Trump Administration Pushes to Permanently Boost Meat Processing Speeds

New Policy Sparks Debate Over Efficiency and Safety / Reuters

The Trump administration has unveiled plans to permanently increase processing speeds in U.S. poultry and pork plants, a decision that has ignited a fierce debate between industry advocates and worker safety groups. This move, led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), aims to solidify higher line speeds currently permitted under temporary waivers, allowing chicken plants to process up to 175 birds per minute compared to the previous cap of 140. The USDA argues this shift will enhance meat industry efficiency, reduce government oversight, and meet rising consumer demand. However, unions and advocacy organizations warn that accelerating meat processing line speeds could jeopardize worker health and food safety, raising critical questions about balancing economic gains with human costs.

At the heart of this policy is a push to make permanent what began as experimental waivers, a process the USDA has signaled will involve formal rulemaking to cement these changes into law. For poultry plants, this means sustaining the ability to slaughter and process chickens at a rate of 175 birds per minute, a significant jump from the earlier limit. Pork plants, too, stand to benefit, building on a legacy of deregulation from Trump’s first term when a 2019 rule briefly allowed unlimited processing speeds before being struck down by a federal judge in 2021 following union challenges. The USDA justifies this approach by citing studies that show no clear link between faster meat processing speeds and workplace injuries, a claim that has drawn sharp criticism from labor groups who argue the data tells a different story. Industry leaders, including the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council, have hailed the decision as a win for meat production stability, predicting it will streamline operations, lower costs, and ensure a steady supply of poultry and pork to American tables.

Worker safety remains a flashpoint in this controversy, with unions like the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, representing 15,000 poultry workers, sounding the alarm over the potential consequences of faster meat processing lines. Stuart Appelbaum, the union’s president, has asserted that increased speeds will undeniably harm workers, pointing to the grueling nature of slaughterhouse jobs where employees wield sharp knives in repetitive motions, often in extreme heat or cold. Supporting this stance, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that occupational illness rates in the animal slaughtering and processing industry were six times higher than the average across all industries in 2022. USDA-funded research from January 2025 further complicates the picture, showing that while higher line speeds don’t universally correlate with more injuries, they do contribute to elevated risks of musculoskeletal disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome, especially when paired with other workplace hazards. Among six pork plants studied, one saw increased risks tied to speed, another saw reduced risks, and four showed no statistically significant difference, highlighting the nuanced impact of this policy on worker well-being.

Food safety is another critical dimension of this debate, as critics worry that accelerating poultry and pork processing could compromise inspection quality and increase the likelihood of contaminated products reaching consumers. The USDA maintains that its standards will safeguard food quality, but advocacy groups argue that faster speeds leave less time for thorough checks, a concern echoed in past critiques of Trump-era deregulation efforts. Historical context adds weight to these fears: during the COVID-19 pandemic, unions sued the USDA over similar speed increases, claiming they made social distancing impossible and heightened injury risks, a legal battle that underscored long-standing tensions over meat processing regulations. The Biden administration later tested a trial program in 2023, allowing six pork plants to operate at higher speeds while collecting injury data, a step that now appears to be a precursor to this permanent shift.

For the meat industry, the benefits of faster processing speeds are clear: greater output, reduced operational bottlenecks, and enhanced competitiveness in a global market. The National Pork Producers Council has emphasized that permanent higher speeds will provide pork producers with much-needed predictability, allowing them to plan investments and scale production without the uncertainty of expiring waivers. Economically, this could translate to lower meat prices for consumers and a more resilient supply chain, a priority for an administration focused on reducing regulatory burdens. Yet, the human toll of these gains cannot be ignored, particularly for the immigrant and undocumented workers who often fill these demanding roles, facing heightened physical strain as speeds ramp up.

Research into the effects of meat processing line speed increases offers a mixed bag of insights, necessitating a closer look at the evidence. The USDA leans on findings that downplay a direct connection between speed and injury rates, but independent studies paint a more troubling picture. For instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists has criticized past speed hikes for ignoring scientific evidence linking them to worker harm, while Safety+Health magazine reported that line speeds, though not the sole factor, amplify risks when combined with repetitive tasks and poor ergonomics. This discrepancy has fueled calls for more transparent data collection and stricter oversight, with some advocating for a reversal of the policy until its impacts are fully understood.

The Trump administration’s push to make faster meat processing permanent reflects a broader deregulatory philosophy, one that prioritizes industry flexibility over what critics call essential safeguards. As the USDA moves forward with its rulemaking process, the voices of workers, unions, and safety advocates will likely grow louder, demanding accountability for the real-world effects of these changes. Meanwhile, consumers may see short-term benefits in availability and pricing, but the long-term implications for food safety and worker health remain uncertain, leaving this policy as a pivotal test of how the government weighs economic progress against the well-being of those who power the meat supply chain.