President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office proved to be exceptionally generous to the US meat industry, a sector often overlooked despite its significant social and economic impact. While previous administrations generally catered to the industry’s demands – fueled by substantial political donations and intense lobbying – the Trump administration went above and beyond. The notable exception was the imposition of tariffs, which met with opposition from farming groups and resulted in decreased exports of pork and soybeans to China. However, in most other areas, the administration adopted a staunchly anti-regulation approach, resulting in policies that directly benefited the meat industry at the expense of environmental concerns, animal welfare, worker safety, and consumer interests.
One of the most consequential actions was the acceleration of slaughter line speeds at meat processing plants. While already operating at breakneck speeds, the USDA proposed a rule to allow even faster processing, raising serious concerns about worker safety. Advocates highlighted the already high injury rates among slaughterhouse workers, emphasizing the increased risks posed by faster lines. Animal welfare groups also expressed concerns about the heightened suffering of animals during the slaughter process.
Further exacerbating the situation, the Trump administration rolled back food safety measures. A proposed rule requiring poultry companies to limit salmonella levels and test for specific strains was withdrawn, effectively increasing the risk of salmonella infections for consumers. This decision followed direct opposition from the National Chicken Council, a powerful industry trade group.
The administration also significantly reduced the USDA’s animal welfare research department, shrinking a team of five scientists to just one. This impacted vital research into animal suffering during practices like castration and the effects of heat stress on livestock. The work of this department had previously informed crucial state-level animal welfare legislation, including California’s ban on extreme confinement of pigs.
Adding to these issues, the Trump administration approved the listing of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, on the New York Stock Exchange. JBS has a long history of scandals involving bribery, child labor, and environmental issues, raising significant ethical concerns. The approval came shortly after revelations of a significant donation from a JBS subsidiary to Trump’s inauguration.
The administration also significantly increased poultry industry bailouts for bird flu losses. While bird flu outbreaks are difficult to prevent, the generous compensation offered by the USDA may disincentivize producers from improving biosecurity measures. The increased payouts, despite painful culling methods and the existence of “repeat offender” operations, raise questions about the effectiveness and fairness of the government’s response.
Finally, the Trump administration banned the use of certain words and phrases related to agricultural pollution in USDA documents. This included terms like “water pollution,” “air pollution,” and “climate change,” hindering efforts to understand and address the industry’s environmental impact. Agriculture is a major polluter, and this move only served to obscure the true cost of meat production.
While the Trump administration’s agricultural policies weren’t uniformly favorable to the industry (tariffs being a notable example), its actions regarding the meat industry demonstrate a clear prioritization of industry profits over the well-being of workers, animals, and the environment. The overall impact of these policies paints a concerning picture for the future of ethical and sustainable food production.
