inputs to production to distribution. The growing number and scale of cross-border agribusiness and food mergers have put foreign firms, often with considerable government backing, into prominent and even dominant positions in the United States beef, hog, poultry, seed, fertilizer, and agrichemical sectors. (10) Growing concentration of the agricultural sector has restricted choices for farmers trying to sell their products. As the bargaining power of agribusiness firms over farmers increases, concentrated agricultural commodity markets are stacked against the farmer, with buyers of agricultural commodities often possessing regional dominance in the form of oligopsony or monopsony relative to sellers of such commodities. (11) The high concentration and consolidation of buyers in agricultural markets has resulted in the thinning of both cash and future markets, thereby allowing dominant buyers to leverage their market shares to move those markets to the detriment of family farmers and ranchers. (12) Buyers with oligopsonistic or monopsonistic power have incentives to engage in unfair and discriminatory acts that cause farmers to receive less than a competitive price for their goods. At the same time, some Federal courts have incorrectly required a plaintiff to show harm to competition generally, in addition to harm to the individual farmer, when making a determination that an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, deceptive, or preferential act exists under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. (13) The farmer’s share of every retail dollar has plummeted from 41 percent in 1950, to less than 15 percent today, while the profit share for farm input, marketing, and processing companies has risen. (14) While agribusiness conglomerates are posting record earnings, farmers are facing desperate times. Since 2013, net farm income for United States farmers has fallen by more than half and median on farm income was negative in 2020. (15) The benefits of low commodity prices are not being passed on to American consumers. The