DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Re Ulati N F the U~S~ D Arketin Stem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Re Ulati N F the U~S~ D Arketin Stem Minnesota Economic FEDERAL RE ULATI N Regulation Monograph 4 F THE U~S~ D ARKETIN STEM Miscellaneous Report AD-MRm2338 Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota 1985 FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE U.S. FOOD MARKETING SYSTEM Tim Burke and Dale C. Dahl Minnesota Economic Regulation Monograph #4 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Report AD-MR-2338 University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota February 1985 FOREWORD This monograph is part of the Minnesota Economic Regulation Monograph series, a comprehensive survey of law pertaining to the production, processing and distribution of food and other farm comr modities in the United States. It outlines two types of regulations: (1) those designed to protect the health and safety of consumers and improve their knowledge about food purchasing; and (2) those that protect the farmer's product and input markets, particularly in terms of trade practices and bargaining power. Dale c. Dahl Project Leader CONTENTS Preface. vii Chapter 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. 1 Development of American Food Laws in the Nineteenth Century 1 Evolution of the Major Federal Acts • 1 Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 • 2 Packers and Stockyards Act • 3 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 3 Notes to Chapter 1. 4 Chapter 2. CONSUMER-ORIENTED REGULATION • 7 Major Legislation • 7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act • 7 Structure of the Act. 7 Relevant Definitions. 7 General Provisions. 7 Special Provisions. 10 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 11 Basic Provisions. 12 Enforcement Authority • 13 Poison Prevention Packaging Act. 13 Inspection Acts • 14 Federal Meat Inspection Act. 14 Basic Provisions. 14 Personal Exemption. 15 Imported and Exported Meat. 15 Federal and State Cooperation • 15 Poultry Products Inspection Act. 16 Basic Provisions. 16 Exemptions. 17 Federal and State Cooperation • 17 Egg Products Inspection Act. 18 Basic Provisions. 18 Exemptions. 19 Imports • 19 State and Local Regulation. 19 Quality Control Legislation • 19 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 19 iii Classification of Pesticides. 20 Cancellation or Suspension of Registration. 20 Registration of Establishments. 20 Penalties • 21 Filled Milk Act. 21 Filled Cheese and Adulterated Butter Acts. 22 Federal Import Milk Act. 22 Food Grading Acts. 22 Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. 22 U.S. Grain Standards Act. 23 Export Standards. 25 Food Inspection and Grading by the Department of Commerce • 25 u.s. Warehouse Act • 26 Inspection and Grading. 26 Federal-State Relationship. 27 Penalties • 27 Standards of Weight and Measure. 27 Comparison of Legal Standards: Packaging and Labeling. 28 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 28 Basic Regulations • 28 Nutrition Labeling. 29 Special Regulations Under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 30 Federal Meat Inspection Act. 30 Poultry Products Labeling. 31 Notes to Chapter 2. 32 Chapter 3. PRODUCER-ORIENTED MARKET REGULATION. 57 Packers and Stockyards Act. 57 General Prohibitions • 57 Regulation of Stockyards and Stockyard Dealers • 58 Regulation of Poultry Dealers and Handlers • 59 Records. 59 Enforcement Authority. 59 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act • 60 General Prohibitions • 60 Licensing. 60 Remedies • 61 Produce Agency Act. 61 Federal Seed Act. 61 iv Legislation Affecting Agricultural Producers' Associations. 62 Clayton Act. 62 Capper-Volstead Act. 62 Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926, 62 Agricultural Fair Practices Act. 63 Agricultural Narketing Agreement Act. 63 Nilk Orders. 65 Nonmilk Orders • 65 Handler Regulation • 65 Administration of the Order. 66 Records. 66 Enforcement. 66 Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act. 66 Contract Markets • 67 Registration With the CFTC • 67 Records. 68 Registered Futures Associations. 61:1 Investigatory Power. 69 Antitrust Considerations • 69 Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act • 69 Food Research and Promotion , 70 Potato Research and Promotion. 70 Beef Research and Promotion. 70 Wheat Research and Promotion , 7l Egg Research and Promotion • . 71 Tobacco Statistics 72 Transportation of Agricultural Products • 72 Forestry. 73 Notes to Chapter 3. 74 Chapter 4. COMPARISON OF REGULATORY SCHE¥iliS • 89 Notes to Chapter 4. 90 v PREFACE Few people would be surprised at the amount of money spent annually in our nation for domestic agricultural products. Rising food prices and increased consumer attention to the food industry have probably served to make most consumers aware of the magnitude of agricultural production rela­ tive to our gross national product. Yet, many consumers may not be a~•are of how much of the agri­ cultural dollar is attributable to marketing costs. Recent government statistics put that figure at nearly t1;m thirds of the total amount spent by American consumers annually for domestic foods.l/ This immense and increasingly complex marketing system is the subject of this monograph. - Any attempt to cover this system entirely would be monumental. Therefore, the scope of this project will be more narrowly drawn. The focus here is on those legal constraints that regulate our domestic food marketing system. This limitation necessarily means that topics such as agricultural price and income maintenance policy, foreign markets and international trade, and the regulation of farm production will not be discussed directly, although each undeniably affects the domestic food marketing system. Limited attention, however, will be given to the regulation of food imports since this type of regulation has a more direct impact on the domestic market. The distinction between production and marketing aspects of agriculture is sometimes difficult, particularly regarding com­ modities handled through a vertically integrated system.~/ Nonetheless, the distinction is necessary to place manageable bounds on the scope of this project. The legal constraints that regulate agricultural markets (or any other segment of our economy) are basically of two types: (1) statutes enacted by state and federal legislative bodies, and (2) regulations adopted by administrative agencies for the purpose of implementing those statutes. As in other areas, the regulations are far more numerous than the statutes, Since this monograph can provide only a broad overview of the subject area, the statutes will receive primary attention, although the more important regulations will also be covered; the approach taken in considering sta­ tutory regulation will be descriptive rather than analytical. The interpretation of statutes and regulations by judicial or administrative bodies is equally a part of the regulatory process, and some of the more far-reaching decisions from these sources 1iJill like\vise be covered. Given the large number of statutes germane to this area, it is hard to develop an analytic fra­ mework organizing them into a meaningful fashion. The scheme utilized here discusses the statutes according to whether they were primarily enacted for the benefit of agricultural producers or con­ sumers. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and some statutes could properly be classified in both. Uniform grain inspection legislation, for example, may ultimately serve the interests of pro­ ducers as well as consumers, And, it is obvious that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act3/ benefits not only producers of agricultural commodities, but also others who trade or hedge in those commodities. These examples underscore the fact that the characterization of the law as a "seamless web" is especially appropriate when applied to food marketing reulation in our country. Notes to Preface 1. U,S. Department of Agriculture, Fact Book~riculture 33 (Miscellaneous Pub. No. 1063, revised edition, 1976). Marketing costs include the expense of transporting, processing, and distributing food items. For the year 1974, the estimated cost of marketing domestic food pro- ducts was $92 billion. The total amount spent consumers on food was $1L;8 billion, leaving $56 billion as the gross return received by farmers. Id. 2. Sundquist, Removing Legal Constraints on Agriculture--Likely Impacts on Producers, Agribusiness Interests, and Consumers, 19 S.D,L, Rev. 512, 514, (1974). 3. Act of October 23, 1974, Pub.L.li!o. 93-463, 88 Stat. 1389, (codified) as amended in 7 u.s.c. § 1-22 (1976), vii 1 HISTORICAl, BACKGROUND Government regulation of agricultural products is not a recent phenomenon. Its origins can be traced back at least to early Greece and Rome, where wine inspectors guarded against adulteration. 1/ During the Middle Ages, brewers who adulterated their product were fined or severely punished. 'J:j The Magna Carta of 1215, perhaps more widely known for its revolutionary political ramifica­ tions, also established standardized measures for wine, ale, corn, and other farm products. ll Laws of a similar nature were enacted in other European nations in later yearsof::../ Development of American Food Laws in the Nineteenth Century In our country, the movement for regulating food market trade on a national level did not really reach fruition until the latter part of the nineteenth century. Regulation of this type of commercial activity had at that time two general objectives: (1) protection of the health and vJelfare (not unlike the la1<1S of ancient or medieval times) a_nd (2) promotion of fair trade prac­ tices (a more recent objective, arising contemporaneously with more generalized trade regulation and antitrust laws). Since other trade problems were beginning to be addressed by federal legisla~ tion, it does
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Administrative Procedureâ•Fla Suggested Classification Of
    Washington University Law Review Volume 25 Issue 3 January 1940 Administrative Procedure—A Suggested Classification of Procedures of Regulatory Agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture Ashley Sellers United States Department of Agriculture Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Agriculture Law Commons Recommended Citation Ashley Sellers, Administrative Procedure—A Suggested Classification of Procedures of Regulatory Agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture, 25 WASH. U. L. Q. 352 (1940). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol25/iss3/25 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 352 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [Vol. 25 Saturday Morning, February 17 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE-A SUGGESTED CLASSIFICATION OF PROCEDURES OF REGULATORY AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ASHLEY SELLERSt The title requires both definition and delimitation. The terms "procedure," "regulatory," and "agencies" do not go unchal- lenged, especially in these days of symposia and institutes on administrative law. For present purposes, the term "procedure" will be given a restricted meaning and will be used, in a manner especially familiar to lawyers, to describe the methods and practices relat- ing to administrative hearings. Someone has called this the "full- dress" level of administrative procedure. This description, if applicable to the procedure of any administrative agency, is hardly descriptive of that of a bureau of the Department of Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Marketing Service
    2016 Explanatory Notes Agricultural Marketing Service Contents Page Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................................... 21-1 Statement of Available Funds and Staff Years ........................................................................... 21-8 Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff Year Summary ............................................................ 21-9 Motor Vehicles Fleet Data .......................................................................................................... 21-10 Marketing Services: Appropriations Language ....................................................................................................... 21-11 Lead-off Tabular Statement ..................................................................................................... 21-11 Project Statement ..................................................................................................................... 21-12 Justifications ............................................................................................................................ 21-14 Geographic Breakdown of Obligations and Staff Years ......................................................... 21-22 Classification by Objects ........................................................................................................ 21-23 Status of Programs .................................................................................................................. 21-24
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet
    ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet To cite this version: Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics. 2021. hal-03227973 HAL Id: hal-03227973 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03227973 Preprint submitted on 17 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”∗ A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Delcey, Thomas† Noblet, Guillaume‡ May 2021 Abstract This article offers a historical analysis of the contributions of U.S. interwar agri- cultural economics to the economics of information. Concerned with improving the circulation of information on agricultural markets, agricultural economists an- alyzed the relationship between agents’ information and the behavior of prices on agricultural commodity exchanges, thus anticipating modern debates on informa- tional efficiency. We show that these debates were part of a more general context of agricultural market reform led by the U.S. administration to improve the pro- duction and diffusion of economic information. We argue that such reforms were a prerequisite for theoretical discussions on information, and established institutional tools that are still active today, such as the USDA market news service.
    [Show full text]
  • Manipulation of Commodity Futures Prices-The Unprosecutable Crime
    Manipulation of Commodity Futures Prices-The Unprosecutable Crime Jerry W. Markhamt The commodity futures market has been beset by large-scale market manipulations since its beginning. This article chronicles these manipulations to show that they threaten the economy and to demonstrate that all attempts to stop these manipulations have failed. Many commentators suggest that a redefinition of "manipulation" is the solution. Markham argues that enforcement of a redefined notion of manipulation would be inefficient and costly, and would ultimately be no more successful than earlierefforts. Instead, Markham arguesfor a more active Commodity Futures Trading Commission empowered not only to prohibit certain activities which, broadly construed, constitute manipulation, but also to adopt affirmative regulations which will help maintain a 'fair and orderly market." This more powerful Commission would require more resources than the current CFTC, but Markham argues that the additionalcost would be more than offset by the increasedefficiencies of reduced market manipulation. Introduction ......................................... 282 I. Historical Manipulation in the Commodity Futures Markets ..... 285 A. The Growth of Commodity Futures Trading and Its Role ..... 285 B. Early Manipulations .............................. 288 C. The FTC Study Reviews the Issue of Manipulation ......... 292 D. Early Legislation Fails to Prevent Manipulations .......... 298 II. The Commodity Exchange Act Proves to Be Ineffective in Dealing with M anipulation .................................. 313 A. The Commodity Exchange Authority Unsuccessfully Struggles with M anipulation ................................ 313 B. The 1968 Amendments Seek to Address the Manipulation Issue. 323 C. The 1968 Amendments Prove to be Ineffective ............ 328 tPartner, Rogers & Wells, Washington, D.C.; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; B.S. 1969, Western Kentucky University; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • FULL THESIS 19 September
    The United States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-1936 Rasheed KM Saleuddin Corpus Christi College September 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. i ii The Unites States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-36 Rasheed Saleuddin In 1921, 1924 and 1929-1934, markets for the future delivery of wheat went through periods of extreme volatility and/or significant depression, and in all three cases there were significant and long-lasting changes to both the institutional and regulatory framework of these Chicago- dominated grain markets. There was no real change after these key reforms until 1974, while indeed much of the original regulatory and market innovation remains. The result of the severe depression of 1921 was the Futures Trading Act of 1921. In 1924-25, the so-called ‘Cutten corner’ market turmoil was followed by three key institutional innovations brought about in 1926 by US federal government coercion of the grain futures trading industry in collusion with industry leaders. The Great Depression gave birth to the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act. This Act was based on research done by the government and/or with government-mandated evidence that essentially saw the small grain gambler as needing protection from the grain futures industry, and was pushed through by a coalition of farmers’ organisations and the agency responsible for the 1922 Act’s administration. The government demanded information that was begrudgingly provided, and the studies of this data formed the basis of a political and intellectual justification of the usefulness of futures markets to the marketing of farm products that influenced the Act of 1936 and – more importantly - continues to today.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 (PART 1) DO
    Page 1 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 (PART 1) DOCUMENT TYPE: HOUSE REPORT DOCUMENT NUMBER: 97-565 (PART 1) DATE: MAY 17, 1982 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 97TH CONGRESS 2D Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPT. 97-565 Part 1 FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 MAY 17, 1982. -- Ordered to be printed Mr. DE LA GARZA, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following REPORT together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS AND SEPARATE VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 5447] [Including Congressional Budget Office cost estimate] The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5447), to extend the Commodity Exchange Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. See original document-page 1 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Committee Amendment 4 Summary of H.R. 5447 25 Purpose and Need for the Legislation 36 I. Extension of Funding Authorization 36 II. CFTC/SEC Jurisdictional Accord 38 III. National Futures Association/User Fees 41 IV. Expanded Role for the States 44 V. Interagency Coordination 45 VI. Agricultural Options 47 VII. Regulatory Powers and Enforcement 47 (a) Extension of Registration Requirements 48 (b) Streamlining Registration Procedures 50 (c) Framework for Delegation of the Registration Function 52 (d) Enforcement 52 VIII. Remedies for Violations of the Act 54 (a) General 54 (b) Reparations 55 (c) Arbitration 56 (d) Private Rights of Action 56 IX. Commission Emergency Powers 57 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture (AIB-425)
    A. 2 '/^i> 'è ^¿^ //?^{S United States i)] Department of ^"' Agriculture Chronological Economics Research Service Landmarks In Agriculture Information Bulletin American Number 425 Agriculture It's Easy To Order Another Copy! Just dial 1-800»999"6779. Toll free (in the United States and Canada). An other areas pïease dial 301-725-7937. Ask for Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture (AIB-425). The cost is $11.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (including Canada), add 25 percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard, or we can bill you. Or send a check or purchase order (made payable to ERS-NASS) to: ERS-NASS P.O. Box 1608 Rockville, MD 20849-1608. We'll fill your order by first-class mail. Revised version, Washington, DC November 1990 CHRONOLOGICAL LANDMARKS IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURE Compiled by Maryanna S. Smith and Dennis M, Roth INTRODUCTION This chronology lists major events in the history of U.S. agriculture. A source to which the reader may turn for additional information on the subject is included with most of the events. Generally, each source appears only once, although it may apply to more than one chronological citation. The reader interested in a particular subject can compile a short bibliography by consulting each citation for that subject. Key inventions, laws, changes in land policies, individuals, contributions, the development of institutions, and the introduction of new types of crops and livestock are included. There are also notes on all commissioners, secretaries of agriculture, and agencies established in response to new programs in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Agriculture
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL Federal Funds SERVICES For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING Agricultural Services, [$898,000] $901,000. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS) ENVIRONMENT For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, [$45,555,000] $64,403,000, For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources of which not to exceed [$5,051,000] $10,178,000 shall be available for the [imme- and Environment, [$898,000] $901,000. diate] Immediate Office of the Secretary, of which not to exceed [$250,000] OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT $253,000 shall be available for the Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison, and of For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available for outreach services supporting [$893,000] $896,000. new, beginning, and veteran farmers and ranchers; not to exceed [$502,000] OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER $755,000 shall be available for the Office of Tribal Relations; not to exceed SERVICES [$1,496,000] $1,592,000 shall be available for the Office of Homeland Security For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Emergency Coordination; not to exceed [$1,209,000] $11,220,000 shall be and Consumer Services, [$811,000] $814,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense
    Fordham Law Review Volume 56 Issue 3 Article 3 1987 Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense Wendy Collins Perdue Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Wendy Collins Perdue, Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense, 56 Fordham L. Rev. 345 (1987). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol56/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense Cover Page Footnote * Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. The author is grateful to Richard Diamond and Thomas Krattenmaker for their valuable suggestions and to Robert Webner for his research assistance. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol56/iss3/3 MANIPULATION OF FUTURES MARKETS: REDEFINING THE OFFENSE WENDY COLLINS PERDUE* INTRODUCTION N September 1984, a group of farmers collected in front of the Chi- cago Board of Trade ("CBOT") to protest low farm prices and to urge the criminalization of futures trading.1 They argued that speculating in commodity futures was "manipulative and improper."2 This type of pro- test is not unusual.' Futures markets have existed in this country for over 100 years,4 and, for as long as they have existed, have been the object of protest, suspicion and contempt.' Critics have condemned fu- tures trading as nothing more than a form of legalized gambling,6 have * Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commodity Exchange Act in Perspective a Short and Not-So-Reverent History of Futures Trading Legislation in the United States, 39 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 39 | Issue 3 Article 3 Summer 6-1-1982 The ommoC dity Exchange Act In Perspective A Short And Not-So-Reverent History Of Futures Trading Legislation In The nitU ed States John H. Stassen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation John H. Stassen, The Commodity Exchange Act In Perspective A Short And Not-So-Reverent History Of Futures Trading Legislation In The United States, 39 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 825 (1982), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol39/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT IN PERSPECTIVE A SHORT AND NOT-SO-REVERENT HISTORY OF FUTURES TRADING LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES JOHN H. STASSEN* Over the last several years, I have had the pleasure of pontificating before at least a score of audiences on the history of futures trading legislation in the United States. As I am introduced on each occasion, I literally can hear a wave of ennui cascade across the audience. And so I feel as I begin this short written history. Admittedly, the history of futures trading legislation is of only remote interest to most normal, rational human beings.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating the Grain Gambler and His Successors John V
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 1 1977 Regulating the Grain Gambler and His Successors John V. Rainbolt II Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Recommended Citation Rainbolt, John V. II (1977) "Regulating the Grain Gambler and His Successors," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol6/iss1/1 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rainbolt: Regulating the Grain Gambler and His Successors HOFSTRA JAW REVIEW Volume 6, No. 1 Fall 1977 SYMPOSIUM ON COMMODITY FUTURES REGULATION REGULATING THE GRAIN GAMBLER AND HIS SUCCESSORS John V. Rainbolt, 11* People will endeavor to forecast the future and to make agree- ments according to their prophecy. Speculation of this kind by competent men is the self-adjustment of society to the probable. Its value is well known as a means of avoiding or mitigating catastrophes, equalizing prices and providing for periods of want. It is true that the success of the strong induces imitation by the weak, and that incompetent persons bring themselves to ruin by undertaking to speculate in their turn. But legislatures and courts generally have recognized that the natural evolutions of a complex society are to be touched only with a very cautious hand, and that such coarse attempts at a remedy for the waste incident to every social function as a simple prohibition and laws to stop its being are harmful and vain.' -MR.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Commodity Futures Price Volatility: a Market Regulatory Policy Study
    AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY FUTURES PRICE VOLATILITY: A MARKET REGULATORY POLICY STUDY George P. Apperson III Department of Agricultural Sciences College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Life Sciences Clemson University 235 McAdams Hall PO Box 340310 Clemson, S.C. 29634-0310 Email: [email protected] Selected Paper for presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s 2017 AAEA Annual, Chicago, IL, July 31, 2017 Copyright 2017 by George P. Apperson III. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided this copyright notice appears on all such copies. 1 AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY FUTURES PRICE VOLATILITY: A MARKET REGULATORY POLICY STUDY Abstract Agricultural commodity futures markets experienced dramatic price swings between 2007 and 2012. Applied economic research has not reached a consensus as to the cause of increased volatility. Policy research indicates that financial and commodity market regulation should revert to the policies prior to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 has been an attempt to re-tighten legislation, but challenges to the Dodd-Frank Act, and its implementation, have prevented a complete return to more constrained market regulatory policies. Policy scholars credit financial and commodity market turmoil to changes in regulatory policy, but no specific research has been identified that associates changes in market volatility with changes in regulatory policy. This research examines the price volatility of four agricultural commodity futures markets and how their price volatility relates to economic fundamentals, speculative participation, and regulatory policy shifts. Commodity regulatory policy, along with other variables, is associated with changes in market volatility.
    [Show full text]