Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Meat Processing Workers in Nebraska, USA, and Effectiveness of Risk Mitigation Measures

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has severely impacted the meat processing industry in the United States. We sought to detail demographics and outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections among workers in Nebraska meat processing facilities and determine the effects of initiating universal mask policies and installing physical barriers at 13 meat processing facilities. During April 1-July 31, 2020, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 5,002 Nebraska meat processing workers (attack rate 19%). After initiating both universal masking and physical barrier interventions, 8/13 facilities showed a statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 incidence in <10 days. Characteristics and incidence of confirmed cases aligned with many nationwide trends becoming apparent during this pandemic: specifically, high attack rates among meat processing industry workers, disproportionately high risk of adverse outcomes among ethnic and racial minority groups and men, and effectiveness of using multiple prevention and control interventions to reduce disease transmission.

The environmental impact of growth-promoting compounds employed by the United States beef cattle industry: history, current knowledge, and future directions

The current state of knowledge regarding the environmental impact of growth-promoting compounds associated with the U.S. beef cattle industry is extensive in some areas but virtually nonexistent in others. The compounds administered to the cattle are quite well understood, as are bovine metabolism and excretion. If the sex and age of the cattle on the feedlot are known, the metabolites excreted by the cattle should be predictable with a great deal of accuracy. The fate, transport, and biological effects of growth-promoting compounds are just beginning to be studied. Most of the research conducted on the fate and transport of growth-promoting compounds has focused on 17beta-E2; however, much of this research was not conducted using feedlot runoff or manure. Studies are needed that focus specifically on manures and runoff from experimental or commercial feedlots. To date, the degree to which growth-promoting compounds are released from feedlots in a bioavailable form remains a point of speculation. The environmental fate and transport of TBA, P, and MGA have not been well studied. Comparisons between the fate and transport of T and 17beta-E2, however, make it clear that compounds with similar structure may behave very differently once released into the environment. Considering that 17beta-E2 is a naturally occurring estrogen and that TBA is a nonaromatizable androgen, it is not surprising that these compounds directly impact the reproductive physiology of fishes. The effects of these two compounds have been well documented, as has been described here; however, the effects of P and MGA exposures have gone largely uninvestigated. This is a serious critical gap in our knowledge base because progestogins play an important role in sex steroid synthesis and reproduction. Clearly, additional research on the consequences of exposures to P and MGA is warranted. The majority of research investigating the effects of 17beta-E2 and TBA metabolites on fish has been conducted in the laboratory and has typically focused on continuous, pharmacological exposures to single compounds. These exposures may not bear much similarity to environmentally relevant exposures, and as such may offer little information regarding biological effects seen in nature. Cattle feedlot runoff is likely to contain a suite of growth-promoting compounds rather than any single compound. Clearly, deciphering the biological effects of exposure to complex mixtures containing androgenic, estrogenic, and progestogenic compounds will remain an important area of study for the next few years. A second complexity associated with the biological runoff from cattle feedlots is the discontinuous nature of the release. It is likely that inadvertent entry of growth-promoting compounds will follow spring snowmelt or rainstorm events. These events will result in intermittent, pulsed exposures to high concentrations of these compounds interspersed by long-term exposures to lower concentrations. The effects of exposure timing and duration should be considered to generate a clearer understanding of the biological consequences of exposures to growth-promoting compounds. To date, a very limited number of studies (only one!) have sought to determine whether fish living in waterways receiving runoff from cattle feedlots are adversely affected by growth-promoting compounds associated with the runoff. Clearly, more field studies need to be conducted before a relationship between cattle feedlot effluent and biological consequences can be elucidated.

Market power in the United States red meatpacking industry

The basic question asked in the beginning of this article was whether the evidence from research is persuasive enough to conclude that competition in the meatpacking industry is deficient. The literature review led to the conclusion that the answer is no. Research varies widely in terms of data and methodologic approaches. The research, however, clearly finds evidence of market power. Many SCP studies indicated the existence and exercise of market power, but the failure of the paradigm makes definitive conclusions dangerous. The NEIO studies showed a persistent gap between the price of livestock and marginal costs but the studies did not incorporate sufficient detail to prove specific behavior. Azzam and Anderson [4] conducted an extensive review of competition in meatpacking. In their summary, they offered criticisms of the SCP approach and the conduct parameter approach. These investigators concluded that the body of empiric evidence was insufficient to persuasively argue that the meatpacking industry was not competitive. Sexton [69] discussed more recent critiques of the conduct parameter appraoch. Despite its weaknesses, he concluded that market power estimates in meatpacking are modest but that structural changes on balance are beneficial, from an efficiency viewpoint. Examining the evidence either by data aggregation, methodology, or time period results in little difference in the qualitative interpretation. The research community has done what Nicholls [2] said was needed. The need remains relevant. The research leaves us with a clear picture and nagging questions. Azzam and Anderson [4] recommended that further research focus on the process of competition or the rivalrous interaction between competitors, and on competitors' strategies for responding to technologic and market forces, as the business history of the industry suggests. Specifically, they recommended two approaches. First, to develop empiric pricing models for short-term monitoring. Such models infer conduct from spatial price linkages rather than from concentration as do SCP studies or estimation of conduct parameters as do NEIO studies. Second, to study the dynamics of the competitive process, making use of data describing changes at the firm and plant level, to better understand the effect of market and technologic forces on the evolution of firm behavior and industry structure. After discussing existing research quality and future research needs, two practical things remain to do. The first centers on the following question: How important are the relatively small measures of market power? Most believable price distortions are found to be 3% or less. These distortions are below the 5% regulatory standards related to mergers used by the US Department of Justice and US Federal Trade Commission [70]. These standards, however, are guidelines and not law. Antitrust laws state that the exercise of market power is illegal. Courts and regulatory agencies also have not defined how much market power is significant and for how long a firm or firms must maintain significant market power [71]. From the viewpoint of public welfare, small impacts on price make a substantial difference to livestock producers and rival meatpacking firms. In relatively low-profit commodity businesses, small degrees of market power have significant profit implications. Small price or percentage impacts represent large total dollar amounts, especially over long time periods. To some, the evidence of market power provides clear reasons for antitrust lawsuits, conclusive evidence of weak and disinterested antitrust enforcement, and undeniable grounds for corrective legislation. If we conclude that action is needed, then the second issue emerges: What should be done and will our actions result in a net improvement? The research reviewed in the article by MacDonald elsewhere in this issue clearly shows the economic benefits of large meat processing firms. Likewise, some of the research reviewed here shows that increased concentration benefits producers and consumers. Some of the benefits of lower costs are passed on to producers through improved prices. The clear problems seen in the 1910s and 1920s--the pools and trusts--are not present in the 1990s and 2000s. Legislative action requiring the restructuring of the meatpacking industry or limiting behavior (similar to the Packer Consent Decree of 1920) will come at a large cost to the industry and society. So what should be done? Some people want to do nothing and allow the market to function unencumbered by political action. This approach ignores the problems seen in research. Some people want to go back in time, forgetting the economic incentives for change. They would legislate change in the market structure where they perceive problems, break up large meatpacking firms, restrict supposed problematic conduct, and eliminate contracting and vertical integration. Some people want to treat agriculture as a unique sector of society and create laws and regulations applicable to agriculture alone, regardless of whether the issues driving these actions apply to other sectors of the economy. Little, if any, thought is given to public and private costs or public and private benefits. Structural changes are clear. Research findings on the impacts and consequences are robust. What should be done, however, is not clear or robust. We are in the realm of second-best choices. The fact that we are in a realm of second-best choices is not satisfying to me nor will it likely be to agricultural producers and policy makers. What to do from here is not an economic decision (i.e., economics cannot provide a clear best answer). Rather, it is a political and public choice question that has economic implications: What do we want our livestock and meat industry to look like?

Beef and pork packing industries

A remarkable transformation of the meatpacking industry occurred in the last 25 years. That transformation consolidated the industry into one that could deliver large volumes of meat at low costs. Slaughter plants grew much larger and realized economies of scale from their size, and operations within plants were rationalized to emphasize the delivery of a small set of consistent major products (boxed beef, cut-up pork, and by-products) to retailers, wholesalers, and other processors. Similar developments occurred in livestock feeding whereby the industry realized significant cost reductions by consolidating production in very large cattle feedlots and hog farms. Gains from scale have largely been met (absent the development of new technologies that are not yet on the horizon); therefore, we are unlikely to see similar shifts in plant sizes in the next 25 years. The major forces affecting meatpacking and livestock feeding in the near future are more likely to revolve around tighter coordination among livestock production, meatpacking, wholesaling, and retailing. Although much of the recent response to food safety concerns took the form of investments in equipment, testing, and training within meatpacking plants, packers and retailers are likely to focus more on assurance of livestock production quality and methods in the future. Such assurance can be met through vertical integration or through a greater reliance on tightly drawn contracts; producers who attempt to provide the assurance while still selling through cash markets will need to develop paper trails of testing and quality assurance that will move through the marketing chain with livestock. Similarly, because of likely increased future demand for meats of assured consumer qualities, such as organically grown products or branded meat products with very specific traits, producers will likely need to provide similar indicators of assurance throughout the marketing chain. Finally, the funding offered through federal environmental assistance programs such as the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program along with related regulations governing waste management will likely lead to greater control over livestock production practices by investors, financiers, integrators, and packers through contractual design. Shifts toward tighter vertical coordination will force continuing changes in traditional ways of doing business in livestock production and in meatpacking. In turn, public policy discussions and corporate strategies in meatpacking are likely to focus continuing attention on the particulars of contract design: how to meet consumers', retailers', and regulators' requirements for quality assurance while ensuring efficient low-cost production without retarding competition in the industry.

Perspective from Western Canada and the Canadian meat industry

The Canadian broiler chicken and turkey industries are distributed approximately according to human population. Individual components of these industries tend to be smaller than their U.S. counterparts and not to be vertically integrated. The outlook of the poultry meat industries is positive because of increasing per capita consumption of chicken and the potential for gains in turkey consumption. The number of permanently employed poultry scientists at publicly funded institutions has declined in Western Canada. University training in Poultry Science is restricted to four major institutions where it has been integrated into Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine programs. For the most part, poultry scientists have developed successful research programs and this research has been enhanced by scientists employed in term positions. Publicly funded poultry extension has declined but this reduction has been compensated to some degree by industry-sponsored programs and the private sector. The majority of research funding, which was once derived from government, is now provided by industry; government contributions are frequently contingent on initial industry support. The consequence of this type of funding arrangement is a trend to more short-term and less long-term research. Canada has no strategic plan regarding poultry training, research, or extension and this needs to be addressed before there is a further reduction in the country's infrastructure. Modern communication technology offers promise to reduce the isolation of scientists in different parts of Canada.