The PRIME Act: Giving the Power Back to the People, At Least When It Comes to Meat
The PRIME Act: Giving the Power Back to the People, At Least When It Comes to Meat
By Christine on January 25, 2016 in Local Economy
There aren’t enough federally regulated slaughterhouses anymore. For many farmers, the closest facility with an inspector onsite is a couple hours away, even if they’re only planning to sell the meat at a farmers market. This costs more for the farmer, which raises prices for the consumer, and goes against the idea of local food.
What if, instead of hauling their livestock to a USDA certified facility, a farmer could just take the animals to the local custom slaughterhouse, like she would if she were consuming the meat herself, and like she can when she sells shares of the animal? Is this any less safe for the end consumer?
House Bill 3187, the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act, aims to answer these questions, with a rousing no: it’s not any different, or any less safe. Currently in the House Agriculture subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, the bill would allow intra-state distribution of custom-slaughtered meat to individual consumers and to restaurants, hotels, boarding houses, and grocery stores that directly serve consumers. (In USDA terms, “meat” refers to four-legged livestock, not poultry, which is an entirely different conversation.)
Introduced by U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) in July, the bill has gained 19 bipartisan cosponsors from 12 states, including Coffman (R-Boulder) and Polis (D-Aurora) from Colorado. It is supported by Joel Salatin as well as the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, and would be a boon to the local food movement.
So what is a custom slaughterhouse, anyway? Custom means that there isn’t a federal inspector present during the slaughter, there isn’t the same red tape and paperwork, and there aren’t silly nit picky details necessary in the facility, such as a private bathroom and office exclusively for the inspector (yes, those are actually required at USDA inspected facilities). Custom facilities are inspected for general cleanliness and procedures and are granted licenses just like their “under inspection” counterparts; the main difference is that a physical government agent is not visually looking at every animal slaughtered and processed. Custom slaughterhouses have lower overhead costs, which transfers to lower costs for the farmer and lower prices for the consumer.
Under current regulations, only owners of an animal can have it slaughtered at a custom facility, and the meat cannot be sold. All of the meat Ben and I eat comes to us in this fashion (picture above). We buy live animals from local farmers, have the animal slaughtered in a custom slaughter house, and enjoy a fantastic, local product all year long – a product we cannot produce on our urban farm. But, this option is quite expensive for a once or twice a year purchase (we save all year for these purchases), and the upfront amount can be cost prohibitive for many families.
A less expensive option is for farmers to sell shares of no less than a quarter of an animal prior to slaughter, and still have that animal slaughtered in a custom facility and then distributed to those four consumers who had shares. This is a legal work-around to the issue of USDA versus custom slaughterhouses that has been safely in affect for a number of years, but the reach is limited. Again, most consumers can’t afford even a quarter share of meat at one time. So if this method is safe, then why isn’t it also safe to have this same meat sold in grocery stores, farmers markets, and restaurants where consumers could buy single packages at a time?
Joel Salatin, food freedom advocate and owner of Polyface Farm said of the bill, “This is directly freeing for both farmers and non-farmers—it emancipates meat from the stranglehold of paranoid consumer advocacy groups, tyrannical bureaucrats, and corporate protectionism.”
The pros are obvious: more freedom for consumers, reduced costs, and increased accessibility of local food to more people. The bill grants freedom to consumers and producers alike, but allows states to implement on their level. If a consumer didn’t want to eat non-inspected meat, then he could still purchase USDA meat.
Opponents will say that we will see an increase of food-born illnesses if we roll back requirements on inspection during slaughter. But as far as I’m concerned, if I can trust the person slaughtering my animal to do it so that it’s safe for me and my family to consume, shouldn’t it be safe enough for everyone? Shouldn’t everyone have access to safe, local meat if that’s what they want for their family? Supporters of the PRIME act think so, and I tend to agree. Honestly, I think USDA slaughterhouses are a racket, and Big-Ag stands to lose if custom slaughtered meat can be sold directly to the public. Keep an eye on this issue – I’m predicting some oh-so predictable push-back from the big packing plants here in the States.
This has my vote!
I am a small scale meat producer and I have serious concerns about the PRIME act. First, it is written so vaguely that basically the USDA is going to have to go through years of case law to figure out where they are supposed to put inspectors and where they aren’t. I also have a serious problem with your assertion that “we will just take our animals to the nearest custom slaughterhouse.” What custom slaughterhouse? Custom slaughtering in California means a guy with a truck with a winch and gun. There is no oversight over whether the animal is diseased, whether correct SRM removal has been done on an animal 30 months or over, whether the organs are infested with parasites and are unsafe to eat… nothing. Never mind whether the kills are done safely and humanely. And what about correct disposal of offal? Most custom guys leave it on the ground for the farmer/rancher to bury. There is NO oversight by anyone. I can’t support that. Now if the bill was written to allow USDA equivalent processing- in California those are State inspected pack and wrap facilities perform custom work for producers, and then allow those producers to sell the meat wholesale, retail, what have you- that I could get behind. Because those facilities are still inspected. They may not have a USDA inspector breathing down their necks during their entire shift, but the facilities are required to HACCP plans and to demonstrate correct practices to inspectors when they arrive for their inspections.
Good to know what is really going on…I agree with you if this is the case.
My question is what about local health department fees. We have our chickens processed at a USDA inspected facility with the inspector watching but local health department wants you to have a retail mobile license to transport to market $200.00 application fee then $350.00 for the license. The vehicle must have washable foors and wall but chicken are in freezer frozen solid. Then every market you attend the mobile vehicle must be with in 150 feet from where you are selling. So multiple vehicles have to be purchased and outfitted for each market attended. They don’t want fresh local meats sold.
Actually I worked in a USDA plant and for one week we had extremely questionable green beef, smelly, come though for processing and during that week there wasn’t any inspectors anywhere. Goes to show that I would prefer local….the farmer & butcher would soon be out of business if it wasn’t good but big plants slide crap through knowing it is next to impossible to trace.
Knowing more about the bill now causes me to rethink my position.