The most important legislation for the local food movement that has been before Congress the past eight years has been the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act, known as the PRIME Act; in this current session, the bill has been introduced as House Resolution 2814 (HR 2814) [1] and Senate Bill 907 (S. 907) [2]. The PRIME Act would allow states to pass laws legalizing the sale of custom slaughtered and processed meat in intrastate commerce; the lack of slaughterhouse infrastructure throughout most of the U.S. is the biggest weakness of the local food system. Under current law, only the owners of an animal can receive the meat slaughtered and processed at a custom facility; only meat from an animal slaughtered and processed at a federal- or state-inspected facility can be sold.

The PRIME Act would amend the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 (WMA), the legislation that established these requirements. Unless you are an oligopolist, the WMA has been a disaster. At the time the act passed into law, there were around 9,600 slaughterhouses in the U.S. [3];  the country’s population at the time was around 200 million. Today there are between 2,800 and 2,900 slaughterhouses [4] in the country and the current U.S. population is around 335 million. Four companies now control over 80% of beef processing in the U.S., and four companies control over 60% of pork processing [5].

There has never been a better chance to pass this bill than now. Congress is currently in the process of writing up the 2023 Farm Bill. The PRIME Act has a legitimate chance to be included in the Farm Bill; it has much less chance to pass as a standalone. Giving the bill momentum was a congressional hearing in June that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform and Antitrust held titled, “Where’s the Beef? Regulatory Barriers to Entry and Competition in Meat Processing” [6]; the PRIME Act was a focus of the hearing. Farmer/slaughterhouse owner Joel Salatin testified on how it could be a solution to the difficulties small farmers and ranchers have in meeting demand for local meat with the current laws in place that favor the big meatpackers.

Congressman Thomas Massie, a cattle farmer representing Kentucky’s 4th district, is the lead sponsor for HR 2814 as he has been since he first introduced the PRIME Act in 2015. Adding more urgency to the need to have the legislation included in the 2023 Farm Bill is a statement Massie made in a Washington Post interview earlier this year, indicating that he might serve only one more term [7], meaning he wouldn’t be around when the next Farm Bill would be deliberated in 2028. There is no one in Congress who would put in anywhere near the time and resources to pass the PRIME Act that Massie has; neither is there anyone who has the expertise on the matter that he does.

To say passage of the PRIME Act is badly needed is a huge understatement. Demand for locally produced meat is booming, but it is difficult for farmers and ranchers to meet that demand with the lack of access to slaughterhouses under inspection. Right now in parts of the country, farmers have to book a slaughterhouse slot as much as 1-1/2 to 2 years in advance. Moreover, farmers often have to transport their animals several hours to an inspected slaughterhouse, increasing their expenses and stressing out the animals which could affect the quality of the meat. The majority of livestock farmers live closer to a custom slaughterhouse than an inspected slaughterhouse.

Aside from better enabling farmers to meet the demand for local meat, passage of the PRIME Act could begin the long-overdue process of decentralizing meat production in the U.S.  According to USDA data from 2022 [8], 52 federally inspected slaughterhouses account for around 93% of the cattle slaughtered in the U.S.; 60 federally inspected facilities account for nearly 98% of the hogs slaughtered in the country. This centralization along with the supply chain breakdowns and labor shortages of the past few years has made the meat supply more vulnerable as well as leading to a decline in quality. It’s likely that passage of the PRIME Act would initially impact a fraction of 1% of meat production, but its revival of the community abattoir would improve food security through increased self-sufficiency at the local level.

Massie said several years ago that he knew of 1,000 shuttered slaughterhouses in the country whose owners would re-open if the PRIME Act became law; the owners did not want to run a business if an inspector was present each time they were slaughtering animals (government regulators typically inspect a custom house only once or twice a year). The owners did not believe they could generate enough revenue operating under laws prohibiting the sale of meat slaughtered and/or processed at a custom facility.

The only argument the opposition to HR 2814 has is food safety, but the data shows they don’t even have that. In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Texas nonprofit Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), the USDA acknowledged that between 2012 and 2020 there were no cases of foodborne illness due to the consumption of custom slaughtered and processed meat [9]. By contrast, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) between 2005 and 2020, over 6,000 cases of foodborne illness were attributed to beef and pork consumption [10]; the likelihood is that all or nearly all that meat was slaughtered in big USDA facilities that process 300-400 cattle per hour. The big plants process more animals in a day than a custom house would in a year. There is better quality control in a custom facility, inspector or no inspector.

A key part of food safety is traceability–another advantage meat from a custom house has over meat from one of the big USDA facilities. A hamburger in the industrial food system could come from hundreds of cattle raised in multiple states and countries; a hamburger from a custom facility is going to be from one cow.

Increasing the amount of locally produced meat available for consumption would not only benefit food security and food safety but also human health and the economy. With passage of the PRIME Act, there would be less money spent on, and less demand for, resources of the healthcare system—freeing up money to be spent in more productive areas of the economy. The records on foodborne illness outbreaks indicate that a higher percentage of people per serving who consume meat produced by the big plants of the conventional industry cost the healthcare system more money than the people who obtain locally produced meat from small farmers and ranchers. The likelihood is also that people who purchase locally produced meat place less demand for resources on the medical system in the treatment of chronic disease then do those who buy their meat from the industrial system.

Beyond the deterioration of quality the centralization of meat production has caused, there is another development in the conventional industry making passage of the PRIME Act imperative: the production and marketing of alternative proteins, such as cell-cultured meat and insects. Industry has spent billions in the development of alternative proteins even though there is little or no demand for them—with two of the major meatpackers, Tyson and Cargill, being investors. The question is: what will the ruling establishment do to help industry get a return on its investment? Will it involve enforcing policies that will make animal proteins less available? The best response to the ruling elites’ plans is to build out a parallel food system as independent of federal control as possible; a robust slaughterhouse infrastructure will be a centerpiece of that system. The PRIME Act will be a catalyst in making that happen–moving the system towards a day when the local abattoir will once again dot the countryside.‍

References‍

[1]  U.S. Congress. (2023). House Resolution 2814. [PDF]. Introduced April 25, 2023. PDF accessed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2814/text‍

[2]  U.S. Congress. (2023). Senate Bill 907. [PDF]. Introduced March 22, 2023. PDF accessed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/907/text

[3] USDA, Statistical Reporting Service Crop Reporting Board. (1969). Annual Livestock Slaughter, April 1969. [PDF] “Table 20 – Number of Livestock Slaughtering Establishments, March 1, 1967, 1968, 1969”, p. 35. PDF accessed at https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/r207tp32d

[4] USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. (2023). Livestock Slaughter 2022 Summary (April 2023). [PDF]. [Table – “Livestock Slaughter Plants by Type of Inspection – States and United States: January 1, 2022 and 2023″ Inspected Percent of Total Commercial Slaughter by Species, Month, and Total – United States: 2022 and 2021 Total”, p. 62]. PDF accessed at https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/r207tp32d

[5] James, H.S., Hendrickson, M.K., and Howard, P.H. (2012, February). Networks, Power and Dependency in the Agrifood Industry. Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics Working Paper. College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources: University of Missouri. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2004496 (Accessed: 7 September 2023). [See  “Table 1 – Concentration ratios and dominant firms for selected agrifood sector”, p. 32]

[6] Forbes Breaking News. (2023, June 13). ‘Where’s The Beef?’: Thomas Massie Leads House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Meat Industry. [Video]. YouTube.com. https://youtu.be/jky4-J-Tsc0?si=qfEkqL2BsH9rATQF‍

[7] Will, G.F. (2023, June 22). “Meet the implacable, off-the-grid libertarian working to energize Congress”. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/21/kentucky-republican-thomas-massie-congressional-plan/‍

[8] USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. (2023). Livestock Slaughter 2022 Summary (April 2023). [PDF]. [calculated from tables on pp. 8 and 61]. PDF accessed at https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/r207tp32d‍

[9] USDA. (2020, June 25). [Foodborne illness from custom meat]. FOIA response, 2020-FSIS-00397-F.

[10] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 26). Access® database for outbreaks reported from 2005 to 2020 from all transmission sources (food, water, animal contact, environmental, and person-to-person) [Data set]. Provided by Hannah Lawinger, CDC NORS Data Request Manager.

The post THE TIME FOR PRIME IS NOW! appeared first on Real Milk.

“Tennessee Welcomes You” sign at the state border

On July 1st Senate Bill 693 (SB 693), also known as the Tennessee Food Freedom Act, went into effect as law. SB 693 is a major step in expanding consumer access to homemade food in Tennessee and keeping more of the food dollar in the state. State Senator Frank Niceley sponsored the bill; Representative Justin Lafferty was the sponsor of companion legislation House Bill 813 (HB 813).

SB 693 allows the unregulated sale of all food that does not require time or temperature control for safety (including fermented foods) by homemade food producers direct to the consumer or “a third-party vendor, such as a retail shop or grocery store.” Sales can be made to the consumer remotely through telephone or internet order. Deliveries of homemade food can be made through third-party carriers; all transactions under SB 693 must be in intrastate commerce only.

The production and sale of homemade foods is exempt from all “licensing, permitting, inspection, packaging…laws of this state, except when the department of health is investigating a reported foodborne illness.” The only requirement under the bill is the disclosure through labeling or other communication (depending on the food sold and the type of transaction) of the following information: the producer’s contact information, the name of the food item, its ingredients, and the statement: “This product was produced at a private residence that is exempt from state licensing and inspection.”

Prior law allowed the sale of “not potentially hazardous” foods (mostly the same foods that can be sold under SB 693) by the producer without a permit directly to the consumer only; further, the producer was subject to inspection and other requirements under the old law. The deregulation of the production and sales of homemade foods along with the now legal third-party sales of these items should increase the number of homemade food producers as well as consumer access substantially. Food buyers clubs, food hubs, and mom-and-pop stores are all possible venues for the sales of homemade food

Niceley has made a huge impact on the fortunes of small farmers in Tennessee. In 2009 he was the sponsor of a bill legalizing the distribution of raw milk through cowshare agreements; he followed up on that success in 2012 by getting an Attorney General’s opinion that it was legal to distribute other raw dairy products through a cowshare arrangement as well. In 2019 he sponsored a successful bill legalizing the retail sale of raw butter by licensed dairies.

In 2014 Niceley sponsored a bill adopting the federal poultry exemption enabling farmers to process up to 20,000 birds a year; the state has since expanded that exemption by policy to include rabbit processing on the farm. In 2017 he sponsored a bill adopting the federal exemptions on custom slaughter and on non-amenable species—the latter exemption allows the sale of meat from animals such as bison and domestically raised deer that are slaughtered and processed at a custom facility. That same year he also sponsored a bill that exempted from licensing and inspection food buyers club and other entities that distribute the products of farmers.

A fifth-generation cattle farmer himself, Niceley is largely responsible for Tennessee having one of the strongest local food systems in the country. He is the legislator small farmers across the state most turn to when they have a regulatory issue.

With the looming engineered shortages in the conventional food supply, it is critical to deregulate the production and sale of locally produced foods. Shortening the supply chains and enabling communities to be more self-sufficient in food production is a way to fight back against corporate tyranny and the threat of food scarcity. All 50 states have Cottage Food laws, with some states such as Wyoming and Montana allowing the unregulated sale of nearly all foods other than meat; illnesses attributed to producers operating under cottage food and food freedom laws are almost nonexistent. States like Tennessee and laws like its Food Freedom Act can be a model going forward for deregulation in other states.

Congratulations to Senator Niceley, Representative Justin Lafferty, Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader and lobbyist Shawn Day, and others who worked in support of the bill for their success!

Photo Credit: Andrey Krav via iStock.com

The post Tennessee Food Freedom Act Now Law appeared first on Real Milk.

The onset of the COVID crisis in March 2020 increased the wait times for small farmers and ranchers to send their livestock for slaughter and processing; that trend has continued since. It isn’t uncommon for slaughterhouses in numerous areas around the country to be booking into 2023. The recent ‘ransomware’ attack against the world’s largest meat company, JBS, is a warning that future cyber attacks against one of the major meat packers could push the wait for small producers even further out. As it is, the inadequate slaughterhouse infrastructure in the U.S. will be forcing more livestock farmers to choose between either violating the law or going out of business. A sure sign of a bad law is one that otherwise law-abiding citizens violate with regularity. Unless Congress acts soon, that could be the future for the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).

State legislatures have passed several bills during the 2021 session to strengthen slaughterhouse infrastructure. Arkansas passed legislation establishing a state meat inspection program (Oregon passed similar legislation in 2020). Montana passed an Interstate Meat Compact Act which would allow the shipment and receipt by Montana businesses of state-inspected meat from other states that were also members of the compact; federal law prohibits this practice, so the Montana legislation taking effect is contingent on either Congress amending the FMIA or a successful court challenge to that Act within the next four years.

Both Colorado and Nebraska passed meat share bills, allowing someone with an undivided ownership interest in a herd of animals to obtain custom slaughtered and processed meat from those animals; Wyoming passed a meat share law in 2020.

At the federal level, legislators have introduced bills this session that would allow the sale of state-inspected meat in interstate commerce; current law only allows the shipment of state-inspected meat across state lines if the plant slaughtering and/or processing the livestock has no more than 25 employees and that plant has been approved to participate in the Cooperative Interstate Shipments (CIS) program. Plants cannot join the program unless the state elects to participate in the CIS program; to this point, only seven of the 29 states with their own meat inspection programs have done so.

All of these state and federal efforts can improve slaughterhouse infrastructure, but none of them would be as effective as passage of the PRIME Act. As Massie has pointed out, allowing the sale of custom meats would lead to the greatest increase in slaughterhouses. Many of those interested in starting up custom facilities—if the PRIME Act became law—would not want to invest in a state- or a federally-inspected slaughterhouse (where both an inspector would be present every time the plant was in production and a HACCP plan would be a requirement).

The biggest criticism of the PRIME Act is that it would jeopardize food safety, but the evidence is otherwise. In 2020 the nonprofit Farm And Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) seeking to find out the number of foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to the consumption of custom slaughtered and processed meat from 2012 until June 2020; the FSIS response was zero. By contrast over the past three years, there have been several multi-state outbreaks attributed to consumption of USDA-inspected beef that sickened 106,209 and 403 people, respectively. With many federal and state plants—particularly the large federal facilities—stretched beyond capacity more than ever, passage of the PRIME Act would improve the quality control of our nation’s meat supply. In effect, the bill is a food safety measure.

H.R. 3835 has been assigned to the House Committee on Agriculture; S.2001 has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Look for action alerts from the Weston A. Price (WAPF) on this critical legislation.

Action Alert
PRIME Act needs your support in the new Congress!

Photo Credit: “Meat” by Kyle Mackie on Unsplash.com

The post Is It Finally Time for PRIME? appeared first on Real Milk.

On May 23, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Senator Angus King (I-ME) reintroduced the Processing Revival and Interstate Meat Exemption Act (H.R. 2859 / S. 1820), also known as the PRIME Act. The legislation would return power to the states to determine appropriate regulations for meat processing within their borders. The bills have been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, respectively.

The PRIME Act would give states the option of passing laws to allow the sale of custom-slaughtered and processed meat in intrastate commerce direct to the consumer and to venues such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, and boarding houses. Federal law currently prohibits the sale of custom-processed meat; meat from a custom facility can only go to the individual or individuals who own the animal at the time slaughter takes place–a requirement costing farmers a substantial amount of business. Many potential customers either don’t have the funds to buy a whole animal or the freezer space to store it.

Farmers who sell meat by the cut must use a slaughterhouse that has an inspector present during the actual slaughtering. Many communities in the U.S. have custom facilities nearby but not inspected slaughterhouses; this means hauling the animals several hours to an inspected facility, driving up the farmer’s costs and stressing the animals. There are places in this country where the farmer has to book a year in advance with the slaughterhouse under inspection for the slaughtering of livestock.

The decline in slaughterhouse infrastructure since the passage of the Wholesome Meat Act in 1967 has been one of the biggest problems small farmers face. The Wholesome Meat Act gave the federal government jurisdiction over meat processing and sales in intrastate commerce. At the time the Act passed, there were nearly 10,000 slaughterhouses in the U.S.¹; as of January 1, 2019, there were 2,766.²

Passage of the PRIME Act is more important than ever. There continues to be growing demand for grass-fed beef, but with the lack of local slaughterhouses, small farmers are missing out on much of that business. Instead of business that could go to small American farmers, imported “grass-fed” beef has the dominant market share in the U.S. According to reports, 75% to 80% of grass-fed beef sold in this country is imported. Due to lax country-of-origin-labeling laws, much of this meat is labeled as being produced in the U.S.³

It remains to be seen how much market share laboratory plant-based “meat” will capture at the expense of small-scale livestock farmers, but the fake meat industry is growing rapidly at this time with support from major Wall Street banks and investment firms [see underwriters listed in the prospectus for Beyond Meat, Inc.⁴].

Small farmers badly need greater access to slaughterhouses to be able to compete on more even footing with agribusiness. Currently, only four companies control over 80% of the beef processing in this country; four companies control over 60% of pork processing.⁵

The meat industry consolidation has led to significant food safety concerns. Inspected slaughterhouses are stretched beyond capacity. In recent years the industry has had over 100 recalls each year totaling over 20,000,000 pounds of meat and poultry products being recalled annually.⁶

Few, if any, recalls and cases of foodborne illnesses have involved meat slaughtered and processed at a custom facility. Custom slaughterhouses are generally small facilities where often only a few animals are slaughtered and processed each day; contrast this with the USDA plants where up to 300-400 cattle are slaughtered per hour.⁷ The custom houses, even without an inspector on site, have a much better track record for food safety. Passage of the PRIME Act will improve food safety in the industry.

Representative Massie said, “Consumers want to know where their food comes from, what it contains, and how it’s processed. Yet federal inspection requirements make it difficult to purchase food from trusted local farmers. It is time to open our markets to give producers the freedom to succeed and consumers the freedom to choose.”⁸

The PRIME Act was originally introduced in 2015. In the House, H.R. 2859 and currently has eleven co-sponsors; the Senate companion bill, S. 1620 has two co-sponsors.

Please support this crucial legislation. The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) will be sending out an alert on the PRIME Act in the near future.

———–

[1] Riva Caroline Hodges Denny, “Between the Farm and the Farmer’s Market: Slaughterhouses, Regulations, and Alternative Food Networks ” (Master’s thesis), 2012, p. 2. Retrieved from Auburn University AUETD database, https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/3247

[2] USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Livestock Slaughter 2018 Summary, April 2019; Table “Livestock Slaughter Plants by Type of Inspection – States and United States: January 1, 2018 and 2019”, p. 62. Posted at https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/r207tp32d/8336h934w/hq37vx004/lsslan19.pdf

[3] Deena Shanker, “Most Grass-Fed Beef Labeled ‘Product of U.S.A.’ Is Imported”, Bloomberg News, May 23, 2019. Posted at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/most-grass-fed-beef-labeled-product-of-u-s-a-is-imported

[4] Prospectus for Beyond Meat Inc. Posted at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1655210/000162828019004543/beyondmeats-1a5.htm

Hyperlinked by David Gumpert in “Why the Fake-Meat Explosion Is Good News for Good Food”, The Complete Patient, blog, May 19, 2019. Posted at https://www.davidgumpert.com/the-fake-meat-explosion-could-be-great-news-for-grass-fed-meat-and-raw-dairy

[5] USDA, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 2016 Annual Report: Packers and Stockyards Program, Table 5 “Four-Firm Concentration in Livestock Slaughter by Type of Livestock and Poultry – Federally-Inspected Plants”, p. 11. Posted at https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/psp/publication/ar/2016_psp_annual_report.pdf

Hyperlinked by Claire Kelloway in “Beef packing merger threatens last competitive cash cattle market in U.S.”, Fern’s Ag Insider, April 11, 2019. Posted at https://thefern.org/ag_insider/beef-packing-merger-threatens-last-competitive-cash-cattle-market-in-u-s/

[6] USDA, Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), Summary of Recall Cases for 2015-2018 are available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-summaries

[7] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, & Food and Nutrition Board, Cattle Inspection: Committee on Evaluation of USDA Streamlined Inspection System for Cattle (SIS-C), Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990, pp. 8, 11, 37, 73, 74, 75 & 86. Downloadable from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235649/

[8] “Representatives Massie and Pingree Introduce Bipartisan PRIME Act to Empower Local Cattle Farmers, Meet Consumer Demand”, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie website (massie.house.gov), May 23, 2019. Press release posted at https://massie.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/representatives-massie-and-pingree-introduce-bipartisan-prime-act-to-empower

The post PRIME Act Reintroduced in Congress appeared first on Real Milk.

inspecting the meat and work

This month the Maine Legislature held an emergency session, a move partly due to a threat from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to shut down Maine’s state meat inspection program. In June Governor Paul LePage signed into law Legislative Drawer (LD) 725, “An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems”. LD 725 establishes the power of local governments to devise their own regulations governing direct transactions between a local food producer and consumer; the bill gave the locality the power to allow the unregulated unlicensed sale of food direct from producer to consumer within its boundaries including the sale of meat from an animal slaughtered and processed on the farm. The USDA warned that, unless the state meat and poultry inspection program is governed by laws at least as strict as federal requirements, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will take over inspection of Maine establishments where livestock or poultry is slaughtered and/or processed. On October 24 the legislature passed an amended version of LD 725 which affirmed that state laws on slaughter and processing will be at least as strict as federal requirements.

The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 (WMA) prohibits the sale of uninspected meat in intrastate or interstate commerce, with the Act requiring that an inspector must be present when slaughter takes place. The WMA extended USDA’s jurisdiction over meat and poultry slaughter and processing to intrastate commerce and only allows uninspected meat to go to the owner(s) of the slaughtered animals. Prior to the passage of WMA, farmers slaughtering on-farm were exempt from inspection as long as they sold direct to consumers; these sales could take place in interstate commerce, as well as intrastate.

Arguably, the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 along with state mandatory pasteurization laws have done more to damage the rural economy and empty the countryside of sustainable family farms than any other developments in the past 50 years. Legislators, in passing the two measures, addressed what they perceived to be unsanitary conditions in the meat and dairy sectors. Unlike raw milk, where thousands of illnesses were attributed to milk produced at urban swill dairies, during Congress’ deliberation of the WMA testimony and evidence from proponents provided few, if any, cases of illness caused by the consumption of uninspected meat whether slaughtered on the farm or at a custom slaughterhouse facility.

What is currently happening in Maine presents an opportunity to make the public aware of how the supporters of WMA hustled Congress into passing the Act by looking at comments made shortly after the Act became law. 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.

In 1971 the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Small Business released a report titled, “The Effects of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 upon Small Business.” The report contains the following quotation:

In our judgment it is well to recall the key events leading to the enactment of the Wholesome Meat Act. Many in the meat industries are still bitter about what took place in 1967…. The general attitude was that the industry had been unfairly maligned, that the excesses of the few had damaged the reputations of them all and that the cost of compliance had been high, excessively high. There was contempt for the consumer groups, particularly certain of the “crusaders”–most notably Betty Furness (Presidential Assistant for Consumer Affairs) and Ralph Nader. The Furnesses and Naders had “stampeded” both the White House and the Congress, particularly the latter; the National Legislature had, in effect, been sold a “bill of goods” and the consequence of the law would be that many would be driven out of business by the government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that there is great resentment on the part of the many in the meat industry over the whole episode. And, many fear Uncle Sam is driving them out of business for misguided reasons.¹

The concerns of the Senate report have come to pass; in 1967 there were nearly 10,000 slaughterhouses; as of January 1, 2017, there were 2,732. Many of the slaughterhouses shutting down were community slaughterhouses which provided access to slaughtering and processing for small livestock farmers. As the community slaughterhouses went out of business, many livestock farmers did as well. Today, there are livestock farmers who have to make reservations to get their animals slaughtered at an inspected facility a year in advance due to the shortage of slaughterhouses in their area.

Months after the WMA became law the 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 filth 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 can be confirmed is the nasty fact that the “evidence” gathered last July was deliberately biased, that the tainted reports were used to mislead Congress and the public, that they put a lie in the mouth of President Johnson, duped a large number of well-meaning people, including Ralph Nader and Betty Furness and did a superb con job on much of the nation’s press….

The stench of the filthy-meat survey began sweeping out belatedly early this year when state and industry officials challenged the authority of some of the inspectors’ findings. An investigation by this newspaper revealed that U.S. inspectors had, indeed, fudged on some facts…and that other reports were doctored in Washington to make them sound even more damning than they were.²

The WMA has not improved food safety. There have been numerous foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to consumption of inspected meat in recent years and the number of recalls of meat products has increased substantially from what it once was. FSIS inspectors have the thankless task of trying to maintain quality control in USDA plants that slaughter 300-400 cattle per hour. These large slaughterhouses have come about as a result of the consolidation of the meat industry; currently, only four companies control over 80% of the beef processing in this country; four companies control over 60% of pork processing.

The antidote to the disastrous effects of the WMA is for Congress to pass the “Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act” (H.R. 2657 and S. 1232), also known as the PRIME Act.

Passage of the PRIME Act would give states the option of allowing the intrastate sale of meat slaughtered and processed at a custom facility direct to the consumer or to hotels, restaurants and retail stores; a custom facility could be located at a farm. Please read action alert on H.R. 2657 by the Weston A. Price Foundation and call your U.S. Representative asking him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 2657.

If the PRIME Act passes, Maine farmers could potentially be able to sell the meat from on-farm slaughtered animals to those in their community as LD 725 originally intended. This is something that has been going on for sometime in various ethnic communities in the U.S., including Latino, African, Southeast Asian, and European communities. If there have been any food safety problems with this practice, there have been few, if any, reports in the media.

The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 was a solution in search of a problem that wound up creating much bigger problems than it was meant to solve. Passage of the PRIME Act is an important step towards rebuilding the slaughterhouse infrastructure in this country and enabling livestock farmers to make a better living and meet the demand for quality locally produced meat.

————-
1. United States. Small Business Administration and United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Small Business. The Effects of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 Upon Small Business: A Study of One Industry’s Economic Problems Resulting from Environmental-consumer Legislation. U.S. Govt. Print. Off, Washington, 1971. pp. 11-12.

2. Naughton, Dennis. The Wholesome Meat Act and Intrastate Meat Plants. Creighton Law Review, vol. 4, 1970. Footnote 19, pp. 88-89.

The post The Wholesome Meat Act Hustle appeared first on Real Milk.