The Death of the Local Butcher, Part 2: How Did We Get Here?

Guest Opinion by Ben Michael of the Russell County Butchery, LLC—Part 2 of 3

Increased beef production and streamlined processing have provided benefits in regards to the national meat supply, especially in consumer pricing, but this corporate agricultural model and the resulting growth of regulatory oversight have been detrimental to small and very small processing businesses that serve local farmers and communities. These regulatory changes didn’t happen overnight, so let’s go back in time a little to see how we got where we are today.

Although a work of fiction, Upton Sinclair’s book “The Jungle” was influential in highlighting real problems in slaughterhouses related to employee safety, meat quality, and animal welfare in the late 19th century. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act were passed in 1906, not long after the book’s publishing. Throughout the 20th Century, additional reforms were enacted and enforcement began to increase, but it wasn’t until recently that regulatory oversight for meat processing became more mandated and enforced.

In the early 1990’s, Jack-in-the-Box restaurants had an E. Coli outbreak linked to their beef, which resulted in the deaths of three children, bringing increased attention on meat processing and food safety. The development of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans (originally a NASA project), was eventually adopted by the USDA in the late 90’s as a recommended practice. It wasn’t mandated until the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, and currently, all USDA inspected beef is required to come from a plant that has an approved HACCP plan in place, with processing monitored by USDA personnel, in an attempt to ensure food safety in meat products.

While they may be beneficial to standardize best practices and justify processes, these HACCP requirements themselves present a barrier to entry for small and very small plants to develop their own plans that meet state or federal approval for a grant of inspection.

First, writing a HACCP plan from scratch, without some formal training in it, is incredibly difficult. Although some guides and generic frameworks exist, the format is not intuitive for those who have never been trained in it. Second, USDA and state inspection programs are meant to serve in an advising, regulatory and enforcement roles, which precludes them from being able to develop HACCP plans for businesses, or have a standardized plan across the board. Each business that desires to pursue state or federal inspection has to re-invent the HACCP wheel for their own business. As a regulatory agency, the USDA merely evaluates the plan and either approves or disapproves, with minimal, or no assistance for businesses trying to gain a grant of inspection. Lastly, regulatory guidelines, such as HACCP, tend to favor large corporations and negatively impact small businesses. Although large meat processing plants also have to abide by the same HACCP guidelines, a giant like Cargill can afford to have a team of personnel solely devoted to HACCP plan development and implementation. Their legal teams and compliance personnel are able to comb through reams of regulatory guidance, and lobbying personnel can ensure their corporate goals are voiced in political arenas. Very small plants can’t afford to spend work-time during the day to answer emails, submit paperwork, and research regulatory guidance, because their HACCP manager is most likely hands-on in the daily operations of cutting meat or slaughtering animals.

The regulatory disadvantage for small butcher shops is also evident in the daily inspection practices. Although large plants have teams of USDA inspectors, very small processors can face more scrutiny because of their extremely lower throughput and size. While an inspector at a high speed plant may only have a few seconds to inspect a beef before stamping “Inspected and passed” on the carcass, small plants routinely experience inspectors spending 5-10 minutes looking over every part of the carcass for potential food safety concerns. It is also easy for one inspector to walk through and observe every square inch of a smaller plant, but how much scrutiny does a massive plant with hundreds of thousands of square feet of floor space actually receive on a daily basis? These discrepancies in scale negatively impact very small processors. Lastly, variations in the methodologies of individual inspectors can negatively impact smaller operations. Although training programs attempt to standardize inspection processes, vague regulatory verbiage allows for a wide-ranging interpretation from each inspector. 

There is also a negative incentive for inspectors in how they relate to the businesses and processors they inspect. The mentality of inspectors is that there is no such thing as a perfect processing facility, so there is always something to be discovered that could be corrected or improved. The inspector’s job could be in jeopardy should an incident occur on their watch, because of a failure that didn’t get reported. Non-Compliance Records (NR’s) are official documents that are used by inspection personnel to notify processors of regulatory failures that must be addressed by plant personnel. Should the failure be severe, processing operations can be completely halted until the issue can be rectified. Most occasions, an NR is not a show-stopper, but it still is a punitive measure that is used to force a processor into compliance. The inspector is incentivized to find a fault and their attitude is largely, “If I don’t find anything, then I’m not doing my job.” Job security and career progression motivates inspectors to document any potential infractions and justify their existence.

The benefit of lower-priced meat from large corporations also presents a challenge for small processors, because competing financially with companies that have exponentially more throughput is impossible. Small and very small processors are forced into a niche operating environment to ensure that they can remain financially sustainable at a local scale, but most of their products are out-of-reach for the majority of consumers. Specialty products and value-added items are often helpful to remain profitable, but even these items now have mass-produced alternatives that negate the niche market advantage. Other expenses, such as disposal of unusable hides, offal, and waste products at small plants are turned into additional income at large plants, where rendering companies can process these items into marketable products. 

The combination of market forces and regulatory pressure have made the local abattoir a nostalgic memory of a bygone era. If trends continue, automation and mass-production will eliminate even the local meat-cutter at the grocery store, with boxed-beef being cut and packaged into final portions at centralized locations, and distributed through national logistics operations. Most consumers have been conditioned to expect the grocery shelves to be stocked, and the availability of protein sources through meat isn’t even considered when most people walk through the door. This doesn’t even venture into the insanity of lab-grown “meat”, family meal dynamics, or the FDA approved food pyramid, which all further impact consumer choices when it comes to dinner time. 

Although the future for local butchers may look bleak, there is a growing interest in the lost ways of meat processing and preservation. Interest in farming and homesteading is growing, with many becoming distrustful of large-scale systems and government approved corporate operations. Individuals and families, driven by a desire for quality, food security, and community resiliency are fanning into flame the smoldering embers of self-sufficient living. Re-learning what has been lost to time will be difficult and costly, but there is hope that it can be done, and many desire to pick up the mantle of responsibility to make it happen.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.

Editor’s Note:  Earlier this month, ALPolitics.com reached out to Ben Michael, co-owner of the Russell County Butchery about the closure of that facility. Unfortunately, after three years of operation under increasingly difficult circumstances, he and his partner have decided not to attempt to reopen the Butchery. This deprives Seale and surrounding areas easy access to small, local-owned butchery services and products.

Mr. Mitchell was kind enough to submit this three-part series to help ALpolitics.com readers understand the difficulties small operations like his face.

With some 85% of all beef processing in America being owned and controlled by only four massive corporations—two of which are foreign-owned, as Michael discusses—this is cause for concern for those who are care about the sources and practices used in putting food into stores and on our tables.

This is more than just an issue of big corp/big government domination or overreach. It cuts to the heart of the MAHA movement, and has implications both for national security and small farms and businesses everywhere.

ALPolitics.com thanks Mr. Michael for this information, and we look forward to more from him in the future.