Ergonomics Success in Meatpacking

Because of the high MSD rate, the industry has been the focus of much regulatory and media attention. In the 1980’s, OSHA fined a number of meat and poultry companies in a series of highly publicized actions.

In 1990, the meat industry and OSHA instituted industry-wide programs to address the MSD problem systematically. In particular, OSHA published its Ergonomics Guidelines for the Meatpacking Industry developed in conjunction with the American Meat Institute (AMI). The meat industry thus is serving in many ways as a testing ground for determining effective ways to prevent CTDs.

The meatpacking ergonomics guidelines — only a few pages long plus some appendices — encouraged management commitment as evidenced by a written program, employee involvement, and regular program review and evaluation. The guidelines are further divided into four program elements:

1. The overall thrust of the guidelines were what was most important, and,

2. The details of the guidelines were not items that every company had to institute in all minute particulars.

[Note: Later a number of individual inspectors and area directors reneged on this agreement, which calls into question basic premises about the potential OSHA ergonomics standard.]

OSHA’s primary request was that management develop good faith efforts to address the MSD issues and implement certain key activities. OSHA made it clear in these meetings with the industry that the guidelines were intended to be adapted to the needs and resources of each employer. OSHA officials used the term "menu" to describe aspects of each of the above key elements, stating they were ideas to consider and choose from as each company considered appropriate.

These figures provide evidence that the employer ergonomics programs in this industry are working, and that OSHA’s Ergonomics Guidelines for the Meatpacking Industry are having a positive impact.

Data from individual meatpacking companies indicate significant cost savings from ergonomics programs and related administrative and medical management changes. The two big sources of cost savings have generally been in workers’ compensation, and in the reduction of costly turnover. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any industry-wide data.

An important lesson is that many of the improvements came from low tech changes and doing the basics, NOT from buying capital intensive machines or automation (although there has been some of that).

A good example lowering the heights of overhead conveyors. It had been standard practice in the industry (as well as in other industries) to throw scrapped product on takeaway conveyors that were over head height. As a result, many employees were having problems with their shoulders.

The first realization was that they conveyors really did not need to be as high as they were. It was possible in many cases to lower these conveyors considerably (these modifications were not necessarily inexpensive because the conveyors were often inter-linked in a whole system of material handling). Subsequently, engineers have discovered ways to place these conveyors underneath or to the sides of the cutting lines, so that everything is tossed downward, rather than upward. It has taken some creative thinking, but it was all low tech stuff.

The following itemizes some of the other types of changes:

Tumblers — Hams are placed in large tumblers (somewhat like cement mixers) which softens them up to be easier to cut.

Improved coolers — Changes in how the sides of beef or pork are stored in cold meat lockers helped insure that the meat was not frozen when it was cut up.

Fixtures — A variety of innovative fixtures have been developed to reduce strain on the "holding hand." Many of these fixtures are simple hooks.

Mechanical assists — A variety of powered assists have been invented to eliminate high exertion tasks, such as pulling apart meat from bone, or removing the hides, or inserting core samplers into bins of ground meat.

Cart design — Larger wheels, better floor, adding grips to carts, and using various types of powered tuggers have all help reduce the force needed to move carts around.

Training — Improved training programs have helped employees to keep their knives sharp and to use the best work techniques.

Adjustable tables — To accommodate employees of various heights, work surfaces have been designed to adjust in height, some even at the push of a button.

Adjustable stands — When it was not possible to adjust the work surfaces, the meatpacking companies improved the types of stands that were available to permit height adjustments, some involving hooks and racks that needed to be lifted up and down by hand, others adjusted by hand cranks, and yet others at the push of a button. (One of the most sophisticated adjustable stands that exists in industry had been invented years ago in meatpacking — the splitting platform, which moves up and down the height of a hanging side of beef, plus simultaneously moves sideways to following the moving conveyor chain; other industries can learn from this technique.)

Tub tilters — It had been common to work bending over into various types of tubs; now devices that raise up and tilt these tubs are available and being phased into operations.

Tilted work surfaces — Some conveyor cutting lines have been tilted to enable workers to work in more upright postures.

Pistol-grip knives — Unconventional knives have been invented that have angled grips that put wrists in better postures.  These types of knives had much less application than anticipated, but they helped to challenge stereotypes about how knives are supposed to look.

Sliding — Ways have been found to slide products, rather than lift them.

Motion efficiency — Layout changes have resulted in improved.

Grips — Knife and cutting tool manufacturers have responded to the needs of the industry and developed improved knife grips: unconventional shapes, multi-sized, and even modular grips.

Straps — Manufacturers have also added straps to fixture the tool to the hand, and thus reduce static gripping.

Lean stands — Most packers have experimented with providing lean stands on cutting lines (with mixed success).

Cushioned grating — Since it is difficult to use anti-fatigue mats the concrete floors in this environment where sanitation is such an issue, some packing plants have placed fiberglass grating on mounts about ½ inch off the floor, which then provides sufficient cushion.

Disappointments — Despite some initial promise, many efforts to develop automatic cutting machines have stalled. The difficulties are the sanitation requirements, plus the fact that the products are all randomly shaped.

Successes — In some cases though, machinery has succeeded. An example is using presses to squeeze meat off beef neck bones, which eliminated an extremely repetitive hand and wrist task. Another good example is new, automated ways to sort product, which has eliminated tasks that involved repetitive elbow and shoulder movements.

Hundreds of pairs of eyes — A clearly successful strategy has been not to rely just on experts to identify improvements; training plant teams to evaluate tasks and brainstorm improvements has led to thousands of feasible ideas.

An atmosphere of creativity — By doing all of the above and teaching techniques on how to innovate, an atmosphere of creativity has been created in many companies, where the brainstorming process and willingness to proceed with trial and error has become normal business.

As a key part of the overall effort, the American Meat Institute (AMI — the industry trade association) developed a comprehensive program in ergonomics to aid its members. Few, if any, other industries can demonstrate an equivalent program involving as coordinated an effort on an industry-wide basis.

Organization — The AMI Safety Committee, which is composed of member safety directors took on a strong and active role to coordinate activities; engineers from multiple companies routinely met to share feasible ideas; equipment suppliers became involved in the programs; virtually all AMI conferences addressed ergonomics in some way.

Training — the AMI developed industry-specific training materials, including materials for both managers and employees, and including both booklets and videotapes; the AMI held numerous regional and national conferences of safety and ergonomics;

Identifying Improvements — the trade association took multitudes of steps to promote problem-solving, including the following actions:

• Funded a study on optimal working postures through the University of Nebraska.

• Funded expert ergonomics assessments, shared with the industry.

• Met on several occasions with NIOSH scientists to discuss long term research needs.

• Sponsored a meatpacking section meeting at the 1989 Human Factors Society Meeting.

• Described ergonomic innovations at the 1990 National Safety Congress.

• Funded a study on potential applications of new technology.

• Monitored European equipment developments.

• Promoted cooperative R&D efforts among member firms.

The preceding examples provide compelling evidence for two basic points, and in turn, offer guidance for general industry: