Lawmaker: G.I.P.S.A. proposal needs assessment

by Meat & Poultry staff
Share This:

WASHINGTON – In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct an economic analysis before approving the proposed Grain Inspection, Packer and Stockyards Administration rule dealing with marketing agreements between livestock producers and the meatpacking companies they supply.

In a letter Kingston wrote, “In my view, it is unprecedented for a federal agency to propose such a wide-sweeping regulation and not conduct an economic analysis.” He continued to write, “I am concerned that despite Congress having appropriated $13 million in the current fiscal year for the U.S.D.A. Office of the Chief Economist, G.I.P.S.A. has seemingly ignored this resource to analyze the proposal.”

Kingston added that in addition to a lack of economic analysis, there are other questions that have been raised with the rulemaking that require immediate response, including what some view as an attempt by the agency to circumvent the intent of Congress and what Kingston says appears to be a carefully choreographed effort by the agency and others within the U.S.D.A. to lobby Congress, press, industry and public officials on the proposed rule.

“ … Anyone who witnessed the recent Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Subcommittee hearing on the Administration’s proposed rule got the message that there are broad, bipartisan concerns that the proposed rule goes far beyond the scope of the 2008 Farm Bill, lacks a sound economic analysis necessary to judge both the need and utility of the proposed rule and may be the result of a flawed rulemaking process,” Kingston said.

“I am troubled that while the U.S.D.A. and the Department of Justice are in the midst of conducting a series of workshops throughout the nation to gather information on a range of topics addressed by this proposal, U.S.D.A. has chosen to focus its resources on efforts to promote this regulation rather than carefully consider the consequences, intended and unintended, particularly for those it purports to protect — producers,” Kingston concluded.

To read the letter, visit: http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/62348

Comment on this Article
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules.

 

 


The views expressed in the comments section of Meat and Poultry News do not reflect those of Meat and Poultry News or its parent company, Sosland Publishing Co., Kansas City, Mo. Concern regarding a specific comment may be registered with the Editor by clicking the Report Abuse link.