U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

9 CFR § 201.3(a) and 9 CFR § 201.210, to eliminate interpretations that deny harm to competition unless multiple producers are affected—thereby shielding corporate anticompetitive practices.

“Competitive Injury” Interpretation under the Packers and Stockyards Act

USDA’s narrow interpretation of “competitive injury” lets meatpacking giants suppress independent producers without violating the law—as long as they don’t harm the entire market. That interpretation undermines the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act and enables extreme consolidation. We propose rescinding that interpretation and restoring protections for individual producers.

1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20250

AskUSDA: (833) ONE-USDA Email: agsec@usda.gov

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted to prevent unfair, deceptive, and monopolistic practices in the meatpacking industry. But decades of deregulatory reinterpretations—especially through 9 CFR § 201.3 and § 201.210—have gutted its enforcement. USDA has insisted that individual harm to farmers doesn’t count as a violation unless it hurts the entire market, a burden of proof that's practically impossible to meet.

This interpretation grants legal cover to monopolistic behavior. A company can cut off market access, retaliate against whistleblowers, or strongarm farmers into abusive contracts—as long as they don’t trigger system-wide market failure. That’s not enforcement. It’s regulatory surrender. Rescinding the “competitive injury” loophole would restore USDA’s ability to act on behalf of small and mid-sized producers, not just protect market abstraction.

Delete the requirement under § 201.3(a) and § 201.210 that proof of competitive injury must show harm to the entire market. Reinstate enforcement authority against individual harms and unfair practices, as originally intended under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Brooke Rollins

Secretary of Agriculture