PITTSBORO -- Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed a rule that would level the playing field between poultry and livestock producers and the companies that hold their contracts. More than 60,000 people sent in comments on the rule. The majority were in support of the badly needed reforms.
These new rules were written in response to well-documented problems in the poultry and livestock industry. Numerous reports have concluded that regulation needed to be tightened and that concentrated ownership gave companies too much control over the market.
In recent days, nine members of North Carolina's 13-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives signed on to a "Dear Colleague" letter urging the USDA to withdraw the rule and re-propose a revised version at a later date. These representatives acted against the interests of North Carolina farmers.
It has been almost three years since Congress told the USDA to address unfair practices by livestock and poultry companies. The rules were subject to a five-month public comment period. Hundreds of farmers sent in personal letters in support of the rules. These farmers risked their livelihoods by making a public statement criticizing the companies that have almost total control over their operations.
The new rules would end many of the unfair practices that have become commonplace in the poultry industry. Proposed reforms include outlawing retaliation against growers who speak out, protecting growers' investments in barns and equipment and preventing companies from coercing farmers into making expensive upgrades.
Growers do not have another year to wait. Neither do taxpayers. Already, North Carolina has felt the economic impact of the Pilgrim's Pride bankruptcy, which left growers with no contract and a large debt load. If these rules had been in place, the growers would not have been forced to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in upgrades without adequate compensation. They possibly would have recouped 80 percent of their investments when their contracts were canceled.
Instead, the taxpayers spent $60 million to provide former Pilgrim's Pride growers with badly needed economic relief. We picked up the bill for the company's behavior.
These rules are common sense. They respond to concerns voiced by farmers, economic analysts, consumers and Congress. In April, a coalition of 144 farmer groups sent a letter to Congress, urging members to support the swift publication of a strong rule. The Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform thanks U.S. Reps. Patrick McHenry, Brad Miller, David Price and Mel Watt, who supported farmers and did not sign the letter.
We hope that those who did sign will get the facts, see through the misinformation perpetuated by the companies and give contract growers the support they deserve. The power to decide is now in the Obama administration's hands. We trust that it will release a strong rule soon.
Becky Ceartas is program director of the Contract Agriculture Reform Program of RAFI-USA (the Rural Advancement Foundation International).
