Cutting Through the Regulatory Morass
John Taylor’s custom-built mobile slaughter unit, which includes a waste receptacle, winch and hanging rack for the carcasses, negates the need for cows, sheep, goats and pigs to be transported long distances from farm to slaughterhouse, a journey that causes immense stress to the animal; a tragedy for both soulful beast and the quality of its meat.
This type of mobile unit falls squarely under custom slaughtering laws, which exempts processors from the requirements of having a state or federal inspector present at the time of slaughter, with the proviso that the custom slaughter must be for the personal use of the owner of the animal (one must purchase the whole animal, while it is still alive), not one scrap of its meat can be sold, and, of course, it must be handled in a sanitary manner. Farmers who wish to sell cuts of meat post slaughter must send their animals to a slaughterhouse that has a state or federal inspector on-site.
That leg of lamb purchased from your local butcher shop or supermarket is slathered in regulations. The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 (WMA) dictates that any T-bone steak or pork chop or chicken thigh crossing state lines must have been slaughtered and processed at a federally inspected facility, with a federal inspector present at the time of slaughter. And while each state can employ its own meat inspectors, the WMA extended the USDA’s jurisdiction to intrastate commerce, ruling state-inspected meats be sold only in the state where the slaughter occurred, thus securing the federal government’s control over our national meat supply.
While creating uniformity for a mass-produced “product,” these laws also encourage the conglomeration and near total consolidation of our nation’s meat industry, its crass moniker now “commodity.” Indeed, only 27 states operate their own meat and poultry inspection programs (California is not one of them). While WMA raised quality standards on both U.S. slaughtering operations and the importation of meats, it also gave the federal government domination over states’ authority at the butchering table.
It should be noted that mere months after the WMA became law, the now-defunct weekly newspaper the National Observer published its own findings about the passage of the WMA. The May 20, 1968, edition of the paper stated the following:
“Agents of the Federal Government fanned out across the nation last July under urgent and explicit instructions from Washington to gather examples of horrid conditions in meat-processing plants not under U.S. Government control. Swiftly and often with calculated deception, the Federal men got what they were ordered to get. These findings, which were widely accepted as factual and unbiased Government inspection reports, painted a picture of widespread fifth in meat handling. These reports were later to be used as undisputed authority for scare stories that frightened the public and helped stampede Congress into passage of a new and tougher Federal meat-inspection law—the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967.
What the passage of the WMA has led to has been the creation of a monopoly in the meat industry, a loss of consumer choice, a decline in the ability of small sustainable farms to meet demand, and a deterioration in food safety and quality.”
Unfortunately, the report read the tea leaves correctly: In 1967, there were almost 10,000 livestock (cattle, hog and sheep) slaughterhouses in the U.S. As of January 1, 2017, there remained 2,732 federal and custom slaughterhouses, with sales from the latter severely restricted. Many of the closings were of community operations, which provided slaughter and processing to small farmers, many of whom were left high and dry, no longer able to afford their animal husbandry businesses because of the high cost of transportation to and from few and far between processing facilities. Today, the surviving farmers need to make reservations months in advance at a slaughterhouse that may be hundreds of miles away, and many require a minimum number of animals, making it prohibitive for a small farmer, and further eroding sustainable family farming operations.
But the times, they are a’changing… Hungry carnivores in this country are becoming increasingly vocal in their desires to purchase free-range, non-commodity meats from smaller farmers. According to data from the Perishable Food arm of Nielsen, the global analytics and data measurement company, volume sales for free-range meat was up 26.9% in 2016, while conventional was down 0.5%.
In response to constituents’ demands, in May 2017 Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY) reintroduced the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act, also known as the PRIME Act. The legislation would return power to the states to determine appropriate regulations, giving states the option of creating laws allowing the sale (within that state only) of custom slaughtered and processed meats from farmer direct to consumer, restaurant, hotel, and grocery, including the sale of jerky, bone broth and pot pies. The bills have been referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Congressman Massie has said that if the PRIME Act does not pass during this congressional session, he plans to introduce the measure as an amendment to the next Farm Bill.
Elizabeth Rich, executive director of The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), a nonprofit, social-welfare organization working to protect the rights of farmers and consumers to engage in direct commerce, writes that the PRIME Act is a response to the dramatic decline in the number of slaughterhouses in the U.S. since the passage of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967. “The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 was sold to the public as a consumer protection bill, but it has wound up being an industry consolidation measure. Currently, only four companies control over 80% of the beef processing in this country; four companies control over 60% of pork processing.”
Not shockingly, meat lobbies, such as the National Pork Producers Council, oppose the PRIME Act, citing food safety, maintaining consumer confidence and safeguarding animal health. A fact-based argument could certainly be made that the consolidation of the “meat industry” has undermined those very issues while making it difficult for the small farmer to meet the demand for high quality, locally produced meats. And on the flip side, that by establishing a direct link between farmer and consumer, we create a vibrant and vital community economy.
With increased demand for local meats, support systems for creating mobile slaughter units have sprung up, with seminars on the subject attracting large audiences. A recent session held jointly by the Colorado and Wyoming state agriculture departments drew 150 people from states as far away as California, Ohio and New York. Several U.S. communities have developed slaughtering cooperatives, where members pay dues for access.
Online, the Niche Meat Processor Assistance Network offers information on mobile slaughter units, including how to wade through regulations, design and construction ideas, management and financing options. The site provides links to several webinars, including one led by Bruce Dunlop, who developed the U.S.’s first mobile slaughter unit.
Editors note: Stay tuned for an in-depth article on the current state of meat animal slaughter and processing rules and regulations specific to Marin, Napa and Sonoma counties in an upcoming issue of Edible Marin & Wine Country.
