A recent presentation by Gene Grabowski, vice president, Levick Strategic Communications, referenced several similar principles to attendees of the 71st National Renderers Association (NRA) Annual Convention in addressing “The Anatomy of a Crisis” (see article here). Basically the message was of developing the most important and pertinent benefits based on facts relevant to the industry and be prepared to proactively deliver that message in a well understood, factual, and point-by-point “platform.” Perhaps this advice should be heeded more seriously. Perhaps the industry has not been explicit enough when describing the basic functions and benefits of rendering and the economic, environmental, ecological, and health (human and animal) repercussions of not having a rendering industry. The Fats and Proteins Research Foundation (FPRF), Animal Protein Producers Industry (APPI), and NRA have published volumes of information pertaining to these subjects in the past years. Most recently, these organizations provided over 41 pages of comments in response to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service requests for comments to the announced series of regulatory actions and policy actions of advance notice of proposed rulemaking. In addition, a 22-page “Economic and Environmental Assessment of Eliminating Specified Risk Materials and Cattle Moralities from Existing Markets” document prepared by Informa Economics was submitted. These voluminous documents were required to address the questions posed by the respective agencies. To develop our “campaign platform,” similar documents can provide the content but, in my opinion, becomes information overload for the majority of those we wish to inform regarding the impact of the rendering industry on our lives, their lives, and all allied industries.
An economic impact analysis has been a tool used by other industries to illustrate the financial benefits to describe their businesses. Certainly the Informa Economics Study of 2004 and a previous study completed in March 2002, “Livestock Moralities: Methods of Disposal and Their Potential Costs,” articulates in a very descriptive format the direct costs attributed to rendered animal protein products. These analyses document a billion dollar value for rendered animal protein products. A value exclusive of rendered fats and recycled restaurant and used cooking oils derived as a direct economic contribution as a result of the rendering industry. Thus the industry, on product value alone, is over $2 billion. Similarly, in stating an impact of a specific industry, the multiplier effect is seldom included. An economic multiplier is a measure to the larger effect that a change has on the overall economic equation. The overall effect goes well beyond just the direct product income value or employment created by a business. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) recognizes that one business creates business or economic influences for other businesses. It is contended that the true economic impact has not been definitely determined for the North American rendering industry. The BEA uses three major multipliers to detail the effect an industry has on a region, state, or providence or nation: outlook multipliers, earnings, and employment multipliers describe how much the economy’s output is increased by an additional dollar of sales from an industry. For most agriculture industries the multiplier for output ranges from two to four. Thus, the $2 billion sales would reflect a $4 to $8 billion boost in economy as a result supplying the inputs to a rendering facility such as equipment, trucks, tires, energy, electricity, research investments, and all other supplies.
Earnings multipliers project the impacts on household income within a described geography through earnings. This multiplier is generally in the range of 0.5 to 0.9, and varies from region to region and state to state, correlating somewhat to the employment multiplier. This multiplier is of particular interest in that the number of employees of any specific industry both directly and indirectly has a significant economic impact. The number of jobs provided by an industry or new jobs created by increasing industry sales provide an economic enhancement. The actual employment multiplier for the rendering industry has not been made available. However, in evaluating the industry, a number of rendering firms have employment numbers between 1,000 and 1,500. The bottom line being that the economic impact of the rendering industry goes well beyond the facilities’ gates. Their contribution, especially to rural communities and the livestock and poultry economy, is substantial and truly has not been completely documented. The economic magni-tude when considering the multiplier factors will be borne entirely by the livestock and poultry producers, should rendering not remain as the primary option for the safe handling of animal by-product tissues.
Much can also be said relative to the understatement and underestimation of the environmental impacts resulting from the alternatives commonly proposed to that of rendering. While estimating economic impacts is reasonably straightforward in just calculating lost market value, the environmental consequences, though known to be drastic, have not received even a glossary qualitative or quantitative assessment. Much of the concentration for the proposed regulatory changes has been precipitated in response to the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases. However, a disproportionate amount of concern has been redirected from the known human and animal health consequences of disposal methods of animal tissues by means other than rendering. Research studies have been conducted to demonstrate the microorganism content of slaughter by-products and animal mortalities prior to rendering. These same studies have validated the time-temperature inactivation of those microorganisms via the rendering process.
Due consideration has not been given to the inadequacies of several of the referenced alternatives to rendering, specifically burial, composting, burning, and landfill disposals, in respect to environmental and human/animal health, and as previously referenced, the economic impacts.
Our air, water, and soil are in fact our natural resources. The rendering industry has invested millions to protect these resources. The average modern rendering facility has water treatment systems that exceed the capabilities of many municipal facilities. It is certainly well known that decomposing animal tissues are accompanied with unpleasant odors. Again, significant expenditures for odor abatement systems and research have been made by the rendering industry. Though total resolution of odor problems have not been achieved, the ecological impacts of essentially no control for the previously referenced alternatives cannot be favorably compared ecologically to that of rendering. The consequences of airborne pathogen transmission have not been fully evaluated.
The rendering industry provides a significant economic, environmental, ecological, and public health impact to our lives and allied industries. Now that the political campaign frenzy has subsided, tell friends, neighbors, business associates, and even unfriendly acquaintances about the impacts rendering and its industry has on their lives and businesses. Train your employees to carry and promote the message as well.
“The Rendering Platform”
• Rendering is essential to public health.
• Rendering is directly beneficial and sustainable to meat animal production.
• Rendering provides a significant economic impact to innumerable communities.
• Rendering is the primary example of recycling.
• Rendering follows stringent FDA regulations and require-ments of third party validation.
• Rendering is a proven system for microorganism inactivation.
• Rendering – develop your own platform points and organize your campaign!
Tech Topics - December 2004 Render