 November 1, 2007 |
|
 |
|
| Opinion Editorial: Recognizing a Problem | |
By Allen Sents, McPherson County Feeders, Marquette, KS |
|
| The Senate Ag Committee is on the right track with the recently approved mark for the Farm Bill. While the House version of the Bill improves Country of Origin Labeling and interstate meat inspection standards, the Senate Ag Committee goes a step further and recognizes the need for reform in livestock marketing practices. Included in the committee mark are items to help insure that efficient livestock producers have an opportunity to access markets. Country of Origin Labeling lets consumers decide if they care where their meat comes from, just like they can make that decision about their clothes and cars. Interstate meat inspection will allow small processors access to a larger market with similar oversight that our government uses to approve foreign processors. Significantly, however, this “mark” also restricts packer ownership of cattle. This restriction recognizes that forces other than operating efficiencies are at work in the marketplace. Continuing instances of the few and large beef processors to effectively not participate in the negotiated market for a week or two at a time in the midst of a price break illustrate the significance of packer owned and controlled cattle. While the committee “mark” addresses the ownership aspect of packer control it fails to address the even broader implications of selective marketing agreements. These agreements give the packer more leverage than that gained by the cattle they actually own. While critics condemn actions against these agreements as moves against quality improvement and progress they fail to recognize the largest marketing agreements today have nothing to do with quality; their purpose has always been to secure quantity. Still needed, however, are the Captive Supply Reform Act and amendments to clarify P&S rules regarding “business justification” and “competitive injury” provisions. All proposed legislation recognizes (as has current law for the last 80 years) that there are “reasonable” differences in price for different products. The proposed changes will not impact efforts to meet consumer demand, they will, however, properly referee the marketplace. A livestock title has the potential to address another intended aspect of the Farm Bill, that of rural development. As legislators spend money and seek ways to stimulate rural economies perhaps they can see the potential value of fulfilling government’s role to maintain competition in the marketplace. That value is seen when more efficient producers are left in business to sustain more communities and keep that entrepreneurial spirit alive in rural America. While that line of government control vs. personal freedom is hard to walk it is certainly worth the effort to keep America the “land of opportunity” and not merely a land of “survival of the fittest” where a person always needs a bigger stick to survive! |
|
|
|