Sustainability Assessment of U.S. Beef Processing and its Antimicrobial Systems

With the increasing meat demand and awareness of sustainability, concerns have been raised regarding the sustainability of beef production and processing. However, scarce data and inadequate sustainability assessment frameworks for the U.S. beef processing industry limit the ability to develop new technologies and policies comprehensively without shifting sustainability burdens. To fill those gaps, various assessments of the U.S. beef processing industry were conducted from multiple perspectives regarding the environmental, economic, microbial effectiveness of its antimicrobial systems, and human health impacts from foodborne illness, occupational hazards, and environmental pollution. First, process-level water and energy usage at a typical large-size beef processing plant were benchmarked and compared to available data in the literature, and then opportunities were identified for water and energy reduction. The collected inventory data were subsequently utilized as inputs to assessment models. Second, the environmental and economic sustainability of three antimicrobial systems deployed in commercial beef processing industry were evaluated. The results show that chemicals, natural gas, and wastewater dominate all environmental impact indicators and antimicrobial systems with thermal pasteurization resulting in meat discoloring that can reduce revenue. Third, the study scope of sustainability assessment of antimicrobial systems was broadened. Specifically, 40 possible combinations of antimicrobial systems were analyzed, and the analysis incorporated the microbial effectiveness via meta-regression with the environmental and economic assessment. The evaluation identified that the use of steam results in the best combination of low cost and environmental impact, and high microbial reduction. Fourth, the trade-offs between foodborne illness, environmental impacts, and occupational hazards on human health from the U.S. beef slaughtering and consumption were investigated. The results show that the three impacts on are the same magnitude and 42% of environmental impacts on human health is from processes directly related to microbial food safety. Potentially reductions in foodborne pathogens achieved by resource-intensive food safety interventions should be considered jointly with environmental impacts and occupational hazards to prevent unintended shifts or increases in human health impact. Last, environmental impacts of beef processing via an integrated hybrid LCA were quantified to incorporate environmental impacts embedded with background economic activities, such as technical and financial services. Advisors: Bruce Dvorak and Jeyamkondan Subbia

Environmental and occupational impacts from U.S. beef slaughtering are of same magnitude of beef foodborne illnesses on human health

Foodborne pathogens and occupational hazards are two primary safety concerns for U.S. beef slaughterhouses. The anthropogenic environmental impacts due to intensive resource use and pollution also exert threats to human health. Quantifying human health impacts from various sources remain a grand sustainability challenge for U.S. beef industry. We develop a framework to systematically estimate and compare human health impacts associated with U.S. beef foodborne illnesses from major pathogens and environmental impacts and occupational hazards from U.S. beef slaughtering on a common metric, disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Foodborne illnesses and occupational hazards are estimated by synthesizing published data and methodologies while environmental impacts are quantified using life cycle assessment. In spite of inherent uncertainties in estimation, results show that the environmental impacts and occupational hazards from beef slaughtering are of same magnitude with foodborne illnesses from beef consumption on human health. Salmonella and Clostridium perfringens contribute 51% and 28%, respectively, to the beef foodborne DALY; Global warming and fine particulate matter formation, due to electricity and natural gas use, are primary drivers for environmental DALY, accounting 62% and 28%, respectively. Occupational DALY is on average lower than environmental DALY from beef slaughtering and foodborne DALY. The impact of new food safety interventions that use additional resources to improve food safety should be considered jointly with environmental impacts and occupational hazards to avoid unintended shifts and net increase of human health impacts. The methodology and results from this study provide a new perspective on reforms of the U.S. food safety regulations building toward sustainability in the food processing industry