USDA Launches $50M Stand-Up Program to Accelerate State Meat Inspection

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced Sept. 16 the Stand-Up Program, a USDA initiative providing up to $50 million in funding to assist states in starting or expanding their own meat inspection programs in partnership with the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

The program fulfills President Donald J. Trump’s Sept. 4 Executive Order aimed at expanding domestic market access for independent livestock producers, lowering processing bottlenecks and strengthening the agricultural supply chain.

Key Program Details

High initial startup costs have historically prevented states from launching localized inspection systems. The Stand-Up Program covers these initial costs so small, very small and mid-sized processors can obtain inspection certification and expand capacity for local livestock producers.

“Under President Trump, we are revitalizing rural America by providing tools that help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities thrive. The President directed USDA to open more markets for American ranchers, and we are delivering,” Rollins says. “Too many states have wanted a food inspection program of their own and could not get past the start-up costs. Now they can. Food safety standards will not move, and more state programs mean more local processing, more competition for the rancher’s cattle, and more American meat on American tables.”

Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Mindy Brashears adds, “The United States has one of the strongest, most interconnected food safety systems in the world, and our state inspection programs play a big role. State inspection programs share the same mission as FSIS, which is ensuring safe food for American families. When we invest in our state partners, we’re not just adding processing capacity in rural America. We’re doing it in a way that is practical, backed by science and data, and built to protect public health.”

How State Meat Inspection Works: MPI vs. CIS

Currently, 30 states participate under the Meat and Poultry Inspection Program (MPI) program, but only 11 of the 30 eligible states participate in the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says high regulatory and compliance costs have been barriers for further state participation.

“Additionally, persistent labor challenges in the processing sector continue to create challenges and uncertainty around efforts to diversify processing options for producers around the country,” NCBA reports. “While the announcement includes funding, structural changes need to happen within the program to help support additional states participation. While additional resources are certainly welcome and needed, farmers and ranchers need USDA to make progress on the real and persistent hurdles state meat inspection programs face.”

MPI Program:
Regulatory Standard: Must be “at least equal to” federal food safety laws.
Market Scope: Products inspected under an MPI program can only be sold intrastate (within state lines).
State Participation (30 States): Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

CIS Program:
Regulatory Standard: Must be the “same as” federal inspection requirements.
Market Scope: Qualifying small processors (fewer than 25 employees) can ship meat interstate (across state lines) bearing the official USDA mark of inspection.
Eligibility: Limited exclusively to states that already operate an FSIS-approved State MPI program.
State Participation (11 States): Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Can Small Plants Move the Needle on Beef Capacity?

“I am not against “beefing up” state inspection, but at the same time, I am inclined to believe that this will not go very far with regard to Rollins’ desire to increase packing/processing capacity,” says John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing president. “There is much more to the economics of the industry than the Administration wanting to ‘revitalize rural America.’ Also, increasing capacity in rural America requires the people who want to fill the jobs. That may be easier said than done.”

Echoing those economic realities Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University livestock marketing specialist, points out that while the total number of federally inspected packing plants has rebounded to 937 — reversing a decades-long consolidation trend that bottomed out in 2007 — small plants tell a different story. Small plants with capacities under 100,000 head have grown their collective footprint, now accounting for 7.1% of total cattle slaughter.

Table 1. Beef Packing Industry Structure by Size, 2000 and 2025.

“I’m not sure what the definition of very small, small and mid-size processor is but in Table 1, the two smallest categories (2025) combined account for 90.8% of total processors but just 2.2% of cattle slaughter,” Peel explains. “These categories combined have a weekly slaughter of under 15 head/week. The next category has just 25 facilities (2.7%) and an average slaughter of under 500 head per week, accounting for another 2% of cattle slaughter.”

Peel says the new regulations do not appear to weaken food safety and will provide some new opportunities for a few specific producers and consumers. “But it is unlikely to have any significant or noticeable impact on total slaughter capacity or beef production for the country,” he summarizes. “Given the cattle slaughter rate this year (down 7.2% year over year), in order to increase cattle slaughter by 1%, it would require 104 new facilities with 50 head/week capacity or 522 new facilities with 10 head/week capacity.”

He also points out the small slaughter plants have per head costs that are three to five times higher than large packers.

“Consumers will pay higher prices — it may be worth it to them to have local beef, producers might get more for their cattle, but only if the consumers buying the beef are willing to pay higher prices that more than cover the higher processing costs,” he concludes. “Expanding small processing capacity will not result in lower beef costs for the public.”