National Pork Producers Council - NPPC

A $10.4 Trillion Engine: Agriculture Drives One-Fifth of the U.S. Economy

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 12:46:58 GMT

Did you know that close to one in every three jobs nationwide is tied to food and agriculture? The latest Feeding the Economy Report says food and agriculture support about 49 million jobs, which is about 30% of total U.S. employment. Although less than 2% are on the farm, when you add food manufacturing, wholesale and retail, that adds another 24 million jobs, or about 15% of the workforce.

Each year, the Feeding the Economy Report measures the downstream, off-the-farm economic impact of U.S. agriculture. Danny Munch, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, says the report tracks three layers of impact.

“When you combine those layers, ag supports about $10.4 trillion in economic output, or about one-fifth of the entire U.S. economy,” Munch said on the Newsline podcast .

2025: $900-Billion Growth in U.S. Agricultural Industry

The U.S. agricultural industry grew by nearly $900 billion over the past year, according to this study led each year by the Corn Refiners Association and sponsored by three dozen agriculture and food organizations, including the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).

The first layer is direct activity, which includes the base level of food and ag production that is traditionally measured. It also measures supply industries like transportation, finance, equipment manufacturing and inputs in the second layer. The third includes the ripple effects of those two stages on how wages are earned and spent throughout the rest of the system.

“So, all the benefits we were talking about – jobs, wages, tax revenue – they’re tied to where that production happens,” Munch says. “If production shifts overseas due to cost pressures, regulatory burdens or competitive challenges, that economic activity moves with it. So, it’s not just about the food supply, it’s about all these other jobs, tax revenue and economic commerce that supports industries across every corner of every state.”

The report includes a state-by-state breakdown of agriculture’s economic impact, showing total jobs, wages, output, taxes and exports. Key findings include:

Food and agriculture generated more than $3 trillion in wages for U.S. workers, with wages rising 4% year-over-year and 13% over the past decade.
Food manufacturing remains the largest manufacturing sector in the U.S., employing almost 2.3 million workers.
U.S. food and agriculture exports were more than $177 billion, though exports declined by $5.4 billion year-over-year, underscoring the need for maintaining strong trade agreements and expanding market access for American products.
The food and agriculture sector produced $1.35 trillion in tax revenue for federal, state and local governments, a 7% increase year-over-year.

“The report confirms the incredible, positive impacts of agriculture on our country,” says NPPC CEO Bryan Humphreys. “America’s 60,000-plus pork producers are proud to help drive this force that provides our food and other agriculture products—and the opportunity to be part of something bigger than themselves by carrying on a tradition of taking care of their families, neighbors, animals and land, and at heart, a way of living that often has been passed down for generations.”

U.S. pork producers annually generate more than $37 billion in personal income, contribute more than $62 billion in GDP, and support more than 573,000 jobs in the U.S. economy, NPPC adds.

What The Trump Administration's Mass Deportation Plans Could Mean for Agriculture

Mon, 23 Dec 2024 18:47:38 GMT

Farmers and food industry leaders are warning that President-elect Donad Trump’s plans to deport millions of immigrants could devastate agriculture — an industry in which immigrants make up a good chunk of the workforce.

Nearly half of all farmworkers are undocumented, and industries such as dairy and meatpacking plants are especially vulnerable to labor shortages.

“Admittedly, there are some people who slip through,” says Scott VanderWal, vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Perspective employers are required to take documentation that appears to be legal and valid. There are times when that’s not the case and then ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] comes in and cleans house, the workers disappear and go wherever they take them and the employers are left without help.”

While the H-2A visa program has grown, it only covers seasonal work and cannot replace year-round jobs at meat processing plants and on dairy and pork farms.

“Our packing plants need labor. Many of our farms use temporary visa labor — educated, skilled individuals work on our sow farms,” says Lori Stevemer, president of the National Pork Producers Council. “We have been experiencing an increased number of denials over the past year, which really makes it a challenge to find workers. The H-2A visa doesn’t work well when we have animals that need care 24/7, year-round.”

Experts say mass deportations would disrupt food production, raise prices and jeopardize the stability of U.S. agriculture.

Deportation falls under the Department of Homeland Security. President-elect Trump has selected South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem to lead that agency.

“With Governor Noem at the helm, she’s going to bring common sense to that discussion and make sure we don’t close businesses, make sure we get everyone in line, get the workforce in line and then make sure we’re following our country’s rules,” says Hunter Roberts, secretary of South Dakota’s Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Meanwhile, farm groups continue to urge for reforms to immigration policies or a guest worker program to secure a stable workforce.

“At the same time as controlling the border, we need to overhaul our labor system,” VanderWal says. “We need to make H-2A apply to your own workers or come up with a decent program that will help.”

We need some type of H-2A visa reform to allow those workers to stay year-round, Stevemer adds.

Even then immigration is likely to continue to be a political hot potato in 2025, and labor shortages will continue to top the list of challenges for agriculture.

The Pork Industry Responds to EPA’s Rodenticide Strategy

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 18:03:43 GMT

Many people in agriculture fear rodenticides will become even more difficult to access and more expensive to use after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s release of the final biological evaluation, and associated response to comments, for 11 rodenticide active ingredients.

From feral hogs and Norway rats to house mice and ground squirrels, the amount of damage caused by these pests in agricultural and non-agricultural settings alike is astounding. Not only do they cause significant damage to property, crops and food supplies, but these pests also spread disease and pose a serious risk to public health.

EPA says the mitigation measures described in this final biological evaluation will serve as the agency’s Rodenticide Strategy as outlined in EPA’s Endangered Species Act Work plan.

“The Devil will be in the detail, and will vary state by state,” says Michael Formica, chief legal strategist at the National Pork Producers Council. “This strategy is going to undermine use of these important rodenticide tools. Producers will need to be licensed by their states to get them, and we’ll have fewer options at a higher price available.”

Formica says this is just another in the “thousands of over-reaching ill-considered regulations that lead to food price inflation.”

Final Biological Evaluation
The 11 rodenticides evaluated in the biological evaluation include: chlorophacinone; diphacinone and its sodium salt; warfarin and its sodium salt; brodifacoum; bromadiolone; difenacoum; difethialone; bromethalin; cholecalciferol; strychnine; and zinc phosphide.

“These rodenticides are intended to control target animals using different biochemical mechanisms (e.g., neurotoxicity, reduced blood clotting). They also have different properties that affect the types of species that may be impacted,” EPA wrote. “For example, some rodenticides may remain in target animals long enough such that predator or scavenger animals that consume the target animals may be affected. The assessment accounts for these different properties across the 11 rodenticides evaluated in the biological evaluation.”

EPA says the final biological evaluation finds that the currently labeled uses of the 11 rodenticides evaluated remained the same as those in the draft biological evaluation, and:

• Will have no effect on 88% of species and 95% percent of critical habitats
• Are not likely to adversely affect 4-11% of species and 1% of critical habitats
• Are likely to adversely affect 1-8% of listed species and 4% of critical habitat
• Have a likelihood of future Jeopardy/Adverse Modification (J/AM) of less than 5% of listed species and less than 1% of critical habitats

“The final Rodenticide Strategy does not itself impose any requirements or restrictions on pesticide use,” EPA says. “Any mitigation measures needed to address potential likelihood of future J/AM for listed species will only apply in geographically specific areas where listed species with J/AM predictions are located, using EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two system, as part of label language, or in the Terms and Conditions of registration.”

Not all of these measures will be necessary for all uses or products containing these pesticide ingredients, EPA explains in the release. These are measures from which EPA expects to choose when reducing exposure to listed species and their critical habitats, as necessary, for a specific active ingredient, use site, and application method. During formal consultation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will use EPA’s effects determinations to inform their biological opinion(s).

Formica says, “This is an overly-broad regulation that imposes unnecessary costs and an additional burden on producers because of concerns by activists and their allies at EPA over alleged misuses that have nothing to do with ag (their concern is urban and suburban consumers putting too much out indiscriminately).”

Rodenticide Access
Over 10 years ago, there was a previous attempt to ban rodenticide use, Formica recalls. Opponents feared people would see a mouse, run to a local retailer and then throw out a lot of rat poison, potentially impacting other animals.

“Then rodenticides were relabeled for ag use only. They created a minimum size you had to buy so you couldn’t buy a small 1 lb package at a suburban big box hardware store, you had to buy 20 lbs from an ag supplier.,” Formica says.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the Federal statute that governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States, according to EPA’s website. Generally, before a pesticide may be sold or distributed in the U.S., it must be registered with the EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

“What they want to do is remove it from store shelves entirely, restrict its access unless you are licensed to apply it,” Formica says. “If you are a grain farmer, you’re probably going to have a FIFRA applicator’s license anyway, but not every hog farmer is a grain farmer and not every cattle rancher is a grain farmer, so they’re going to have to go out and get their FIFRA applicator certification, which is done at the state level,” Formica explains.

In addition, losing the retail market for these rodenticides will make them more difficult to buy for those who need them, he explains.

“It won’t be impossible to buy but you are going to have much fewer choices and you will have to buy larger quantities,” Formica says. “The price goes up as well.”

The final biological evaluation is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0567 on www.regulations.gov.

Your Next Read: Why You Need to Pay Attention Now to EPA’s Proposed Rodenticide Mitigation Measures

A Historical Day: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on Proposition 12

Mon, 15 May 2023 13:41:32 GMT

Operating with the constant backdrop of uncertainty of new and pending legislation makes it difficult to run any business, let alone a farm, says National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) president Terry Wolters, a Minnesota pork producer.

He was one of a handful of pork producers who watched Supreme Court justices grill attorneys with questions during oral arguments on Oct. 11 in NPPC v. Ross brought forward by the American Farm Bureau Federation and NPPC challenging the constitutionality of California Proposition 12.

“Proposition 12 is not good for my animals. It’s not good for the consumers. And it’s definitely a challenge for the future of farming,” Wolters said during a media briefing following oral arguments. “When I’m on the farm in the Midwest, it seems like Washington, DC, can be a long way away. It’s fascinating today to watch the two worlds come together on an issue so significant to our industry.”

From animal welfare and worker safety to food affordability and producer livelihoods, Wolters said Proposition 12 threatens the pork industry. One state should not be able to regulate commerce in another state and set arbitrary standards that lack any scientific, technical or agricultural basis, NPPC said in a statement.

“We’ve worked long and hard to be able to proudly tell the story of the U.S. pig farmer to the Supreme Court. And today was the day...a very remarkable day,” Wolters said.

Michael Formica, NPPC chief legal strategist, agreed it was a good day in court. He said he felt hopeful to hear the justices understand the trouble that will be created by laws like Proposition 12 that reach far outside of the state’s borders and try and impose the moral wills of one state on farmers, or in this case, on any business or operation that’s located entirely in other states.

“It has a tremendous impact on pork production and pork prices. But if let stand, it would have a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and on the flow of commerce across borders,” Formica said.

Competing Morals

The concept of “moral will” was mentioned often throughout the oral arguments. Formica said different states having different competing morals will always be a risk.

“Some of the California voters voted for this, but we have pork producers here on our board and other pork producers in the courtroom today, who every day wake up with a moral imperative to care for their animals, to raise those animals in a sustainable fashion and then ultimately to produce food that feeds everyone and in a fashion that everyone can afford to eat it,” Formica said.

The justices pointed out that farmers’ morals command them to take care of the animals and to produce food. So, what happens when one state comes up with a decision that they determine is the best way to care for animals?

“What happens when Ohio convenes all of its experts and they come up with a decision that they determine is the best way to raise animals in Ohio? Does California have the right to usurp the legislative and regulatory authority of Ohio within the state of Ohio?” Formica asked. “I don’t think the Constitution allows it. I think we heard from justices that they’re very troubled by that notion.”

At the end of the day, NPPC and AFBF support pork producers raising pigs in a way that’s best for them and their operation. For example, Scott Hays, NPPC president elect and a pig farmer from Missouri, says gestation crates work best on his farm.

“Sows are bullies. They fight. They assert their dominance. Housing animals in individual pens where they can be fed and watered and cared for individually is a very humane way of housing them,” Hays said.

Formica said one of his concerns is the changing nature of ballot initiatives.

“If a farmer were to go and change their operation to comply with (California) Proposition 12, what is there to stop New York from turning around in two years and say it’s not 24 square feet, it’s got to be 26 square feet? And then, two years after that, California goes back and says let’s make it 30 square feet,” Formica said. “If there’s really market demand, we’ve got this thing called the free market in this country and it’s amazing. If there’s demand, supply will follow.”

Producer Perspectives

For Lori Stevermer, NPPC vice president and a pig farmer from Minnesota, being able to sit in the courtroom to hear oral arguments was exciting and reaffirms the Constitution is on pork producers’ side.

“It also made me very happy to be part of both NPPC and AFBF. These organizations are working on my behalf for important issues like this. As a smaller farmer, I can’t do it myself. But to see what they’re doing and hearing the case they brought forward, it was just very exciting and very positive,” Stevermer said.

There’s no doubt this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will long be remembered by Hays, too.

“The exchange with the judges and the lawyers was interesting. I enjoyed their comments and the depth of knowledge of what’s at stake here,” Hays said. “I felt like they were really trying to understand and come up with a decision that is best for all Americans. That’s going to be a high-quality, low-cost protein source for everyone, not imposing one group’s opinion on the rest of us.”

Stevermer said pig farmers have always been good at responding to market demands, utilizing new technology and listening to advice from veterinarians and consultants.

“We continue to evolve and learn from each other,” she said. “I don’t see that changing. That’s what makes us a great industry and such a low-cost producer. Consumers send us the signals, then we use the technology and expertise available to us to make the right decision for our farms and our animals.”

A Life-Changing Case

Even though Stevermer doesn’t own sows, she says the outcome of today has a major impact on her life.

“If the cost to implement in California is great as we expect it will be, or if the market is cut off, it’s very possible the people we raise pigs for will say, ‘we don’t need your farm anymore because we don’t have any place to sell our pork.’ And that takes us out of the business,” Stevermer said. “It’s a life-changing case for many of us – not just me.”

To that point, Wolters added there’s a large financial investment decision that’s going to have to be made for owners of sow farms.

“In today’s inflationary period and with the availability of supplies, every producer is going to have to sort that out individually whether they can financially move forward with the new model,” Wolters said.

A ruling is due by the end of June, Reuters reports.

SCOTUS Zeroes in on Key Proposition 12 Issues

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Follow California Proposition 12 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Live

Proposition 12 is Not the Way We Want to Care for Animals, Hays Says

How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

Proposition 12 Will Push Pig Farmers Out of Business, NPPC and Farmers Say

Ironic Timing: NPPC, AFBF File Reply Brief on Prop 12, CDFA Finalizes Rules

Proposition 12 Compliancy: Don’t Do It for Free, Hollis Says

Why Agriculture Can’t Ignore Proposition 12 and Question 3

From All Angles: Food Chain Mandates Threaten Producers, Impact Consumers

Thu, 24 Mar 2022 17:23:57 GMT

Precedent-setting mandates are coming at animal agriculture from many different angles, undermining the freedom of farmers to raise livestock. These regulations aren’t based on science. They aren’t based on animal husbandry experience. And many will argue they aren’t based on a shred of truth.

So, why are more and more activist groups turning to state ballot initiatives to push their agendas? Pro Farmer policy analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says it’s simple.

“Activist groups know that it is easier to get mandates at the state level than federal, and are trying that approach with some initial success,” Wiesemeyer says.

The activist groups are targeting states with little to no livestock production trying to mandate how producers raise livestock, explains Michael Formica, assistant vice president and general counsel for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).

“Because the rules are implemented on a state-by-state basis, each rule is unique and it’s creating a patchwork of different regulatory standards,” Formica says. “Meanwhile, food brands continue to assess sourcing policies entered into a decade ago that are bringing with them additional challenges.”

One Word for Food Mandates

If the mandates resulted in better food safety and efficiency while working with farmers and the food sector to accomplish goals, that would be a clear benefit, Wiesemeyer says. But these mandates don’t result in better food safety or efficiency, and they aren’t created in collaboration with farmers and the food sector.

In one word, Formica calls these mandates “uninformed.”

“The use of mandates to set supply chain policies encourages rules that might sound good on paper to uninformed voters and audiences but lack any consideration of the complex realities of animal health and welfare, veterinary care and supply chain challenges. These rules set arbitrary standards based on a goal of reduced meat consumption rather than being informed by veterinary expertise,” he says.

Wiesemeyer describes mandates in the food supply chain as “unnecessary.”

“These unfunded mandates have far more costs than benefits, which should be the test of any new proposed regulation,” Wiesemeyer adds.

For fifth-generation pork producer and CEO of Two Mile Pork LLC Scott Hays, these mandates are “evolving.”

“We’re seeing developments in the kinds of policies being developed and new players getting involved. For example, financial groups and benchmark reports seek to influence investors by calling attention to animal care and environmental practices,” Hays says.

Time to Speak Up

It’s vital for all agriculture and livestock stakeholders to engage with food industry decision-makers, government officials and NGOs to communicate about realities of modern agriculture to help them make informed decisions, Hays explains.

“As we seek to minimize the threat of further restrictions, it’s important to bring in expertise and science to ensure rational and economically viable solutions are identified,” he says.

More mandates will continue to drive smaller producers and firms away from animal agriculture because they do not have the personnel nor financial resources to deal with them, Wiesemeyer believes.

“This is ironic because many of those pushing mandates profess to want to expand entrants in the ag industry,” Wiesemeyer says.

As a producer, Hays is concerned about the goal posts changing and new policies being imposed. The result of the ballot initiatives, special interest group pressure and government policies is a dangerous mix of inconsistent standards that threaten farmers’ ability to operate effectively.

“What I comply with today may not be compliant in a year or five years when a new policy or regulation is approved; and therefore, will require me to make additional changes, at a significant cost. And consumers suffer, too,” he says. “These changes have a ripple effect of disruption in the supply chain, including higher prices.”

Keep Your Eyes on This

In the short term, Proposition 12 in California and Question 3 in Massachusetts are just a few mandates threatening producers’ freedom to operate while others such as the PAUSE Act , which has been proposed in Colorado, bring with them potential additional challenges, Formica says. (link to stories on these issues)

“California’s Prop 12 is the key issue to watch,” Wiesemeyer believes. “Why? If the Supreme Court does not accept the NPPC/Farm Bureau petition to review the matter , and if it is not struck down, then anti-farm policy groups will use the California approach as a template for similar action ahead on other issues.”

Although there doesn’t appear to be an upside to these mandates, Formica says the debate has led to strengthened relationships between the pork industry and other livestock industries, as well as the organizations throughout the food chain that ultimately market and sell these products to consumers.

“This has allowed us opportunities for additional education and understanding of pork production,” Formica points out. “Making sure producers, veterinarians and other livestock specialists are involved in these important discussions is vital.”

Hays says the story of how food is raised and produced is compelling, especially as fewer people have any connection to farming and rural lifestyles.

“Special interest groups, financed with nearly unlimited financial resources, are continuing to push for changes. Despite a slowdown during the pandemic, we expect these headwinds to continue,” Hays says.

Read More:

The Wait Continues for SCOTUS Decision on Prop 12 Petition

Prop 12: A Different Kind of California Wildfire

PAUSE Act A Radical Threat To Ranching

Why Animal Agriculture Needs to Take Petition 13 Seriously

Considering Prop 12 Conversion? Think About These Things First

BREAKING: State Court Halts Enforcement of Prop 12, California Must Finalize Rules First

Prop 12 Countdown: California Food Industry Leaders Fight Back

Proposition 12: Stop Applying Band-Aids to Proposed Rules, NAMI Says

Proposition 12 Will Create a Burdensome, Bureaucratic Labyrinth, NPPC Says

Pork Industry Braces for Catastrophic Costs to Implement Proposition 12

Proposition 12 Pressures Aren’t Going Away

On-Demand Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?

20 States Back Challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s Prop 12

California’s Proposition 12 Would Cost U.S. Pork Industry Billions

Court Upholds California Proposition 12

Delay Implementation of Proposition 12, Food Industry Leaders Urge

Thinking Beyond ‘Check The Box’ Carbon Programs

Tue, 08 Mar 2022 21:21:34 GMT

Mitchell Hora, an Iowa farmer and founder of ContinuumAg, says today’s discussions around carbon markets illustrate opportunities for some farmers and also give support to deepen the conversation about agriculture’s role in carbon use and sequestration.

“Today’s carbon programs, are privatized cost share,” he says. “You can get paid to reduce tillage, add cover crops, reduce synthetic fertilizer. The more new things you adopt, the more you could get paid.”

Hora is a speaker at the Online Top Producer Summit. Learn more here.

He says there’s a value in ‘checking the box’ with those additional practices because it’s providing another way for farmers to start focusing on soil health while getting paid up to $40/acre.

“Agriculture is one of the key solutions in a more carbon positive future,” he says.

At the same time, he acknowledges that his own farm in Iowa doesn’t qualify for any of the programs centered on additionality.

“It’s important to help a farmer to better understand their actual carbon footprint: what is their usage, what are their emissions, things like fuel, electricity, fertilizer and more,” he says.

That’s where he is encouraging everyone to get rooted in the principles of soil health.

“I think regenerative ag is a journey ,and it’s a continual implementation of the principles of soil health,” he says.

Here are those 6 principles of soil health:

Maintain soil armor
Minimize disturbance
Living roots always
Foster diversity
Integrate livestock
Context

You can still register for the Online Top Producer Summit, which gives you access to content through March 31. Use the code “VIRTAL” to take 50% off your registration fee.

Senate Bill to Reform Hours of Service, Logging Regulation for Ag Haulers

Mon, 05 Apr 2021 20:51:31 GMT

Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) reintroduced the Modernizing Agricultural Transportation Act, bipartisan legislation to reform the Hours of Service (HOS) and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) regulations at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

The bill would also delay enforcement of the ELD rule until the required reforms are formally proposed by the Transportation Secretary.

“We’ve worked to provide needed certainty and flexibility to our agricultural haulers under the HOS and ELD regulations so that they can get their products to market safely and efficiently,” Senator Hoeven said in a release . “This legislation builds on our efforts, establishing a process to address unnecessary burdens under these regulations and advance reforms based on the input of agriculture producers, while also ensuring roadway safety is maintained.”

The bill would establish a working group at DOT comprised of representatives from the transportation and agriculture industries, transportation safety representatives and the USDA.

The working group will consider the impact of existing HOS and ELD rules on the commercial transport of livestock, insects and agricultural commodities and develop guidelines on reforming these rules, the release said.. Within 120 days of receiving the working group’s report, the Transportation Secretary must propose regulatory changes to the HOS and ELD regulations, considering the group’s recommendations.

“It is important that we maintain safe roads while also recognizing the unique flexibility needed to move Colorado’s agricultural products to markets,” Senator Bennet said in a release. “I look forward to working with Senator Hoeven and our colleagues to give farmers and ranchers a seat at the table as we push for more sensible rules around the transportation of agricultural goods.”

The Modernizing Agricultural Transportation Act is supported by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, United States Cattlemen’s Association, Livestock Marketing Association, American Farm Bureau Federation and more.

“NPPC strongly supports the Hoeven-Bennet bill, which provides stakeholder collaboration for developing common-sense Hours of Service regulations to addresses the safety of our roadways while protecting the welfare of our livestock,” NPPC President Jen Sorenson, communications director for Iowa Select Farms in West Des Moines, Iowa, said in a statement. “The bill supports an essential element of the nation’s food production system and the continuity of the U.S pork supply chain.”

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Superheroes of the Supply Chain: Truckers Keep it Moving

Federal Court Removes Swine Slaughter Line Speed Provision

HAULS Act Expands Hours of Service Flexibility for Livestock Haulers