Read Smithfield Foods CEO Kenneth Sullivan's response to this editorial here.

Well, this is awkward.

You’re a chief executive of a major meatpacking company. You’ve got hundreds of employees falling ill, and some dying, as they contract COVID-19. You’ve got local government officials pleading with you to close your plant to try to flatten the curve. But then you’ve got to feed the nation, too. So you … keep going?

Given the blessing and curse of being deemed an “essential” business, this decision is not a hypothetical, but a gutting dilemma. Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS USA, Hormel Foods and Smithfield Foods executives all have been faced with tough decisions, and I sympathize with their position. The problem, though, is that local governments have largely made those decisions for them.

Not until the mayor of Sioux Falls, S.D. — in a letter to Smithfield CEO Ken Sullivan, signed by the state’s governor and made public — effectively ordered the company to shut down its local plant for at least two weeks, not the three days that the company had initially proposed, did the discomfort of such decision-making become so pronounced and pointed. On Easter, Sullivan announced the plant’s closure, but not without voicing his apparent displeasure with having to do so.

Sullivan delineated the “stark choice” of feeding the nation “or not, even in the face of COVID-19.” He said the closure of the Sioux Falls plant, which kills nearly 5% of the nation’s pigs, and others “is pushing our country perilously close to the edge in terms of our meat supply.”

The first problem was that his statement on April 12 wasn’t accurate; USDA data showed that the industry was oversupplied. Then, in announcing the ensuing, domino-effect closures of two other Smithfield plants, Sullivan dug in deeper, saying, “For the security of our nation, I cannot understate how critical it is for our industry to continue to operate unabated.”

No question that the industry serves a critical function. However, Sullivan’s hard-bargain language — and President Trump’s late April executive order supporting his premise — raises a moral question: Must the industry serve that function at all costs, at all times?

No doubt that the industry’s leaders are following CDC guidelines and trying as many measures as possible to protect their workers. And no doubt, as thousands of employees fall ill and some die, those measures aren’t enough. As a nation, the U.S. has found out that, devoid of a systematic testing program, the most effective means of combating the spread of the virus is by keeping people at a safe distance.

One of the meat industry’s vulnerabilities, as highlighted by COVID-19, is its inability to provide such distance. To be sure, the pandemic is an unprecedented event; executives may not see the need to tailor expensive changes for the likes of it. But if the industry is to run “unabated,” then it’s time to take the temperature on labor.

If workers are considered assets, then the question is the extent to which companies are willing to invest in their health and safety. That, as Managing Editor Peter Thomas Ricci’s report here outlines, will begin with examining the industry’s limited ability to test them for COVID-19. If workers are deemed liabilities, then cue the topic of future plant design and the acceleration of automation in this country.

More falling dominoes might cause big disruptions in the nation’s meat supply chain, and raise considerations about its physical structure. But make no mistake: In the here and now, COVID-19 requires decisions that test the industry’s moral foundation.

Editor's note: This blog is adapted from an editorial published in the May issue of Meatingplace magazine.

(Update adds link to Sullivan's response.)

Check your temperature (UPDATE)

Join for free* to continue reading.