USDA Pushes to Increase Meat Processing Line Speeds
The USDA’s decision to allow faster meat processing line speeds is drawing criticism from labor and food safety advocates who warn it could increase worker injuries and weaken safety monitoring by ending certain data reporting requirements.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced a plan to allow pork and poultry plants to operate at faster processing speeds, a significant policy shift that is raising concern among labor and food safety advocates.
This move, backed by the Trump administration, could have broad implications for both workers in the industry and the consumers who rely on it.
What’s Changing?
The USDA is expanding its waiver program that allows certain meatpacking plants to operate above federally set line speed limits. At the same time, the agency is starting a rulemaking process to make those speed increases permanent.
Previously, plants with waivers were required to submit worker safety data to the USDA. That requirement is being removed. While safety data will still be reported to OSHA, critics say this change weakens oversight and transparency.
Why It Matters
Worker Health and Safety
Research has consistently shown that meatpacking is one of the most physically demanding and dangerous industries in the country. A USDA-commissioned study released earlier this year found that:
81% of poultry workers and 46% of pork workers are at high risk for musculoskeletal disorders due to repetitive tasks and fast-paced environments.
Many workers report moderate to severe pain, often going unreported due to fear of retaliation or lack of support.
The studies did not show a direct statistical link between line speed and injuries during the evisceration stage (which is mostly automated), but they did find that increased workloads and inadequate staffing are strongly correlated with higher injury risk.
Food Safety Concerns
Consumer safety advocates warn that faster line speeds could make it harder to detect contamination or defects in meat products. As production speeds increase, inspectors and workers may struggle to maintain consistent quality and cleanliness.
Industry vs. Labor Perspectives
Industry Viewpoint
Trade groups like the National Chicken Council argue that faster line speeds are necessary for the U.S. to remain competitive globally. They point to other countries—such as Canada and Germany—that already run at much faster speeds. The council also noted that poultry worker injury rates dropped below the average for manufacturing in 2023.
Union Response
Labor unions and worker advocacy organizations strongly oppose the changes. Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said:
“Increased line speeds will hurt workers – it’s not a maybe, it’s a definite – and increased production speeds will jeopardize the health and safety of every American that eats chicken.”
Unions argue that any increase in production speed must be matched by an increase in staffing and stronger safety protections—neither of which are guaranteed under the current policy shift.
Context and Background
Efforts to increase line speeds aren't new. The Trump administration previously attempted to eliminate line speed caps for pork processors entirely, a move blocked by a federal judge in 2021 after union challenges. Since then, a limited number of plants, including some in Minnesota, have been allowed to exceed the standard speed limits under a waiver system.
In Minnesota, the state took steps in 2023 to adopt its own worker protection standards for large meat and poultry plants, including mandatory ergonomic programs and injury prevention training. Still, federal regulation remains a key influence on industry practices nationwide.
Looking Ahead
The USDA’s proposal is still in progress, and the rulemaking process will include a public comment period. However, the removal of reporting requirements and the expansion of waivers are immediate changes.
Whether these changes will result in more injuries, food safety issues, or long-term policy shifts will depend on how the industry responds—and how much oversight is enforced.
For now, the decision reflects a broader tension between economic efficiency and worker protections, one that continues to shape the future of food production in the U.S.
Sources: