Capital Update – For the Week Ending Sept. 5, 2025

Pork Industry Backs Investigation of Brazil’s ‘Unfair’ Trade Practices

What happened: NPPC Vice President of Government Affairs Maria C. Zieba testified before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in favor of opening an investigation of Brazil’s unfair tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.

The South American country, Zieba pointed out, ignores its international commitments under the World Trade Organization’s Sanitary-Phytosanitary Agreement, imposing several requirements on imported products that are more stringent than they are on domestic products. Brazil claims this is to ensure imports meet an appropriate level of protection for animal health and food safety.

Another of Brazil’s non-tariff barriers is its insistence that U.S. pork be either frozen or tested for trichinae despite U.S. biosecurity measures that have reduced the risk of Trichinella in the U.S. swine herd to negligible levels. The trichinae requirements violate numerous provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.

In Zieba’s testimony and in comments submitted to USTR in mid-August, it was noted that Brazil has failed to finalize an export certificate to allow entry of U.S. pork, citing the U.S. government’s acceptance of regionalization from European Union countries that have African swine fever. But Brazil submitted a similar regionalization agreement request to the United States for Foot and Mouth Disease, which the U.S. government recognized and which has allowed pork from the Santa Catarina region of Brazil to be exported to the United States.

NPPC’s take: Brazil has a de facto ban on U.S. pork that stymies access to its market for reasons that lack scientific justification and violate several international trade commitments, Zieba told USTR.

NPPC supports a Section 301– Relief from Unfair Trade Practices – investigation on Brazil’s trade barriers and requests that USTR work to eliminate them so fresh, frozen, and processed U.S. pork can be shipped to Latin America’s largest economy.

Why it matters: One of the largest consumers of pork in the world, Brazil imports almost no pork from the United States. Conversely, over the past decade, Brazilian pork exports to the United States have risen by more than 1,900 percent, increasing from $5.2 million in 2014 to more than $104 million in 2024.

EPA Sticks with Existing Effluent Regulation for Packing Plants

What happened: In a win for pig farmers and pork processors, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will not change its longstanding Meat and Poultry Processing Effluent Guidelines and Standards.

In 2024, following the filing of “sue and settle” litigation by animal rights, environmental, and other social justice activist groups – including Food and Water Watch, the Humane Society of the United States, Waterkeeper Alliance, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund – the Biden Administration’s EPA proposed costly changes to its MPP regulations that would have imposed more stringent permitting provisions for meat processors nationwide. These changes would have required numerous plants to shut down or slow down processing, while making major facility upgrades and installing costly new wastewater treatment technologies. EPA’s internal analysis showed that dozens of plants, mostly small- and medium-sized ones, would have been unable to afford the changes and would eventually shut down permanently, eliminating vital markets for pig farmers.

Over the past two years, NPPC and other impacted stakeholders worked with EPA to understand the true impact of the proposal on livestock production and the meat processing industry. In deciding not to act, EPA determined that the proposal would have no positive environmental impact, and it may have even undermined existing wastewater protections already in place.

NPPC’s take: While the agricultural industry and the meat and poultry processing sectors support clean water efforts, NPPC and other stakeholders opposed the proposed changes to the MPP Effluent Guidelines and Standards as overly burdensome and unnecessary.

“As proposed by the previous administration, this rule, which provides no environmental benefits, would have been devastating to small- and medium-sized meat processors across the country and the livestock farmers who rely on them as markets for their animals,” said NPPC President Duane Stateler, a pork producer from McComb, Ohio.

Why it matters: The Biden-era MPP Effluent Guidelines and Standards would have disrupted packing capacity and livestock markets and inflicted additional financial harm on producers, leading to further industry concentration and the loss of independent farmers. According to EPA’s data, the proposed changes would have cost the meat and poultry industries over $1.1 billion annually and resulted in up to 316,000 lost jobs.

Review Finds Wholesale Pork Reporting Critical to Producers

What happened: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service recently completed a review of wholesale pork reporting under the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, which is critically important to pork producers.

Since 2001, the LMRA has required meatpackers to report to USDA the prices they pay for cattle, hogs, and lambs and other information. USDA uses the data to publish twice-daily reports with information on pricing, contracting for purchase, supply and demand conditions for livestock, livestock production, and livestock product values.

Starting in 2013, the LMR program mandated reporting on wholesale pork prices and volumes, which USDA uses to calculate and report the pork cutout. Price, volume, and export data from the wholesale pork reports are published 12 times a week. Despite changes in the U.S. pork industry over the past decade, no review of mandatory wholesale pork reporting had ever been done.

The review’s researchers found that wholesale pork reporting “plays a critical role in price discovery and trend analysis. Industry participants use the information for conducting commerce and studying industry trends.” Based on their findings, the researchers made several recommendations to AMS on enhancing the reports. For a list of the recommendations and to read the review, click here.

NPPC’s take: A strong supporter of the LMR program, NPPC, along with its Competitive Markets Committee, provided feedback and worked with researchers conducting the review to represent industry priorities. NPPC will continue to engage with USDA to ensure robust pork data reporting.

Why it matters: The LMR program is the sole source of market information on sales to packers of cattle, swine, and lambs and the subsequent sale of meat products. Market data, including information on wholesale pork, ensures reliable and accurate information that influences business decisions is available to producers and other market participants, including those in the futures market.

Risk Management Agency Issues Guidance on ‘Subsidy Capture’

What happened: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency issued guidance on what constitutes “subsidy capture” under Livestock Risk Protection. LRP is a federally subsidized insurance program for insuring against decreases in livestock selling prices while allowing producers to benefit from an increase in market prices.

Subsidy capture, also known as subsidy harvesting, or subsidy arbitrage, is defined as exploiting the difference between the producer-paid LRP premium and the cost of a privately traded livestock contract – such as an options contract – to derive financial gain. As of July 1, 2025, Policyholders and anyone with a substantial beneficial interest are officially prohibited from offsetting LRP coverage for the purpose of subsidy capture, per new policy provisions. Violators may be hit with administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.

For more information about the subsidy capture issue, click here.

NPPC’s take: NPPC strongly urged RMA to provide clarity on subsidy capture to help producers maintain confidence in their use of LRP for risk management.

Why it matters: In CY2025, nearly 36% of hogs marketed in the United States were covered by either LRP or Livestock Gross Margin insurance. Both LRP and LGM have become an integral part of risk management in the pork industry. NPPC works to ensure the availability and long-term viability of risk management tools for pork producers and will continue working to protect and improve LRP and LGM.

USDA to Take Action to Increase Number of Veterinarians

What happened: U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently announced a commitment to increase the number of food animal veterinarians across the country and recruit veterinarians to join the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help protect America’s farmers, animals, and the U.S. food supply.

With large animal veterinarians in short supply, USDA’s Rural Veterinary Action Plan will make new investments in scholarships for college students to go into veterinary medicine and initiate incentives for veterinarians to work for the agency.

Among other actions, USDA also will:

• Increase the funding and streamline the application process – making it online – for the Veterinary Grant Programs, including the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program and the Veterinary Services Grant Program.
• Analyze the rural veterinary shortages to better understand the needs of farmers and ranchers. USDA’s Economic Research Service will study the issue and produce a report by mid-2026 so informed policy decisions can be made.
• Recruit and retain USDA veterinarians, who can be posted to rural areas, used at U.S. ports of entry, and tasked with working on export certificates, by making government service more attractive. Options under consideration include special pay rates for federal government veterinarians, increased tuition reimbursements, and recruitment bonuses for federal veterinarians.

NPPC’s take: NPPC strongly supports the recruitment of more veterinarians, particularly livestock veterinarians, and the urging of veterinarians to work for USDA to help ensure the health of food animals and the safety of the food supply.

Why it matters: Rural veterinarians are vital to the agricultural economy in the United States, with farmers and ranchers relying on their critical services to prevent the transmission of animal diseases, protect the U.S. food supply, and support America’s rural economy.