Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act

Bill Number

S. 4007

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Agriculture and Food

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-03-05: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S883-887)

Last Updated

2026-03-27T11:03:21Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act aims to restore competition in the U.S. meatpacking industry, which is dominated by a few large firms. It seeks to reduce excessive market concentration in beef, pork, and poultry processing, reverse harmful mergers, and promote fairer practices. By breaking up dominant companies and limiting foreign influence, the bill intends to protect farmers, workers, and consumers while lowering meat prices and supporting rural economies.

Key Provisions

The bill is structured into six titles, focusing on divestitures, market deconcentration, foreign ownership restrictions, price fairness, funding for new competitors, and enforcement.

• Title I: Breaking Up the Meatpacking Industry
• Prohibits any large meatpacking company (defined as a "covered meatpacking enterprise," similar to "packer" under existing law but with added thresholds for small operators) from operating in more than one "line of protein" (e.g., beef, pork, or poultry).
• Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to develop and oversee divestiture plans within 120 days, including selling assets or creating new independent entities, prioritizing sales to farmers' cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, or small/mid-sized firms.

• Title II: Specific Rules for Consolidation in Beef Meatpacking Market
• Sets concentration limits in beef markets using metrics like the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI, a measure of market concentration where higher numbers indicate less competition) and CR4 (combined market share of the top four firms).
• Triggers divestiture if HHI exceeds 1,800, CR4 exceeds 50%, or any single firm holds 30% or more market share in regional or national beef markets.
• Outlines a step-by-step divestiture process: Largest firms must sell major facilities until thresholds are met; if impossible, the FTC uses other tools to reduce concentration.
• Limits vertical integration by capping how much cattle a packer can buy from any large feedlot (over 24,000 head capacity) at 10% of the feedlot's output per year.
• Creates a private right of action for affected feedlot owners to sue violators for triple damages based on price differences, plus attorney fees; the FTC can impose similar penalties to compensate victims.

• Title III: Prohibiting Foreign Leverage Over Domestic Beef and Pork Markets
• Bans "covered foreign-controlled meatpacking enterprises" (initially JBS S.A. and affiliates; others added by FTC rule) from operating in the U.S.
• Mandates divestiture of U.S. operations within 120 days (extendable to 210 days), transferring assets to U.S.-based independent entities or buyers, with consideration of past corruption (e.g., bribery under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
• Requires an FTC study within 180 days on other foreign-owned firms (e.g., those linked to China), in consultation with national security agencies; allows further divestitures subject to congressional review via a disapproval process.

• Title IV: Bringing Prices Down for the American Family
• Directs the FTC to submit a report within 180 days on using its existing powers under the Packers and Stockyards Act and Federal Trade Commission Act to combat unfair or discriminatory meat pricing at retail and wholesale levels.
• The report must cover enforcement plans, investigations, coordination with agencies like the USDA and DOJ, impacts on vulnerable communities, and recommendations for more authority; it emphasizes studying pricing practices that harm small grocers and consumers.

• Title V: Funding the Development of New Competitors
• Authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide loans, guarantees, and technical help to farmers' cooperatives and small businesses for buying or expanding divested meatpacking facilities.
• Prioritizes local/regional operations that boost competition; funds are authorized as needed.

• Title VI: Rulemaking and Enforcement Authority
• Empowers the FTC to enforce via civil penalties (up to 10% of violator's revenue, or triple damages for knowing violations), court actions, and equitable remedies like monitors or asset freezes.
• Requires FTC rulemaking within 90 days on market definitions, divestiture standards, and foreign entity identification.
• Penalty funds support new competitors; USDA must assist FTC with information.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Antitrust Expansion: Introduces mandatory structural remedies (e.g., forced divestitures based on fixed concentration thresholds) beyond the voluntary merger reviews in laws like the Clayton Act or Sherman Act; applies to existing firms, not just future deals.
• Foreign Ownership Restrictions: Adds outright bans and targeted divestitures for foreign-controlled firms, building on but exceeding national security reviews under CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States).
• Vertical Integration Limits: New caps on packer-feedlot dealings, with private lawsuits and penalties, strengthening the Packers and Stockyards Act's protections against unfair practices.
• FTC Jurisdiction: Clarifies and boosts FTC authority over retail meat pricing under existing statutes, including compulsory information requests for market studies.
• Support Mechanisms: Creates new SBA funding streams tied to divestitures, unlike prior general small business aid.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: The FTC gains significant new responsibilities, including rapid rulemaking, divestiture oversight, and interagency coordination (e.g., with USDA, DOJ, and national security bodies), potentially straining resources but enhancing antitrust tools in agriculture. SBA will handle increased loan applications.
• Citizens: Consumers may see lower meat prices (e.g., addressing 16%+ rises in beef) and more choices; farmers and ranchers could gain better bargaining power and income share (from ~30% to higher, as in 1970 levels); workers might benefit from safer jobs and reduced plant shutdowns. Rural and low-income areas could improve food access.
• International Relations: Could strain ties with countries like Brazil (JBS) and China (Smithfield/WH Group) through forced sales of U.S. assets, raising food security concerns; promotes U.S.-based control, potentially viewed as protectionist and affecting global trade in agricultural investments.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Large Meatpackers: Dominant firms (e.g., the "Big Four" controlling 85% of beef) face breakups, divestitures, and operational limits, disrupting multi-protein businesses.
• Farmers, Ranchers, and Feedlots: Independent producers gain protections from buyer power abuses; cooperatives receive funding preferences for new processing capacity.
• Workers: Benefits from fairer wages, safer conditions, and job stability in restructured plants; worker-owned entities are prioritized in asset sales.
• Consumers and Grocers: Families and small/neighborhood stores may experience lower, fairer prices and reduced discrimination; broader access in underserved areas.
• Small/Regional Processors and Businesses: Encouraged through funding and divestiture preferences to enter or expand, fostering competition.
• Foreign Entities: Companies like JBS and Chinese-owned firms must divest U.S. operations, impacting their global strategies.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Enhances private enforcement via lawsuits for feedlot violations, potentially increasing litigation; relies on FTC's "unfair methods" authority, which could face court challenges over vagueness in pricing probes. Divestitures must align with public interest standards to avoid antitrust overreach.
• Constitutional: Forced asset sales raise potential Takings Clause issues under the Fifth Amendment if seen as uncompensated property seizures, though framed as competition remedies; congressional review of foreign divestitures adds a check on executive power.
• Political: Targets industry consolidation and foreign influence, appealing to populist concerns over food prices and security, but may draw opposition from big business lobbies; bipartisan sponsors signal cross-aisle support, yet implementation could spark debates on government intervention in markets.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]

Cosponsors (14)

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA], Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT], Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI], Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ], Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT], Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI], Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

Recent Actions

• 2026-03-05: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S883-887)
• 2026-03-05: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act — issued 2026-03-05 — PDF (35 pages)