GIPSA proposed rule could cost 104,000 jobs/ reduce GDP by $14 billion

The results were announced last week during a teleconference attended by more than 15 members of the media, including reporters from the Associated Press, Bloomberg and DTN.

 

The study found that the disruption and resulting inefficiencies in the market should the rule be implemented would increase retail meat prices by 3.33 percent at a national level, causing a 1.68 percent decrease in consumer demand for potentially lower quality meat and poultry products. 

 

The study’s findings also highlight the fact that livestock producers would be especially affected by the implementation of this rule, losing as many as 21,274 jobs, many in rural America. 

 

This new study is the first to quantify the proposal’s potential impact. 

“At a time of record unemployment, slow economic recovery and rising poverty levels, it is unfathomable that the administration would propose a rule that could cost one American job, let alone 104,000,” said AMI President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle.  “As the analysis shows, these are not just jobs in meat packing or livestock production, but in nearly every sector of the American economy.  This is, quite simply, reckless regulation.”

 

Boyle added that according to Gallup’s 2010 annual Governance survey, an expanded proportion of Americans (59 percent – up eight percentage points from a year ago) believe the government has overstepped its bounds and grown too intrusive and too powerful.

 

“This government intervention will dismantle 20 years of progress that has helped the U.S. meat and poultry industry to deliver the safest, most affordable meat and poultry supply in the world,” said Boyle.  “As our study shows, this protectionist policy proposal would do nothing but harm Americans who work every day to put food on our tables.”

 

“As an economist who makes his living studying and modeling the economic impact of government regulations on businesses and industries, I have seen firsthand the unintended consequences of misguided policy proposals like the one proposed by USDA,” noted John Dunham, president of John Dunham and Associates, who conducted the study.  “It is noteworthy that USDA says this proposal will revitalize rural America, yet my analysis shows it will actually cause substantial job losses.”

 

The study is presented in a new, interactive website that aggregates economic impact on national, state and congressional district levels.  The complete study, a methodology report and frequently asked questions and answers can be found at www.MeatFuelsAmerica.com/GIPSA.