I was watching the local news, a story about one of our city’s temporarily incarcerated youth being released from custody for lack of evidence, and caught myself thinking — looking at the canvas of tattoos across his neck and face in the picture on the screen — that he may be freed in this case but he’s still bad news. He’s certainly guilty of something.

I say “caught myself” because that’s lazy thinking, the sort of jump-to-conclusions mindlessness that drowns our social and political discourse. That’s not a bunch of PC blather, either; the difference between an accusation or allegation and calling someone a “criminal” is Journalism 101. The words “alleged” and “claimed” are an editor’s friends.

Let’s look at this error in analytical thinking from another angle: Instead of a tattooed man glowering in a mug shot, substitute a hearty executive of a meat company glowering in a mug shot. No visible tattoos, nice haircut, probably wearing a golf shirt. He looks like the guy in the office next to you — and like you, too, probably.

And legions of consumers with one eye on the dinner casserole and one on the news can be caught thinking, “Hmm. Looks like a criminal to me. He’s certainly guilty of something.”

Patently unfair, of course, but not surprising. For years, the public has been fed a fairly steady diet of meat companies and executives alleged to have conspired to fix prices, fix wages, cheat upstanding, tax-paying citizens at the meat case and at their favorite drive-thru with inflated prices while paying their employees and contractors a less-than-free-market wage. Add to that the tangle of cases related to COVID-19 deaths among meat plant workers, and the public understandably reaches the conclusion that the meat processing industry is a viper pit of low-lifes.

The conclusion is provably untrue. Setting aside the wrongful death cases related to COVID-19, because the legal issues are so different, no company or executive has been found guilty in a price- or wage-fixing lawsuit. Financial settlement documents include a clause that the fact of a payout is not admission of any wrongdoing. The one case that has reached an actual verdict — of 10 poultry company executives in Denver federal court — produced two hung juries, dropped charges on five defendants and the acquittal of the other five.

Fact: They’re all innocent. Just like the tattoo guy in the local news report.

It’s not a good look, this steady drumbeat of legal issues. It adds to the finger-pointing that lays so much blame for environmental issues on the meat supply chain, and the nutritionists and activists who say red and processed meat is killing us. The existence of the acquittals and settlements is no match for deep-seated suspicion.

Addressing the accusations head on and making transparent changes in response would help, I think. The kind of public installation of new policies that Sanderson Farms, Wayne Farms and Cargill will have to make in the wake of their consent decrees — yet to be approved by the court — ending a wage-fixing case filed by the federal Department of Justice. The changes to the traditional poultry tournament system, if they work, will change the industry. A court monitor will ensure that the changes the companies’ make are transparent to workers, the government and consumers all.

Sanderson, Wayne Farms and Cargill are being forced by the courts to make these changes, but this outcome should be viewed as an opportunity. It’s time to start erasing that criminal-in-a-polo-shirt opinion that so many shoppers have of the industry, even as they continue to buy higher-priced meat products every day. Examine your company’s policies with an eye on making them more accessible, before the DOJ or your customers do it for you.

Suitable for framing

Join for free* to continue reading.