Your operation has been watching USDA's beef industry plan since Secretary Rollins announced it in October 2025. But the plan wasn't static — 2026 brought significant regulatory developments that directly affect ranchers, meat processors, and every company placing a "Product of USA" claim on FSIS-regulated products. The USDA beef industry plan is now in an active enforcement phase, and what began as a policy roadmap is becoming operational reality with real compliance consequences.
At OFW Law, our attorneys represent clients regulated by USDA, FSIS, and CBP — and we have counseled companies through these compliance questions since the plan's release. John G. Dillard, who leads OFW's USDA practice, and Jeff Canavan, a senior regulatory advisor with more than 25 years of FSIS experience specializing in meat, poultry, and egg labeling, have tracked these developments closely. What follows is our updated analysis of the plan's three core pillars, the regulatory changes since October 2025, and what your operation needs to know about FSIS enforcement and HACCP compliance heading into the rest of 2026.
The full USDA Beef Industry Plan White Paper remains available on the USDA website for reference.
Background: Why the Beef Industry Needed Federal Intervention
The USDA beef industry plan emerged from a well-documented supply-side crisis. Secretary Rollins, announcing the plan alongside Secretaries Burgum and Kennedy and SBA Administrator Loeffler, cited three core pressures that made federal action necessary:
- A declining ranch base. The United States lost more than 17% of its family farms over the preceding decade, with no structural forces reversing the trend without direct policy support.
- A cattle herd at historic lows. The national cattle supply reached a 75-year low — a supply contraction happening at the worst possible moment for domestic producers.
- Demand outpacing supply. Consumer demand for beef grew by 9% over the same period that the cattle herd contracted, widening the gap between what American ranchers can produce and what American consumers want to buy.
These conditions, combined with what USDA identified as longstanding regulatory barriers to ranching and processing, provided the foundation for a three-pillar response aimed at rebuilding supply, strengthening market infrastructure, and expanding domestic demand.
The Three Pillars of USDA's Beef Industry Plan
Federal lands access, permitting reform, disaster relief, and expanded support for beginning and veteran ranchers.
Product of USA enforcement, small processor fee reductions, MPPEP grants, and AI-based cattle grading.
Farm-to-school programs, protein-forward dietary guidelines, and expanded international market access.
1. Protecting and Improving the Business of Ranching
The first pillar addresses the structural barriers preventing ranchers from entering, expanding, or sustaining operations. The key policy mechanisms are:
- Grazing Action Plan. USDA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) are developing a Memorandum of Understanding to expand grazing on federal lands. With approximately 29,000 grazing allotments nationwide and roughly 10% currently vacant, USDA and DOI plan to host regional meetings to identify producer priorities and reduce the gap between policy and field realities.
- Permitting modernization. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are working to modernize permitting guidance and reduce backlogs for permit renewals and annual operating instructions — a chronic obstacle for producers who rely on federal grazing access.
- Predator compensation reform. DOI and USDA will develop updated standards of evidence for compensating ranchers for livestock losses to wolves, bears, and coyotes, particularly in the American southwest.
- Stronger disaster relief. USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) is improving the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) and Livestock Forage Program (LFP) to deliver higher and earlier payment rates, extend coverage to unborn livestock, and increase coverage for losses to predation.
- Expanded "beginning farmer" definition. USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) amended the definition of "beginning farmer" from 5 years to 10 years, expanding access to enhanced subsidies and benefits for a broader group of producers entering the industry.
- Veteran rancher support. USDA is prioritizing grant applications from veteran-owned and veteran-operated ranches through the Enhancing Agricultural Opportunities for Military Veterans (AgVets) program, with an emphasis on ranching-focused outreach and education.
2. Expanding Processing, Consumer Transparency, and Market Access
This pillar is the most directly relevant to meat and poultry processors operating under FSIS oversight. Its provisions intersect with labeling compliance, inspection costs, and processing capacity — and several of these provisions are now active in 2026.
- Product of USA enforcement, effective January 1, 2026. FSIS began verifying compliance for voluntary U.S.-origin label claims. Only products from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed entirely in the United States qualify. This development is addressed in detail below.
- Inspection fee reductions for small processors. For FY2026, FSIS is temporarily reducing overtime and holiday inspection service costs by 75% for very small establishments and by 30% for small establishments. These reductions are intended to incentivize longer operational hours and expanded processing capacity.
- MPPEP Round 4 grant funding. USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) announced a fourth round of the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program, focused on small processors and local supply chains. Individual awards are up to $2 million each. Per the white paper, applications were anticipated for early 2026, with grants to be announced in Q2 2026.
- LiDAR and AI-based cattle grading pilot. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is piloting LiDAR and AI-based technology in early 2026 to assess feeder cattle against USDA grade standards, with the goal of expanding market and price information at auction barns.
- EPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines withdrawal. The EPA withdrew its Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards rule, removing a significant projected compliance cost burden from small and midsize meat processing operations.
3. Building Demand Alongside Domestic Supply
The demand-side measures are designed to create market channels for the expanded domestic supply the plan aims to rebuild. USDA's strategy works across three channels:
- Farm-to-school expansion. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service is accepting applications for the FY2026 Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program, directing federal resources toward programs that channel domestically produced beef into school nutrition programs.
- Protein-forward Dietary Guidelines. The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released by USDA and HHS, position protein as the foundation for every meal — a framing that strengthens the policy case for domestic beef consumption within federally guided nutrition programs.
- International demand expansion. USDA is pursuing increased foreign market access for American beef exports as a supplementary demand channel to domestic consumption growth.
What's Changed Since the Plan Was Announced
Product of USA Enforcement Is Now Active
The final rule governing voluntary U.S.-origin claims was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2024 (89 FR 19470), giving producers nearly two years to prepare. That preparation period ended on January 1, 2026, when FSIS began active enforcement. FSIS Directive 7221.1, reissued December 10, 2025, instructs inspection program personnel on how to conduct label verification for "Product of USA," "Made in the USA," and related claims.
The requirements vary based on product type:
- Single-ingredient: Animal born, raised, slaughtered, and processed entirely in the United States.
- Multi-ingredient: All FSIS-regulated components meet the same criteria, all other significant ingredients (excluding spices and flavorings) are domestic, all processing steps occur domestically.
- Full documentation accessible and producible within 24 hours of an FSIS request.
- Imported animals processed domestically — not born and raised in the U.S.
- Incomplete documentation — cannot produce records within 24 hours.
- Multi-ingredient products with non-domestic significant ingredients outside of spices/flavorings.
- Must remove unqualified claims or transition to accurate qualified language (e.g., "Packaged in the USA using imported beef").
The most operationally significant provision is the documentation timeline. Under Directive 7221.1, establishments using U.S.-origin claims must be able to provide substantiating documentation to FSIS within 24 hours of a request. This is not a new grant of regulatory authority — it reflects the agency's existing power under 9 CFR 412.2(a)(1) and 412.3(f) and (g) — but the directive makes explicit that FSIS inspectors will treat an inability to produce records quickly as a compliance failure. FSIS has published an Updated Guideline for Label Approval (2025-0006) describing acceptable documentation formats.
Producers whose products were processed domestically from animals not born and raised in the United States no longer qualify for unqualified "Product of USA" claims. They must either remove those claims or transition to accurate qualified language. The Final Rule in the Federal Register provides the complete regulatory framework. For a deeper look at how meat and poultry labeling laws apply to your products, our attorneys have published a detailed guide on labeling requirements.
FSIS Enforcement Is Intensifying Across the Industry
Product of USA labeling is not the only area where FSIS has increased its presence. In July 2025, USDA announced a set of enforcement metrics that reflect a more active agency across ready-to-eat meat and poultry facilities.
These increases followed a thorough internal review prompted by the 2024 Boar's Head listeriosis outbreak, which exposed gaps in FSIS oversight of ready-to-eat facilities. Since that review, FSIS has updated inspector training, signed updated cooperative agreements with all 29 states operating their own meat and poultry inspection programs, and introduced weekly questionnaires for frontline inspectors to collect Listeria risk factor data at all ready-to-eat establishments.
- Establishments that have not updated their food safety systems, reviewed their HACCP plans, or audited their documentation practices since the Boar's Head outbreak are operating with an outdated picture of the current inspection environment.
- Food Safety Assessments are being completed at a 52% higher rate than the prior year.
- Inspectors now collect weekly data on Listeria risk factors across all ready-to-eat establishments.
- HACCP plans that haven't been reviewed since 2024 or earlier represent real and immediate risk under the current FSIS posture.
The practical implication for operators: FSIS is not slowing down. For an overview of what FSIS inspectors look for and how enforcement escalates, our guide on USDA compliance and FSIS compliance covers the current enforcement framework in detail.
Meat and Poultry Processing Grant Program
The fourth round of MPPEP was announced as part of the October 2025 white paper. Applications were anticipated for early 2026, with awards to be announced in Q2 2026. Individual awards are up to $2 million each, focused on small processors and local supply chains. RBCS is also prioritizing beef processors within USDA's Guaranteed Business and Industry Loan Program, and SBA is prioritizing low-interest loans to new small meat processors. Eligible operators should monitor RBCS communications for official application windows as they open.
HACCP and FSIS Compliance: What Beef Manufacturers Need to Know
The USDA beef industry plan expands the pool of ranchers and processors in the marketplace. But growth without a sound compliance foundation creates regulatory exposure. Every federally inspected meat and poultry establishment is required to maintain a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system under 9 CFR Part 417. For beef manufacturers, this framework governs your relationship with FSIS and determines how the agency evaluates your operation during every inspection and Food Safety Assessment.
A compliant HACCP system covers seven elements:
- 1 Hazard Analysis
A written identification of food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in your process, along with the preventive measures available to control them.
- 2 Critical Control Points (CCPs)
Identification of the specific points in your production process where control is essential to prevent, eliminate, or reduce hazards to acceptable levels.
- 3 Critical Limits
Documented maximum or minimum values for each CCP that must be met to prevent the occurrence of a food safety hazard.
- 4 Monitoring Procedures
Written procedures for each CCP describing how your establishment verifies compliance with critical limits, including frequency and method.
- 5 Corrective Actions
Written procedures for any deviation from a critical limit, addressing how you identify and correct the cause of the deviation and prevent affected product from entering commerce.
- 6 Verification Procedures
Activities that confirm the HACCP system is functioning as intended, including plan validation and annual reassessment.
- 7 Recordkeeping
Documentation of monitoring, corrective actions, and verification activities — all of which must be available to FSIS upon request.
Under the current FSIS enforcement posture, common triggers for escalation include inadequate documentation of corrective actions, failure to validate HACCP plans following process changes, and sanitation gaps that allow environmental Listeria conditions to develop and persist.
FSIS enforcement typically follows a defined progression. Understanding each step protects your due process rights:
Establishments that receive an NOIE have due process rights and the ability to respond before further action is taken. The USDA inspection readiness checklist our team has published identifies the specific items FSIS evaluates and where establishments most often fall short.
Product of USA Labeling — What Operators Can and Cannot Do
- CAN use "Product of USA" on single-ingredient products from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed entirely in the United States, with documentation maintained and accessible.
- CAN use qualified claims that accurately identify which domestic production steps occurred — for example, "Packaged in the USA using imported beef."
- CAN reference FSIS Directive 7221.1 and Guideline 2025-0006 to confirm acceptable documentation formats before an inspection request occurs.
- CAN proactively review and update documentation practices to meet the 24-hour production standard before a compliance failure triggers enforcement.
- CANNOT use unqualified "Product of USA," "Made in the USA," or equivalent claims for products from animals not born and raised in the United States.
- CANNOT wait until after an FSIS request to assemble documentation — records must pre-exist the request and be producible within 24 hours.
- CANNOT use U.S.-origin language on multi-ingredient products if any significant non-spice/flavoring ingredients are of non-domestic origin.
- CANNOT treat the prior compliance period as ongoing — enforcement began January 1, 2026, and FSIS inspectors are actively verifying claims.
How OFW Law Can Help
OFW Law has represented food manufacturers, ranchers, and importers before USDA, FSIS, and CBP for decades. What distinguishes our practice from generalist food and agriculture counsel is direct operational experience — our attorneys have exercised direct operational control of food safety in some of the largest USDA-regulated plants in the nation. That depth informs how we advise clients on what FSIS inspectors actually look for and how enforcement decisions are made at the agency level.
Our USDA practice supports clients across several areas:
If your establishment has received an NOIE, faces potential suspension, or has been the subject of a recall, John G. Dillard leads our enforcement response work.
Jeff Canavan advises clients on whether current labeling practices meet the 2026 enforcement standard and what documentation must be maintained going forward.
We assist establishments in developing, reviewing, and updating HACCP plans to reflect current FSIS expectations, including the elevated scrutiny of Food Safety Assessments.
We help clients assess eligibility, understand compliance requirements that accompany federal grants, and plan for the regulatory environment affecting their operations.
If you are facing FSIS enforcement action, preparing for a Food Safety Assessment, or need to evaluate whether your labeling program meets the 2026 Product of USA standard, our food safety attorneys — including those with decades of direct FSIS experience — are available to help. Contact OFW Law to discuss your situation.