The ‘Product of USA’ labeling fight with meatpacking companies isn’t over.

Big Meat has been playing its “Product of USA” labeling con on the American public ever since Barack Obama was in the White House.

Congressional repeal of mandatory country of origin labels created a loophole that allowed Big Meat to slap Product of USA labels on meat imported from foreign countries.

What?

Yup. That Product of USA steak you’re eating right now … well, the cow might have been raised and slaughtered in Mexico. Or Canada. Or who knows where. But not here.

It turns out that Big Meat has been treating us all like marks. A USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service found:

“About 16% of eligible consumers identified the correct definition for the ‘Product of USA’ claim (i.e., the product must be processed in the United States; the animals can be born, raised, and slaughtered in another country), 63% provided an incorrect response (most believed all production steps must take place in the United States), and 21% said they did not know.”

And Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill and other Big Meat brethren were more than happy to take advantage of the public’s ignorance under the protection of federal law.

But all that changes January 2026. A final rule published by FSIS will only allow Product of USA labels for meat, poultry and egg products derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the good ‘ol USA.

And to make sure Big Meat is actually complying … well, there are new tough reporting requirements. Companies must keep a written description of the controls used in the birthing, raising, slaughter and processing of animals and eggs. They must also provide descriptions showing how U.S.-produced animals and eggs are traced — and, when necessary, segregated — from those of other countries from birth through packaging and public distribution.

Big Meat can also opt to provide signed and dated documents describing how animals and eggs were processed and prepared to support use of a Product of USA label.

But, channeling my inner Paul Harvey, that’s not quite the end of the story.

It turns out that two South Dakota ranchers, Tim Taylor and Bryce Baker, filed a lawsuit in 2023 claiming they were paid less for their domestic cattle as a result of Big Meat Product of USA labels, and added that Big Meat’s motivation was to deceive consumers. Taylor and Baker alleged JBS Foods USA, Tyson Foods, Cargill, and National Beef Packing Company violated South Dakota’s restraint of trade statute, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and were unjustly enriched.

Naturally, Big Meat moved to dismiss but fell short in January of this year before U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota Judge Eric C. Schulte.

The lawsuit seemingly now has a life of its own with 11 attorneys general filling an amicus brief last month supporting Taylor and Baker’s claims as the case moves on before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The attorneys general say the Federal Meat Inspection Act does not provide Big Meat blanket coverage against state laws controlling “misbranded” products:

“Though defendants would have it otherwise, states are not potted plants in the national regulatory framework enacted to prevent the importation and distribution of misbranded beef products. Holding defendants to the FMIA definition of ‘misbranded’ when enforcing equivalent South Dakota law imposes nothing different from or in addition to the FMIA. When, as here, a beef product’s labeling conveys a false indication of origin, states are authorized to act when the USDA has not.”

I seriously doubt that Big Meat will want to settle with Taylor and Baker given a similar lawsuit against Tyson Foods was dismissed in 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit.

Oral arguments could proceed later this year. I’m sympathetic to the plaintiff’s claims. When a law is legal but unethical it destroys public trust. Such is the case here. As it turns out, shoddy ethics and Big Meat often go hand in hand.

It’s probably a long shot, but here’s hoping “the rest of the story” will allow the lawsuit to go forward in order to clear up ambiguity between state laws and the FMIA as well as provide justice to cattle ranchers who’ve been financially hurt.