This is the next in the series explaining the accusations against the beef packers.
Opening Statements
Charge (Media/Prosecution): Foreign-controlled packers, principally JBS (Brazil), National Beef/Marfrig (Brazil), control the U.S. beef market. Their ability to own U.S. plants and import product from affiliated foreign operations allows them to shape domestic prices and supply to the detriment of U.S. producers and consumers.
Defense (Packers): Foreign ownership is material but not controlling on the total FI market (fed + non-fed). Ownership ≠ price-setting power. Observed prices, spreads, and margins follow fundamentals (herd cycles, capacity utilization, logistics, and retail stickiness), not nationality. Affiliated imports mostly fill lean-trim gaps and are constrained by U.S. regulation and buyer standards.
Ground Rules
Relevant market.
- Media: Fed-cattle (steers/heifers) slaughter = the price-setting core for boxed beef.
- Packers: Total FI beef (fed + non-fed), measured where procurement is actually contested; regional draw areas (~150–250 miles), not a single national auction.
Burden of proof. Durable market power must be shown in outcomes (prices, margins, spreads) beyond what fundamentals justify. “Foreign ownership” alone is not dispositive.
Facts Not in Dispute (scope and shares)
- Fed segment is concentrated; the “Big 4” dominate fed throughput.
- On total FI (fed + non-fed), concentration falls meaningfully vs. fed-only snapshots.
- Directionally, recent plant-level rollups place JBS as the largest single foreign owner on total FI, National Beef (Marfrig) comes in second.
- In many recent years, JBS + National together land in the low–to–mid-30% of total FI production (varies with actual utilization).
- Exact annual percentages require a plant-by-plant capacity and realized-throughput table (fed vs. non-fed) for the year in question.
The Media’s Case (Defendant)
Count 1 — Structure & foreign control
- Two of the dominant fed packers are foreign-controlled (JBS, National/Marfrig). Combined, foreign parents anchor a large footprint in the price-setting fed segment.
- They went from owning 0% of production in 2006 to 34% in 2025
Count 2 — Affiliated imports as a lever
- Foreign parents can toggle import flows (e.g., Brazil 0201/0202 muscle cuts; 90CL lean trim) while operating U.S. plants, giving them portfolio options to stabilize boxes and potentially dampen cattle bids in tight windows.
Count 3 — Thin spot + AMA dependence
- Negotiated cash is thin in several regions; AMAs/formulas benchmark off LMR spot. In a high-CR4 environment, small scheduling/basis moves by large foreign-controlled firms could nudge a thin benchmark that prices a much larger formula volume.
Count 4 — Shock episodes
- Holcomb and COVID produced spread blowouts when capacity buckled. With few owners of chain speed, bottlenecks translate to wider spreads and weaker bids—the pattern, says the Media, of power in action.
Media’s ask: Conclude that foreign-controlled owners possess market-shaping power in fed cattle, reinforced by affiliated imports and thin cash discovery.
The Packers’ Case (Plaintiff)
Count 1 — Market definition & actual shares
- “Control of U.S. beef” must be judged on total FI. On that basis, foreign-controlled share is sub-majority and variable; regional draw areas show multiple active buyers with rivalry fluctuating on logistics/outages.
- Looking at fed beef slaughter alone, foreign ownership is still well below a majority share (~34%).
- Other industries (cellular service, Beer) share similar foreign ownership percentages with little to know concern over foreign dominance.
Count 2 — Imports are a composition valve, not a control lever
- Most imports into the U.S. complex are lean trimmings (90CL) that balance grinds when non-fed supply is short; supporting retail ground beef, not suppressing fed bids nationwide.
- Imports have increased in recent years, as domestic production has curtailed; helping to cure the imbalance of low trim availability for ground beef.
- Imported muscle cuts face tariffs/quotas/inspection and retailer specs; they compete rather than dictate.
Count 3 — Outcomes track fundamentals, not nationality
- Live ↔ wholesale co-move; spreads widen when utilization falls and compress as chain speed normalizes.
- Retail is the enduring spread (category management, labor, packaging, shrink).
- Margins cycle and loss periods; incompatible with the idea that foreign owners can set prices at will.
- Our bid-dispersion work shows breathing competition, not the near-zero compression you’d expect under coordination.
Count 4 — Owning U.S. plants and importing can be pro-supply
- Dual roles increase supply reliability (backfilling shocks, balancing trim needs). All imports must clear FSIS/CBP/LMR and commercial buyer programs; related-party transactions are scrutinized in audits and filings.
Packers’ ask: Foreign ownership ≠ control. Measured on total FI and regional rivalry, the data (dispersion, utilization-linked margins, retail lag) contradict the control thesis.
Character and Governance (Neutral Sidebar)
JBS/J&F bribery history (Brazil) & U.S. context.
- Public record shows bribery-related admissions/settlements with Brazilian authorities and FCPA-related resolutions; these events overlap periods of international expansion, including U.S. acquisitions.
- JBS has stated it implemented compliance enhancements (ethics programs, third-party controls, internal monitoring).
Why it matters (media’s angle):
- Governance failures heighten concerns that global cash flows and portfolio positioning (imports + U.S. plants) could be opportunistically timed to influence markets, warranting enhanced transparency.
Why it isn’t dispositive (packers’ angle):
- Misconduct abroad does not prove U.S. price control. U.S. operations face FSIS, CBP, LMR, DOJ/FTC, SEC oversight and retailer audits. If control were exercised, we’d observe persistent supranormal margins and abnormally tight bid dispersion outside shock windows. BOTTOM LINE: we don’t.
Jury Instructions (Deciding Tests)
- Shares: Are JBS + National a majority on total FI production? (If no, control of U.S. beef is hard to sustain.)
- Dispersion: Do regional bids show abnormal compression beyond freight/quality/utilization?
- Utilization model: Do margins/spreads normalize as capacity returns?
- Import-timing test: Do affiliated imports systematically depress bids after controlling for composition and retail lag?
- Governance relevance: Credibility concerns justify transparency, but they must be corroborated by outcomes to prove control.
Verdict (Reasoned)
- Foreign ownership: Material but not controlling on total FI. Fed is concentrated; total FI is less so.
- Affiliated imports: Mostly a composition valve (lean trim, timing); not shown to be a standing price lever once fundamentals are controlled.
- Outcomes: Bid dispersion breathes, margins cycle (including loss periods), spreads track utilization and retail; not a durable, nationality-based control mechanism.
- Governance: JBS/J&F history elevates scrutiny and supports transparency reforms, but it does not establish market control on its own.
Finding: The claim of foreign control of U.S. beef as a durable, market-wide pricing power is not proven on the economic record. Heightened transparency and compliance are warranted; a verdict of control is not.
— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “The Big Bad Beef Packer” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.
Your Next Read: Did Meatpackers Collude to Raise Beef Prices?
You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial
