Bill Overview
Title: Butcher Block Act
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make (or guarantee) loans and award grants for establishing, expanding, and otherwise supporting livestock and poultry processing and related activities. In awarding grants and making or guaranteeing loans, USDA shall prioritize applicants that have experience in livestock and poultry processing and can quickly scale-up to increase overall processing capacity in the region involved.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or impacted by the livestock and poultry processing industry
Estimated Size: 50000000
- This bill focuses on livestock and poultry processing, which are sectors involved in the food supply chain.
- Globally, meat processing is a significant industry with millions of workers and operations contributing to it.
- Increased processing capacity can impact the meat supply chain, affecting meat prices and availability worldwide.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets those involved directly or indirectly with livestock and poultry processing.
- Impacts will vary significantly across stakeholders, from plant workers to consumers who might see changes in meat prices.
- The policy's financial cap means that it cannot fundamentally alter the entire industry quickly but can make significant incremental improvements in capacity and efficiency.
- Given the widespread nature of this industry, even small impacts can trickle down to affect a significant portion of the population.
Simulated Interviews
Livestock Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Butcher Block Act could provide more opportunities for local processing, reducing transport costs.
- My operation might benefit if the demand for local supply increases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Poultry Processing Plant Worker (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If my plant gets a grant, it might mean better job security.
- There could be opportunities for additional training or better equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Restaurant Chef (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If processing increases, I could have more reliable access to quality meats.
- It might also help in stabilizing costs for ingredients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Grocery Store Manager (Ohio)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Butcher Block Act can help stabilize meat supply, reducing the risk of price spikes.
- Consistent supply could improve customer satisfaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to bolster large-scale processing, which I am opposed to.
- I fear it could lead to environmental harm without addressing sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 2 |
Health Policy Researcher (Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act's effects on health will depend on implementation details and focus on food quality.
- Could potentially improve food safety if more regulated processing facilities participate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Meat Distributor (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More processing plants could ease supply bottlenecks.
- I hope the focus includes sustainable and humane practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Agricultural Scales Engineer (Nebraska)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might create more jobs in engineering and maintenance in processing facilities.
- An increase in processing facilities could mean more demand for specialized scales and equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Meat Packers Union Representative (Alabama)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased capacity might need more workers, possibly strengthening our bargaining position.
- I hope the policy ensures safety standards improve alongside increased capacity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Veterinarian specializing in livestock (Illinois)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy supports humane treatment in additional processing plants, it could be beneficial.
- I hope increased capacity does not mean compromising on animal welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the policy relies on the selection of experienced applicants who can efficiently scale up operations.
- Ensuring environmental and health standards are maintained as processing capacity is expanded is critical.
- There is a need to monitor the distribution of loan and grant allocations to prevent regional imbalances or economic distortions.