Cattlemen concerned about GIPSA’s proposed rule | TSLN.com

Cattlemen concerned about GIPSA’s proposed rule

Amanda Nolz

Photo by Amanda Nolz"My biggest concern is that this rule takes away one of our risk management tools," said South Dakota Cattlemen's Association president and feedlot operator Bryan Nagel.

When asking producers in attendance at the 2010 Dakotafest in Mitchell, SD about the proposed rule by USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association (SDCA) President Bryan Nagel said the most popular response was, “What’s GIPSA?”

This concerns Nagel as he said the proposed rule will have huge implications for livestock producers, packers and consumers. And, while the original intent of the rule is to improve fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry, Nagel fears the unintended consequences of the rule will accomplish the exact opposite.

Nagel shared his top four concerns with this rule at a question-and-answer session during Dakotafest, and he encourages producers to read up on the rule and provide comments to the USDA.

First, the rule would change the compensation for injury definition.

“As it is now, producers, feeders or packers have to show how their business harms the industry as a whole, proving that there is price fixing, for example,” explained Nagel. “This rule would make it easier for anyone to sue if they can show economic loss. If packers are tied up in lawsuits, you know the costs of that are going to impact cow-calf producers.”

When asking producers in attendance at the 2010 Dakotafest in Mitchell, SD about the proposed rule by USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association (SDCA) President Bryan Nagel said the most popular response was, “What’s GIPSA?”

Recommended Stories For You

This concerns Nagel as he said the proposed rule will have huge implications for livestock producers, packers and consumers. And, while the original intent of the rule is to improve fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry, Nagel fears the unintended consequences of the rule will accomplish the exact opposite.

Nagel shared his top four concerns with this rule at a question-and-answer session during Dakotafest, and he encourages producers to read up on the rule and provide comments to the USDA.

First, the rule would change the compensation for injury definition.

“As it is now, producers, feeders or packers have to show how their business harms the industry as a whole, proving that there is price fixing, for example,” explained Nagel. “This rule would make it easier for anyone to sue if they can show economic loss. If packers are tied up in lawsuits, you know the costs of that are going to impact cow-calf producers.”

When asking producers in attendance at the 2010 Dakotafest in Mitchell, SD about the proposed rule by USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association (SDCA) President Bryan Nagel said the most popular response was, “What’s GIPSA?”

This concerns Nagel as he said the proposed rule will have huge implications for livestock producers, packers and consumers. And, while the original intent of the rule is to improve fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry, Nagel fears the unintended consequences of the rule will accomplish the exact opposite.

Nagel shared his top four concerns with this rule at a question-and-answer session during Dakotafest, and he encourages producers to read up on the rule and provide comments to the USDA.

First, the rule would change the compensation for injury definition.

“As it is now, producers, feeders or packers have to show how their business harms the industry as a whole, proving that there is price fixing, for example,” explained Nagel. “This rule would make it easier for anyone to sue if they can show economic loss. If packers are tied up in lawsuits, you know the costs of that are going to impact cow-calf producers.”

When asking producers in attendance at the 2010 Dakotafest in Mitchell, SD about the proposed rule by USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association (SDCA) President Bryan Nagel said the most popular response was, “What’s GIPSA?”

This concerns Nagel as he said the proposed rule will have huge implications for livestock producers, packers and consumers. And, while the original intent of the rule is to improve fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry, Nagel fears the unintended consequences of the rule will accomplish the exact opposite.

Nagel shared his top four concerns with this rule at a question-and-answer session during Dakotafest, and he encourages producers to read up on the rule and provide comments to the USDA.

First, the rule would change the compensation for injury definition.

“As it is now, producers, feeders or packers have to show how their business harms the industry as a whole, proving that there is price fixing, for example,” explained Nagel. “This rule would make it easier for anyone to sue if they can show economic loss. If packers are tied up in lawsuits, you know the costs of that are going to impact cow-calf producers.”

When asking producers in attendance at the 2010 Dakotafest in Mitchell, SD about the proposed rule by USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association (SDCA) President Bryan Nagel said the most popular response was, “What’s GIPSA?”

This concerns Nagel as he said the proposed rule will have huge implications for livestock producers, packers and consumers. And, while the original intent of the rule is to improve fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry, Nagel fears the unintended consequences of the rule will accomplish the exact opposite.

Nagel shared his top four concerns with this rule at a question-and-answer session during Dakotafest, and he encourages producers to read up on the rule and provide comments to the USDA.

First, the rule would change the compensation for injury definition.

“As it is now, producers, feeders or packers have to show how their business harms the industry as a whole, proving that there is price fixing, for example,” explained Nagel. “This rule would make it easier for anyone to sue if they can show economic loss. If packers are tied up in lawsuits, you know the costs of that are going to impact cow-calf producers.”

Go back to article