Senators Work to Amend Meat Inspection Regulations
The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 are arguably the most industry altering pieces of legislation in U.S. history. Meat inspection regulations were the initial structure of safety standards for how livestock and the meat they produce are handled and preserved; what we now understand as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were altered at the turn of the century because they brought about greater public oversight of private companies that ultimately expanded beyond meat and food.
Sixty years later the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 which mandated that all meat processing facilities adhere to federal standards, even if the meat was not destined for commercial sale or sold across state lines, altered the balance between small farms and corporate packing companies. Since then we’ve seen a slow and steady return to the early 1900s where meat industries are largely consolidated with four major backing companies controlling most of our meat, and a growing portion of consumers asking questions about how we define quality.
Proposed Amendments to Current Meat Regulations
Small processing facilities have caved under the cost of updating processing methods and equipment to comply with federal standards and in turn, farms have come under pressure. Midsized operations typically have buyers ready, but have to wait six months to ship animals for processing which creates a bottleneck and ultimately costs the farm more in feed bills and makes the farms raise fewer animals every year.
Hence, the latest development in legislation regarding meat inspection; and one that could be a significant step for small sized farms looking to regain regional strength and tap into local markets. The LOCAL, or Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local Foods Act, aims to amend personal use and custom regulations so that a producer can sell a live animal to an individual and the individual can either designate someone to process the animal or do it themselves without a USDA certified inspector.
A Question of Quality
The proposed legislation prompts a few questions about quality standards. Just like in 1906, there is growing consumer awareness around food handling practices. Back then, the awareness fueled a consumer demand for increased regulation based on a belief that federal standards backed by an entity that had the power to enforce those standards was best for the general public. The LOCAL Foods Act seems to be a response to current consumer distrust in the ability of large processing facilities to safely handle huge quantities of meat. The law suggests that the market for locally sourced, meaning raised and processed, meat is expanding but hampered under current parameters.
There's an argument that regulations haven’t been a match for food contamination when it comes to commercial production. In fact, meat contamination increased last year in USDA facilities and over a quarter of recalls were due to E Coli, Hepatitis A, Salmonella, and Listeria. Approximately half of the recalls were because meat came into contact with allergens accidentally or because the product was labeled incorrectly. Other recall categories include meat that wasn’t inspected before it was packaged and meat that was contaminated by foreign objects like glass, metal, or chemicals. In total, 4,005,384 pounds of meat were recalled in 2023.
Would a greater number of small processing facilities coupled with an amendment to allow individuals to handle the processing of animals for personal use result in fewer recalls? Or is four million pounds of contaminated meat par for the course when feeding the country? Farms and ranches operate knowing there will be some losses during the process of raising animals and consider changes in feed or handling methods if the losses exceed an acceptable percentage. The United States produces billions of pounds of meat every year, making four million less than even half a percent of loss.
The Economics of The Local Foods Act
From an economic standpoint the Local Foods Act could be a win for small farm operators and consumers and local economies. Its very name hints at a goal to stabilize agricultural town economies by removing barriers that hinder business. Small farms have not been able to serve their own communities and the people who depend on the meat and produce they can purchase from their neighbors. Instead, livestock raised on these small farms are often absorbed by the larger packing companies and then sold outside of the towns where they were raised.
And for farms still working to serve their local communities, it's become increasingly difficult to offer their products at a competitive price. The process of raising an animal has gotten more expensive. Feed and fuel prices have been in flux which forces the price per pound of meat to go up. And, as more small processing plants go under, ranchers have had to travel farther for their animals to be processed which also contributes to the higher costs for consumers. It’s not uncommon for a small farm to wait months for a processing slot and in the meantime find that their property can’t support more animals. They end up feeding animals for longer periods of time and selling fewer of them which adds to increased sticker prices.
A personal use amendment would reopen an avenue for small farms to support their own communities. Instead of selling a herd at auction and receiving market price that day, they could sell individual animals. Consumers could then shop for the best processing and butchering option instead of being subject to the sticker price at the local grocery store. As long as the processed animal is not butchered and sold commercially an individual can make their own decisions about how the animal is handled, inspected, processed and butchered without being subjected to USDA inspection regulations.
A Win for Food Security
There’s an argument to be made that proposed amendments are also a win for food security. Large processing facilities that handle thousands of animals a day are efficient in delivering low cost, safe food to the public. However, there is a concern that reliance on a few large facilities creates food security risks. If one processing plant has an issue with contamination, or technology, or as we’ve seen with cyber security, it can have a large scale effect on food availability. If there were more small sized and mobile processing facilities in existence all over the country, it could create a safer dynamic for meat supplies.
Those in favor of the amendment also suggest that it could bring back the art of butchering and become a catalyst for engaging the next generation in agriculture, food security and supply chain dynamics. But that would require more labor and getting people to work in processing facilities is difficult.
Whether it’s a changing definition of quality, a redistribution of power, or a maneuver for economic mobility, the amendment, if passed, would be altering for the meat industry.
Comments