Decisive or Dangerous

Will Line Speed Increase Build Supply Chain Resiliency?

The United States produces more poultry than any other country and is ranked as the third-largest pork producer in the world. In an effort to maintain global competitiveness in both sectors, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, has moved quickly to do away with requirements that processing plants have argued are outdated, inefficient, and therefore costly. At the same time, the USDA has also announced the official approval of increased line speeds for the pork and poultry sectors, further supporting competitive efficiency in agriculture.

These decisions have been met with mixed reviews, putting safety standards against profits and questioning exactly what contributes to resilient supply chains. Will the pace of processing hurt America’s meat production in the long run or give us the edge we need to compete with emerging South American markets and European innovation?

Chicken and Pork Industries Applaud Line Speed Increases

Both the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council have expressed gratitude for decisive action by Secretary Rollins. Dialing up line speeds and doing away with redundant administrative requirements should bring stability to sectors that have had to navigate data collection trials while still attempting to turn a profit. According to Illinois pork producers, change is the biggest disrupter to producer incomes. A few extra pigs processed per day add up to significant profits over time, while being forced to hold back 10% of a herd accrues additional costs that can stress a producer’s bottom line. Trials testing safety standards against faster line speeds created confusion for producers who are now happy to pursue predictable contracts with processing facilities.

In 2021, worker unions blocked a line speed increase in the poultry sector that would have upped the number of birds processed per minute from 140 to 175. The announcement from the USDA is a win for the broiler industry, which has had to compete with faster line speeds found in Canada, Germany, Brazil, and Argentina, where birds processed per minute are over 200.  Like the pork industry, faster line speeds could have a stabilizing effect for the poultry sector.

For pork and poultry production, quality and safety could mean little if processing methods in the United States are costly compared to European and South American methods. Pace then matters in the conversation of supply chain resilience. Can we afford to price ourselves out of global competition?  Without the option to speed the process up, both the pork and poultry industries could have found themselves in a similar situation to the grain industries in the U.S., with a lot of expensively produced commodities and nowhere to sell them. The poultry industry alone has seen an 89% decrease in illness and injury in the last 30 years, which they believe is proof enough that more animals can be processed per minute without risk to human or animal welfare.

Workers' Unions Deem Line Speed Increases Unsafe

Workers' unions believe that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by prioritizing pace over safety. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which represents 15,000 workers, says that faster line speeds should require more staff, more regulation, and more oversight; not less.  Simply ramping up the pace will also ramp up health and safety issues. Data collected under the USDA-funded trials issued by the Biden administration concluded that poultry processing laborers are at a higher risk of musculoskeletal problems than other processing line workers.  However, no study decisively concluded that increased line speeds exacerbated the risks of injury or health for employees.  Musculoskeletal issues are typically the result of repetition of a single motion and inadequate rest or stretching time, and not necessarily because a motion was repeated faster.

Yet, supply chain resilience also depends on the health and stability of the labor force that processes our food.  From beef to pork to chicken, the meat processing industries are struggling to find enough employees to man the lines, and the average age of laborers is on the rise.  Neglecting any health or safety issue, no matter how minimal it might appear to be, could have a catastrophic effect on meat processing capacities here in the United States and the over 415,000 people working in processing plants.

Beyond that, labor unions argue that increased line speeds will threaten food safety standards.  Faster paces mean more animals are processed per minute, which expands the potential for meat to become contaminated. If capacity is expanded by 10% but contamination also increases by 10% then a faster pace would only serve to create more food waste.  The pork industry expects to gain back $10 per head by increasing line speed, but food activists believe the profit comes at the expense of both animal welfare and employee harm, and they criticize moves that support profit over safety. Rather than combat the risk of market disturbances by producing more and producing it faster, those opposed to policy changes believe these shifts will not make food more affordable or safer.

Policy to Pave the Way for Automation Innovation

Apart from employee health and corporate profits, increasing line speed and reduced reporting could pave the way for more automation in the meat processing industry. While here, too, there is debate about how fast automated technology can work, robotics is already replacing the need for laborers.  In fact, increased line speed will primarily consider automated portions of the process that can be done faster. 

The Poultry Science Association calls automation “endlessly adaptable” to the needs of processing facilities and expects to see robots navigating food waste challenges in ways that generate greater profits. Just a few ounces of meat lost per animal can amount to millions of dollars lost by a processing plant every year. Precision technology continues to whittle this waste down. Unlike human laborers, machines do not experience musculoskeletal problems or fatigue and are not slowed down by health documentation and regulatory paperwork. Perhaps true supply chain resilience is achieved when disruptions can be addressed faster and processes are unhindered by extensive paperwork, human error, or food safety risks. Though the March announcements were intended to bring an end to a trial period, this new beginning could prove to test our definition of economic efficiency in both the pork and poultry sectors.