The USDA contests this finding. In its proposed rule for poultry slaughter, the USDA states that a study funded by the agency\u2019s Food Safety and Inspection Service determined that increased line speeds during the evisceration segment of the line\u2014where internal organs are removed from dead animals\u2014\u201dare not associated\u201d with a higher risk of musculoskeletal disorder. The study\u2019s authors, however, have since said that the proposed rule \u201c<\/strong>fundamentally misunderstands and mischaracterizes the scope and results\u201d of their research.<\/p>\n \u201cThe potential for injury to these workers, it\u2019s just something people can\u2019t deny,\u201d said Mark Lauritsen, who leads UFCW\u2019s food processing, packaging, and manufacturing division. \u201cQuite honestly, line speeds are too fast now.\u201d<\/p>\n In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson from the USDA said, \u201cDecades of data prove that plants can run at higher speeds while maintaining process control and meeting every federal food safety standard.\u201d They also added that federal inspectors in meat processing plants are still able to slow lines down if they discover a problem.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the spokesperson said, \u201cThe USDA\u2019s legal authority is strictly limited to ensuring food safety and process control; we do not have the power to regulate piece rates or how private companies manage their staff.\u201d (Piece rate refers to the number of items\u2014such as whole birds or parts\u2014handled by a worker per minute.)<\/p>\n When it comes to meat processing, going faster \u201cis not good for the environment either,\u201d said Lauritsen.<\/p>\n Slaughterhouses are incredibly water-intensive operations,\u00a0due in part to the need to regularly spray down these facilities in order to maintain sanitary conditions while processing animals. In turn, they also produce a lot of waste\u2014in the form of, yes, contaminated water, but also blood, guts, and fecal matter from animal carcasses. Both labor and environmental advocates argue that increasing the line speeds in slaughterhouses will necessarily increase the amount of water used and the amount of waste discharged into local ecosystems.<\/p>\n In written comments submitted to the USDA, the Center for Biological Diversity stated: \u201cIncreasing line speed slaughter rates will increase slaughter capacity [\u2026] and lead to further damage to the environment, wildlife, animal welfare, worker safety, and public health (including food safety).\u201d<\/p>\n Replogle, the attorney at Food & Water Watch, also believes that if slaughterhouses go faster, then factory farms will decide to raise more animals. These farms, known as confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, are \u201canother gigantic source of water pollution in particular and nitrate pollution,\u201d said Replogle, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Across the U.S., CAFOs are also linked to higher levels of air pollution in uninsured and Latino communities.<\/p>\n In its proposed rule for poultry slaughter, the USDA states that increasing line speeds \u201cwould not affect consumer demand for the establishments\u2019 products,\u201d and that only \u201cexpected sales of poultry products [\u2026] would determine production levels in establishments.\u201d But demand for meat in the U.S. is already quite high, with most Americans eating more than 1.5 times the daily protein requirement.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also unclear that increasing line speeds would actually lower the price of chicken and pork at the grocery store. Agricultural economist David Ortega, a professor at Michigan State University, said increasing slaughter capacity would only result in lower poultry and pork prices at the grocery store if slaughterhouses pass on their savings \u201cthrough the supply chain.\u201d That outcome, Ortega said, would run counter to the slaughterhouses\u2019 economic incentives.<\/p>\n For some workers, the proposition of increased line speeds has already been made real. Magaly Licolli is a labor organizer based in Springdale, Arkansas, where Tyson Foods, the largest U.S. meat corporation, is headquartered. She said that poultry workers in Northwest Arkansas, at companies she did not name, say they have already been told to work faster. \u201cWe had a meeting with workers from different companies. And all of them stated that the line speed had increased,\u201d said Licolli.<\/p>\n The USDA spokesperson said, \u201cThe safety and well-being of the workforce are essential to a stable food supply; however, worker safety is overseen by the Department of Labor, not USDA. The law is very clear on this.\u201d They also added that meat processing plants have long been able to receive line speed waivers, which allow the facilities to operate at higher speeds\u2014and that this may explain what workers are reporting to Licolli.<\/p>\n Debbie Berkowitz, a worker safety and health expert at Georgetown University, argued that increasing line speeds ultimately puts profits above all else. \u201cI think the line speed issue is not about selling more chicken or pork, but being able to exploit workers and get them to work even harder and faster. That is how the companies save money,\u201d said Berkowitz. In cases like this, Berkowitz argues that workers and the environment are treated as expendable. \u201cIt\u2019s just churning through workers,\u201d she said. In other words: \u201cExploitation 101.\u201d<\/p>\n This article originally appeared in Grist at https:\/\/grist.org\/food-and-agriculture\/trumps-plan-for-ultrafast-meat-processing-would-be-a-disaster-for-workers-and-the-environment\/.\u00a0Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
![](\"https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/app\/uploads\/2025\/10\/meat-grocery-store-1280x853.jpg\")
<\/p>\n