ACCELERATING CATASTROPHE: SLAUGHTER LINE SPEEDS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

AuthorReplogle, Dani
  1. INTRODUCTION 1278 II. BACKGROUND: SLAUGHTER LINE SPEEDS AND THE NATIONAL 1279 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT A. Brief History of Line Speed Increases 1279 B. The National Environmental Policy Act, Categorical 1283 Exclusions, and the Food Safety Inspection Service III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES 1285 A. Water Demand and Pollution 1286 B. Solid Waste 1290 C. Air Pollution 1291 IV. ONGOING LITIGATION 1292 V. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 1294 A. Safe Line Speeds During COVID Act 1294 B. Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the 1295 Environment C. Slaughter Regulation in the Green New Deal 1297 VI. CONCLUSION 1298 I. INTRODUCTION

    Given the severe human and animal rights abuses that occur daily at slaughterhouses, it is perhaps understandable that scrutiny of the industry up to this point has focused on these horrific violations. (1) However, workers and animals are not the only victims of slaughterhouse operations; because slaughterhouses use huge amounts of resources and generate substantial pollution, the environment--and all those who live in it, both human and nonhuman--also suffer at the hands of the slaughter industry. (2) Despite the clear risks posed by slaughterhouses, over the past three decades the federal government has not only failed to increase oversight of this industry but made a concerted effort to deregulate slaughter. (3) One of the most recent iterations of this deregulation effort is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service's (FSIS's) decision to increase and revoke slaughter line speed limits. (4) This deregulation has been undertaken without consideration of the foreseeable impacts it will have on the environment. (5) This Essay seeks to remedy that inattention.

  2. BACKGROUND: SLAUGHTER LINE SPEEDS AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

    1. Brief History of Line Speed Increases

      For many years, pursuant to its responsibilities under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (6) and Poultry Products Inspection Act, (7) the FSIS has imposed limits on how fast slaughterhouses can operate. (8) To ensure a modicum of oversight of the slaughter process, no more than 1,106 pigs per hour, (9) 390 cattle per hour, (10) 140 chickens per minute, (11) and 55 turkeys per minute (12) can be killed. Though these rates are already staggering, the industry regularly lobbies to increase them or to remove line speed limits altogether, thereby allowing slaughterhouses to increase profits by killing more animals more quickly.

      In 1997, the FSIS began allowing a limited number of slaughterhouses to operate at faster speeds pursuant to a pilot program referred to as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP). (13) As anticipated, the slaughterhouses participating in HIMP increased overall production by increasing the total number of animals slaughtered. For example, an FSIS inspector who worked at Quality Pork Processors (QPP), one of five HIMP pig slaughterhouses, attested that:

      QPP quickly took advantage of the waiver and began to incrementally increase line speeds. Over the years, QPP has steadily increased the number of hogs killed hourly. Currently up to 1,325 pigs are killed hourly at QPP. The line speed increases have consistently resulted in greater numbers of hogs slaughtered.... Thus, as the line speeds have steadily increased, so too has the number of hogs slaughtered daily and annually. As the number of hogs slaughtered increases, the number of trucks coming to the slaughterhouse necessarily increases as well. (14) Since implementing HIMP, widespread issues with the program have been documented, including animal welfare, worker safety, and consumer protection concerns. (15) Nevertheless, the FSIS recently took steps to allow even more slaughterhouses to increase their line speeds.

      On October 1, 2019, the FSIS finalized a rule to "revok[e] maximum line speedO" limits for pig slaughterhouses. (16) In promulgating this rule, the agency stated that, on top of the five HIMP slaughterhouses, it had determined thirty-five additional high-volume slaughterhouses would take advantage of the speed limit revocation. (17) Together, these forty slaughterhouses are responsible for 93% of pigs slaughtered in the U.S. (18) To justify the rule, the FSIS underscored that revoking line speeds would increase industry profits by an estimated $87.64 million annually by facilitating a 12.49% increase in production. (19) This translates to approximately 11.5 million more pigs intensively farmed, transported, and slaughtered annually as a result of the rule change. (20)

      Opposition to the revocation was overwhelming. According to a Washington Post analysis, "out of 84,000 public remarks made on the rule, 87% were either opposed or expressed negative opinions about the proposal. In numerous instances, groups asked for additional information to properly evaluate the proposal," (21) including requests for information about the environmental impacts of the rule. In particular, commenters raised concerns about the environmental impacts of the predicted production increases and reminded the FSIS about its obligation under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (22) to assess these impacts. The agency refused, cursorily asserting that the rulemaking was categorically excluded from NEPA's requirements. (23) Despite justifying the rule on the grounds that it would increase production, in the very same document, the agency inconsistently asserted that "revoking line speeds is not expected to determine the number of hogs slaughtered or result in more waste or more water use, as suggested by the commenters." (24)

      The FSIS has similarly disregarded NEPA's mandates when increasing slaughter for other species. From 2012 to 2014, the agency considered increasing chicken slaughter line speed limits from 140 to 175 birds per minute (bpm). (25) As with pigs, the FSIS justified this proposal on the grounds that it would increase industry profits, in this case by about $200 million annually, and facilitate "increased sales of domestic and exported products"--i.e., increased production, or slaughter. (26) The agency acknowledged that the proposed line speed increase "could lead to an increase in sales of poultry products" and, consequently, chicken slaughterhouses "may choose to increase the number of birds that they slaughter, which could result in an increase in the number of condemned carcasses and parts that must be disposed of." (27) Nevertheless, the FSIS refused to assess the proposal's environmental impacts, claiming, as it later would for pig slaughter line speed limit revocation, that the proposed change was categorically excluded from NEPA's requirements. (28)

      Ultimately, the agency decided against the proposed regulatory chicken line speed limit increase, choosing instead to continue limiting the number of HIMP chicken slaughterhouses to twenty. (29) The National Chicken Council then petitioned the FSIS to allow additional chicken slaughterhouses to increase their line speeds, emphasizing that doing so would result in increased "production volume" and remove "arbitrary production limitations"--in other words, allow more chickens to be slaughtered. (30) Although the FSIS denied the petition in January 2018, (31) less than a month later the agency announced, without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking and without assessing environmental impacts, that it would begin granting line-speed waivers to chicken slaughterhouses beyond the twenty HIMP participants. (32) The agency declared that its decision to allow additional chicken slaughterhouses to increase their line speeds was "categorically excluded from NEPA requirements." (33) Contrary to its 2012 statements, the FSIS asserted that "granting waivers to allow additional... establishments to operate at up to 175 bpm is not expected to affect the number of birds slaughtered or result in more waste, more water use, or require more fossil fuels to transport the birds from farm to slaughterhouse." (34)

      Under this policy, the number of high-speed chicken slaughterhouses has more than doubled, with the FSIS approving new line speed waivers for five slaughterhouses in 2018, fourteen slaughterhouses in 2019, and sixteen slaughterhouses in 2020. (35) In approving these waivers, the agency did not consider a single environmental impact. (36)

      Then, in March 2020 the FSIS quietly approved the first line speed waiver for a cattle slaughterhouse, (37) again without considering any environmental impacts. The agency has stated that it plans "to go forward with rulemaking" around cattle slaughter as it has for other species. (38)

      Industry and the FSIS have repeatedly recognized that slaughter line speed increases are directly correlated to production increases--increases in the number of animals slaughtered. Indeed, production increases are a primary reason given to justify slaughter line speed increases. (39) Slaughter has significant environmental impacts, including substantial water consumption and water, solid waste, and air pollution. (40) Increasing the number of animals slaughtered increases these impacts, as well as environmental impacts from the factory farms that supply slaughterhouses and vehicles that transport the animals to slaughter. Such impacts must be assessed under NEPA.

    2. The National Environmental Policy Act, Categorical Exclusions, and the Food Safety Inspection Service

      In passing NEPA, Congress sought "to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man." (41) To this end, NEPA forbids agencies from approving any major federal action that may have significant impacts on the environment, unless the agency first analyzes and discloses those impacts to the public. (42) Under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, (43) analyses must take the form of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT