Trump’s USDA Wants to Make Pork Processing Faster—And More Dangerous

A new rule would let pork companies simply “determine their own evisceration line speeds.”

Pork carcasses ready for processing. kzenon/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In a typical pork slaughterhouse, hog carcasses move down the conveyor belt at an average rate of around 977 per hour, or about 16 per minute. Workers tasked with disassembling these fast-moving 240-plus pound chunks of flesh endure high injury rates, which are likely even higher due to underreporting

Now the Trump Administration’s US Department of Agriculture is pushing an overhaul that could significantly speed up that already-frantic pace. In a Friday press release, the USDA announced its intention to approve a new system for hog slaughter that reduces the role of USDA inspectors on the kill line, giving company employees direct oversight duties. Under this alternative slaughter system, pork companies would “determine their own evisceration line speeds,” the USDA notes.

Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, there will be a 60-day public comment period before it’s finalized and put into effect. 

The USDA has already been allowing five large-scale slaughter facilities to operate under the system, known as HIMP (short for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points-based Inspection Models Project) since 1997. In a 2014 report, the agency noted line speed at the five HIMP plants averaged 1,099 hogs per hour, with the fastest among them reaching 1,295 per hour. 

While the USDA hails the HIMP model as a an effort to “modernize inspection systems through science-based approaches to food safety,” results of the pilot program have been less-than-stellar on the food safety font. A 2013 audit by the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General found that the USDA “did not provide adequate oversight” of the HIMP pilot over its first 15 years, and as a result, “HIMP plants may have a higher potential for food safety risks.”

The OIG reported that of the top 10 US hog plants earning the most food safety and animal welfare citations in the period of fiscal years 2008 to 2011, three were enrolled in the HIMP pilot. Moreover, by far the most-cited slaughterhouse in the United States over that period was in the program—it drew “nearly 50 percent more [citations] than the plant with the next highest number.” 

Food safety and workers’ rights groups denounced the USDA’s proposed rule. “It is irresponsible for the USDA to expand a radical change to food safety responsibility in the pork industry based on a pilot program that clearly failed to show that allowing companies to inspect themselves can produce safe food,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in an emailed statement.

“The US Department of Agriculture’s proposed changes to the nation’s swine slaughter inspection system needlessly jeopardize consumers’ safety and the safety and well-being of the tens of thousands of workers who already endure exceedingly harsh working conditions to provide cheap meat to American consumers,” Debbie Berkowitz, senior fellow for worker safety and health with the National Employment Law Project, added in a statement. 

The pork industry, predictablycelebrated the announcement. “We support the USDA’s decision to advance HIMP as it introduces new pork production efficiencies while encouraging the deployment of new food safety technologies in packing plants,” the National Pork Producers Council declared in a statement

While the move fits into the Trump Administration’s ongoing pattern of zealous deregulation, “modernizing” inspection of slaughterhouse kill lines is very much a bipartisan endeavor. The USDA rolled out the HIMP pilot programs for hogs and poultry in 1997, under President Bill Clinton. The Obama USDA approved a similar plan for poultry slaughterhouses in 2014. There was a catch, though: After much pushback by workplace and food safety advocates, as well as media attention (including from me), the USDA decided in the end not to let poultry companies speed up the kill line. 

Back in September, the National Chicken Council petitioned the Trump USDA to greenlight a 25 percent speedup on poultry kill lines—from the current maximum of 140 birds per minute to 175 birds per minute. That request “remains under review,” a USDA spokesman said. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate