From the CEO
Colin Woodall
FATE OF THE FARM BILL
Earlier this year, House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson defied the odds and delivered a Farm Bill to take care of all the remaining agriculture policy issues not included in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It was a Herculean task, but he pulled it off. More importantly, it was a bill that we vigorously supported because it was good policy that didn’ t include any provisions that would have negatively impacted your operation. House passage put tremendous pressure on Senate Ag Committee Chairman John Boozman to take action. Just last month, that is what the Chairman tried to do, but the Senate’ s version failed to pass out of the committee and all of us in agriculture are wondering what the pathway forward is for federal ag policy that should have been addressed three years ago. American agriculture needs the certainty provided by timely passage of a multi-year Farm Bill.
Hundreds of amendments were filed by Senators on the Ag Committee, but I would like to talk about two of them. The first was an amendment from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa that would create a meat and poultry special investigator at USDA. This individual would be tasked with identifying violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act and working with the Department of Justice to prosecute those cases. On the surface, the concept sounds great. Why wouldn’ t we want to see enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act?
Senator Grassley has tried to include his special investigator multiple times over the past decades. The main reason it has yet to be included is because it’ s another layer of bureaucratic red tape. The Packers and Stockyards Division at USDA already has the authority to do everything Senator Grassley wants his special investigator to do. Rather than wasting time on a new position, Congress should focus on fully staffing the Packers and Stockyards Division and giving them the resources to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. They don’ t need a special investigator to do that. They just need people in positions that already exist. NCBA supports enforcement, but that can’ t happen if you aren’ t fully staffed, and the Packers and Stockyards Division is not fully staffed. We’ d rather have a multitude of enforcement actions being done rather than just what one special investigator can cover. Senator Grassley talked about his amendment, but ultimately did not bring it up for a vote. We will have to watch what he does if this Farm Bill makes it to the Senate floor.
The second amendment I want you to think about is the one from Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota which brings back mandatory country-of-origin labeling( MCOOL). This is an old and divisive issue within the cattle business, and it always gets thrown around as a panacea for all the ills impacting us as producers. Many forget that MCOOL was law for six years from 2009 to 2015, and studies done by
Consumer trends continue to be analyzed, and origin labeling remains at the bottom of their list.
USDA, land grant university economists, and other analysts all concluded that the consumer didn’ t pay attention to it and did not use MCOOL to make purchasing decisions.
The proponents of MCOOL claim that well over 80 % of consumers want to know where their meat comes from. If I stood at the front door of a grocery store and asked consumers if they’ d like to know, I have no doubt I’ d get on overwhelming positive reaction, but you can’ t stop there. You must follow them to the meat case where you discover price and the color and presentation of our beef lead the consumers’ decision making. Consumer trends continue to be analyzed, and origin labeling remains at the bottom of their list. So, if the consumer wasn’ t using it when it was law, why are we revisiting it?
The original MCOOL and Senator Thune’ s amendment were never about the consumer. If this was about the consumer needing to know where their beef comes from, then why was beef served in restaurants, hotels and foodservice exempted from MCOOL? Are you seriously telling me the consumer only has a right to know where their beef comes from if they buy it at the grocery store? Historically, half of the beef consumed falls into this restaurant and foodservice category. In addition, processed beef was exempt, too. To better illustrate this, think of the two tenderloins that come from each animal. Take one of those, vacuum seal it and put it in the grocery meat case where it would have been labeled. Take the other one, but simply add a marinade or rub, and it was exempt from being labeled. Two tenderloins from the same animal and one would need a label and the other wouldn’ t. Nope, I’ m not buying that this is about the consumer.
Senator Thune’ s amendment only covers beef, yet beef and pork were covered under the original MCOOL law. Again, a clear sign this is a political move rather than watching after the consumer. Rather than spend time on a program that didn’ t work and was finally repealed by Congress, Congress should support USDA’ s voluntary Product of the USA( POTUSA) label because it allows for real marketing to take place. The voluntary POTUS label fixed one of the biggest issues that drove MCOOL by eliminating the loophole that allowed foreign product processed in a USDA-inspected plant to carry a U. S. label. That can’ t happen anymore. It also allows flexibility to use red, white and blue labels with stars and stripes to actually market to the consumer. All you got with government controlled MCOOL was one line on the label in small black and white type.
As you are reading this, Congress is back from their August recess and hopefully will have a plan on how they will either finish the Farm Bill or once again extend the old 2018 bill. Chairman Thompson and the House of Representatives delivered a bill we can support. We hope the Senate will follow the House’ s lead and do the same.
6 SEPTEMBER 2026 www. NCBA. org