Bill Overview
Title: Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses provisions related to agriculture, food, and fuel, including by providing funds for nutrient management, precision agriculture, and biofuel infrastructure. Specifically, the bill provides funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to (1) assist agricultural producers with the costs of crop nutrient use or adopting precision agriculture practices, and (2) provide grants to eligible entities (e.g., fueling and distribution facilities) for biofuel infrastructure. The bill establishes within USDA the Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters, which must investigate and prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by packers and live poultry dealers. Additionally, USDA must (1) establish an agriculture and food supply chain task force, and (2) provide assistance to address fertilizer shortages and reduce dependency on foreign sources for fertilizer. The bill allows USDA to make loans and grants for livestock and poultry processing. Further, the bill incorporates support for precision agriculture into various USDA programs. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service must enter into certain cooperative agreements for establishing supply chain regional resource centers to support small- and medium-sized producers of agricultural products and agricultural businesses. The bill also applies the Reid vapor pressure (a measure of gasoline's volatility) requirements that are applicable to gasoline blended with 10% ethanol (E10) to gasoline blended with more than 10% ethanol. Thus, the waiver given to E10 gasoline, which allows an increase in the Reid Vapor Pressure volatility, is extended to gasoline blended with more than 10% ethanol.
Sponsors: Rep. Spanberger, Abigail Davis [D-VA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Meat and poultry industry workers and consumers
Estimated Size: 500000000
- The bill targets the regulation and oversight of the meat and poultry industry, which impacts producers, packers, and dealers globally.
- According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the global meat industry involves millions of workers in both direct and ancillary roles, from farming to processing and distribution. This suggests a broad potential impact on employment.
- In addition to workers, consumers globally will be affected by potential changes in meat and poultry prices, availability, and possibly quality, due to increased regulatory oversight and competition.
- The Global meat consumption statistics indicate that billions of people consume poultry and red meat, meaning the legislation could affect these consumers by altering market dynamics.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals directly involved in the meat and poultry industry, including workers in meat packing plants, farmers, and livestock dealers due to increased compliance and regulatory oversight.
- Consumers might experience indirect impacts through potential changes in meat pricing or availability due to increased competition in the sector.
- The policy's budget constraint suggests limited scope for immediate and widespread changes, likely leading to medium or low impacts on individuals not directly related to the industry.
- The involvement of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission implies possible legal and competitive practice reforms, while consultations with Homeland Security highlight food security concerns.
- The sizeable budget over a decade shows a dedicated effort towards making structural changes in the industry, but its direct impact on individuals will vary based on their roles or dependence on the industry.
Simulated Interviews
Cattle Rancher (Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy brings fairness to how we compete with larger operations.
- Regulatory scrutiny might help us get better market access.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Poultry Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic that this could level the playing field a bit.
- Increased checks on large packers could mean better prices for smaller farmers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Meat Packaging Plant Worker (Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about increased oversight affecting my job's stability.
- This might mean layoffs if the company can't compete.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Grocery Store Manager (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any change in pricing could impact our store's profit margins.
- I'm hoping for more consistent quality and pricing stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Corporate Meat Packer Executive (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We have ample resources to comply, but it might affect smaller businesses.
- Our competitive edge is supported by scale, not sure how this will change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Vegan Blogger (New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm intrigued to see if this policy might spur more people to choose plant-based options.
- Any reform that reduces the harms of the meat industry has my support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Poultry Plant Supervisor (Arkansas)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulatory changes could increase operational costs.
- Maintaining efficiency is key, needing to upgrade compliance practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Food Safety Inspector (Illinois)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More enforcement power could make my job more impactful.
- I expect increased workloads due to stricter monitoring requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Lawyer (Massachusetts)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stronger regulations might also help environmental causes indirectly.
- This could align with my work advocating for sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a consumer, any improvement in food quality is welcome.
- I observe the industry as a concerned citizen about diet and health impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4800000, High: $6800000)
Year 10: $6400000 (Low: $5200000, High: $7600000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- Establishing the Office of the Special Investigator involves upfront costs but could yield long-term benefits from enhanced regulation.
- Ongoing cooperation with multiple government agencies is crucial for addressing competition and trade practice issues.
- The potential legal costs of prosecution and investigations should be factored in as potential budget overrun risks.