Ag Secretary Perdue Completes America’s Return to the Jungle

If Justice is a fundamental principal of the American way of life, then Secretary Perdue has violated this principle. The Packers and Stockyards Act was intended to ensure producers of livestock their due, protecting them from the abusive monopoly power of big meat packers. Secretary Perdue now completes America’s Return to the Jungle. Former GIPSA Administrator (Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration), Dudley Butler has a message for Secretary Perdue:


Years after passage of the Sherman Act (1890) and the Clayton Act (1914), the Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA) (1921) was passed to regulate packers and poultry companies and to provide greater protection for farmers and ranchers against unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practices as well as undue or unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage. Even the threshold for proof is less, not competitive injury but likelihood of competitive injury.

The PSA has always been a “remedial” and “quasi-anti-trust” act. For people to interpret it differently, they have to be “politically motivated”, “philosophically motivated”, “intellectually dishonest” and/or “educated beyond their intelligence”.

The bedrock of the PSA is Section 202 entitled “Unlawful practices enumerated”. Two portions of this section help explain some of its remedial purposes.

It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect;

USDA Secretary Perdue exhibits a complete lack of knowledge of the PSA and related law as well as the conditions in the livestock and poultry industry and rural America. He is either incompetent or corrupt or both. His interpretation of the PSA renders it virtually unenforceable. Example: A packer could defraud a rancher on a shipment of cattle and the rancher could not bring suit in Federal Court to recover his or her money unless he or she could prove some type of harm to the marketplace.

The Farmer Fair Practices Proposed Rules provide guidelines for the industry and protections for farmers and ranchers. These guidelines would protect farmers and ranchers against bad faith, retaliation, denial of due process and fraud. Guidelines reduce litigation; they don’t increase it. Additionally, they would allow for administrative actions before USDA administrative judges, thereby reducing possible Federal Court litigation.

Perdue slanders farmers and ranchers as litigious people that the multi-national corporations must be protected against. Farmers and Ranchers don’t file frivolous lawsuits. They are the least litigious people in this country.

Farmers and ranchers are the backbone of America and they paved the way for Trump to be President. They thought he was their President but he and his minions have now sold these very farmers and ranchers down the river.

J. Dudley Butler
Former Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged | Comments

National Farm-to-School Month: Highlighting Cutting-Edge Programs

National Farm-to-School Month: Highlighting Cutting-Edge Programs

The dark side of Farm-to-School

While Food Tank celebrates Farm-to-School initiatives, there’s a darker side of the story that is at risk of being overlooked.

Ranch Foods Direct has been in business in Colorado Springs since 2000. At one time we sold our high quality, locally produced beef to many school districts in our region, including Colorado Springs, Boulder, Denver, Greeley as well as schools on the Western Slope of Colorado. Today, we have none of that business. Every single school district has gone back to industrially produced meat from the big meat packers. Even our local colleges and universities, after making promises to budget for higher quality, local food, have greatly decreased or totally discontinued their local purchases in favor of national companies, which have created fake, local “zombie brands” while predatory-pricing community-based suppliers out of the market and paying significant kickbacks to school lunch operators.

I could make a good argument that the local food movement has been co-opted and captured by the big food companies to such an extent that our hopes for success are rapidly fading. I don’t know of any Farm-to-School suppliers in my area that have been able to forge a true and lasting sales arrangement. I fear that by saying Farm-to-School initiatives are making an impact, we mislead people into overlooking the challenges small farmers are experiencing as they try to access this market. We all stand to lose plenty if we remain silent while allowing them to fail.

Posted in General Advocacy | Comments

China Beef Deal

Gilles Stockton responds to China Beef Deal:

September 26, 2017

Dear Editor

Call me a “wet blanket” or a “Debby Downer” or whatever you might think is the appropriate simile, but I am not too impressed with the China beef deal. China will not be buying that much beef, for the very simple reason that we do not have it to sell. This country does not raise enough cattle to meet the demands of our own consumers. If we have a “so called” surplus it is because we import it.

Sure, the beef packers can package up some steaks to be sold at a few high-end hotel restaurants and they can freeze up a few container loads of liver, hearts, kidneys, and tongues, but will that be reflected in the price of feeder calves next year? I doubt it, because our cattle/beef market is not competitive. Remember, “we” ranchers don’t sell beef – “we” sell cattle. Since 1990 the producer’s share of the retail beef dollar has fallen by twenty-five percent. The market relationship between retail prices and live cattle is clearly dysfunctional.

The ban imposed by China and now being lifted was not trade illegal but it was unwarranted. The United States never had a BSE problem except for a few months in 2003 when one infected Canadian cow was on our soil. Our country (our government) subsequently decided to share Canada’s pain by allowing cattle imports which when comingled at the packing plant level meant we had no idea if the beef was BSE contaminated or not. Canada, given enough time, was able to eliminate BSE, but China’s continued ban beyond that date was unwarranted. That our government chose to not challenge the China ban for these many years is again a problem that can only be blame on our own government’s disregard for cattle producers. In this respect, we can credit Senator Daines for his help in lifting the ban.

Those of us who raise and feed cows have been the sacrifice to global trade since we started this so called “free trade” mania. Every trade agreement has promised beef export opportunities, but what we got instead are more imports from – Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Central America, Argentina, and Brazil.

All is not good in cow country. For the second year in a row, feeder calf prices have been under the cost of producing them. America’s cattlemen and women are receiving $500 per head less for calves than they were paid in 2014. In Montana’s terms that is ¾ of a billion dollars, $1.5 billion for the two years, that is not being spent to fuel Montana’s economy. What is worse is that this $1.5 billion is coming out of equity which means it is coming out of the future. It is money that will not be there to pay for the retirement of this current generation or to pass on to the next generation of ranchers. When you look at the effects on rural communities over the nation as a whole it is like one of those hurricanes that just smashed Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico.

Cattle producer’s main problem is lack of market competition. The retail price of beef, including exported beef, is not transmitted down the market chain to the feeder and original producer. Independent feedlots have been all but eliminated and the packers now source their cattle supply from a handful of very large “vertically integrated” cattle feeding firms – some of which they own outright.

So Senator Daines, if you want to be every cowgirl’s sweetheart and make all of us cowboys jealous, this is what you must do:

Most important – Join with Senator Enzi of Wyoming and Senator Tester of Montana in sponsoring the Captive Supply Reform Act. This Act is a simple and commonsense way to restore a competitive market for live cattle. It clarifies the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&SA) by replacing captive supply procurement mechanisms with a publicly open competitive market. Packers will still be able to forward contract cattle shipments, they just will not be able to keep it a secret.

Second most important – Support legislation re-requiring that USDA finalize rules protecting poultry, hog, and cattle contract growers – i.e. the GIPSA Rules. First poultry producers, then hog producers lost the ability to sell in a competitive public market and became a cog in a vertically integrated factory farm system. Cattle feeders are now in the process of being vertically integrated, and coming soon, unless there are some dramatic changes, cow-calf producers will be vertically aligned to one beef packers. What the GIPSA rule would do is give contract growers some basic rights, such as the right to witness their livestock being weighed, and the right to question the quality of the feed supplied by the integrator, and to be able to do so without fear of retaliation. Contract growers need some basic protections in their business dealings with the integrating firm.

Third most important – reenact legislation authorizing Country of Origin Labeling. COOL has become a symbol of everything that has frustrated cattle producers. The fact that the World Trade Organization, the United States Congress, and the Beef Packing Cartel all want to deny consumers the right to choose US produced beef, tells us much of what is wrong in trade agreements like NAFTA. And if I am not mistaken, you, Senator Daines, were one of those who voted to rescind COOL. I ask you, do we have a sovereign right to protect the integrity and safety of our food system or has that right been ceded to trans-national corporations?
While you are at it, there are two other thing that needs doing:

Fourth: We always suspected but now it has been confirmed that the Batista family that owns the JBS beef packing concern are criminals. They are under indictment in Brazil for a number of crimes and we need to determine what crimes they have committed in this country. You should use your office to investigate how the Batistas were allowed to buy packing plants in this country?

Fifth: The Beef Checkoff Tax is clearly being mismanaged by USDA and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). Witness the lack of oversight right here in Montana. Two entire generations of young cattlemen have never had the opportunity to vote on whether they even want this tax. It is time to reform or eliminate the Beef Checkoff Tax.

What I have outlined above are five commonsense reforms needed to insure the future of cattle ranching and the small rural towns in which we live. We are obviously a neglected and forgotten part of America. Perhaps this is because we don’t ask for much. All we want is the right to pursue our lives and businesses as independent producers of livestock, responding to the dictates of free and fair market competition.

Gilles Stockton
Stockton Ranch
Grass Range, Montana
406 428-2183

Posted in General Advocacy | Comments

Presentation to UCCS Students: September 12, 2017

To view or download the presentation, click here.

Posted in General Advocacy | Comments

NAFTA – Either Reform or Discard

Gilles Stockton

By Gilles Stockton | 9/11/2017

The discussion over the future of NAFTA is heating up. The commodity organizations deny any problems in the existing agreement and demand no changes, a position no doubt dictated to them by the global Big Ag corporations. The reality that I lived through tells a different story.

Right from the beginning of NAFTA in 1994, Canadian cattle started to be dumped on the US market depressing prices. I don’t need my intuition to tell me that this was true, because it was a finding by the trade authorities that came to light only as a result of legal action taken by R-Calf. Earlier, while NAFTA was in the process of being ratified by Congress, Senator Max Baucus assured me, to my face, that he would fix any problems that arose. Neither he nor Congress, nor the then existing or future Presidents did anything to stop the dumping of cattle in our market.

It was not until 2003 that we got some relief in a backwards sort of way, when a BSE (mad cow) infected cow imported from Canada was discovered. Countries that imported beef from the US banned imports and we in turn stopped live imports from Canada. And guess what, the cattle market jumped twenty five percent (25%) overnight. This showed that not only were Canadian cattle being dumped on our market, they were being dumped in a coordinated manner by the beef packers to control prices paid for cattle. In other words, Canada was one big pool of captive supply cattle, that was being used to manipulate our market.

We could not stay with that happy situation. Using the NAFTA regulations as an excuse we reopened cattle imports from Canada, even though it was clear that they had not eradicated BSE. In essence, we voluntarily adopted Canada’s disease status resulting in more beef on our markets, a continuation of blocked exports to Asia, the risk that an American consumer would contract a fatal brain disease from eating beef from Canada, and of course, lower cattle prices.

In the meantime, Congress, after intense demand from cattle producers and consumers, passed Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). It took more than a decade for the labeling to become a reality as COOL implementation was blocked by the Big Packers, their captive organization the NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association), Republican Congressional leaders, and the governments of Canada and Mexico. Eventually a NAFTA tribunal declared COOL to be trade illegal and the Republican dominated Congress happily rescinded COOL all together.

So what has NAFTA brought to US cattle producers:

  • The manipulation of domestic cattle prices through dumping and enhanced captive supply.
  • The introduction of a dangerous disease and the continued negative economic consequence of sharing that disease status even though we had successfully stopped BSE from contaminating the US herd.
  • The interference of an international body on an issue which should be our exclusive sovereign right to inform consumers of beef where their food originated.
  • A trade deficit of more than $10 trillion over the life of NAFTA

From the perspective of US cattle producers, NAFTA clearly needs to be reformed, if not rescinded altogether. This does not mean that other segments of agriculture and other industries have not had a more positive experience. Montana’s wheat farmers may have had a better situation over all, but I have read articles that suggests that the market for wheat has been all one way – into the US. Somehow Canada manages to keep US wheat out of their market and out of using their market infrastructure.

It bothers me that the NCBA and the Farm Bureau have declared totally in favor of NAFTA as it currently stands, when it is clear that big problems exist. We need better representation then that if this country’s independent cattle producers are to survive. Reinstating COOL would be a good start. This would reestablish the principal of our national sovereignty and allow consumers the choice of supporting American producers.

What COOL will not do is stop the use of Canadian cattle as part of the captive supply manipulation which is killing our markets. That, however, is something we can do all by ourselves by passing the Captive Supply Reform Act. Not only will the Captive Supply Reform Act require packers to publicly bid on domestic fat cattle, it will apply to Canadian imports.

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , | Comments