The following ran as the Editorial in the August issue of Meatingplace magazine:

At the beginning of this year — in the season of resolutions — I posited in a blog that the meat industry would somehow be forced to advance the needle on the issue of sustainability. By that I meant a reckoning with, and promotion of, its environmental footprint and performance. I didn’t mean its very structure, and the manner in which it continues to exist.

Back then, widespread bushfires in Australia, which followed large-scale fire destruction in the Amazon, was giving fuel not only to anti-meat production activists, but also to plant-based product marketers trying to convince consumers they can have their non-meat and eat it too. Back then, such competition was a bigger concern for the conventional industry here in the U.S. than was COVID-19.

Now, eight months later, we’ve certainly seen why there are so many different definitions of sustainability. Given the seismic disruptions that the pandemic has caused throughout the supply chain — including, critically, the manner in which consumers buy their animal proteins — we’re talking about an evolution in how that supply chain continues to function (or sustain) itself long term. But also consider that, in an effort to sanitize and switch among marketing channels, the industry is, for example, using more water and plastic.

Through whichever lens you choose to look, however, the industry is changing. In a structural sense, as you’ll read in our Company Profile on p. 72, there’s momentum in the small processing sector. And despite the pandemic’s interference, as you’ll read in an Issues story on p. 43, the industry continues to forge past the confines of its four plant walls in order to align the greater supply chain in efforts to reduce its environmental footprint.

In the meantime, efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19 inside those plant walls continue. As you’ll read in our Issues story on p. 24, companies large and small are taking different steps — with varying degrees of success — to keep their workforces safe and healthy, all while scientists continue to study the virus’s spread.

Continued learning and adaptability is a must. Without such, the industry risks the accelerated dilution of its labor force; ever disgruntled, workers are ever-ready to pull the trigger on liability litigation (read Thought Leader, p. 84). But then again, automation (see Science Profile, p. 60) isn’t a one-size-fits-all replacement part. Particularly for many processors who don’t make the same product every day, data collection and performance will be required to be on the right side of razor-thin margins.

Going back to January, I never could have predicted the historic changes that would unfold in 2020. At the time, like so many others at that time of year, I was looking to make improvements and hoping that they would be, well, sustainable. I can say that, personally, those attempts have been hit or miss. I’ll keep trying.

And with COVID-19 surging again across the country, forcing some state governments to rollback reopening plans and send people back home, the industry’s mettle also will continue to be tested. Its own efforts in improvement, toward a prosperous future, also must continue.

Related material

Join for free* to continue reading.