Proclamation of a non-meat-eater

This semester I was enrolled in a class entitled "Citizens, Consumers, and Corporations". It was a PoliSci class and was very interesting and thought provoking. The following is a paper I wrote for the class--I got to choose the topic and was limited to 6-8 pages. My topic? The meat industry in America, what else? So here it is, be forewarned that it's lengthy (at least for a blog post)...

In the same way that assembly lines revolutionized production during the Industrial Revolution, so has it revolutionized the meat industry in America. The romantic view of Old MacDonald and his farm, cows grazing the fields saying “moo” and the chickens roaming the farmyard is no longer commonplace in the food production industry. Dating back to the 1950’s meat processing and production firms have been consolidating and joining supply chains, leaving the large percentage of meat sources in the hands of just a few large corporations (Barkema, Drabenstott, & Novack, 2001). Transitioning from many individual farms that may have raised several different kinds of animals for slaughter, the meat industry now consists of a few large feedlots and “factory” farms (Kenner, 2008).

The animals, cows, chickens, and pigs, are slaughtered in large corporate meat packing plants, of which the top four processing firms own the majority market share. This manner in which meat is produced in America is unsustainable, unnatural, and is contributing negatively to the health of our society. When corporations took over the industry and turned raising animals into producing food in response to consumer demand, they chose efficiency over sustainability. Though corporations are not solely to blame for the state of the meat industry today, they have been the largest enabling factor on a very slippery slope. Different aspects to consider are the progression of industrialized food production over the last half century, the current condition of the meat industry, and sustainable alternatives to the corporate way.

First, it is important to understand the extent to which corporations have control over the meat industry in America. There are several layers to the some what complex system, but it can be broken down into three main categories: retailers, processors, and producers. Retailers are the firms with whom consumers interact with: grocery stores and multi-functional stores like Wal-Mart. According to an article in the Economic Review in 2001, a wave of grocery store consolidation in the 1990s resulted in the top four food retailers owning a 34% market share in 2000 (Barkema, Drabenstott, & Novack, 2001). This same concentration rate averaged in urban areas took up 72% of the food retail market share.

These retailers want to provide the cheap food that customers demand, while constantly increasing their profit margin. Similarly, the meat processing industry experienced a consolidation, beginning in the 1950’s. By 1999, the top four firms owned an 80% share in the beef sector (compared with a 25% share held by seven companies in 1970 (Kenner, 2008)), nearly 60% of the pork sector, and by 1997, more than 40% of the chicken sector (Barkema, Drabenstott, & Novack, 2001). Numbers of slaughterhouses have dramatically declined since the 1980s, making way for much larger operations.

Producers—the farmers and growers, have also made a transition over the last half century. Moving away from the rolling farmlands pictured on supermarket products, they have become mass production facilities (Kenner, 2008). They are responsible for meeting the demand of processors, retailers, and ultimately consumers. Each facility typically produces hundreds of thousands of animals on an annual basis. This has benefited the industry by combining costs and increasing profit margins (Barkema, Drabenstott, & Novack, 2001). All of this has resulted in an undeniable corporate control over the industry.

Corporations are not completely responsible for the rapid consolidation of the American meat industry. What would a corporation be without its consumers? These days, as consumers of food, most Americans are looking for fast, cheap, and easy. They spend less time in the kitchen and more time doing other things. As Michael Pollan discusses in his New York Times Magazine article “Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch”, there are several contributing factors to the decline of the home cooking. One of the main causes is the rise in women working outside of the home. Because of this, there is a need for more convenient sources of food. Food production companies have stepped up and filled the void, providing prepackaged meals and easy ways to bypass spending a lot of time in the kitchen. According to Pollan, the average American spends 27 minutes preparing food on a daily basis, a time that has halved in the last half a century (Pollan, 2009). They want cheap, easy, and uniform, and the processors can give it to them.

An interesting factor is the influence of the fast food industry. McDonald’s is one of the largest purchasers of ground beef, chicken, and pork in America (Kenner, 2008). In order to fulfill the demands of a cheap and efficient fast food market, they require uniformity and conformity in the size, quality, and quantity of meat. Fast food chains have shaped the way meat is produced, and have been a catalyst in the transformation of the meat industry over the last several decades as previously discussed. Back in the 1980s, the fast food industry, being built on cheap burgers, began to suffer as beef began being scrutinized for health reasons.

Between a Mad Cow disease scare and warnings about red meat and its effects on heart health, McDonalds and other fast food establishments needed to find another way to keep patrons happy. And so enters the rise in chicken consumption. In 1980, McDonald’s introduced Chicken McNuggets, a bite-sized, boneless chicken product that turned the fast food industry upside down (Roberts, 2008). Chicken used to be considered a luxury compared to beef and pork. And so there was a push to find a cheaper more efficient way to produce chicken. Chickens were already more efficient eaters than cows, but the small amount of meat they provided was somewhat of an obstacle. A chicken was developed that was not only twice as big but developed twice as fast as the traditional bird.

A 1984 article in the New York Times explains, “Agribusiness has managed to take the old barnyard, worm-eating animal and transform it into a wondrous fast-growing creation bred to live in a synthetic setting - lightbulbs for sun, fans for wind - and grow to slaughter weight in under 50 days” (Kleinfield, 1984). This modern bird cheapened production considerably, increasing company’s ability to turn a profit and the consumer’s access to it. As beef consumption fell, chicken consumption began to rise considerably, surpassing beef in number of pounds consumed per capita by the late 1980s (Barkema, Drabenstott, & Novack, 2001). Between the consumer demands and the desire of profit for corporations at the retail and processing level, the production of meat in America has grown to astronomical levels.

Until now, the benefits of the meat industry in America have been overwhelmingly apparent. As has already been discussed, consumers have access to lots of cheap meat and corporations are making a nice buck. Meat packing plants have an enormous effect on the local economies in which they are found. According to Drahenstott et al. in the article “Where Have All the Packing Plants Gone? The New Meat Geography in Rural America”, in 1999, one in every 16 manufacturing jobs in rural areas was a meat packing job. Not only that but it was growing at more than eight percent annually, nearly eight times the growth for all rural manufacturing industries (Drahenstott, Henry, & Mitchell, 1999). The plans also buy materials from the local community, thus putting money into the local economies. Consumers benefit quite a bit from the current system. According to Forbes.com, the average American spends 13.3% of their budget on food. Compared to what it was at the turn of the 20^th century, nearly 50%, it is miniscule (Holland & Ewalt, 2006). Without retailers, processors, and producers catering to a consumer’s desire for cheap food, a much larger percentage of budgets would be spent almost unnecessarily on food.

As economically beneficial and efficient the meat industry is, it is unsustainable in several different facets, and is especially damaging when it comes to the health of the environment, of individuals, and of society as a whole. Just over a century ago, Upton Sinclair shocked the world with his narrative The Jungle, exposing the horrors of the meat packing industry. Since then, many aspects of the meat industry have certainly improved, but now we’re facing much harsher consequences that even Sinclair couldn’t have predicted.

First, the meat industry is putting a large burden on the environment. The animals raised for slaughter have to eat and they inevitably produce waste. Most slaughterhouse bound animals these days are fed some form of corn. Seeing as it is cheap and available in large quantities and allows the animal to grow faster, it is fed to these animals, all of which were not naturally intended to eat corn (Pollan, In Defense of Food, 2008). Corn is a very input intensive crop, it requires fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation to achieve maximum yield. Eating beef from a cow grown in a conventional corporate setting means one is not only eating the energy and fuel required to raise the cow, transport it to the processing plant and subsequently to the supermarket. One is also eating the energy and fuel required to grow the corn, process it, and transport it to the cow. Beyond energy considerations, pollution and land degradation are consequences of the factory farm system.

A United Nations report released in 2006, called Livestock’s Long Shadow, describes in over 400 pages how much of an effect the livestock sector has on this planet environmentally. This sector, globally, is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation. Feed production and pig and dairy operations together account for Minnesota’s largest source of agricultural carbon emissions. In the United States, the livestock sector is responsible for more than half of erosion, sediment loss, and antibiotic use and 37% of pesticide use. Farms and slaughterhouses deplete and pollute water. And the list goes on (Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative, 2006). Needless to say the meat industry is having a profoundly negative impact on the environment.

As far as damaging the health of individuals and society, the two are closely linked. Never before have Americans been so far removed from the sources of their food. Being this far removed means that there are a lot of added steps from the animal being born to appearing on the dinner table. These steps add more opportunity for health and safety risks. Antibiotics fed to animals to protect them in feedlots end up getting eaten by the consumer. And yet bacteria can still be introduced after the animal has been slaughtered, putting the consumer at risk, sometimes fatally. Food Inc. tells the story of a mother who’s two year old son died from E. coli that was present in his hamburger several years ago (Kenner, 2008). More recently, a young woman in Minnesota ingested E. coli through a store bought hamburger, was thrown into a coma, and eventually woke up paralyzed for life. After engaging in an investigation, The New York Times reported that infected burger was from a Cargill plant in Wisconsin. The meat itself had come from four different meat packing plants across America and Uraguay—none of whom had properly check for the bacteria before sending it on (Moss, 2009).

Not only should there be concern for the health of the animals before slaughter, but also for the health of the consumers. When something horrendous like this happens, and someone’s life is put on the line, it drastically affects the larger society. In the late 1980’s, during the Mad Cow disease scare, Oprah made an offhand comment on her talk show about not wanting to eat beef ever again. She was then taken to court by cattle ranchers in Texas under the Veggie Libel laws (these state that no one can say anything about a food product that may negatively affect the profit of the food company) (Kenner, 2008). Fear is contagious and can severely affect the mentality of society. The Mad Cow era also coincides with the rise in chicken consumption. Fear of beef only shifted the focus of the meat industry and contributed to the developing of the modern chicken.

Overall, the manner in which meat is produced in this country is not sustainable—it’s not healthy for the planet or consumers, and it cannot last forever. And yet this concept is no big secret. Countless books have been written about factory farming and more recently there have been a slew of publications indicating the flaws in the system, including Omnivore’s Dilemma, Food Inc., Fast Food Nation, etc. The battle of organic or not has been raging for years, and companies are learning how to market to what consumers think they want (labels with storybook farm pictures (Kenner, 2008)). This brings up a very important flaw in our society. Being a consumer driven industry, the meat is fulfilling demand and finding ways to turn the largest profits.

If asked, most consumers would verbally disagree with factory farms filled with genetically engineered creatures that are pumped with antibiotics, and brought to slaughter in less than humane ways. And yet the meat is still bought, it is still consumed, and the factory farm system persists. Consumers may feel boxed in, like there is no other options, or if there are they’re too expensive. But there are a few ways of acting that show that consumers care where their meat comes from, and this can cause the whole system to become more sustainable. On a slightly extreme level, one could choose not to eat meat. Alternatively, it is important to know where the meat on one’s plate comes from, how far it traveled to get to you, and what it was fed. Food animals that were raised on grass are healthier, and their meat is subsequently healthier than those fed on a corn diet (Pollan, In Defense of Food, 2008).

America started on a slippery slope more than a hundred years ago when the slaughterhouses described in The Jungle were built. The meat industry has slid a long way down this slope and will continue to do so until consumers take a stand. Meat production in America is unsustainable and is doing more damage that it is good for the environment and consumers’ health. The sooner it turns around the better, and the loudest voices come from the ones purchasing the meat.

Works Cited

Barkema, A., Drabenstott, M., & Novack, N. (2001). The New U.S. Meat Industry. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City , 33-56.

Drahenstott, M., Henry, M., & Mitchell, K. (1999). Where Have All the Packing Plants Gone? The New Meat Geography in Rural America. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City , 65-82.

Holland, L., & Ewalt, D. (2006, June 19). How Americans Make and Spend Their Money. Retrieved December 13, 2009, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/spending-income-level_cx_lh_de_0719spending.html

Kenner, R. (Director). (2008). Food Inc. [Motion Picture].

Kleinfield, N. (1984, December 9). America Goes Chicken Crazy. New York Times .

Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow. Rome: United Nations.

Moss, M. (2009, October 3). E. Coli Path Shows Flaw in Beef Inspection. New York Times .

Pollan, M. (2008). In Defense of Food. London: Penguin Press.

Pollan, M. (2009, July 29). Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch. New York Times Magazine .

Roberts, P. (2008). The End of Food. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.