Order Code RL33958
Animal Agriculture: 2008 Farm Bill Issues
Updated July 1, 2008
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Animal Agriculture: 2008 Farm Bill Issues
Summary
With a few exceptions (such as milk), the products of animal agriculture are not
eligible for the price and income supports that Congress historically has written into
farm bills for major row crops such as grains, cotton, and oilseeds. However, the
meat and poultry industries do look to the federal government for leadership and
support in promoting their exports, resolving trade disputes, and reassuring markets
that their products are safe, of high quality, and disease-free. Farm bills can contain
policy guidance and resources to help achieve these objectives.
Animal producers closely follow the development of farm bills because of their
potential impact on production and marketing costs. For example, policies
promoting crop-based alternative fuels like ethanol already have contributed to higher
prices for corn and soybeans, both important animal feedstuffs. Where additional
biofuels policy incentives were being considered for inclusion in a new farm bill,
cattle, hog, and poultry producers urged restraint and/or encouraged more use of non-
feed crops like grasses and field wastes. Other farm bill issues of interest included
proposals from some farmer-rancher coalitions to address perceived anti-competitive
market behavior by large meat and poultry processing companies; and proposed
changes in food safety laws.
A number of animal-related provisions, some potentially quite significant for
producers and agribusinesses, were debated during Congress’s deliberations on a
2007-2008 farm bill. Several of these proposals advanced to be included in the final
version of the farm bill (P.L. 110-246) that became law in June 2008. It contains a
new title on Livestock (Title XI) with provisions affecting how USDA is to regulate
livestock and poultry markets — but lacking much of the extensive language that had
been in the Senate-passed version of the bill. For example, conferees omitted a
Senate provision that would have prohibited large meat packers from owning,
feeding, or controlling livestock except within 14 days of slaughter.
Other livestock title provisions in the final version include permitting some
state-inspected meat and poultry products to enter interstate commerce, just like
USDA-inspected products; bringing catfish under mandatory USDA inspection; and
modifying the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law to ease compliance
requirements affecting meats and other covered commodities. In the Miscellaneous
title (Title XIV), Congress included amendments aimed at further protecting
primarily companion animals, which are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA). Title XV, containing the bill’s revenue and tax provisions, creates a new
disaster assistance trust fund that could provide new assistance to livestock producers
affected by weather disasters.

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Economic Backdrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Importance of Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Market Competition and Packer Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Meat and Poultry Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Country-of-Origin Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Animal Identification for Health Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Animal Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Feed Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Farm Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Summary of Selected Livestock Provisions: New Law Compared with
House and Senate 2007 Farm Bills and Current Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Livestock Mandatory Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Meat and Poultry Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Agricultural Fair Practices Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Packers and Stockyards Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Animal Pest and Disease Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
National Animal Identification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Food Safety Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Foods from Cloned Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Animal Welfare Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

---

Animal Agriculture: 2008 Farm Bill Issues
Overview
Most of the products of animal agriculture are not eligible for the price and
income support programs that Congress has written into farm bills for major crops
such as grains, cotton, and oilseeds.1 Nor have meat and poultry producers generally
sought such assistance, except ad hoc aid to recover losses caused by natural
disasters such as droughts and hurricanes.2 They also do not qualify for federal crop
insurance, which covers a portion of the value of production lost to natural disasters.
Some cattle and hog producers in a limited number of states do participate in
livestock revenue insurance programs being administered by USDA’s Risk
Management Agency (RMA), which provides protection from revenue losses
whether due to natural causes or economic conditions.
Animal agriculture does look to the federal government to resolve trade
disputes, establish transparent, science-based rules for importing and exporting
animal products, and reassure domestic and foreign buyers alike that these products
are safe, of high quality, and disease-free. Other longstanding public policy concerns
include animal agriculture’s obligations with respect to environmental protection,
food safety, and animal welfare. Omnibus farm legislation can contain policy
guidance and resources related to these objectives.
A number of animal-related provisions, some potentially quite significant for
producers and agribusinesses, were debated during Congress’s deliberations on a
2007-2008 farm bill. Several of these proposals advanced to be included in the final
version of the farm bill (P.L. 110-246) that became law in June 2008. It contains a
new title on Livestock (Title XI) with provisions affecting how USDA is to regulate
livestock and poultry markets — but lacking much of the extensive language that had
been in the Senate-passed version of the bill (H.R. 2419).3 For example, conferees
1 Milk, honey, and wool are notable exceptions. See CRS Report RL33934, Farm Bill
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress.
2 For example, agricultural disaster provisions in the FY2007 Iraq war supplemental (P.L.
110-28) included $1.23 billion in assistance for livestock growers for losses caused by
certain natural disasters in 2005, 2006, or early 2007. See CRS Report RS21212,
Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
3 The conference agreement on the 2008 farm bill was originally approved by the House and
the Senate as H.R. 2419 and vetoed by the President in May 2008. Both chambers overrode
the veto, making the bill law (P.L. 110-234). However, the trade title was inadvertently
excluded from the enrolled bill. To remedy the situation, both chambers repassed the farm
bill conference agreement (including the trade title) as H.R. 6124. The President vetoed the
measure in June 2008 and both chambers again overrode the veto, which made H.R. 6124
law as P.L. 110-246, and superseded P.L. 110-234.

---

CRS-2
omitted a Senate provision that would have prohibited the large meat packers from
owning, feeding, or controlling livestock except within 14 days of slaughter.
Other livestock title provisions in the final version include permitting some
state-inspected meat and poultry products to enter interstate commerce, just like
USDA-inspected products; bringing catfish under mandatory USDA inspection; and
modifying the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law to ease compliance
requirements affecting meats and other covered commodities. In the Miscellaneous
title (Title XIV), Congress included amendments aimed at further protecting
primarily companion animals, which are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA). Title XV, containing the bill’s revenue and tax provisions, creates a new
disaster assistance trust fund that could provide new assistance to livestock producers
affected by weather disasters. The table at the end of this report provides a side-by-
side comparison of selected provisions relating to animal agriculture (and to nonfarm
animals) as they appeared in the House, Senate, and final versions of the farm bill.
Table 1. U.S. Animal Production, 2002
U.S. Farms by Primary Classification
Value of U.S. Sales
Numbera
$1,000b
Total farms
2,128,982
200,646,355
Total crop farms
986,625
95,151,954
Total animal farms
1,142,357
105,494,401
Beef cattle ranches
664,431
and farms
Cattle feedlots
55,472
Cattle and calves
45,115,184c
Dairy farms
72,537
Milk and products
20,281,166
Hogs and pigs
33,655
12,400,977
Poultry meat and eggs
44,219
23,972,333
Sheep and goats
43,891
541,745
Horses and other
174,441
1,328,733
equines
Other animal
53,711
1,854,262
production
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 2002. The 2007 Census of Agriculture had not yet been tallied
and reported as of May 2008.
a. Based on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b. Market value of agricultural products sold (and government payments) from all farms regardless
of primary (i.e., NAICS) classification.
c. Represents sales of beef cattle (including from feedlots, farms, and ranches) and of dairy cattle.

---

CRS-3
Economic Backdrop
Much is at stake economically: the farm value of animal production was more
than $105 billion in 2002, more than half the total value of all U.S. agricultural
production (2002 Census of Agriculture). Approximately 1.1 million of the nation’s
more than 2.1 million farms were classified by the 2002 Census as primarily animal
production operations (see Table 1).
Producers face much pressure to become larger, more specialized, and more
cost-efficient, in order to compete in the increasingly global marketplace.
Transactions have been moving away from live cash markets and toward contractual
relationships that can provide a guaranteed supply of live animals at predetermined
prices and consistent qualities. Many of these animals have been supplied to feeding
operations and meat slaughtering/processing plants by Canada (beef cattle, sows and
pigs) and Mexico (beef calves), as the beef, pork, and poultry industries of the three
North American countries have become more economically integrated over the past
two decades.4
These trends are occurring at a time when feed costs have begun to rise
significantly for a variety of reasons, including very strong global demand for grains
and oilseeds, higher fuel costs, and the government’s promotion of ethanol (now
primarily corn-based) as an alternative fuel.
Importance of Trade
The United States is a world leader in the production, consumption, and export
of meat and poultry products. One indicator of the increasing reliance of the animal
sector on international trade is the share of U.S. domestic production that is exported,
a figure that has increased significantly over the past 35 years.
Broiler meat exports have grown from 1.3% of production in 1970 to 14.9% of
production in 2006 and nearly 16.2% in 2007. Pork exports climbed from 1.3% to
14.3% over the same period (see Figure 1). Beef exports also climbed, from 0.2%
of domestic production in 1970 to 9.6% in 2003. When world markets closed to U.S.
beef after a Canadian-born cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was
discovered in Washington state late in 2003, exports dropped precipitously to 1.9%
of production in 2004. Two more BSE cases subsequently were found in U.S.-born
cattle under a more intensive surveillance program, but beef exports are again
rebuilding gradually. They reached 5.4% of production in 2007. The United States
has long been a dominant world player, but increasing reliance on exports also has
brought new challenges. Other countries are competing vigorously for the same
country markets. Table 2 discusses the relative position of the United States in
world trade of beef and veal, pork, broilers, and turkey.
Many years of effort to build export sales can be reversed abruptly due to an
animal disease outbreak. When other countries restrict U.S. meat or poultry
4 See William F. Hahn et al., Market Integration of the North American Animal Products
Complex (LDP-M-131-01), USDA, Economic Research Service, May 2005.

---

CRS-4
products, whether due to the discovery of BSE, an outbreak of avian influenza, or
some other health problem, it often takes many additional years for the United States
to regain those markets, as has occurred in Japan and Korea, the first and third most
important destinations, respectively, for U.S. beef prior to the occurrence of BSE
here.
Figure 1. Selected Meat and Poultry Exports
20
Percent of U.S. Production
15
10
5
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2006
Beef
Pork
Broiler meat
Source: Various USDA data series. Figure does not reflect 2007 data cited in text.
Table 2. U.S. Role in Selected Meat and Poultry Trade
United States Rank (2007)
The Competition
Beef and
No. 1 producer, consumer, and
Australia, long the leading
veal
importer; was no. 2 exporter prior to
exporter, was surpassed in
2003 BSE case, now no. 4. Is a net
2004 by Brazil.
importer.
Pork
No. 3 producer, consumer; no. 4
EU and Canada also in top 3
importer; no. 1 exporter. Is a net
exporters. Brazil is no. 4.
exporter.
Broiler meat
No. 1 producer and consumer; no. 2
Brazil overtook U.S. as no. 1
exporter. Few imports.
exporter in 2004.
Turkey
No. 1 producer, consumer, exporter.
No. 2 exporter Brazil has
Few imports.
gained in market share.
Source: USDA, FAS, Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, April 2008.

---

CRS-5
Sometimes a country may impose sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) standards that
affect U.S. imports and that the United States contends are not based on scientific
principles or otherwise violate international trade rules. Examples include Japan’s
and Korea’s years of delays in reopening their borders to U.S. beef even though the
United States follows what it argues are internationally recognized safeguards.
Another example has been the European Union’s (EU’s) refusal to accept U.S. beef
treated with approved growth hormones, despite an international panel siding with
the United States when it determined that the EU position was scientifically
indefensible. Most animal agriculture organizations expect U.S. agricultural and
trade agency officials to lead efforts in resolving such problems and in trying to
ensure that they do not arise unexpectedly.5
Issues and Options
Market Competition and Packer Concentration
Background. The past several decades have seen rapid changes in the
structure and business methods of animal agriculture (see Table 3). Production and
marketing have been moving toward fewer and larger operations, although the pace
of these changes has varied widely across the sectors.
Table 3. Selected U.S. Livestock Data
1980
2005
Beef:
Total cattle marketed
23.2 million
25.8 million
Beef cow farms & ranches
1,032,592a
770,170
Pct. with 500 or more head
<1%
<1%
U.S. beef cow inventory
35.2 million
33.8 million
Pct. on operations with 500 or more head
14%
15%
Cattle feedlots
113,326
88,198
Pct. with 1,000 or more head
2.1%
2.5%
Pct. marketed from operations with 1,000
70%
86%
or more head
Hogs/pigs:
U.S. hog/pig inventory
62.3 million
60.7 million
Hog/pig farms
667,000
67,000
Average no. of head per farm
93
906
Source: Various USDA data reports. Data on farm numbers differ from those shown in Table 1 due
to use of differing years and farm classifications.
a. 1978 data.
5 For more information see CRS Report RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Concerns in Agricultural Trade.

---

CRS-6
Beef. For example, smaller (i.e., fewer than 100-head) cow-calf operations
(where beef cows are bred and born) represent a majority of such operations and hold
nearly half of all U.S. cattle. On the other hand, larger (i.e., 1,000-head plus
capacity) feedlots, which fatten cattle to slaughter weight, represent a small fraction
of total U.S. feedlots but market the majority of fed cattle.6 Cattle feeding is now
concentrated in the middle part of the country, where five states marketed 75% of all
fed cattle: Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Although more
widely dispersed, 75% of all U.S. beef cows also reside in the middle states,
stretching, approximately, west to east from Colorado and Utah to Kentucky and
Tennessee, and from the Canadian to the Mexican borders.7
Pork. Live hog production has seen sweeping changes over the past 25 years.
The number of U.S. farms with hogs declined from 667,000 in 1980 to 67,000 in
2005; those remaining have become much larger and less diversified. Operations
with at least 10,000 hogs now represent less than 1% of all producers but more than
half of total U.S. hog output, USDA reports. The average 1980 farm with hogs had
less than 100 head and likely raised them from birth to slaughter weight as part of a
more diversified crop-livestock operation. In 2005, the average hog farm had more
than 900 head and might typically specialize in a single stage of hog production, such
as finishing, according to USDA. In fact, the hog production segment of the industry
now has about 30 key firms, plus several hundred additional “significant” operators.8
Much of the U.S. hog population is in Iowa, southern Minnesota, and North Carolina.
Meat Packing. Cattle and hog producers now sell to fewer packers as well
(see Table 4). Recent concentration numbers approach those of the early 1900s
when 50% to 70% of the market was dominated by five firms which slaughtered
several different species of livestock.9
Table 4. Red Meat Packer Concentration, 1985 and 2005
Percent Slaughtered by
Type
Top 4 Firms
1985
2005
Hogs
32%
63%
Steers & Heifers
50%
80%
All Cattle
39%
71%
Source: USDA and Cattle Buyers Weekly.
6 Animal Production and Marketing Issues: Questions and Answers, USDA, Economic
Research Service, at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AnimalProducts/questions.htm].
7 Cattle-Fax Update, December 15, 2006.
8 Informa Economics, Special Report: The Changing U.S. Pork industry, November 1, 2004,
at [http://www.informaecon.com/LVNov1.pdf].
9 USDA, ERS, U.S. Beef Industry: Cattle Cycles, Price Spreads, and Packer Concentration.
Technical Bulletin No. 1874, April 1999.

---

CRS-7
Vertical Marketing Relationships. Ownership or tight control of multiple
production and marketing steps by a single firm (known as vertical integration or
vertical coordination, respectively) is more common in the livestock and poultry
sectors today than in the past. A 2001 article described this characteristic as “supply
chains — tightly orchestrated production, processing, and marketing arrangements
stretching from genetics to grocery. Supply chains bypass traditional commodity
markets and rely on contractual arrangements among the chain participants to manage
the transformation of livestock on the farm to meat in the cooler.”10
This business model was pioneered in agriculture by the poultry industry, which
began to integrate shortly after World War II. Poultry producers were “the clear
leader” in delivering nutritional and convenient products to consumers while at the
same time sharply controlling costs, according to Barkema. The hog industry has
been following poultry’s footsteps. Now typical are contract production
arrangements with large integrators who may provide the genetics, piglets and other
inputs, and a contracting producer (farmer) who provides facilities and labor.
For those who raise livestock, all of these changes have meant fewer cash
transactions at auction barns or other open markets, and more frequent, often longer-
term business arrangements with buyers and/or processors. Often these arrangements
take the form of agricultural contracts, which USDA defines as agreements between
farmers and their commodity buyers that are reached before the completion of
production. Other alternative marketing arrangements also are used by producers and
processors (see “GIPSA Study,” below).
In 2003, contracts (production or marketing) covered 47% of all livestock
production value, up from 33% in 1991-93. This compared with 31% of all crop
production in 2003 and 25% in 1991-93, according to USDA.
GIPSA Study. A comprehensive study of livestock transaction methods,
funded through USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA), describes a number of “alternative marketing arrangements” (AMAs). The
study defines AMAs as all alternatives to the cash market, including forward
contracts, marketing agreements, procurement or marketing contracts, production
contracts, packer ownership, custom feeding, and custom slaughter. By contrast,
cash transactions are those that occur immediately or “on the spot.”
The study, conducted by the private contracting firm RTI International,
determined that all types of AMAs accounted for an estimated 38% of fed (slaughter-
ready) beef cattle volume, 89% of finished hog volume, and 44% of lamb volume
sold to packers between October 2002 and March 2005, the period studied. Within
the beef sector, the 29 largest beef packing plants had obtained 62% of their cattle on
the cash or spot market; 29% through marketing agreements; 4.5% through forward
contracts; and 5% through packer ownership or other unknown methods. The use of
one type of AMA — that is, packer ownership of the livestock they intend to
10 Barkema, Alan, and others, “The New U.S. Meat Industry,” Economic Review of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Second Quarter 2001.

---

CRS-8
slaughter — accounted for 5% or less of all beef and lamb transactions, but 20% to
30% of all pork transactions, the study found.11
However, the report observed: “Cash market transactions serve an important
purpose in the industry, particularly for small producers and small packers.”
Reported cash prices also are frequently used as the base for formula pricing for cash
market and AMA purchases of livestock and meat, RTI reported.
Critics assert that these types of trends in consolidation and vertical control have
enabled a relative handful of industry players to dominate markets and have
undermined the traditional U.S. system of smaller-scale, independent, family-based
farming. Farmers and ranchers now have weakened negotiating power, lower prices,
and no choice but to “get larger or get out” of agriculture, they add. Others counter
that structural changes in animal agriculture, processing, and marketing are a
desirable outgrowth of factors such as technological and managerial improvements,
changing consumer demand for a wider range of low-cost, convenient products, and
expanding international trade.
Federal Competition Laws. A number of federal laws and agencies are
responsible for ensuring that markets are open and competitive. For example, the
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) of 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. §181 et
seq.) prohibits meat packers and poultry dealers from a variety of anti-competitive
and antitrust practices such as engaging in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or
deceptive marketing; or apportioning supplies or manipulating prices to create a
monopoly. GIPSA administers the P&S Act. The Agricultural Fair Practices Act
(AFPA; 7 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) was enacted in 1967 to protect farmers from
retaliation by handlers (buyers of their products) because the farmers are members
of a cooperative. The act, administered by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS), permits farmers, if they believe their rights under the law have been violated,
to file complaints with USDA, which can then institute court proceedings.
The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1-8) and Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §12 et seq.),
which cover but are not specific to agriculture, prohibit certain activities such as
mergers and acquisitions that may restrict market access or suppress competition.
The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are primarily
responsible for administration of these laws. The Capper-Volstead Act (7 U.S.C.
§§291-292) confers limited exemption for antitrust liability to farmer cooperatives.
Packer Ownership/Captive Supply. Producers facing fewer buyers for
their livestock frequently express concerns about “captive supply,” a reference to
animals that are either owned by, or committed to, a meat packer prior to the period
just before slaughter. When packers buy fewer animals on the spot (open cash)
market, reported prices may no longer accurately reflect the preponderance of prices
paid, it is argued. A reduction in transparency (i.e., prices and terms that all market
11 GIPSA, “Livestock and Meat Marketing Study,” accessed May 30, 2008, at
[http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/GIPSA/webapp?area=home&subject=lmp&topic=ir-mms]. The
study was funded by a $4.5 million provision in the consolidated appropriations measure for
FY2003 (P.L. 108-7).

---

CRS-9
players can view equally) works to the disadvantage of the far larger number of
producers trying to sell their livestock to the relatively few packers who buy them,
it is argued. Some have long argued that to resolve these concerns, a ban should be
imposed against packers owning or controlling any livestock until they are ready for
slaughter. Legislation to ban packer ownership was considered in the 110th Congress.
Opponents of restrictions on packer ownership or control of animals counter that
evidence of price manipulation is lacking, that a ban could reverse many of the
efficiency gains made by the livestock industry in recent years through closer packer-
producer alliances, and that it would limit producers’ marketing options. They also
cite the results of the RTI study of marketing practices (see above).
Enhanced USDA Enforcement and Management. Some interest groups
have been advocating for stronger enforcement authorities, in part because they
believe that GIPSA officials have largely failed to enforce existing laws. They point
to a recent report by the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which
concluded that GIPSA has not adequately overseen and managed its investigative
activities. GIPSA had difficulties defining and tracking investigations, planning and
conducting complex investigations, and making agency policy, OIG found. USDA’s
general counsel had not filed an administrative complaint on anti-competitive
practices since 1999, due to GIPSA’s failure to refer cases, although agency staff
were considering dozens of investigations at the time, OIG concluded.12
Among the legislative proposals that were offered to address these concerns:
creation of a new USDA Counsel to investigate and prosecute violations of the
AFPA and of the P&S Act; establishment of an Agriculture Competition Task Force
to examine agricultural competition matters; changes to law intended to make it
easier for producers to prove in a court of law that they were treated unfairly by
packers; and authorization of additional funding for Department of Justice and
USDA investigations of anticompetitive behavior, among others.
Other AFPA and P&S Act Issues. In the 110th Congress, several bills also
were introduced that would amend the AFPA to address what sponsors view as
inequities in contracting between agricultural producers and those who buy their
commodities. Proposed amendments to the AFPA are intended to address concerns
about agricultural consolidation, and the perception that this consolidation has left
producers with so few processor-buyers that some of these processor-buyers can and
do impose unfavorable contract terms on the producers, forcing them to either accept
them or go out of business.
In the courts, small farm advocates have brought several closely watched
lawsuits, under the P&S Act and several other laws, challenging the contracting and
marketing practices of larger packers and/or integrators. These efforts generally have
not been successful, which added impetus to calls for including a so-called
competition title in a new omnibus farm bill. Advocates called on lawmakers to
strengthen existing antitrust authorities, to impose more mandates on the executive
12 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s Management and Oversight
of the Packers and Stockyards Programs, OIG Audit Rept. No. 30601-01-Hy, January 2006.

---

CRS-10
branch to enforce these authorities, and to provide new contract protections for
farmers, among other options.
Opponents of the various AFPA and P&S Act proposals have asserted that
buyers use these and other contracting arrangements to ensure a steady supply of
animals (as well as other agricultural commodities) to keep high-capacity plants
operating efficiently; such arrangements also allow for necessary price adjustments
for quality, grade, or other market-prescribed factors. The proposals for change
would hurt producers too, because many of them use contracts or other marketing
agreements with packers to limit their own exposure to price volatility and to obtain
capital, opponents added, again citing the result of the recent RTI study.
Farm Bill Provisions. The final farm bill contains a new title on Livestock
(Title XI) that scales back much of the language in the Senate-passed version aimed
at more closely regulating livestock and poultry markets. For example, conferees
deleted Senate language that would have prohibited most major packers from
owning, feeding, or controlling livestock except within 14 days of slaughter. Also
deleted was a Senate provision to establish at USDA a new Special Counsel for
Agricultural Competition to investigate and prosecute violations of competition laws.
Title XI of the final conference bill changes the AFPA to alter the definitions
of associations and handlers, but Senate provisions intended to strengthen USDA’s
oversight and enforcement of the act were deleted, as were Senate provisions to give
USDA stronger enforcement authorities over live poultry dealers under the P&SA,
among other P&SA changes. In their place, conferees added language requiring an
annual report detailing investigations into possible violations of the P&SA.
Also narrowed was Senate language governing contractual arrangements
between producers and integrators. Under the conference compromise, a poultry or
swine grower — a more limited definition of a contract producer than in the original
Senate bill — has the right to cancel a contract within three business days of
execution, unless a later date is specified in the contract. In lieu of Senate language
limiting the conditions under which a contractor could require a producer to make
additional capital investments, the conference language stipulates that the possibility
of such an investment be conspicuously stated in the contract.
Several other provisions retained, in somewhat modified form, in the conference
bill are intended to give producers additional protections when disputing contract
terms. These provisions include a requirement that USDA issue rules on the
reasonable period of time a producer should be given to remedy a breach of contract
before it is cancelled; and make the venue for any litigation “the Federal judicial
district in which the principal part of the performance takes place under the
arrangement or contract.”
At the start of the 110th Congress, Senator Harkin had introduced a wide-ranging
bill (S. 622) that, he said, would be “the basis for developing a proposed competition

---

CRS-11
title in the new farm bill this year.”13 S. 622 included many of the provisions not
retained in the final version. Also introduced and considered during the farm bill
debate were bills by Senator Grassley that would have prohibited meat packers from
owning or feeding livestock, with some noted exceptions (S. 305); and that would
have established a USDA Special Counsel for Competition Matters, a Deputy
Attorney General for Agricultural Antitrust Matters in the Department of Justice, and
an Agriculture Competition Task Force to examine agricultural competition matters,
among other funding and programmatic changes (S. 1759). Several provisions from
these bills were in the Senate-passed farm bill.
The packer ban would only have applied to packers who were already required
to report their prices through the mandatory price reporting law, or packers who
slaughter over 120,000 head of cattle each year. The ban would not have applied to
ownership arrangements entered into within 14 days of slaughter of the livestock by
a packer, or to any cooperative or entity owned by a cooperative. The provision
would have allowed for certain transition rules for packers who already own, feed,
or control livestock intended for slaughter on the date of enactment of this act.
In the House, Representative Boswell, chairman of the House Agriculture
Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock, and Poultry, had introduced the House version
of S. 622 as H.R. 2135. However, with the exception of a provision on arbitration
clauses in livestock and poultry contracts, other elements of H.R. 2135 were not
included in the draft bill forwarded to the full committee.14 The Boswell arbitration
provision was further altered during committee markup. The arbitration provision
in the House-passed bill directed USDA to establish regulatory standards for
arbitration provisions in livestock and poultry contracts. Among other things, such
regulations are intended to permit a producer to seek relief in a small claims court,
if within the court’s jurisdiction, regardless of a contract’s arbitration clause. The
House-passed bill contained no other major “competition” language.
Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting
Background. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.
1621-1627), AMS has long collected livestock and meat price and related market
information (along with data on commodities such as grains, dairy, and produce).
Under the voluntary program, this information has been disseminated by AMS
through hundreds of daily, weekly, monthly, and annual written and electronic
reports. The goal has been to provide all buyers and sellers with accurate and
objective market information.
In 1999, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting (LMPR) Act
as Title IX of USDA’s FY2000 appropriations act (P.L. 106-78). Its aim was to
address some livestock producers’ concerns that this voluntary system was no longer
13 Senator Harkin’s statement on S. 622 is in the February 15, 2007, Congressional Record,
pp. S2052-S2053.
14 Another related proposal that was not adopted in the House farm bill was H.R. 2213,
introduced by Representative Herseth Sandlin, which would amend the P&S Act with
respect to livestock producer-packer forward contracts.

---

CRS-12
working, at a time when animals were more frequently being sold under private
marketing arrangements, with prices not publicly disclosed or reported. These
producers had asserted that such arrangements made it difficult or impossible for
them to determine “fair” market prices. Other producers, and many firms who
bought their animals, at first had opposed a mandatory law, arguing that it would
impose costly new reporting burdens on the industry and could cause the release of
confidential company information, among other concerns. Nonetheless, they
eventually accepted a new “consensus” law and generally supported its continuation.
LMPR contains a variety of reporting requirements. For example, detailed
market information must be reported to AMS by packers, processors and importers
who annually slaughter an average of at least 125,000 cattle, 100,000 hogs, or 75,000
lambs, and by importers with average annual imports of at least 2,500 metric tons of
lamb meat (Reportedly a total of more than 100 packers or importers are covered.)
There are penalties for not reporting. The program has received some 500,000 pieces
of data each day; USDA in turn has made the data public through more than 100
daily, weekly, or monthly reports. The program has captured information from
85-90% of the boxed beef market, 75% of the lamb meat market, 75-80% of the steer
and heifer cattle market, 60% of the lamb market, and 95% of the hog market, USDA
officials testified in 2005.
The original authority had lapsed several times — but the “mandatory” program
continued on a “voluntary” basis” — until the Senate, in September 2006, agreed to
a House-passed version (H.R. 3408) extending LMPR with relatively minor changes
through September 30, 2010. This measure was signed into law (P.L. 109-296) on
October 5, 2006. Some Senators had wanted a shorter extension in order to consider
more substantive amendments to the law.15
Farm Bill Provisions. The new farm bill requires a USDA study of the
economic impacts of pork product sales, focusing on wholesale pork cuts, and
contains a directive that USDA improve electronic reporting and publishing under
the program. The Senate version of the farm bill would have established a new
program for mandatory daily product information reporting for manufactured dairy
products, and amended the current program for swine to authorize, after an economic
study, the mandatory packer reporting of wholesale pork product sales (such as pork
cuts and retail-ready pork products), along with making changes to the reporting
times of the afternoon swine report. The House bill did not include any changes or
additions to the current program.
Meat and Poultry Safety
Background. Omnibus farm bills — including the one currently before the
110th Congress — periodically address food safety concerns. USDA’s Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for inspecting most meat and poultry for
safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling, under, respectively, the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Poultry Products Inspection
15 Voluntary reporting continued until USDA-AMS could promulgate new implementing
rules. These were published May 16, 2008 (73 Federal Register 28605-28662).

---

CRS-13
Act (PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.). Federal inspectors or their state counterparts are
present at all times in virtually all slaughter plants and for at least part of each day in
establishments that further process meat and poultry products. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), is responsible for ensuring the safety of virtually all other human foods,
including seafood, and for animal drugs and feed ingredients, primarily under
authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)
A controversial farm bill issue was whether Congress should alter a
longstanding ban on the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products that have
been inspected by state rather than federal authorities. For many years, state agency
officials and smaller meat plants pressed Congress to overturn this federal ban.
Twenty-seven states conduct their own inspection of more than 2,000 meat and/or
poultry establishments under a parallel safety system to that of the federal
government. Meanwhile, many other federally inspected plants in these same states
have been permitted to ship across state lines. Proponents of ending the ban argued
that the FMIA and PPIA already required state inspection programs to be “at least
equal” to the federal system, and that they have been. While state-inspected plants
could not ship interstate, foreign plants operating under USDA-approved foreign
programs, which are to be “equivalent” to the U.S. program, have been permitted to
export meat and poultry products to, and sell them anywhere in, the United States.
Advocates for change contended that they should not be treated less fairly than the
foreign plants; they further contended that foreign programs were not as closely
scrutinized as state programs.
Those who opposed allowing state-inspected products in interstate commerce
argued that state programs were not required to have, and did not have, the same
level of safety oversight as the federal, or even the foreign, plants. For example,
foreign meat and poultry products are subject to U.S. import reinspection at ports of
entry, and again, when most imported meat is further processed in U.S.-inspected
processing plants. Opponents also contended that neither the USDA Inspector
General (in a 2006 report) nor a relevant 2002 federal appeals court ruling would
agree, without qualification, that state-inspected meat and poultry were necessarily
as safe as federally inspected products.16
A number of other food safety issues arose during the past year’s debate on the
farm bill. For example, should companies be required to quickly notify the agencies
about potentially adulterated products in the market? Should the food safety agencies
be given clearer authorities to recall potentially adulterated products from the
marketplace? What about the safety of meat and milk from cloned animals and their
offspring? More broadly, should Congress consider a wholesale overhaul of the U.S.
food safety system and an update of its underlying legislative authorities?
16 For a more detailed discussion see CRS Report RL34202, State-Inspected Meat and
Poultry: Issues for Congress.

---

CRS-14
Farm Bill Provisions. Provisions in the farm bill address some of these
questions.17 Among the more prominent provisions is language to permit interstate
shipment of state-inspected products under certain conditions, generally modeled
after the language in the Senate-passed farm bill. A new program would supplement
the current federal-state cooperative inspection program with a provision whereby
state-inspected plants with 25 or fewer employees could opt into a new program that
subjects them to federally directed but state-operated inspection, thus allowing them
to ship interstate. More specifically, the plants would still be inspected by state
employees, but these employees would be under the supervision of a federal
employee who will oversee training, inspection, compliance, and other activities.
States would receive at least 60% reimbursement of their costs (compared with 50%
under the existing federal-state program, which could also continue). The Senate
language is a compromise package acceptable to both opponents and supporters of
House farm bill language, which among other things could have enabled many plants
currently under federal inspection to apply for state inspection and continue to ship
interstate. Opponents of the House option feared that many would seek to leave the
federal system if they believed that could receive more lenient oversight by the states.
The state inspection provisions of the House-passed farm bill essentially had
been adapted from language found in companion bills H.R. 2315/S. 1150, introduced
earlier in 2007 by, respectively, Representative Pomeroy and Senator Hatch. Other
bills (H.R. 1760/S. 1149) to strike the interstate bans in the FMIA and PPIA were
introduced in 2007 by Representative Kind and Senator Kohl.
Conferees also acted on these other Senate-passed provisions on food safety that
were not in the House bill:
! Reportable Meat and Poultry Registries. In the Senate but not
House bill was a requirement that USDA establish “reportable food
registries” for meat and poultry and their products, whereby
establishments would have to report whenever there were a
probability of such foods causing adverse health consequences.
(The FDA amendments legislation passed in 2007, P.L. 110-85,
establishes a similar registry for FDA-regulated foods.) The
conference substitute amends the meat and poultry laws to require
an establishment to notify USDA if it has reason to believe that an
adulterated or misbranded product has entered commerce. Another
conference provision requires meat and poultry establishments to
prepare and maintain written recall plans.
! Catfish Grading and Inspection. Conferees modified Senate bill
language to provide for new USDA initiatives affecting domestic
catfish: a voluntary grading program administered through AMS,
and mandatory safety inspection of such products by FSIS (i.e.,
making catfish an amenable species like other major meat and
poultry species). The final version provides for catfish grading as a
17 A brief summary of these provisions can be found in CRS Report RS22886, Food Safety
Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill.

---

CRS-15
voluntary fee-based program, with producers of other seafood
species eligible to petition USDA for a similar service. In a major
change, conferees also agreed to extend mandatory inspection to
catfish processors, further authorizing FSIS to take into account the
conditions under which catfish are raised and processed. Although
other fish and shellfish are not covered by the final amendment,
conferees noted in their accompanying report that the Secretary of
Agriculture has standing authority to add species if appropriate. The
conference report also states the intent of Congress “that catfish be
subject to continuous inspection and that imported catfish inspection
programs be found to be equivalent under USDA regulations before
foreign catfish may be imported into the United States.”
! Food Safety Commission. Conferees deleted a provision in the
Senate bill to establish a Congressional Bipartisan Food Safety
Commission that would have been required to report, within one
year, on recommendations for modernizing food programs. The
Senate bill also would have required the President to review the
report and send Congress proposed legislation to implement its
recommendations.
! Food from Cloned Animals. FDA had asked companies to refrain
voluntarily from marketing meat and milk from cloned animals or
their progeny until it could complete a final assessment of their
safety. Conferees deleted a provision in the Senate bill that would
have prohibited FDA from issuing a final risk assessment or from
lifting the voluntary moratorium until completion of newly
mandated studies on the safety and market impacts of introducing
products from cloned animals.
Country-of-Origin Labeling
Background. Under §304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C.
1304), every imported item must be conspicuously and indelibly marked in English
to indicate to the “ultimate purchaser” its country of origin. Some types of products
have long been exempted from this requirement, including raw agricultural products
such as live animals, meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables, for example — although
their outer containers must contain such labeling.
Title X of the 2002 farm bill was to change this, by requiring retailers to provide
country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef, pork, and lamb (Section 10816 of Subtitle
I).18 First adopted on the Senate floor in late 2001, mandatory country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) for meat was to be in place on September 30, 2004, but language
in the FY2004 consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 108-199) delayed
implementation for meats, produce and peanuts, but not seafood, for two years, until
September 30, 2006. Debate over COOL carried into the 109th Congress, which (in
USDA’s FY2006 appropriation, P.L. 109-97) postponed implementation for an
18 The 2002 COOL provision also covered seafood, fruits and vegetables, and peanuts.

---

CRS-16
additional two years, until September 30, 2008. This contentious program was again
on the farm bill agenda of the 110th Congress.19
The implementation delays had reflected the continuing divergence of opinion
among lawmakers over whether a federally mandated labeling program was needed.
Some contended that mandatory COOL would provide U.S. products with a
competitive advantage over foreign products because U.S. consumers, if offered a
clear choice, prefer fresh foods of domestic origin, thereby strengthening demand and
prices for them. Moreover, proponents — including producer groups like the
National Farmers Union and R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund,
United Stockgrowers of America), and consumer advocacy organizations — argued
that U.S. consumers have a right to know the origin of their food, particularly at a
time when U.S. food imports are increasing, and whenever particular health and
safety problems arise. They cited, as one prominent example, concerns about the
safety of some foreign beef arising from the discoveries of BSE in a number of
Canadian-born cows (and two U.S. cows) since 2003. Supporters of the COOL law
argued that it was unfair to exempt meats and produce from the longstanding country
labeling already required of almost all other imported consumer products, from
automobiles to most other foods. They also noted that many foreign countries
already imposed their own country-of-origin labeling.
Opponents of mandatory COOL — which included the American Meat Institute
representing many in the packing industry, the Food Marketing Institute representing
many retail stores, and producer groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association and National Pork Producers Council — countered that studies do not
provide evidence that consumers want such labeling. They asserted that COOL is a
thinly disguised trade barrier intended to increase importers’ costs and to foster the
unfounded perception that imports may be inherently less safe (or of lower quality)
than U.S. products. Some argued that food safety problems could as likely originate
in domestic supplies as in imports, as evidenced by the many dozens of recalls of
U.S. meat and poultry products announced by USDA in 2006 and 2007 alone.
Opponents pointed out that all food imports already must meet equivalent U.S. safety
standards, enforced by U.S. officials at the border and overseas; scientific principles,
not geography, must be the arbiter of safety. Industry implementation and
recordkeeping costs, earlier estimated by USDA to be as high as $3.9 billion in the
first year and $458 million per year after that, would far outweigh any economic
benefits, critics added, noting that the 2002 law did not cover red meats that are
processed or sold in restaurants, or any type of poultry, a competing product.20
(COOL proponents asserted that USDA exaggerated the implementation costs.)
Farm Bill Provisions. The final farm bill generally contains compromise
language that was in both the Senate- and House-passed versions aimed at resolving
some of the longstanding differences between COOL supporters and opponents. The
19 AMS, which is responsible for implementing the program, maintains an extensive website
on COOL (at [http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/]), with links to voluntary COOL guidelines,
the seafood rule, the proposed mandatory rule for the other covered commodities, and a
cost-benefit analysis.
20 USDA’s cost estimates are from 68 Federal Register 61955-61974.

---

CRS-17
final law continues to direct that COOL be implemented on its current schedule —
starting October 1, 2008. It also extends COOL to goat meat and to chicken (which
competes with red meats in the market and which, unlike red meats, primarily is
domestically produced), along with ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts.
Furthermore, the 2008 farm law creates several new types of label categories
intended to facilitate and simplify compliance for the meat and poultry industries and
for others. For example, COOL continues to limit use of the U.S.A. country of origin
for covered meats only to items from animals that were exclusively born, raised, or
slaughtered in the United States, with a narrow exception for those animals present
here before July 15, 2008. For multiple countries of origin, retailers may designate
such meat products as being from all of the countries in which the animals may have
been born, raised, or slaughtered. For meat from animals imported for immediate
slaughter, the retailer must cite both the exporting country and the United States.
Products from animals not born, raised, or slaughtered in the United States must
designate the country of origin. Ground meat products shall include a list of all
countries of origin, or all “reasonably possible” countries of origin. Other key
provisions are to ease industry record-keeping requirements for audit verification
purposes and to lower the penalties for failure to comply with COOL, but extend
their application to suppliers as well as retailers. For example, USDA could not
require persons to maintain COOL records that are in addition to records kept during
the normal course of business.21
Animal Identification for Health Protection
Background. Whether animal producers themselves would have to keep
detailed records on their animals’ identity and whereabouts had long been a
controversial aspect of the COOL debate. A number of producers continue to believe
that extending such requirements to the farm level is intrusive, costly, and
unnecessary for COOL. At the same time, a growing number of producers seems to
agree that some type of universal animal identification (ID) program would be a
beneficial tool in addressing animal disease problems.
Outbreaks of animal diseases like avian influenza (AI), foot and mouth disease
(FMD), brucellosis, and tuberculosis are seen as perhaps the greatest potential threats
to animal production. Even where U.S. cases have been few (as with BSE) or
quickly contained (as with various strains of AI), the impacts can be devastating
economically, causing production losses, the closure of export markets, and a decline
in consumer confidence. Some like AI and BSE have the potential to harm humans.
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has lead
responsibility on matters of animal health, including animal ID. APHIS has been
working on such a program, indicating that it has the legislative authority to
implement an animal ID program under the comprehensive Animal Health Protection
Act (AHPA), which was adopted as Subtitle E of Title X of the 2002 farm bill. This
21 Also see CRS Report 97-508, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods.

---

CRS-18
subtitle updated and consolidated a number of longstanding statutes that had been
used to monitor, control, and eradicate animal diseases.22
Despite several years of effort on the part of USDA, as well as industry groups,
and states — and public funding totaling an anticipated $128 million through
FY2008 — a universal U.S. system is not expected to be in place for some time, as
policymakers attempt to resolve numerous questions about its design and purpose.
Should animal ID be mandated? What types of information should be collected, on
what animal species, and who should hold it, government or private entities? To
what extent should producer records be shielded from the public and other
government agencies? Should animal ID be expanded to traceability of meat and
poultry products from farm to the consumer, or used for other purposes such as food
safety or certification of labeling claims? How much will it cost, and who should
pay? In response, USDA currently envisions a voluntary universal system for all of
the major farm and ranch species of live animals, involving a cooperative effort
between federal, state, tribal, producer and breed organizations.23
Farm Bill Provisions. Conferees omitted from the final measure a provision
in the Senate bill that would have required USDA to issue regulations addressing
“the protection of trade secrets and other proprietary and/or confidential business
information that farmers and ranchers disclose in the course of participation” in an
ID system.
Other bills to establish differing animal health-oriented ID systems, or to require
more extensive systems tracing products through the marketing chain, also have not
advanced in the 110th Congress. H.R. 1018 would prohibit USDA from carrying out
a mandatory animal ID program and also would seek to protect the privacy of
producer information under a voluntary system. H.R. 2301 would establish an
animal ID system administered by a board of livestock, poultry, and meat industry
representatives. S. 1292 would require USDA to implement a more extensive ID and
traceability system “for all stages of production, processing, and distribution of meat
and meat food products” that are covered by federal meat and poultry inspection
laws. H.R. 3485 similarly would require a comprehensive meat and poultry
traceability system. Meanwhile, lawmakers have sought to provide guidance and
direction on the program through instructions in USDA’s annual appropriations and
in accompanying report language.
Animal Welfare
Background. Farm animals are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA; 9 U.S.C. §2131 et seq.), which requires minimum care standards for most
types of warm-blooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in research,
transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The Animal Care Division of
APHIS has primary responsibility for enforcing the AWA and several other animal
welfare statutes, including the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §1821 et seq.)
22 See CRS Report RS22653, Animal Identification: Overview and Issues.
23 See USDA’s website on animal ID at [http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml].

---

CRS-19
Farm animals are subject to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C.
1901 et seq.), enforced by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The
act governs the humane slaughter and handling of livestock (but not poultry) at
packing plants. Also, under the so-called Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502,
last amended in 1994), commercial carriers may not confine animals in a vehicle or
vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding,
water, and rest.
Generally, many members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
have expressed a preference for voluntary approaches to humane methods of farm
animal care. They state that major food industry players have been developing
humane animal care guidelines, and imposing them on their suppliers, in response to
a growing number of customers who ask about animal treatment. They cite such
changes at McDonald’s and Burger King, for example. In January 2007, Smithfield,
the nation’s largest pork producer, announced that its Murphy-Brown subsidiary
would phase out over a 10-year period the use of individual gestation stalls for sows,
replacing them with group housing.24
Animal activists have continued to challenge current production practices. They
periodically seek new legislation that would further regulate on-farm or other animal
activities, such as bills to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human food (currently
pending H.R. 503, S. S11);25 to require the federal government to purchase products
derived from animals only if they were raised according to specified care standards
(H.R. 1726); and to prohibit the slaughter for food of disabled livestock (e.g., S. 394,
H.R. 661, and H.R. 2678).
Agricultural interests recognize that animal welfare advocacy organizations, like
the Humane Society of the United States and others, have large constituencies in
many Members’ districts, and these organizations have claimed some successes in
recent years in winning animal care initiatives in several states and in several
lawsuits. However, farm bill animal welfare provisions generally have been limited
to AWA amendments, affecting non-farm animals.
Farm Bill Provisions. The 2008 farm law is no exception. It amends the
AWA to strengthen prohibitions on dog and other animal fighting activities; defines
a dog fighting venture, and increases the maximum imprisonment from three to five
years. It also requires HHS and USDA to promulgate regulations prohibiting the
importation for resale of dogs unless they are at least six months of age, in good
health, and have all necessary vaccinations (there are exemptions for research,
veterinary treatment, and certain dogs imported into Hawaii). These provisions
generally were in the Senate but not House bill. The final bill also increases
maximum fines for AWA violations from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation, and
directs USDA to review “any independent reviews by a nationally recognized panel
of experts” on the use of certain sources researchers use to obtain dogs and cats and
24 Smithfield discusses its animal welfare policies at [http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/
responsibility/animal.aspx].
25 Court actions by advocates already have forced the closure of the two foreign-owned
plants in Texas, and a new state law closed the remaining one in Illinois.

---

CRS-20
to report on any recommendations as they apply to USDA. Conferees omitted a
provision that was in the House but not the Senate bill to prohibit use of live animals
for marketing medical devices.26
Feed Prices27
Background. Feed is the single largest cost for cattle feeders and dairy, hog,
and poultry producers, who are wary of government policies that can raise feed
prices. These include crop supply control programs to bolster farm prices (rarely
used now) and conservation programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
which pays landowners to retire environmentally sensitive cropland for long periods.
More recently, strong energy prices and a variety of government incentives have
fostered rapid expansion of the U.S. ethanol industry, with national production
increasing from 1.8 billion gallons in 2001 to 6.5 billion gallons in 2007. Corn
accounts for about 98% of the feedstocks currently used in ethanol production in the
United States. USDA estimated in May 2008 that more than 2.1 billion bushels of
corn (or 20% of the 2006 corn crop) were used to produce ethanol during the
September 2006 to August 2007 corn marketing year. This percentage is expected
to rise to 23% in the current marketing year and again to 33% in the next year.28
Corn has traditionally represented about 57% of feed concentrates and processed
feedstuffs fed to animals in the United States.29 As corn-based ethanol production
increases, so do total corn demand and corn prices. Dedicating an increasing share
of the U.S. corn harvest to ethanol production could lead to higher prices for all
grains and oilseeds that compete for the same land, resulting in higher feed costs for
cattle, hog, and poultry producers. In February 2008, USDA projected U.S. livestock
feed costs for 2008 at a record $45 billion, up nearly $7 billion or over 18% from the
previous year’s record. Meanwhile, USDA projects that wholesale prices for nearly
all livestock product categories (with the exception of poultry and eggs) will decline
in 2008. Rising feed costs (primarily grains and protein meals) have cut into profit
margins of all livestock sectors (beef, dairy, pork, and poultry).30
26 For additional information see CRS Report RS22493, The Animal Welfare Act:
Background and Selected Legislation.
27 Portions of this section are taken from CRS Report RL34474, High Agricultural
Commodity Prices: What Are the Issues?, where more information, including sources for
data, may be obtained. Also see CRS Report RS22908, Livestock Feed Costs: Concerns and
Options, and CRS Report RL33928, Ethanol and Biofuels: Agriculture, Infrastructure, and
Market Constraints Related to Expanded Production.
28 USDA, World Agricultural Outlook Board, where monthly supply and demand reports are
available at [http://www.usda.gov/oce/].
29 USDA, ERS, Feed Situation and Outlook Yearbook, FDS-2003, April 2003.
30 According to the World Bank (among other international institutions), increased biofuel
production has been one of the principal causes of the dramatic rise in food prices — almost
all of the increase in global corn production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices
rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the United States. Bush Administration
(continued...)

---

CRS-21
With regard to federal incentives, the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140) extended and substantially expanded the existing
Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS). Under EISA, the RFS mandates the use of at least
9 billion gallons of biofuel in U.S. fuel supplies in 2009, but grows quickly to 20.5
billion gallons by 2015 and to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The U.S. biofuels sector
is also supported by a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol blended in the
U.S. fuel supply ($1.00 per gallon of virgin-oil-based biodiesel), and an import tariff
of 54 cents per gallon of imported ethanol. In addition, several federally subsidized
grant and loan programs assist biofuels research and infrastructure development.
Supply distortions could develop in protein-meal markets related to expanding
production of the ethanol processing by-product distiller’s dried grains (DDG), which
averages about 30% protein content and can substitute in certain feed and meal
markets. While DDG use would substitute for some of the lost feed value of corn
used in ethanol processing, about 66% of the original weight of corn is consumed in
producing ethanol and is no longer available for feed. Further, not all livestock
species are well adapted to dramatically increased consumption of DDG in their
rations — dairy cattle appear to be best suited to expanding DDG’s share in feed
rations; poultry and pork are much less able to adapt. DDG must be dried before it
can be transported long distances, adding to feed costs. There may be some potential
for large-scale livestock producers to relocate near new feed sources, but such
relocations would likely have important regional economic effects.
A Tufts University study has offered another perspective on feed prices, noting:
“Any discussion of today’s high prices should take into account the extent to which
these same firms [i.e., leading U.S. meat companies] have benefitted from many
years of feed that was priced well below what it cost to produce. In the nine years
that followed the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill [including the first several years of
the 2002 farm bill] (1997-2005), corn was priced 23% below average production
costs, while soybean prices were 15% below farmers’ costs,” the authors of the study
concluded. This resulted in substantial savings to the poultry and hog industries, and
an implicit subsidy over the nine years of $11.5 billion to the broiler industry and
$8.5 billion to what the authors termed “industrial” hog operations. Thus, “the
leading firms gained a great deal during those years from U.S. agricultural policies
that helped lower the prices for many agricultural commodities.”31
Farm Bill Provisions. Tax and tariff policies affecting ethanol and related
incentives are outside the jurisdiction of the agriculture committees. However, the
committees did include, in their farm bills, incentives for the development of other
30 (...continued)
officials have disputed this assertion, arguing that only 3% of the more than 40% rise in
world food prices in 2008 has been due to increased demand on corn for ethanol. See
“USDA Officials Briefing with Reporters on the Case for Food and Fuel USDA,” May 18,
2008, accessed on USDA’s home page at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome].
31 Timothy A. Wise and Elanor Starmer, Industrial Livestock Companies’ Gains from Low
Feed Prices, 1997-2005, Tufts University, Global Development and Environmental Institute,
February 26, 2007, at [http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/]. Bracketed text was added by CRS for
clarification.

---

CRS-22
types of renewable fuels besides corn-based ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol
production, and they expanded research and conservation-related policy options.
Separate provisions drafted by the congressional tax-writing committees and included
under Title XV of the new farm bill contain a reduction in the ethanol blender’s tax
credit of 51 cents per gallon. It is to be 45 cents per gallon for calendar 2009 and
thereafter, although the credit reduction would be delayed if USDA and EPA
determined that annual ethanol production and/or imports did not reach 7.5 billion
gallons (including cellulosic ethanol). On the other hand, the 54-cent per gallon
import tariff on ethanol was extended for two more years, through calendar 2010.
For more detailed information on energy- and conservation-related provisions
adopted in the House and Senate farm bills, see CRS Report RL33934, Farm Bill
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress, and CRS Report RL34130, Renewable
Energy Policy in the 2007 Farm Bill, among other CRS farm bill reports.
Disaster Assistance
Background. The federal government has relied primarily on two ongoing
policy tools in recent years to help mitigate the financial losses experienced by crop
farmers as a result of natural disasters — a federal crop insurance program and
emergency disaster loans. Generally, livestock losses are eligible for federal loans,
but have not been eligible for federal crop insurance, except under several pilot
programs offered in certain geographic areas by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). For example, RMA enables some producers to purchase income insurance
protection against losses of pasture, rangeland, and forage.32 Separately, Congress
has provided supplemental assistance on an ad hoc basis for crop and livestock losses
due to drought or other natural disasters through various emergency supplemental
assistance programs.33
The federal crop insurance program is permanently authorized and hence does
not require periodic reauthorization in an omnibus farm bill. However, modifications
to the crop insurance program were discussed in the context of the omnibus 2007-
2008 farm bill. Some policymakers expressed strong interest in expanding the crop
insurance program and/or complementing it with a permanent disaster payment
program. Others viewed the crop insurance program as a potential target for cost
reductions, with savings used to fund new initiatives in various titles of the farm bill.
Farm Bill Provisions. Under the tax title (Title XV) of the new farm bill,
§15101 creates a new Agricultural Disaster Relief “Trust Fund” for crop years 2008-
2011, estimated by CBO to cost $3.8 billion over the period. Of the five new
programs under which payments could be made are three relating to livestock:
32 See USDA, RMA, “Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Pilot Insurance Programs” factsheet,
revised October 2007, at [http://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/rme/prffactsheet.pdf].
33 See CRS Report RL34207, Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance: 2007 Farm Bill
Issues, from which some of this material was drawn.

---

CRS-23
! The Livestock Indemnity Program, making payments based on 75%
of fair market value of livestock that die in excess of normal
mortality rates due to adverse weather;
! The Livestock Forage Disaster Program, providing assistance to
ranchers with forage losses due to drought, with eligibility
requirements and payments based on a formula in the new law; and
! Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised
Fish, making available a total of up to $50 million from the Trust
Fund for emergency relief to producers of these animals with losses
due to adverse weather or other conditions.
Environmental Issues
Background. Questions about the applicability of federal environmental laws
to livestock and poultry operations have drawn congressional attention. As animal
agriculture increasingly concentrates into larger, more intensive production units,
interest arises about impacts on the environment, including surface water,
groundwater, soil, and air. Some environmental laws specifically exempt agriculture
from regulatory provisions, and some are designed so that farms escape most, if not
all, of the regulatory impact. The primary regulatory focus for large feedlots is the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), since contaminants from manure, if not
properly managed, also affect both water quality and human health. Operations that
emit large quantities of air pollutants may be subject to Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
§§7401-7671q) regulation. In addition, concerns about applicability of Superfund
(the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (the
Superfund law, 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675) to livestock and poultry operations are of
growing interest.34
Farm Bill Provisions. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees do not
have direct jurisdiction over federal environmental law, but they do have a role in the
issue. For example, under the conservation title of recent farm bills, including the
2008 bill, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has provided
financial and technical assistance to farmers to protect surrounding resources;
livestock receives 60% of all funds. The new bill extends EQIP through FY2012,
increases budget authority for the program during the period, makes conservation
practices related to organic certification eligible for payments, allocates a portion of
EQIP money to air quality activities, and provides new mandatory funding for
agricultural water enhancement. The new law also reduces the EQIP payment cap
from $450,000 to $300,000 per person over six years, with USDA authority to allow
up to $450,000 in cases of special environmental significance, such as methane
digesters and other new technologies. Other conservation provisions of interest to
some segments of animal agriculture include the Conservation Stewardship Program,
the Grasslands Reserve Program, and the Wetlands Reserve Program.
34 Also see CRS Report RL31851, Animal Waste and the Environment: EPA Regulation of
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); CRS Report RL32948, Air Quality
Issues and Animal Agriculture: A Primer; and CRS Report RL33691, Animal Waste and
Hazardous Substances: Current Laws and Legislative Issues.

---

CRS-24
Summary of Selected Livestock Provisions:
New Law Compared with House and Senate 2007 Farm Bills and Current Law
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
Livestock Mandatory Reporting
The Livestock Mandatory Reporting
No comparable provision.
Changes the time of the afternoon swine
Directs USDA to conduct a study of
Act of 1999 [7 U.S.C. 1635-1636h]
report. Authorizes mandatory packer
the economic impacts of pork product
established a program of mandatory
reporting of wholesale pork product
sales, focusing on wholesale pork cuts.
reporting of information regarding the
sales, after conducting an economic
Also directs USDA to improve
marketing of live cattle, boxed beef,
study; and specifying that USDA will
electronic reporting and publishing
swine, and lambs. Requires packers,
make this information publicly
under the program. [Sec. 11001]
processors, and importers to provide
available. [Sec. 10001]
periodic reporting of price, volume,
contract, and demand information to
USDA. The data are used to create
price reports for livestock producers.
Meat and Poultry Inspection
The Federal Meat Inspection Act
Requires USDA to report to Congress
Provides for a new opt-in program for
State inspection provisions generally
(FMIA) [21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] and
on the effectiveness of each state
state-inspected plants with 25 or fewer
the same as the Senate bill, without the
the Poultry Products Inspection Act
inspection program and on the
employees, which subjects them to
provision to provide 100%
(PPIA) [21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.] permit
changes necessary to ensure
federally-directed inspection using state
reimbursement for programs with
states to operate their own meat and
enforcement of federal requirements.
employees. Provides for 3-year
pathogen testing that exceed federal
poultry inspection programs, if they are
Replaces current federal-state
eligibility for plants with between 25-35
testing. [Sec. 11015]
at least “equal to” (but not necessarily
cooperative inspection program with a
employees. Sets federal reimbursement
identical to) the federal program.
new program whereby USDA would
at not less than 60% for both meat and
State-inspected meat and poultry
approve the shipment of state-
poultry programs and permits 100%
cannot be shipped in interstate
inspected meat and poultry from a
reimbursements if pathogen testing
commerce.
state where key program requirements
exceeds typical federal testing, among
are identical to federal requirements;
other provisions. [Sec. 11067]
permits many plants currently under
federal inspection to shift to state
inspection; raises the federal
reimbursement maximum from 50%
to 60% for poultry programs only;
among other things. [Sec. 11103]

---

CRS-25
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
Currently, USDA does not have
No comparable provisions regarding
Requires USDA to establish “reportable
Amends the FMIA and PPIA to require
authority to mandate a recall of meat
reportable food registries, recall plans,
food registries” for meat and poultry
all establishments to promptly notify
and poultry products, relying instead
E. coli reassessment, or sanitary food
and their products. Requires all entities
USDA if they have reason to believe
on a voluntary, cooperative approach
transportation.
to include recall plans in their safety
an adulterated or misbranded product
with industry to remove unsafe
prevention (i.e., HACCP) plans, with
has entered commerce. Requires
products. FSIS, which may learn of a
beef entities also having an E. Coli
establishments to prepare, and maintain
potential recall from various sources,
reassessment. Directs HHS and USDA
in writing, a product recall plan. [Sec.
provides assistance and monitors the
to issue sanitary food transportation
11017]
recall. Recall policies are spelled out
regulations. [Sec. 11087]
in FSIS Directive 8080.1.
Seafood Grading and Inspection
The 2002 farm bill identifies the
No comparable provision.
Authorizes a voluntary USDA grading
Makes “catfish,” as defined by the
market and common name for catfish
program for catfish. Requires USDA to
Secretary, an amenable species, and
for labeling purposes. [21 U.S.C.
provide inspection activities for catfish,
therefore catfish products, subject to
321d] Sec. 203(c) of the Agricultural
by adding catfish to the list of
mandatory inspection; authorizes
Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 [7
“amenable species” under the FMIA.
USDA to take into account the
U.S.C. 1622] authorizes USDA to
Specifies that new catfish grading and
conditions under which catfish are
develop standards to encourage
certification programs shall not
raised and processed. Authorizes
uniformity and consistency in
duplicate, impede, or undermine similar
USDA to establish a voluntary fee-
commercial marketing. Sec. 1(w) of
activities conducted by the Department
based grading program for catfish and
FMIA [21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] defines
of Commerce or by the Food and Drug
to permit other seafood producers to
“amenable species” subject to
Administration. [Sec. 10002]
apply for such grading. [Sec. 11016]
mandatory inspection.
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
Sec. 10816 of the 2002 farm bill
Continues to require COOL by 2008
Similar to the House bill, but further
Continues to require implementation
amended the AMA of 1946 to require
for red meats and other covered
makes macadamia nuts and chicken
by 2008 for covered commodities, to
food stores to provide country of origin
commodities. Adds meat produced
covered commodities. [Sec. 10003]
which are added goat meat, chicken,
labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork,
from goats. Makes changes to the
macadamia nuts, pecans, and ginseng.
seafood, peanuts, and perishable
labeling requirements for fresh red
Creates a separate program for ginseng
Makes changes to the labeling
agricultural commodities. Sets
meats, by creating a new labeling
for country of harvest labeling. [Sec.
requirements for fresh red meats, by
requirements on labeling USA
system for red meats with new
10004]
creating a new labeling system for red
products, recordkeeping, certification,
designation categories, e.g., defines
meats with these new designation
enforcement, and fines for non-
U.S. origin as a product from an
categories, e.g., defines U.S. origin as a
compliance. Appropriations acts
animal exclusively born, raised and
product from an animal exclusively
delayed implementation of mandatory
slaughtered in the U.S. (or present in
born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.
COOL for all covered commodities,
the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2008). For all
(or present in the U.S. before July 15,
most recently until Sept. 30, 2008
covered commodities, eases record-
2008). For all covered commodities,
(except wild and farm-raised fish and
keeping, certification requirements,
eases record-keeping, certification
shellfish, which went into effect in
and reduces fines for noncompliance.
requirements, and reduces fines for

---

CRS-26
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
2005.) [7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.]
[Sec. 11104]
noncompliance. [Sec. 11002]
Agricultural Fair Practices Act
The Agricultural Fair Practices Act
No provision.
Amends AFPA as follows:
Amends AFPA to modify the
(AFPA) of 1967 (P.L. 90-288) allows
—
Expands the definition of
definition of “association of producers”
farmers to file complaints with USDA
“association of producers” to also
to include organizations with
if a processor refuses to deal with them
include general livestock, poultry
membership exclusively limited to
because they are members of a
and farm groups. [Sec. 10101]
agricultural producers and dedicated to
bargaining or marketing association of
—
Broadens the types of prohibited
promoting their products. [Sec.
producers. Makes it unlawful for
practices. [Sec. 10102]
11003]
handlers to coerce, intimidate, or
—
Amends the enforcement
discriminate against producers because
provisions; clarifies civil actions
they belong to such groups. [7 U.S.C.
against handlers, providing for
2301 et seq.]
preventive relief, damage, and
attorneys fees. [Sec. 10103]
—
Directs USDA to promulgate
rules/regulations. [Sec. 10104]
Packers and Stockyards Act
The Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S
Amends the P&S Act to direct USDA
Amends the P&S Act as follows:
Amends the P&S Act as follows:
Act) of 1921 (P.L. 67-51), as amended,
to establish regulatory standards for
—
Creates a new special counsel at
— Requires an annual report from
provides USDA with the basic
arbitration provisions in livestock and
USDA to investigate/prosecute
USDA detailing investigations
authority to regulate marketing
poultry contracts. Among other
violations of competition laws.
into violations of the P&S Act;
practices in the livestock, poultry, and
things, such regulations are intended
[Sec. 10201]
[Sec. 11004]
meat industries. The law is to prevent
to permit a producer to seek relief in a
—
Strengthens USDA enforcement
—
Permits poultry and swine
unfair, deceptive, and monopolistic
small claims court, if within the
authorities over live poultry
producers to cancel their
trade practices, focusing on livestock
court’s jurisdiction, regardless of a
dealers. [Sec. 10202]
contracts up to 3 business days
terminal and auction markets, livestock
contract’s arbitration clause. [Sec.
—
Specifies conditions regarding
after signing, and requires clear
marketing agencies, dealers, meat
11102]
cancelling and securing contracts.
disclosure in contracts of
packers, and live poultry dealers. [7
Provides for producer choice of
cancellation terms;
U.S.C. 181 et seq.]
jurisdiction and venue, including
—
Requires poultry and swine
arbitration. [Sec. 10203]
contracts to contain a
—
Allows growers to discuss
conspicuous statement that
contract terms. [Sec. 10204]
additional large capital
—
Allows producers to seek remedy
investments may be required
for violations. [Sec. 10205]
during the term of the contract;
—
Allows USDA to seek outside
—
Requires USDA to issue rules on
counsel to aid in investigations
such criteria as the reasonable
and civil cases. [Sec. 10206]
period of time a producer should
—
Prohibits major packers from
be given to remedy a breach of
owning, feeding, or controlling
contract before it is cancelled;

---

CRS-27
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
livestock more than 14 days prior
—
Contains provisions intended to
to slaughter. [Sec. 10207]
assist producers deal with
—
Directs USDA to promulgate
contract disputes, including
regulations. [Sec. 10208]
arbitration terms, venue for any
litigation. [Sec. 11005]
Animal Pest and Disease Programs
Sec. 2506(d) of the 1990 farm bill
Sense of Congress regarding
Similar to the House bill, and also
Similar to the House bill, also
authorizes appropriations and directs
pseudorabies eradication program that
recognizing the threat to the entire
recognizing the threat to the entire
USDA to carry out pseudorabies
USDA recognize the threat feral
livestock industry. [Sec. 10301]
livestock industry. [Sec. 11007]
eradication in U.S. swine populations.
swine pose to the domestic swine
Current concerns are that this disease
population, and the need for a
persists in feral populations and may
surveillance program for monitoring
be reintroduced. [21 U.S.C. 114i]
and eradication. [Sec. 11101]
Sec. 10409 of the Animal Health
No comparable provision.
Directs USDA to establish and
Directs USDA to establish and
Protection Act (AHPA), enacted as part
implement a trichinae certification
implement a voluntary trichinae
of the 2002 farm bill, directs USDA to
program. Authorizes appropriations of
certification program. Requires USDA
carry out operations and measures to
$1.25 million annually for FY2008-12.
to use not less than $6.2 million for the
detect, control, or eradicate any
[Sec. 10304]
program; authorizes annual
livestock pest or disease, incl. animals
appropriations of $1.5 million,
at slaughterhouse, stockyard, or other
FY2008-2012. [Sec. 11010]
concentration point. [7 U.S.C. 8308]
USDA has authority to cooperate with
Sense of Congress regarding the cattle
Same as the House bill. [Sec. 10302]
Same as the House and Senate bill.
states on laws that exclude, eradicate,
fever tick eradication program that the
[Sec. 11008]
and/or control agricultural pests within
cattle fever tick and the southern
the AHPA [7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.] and
cattle tick are vectors of the causal
the Talmadge-Aiken Act [7 U.S.C.
agent of babesiosis, a severe and often
450]. Sections of 21 U.S.C., Title 21
fatal disease of cattle; and that
(Food and Drugs) also cover the
implementing a national strategic plan
prevention and spread of contagion.
for the cattle fever tick eradication
Current concerns are about pesticide-
program is a high priority, among
resistant populations of the southern
other things. [Sec. 11106]
cattle tick in Mexico.
Sec. 10407(d)(2) of APHA specifies
Sense of Congress regarding the
Amends AHPA to compensate any
Amends the AHPA to require the
compensation amounts for seizure,
voluntary control program for low
poultry contract grower or owner
Secretary to compensate industry
quarantine, and disposal of animals
pathogenic avian influenza program;
participating in the voluntary control
participants and state agencies that
that may carry or have been infected
and that USDA should continue to
program for low pathogenic avian
cooperate in voluntary detection and
with or exposed to pests or diseases,
provide compensation payments to
influenza under the National Poultry
control programs at 100% of eligible
and are moved through interstate
poultry owners and cooperating state
Improvement Plan. Payments to
costs. [Sec. 11011]
commerce or are imported. [7 U.S.C.
agencies at 100% of eligible costs.
cooperating state agencies to be 100%

---

CRS-28
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
8306(d)(2)]
[Sec. 11105]
of the eligible costs. [Sec. 10306]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Sense of Senate that USDA should work
No provision.
with the private insurers to implement
an expedited approach for
indemnification of livestock producers
in cases of cata-strophic disease
outbreaks. [Sec. 10308]
Sec. 10411 of AHPA authorizes USDA
No comparable provision.
Establishes an advisory committee on
Permits USDA to enter into
cooperative agreements with eligible
national aquatic animal health; details
cooperative agreements to carry out a
entities, including other governments
committee membership; requires USDA
national aquatic animal health plan
and associations, to conduct animal
regulations establishing a national
under Sec. 10411 of the AHPA.
health activities. [7 U.S.C. 8310]
aquatic animal health improvement
Requires USDA to determine the
program under AHPA authority;
nonfederal share of costs (to be either
authorizes appropriations of $15 million
cash or in-kind) on a case-by-case
for FY2008 and FY2009 for a new
basis. Authorizes such sums as
producer indemnification fund and for
necessary in each fiscal year, FY2008-
implementation of an animal health task
FY2012. [Sec. 11013]
force plan. [Sec. 11086]
National Animal Identification System
No comparable provision in AHPA.
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA regulations & public
No provision.
Under this authority, in 2004, USDA
comment addressing “protection of
accelerated work on a voluntary
trade secrets and other proprietary
National Animal Identification System
and/or confidential business information
(NAIS) to trace animals from slaughter
that farmers and ranchers disclose in the
through all premises within 48 hours of
course of participation” in an animal ID
an animal disease outbreak.
system. [Sec. 10305]
Food Safety Commission
Sec. 10807 of the Farm Security and
No comparable provision.
Establishes a Congressional Bipartisan
No comparable provision.
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
Food Safety Commission to study and
107-171) established a 15-member
make recommendations to modernize
Food Safety Commission appointed by
food safety programs, including
the President to make
organizational and resource
recommendations to enhance the U.S.
requirements which emphasize
food safety system. Provision not
prevention and are based on risk
implemented. [21 U.S.C. 341 note]
assessment and best-available science.
Specifies membership requirements,
meeting procedures and timetables, and

---

CRS-29
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
other aspects of the commission’s
report. [Sec. 11060] Requires the
President review the report and submit
proposed legislation based on
recommendations. Expresses Sense of
the Senate on the need for additional
resources and direction for federal food
safety agencies, for agreements between
the U.S. and its trading partners, and for
comprehensive food safety legislation.
[Sec. 11072]
Foods from Cloned Animals
FDA had asked companies to
No comparable provision.Prohibits
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
voluntarily not introduce meat and
FDA from issuing a final risk
milk from cloned animals and
assessment and lifting the voluntary
offspring until it completes a final risk
moratorium until completion of newly
assessment and guidance on their
mandated National Academy of
safety. FDA published the final risk
Sciences and USDA studies on,
assessment/guidance on 1/15/08;
respectively, the safety and on the
USDA has asked that the moratorium
market impacts of introducing
on cloned animals (but not offspring)
products from cloned animals. [Sec.
continue until markets are educated on
7507]
safety.
Animal Welfare Act
No comparable provision under the
Amends the AWA to prohibit use of
No comparable provision on medical
Increases maximum fines for AWA
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [7 U.S.C.
live animals for marketing medical
marketing.
violations from $2,500 to $10,000 per
2131 et seq.], which is intended to
devices. Increases the cap for AWA
violation. Other House changes not
ensure the humane treatment of
violations to $10,000 per violation,
adopted. [Sec. 14214]
research animals, bred for commercial
and specifies that each day, each
sale, exhibited to the public, or
violation, and each animal subject to a
commercially transported; and to
violation is to be considered a
prevent animal fighting activities.
separate offense, among other things.
Authorizes fines up to $2,500 for
[Sec. 11316]
violations; each violation and each day
is considered a separate offense.
Sec. 7 of the AWA prohibits research
Replaces language in Sec. 7 to expand
Same as the House provision except a
Directs USDA to review “any

---

CRS-30
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
facilities from buying dogs or cats
the definition of a person regulated
provision directing that use of random
independent reviews by a nationally
except from certain persons regulated
under this section; and to stipulate
source dogs and cats from “Class B
recognized panel of experts” on Class
under the AWA.
permissible sources of dogs and cats
dealers” be phased out within 5 years of
B use by researchers, and to report on
for research facilities. Introduces an
enactment. [Sec. 11079]
how any recommendations can be
additional penalty of $1,000 for each
applied at USDA. [Sec. 14216]
violation of this section of the AWA.
[Sec. 11317]
Sec. 26 of the AWA spells out a series
No comparable provisions on animal
Amends the AWA to strengthen
Animal fighting provisions generally
of prohibited acts related to animal
fighting or commercial importation of
prohibitions on dog and other animal
reflect Senate language. [Sec. 14207]
fighting and establishes penalties for
young dogs.
fighting activities; defines a dog fighting
violations. [18 U.S.C. 49] Enables the
venture; and appears to expand who can
Dog importation provisions generally
federal government to collect costs
collect for costs of care of seized
reflect Senate language, with additional
incurred for caring for seized animals.
animals. Increases the maximum
limited exceptions for those imported
imprisonment from 3 to 5 years. [Sec.
into Hawaii. [Sec. 14210]
No comparable AWA provision on
11076]
importation of young dogs.
Amends the AWA to require HHS and
USDA regulations prohibiting importing
for resale dogs less than 6 months of
age, unless USDA determines the dog is
in good health and has all necessary
vaccinations (exemptions for research or
veterinary treatment). [Sec. 3205]
Disaster Assistance
Congress periodically provides ad-hoc
No comparable provision.
Creates permanent authority for a
Creates a new Agricultural Disaster
emergency disaster payments to crop
disaster payment program that provides
Relief “Trust Fund” for crop years
and livestock growers to supplement
payments to crop and livestock growers
2008-2011, funded through a transfer of
income following a natural disaster.
who experience significant production
the equivalent of 3.08% of annual
Most recently, Congress provided
losses in a USDA-declared disaster area.
customs receipts from the U.S. Treasury.
emergency supplemental assistance for
For FY2008-12, the program is funded
Of the five new programs under which
2005, 2006, or 2007 production losses.
through a transfer of the equivalent of
payments could be made, three relate to
[Sec. 9001 of P.L. 110-28, as amended
3.34% of annual customs receipts.
livestock:
by P.L. 110-161].
Payments are made under new
(1) Livestock Indemnity Program,
permanent programs: livestock
making payments based on 75% of fair
indemnity; emergency livestock
market value of livestock that die in
assistance; and honey bees, farm raised
excess of normal mortality rates due to
catfish (as well as crop disaster; tree
adverse weather;
assistance) [Sec. 12101]
(2) Livestock Forage Disaster Program,

---

CRS-31
SENATE-PASSED SUBSTITUTE
CURRENT LAW/POLICY
HOUSE-PASSED BILL (H.R. 2419)
NEW LAW (P.L. 110-243)
AMENDMENT (H.R. 2419)
providing assistance to ranchers with
forage losses due to drought, with
eligibility requirements and payments
based on a formula in the new law; and
(3) Emergency Assistance for Livestock,
Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish,
making available a total of up to $50
million from the Trust Fund for
emergency relief to producers of these
animals with losses due to adverse
weather or other conditions. [Sec.
15101]
Other Provisions
Sec. 375 of the Consolidated Farm and
Reauthorizes appropriations of $10
Also eliminates statutory requirement to
Similar to Senate provision, but does
Rural Development Act (Con Act), as
million annually (FY2008-12).
eventually privatize the revolving fund.
not rename the program. [Sec. 11009]
amended, established the National
Eliminates statutory requirement to
Renames the program as the National
Sheep Industry Improvement Center to
eventually privatize the revolving
Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement
provide financial assistance for the
fund. [Sec. 6015] No other
Center, and provides for new mandatory
enhancement and marketing of U.S.
comparable changes as specified in
funding of $1 million for FY2008, to be
sheep or goat products, focusing on
the Senate bill.
available until expended. Authorizes
infrastructure development. Funding
$10 million annually for FY2008-12 to
includes manda-tory funds of $28
cover infrastructure development,
million for a revolving fund, and
business planning, production, resource
appropriations authorized at $30
development and market and
million. [7 U.S.C. 2008j]
environmental research. [Sec. 10303]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA report on the potential
Requires USDAreport on animal
economic issues (including costs)
manure use as agricultural fertilizer,
associated with animal manure used in
potential impact on consumers and
normal agricultural operations and as a
agriculture from limitations on its
bioenergy feedstock. [Sec. 10307]
utilization, and effects on agriculture of
increasing its use for bioenergy
production. [Sec. 11014]
The 2002 farm bill does not include a
No new title; includes most animal
Creates new farm bill title, Livestock
Creates new farm bill title, Livestock
separate title for animal agriculture.
agriculture provisions as part of the
Marketing, Regulatory, and Related
(Title XI).
Miscellaneous Title XI.
Programs (Title X).

---