"Meatpackers' apologists, some of whom claim to be journalists, are openly engaged in an unethical smear campaign targeted at Dudley Butler, Administrator of USDA's (U.S. Department of Agriculture's) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), who heads the agency charged with overseeing the livestock procurement practices of meatpackers by enforcing the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act,"

::::::::

Billings, Mont. In a desperate effort to preserve the multinational meatpackers' freedom to continue exploiting consumers and livestock producers with their abusive, monopolistic market power, packer apologists have stooped to a new low.

"Meatpackers' apologists, some of whom claim to be journalists, are openly engaged in an unethical smear campaign targeted at Dudley Butler, Administrator of USDA's (U.S. Department of Agriculture's) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), who heads the agency charged with overseeing the livestock procurement practices of meatpackers by enforcing the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.

In June, Butler's agency issued a proposed rule (GIPSA rule) to implement provisions contained in the Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits meatpackers from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive livestock procurement practices, or from using their inherent market power to prejudice or disadvantage U.S. livestock producers.

"The purpose of the proposed GIPSA rule is to prevent monopolistic meatpackers from capturing control of the livestock supply chain away from independent family farmers and ranchers," Bullard said. "And, the rule does this by preventing meatpackers from actually exercising their inherent, monopolistic market power to harm both consumers and livestock producers."

Bullard charges that meatpackers and their apologists are trying to divert attention away from the necessity of the GIPSA rule by attacking the GIPSA chief. He said the first attack came from BEEF magazine writer Troy Marshall, who unethically captured only a partial response Butler made to an audience member's question during the annual meeting of the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) over a year ago. Bullard said Marshall then used Butler's partial response to falsely accuse the GIPSA chief of intending to encourage more lawsuits in the livestock industry with the GIPSA rule.

OCM Executive Director Fred Stokes agreed: "Marshall not only unethically twisted Administrator Butler's statement, but he also purposely ignored Butler's contrast between conditions as they presently exist in the marketplace, which Butler said creates such uncertainty as to be "a lawyer's dream, a plaintiff lawyer's dream,' and how those conditions could be corrected with a rule that removes uncertainty by defining the perimeters of unlawful livestock procurement practices which, obviously, would significantly reduce the potential for litigation.

"I carefully reviewed the taped conversation between Mr. Butler and the audience, which is the same conversation that Marshall used to attack Mr. Butler, and there is no way any ethical person could draw such a perverse conclusion as did Marshall," said Stokes.

Stokes provided to R-CALFUSA a transcript of the conversation.

Transcript of Administrator Butler's conversation during OCM's 2009 annual meeting:

I truly believe that if you are going to regulate, authority has to be tempered with common sense.

You cannot try to over-regulate you cannot try to under-regulate.

I am a big believer in balance and consistency.

If we want the industry to survive over the long haul, it has to be balanced.

We are developing rules that deal with problems in the marketplace across the board.

It's just like a piece of legislation, you can't write a perfect piece of legislation.

We need your comments so we can put out the best finished product possible.

Looking at it from the standpoint of sections 202 A and B, when you have terms like unfair, unreasonable, or undue prejudice, that's a lawyer's dream, a plaintiff lawyer's dream. We can get in front of a jury on that without getting thrown out on what we call summary judgment, because that's a jury question.

But the real thing now in trying to solve the problem quickly is not only to address the market issues, but to define some of these terms, to put parameters around them. What you can do, what the company can't do, what has got to happen in the marketplace.

"There's absolutely nothing in what Mr. Butler said that supports Marshall's unethical allegation that Mr. Butler intends for the GIPSA rule to increase litigation involving meatpacker procurement practices," Stokes pointed out. "In fact, Mr. Butler's response states exactly the opposite. His stated intention is to issue a rule that would, by defining the ambiguous terms contained in the Packers and Stockyards Act, and by putting parameters around those terms, inform both livestock producers and meatpackers about what they can and cannot do in the marketplace. This, obviously, would alleviate the current condition in the marketplace that now invites litigation and which Butler called "a lawyers dream, a plaintiff lawyer's dream.'"

Marshall 's unethical attack on Mr. Butler opened the door for additional, and equally hideous, attacks on the GIPSA chief," said Bullard.

On Nov. 2, 2010, the news service AgWired ran a story titled "DC Media Question Motives of GIPSA Boss," and cited as a factual source an anonymous article titled "Fox Guarding the Hen House," which not only referenced Marshall's unethical attack, but also, asserted that Butler could profit from the rule he has proposed when he returns to private practice. The meatpackers' biggest supporter, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), also jumped at the opportunity to deceive the public by stating in a blog: " Butler has let his personal preferences take charge as he moves forward with a proposed rule that he has suggested will be a "trial lawyer's dream.'"

"These accusations are absurd, and the circulation of these articles that are leading this absurdity is not journalism as we know it," Bullard asserted. "A rule that reduces uncertainty will necessarily and inherently reduce litigation, unless the packers choose to continue to knowingly engage in unlawful conduct.

"The writers and distributers of this unethical nonsense are demonstrating the same type of deceptive and corrupt practices as the meatpackers are using to hideously exploit livestock producers and consumers. They are a disgrace to the livestock industry and to the journalism profession," Bullard concluded.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALFUSA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALFUSA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALFUSA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

Authors Bio:
R-CALF USA, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members are located in 46 states, and the organization has many local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA.

With a very small staff, R-CALF USA is dependent on its 15 directors, several committee chairs and numerous other volunteers. Articles upload to op-ed news are written by various staff or volunteers, and unless recognized in the article, should be attributed to the organization and not an individual.