USA TODAY International Edition
US never at risk of meat shortage
Despite dire warnings, exports flowed unabated
As U. S. meat production plummeted in April following a rash of coronavirus outbreaks and closures at processing plants across the country, industry and political leaders sounded an alarm. Factory closures were “pushing our country perilously close to the edge in terms of our meat supply,” Kenneth Sullivan, CEO of Smithfield Foods, the country’s largest pork producer, warned in a public message April 6. As closures worsened three weeks later, John Tyson, chairman of Tyson Foods, put his name on a full page ad in The Washington Post and The New York Times warning that America’s “food supply chain is breaking.” “Our plants must remain operational so that we can supply food to our families in America,” Tyson said. The next day, President Donald Trump threw the industry a lifeline. He invoked the Defense Production Act to
declare it was crucial to keep meat plants open and operating. He had used the authority just once before: to ramp up production of personal protective equipment. The move elevated American meat processing into a privileged position.
“It is important that processors of beef, pork, and poultry in the food supply chain continue operating and fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for Americans,” Trump wrote in his executive order.
But Americans were never at risk of a severe meat shortage, a USA TODAY investigation found, based on an analysis of U. S. Department of Agriculture data and interviews with meat industry analysts.
Instead, some critics say, the fear was used to justify the executive order, which provided some liability protection for meatpacking plants. It also created a uniform system of rules, set by the federal government, to keep plants open rather than leave the closure of meatpacking plants to a patchwork of state and local health authorities.
“We’ve been very skeptical about these claims around shortages,” said Ben Lilliston, a co- executive director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which advocates for fair and sustainable food systems. “I think they were able to use the idea of food shortages as leverage to get those two things.”
‘ Spot shortages’ vs. true crisis
Federal data reviewed by USA TODAY show that although U. S. beef and pork production did tank in a six- week period stretching from mid- March to the executive order, exports of hundreds of millions of pounds of meat continued. The amount of beef and pork products exported over that time actually exceeded the amount of lost production when compared with 2019 levels.
Lilliston pointed out the industry also never drew down supplies sitting in “cold storage” warehouses in the middle of the supply chain, which he said would have indicated faltering supply. In fact, red meat and poultry products in cold storage grew by about 40 million pounds from March to April, reaching 2.5 billion pounds, USDA data show.
“Cold storage can tell you something. … If the levels are still pretty high there, that tells you they haven’t tapped into that,” Lilliston said.
Other experts also made a distinction between the “spot shortages” of meat – temporary shortages of some products in some places – that spiked in early May and a truly critical lack of proteinrich products.
“We’re not going to run out of meat,” Steve Meyer, an economist for Kerns & Associates, an agricultural commodities firm in Iowa, told USA TODAY in late April. “Buy what you need, and leave some for somebody else, and I think we’ll all get through this OK.”
Others say it’s more complicated. Economists warn that a sharp curtailment of exports to shore up domestic supplies could harm long- term trade relationships and possibly backfire as companies lose a profit motive to slaughter more animals. And Sarah Little, a spokeperson for the industry group North American Meat Institute, said efforts to stabilize the industry were to ensure that a serious shortage never arrived.
“While there was less variety to consumers, or certain regional areas may have experienced shortages of meat, it wasn’t a widespread shortage,” Little said. “It never got to a point where we thought Americans would not have access to food.”
But Tony Corbo, a senior government affairs representative of the nonprofit Food & Water Watch, said he saw a disconnect between the alarming language the industry used in April and the continued exports.
“There’s this incongruity between the Tysons of the world and the Smithfields of the world wringing their hands, saying this is going to cause all kinds of disruptions to the domestic meat supply, while at the same time behind everybody’s back they’re exporting,” Corbo said.
Production drops as exports rise
In the crucial month leading up to Trump’s executive order, USDA data show beef and pork production was in sharp decline. From March 20 to April 24, the industry produced 171 million fewer pounds of beef and pork than during the same stretch last year.
But the industry exported about 636 million pounds over the same time span, nearly four times the deficit. That number has since grown to more than 1.3 billion pounds exported through early June.
Data does show that the overall trends of meat production and export began to diverge by early April and grew further apart leading up to Trump’s executive order. During those several weeks, production of beef and pork dipped below 2019 levels, but exports soared above the amounts seen a year earlier. In the week ending April 23, the industry exported 98.6 million pounds of pork overseas, the second- highest total of 2020.
Lilliston said the push to export wasn’t surprising. The nation’s largest meat companies, which also include JBS and Cargill, are now global operations, with products flowing to wherever the most value is to be had, he said.
“It’s not their mission to feed U. S. citizens,” Lilliston said. “They view the U. S. as a really important market, perhaps their most important market. But it’s not ‘ Our job is to fill their grocery stores so people have enough to eat.’ ”
Hli Yang, a Tyson spokesperson, said the criticism was unfair.
“We export responsibly and assess market dynamics, such as COVID- 19’ s impact in the U. S., before making decisions,” Yang said.
Keira Lombardo, executive vice president of corporate affairs and compliance for Smithfield, said there’s a delay between production and export that meant food exported at the height of the pandemic was “ordered and processed” months before.
“More recently, U. S. exports have declined as a result of lower production amid COVID- 19,” Lombardo said.
The White House did not respond to questions about Trump’s executive order for this story, referring the matter to the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA did not respond to requests for comment.
Exports’ explosive growth
Agricultural economists say that improving domestic supply by limiting exports may not be as simple as it seems.
Over the past several decades, America’s meat industry has increasingly relied on exports for growth and profits. The U. S. now exports more meat than ever before, growing from less than 2% of production in 1960 to about 23% of pork, 16% of chicken, and 11% of beef in 2019, USDA data show.
“Most of the demand for meat has not been inside the United States,” said Jayson Lusk, head of the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University. “It’s been outside the country.”
Buoyed most recently by the Trump administration’s reworking of trade agreements with China and Mexico, 2020 was expected to be a banner year for exports, particularly pork. Farmers had expanded their herds in anticipation, leaving a glut once COVID- 19 struck, which required some farmers to do traumatic mass cullings and placed additional pressure on plants to reopen.
Experts also say exportation has become deeply ingrained in the supply chain, down to the farm level. Some animals are primarily raised to send specific cuts overseas.
And without an export incentive, domestic supply could also dip, some say.
“I think those considering restricting exports overestimate the extent it would increase domestic consumption and underestimate the adverse economic impact,” said Glynn Tonsor, a professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University.
Some remain skeptical that curtailing exports would hurt domestic supply. Roger Horowitz, a history professor and meat industry expert at the University of Delaware, said he believes companies would find a way to make use of all animals parts domestically or transfer costs to consumers, although perhaps for less money.
“Export restrictions could hurt profits, but not American consumers,” Horowitz said.
But Lusk added that any short- term domestic gains realized by curtailing exports could also result in long- term damage to trade relations.
“The issue is that there are real people and real relationships on the other end of those trade deals,” Lusk said. “If one cancels a contract today, do they lose that customer next month? What does that do to the profitability of the packing plant and the pork producers?”
The risks to workers
At the mercy of the economic equation are the nation’s meatpacking workers, who risk contracting COVID- 19 in the workplace. While the Trump administration and industry leaders say conditions have improved for employees after workplace safety guidelines were implemented last month, workers continue to fall ill.
By tracking public reports, the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting found that 10,000 meatpacking workers had fallen ill by May 5, with at least 45 deaths. Those numbers have since grown to more than 24,000 infections and at least 90 deaths.
For one plant inspector within the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS), it didn’t sit well that administration officials raised the specter of meat shortages while exports continued. The FSIS employs several thousand inspectors who visit meatpacking plants daily; at least four have died from COVID- 19.
According to the inspector, who spoke with USA TODAY under condition of anonymity, FSIS officials initially addressed inspectors in April and said there was an urgent need to remain on the job, despite the risks of COVID- 19.
“Because the meat supply to all Americans, including the inspectors’ families, kids, and grandkids could fail, leading to widespread meat shortages and malnutrition,” the employee recalled officials saying.
Agency officials later changed the tone of communications and are now simply thanking inspectors for doing their job, instead of citing concerns about food shortages, which the USDA inspector said was appreciated.
But USDA leadership is still using the argument publicly. In a June 9 statement announcing that meat production had returned to 95% of 2019 levels, USDA secretary Sonny Perdue again justified the push to keep meatpacking plants open by citing risks to the domestic food supply.
“I want to thank the patriotic and heroic meatpacking facility workers, the companies, and the local authorities for quickly getting their operations back up and running, and for providing a great meat selection once again to the millions of Americans who depend on them for food,” Perdue said.
Debbie Berkowitz, who spent six years as chief of staff and senior policy adviser at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and is now director of the National Employment Law Project’s worker health and safety program, criticized the administration, saying worker safety has been jeopardized on a false premise.
“They just decided those lives were OK to sacrifice … and for what?” Berkowitz said. So many of ( the) plants sent their pork to China. It wasn’t about feeding America.”