Concentrated power: meatpacking coordination, fertilizer shortages, and seed market consolidation
A news briefing from Farm Action’s policy team
Justice Department and Agri Stats reach proposed settlement
What happened: The Department of Justice has reached a proposed settlement with Agri Stats, the data company accused of illegally sharing detailed pricing, production, labor, and cost information among competing poultry companies. The DOJ originally sued Agri Stats in 2023, alleging its detailed industry reports facilitated coordinated behavior among meat companies in ways that harmed competition and contributed to higher food prices.
Under the settlement, Agri Stats agreed to stop providing certain sales and operational reports to meat companies, place limits on the timeliness and specificity of shared data, and make much of its information available publicly rather than exclusively to processors. The settlement will also require the company to adopt antitrust compliance measures and operate under oversight from a court-approved monitor.
Source: Agri-Pulse, Civil Eats
Why it matters: This settlement marks a significant recognition that detailed information sharing between dominant firms can distort competition—even without explicit price-fixing. DOJ effectively forced Agri Stats to shut down some of its most impactful reporting practices, including sales reports and processors rankings, and introduced restrictions that enhanced anonymity and dated the information, but the broader benchmarking system remains intact and the meatpacking industry itself remains concentrated. Ultimately, the settlement may make coordination harder, but it leaves open whether Agri Stats’ remaining reporting practices can avoid weakening competition in meat markets where concentration is the root vulnerability.
U.S. beef imports set to rise further under new Trump orders, but timing is uncertain
What happened: President Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders aimed at lowering record-high beef prices by increasing beef imports and encouraging expansion of the U.S. cattle herd. However, the exact timing of the plan’s rollout seems to have been delayed, as Hill Republicans expressed concern over the move. Administration officials have said the announcement may come after a trade summit with China later this week.
According to reports, the actions could temporarily suspend tariff-rate quotas to allow more imported beef into the country at lower tariff rates. Reports have also indicated that JBS-owner, Joesley Batista, helped broker the recent U.S.-Brazil trade discussions tied to the administration’s import strategy.
Source: Reuters, Agri-Pulse
Why it matters: The administration is presenting expanded beef imports as a solution to high grocery prices and a way to support cattle producers, but previous import increases have done little to reduce costs for consumers. Despite rising imports from countries like Argentina, beef prices have continued climbing—highlighting how concentrated meatpacking power, not simply supply shortages, is driving dysfunction in the market.
Expanding imports into that system is likely to place renewed pressure on American cattle ranchers while delivering little relief at the grocery store. Instead, the biggest beneficiaries are likely to be multinational meatpacking corporations like JBS, which profit from controlling both imported and domestic supply chains in an already consolidated market.
The involvement of JBS also raises broader concerns about political influence and who this policy is truly designed to benefit. JBS owners Joesley and Wesley Batista became internationally notorious after 2017 investigations revealed extensive bribery schemes used to secure government-backed financing and fuel the company’s global expansion, including into the U.S. meatpacking sector. Reports that Joesley Batista helped broker recent U.S.-Brazil trade discussions—combined with JBS’s major donations tied to Trump’s inauguration efforts—raise serious concerns about the influence major meatpacking corporations may have over trade policy.
Mosaic cuts U.S. phosphate production as global fertilizer shortages loom
What happened: Mosaic, the leading phosphate fertilizer producer in the U.S., announced it will temporarily scale back domestic phosphate production because of soaring sulfuric acid costs, raising more concerns about U.S. fertilizer supplies. The company said it will cut production roughly in half at its Faustina facility in Louisiana and at its Bartow facility in Florida while it reassesses its 2026 production plans. Mosaic executives said disruptions in global sulfur markets—particularly tied to instability affecting Middle Eastern exports—have sharply increased input costs. Sulfuric acid is a key component in phosphate fertilizer production, making up more than half of some finished phosphate products.
Source: Agri-Pulse
Why it matters: The announcement comes just weeks after Mosaic said it would idle two fertilizer operations in Brazil, curtailing production there by roughly 1 million tons annually. Now the company is scaling back U.S. production as well, while Mosaic President Bruce Bodine warns that global phosphate production may not be sufficient to meet demand this year.
That dynamic highlights a deeper problem in the fertilizer market: competition is failing to work the way it should. In a functioning competitive market, periods of tight supply and rising prices would normally create incentives to expand production and stabilize supply. Instead, one of the world’s dominant phosphate producers is pulling production offline and openly discussing the possibility of further curtailments.
The fertilizer sector’s high level of concentration gives a small number of companies enormous influence over global supply and pricing. When dominant firms reduce production during periods of supply stress, farmers are left exposed to even higher costs and greater volatility. The result is a fertilizer system where supply disruptions, geopolitical instability, and corporate production decisions can quickly ripple through the farm economy—squeezing farmers while dominant firms retain significant control over the market.
DOJ files statement in Corteva v. Inari case
What happened: The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case between Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture Inc., where Corteva accuses Inari of unlawfully copying patented seed technology. In its filing, DOJ warned against interpreting patent law in ways that “squash nascent competitors” or block follow-on innovation. The agency emphasized that because the seed industry is already highly concentrated and difficult for new entrants to access, patent protections must be balanced with the public’s ability to access, understand, and build upon patented biological material.
Source: DOJ, Hagstrom Report
Why it matters: This is a notable signal from DOJ tying seed patents directly to competition concerns in agriculture. The agency is effectively arguing that dominant seed companies should not be able to use intellectual property protections to wall off entire areas of innovation—especially in a market already controlled by a handful of firms. While DOJ did not weigh in on who should win the case, the filing reinforces a broader concern that overly expansive interpretations of seed patents could further entrench consolidation and make it even harder for smaller companies to compete, innovate, and develop alternative seed technologies.