Bill Overview
Title: Food and Agribusiness Merger Moratorium and Antitrust Review Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill places a moratorium on certain acquisitions between large agricultural and retail-related businesses and establishes the Food and Agriculture Concentration and Market Power Review Commission. The commission shall report to Congress and the President on (1) the nature and consequences of market concentration in the U.S. food and agricultural economy, and (2) recommended legal and regulatory changes to address such market concentration.
Sponsors: Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by changes in the agribusiness and retail food markets due to reduced market concentration
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill aims to place a moratorium on acquisitions between large agricultural and retail-related businesses, thus directly impacting businesses within these sectors.
- The consequences of market concentration affect food producers, distributors, and retailers, which in turn can impact pricing and availability of food products for consumers.
- The bill strives to ensure fair competition which is beneficial for small to medium-sized farmers and agribusinesses that face challenges competing with larger corporations.
- A more competitive market can lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers.
- Improving market competition could lead to more sustainable farming practices being adopted if concentration and monopolies diminish.
Reasoning
- Considering the broad impact of the agricultural and retail sectors, we've selected a range of individuals from different demographics and occupations, such as small farmers, employees of large agribusinesses, rural and urban consumers, and grocery retailers.
- The policy budget constraints imply a focus on monitoring and reporting rather than direct subsidies or payments to individuals. The impact is likely more indirect, affecting market dynamics rather than immediate personal circumstances.
- Our interviews explore differing perspectives on the policy, including those who are not directly impacted but could experience changes in food availability or price.
- We've evaluated the potential changes in self-reported wellbeing using Cantril scales for both with and without policy scenarios over various timeframes to understand longer-term impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Small Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy might finally even the playing field, giving small farmers a chance to compete fairly.
- Market concentration often squeezes us out, so any policy that curbs the power of big companies is welcome.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Consumer (California)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy reduces price manipulation by big companies, it could make my grocery bills more manageable.
- I worry about how concentrated the supply chain has become, any change might help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Agribusiness Employee (Nebraska)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that this moratorium could mean less growth for my company and potential job cuts.
- Though something needs to be done about market concentration, this could have personal costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Grocery Retail Worker (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less market concentration could mean more fair prices and better products for our customers.
- I'm hoping it won't affect my store negatively, but I'm optimistic about the potential benefits.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Food Activist (New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a great step forward in making agriculture more sustainable and equitable.
- I'm passionate about reducing the power of large agribusinesses to ensure healthier food systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Supply Chain Manager (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining a balance between large and small suppliers is crucial.
- Disruptions caused by this bill could be challenging, but might lead to a more diversified supplier network.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Restaurant Owner (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this bill enables more local sourcing options, my business could flourish.
- Fighting market concentration can help smaller producers get more visibility and access to markets.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Missouri)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The outcomes of this policy could provide rich data for assessing market dynamics.
- I'm hopeful it will contribute constructive reforms and rebalances market power.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Market consolidation has severely impacted our prices; this policy could provide relief.
- Although not a silver bullet, it's encouraging to see a focus on fairer competition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Government Official (Washington D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to significant regulatory changes, demanding more from both companies and us in government.
- It's a challenging task but crucial for fair market conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $65000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $90000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $80000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy's primary cost driver is the establishment and operation of the review commission and the implementation of the moratorium.
- Estimated savings arise from enhanced market competition, which could lower food costs and reduce anti-competitive practices.
- Anticipated economic benefits include potential GDP growth and increased investment due to a fairer competitive environment.
- Legal challenges and stakeholder resistance may impact the policy's implementation timeline and costs.