The proposed rule would adversely affect the use of marketing agreements by livestock producers and processors because of a threat of legal jeopardy, Boyle explains.
“These agreements were initiated by producers and have been mutually beneficial to producers and processors. In addition, these agreements benefit consumers, who enjoy a consistent, quality product because processors are better able to procure the types of livestock that yield those products,” he said.
It is troubling that the proposed rule lacks a comprehensive economic-impact analysis, a fact that has been criticized in writing by nearly 115 members of Congress, including Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Reps. Steve King and Tom Latham, Boyle points out.
“An economic-impact study found the rule would cost Iowa more than 3,700 jobs and cost the state $630 million in economic activity,” he explained, adding that nationwide, the US would lose 104,000 jobs and approximately $14 billion in total revenue.
“That is why AMI and the country's largest livestock producer groups have called for the proposed rule to be withdrawn,” he said.