equally applicable and effective for the meat industry, said the AMI in comments filed to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The comments were in response to an August 2009 Federal Register notice about DOJ and USDA plans to hold public workshops in a series of cities in 2010 to respond to concerns expressed by some agricultural producers about changes in the agricultural marketplace, including rising processor concentration in some commodities.

AMI said the meat industry is one of the most strictly-regulated industries, and regulation and oversight have increased in the last two decades in response to new food safety issues such as E. coli and other dangerous pathogens in meat products.

Mark Dopp, senior vice president of regulatory affairs and general counsel, said growing scientific knowledge has led to evolving food safety policies, and hence a much safer food supply.

In response to new regulatory policies, a number of small and mid-sized family owned meat and poultry companies have taken action to protect themselves by cashing out or merging with other larger, more diversified companies during the past two decades.

AMI also stressed the importance of engaging persons with specific, substantive expertise at each of the planned public meetings. AMI recommended that the nominated panelists be divided into four categories: packers/processors; legal/antitrust attorneys; finance/banking; and economists and academics.

Agricultural competition policies regarding the livestock and meat sector should be founded on the same, fundamental antitrust principles that apply to the economy as a whole. Such an approach encourages the right of individual persons or companies to follow the path that best suits their economic interests, within the legal parameters established by food safety policies, according to Dopp.

The contemplation of antitrust or farm policy that deviates from this approach by favouring one sector over another or inhibiting or restricting a competitive market should be rejected, Dopp added.