The Big Cost of Small Farms

Americans love meat. We celebrate our independence with steaks on the grill, we enjoy our favorite pastime with hot dogs, and we give thanks with turkey. Our love of meat is so ingrained in our culture that, historically, small increases in meat prices have driven the populace to riot. Today, meat prices are rising. Simultaneously, the largest meat processors and packagers are seeing record profits. Consumers, in turn, are outraged. Their emotions are being fueled by politicians who blame rising profits on a pandemic of greed and collusion and then argue that rigid antitrust enforcement is the only solution. This account, however, relies on several false premises. While antitrust is thought to provide consumers with more choice, lower prices, and better quality, that expectation is not true in every arena. In the context of food and agriculture generally, and meat specifically, antitrust enforcement is more likely to raise food prices, limit cheap food options for poor people, and exacerbate problems of hunger and poor nutrition. In reality, the group most likely to benefit from such enforcement is small farmers, as was intended. Antitrust, as applied to meat, is thus both regressive and protectionist, sacrificing food accessibility in favor of protecting small farms. This Article, The Big Cost of Small Farms, addresses the origin of this antitrust narrative and explores its harmful outcomes, using a consumer-centered approach to make the normative argument that the politicization of food production has always been and continues to be dangerous, resulting in disparate harms to poor people. Only in dispensing with the overreliance on antitrust enforcement will the poorest among us retain the option to buy cheap meat, an American staple. In this way, this Article serves as a necessary corrective to the current antitrust movement, which sees corporate bigness—without more nuanced consideration—as a curse.