Meat packing - Revision history

ArchiveBot: Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:22:29Z

Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 16 August 2026
Line 78:		Line 78:

	==Links==		==Links==
	* [~~http~~://mises.org/~~media~~/4495 Theodore Roosevelt: Master Reformer] (audio; part from 46:00 onward) by Murray N. Rothbard, from ''The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II''		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/document/4495 Theodore Roosevelt: Master Reformer] (audio; part from 46:00 onward) by Murray N. Rothbard, from ''The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II''
	* "[http://www.mackinac.org/4084 Of Meat and Myth]" by [[Lawrence W. Reed]], February 2002 ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQfpvQKUodY YouTube])		* "[http://www.mackinac.org/4084 Of Meat and Myth]" by [[Lawrence W. Reed]], February 2002 ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQfpvQKUodY YouTube])

71.227.128.226: Added direct citation to Libecap.

2014-02-04T02:58:36Z

Added direct citation to Libecap.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:58, 4 February 2014
Line 15:		Line 15:
	What is the history of federal meat inspection, then?		What is the history of federal meat inspection, then?

	In 1891, the Meat Inspection Act of 1891 was passed under allegations of contaminated meat. There is no evidence, however, that tainted meat was actually a realistic reason for the adoption of the meat regulation. Gary Libecap concludes that "the record does not indicate that the incidence of diseased cattle or their consumption was very great, and there is no evidence of a major health issue at that time over beef consumption." <ref name="~~Pasour~~">~~Ernest C. Pasour Jr.~~ [http://www.~~independent~~.~~org~~/~~publications/article~~.~~asp?id=190~~ "~~We Can Do Better than Government Inspection~~ of ~~Meat~~ "] ~~''The Freeman''~~, ~~May 1~~, ~~1998~~,</ref>		In 1891, the Meat Inspection Act of 1891 was passed under allegations of contaminated meat. There is no evidence, however, that tainted meat was actually a realistic reason for the adoption of the meat regulation. Gary Libecap concludes that "the record does not indicate that the incidence of diseased cattle or their consumption was very great, and there is no evidence of a major health issue at that time over beef consumption." <ref name="Libecap">[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+rise+of+the+Chicago+packers+and+the+origins+of+meat+inspection...-a012414955 "The rise of the Chicago packers and the origins of meat inspection and antitrust."]LIBECAP, G. D. (1992), THE RISE OF THE CHICAGO PACKERS and THE ORIGINS OF MEAT INSPECTION and ANTITRUST. Economic Inquiry, 30: 242–262. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1992.tb01656.x</ref>

	Why, then, was the regulation passed?		Why, then, was the regulation passed?

	Pasour explains		Ernest Pasour explains<ref name="Pasour">Ernest C. Pasour Jr. [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=190 "We Can Do Better than Government Inspection of Meat "] ''The Freeman'', May 1, 1998,</ref>

	: "There is a great deal of evidence that the political impetus for the 1891 legislation was the consequence of rapidly changing economic conditions. Market dominance by Chicago meat-packers-primarily Swift, Armour, Morris, and Hammond-quickly followed the introduction of refrigeration around 1880. Refrigeration allowed for centralized, large-scale, and lower-cost slaughterhouses because of production, distribution, and transportation advantages. The four large Chicago firms accounted for about 90 percent of the cattle slaughtered in Chicago within a decade after the introduction of refrigeration.		: "There is a great deal of evidence that the political impetus for the 1891 legislation was the consequence of rapidly changing economic conditions. Market dominance by Chicago meat-packers-primarily Swift, Armour, Morris, and Hammond-quickly followed the introduction of refrigeration around 1880. Refrigeration allowed for centralized, large-scale, and lower-cost slaughterhouses because of production, distribution, and transportation advantages. The four large Chicago firms accounted for about 90 percent of the cattle slaughtered in Chicago within a decade after the introduction of refrigeration.

Pestergaines: Undo revision 23190: Please don't link to nonexistent templates; edit the page itself, or, even better, write on the Talk page if you see a serious problem with something.

2013-06-16T06:41:26Z

Undo revision 23190: Please don't link to nonexistent templates; edit the page itself, or, even better, write on the Talk page if you see a serious problem with something.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:41, 16 June 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{POV\|date=June 2013}}~~

	'''Meat packing''' is the industry involved in slaughtering, processing, packaging, and distributing livestock. A review of the history of meatpacking is of interest because the mainstream account of meatpacking sanitation at the turn of the century (or, rather, the lack thereof) appears to refute the theory of free market regulation. A less-discussed claim of monopolistic practices by the "Big Four" meat packers is also relevant.		'''Meat packing''' is the industry involved in slaughtering, processing, packaging, and distributing livestock. A review of the history of meatpacking is of interest because the mainstream account of meatpacking sanitation at the turn of the century (or, rather, the lack thereof) appears to refute the theory of free market regulation. A less-discussed claim of monopolistic practices by the "Big Four" meat packers is also relevant.

74.104.5.4 at 03:17, 16 June 2013

2013-06-16T03:17:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:17, 16 June 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{POV\|date=June 2013}}

	'''Meat packing''' is the industry involved in slaughtering, processing, packaging, and distributing livestock. A review of the history of meatpacking is of interest because the mainstream account of meatpacking sanitation at the turn of the century (or, rather, the lack thereof) appears to refute the theory of free market regulation. A less-discussed claim of monopolistic practices by the "Big Four" meat packers is also relevant.		'''Meat packing''' is the industry involved in slaughtering, processing, packaging, and distributing livestock. A review of the history of meatpacking is of interest because the mainstream account of meatpacking sanitation at the turn of the century (or, rather, the lack thereof) appears to refute the theory of free market regulation. A less-discussed claim of monopolistic practices by the "Big Four" meat packers is also relevant.

John James: /* Links */ added

2012-06-23T09:41:38Z

Links: added

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:41, 23 June 2012
Line 79:		Line 79:
	==Links==		==Links==
	* [http://mises.org/media/4495 Theodore Roosevelt: Master Reformer] (audio; part from 46:00 onward) by Murray N. Rothbard, from ''The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II''		* [http://mises.org/media/4495 Theodore Roosevelt: Master Reformer] (audio; part from 46:00 onward) by Murray N. Rothbard, from ''The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II''
			* "[http://www.mackinac.org/4084 Of Meat and Myth]" by [[Lawrence W. Reed]], February 2002 ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQfpvQKUodY YouTube])

			* {{wplink}}

	[[Category: History of the United States]]		[[Category: History of the United States]]

Wheylous: /* Unhappy packers */

2012-04-23T23:59:30Z

Unhappy packers

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 23 April 2012
Line 61:		Line 61:

	2) <u>Stamp of approval to overcome European embargo of meat</u> - The sensationalized allegations in ''The Jungle'' resulted in a drop of meat exports to Europe by half due to European government seizing on the opportunity to pass protectionist bans on American meat under the guise of "diseased meat." <ref name="Pasour" /> The large packers were troubled by this, as they did not want to lose the foreign markets. To circumvent this measure and combat claims of the European governments, the meatpackers wanted a government stamp of approval that would signal safe meat and hence tear down European barriers to meat importation from America.		2) <u>Stamp of approval to overcome European embargo of meat</u> - The sensationalized allegations in ''The Jungle'' resulted in a drop of meat exports to Europe by half due to European government seizing on the opportunity to pass protectionist bans on American meat under the guise of "diseased meat." <ref name="Pasour" /> The large packers were troubled by this, as they did not want to lose the foreign markets. To circumvent this measure and combat claims of the European governments, the meatpackers wanted a government stamp of approval that would signal safe meat and hence tear down European barriers to meat importation from America.

			Congressional hearings during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt revealed that "the big Chicago packers wanted more meat inspection both to bring the small packers under control and to aid them in their position in the export trade." <ref>http://www.mises.ca/posts/articles/big-business-and-the-rise-of-american-statism/</ref>

	Sinclair ultimately opposed the meatpacking legislation, having seen it for what it was - a boon for the big packers which hampered competition and the market.		Sinclair ultimately opposed the meatpacking legislation, having seen it for what it was - a boon for the big packers which hampered competition and the market.

173.245.56.179: /* Unhappy packers */

2012-04-23T23:40:36Z

Unhappy packers

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 23 April 2012
Line 60:		Line 60:
	1) <u>Government inspection increases operating costs</u> - Though this seems counter-productive, imposing a large fixed cost on competitors is advantageous to big businesses, because it establishes market barriers that prevent new players from entering the market, thus helping the large trusts gain a larger market share (perhaps this was in retaliation against antitrust claims made by smaller, local meatpackers against the trust, which were proven false as well).<ref name="Reed_Meat" /><ref name="michaelsuede_Packers" />. The imposition of a fixed cost is significant because entry into the market had in fact been relatively easy without many barriers.<ref name="Kolko_Inspection" />		1) <u>Government inspection increases operating costs</u> - Though this seems counter-productive, imposing a large fixed cost on competitors is advantageous to big businesses, because it establishes market barriers that prevent new players from entering the market, thus helping the large trusts gain a larger market share (perhaps this was in retaliation against antitrust claims made by smaller, local meatpackers against the trust, which were proven false as well).<ref name="Reed_Meat" /><ref name="michaelsuede_Packers" />. The imposition of a fixed cost is significant because entry into the market had in fact been relatively easy without many barriers.<ref name="Kolko_Inspection" />

	2) <u>Stamp of approval to overcome European embargo of meat</u> - Europe ~~had begun passing~~ protectionist bans on American meat under the guise of "diseased meat." The large packers were troubled by this, as they did not want to lose the foreign markets. To circumvent this measure and combat claims of the European governments, the meatpackers wanted a government stamp of approval that would signal safe meat and hence tear down European barriers to meat importation from America.		2) <u>Stamp of approval to overcome European embargo of meat</u> - The sensationalized allegations in ''The Jungle'' resulted in a drop of meat exports to Europe by half due to European government seizing on the opportunity to pass protectionist bans on American meat under the guise of "diseased meat." <ref name="Pasour" /> The large packers were troubled by this, as they did not want to lose the foreign markets. To circumvent this measure and combat claims of the European governments, the meatpackers wanted a government stamp of approval that would signal safe meat and hence tear down European barriers to meat importation from America.

	Sinclair ultimately opposed the meatpacking legislation, having seen it for what it was - a boon for the big packers which hampered competition and the market.		Sinclair ultimately opposed the meatpacking legislation, having seen it for what it was - a boon for the big packers which hampered competition and the market.

173.245.56.179: /* Unregulated industry */

2012-04-23T23:32:40Z

Unregulated industry

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 23 April 2012
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Pasour explains		Pasour explains

	"There is a great deal of evidence that the political impetus for the 1891 legislation was the consequence of rapidly changing economic conditions. Market dominance by Chicago meat-packers-primarily Swift, Armour, Morris, and Hammond-quickly followed the introduction of refrigeration around 1880. Refrigeration allowed for centralized, large-scale, and lower-cost slaughterhouses because of production, distribution, and transportation advantages. The four large Chicago firms accounted for about 90 percent of the cattle slaughtered in Chicago within a decade after the introduction of refrigeration.		: "There is a great deal of evidence that the political impetus for the 1891 legislation was the consequence of rapidly changing economic conditions. Market dominance by Chicago meat-packers-primarily Swift, Armour, Morris, and Hammond-quickly followed the introduction of refrigeration around 1880. Refrigeration allowed for centralized, large-scale, and lower-cost slaughterhouses because of production, distribution, and transportation advantages. The four large Chicago firms accounted for about 90 percent of the cattle slaughtered in Chicago within a decade after the introduction of refrigeration.

	The Chicago packers fundamentally changed demand and supply conditions in the meatpacking industry. Small, local slaughterhouses throughout the country were rapidly displaced because they could not compete with the lower-cost Chicago packers. Local slaughter firms, in response, charged that Chicago packers used diseased cattle and that their dressed beef was unsafe. The disease issue, as bogus as it apparently was, threatened both domestic demand and export markets for U.S. meat. Cattle raisers, especially those in the midwest, backed federal meat inspection to promote demand.		: The Chicago packers fundamentally changed demand and supply conditions in the meatpacking industry. Small, local slaughterhouses throughout the country were rapidly displaced because they could not compete with the lower-cost Chicago packers. Local slaughter firms, in response, charged that Chicago packers used diseased cattle and that their dressed beef was unsafe. The disease issue, as bogus as it apparently was, threatened both domestic demand and export markets for U.S. meat. Cattle raisers, especially those in the midwest, backed federal meat inspection to promote demand.

	Cattle producers were also concerned about falling prices. Prices fell because the supply of cattle grew rapidly. But producers attributed the fall to their declining market power versus the Chicago packers—a charge that seemed credible because of the packers’ size and concentration. Ostensibly to deal with the largely spurious allegations of unsafe meat and collusion by the Chicago packers, cattlemen, and local packers called for federal meat inspection and antitrust legislation." <ref name="Pasour" />		: Cattle producers were also concerned about falling prices. Prices fell because the supply of cattle grew rapidly. But producers attributed the fall to their declining market power versus the Chicago packers—a charge that seemed credible because of the packers’ size and concentration. Ostensibly to deal with the largely spurious allegations of unsafe meat and collusion by the Chicago packers, cattlemen, and local packers called for federal meat inspection and antitrust legislation." <ref name="Pasour" />

	===Unsanitary conditions===		===Unsanitary conditions===

173.245.56.179: /* Unregulated industry */

2012-04-23T23:26:35Z

Unregulated industry

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 23 April 2012
Line 16:		Line 16:

	In 1891, the Meat Inspection Act of 1891 was passed under allegations of contaminated meat. There is no evidence, however, that tainted meat was actually a realistic reason for the adoption of the meat regulation. Gary Libecap concludes that "the record does not indicate that the incidence of diseased cattle or their consumption was very great, and there is no evidence of a major health issue at that time over beef consumption." <ref name="Pasour">Ernest C. Pasour Jr. [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=190 "We Can Do Better than Government Inspection of Meat "] ''The Freeman'', May 1, 1998,</ref>		In 1891, the Meat Inspection Act of 1891 was passed under allegations of contaminated meat. There is no evidence, however, that tainted meat was actually a realistic reason for the adoption of the meat regulation. Gary Libecap concludes that "the record does not indicate that the incidence of diseased cattle or their consumption was very great, and there is no evidence of a major health issue at that time over beef consumption." <ref name="Pasour">Ernest C. Pasour Jr. [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=190 "We Can Do Better than Government Inspection of Meat "] ''The Freeman'', May 1, 1998,</ref>

			Why, then, was the regulation passed?

			Pasour explains

			"There is a great deal of evidence that the political impetus for the 1891 legislation was the consequence of rapidly changing economic conditions. Market dominance by Chicago meat-packers-primarily Swift, Armour, Morris, and Hammond-quickly followed the introduction of refrigeration around 1880. Refrigeration allowed for centralized, large-scale, and lower-cost slaughterhouses because of production, distribution, and transportation advantages. The four large Chicago firms accounted for about 90 percent of the cattle slaughtered in Chicago within a decade after the introduction of refrigeration.

			The Chicago packers fundamentally changed demand and supply conditions in the meatpacking industry. Small, local slaughterhouses throughout the country were rapidly displaced because they could not compete with the lower-cost Chicago packers. Local slaughter firms, in response, charged that Chicago packers used diseased cattle and that their dressed beef was unsafe. The disease issue, as bogus as it apparently was, threatened both domestic demand and export markets for U.S. meat. Cattle raisers, especially those in the midwest, backed federal meat inspection to promote demand.

			Cattle producers were also concerned about falling prices. Prices fell because the supply of cattle grew rapidly. But producers attributed the fall to their declining market power versus the Chicago packers—a charge that seemed credible because of the packers’ size and concentration. Ostensibly to deal with the largely spurious allegations of unsafe meat and collusion by the Chicago packers, cattlemen, and local packers called for federal meat inspection and antitrust legislation." <ref name="Pasour" />

	===Unsanitary conditions===		===Unsanitary conditions===

173.245.56.179: /* Unsanitary conditions */

2012-04-23T23:22:55Z

Unsanitary conditions

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 23 April 2012
Line 19:		Line 19:
	===Unsanitary conditions===		===Unsanitary conditions===

	It must be kept in mind that Upton Sinclair's novel was that - a fiction novel. Though fiction may bring truth to the public, it does not necessarily do so, and this is confirmed by an analysis of the fewer than 12 pages in his book where the meatpacking process itself is discussed.<ref name="Reed_Meat">Lawrence W. Reed. [http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/ideas-and-consequences-of-meat-and-myth/ "Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth"], ''The Freeman'', November 1994, Volume: 44, Issue: 11. Referenced 2011-12-01.</ref> An in-depth look at history will reveal that the allegations made do not hold up. A 1906 report<ref name="Committee_Beveridge">Committee on Agriculture. [http://books.google.com/books?id=xGU-AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hearings+Before+the+Committee+on+Agriculture...on+the+So-called+%22Beveridge+Amendment%22+to+the+Agricultural+Appropriation+Bill,&source=bl&ots=3j6Qi_MOvS&sig=5n7JIhK1-PVpyaDe8GEb7-froBI&hl=en&ei=LNCTTIXbGYL2tgOlrqDACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false "Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture ... on the so-called "Beveridge amendment" to the agricultural appropriation bill (H.R. 18537) as passed by the Senate, May 25, 1906: to which are added various documents bearing upon the "Beveridge amendment." 59th Congress, 1st session"], ''United States Congress'' (a ''Google Books'' page, no preview), G.P.O., 1906. Referenced 2011-12-01.</ref> by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.”<ref name="michaelsuede_Packers">michaelsuede. [http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/09/17/meat-packers-rape-you-and-you-love-it/ "Meat Packers Rape You – And You Love It"], ''Libertarian News'', September 17, 2010. Referenced 2011-12-01.</ref>		It must be kept in mind that Upton Sinclair's novel was that - a fiction novel. Though fiction may bring truth to the public, it does not necessarily do so, and this is confirmed by an analysis of the fewer than 12 pages in his book where the meatpacking process itself is discussed.<ref name="Reed_Meat">Lawrence W. Reed [http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/ideas-and-consequences-of-meat-and-myth/ "Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth"], ''The Freeman'', November 1994, Volume: 44, Issue: 11. Referenced 2011-12-01.</ref> An in-depth look at history will reveal that the allegations made do not hold up. A 1906 report<ref name="Committee_Beveridge">Committee on Agriculture. [http://books.google.com/books?id=xGU-AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hearings+Before+the+Committee+on+Agriculture...on+the+So-called+%22Beveridge+Amendment%22+to+the+Agricultural+Appropriation+Bill,&source=bl&ots=3j6Qi_MOvS&sig=5n7JIhK1-PVpyaDe8GEb7-froBI&hl=en&ei=LNCTTIXbGYL2tgOlrqDACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false "Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture ... on the so-called "Beveridge amendment" to the agricultural appropriation bill (H.R. 18537) as passed by the Senate, May 25, 1906: to which are added various documents bearing upon the "Beveridge amendment." 59th Congress, 1st session"], ''United States Congress'' (a ''Google Books'' page, no preview), G.P.O., 1906. Referenced 2011-12-01.</ref> by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.”<ref name="michaelsuede_Packers">michaelsuede. [http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/09/17/meat-packers-rape-you-and-you-love-it/ "Meat Packers Rape You – And You Love It"], ''Libertarian News'', September 17, 2010. Referenced 2011-12-01.</ref>

	Indeed, the report revealed that in some cases the very accounts proposed by Sinclair himself do not stand up to scrutiny:		Indeed, the report revealed that in some cases the very accounts proposed by Sinclair himself do not stand up to scrutiny: