Historians love anniversaries of significance —decennials, semicentennials, centennials, bicentennials, etc. So, much to my delight, I realized that the Meat Boycott of 1973 updated its status to semicentennial this year. While the national boycott sporadically took place throughout the spring and summer of 1973, the boycott had lasting effects on agriculture, the meat industry, and the rise of consumer protectionism. Moreover, as producers, meat processors, grocers, and consumers continue to battle inflationary meat prices today, the Meat Boycott of 1973 serves as a cautionary tale for the entire supply chain.

Boycotting goods, businesses, and services have a long tradition in American history, beginning with the American Revolution when colonial merchants, first in Boston and then the remainder of the colonies, refused to purchase imported goods from England in 1774. Meat, subject to intense market forces and fluctuations, has been the target of boycotts throughout American history as well. The most notable boycott occurred in New York City on the Lower East Side in 1902, when Jewish women boycotted Kosher butchers because the price of kosher meat increased by nearly 33%.

Much like the Kosher Meat Boycott of 1902, the Meat Boycott of 1973 started simply out of consumer frustration with the price of meat and other goods that had been rising since the 1960s. But placed in the context of the economic crisis of the early 1970s—the oil embargo, high budget deficits, and the sheer cost of the Vietnam War—the Meat Boycott of 1973 was the climactic expression of consumer frustration with inflationary prices of food, gas, and essential goods. From 1970 to 1973, President Richard Nixon’s administration and Congress implemented several measures to stabilize prices in the United States, but to little avail. Nixon could not control the weather, and poor weather conditions across the globe drastically increased animal feed and grain prices. As a result, in February 1973, meat prices increased by 5.4% and continued to do so the following month. Under immense pressure, President Nixon placed a freeze on beef, pork, and lamb prices on March 29, 1973.

Still, prices were too high for the consumer, and several communities and women’s groups quickly organized to boycott meat at the retail counter, regardless of Nixon’s wage and price freezers. The largest consumer organization, Fight Inflation Together (FIT), began in the suburbs of California and was organized and led by Arlene Matthews. FIT immediately drew the support of several women, activist groups, and politicians across the United States, but more importantly, FIT served as the organizational and informational hub. They handed out pamphlets, knocked on doors, organized rallies, and invited experts to speak about inflation and how to combat it at home.

By the middle of March 1973, state chapters had popped up all over the United States, and they coordinated a meat boycott from April 1 to April 8, 1973. From the boycotter’s perspective, it was largely successful. Dorothy Van Horn, chairperson of the Minnesota FIT Chapter, told Minnesota Public Radio that one packinghouse’s business in St. Paul, Minn., was off by 60%. A meat plant owner in New York reported that his business was down 20%. My father-in-law and president of Kern Meat Company, Dennis Markwardt, recalled that our family company suffered during the summer of 1973.

Others viewed the boycott with skepticism. One meat cutter union representative noted that affluent Americans were the only ones participating in the strike because they could afford to do so. The president of the Long Island Meat Boycott Association cautioned her chapter that an extended strike would put small grocers and butchers out of business and open the door for large agribusiness firms. Farmers felt particularly aggrieved because they were getting blamed for the high prices of cattle. One Iowa cattle rancher reported that he was breaking even at 46 cents per pound because of the cost of feed. Some retailers even reported that the boycott increased demand during the boycott because some Americans feared meat shortages.

On April 11, 1973, after the first week of the meat boycott ended, several FIT chapter leaders met in Washington, D.C., in a Congressional conference room to discuss continuing the boycott. They also invited food economists and farmers to speak to the members at the meeting. By the end of the meeting, the members of FIT voted to designate May 5, 1973, as a National Day of Protest against food prices, concluded to continue the meat boycott on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and called for the resignation of US Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz because he blamed the “buying habits of housewives” for the inflationary cost of food. FIT also followed this activism with another weeklong meat boycott from April 30 to May 6 and then continued to boycott other food products, by alphabetical letter, in the summer of 1973. For example, FIT chapters across the United States boycotted food products beginning with the letter “P” in July 1973.

The Meat Boycott of 1973 briefly succeeded in lowering meat prices. But the macroeconomics at play were too much to overcome. Drought in Central Europe and India exacerbated the global cost of grain and feed, the deflation of the American dollar increased meat exports, and consumer demand remained strong for meat products in 1973. Unfortunately, the high cost of food and high inflation, along with Nixon’s economic policies, likely led to the economic recession from 1973 to 1975.

Today, inflation continues to be a concern for many American households, especially when one looks at recent numbers. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) recently reported that meat and poultry prices increased 0.9% year over in July 2023, but beef and veal prices, in an eerie similarity to 1973, rose 5.3%. Middle meats clocked in at a 7.8% increase, and ground beef increased by 3.1%.

Will these inflationary prices lead to another meat boycott? Probably not, but producers, packers, and meat processors need to be cognizant that consumers are quietly making frugal choices about their food at home and away through the power of social media and the internet. While less noisy than a boycott, consumers are forming food cooperatives, using WhatsApp to share food and goods, downloading rebate programs such as Upside, and even sharing digital coupons. In this way, perceived value and perceived nutritional value are going to be more important than ever.

The 50th Anniversary of the Meat Boycott of 1973

Join for free* to continue reading.