I recall in college when I brought home a research paper that my professor had graded, or scored, a 99%. I was thrilled; hell, that’s an A+! But my roommate, a mechanical engineering major, was almost offended; in his mathematical mind, there was zero basis for a numerical score, let alone the 1% ding, that was based solely on an opinion.

It was an a-ha moment for me, a person with a brain wired for writing, playing guitar and other creative activities. I thought to appreciate some of math’s most endearing attributes and its highest use — that it’s black and white, that the result isn’t subjective, that it ultimately provides truth.

I chose to major in journalism initially to help me discipline my writing. I’ve learned along the way that truth is journalism’s highest objective. Math helps journalists achieve that objective.

Reporting on some of the meat industry’s biggest successes — such as staggering increases in pounds produced per animal and striking decreases in the incidence of E. coli O157:H7, to name just a couple — wouldn’t be possible without math. And I imagine the line between profit and loss would be even thinner without measurement, data collection and the resultant actions.

We could say that the industry’s efforts in protecting its workforce from COVID-19 have been effective. After all, the numbers of illnesses (40,000) and deaths (200) appear minimal when compared with a total industry workforce of 550,000. The first two numbers come from an unofficial media outlet’s tracking, and the third one from the CDC. But how is the industry measuring to more definitively confirm that statement?

Some officials, including Undersecretary for Food Safety Mindy Brashears, have measured the industry’s success by its production volumes. On April 28, when President Trump reopened more than 20 plants that had been riddled with the virus, production of both beef and pork, for example, was down about 40%. By July 14, they had rebounded to even, and since then plants have been running at as high as 98% of average capacity. Brashears attributed that success to packers adopting CDC’s best practices. She said nothing of other important data — the continued illnesses or absenteeism that was forcing Saturday shift after Saturday shift.

I have little doubt that the industry’s work to comply with CDC-OSHA guidelines has made plants safer and reduced COVID-19 cases. However, the extent of that improvement is not clear. Where it is done, official reporting is handled by state and local health agencies, which may or may not require processors to report their positives. Only universal testing and reporting at different points in time — and comparing the numbers — can produce the data that could inform actions to further improve the situation.

Opponents of such reporting say plants can be erroneously implicated, and that it perpetuates a negative view of the meatpacking industry. But Tyson Foods, for one, says that in testing workers and reporting the results, the company is identifying asymptomatic cases that could exacerbate the virus’ spread, and is educating the public on effective means of prevention.

Certainly an outbreak among workers at a plant does not look good in the public eye, but the perception that the industry is hiding something produces an even more cynical image. Moreover, a better-informed community outside of the plant will help make a safer environment inside of it.

That, like the pursuit of truth, is a worthy cause. The best effect won’t happen without the numbers.

Editor's note: This article is the Editorial in the September issue of Meatingplace magazine.

Do the math

Join for free* to continue reading.