Recently (June 9, 2021) Bloomberg reported the following:

“Department of Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack told me that we’re ‘better off having multiple plants in multiple locations — smaller facilities to produce enough product. And that may mean a little less profit, but it means that if you have an incident like this that threatens your workforce, you'll always have sufficient operation capacity." Vilsack reiterated this sentiment Tuesday in a call with reporters: “Efficiency comes at a price, and that price is a lack of resilience when you have a major disruption.”’

In July, Secretary Vilsack reported that, “The U.S. government will invest at least $500 million to expand beef, pork and poultry processing capacity.”

I want to begin by saying that I do believe in diversity in the food system. However, building “multiple plants in multiple locations” could put a significant strain on our small and mid-sized processors. The new facilities funded by government support will be just a little bigger, a little better and much newer than our current small and mid-sized plants.

I think it is critical to support this segment of the food supply chain and not put a burden on it. I have always been an advocate for these facilities and worked with them extensively during my career. I know first-hand that this segment of the industry could benefit dramatically from the $500 million in support and I hope that this administration is considering investing this money in these businesses as a viable option to increase capacity.

A great use of the funds would be to provide support for the existing small and mid-sized plants to update their facilities and equipment, enabling them to produce more product, more efficiently. It could also be used to provide educational resources and training for them to meet regulatory requirements or to prepare them for the next catastrophic event that might occur. Significant funding is needed to fill the data gaps in Appendix A and B which would impact many of the smaller facilities working on further processed products. Funding could also support validation studies that small and mid-sized facilities need but can’t afford. There are many opportunities to build capacity within the system that already exists and we can only hope that there is a logical approach to distributing these funds.

Also, I want to shed some light on the perception that the current supply chain can’t react to a crisis and has a “lack of resilience” because it is efficient. The food supply chain has already proven its resiliency. The meat and poultry industry struggled initially along with the entire country. Again I will state that food security is a matter of national security and they had to keep the doors open to feed people.

The industry had a few weeks of struggles — and then they implemented mitigation strategies in the facilities and quickly came back to near full capacity. They did not suffer from subsequent national spikes that occurred later because they were prepared and the risk was mitigated. There was never a headline that said, “The U.S. has run out of meat”. There was a threat that it might happen, but it didn’t. The industry rebounded and the Executive Order to keep plants open never had to be used by the government.

The second issue with this philosophy is that this is an effort to increase production capacity while simultaneously reducing the current capacity through reduced line speeds. Additional line speed waivers in poultry facilities have been put on hold despite the fact that years of data and even practices in other countries have proven that operating at increased line speeds is not only safe, it poses no risk to the workers.

Another tremendous blow to the capacity of the current supply chain is that of reduced line speeds on the pork industry. The facilities operating at increased line speeds have been operating safely at these speeds for decades with no risk to worker safety and now have been pulled back with no path forward. It is estimated that this reduced line speed requirement reduces the pork capacity that already exists by 80,000-100,000 head per week, according to an Iowa State study. This will lead to increased costs to the consumer, longer work hours and a lower quality of life for the employees of the plants.

There may be a need for additional facilities, but before that happens a careful view of the supply chain on the front end and back end should be done to see where the new facilities could fit in between.

I sincerely hope that before a knee-jerk reaction is made to build multiple small facilities across the U.S., that those in leadership take a careful look at what currently exists in our small and mid-sized facilities and offer programs to assist them. I also hope that they can view the current industry as it exists, and not so negatively as indicated by statements made in recent days. Invest time and effort in seeing the facilities, speaking to the stakeholders and take action that will ultimately ensure that food security in this country remains strong.

To tell the truth…

Join for free* to continue reading.