Today, there are several programs protein producers can participate in to earn a premium for their independently verified and audited product, be it humanely raised hogs, grass-fed beef, Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) or cattle that are Age and Source Verified (ASV). These programs offer producers the opportunity to distinguish their products in a market that thrives on labels and the desire of consumers voting with their dollars for food items that align with their values. The programs are voluntary and, thanks to capitalism, so is paying a premium for the product. This example of competitive markets is one producers take advantage of every day. In a business where a $10 per hundredweight Certified Angus Beef Prime premium is applied to a 900-lb. carcass for a producer marketing a load of even just 40 head, it adds up. It gives a leg up to the price takers who are willing to do the work to qualify for the premium. It is competition at its finest and has led to one of the strongest cattle markets in recent memory with fed cattle prices at record levels and strong demand for beef.

Never fear. The Biden Administration is here to fix that.

Competitive markets are on full display through the marketing of feeder cattle in an auction setting, be it at the local sale barn with a slab of pie at the ready, or an online video auction. A price is merely an agreement between buyer and seller and this agreement is reached at various points in the production cycle.

For fat cattle ready to be slaughtered, many feeders sell on the grid, an alternative marketing agreement, qualifying for premiums based on the quality and quantity contained in the carcass. These methods not only inspire competition but encourage a higher quality product that consumers prefer and will confirm their preference through their purchase. Packers, to satisfy consumers, must have an abundant, steady, predictable supply of beef that is consistent in its quality and feeders can deliver that and earn a premium for doing so. After all, there are quality differences and there are markets that demand products for varying purposes. They can’t all be ribeye steaks; some will be drive through tacos.

The USDA announced last week proposed rules about fair and competitive markets. I remember the lesson that a business waiting for the government to swoop in and rescue them, is doomed. The government, you may recall Ronald Reagan telling us, doesn’t solve problems, but subsidizes them.

The proposed rules change the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, enacted to promote fairness, reasonableness, and transparency in the livestock, meat, and poultry marketplace by prohibiting practices contrary to those goals.

The first major problem with the proposed rule is in the lumping together of poultry and cattle production under the livestock umbrella. The supply chains and ownership structures of the two proteins are wildly different, sharing fewer similarities than Margaret Thatcher and Lauren Boebert.

It’s an effort, which seems to be a theme for Vilsack, to circumvent Congress to reverse a legal standard that parties must demonstrate harm to competition to sue and win under the PSA. Nothing but frivolous lawsuits will result, making attorneys the only winners in this game. It’s likely this would lead to greatly reduced use of Advanced marketing agreements (AMAs), hamstringing cattle producers who dare produce a higher quality product and expect that it might garner a premium.

Perhaps the most troubling tidbit was buried by USDA in the accompanying press release that read: “AMS will also be releasing later this summer a report on access to retail markets and is working on a rule to improve transparency and price discovery in cattle markets.” I can only speculate but this feels like a hint of a forthcoming cash trade mandate.

Just as this proposed rule would decrease the use of (AMAs), as would mandated negotiated cash trade.

Protein producers need access to value-based marketing systems and need, as trade groups like American Farm Bureau Federation support, the right to enter into formula pricing agreements, grid pricing, and other marketing arrangements. The goal of business and the mark of success in that business is not the ability to ensure a neighbor doesn’t make more money in that business. It’s the ability of businesses, protein producers included, to pivot and market their product in a way that conveys the true value of that product to consumers.

The beauty of the U.S. food supply, other than its abundance, affordability, and safety, is the ability to purchase food products that align with consumers’ beliefs, budget, and preferences.

A market that allows producers who seek to produce a product to which some consumers assign more value, isn’t unfair. It’s business.

Rachel Gabel is a longtime agriculture writer and the assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine.