Bill Overview
Title: Expanding Local Meat Processing Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to revise its regulations to allow certain packers to hold an ownership interest in, finance, or participate in the management or operation of a market agency selling livestock on a commission basis. The bill applies to packers that have a cumulative slaughter capacity of (1) less than 2,000 animal per day or 700,000 animals per year with respect to cattle or sheep, and (2) less than 10,000 animals per day or 3 million animals per year with respect to hogs.
Sponsors: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by small to medium livestock farming and meat processing
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill impacts the agricultural sector, particularly those involved in livestock farming and meat processing.
- Small to medium-sized meat packers are the primary target, as the bill specifies those with a slaughter capacity below certain thresholds.
- Farmers who supply livestock to smaller meat processing facilities are also affected, as they may benefit from increased competition.
- Consumers might indirectly be impacted by potential changes in meat pricing or availability due to shifts in market dynamics.
- In the US, this will primarily impact rural communities where livestock farming and local meat processing facilities are more prevalent.
- Globally, the ripple effects might be felt in countries engaged in meat trade with the US, although direct impacts are likely minimal.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily targets small to medium-sized meat processing operations and those who supply livestock to these facilities.
- By enabling packers to have a stake in market agencies, it could remove some financial barriers and potentially increase competitiveness.
- Increased competitiveness might benefit farmers by providing them better market access and could influence market prices, affecting consumers.
- The rural commitment is significant as these operations tend to be in rural areas, impacting local economies and livelihoods.
- With a set budget and focus, the policy's impacts would be closely observed within the target scope, affecting those directly involved in livestock processing and potentially trickling down to consumers through market changes.
Simulated Interviews
Small Cattle Rancher (Iowa)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will make it easier for small processors and packers to operate.
- If more local packers are available, I could get better prices for my livestock.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Meat Processing Plant Worker (Nebraska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job stability depends on how well our plant operates.
- This policy could mean more stability and possibly better wages if our plant grows.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Independent Livestock Trader (Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More flexibility in the market could mean better trading opportunities for me.
- I hope this allows smaller operations to expand, creating more business for traders like myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Consumer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful this policy might mean more affordable meat options if competition increases.
- Indirect benefits are good, but I hope local sustainability improves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Large Meat Processing Executive (Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our operations may be pressured by more smaller players entering the market.
- Regulatory changes could impact our current strategies, but diversification is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Sheep Farmer (South Dakota)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fewer local processors means less stress selling our sheep.
- Could mean better price negotiations and less shipping costs.
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 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds new dimensions to local markets; it’s promising.
- It should stimulate local economies and bring jobs, provided it's managed well.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Veterinarian (Montana)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More processing options might mean expanded demand for livestock health services.
- Improved operations can lead to better animal welfare, benefiting the industry as a whole.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Lawyer (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There are environmental benefits if the policy focuses on sustainable practices.
- Need to ensure this opportunity for expansion does not compromise environmental standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Kentucky)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More thriving local packers mean more work for my logistics business.
- I see this policy as a boost for local economies reliant on agriculture.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The impact on local economies is significant, especially in rural areas where small to medium packers are prevalent.
- Changes might lead to more competitive meat prices, impacting the broader market.
- Initial implementation costs may be offset over time by savings and increased tax revenues.
- Long-term economic benefits could outweigh short-term administrative costs.